Expelled: No Intellegence Allowed (Reviewed)

I went to the movie theater on Friday (when it came out back in April of 2008) to see the movie Expelled: No Intellegence Allowed. It was a pretty good movie. Entertaining, witty, and candid. I missed the first ten minutes due to traffic. But I knew the premise.

Check out the Expelled: No Intellegence Allowed trailer.

There are positive things I liked about the movie. The movie is not about creationism. It is not about science. It is a movie that argues for the need of academic freedom in order to allow for a conversation. The proponents for intellegent design (ID) have been kicked out of the academy causing alarm. It is not that they argue for creationism or a religious view. It is that they see and acknowledge the viability of ID.

One thing you'll need to remember is that it is not a religious movie. It is not a movie that argues for ID. It argues for academic freedom. There are some on both sides that are willing to maintain academic freedom and dialogue, but there appears to be a position that has the upper hand and political clout to silence its opposition.

I really enjoyed the candidness of many of those who oppose ID within the scientific community. I could not believe they said their agenda so blatantly and without compassion. It was a real eye opener on that front. It is easy to pick on the most vehement of the opposition, and I do not assume all are as passionate about it as those who were on camera. But the big names were involved repeatedly.

On another level I thought some of Ben Stein's tactics unfair. He used a huge, guilt by association argument. Basically it was an ad hominen argument from a slippery slope position. This took up a good part of the movie. Basically, he demonstrated that the logic of Darwinism, applied to life in other realms, could be quite brutal. Social Darwinism brought forth Nazi Germany's Holocust of the Jews. That was the big example Stein used to make his point. He went to the concentration camps in Germany and visually and thematically played the guilt by association card.

That is not science. While they are valid associations and ought to be thought about, it does not support his overall goal of academic freedom. In a sense, he turned the tables in a way that was not academically honest. Sure, play it up that those who hold to ID are being persecuted in order to garner support and sympathy for academic freedom and honesty, but be honest that that the slippery slope utilized was an emotional argument not an objective free speech argument. It is good to highlight an abuse and extreme case to be on the lookout of the logical ends. But to make that a prominent argument and thus detract from the original intent of the message, namely, academic freedom, is a poor way to go about it.

However, I do agree generally with what he is doing and trying to accomplish. Playing the sympathy and persecution card helps in today's society. Just take a look at the homosexual agenda and how they accomplished their goals through the same means. The perscuted/sympathy card was played for years.

It is definitely a movie worth seeing again. There's so much information and some really good discussions I want to hear again on both sides. One guy in particular, who used to teach at Harvard and Stanford and now lives in Paris is a pretty good source for information. I also would love to see the last interview in the movie. I don't want to ruin it for you but it was really good. Sort of a showdown.

Be sure to go see it soon. I hear it is not out for very long... perhaps tomorrow is the last day it is in the theatres.

If you've seen it, let me know what took place in the first ten minutes and your thoughts on the movie.