Friday, April 18, 2008

Expulsion revulsion

Ben Stein ist nicht Einstein

Oy veh. I have been to see Expelled. Verily, I say unto you: intelligence was not allowed. This movie may be effective with certain audiences, but it relies heavily on the ignorance of its viewers. As the Expelled Exposed website amply documents, the movie's cavalcade of martyrs is actually a parade of pretenders. As a work of cinematic art, Expelled is a pretense impasto.

The movie gets off to a quick start in its framing of the alleged controversy, showing black-and-white clips of the erection of the Berlin Wall. This is Expelled's particular leitmotif, the intercutting of portentous commentary by Ben Stein with historical clips of communists, Nazis, and (of all things!) school training videos (“Now, children, do we know when to be quiet?”). The much-sinned-against martyrs tell their poignant tales of woe and repression, Ben Stein exudes astonishment and empathy, and then Joe Stalin, Nikita Khruschev, or Adolf Hitler take their little turn on the catwalk. It happens over and over again.

But let's be fair. If it wasn't mind-numbingly repetitive, how would we know it's a propaganda video?

Almost the first words out of Ben Stein's mouth are a falsehood. His opening scene occurs in a lecture hall at Pepperdine University. He greets his attentive audience, calling them “students.” As Michael Shermer informs us, hardly any of them are. They're extras, hired by the production company to fill the hall and react appropriately on cue. The script must have said that Stein's address was brilliantly successful, because the “students” applaud like loons at its conclusion.

Each supposed martyr at the hands of Darwin's Gestapo is introduced with a document flashed on the screen. Certain words are highlighted in yellow as they occur in Stein's voice-over, while others are selectively blacked out. What are these documents and why are they censored? In keeping with the general tenor of the movie, I suspect they are just props, cooked up by Expelled's producers to make it appear that they are exposing the secretive machinations of the Darwinian elite. It's just cardboard stage scenery. Actually, less than cardboard.

You have to listen attentively to catch some of the more interesting details in the testimony of those who claim to have been victimized by the Darwinian establishment. One peculiar inadvertent admission came from Robert Marks, a Baylor University professor whose ID-friendly website was suspended from the school's servers. The university was concerned that hosting the site would imply to others that the views expressed by Professor Marks were endorsed by the institution. Marks called his site the “Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory,” although there was actually no lab and no publishable work was produced. In talking with Stein about his ordeal, Marks said that it was important to promote oneself in the quest to obtain research grants, which was one of the reasons he did things like “put up labs.” I'm not a research scientist, but I'm fairly certain that putting up a website with a laboratory title is not the same thing as doing any actual science. If it is, then this is a remarkably efficient way of creating labs ex nihilo.

The voices in favor of evolution are carefully selected by the producers of Expelled. When Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education is permitted to point out that most Catholics and mainstream Protestants have no problem accepting evolution, we quickly discover it's only so that Stein can curl his lip and intone, “Oh, really?” He then trots out a string of nonbelievers like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and P.Z. Myers to imply that evolution is really just another word for atheism. Declining to be as deferential toward religion as Eugenie Scott, Dawkins explains that learning science was his route to freedom from superstition. Stein is horrified, of course, that Dawkins dismisses religion so callously. (Time for more atheistic monsters of history to be paraded across the screen in black and white.)

From the celebratory comments on blogs and other sites friendly to intelligent design creationism, one might think that Stein baits Dawkins into self-revelatory comments that leave him looking a fool. To the contrary, Dawkins acquits himself rather well. He tends to speak in complete, well-modulated sentences that are difficult to edit into sound-bites more appropriate for a baby-munching antichrist. Stein tries to recoil in consternation at frank admissions of nonbelief, but Stein is not a very persuasive actor. (He runs the gamut, as Dorothy Parker once said of Hepburn, from A to B.) Dawkins seems quite bemused when Stein insists on quizzing him concerning his disbelief in the gods of other religions (not just the God of the Bible), as if a declaration of atheism requires an individual abjuration of each and every deity. (Let us give thanks that Stein did not know the nine billion names of god.)

Stein finds a boon companion in David Berlinski, whom he tracks down in Paris. Berlinski lounges languidly in a low-slung chair in his apartment while Stein bandies words with him. From most camera angles we see Berlinski peering over one of his knees as he pontificates. He's too cool to sit up straight. Sometimes you can glimpse what is probably his Princeton diploma (Ph.D. in philosophy) hanging on the wall over his head. Berlinski explains to Stein that Dawkins is philosophically incompetent, lacking the basic knowledge necessary to address even the most elementary of the questions he raises in The God Delusion. (Contrariwise, it's all right for philosopher Berlinski to offer sententious pronouncements on biology.) When Stein damns Dawkins with faint praise by saying that Berlinski has to admit Dawkins is quite smart, Berlinski grudgingly agrees: “Oh, yes. But he is a bit of a reptile.”

Coming from Berlinski, this charge struck me as particularly amusing. If the lounging lizard had deigned to dart his tongue from between his lips a few times, the image would have been complete.

With suitable hand-wringing, Berlinski notes that it's difficult to connect Darwin with Hitler because of the decades separating them (and, he admits, in a chuckle-inducing comment, “one was English and the other was German”). Nevertheless, he'll give it a try. He opines that Darwinism was not a sufficient condition to give rise to the Nazis; it was, however, a necessary condition. No Darwin, no Hitler. If you read Mein Kampf, claims Berlinski—especially, he adds superciliously, if you can read it in the original German—you'll discover that it's pure Darwinism. More black-and-white video. Then, in case he hasn't rubbed our noses in it enough, Stein tours a site of Nazi atrocities and bemoans man's inhumanity to man. I don't doubt Stein's visceral horror at the treatment of his people, but I have great contempt for his manipulative exploitation of it.

A lot of screen time was also given to William Dembski, who waxed indignant at the blindness of those who would deny a fair hearing to intelligent design. For some reason, however, he failed to seize the opportunity to describe his body of work in establishing the theoretical underpinnings of ID. Perhaps it was modesty. Perhaps he did describe his role as “the Isaac Newton of information theory,” but the producers wisely left it on the cutting-room floor during editing. I suspect it's more likely that Dembski has learned to shy away from opening himself to further questions on when he would finally deliver the long-promised rigorous formalization of his explanatory filter for the detection of design. Since the book he published last year failed to do it, this particular task remains to be accomplished.

Any day now.

Near the end of the movie, Stein tells his Pepperdine audience that “There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box, where it can't possibly touch a higher power, cannot possibly touch God.” Perhaps Stein has it backward. It is God that is in a little box, and the box gets smaller all the time. His god-of-the-gaps used to be required to push the planets about in their orbits, to make the rain fall, and the sun shine, but that was all once upon a time. Science has deprived this god of most of his once-vital functions. Science cannot possibly touch God? Sorry, Ben. There's been a lot of touching going on. God has the bruises and the gap-toothed smile to show for it, too.

I attended an afternoon showing of Expelled at a local multiplex. At first I was the only person in the theater, but people trickled in and there were eventually two or three dozen of us in the house. If the producers of Expelled were hoping for a boffo opening day box office, we certainly did not do our part. Besides, the ticket stub in my pocket was for Kevin Spacey's 21, the movie that was playing in the adjacent theater.

15 comments:

Karen said...

Bad Zeno. Cheating those poor, beleaguered Expelled creators out of their hard-earned pennies. After all, shouldn't lying for Jesus produce great rewards?

Rrr said...

Maybe the creaturs lie for a variety of entities? And if they truly believe what they lie, they will most assuredly receive their just awards when they end up in He[cough]. Ah men.

Sili said...

I take umbrage at your comparison of Ben Durrrrr to the sexiest woman ever.

But the penultimate graf is pure win. If anything, Science wants to keep gog(s) in that little box because that's what we usually do with people who go around touching others inapropriately.

Eric said...

"Certain words are highlighted in yellow as they occur in Stein's voice-over, while others are selectively blacked out."

Interesting. These Intelligent Design-ers must have gotten ahold of some of the CIA's infamous "black highlighters". Conspiracy, anyone?

And if I were you, I would burn that ticket stub, as it's proof that you spent $7.50 to watch this nonsense. Personally, I'm holding out for the DVD. I'm sure the blooper reel alone will be worth the rental fee.

Robert O'Brien said...

As I posted to Panda's Thumb:

Zeno should stick to teaching 17th-18th century mathematics. At most, the empirical sciences have removed God as the proximate cause of the events he cites, not the ultimate cause.

Zeno said...

the empirical sciences have removed God as the proximate cause of the events he cites

Yeah, Robert, the God-box keeps getting smaller.

And I teach math up to and including techniques from the 20th century.

Thanks for visiting. Come back when you have something useful to say.

Jim Lippard said...

Berlinski has a Ph.D. in philosophy, but he's a self-described "critic, contrarian, and ... crank" (quote from 2008 Slate profile) who "got fired from almost every job [he] had."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

Zeno said...

Yes, Jim, I've seen those autobiographical comments from Berlinski. Perhaps he thinks it makes him charming to be so humbly self-deprecating. Or perhaps Berlinski figures it's the best way to deal with the fact that he hasn't been able to hold an academic job. Charmingly self-deprecating he's not.

PlatoisDerrida said...

Robert,

I won't speak to era from which the mathematical techniques Zeno teaches come.

But you may want consider that your critique of anachronism can be easily turned against you. After all, applying your line of reasoning to Christianity, reveals it to be nothing more than a 1st century mystery cult that somehow gained enormous popularity.

If you want to consider to offer such critiques, I'd recommend converting to a more contemporary religion. I hear brother Hubbard's faith is doing quite well, and if you are lucky you might even meet Tom and Katie.

Thoughtfully,

PiD

Pixy Misa said...

And if I were you, I would burn that ticket stub, as it's proof that you spent $7.50 to watch this nonsense.

Eric, you didn't read all the way to the end, did you? ;)

Beautiful review, Zeno. I've linked to it from my blog.

patrick said...

Ben Stein's goal in making Expelled (i gather) is to promote free thought, especially more thinking about motivations that drive American academia and a lot of other behind-the-scenes worldview that we tend to take for granted.

Zeno said...

Ben Stein's goal in making Expelled (i gather) is to promote free thought

That's certainly what he says, Patrick, and he says it over and over again, so no points to you for getting "the message." But if Stein is telling the truth when he says this, why is Expelled full of half-truths and misrepresentations (less charitably called "lies")? The right to free thought includes the right to think utter nonsense. It does not include the right to have people treat it with deference or act as if it's comparable to respectable scholarship.

Jaakonpoika said...

Stein is under heavy attack for 'exaggerating' the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I.

The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between "white" and "colored races" was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).

The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould's scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87).

So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular Finnish media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the 'Up' of the ancient city from Plinius' Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17).

Hitler's formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the "Nordics", a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel's position on the Jewish question was assimilation, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

In 1917 the immigration of "defective" groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the "nordic" balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the "yellow" group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.

Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century, and in 1933 the German people had not lived normal life for twenty years. And so Adolf Hitler did not need his revolution. He did not have to break the laws in Haeckel's country, in principle, but to constitute them.

Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee, that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

You may read more on the matter from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a 'bit'):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

PS. Here's the final chapter scanned from an evolutionist scholar D. Gasman from his The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (chapter 7, Gasman 1971)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
I emphasize that Daniel Gasman, unfortunately, is NOT an IDist or Idealist of any kind.

Anonymous said...

Pauli, you can rant about Haeckel all you want, it will not erase the 1,000+ year history of Christian persecution and genocide against Jews. The Holocaust was just another European Christian pogrom, this time with more advanced machinery. Hitler insisted he was doing Jesus' work, he banned atheist organizations, banned books by Darwin, banned non-Christian schools, was helped by the Pope of his own time and actually joined by the Pope of our time, etc. etc. Some of those are cheap shots, but at least they're historically defensible.

For Hollywood D-lister celebrity activist Ben Stein to traipse into Dachau and say it was all the fault of an Englishman who wrote about giant tortoises a hundred years previously, is nothing less than Holocaust denial itself, and defenses of Stein's kookery are no better.

Jaakonpoika said...

Well, I am in the camp of the tradition of the anababtists, who have been persecuted and killed by the state church during the very same era as the Jews in the dark Middle Ages.

Nominally Christian churches have murdered more Christian martyrs than all the outward enemies combined.

So what should I think of your accusation? As for me, I have casted the worst writing of Luther to my web pages:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Luther_OntheJewsandTheirLies1543.htm

NOT ONLY the Catholic church, but even Luther gave permission to murder the 'sect' of anababtists, who confessed any priesthood even less than Mr. Luther who also refused to admit priesthood as a sacrament. The date in which this murder license was given was 31.03.1527. This was verified in 1529 in Speyer and are called the genocide laws of Worms. Directed against Christian minorities.

And this is no surprise. Jesus himself prophezied in his longest speech in his last evening that "by killing you, they think they are doing a sacrifice unto G*d" (John 15-16).

AND REMEMBER that I am from Finland, the most Lutheran country in the world. I would also like to emphasize that during the Nazi Regime it was the Lutheran arch bishop of Finland, who strongly opposed giving ANY of the Finnish Jews to the Nazi Germany, even though Germany was the only country that helped Finland against the aggression and attack by the Soviet Russia to Finland:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Easter-island-broken-ear-mob-lynch.htm

Finland was the only country of all the participants of the WWII that paid all the war debts laid over it, which lasted ten years and was even few tiths of the gross income. Just the ships Finland had to mostly import and then donate to the USSR would have made a quey of 20 km or the trains full of machines and the like numbered141490 wagons. Finland was also the only country of the lost side that was never occupied, either by the German or Soviet troops. She was also the only democracy waging a war aside the Nazi Germany - and had to pay for it dearly. At the end of the war, Finland had to wage war also against the few German troops in the Northern Finland and Norway. Finland was the ONLY country of the WWII where the local Jews were in principle serving in arms with the German troops. Three Finnish Jews were even offered the Iron Cross. They all refused, however, and referred to their Mosaic faith. But one of them rescued a major German unit from a siege. There was even a synagogue in the uttermost front battle field. In 1905, the second major Zionist conference was arranged in Finland, Helsinki. In hte Russian pogroms between 1820 and 1900 even one million Jews were killed but those did not reach Finnish autonomy. In 1905, the second conference on Zionism after Basel and after Theodor Herzl had died was held in Helsinki, despite the demonstrations in the Russia and despite Finland officially still belonged to Russia.

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (M.Sci. Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm