"Expelled" Exposed

After reading “Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists” in the news this week, I am compelled to respond. Stein, a former Nixon campaign writer and generally regarded as one of the smartest men in America , recently filmed a documentary called Expelled, a movie that seeks to expose the biases present in the scientific and academic communities. The review of Expelled, written by conservative right-wing nut L. Brent Bozell III of the Media Research Center “Think” Tank renders the reviewer as anything but a reliable source. Below, I analyze some of the review’s finer points.

...It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned...

To begin with, most liberals in America do not and would not describe themselves as atheists, which is what Bozell alludes throughout the review. Rather, the PC-Liberals Bozell alludes to are largely agnostics, a position of intellectual suicide greater than either theism or atheism. That said, pretty much anything a PC-Loving Liberal says should be taken with a grain of salt. However, Bozell raises an otherwise interesting point. Dissent in the scientific community is often scorned, regardless how many times scientists have been wrong. The difference between the scientific community and the religious community though, is the fact that in science, the truth (read: greater accuracy) can only be ignored for so long. Eventually, the dog gets its day and the people who thought they had it right, simply forgotten. Ultimately, the scientific system works. Let’s not forget that.

...Theirs (academics) is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension...

Seems like 4000 years of monotheistic conditioning is harder to suppress than initially believed.

...Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles...

As well it should be. It’s not an academic pursuit. The hypothesis is not scientific; The hypothesis presupposes the answer. That’s not science.

...Ben Stein's extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection...

I’m sure it happens and its probably wrong, but we’d need to know exactly what the circumstances were. If a professor wants to teach a hypothesis they cannot so much as test, it doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis—it’s speculation, and speculations are not and should not be taught. As far as Darwinism is concerned, it is a reliable theory whose inferences have withstood repeated testing. What people at large do not understand is that Darwinism does not answer how life began. We simply don’t know. Yet. It angers my superior intellect when people then extrapolate from their speculations a basis for theism Grrr.

...Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics -- experts all -- who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves "expelled" from intellectual discourse as a result...

Wow, how misleading. Again, Bozell tries to imply Darwinism is an attempt to explain an origin (the origin of the entire universe in this case) when it in fact does no such thing. Furthermore, I’d be very interested to hear the context in which Stein asks his simple question because the context has major implications for the answers he should receive. Which god is Stein referring to? Is the god he referring to just a watchmaker, long since left the watch to unwind? Did the designer leave instructions to be followed? Who designed the designer (a question we must ask since by the interrogator’s reasoning we are forced to assume all things must be designed)?

...Stein engages them in conversation. They speak their minds. They become sputtering ranters, openly championing their sheer hatred of religion...

As everyone knows, this is a four-lane highway going in both directions.

...But when Stein suggests to Dawkins that he's been critical of the Old Testament God, Dawkins protests -- not that Stein is wrong, but that he's being too mild. He then reads from this jaw-dropping paragraph of his book: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."...

Dawkins never asked for or needs the accolades of PC-Liberalists. Dawkins made an observation, one that I personally find hard to disagree with (which is why I used the entire quote).

...It's understood that God had nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. What, then, is the alternate explanation? Stein asks these experts, and their very serious answers are priceless. One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens...

The lack of a serious alternative explanation is not excuse enough to insert whatever explanation one wishes. If that is going to be the case, I’m converting to Pastafarianism. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

...The most controversial part of the film follows Stein to the Dachau concentration camp, underlining how Darwin's theories of natural selection led to the eugenics movement, embraced by Adolf Hitler…He points out, however, that Hitler's mad science was inspired by Darwinism...

Post Hoc logical fallacy. Red Herring logical fallacy. Questionable Cause logical fallacy. Pick a card, any card.

...Everyone should take the opportunity to see "Expelled" -- if nothing else, as a bracing antidote to the atheism-friendly culture of PC liberalism. But it's far more than that. It's a spotlight on the arrogance of this movement and its leaders, a spotlight on the choking intolerance of academia...

“The arrogance of this movement and its leaders”? Pot. Kettle. Black. As for me, considering the extent to which I often piss off other atheists, I surely cannot be considered an advocate of PC Liberalism. Actually, I do not know a whole lot of other atheists who care for political correctness much less myself. The documentary is probably more important for atheists to see, to remind themselves not to get too full of themselves given that human knowledge is in its infancy. But the film as a “bracing antidote”? There’s no antidote when preaching to the choir, Bozell.

Ben Stein? Not looking so smart anymore. That may be Bozell’s fault.