Movie Review: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

I'll always remember Ben Stein first, of course, as the monotonous high school teacher from Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but Stein's resumé is far more extensive. He is also a trial lawyer, economist columnist, and professor who served as a speech-writer for Presidents Nixon and Ford before breaking into the entertainment industry. In a way, then, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed seems like the natural culmination of his collective pursuits in the academic and entertainment arenas.

Expelled is a documentary primarily about the issue of academic freedom. In our country's schools and academic institutions today, the theory of neo-Darwinism—also known as macro-evolution or simply Evolution with a capital 'e'—is taught as incontrovertible fact, even though it has many inconsistencies. Anyone who dares to so much as question particular aspects of the theory—much less its validity in general—is ostracized and faces other serious consequences to their career and reputation. In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Stein presents the stories of professionals from a number of scientific disciplines who received unfair treatment apparently simply because they gave credence to the possibility that Darwin didn't offer the best and only explanation for the origin of life. Stein allows his trademark dry wit to shine through and the result is a documentary that is anything but dull—a few moments even had me laughing out loud.

Initially, I was somewhat disappointed by the fact that Expelled didn't really get into many of the arguments for "Intelligent Design." The film did, however, make absolutely apparent the gaping holes in Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory—for example, where did the first living cell come from to begin with? Darwin's theory explains evolution on a small scale [read: adaptation], but does nothing to explain how one species could beget an entirely new one. We also learn that, from a scientific standpoint, Darwin was too vague and nebulous with how he defined things and how he draws his conclusions for his theory to even be considered viable. Clocking in at only 90 minutes long, though, I realize that adding more would have risked compromising the succinctness which which Stein makes his point. The film accomplishes exactly what Stein intended, as stated in the conclusion: he successfully sheds light on the existence of the "wall" that prevents people from even challenging Darwinism, and how absurd it is that this wall exists, when considered from the standpoints of both freedom and good science. Had he really gone further and delved into the actual evidence for ID and against Darwinism, the documentary's length could've stretched into days.

Toward the conclusion of the film, Stein builds his case against the suppression of Intelligent Design ideas by interspersing stock footage of Nazi Germany and the Communist regime that followed. I was a bit offended, at first, by the fact that the filmmakers chose to capitalize on such affective events by making the comparison. I soon realized, though, that the type of totalitarian control that Stein refers to always begins with the suppression of ideas which challenge to the establishment. While I certainly don't feel that there is as devious a conspiracy at work as the implication here might be, Stein does indeed make a powerful metaphor of the Berlin Wall. "Scare tactics"—as some might see them—aside, the film makes a good case for Stein's argument while giving ample time for the most prominent and well-respected neo-Darwinists, including Richard Dawkins, to make their case. As Stein himself states during the course of the film, he simply wants the case reopened and freedom of thought returned to the academic and scientific arenas—he leaves the actual investigation largely to the viewer, after giving some enticing evidence to motivate us. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed leaves the audience with a desire to delve further into the issue, and begs the question: after watching this film with an open mind, can anyone offer a good reason why the case of the origins of life and species shouldn't be reopened?

"Anyone? Anyone?"

---

If you'd like to learn more about Intelligent Design, here are a few places to begin:

• Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe
• Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues by Michael J. Behe et al.
• The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry M. Morris
• Institute for Creation Research online archives: http://www.icr.org/archives/

Movie Review: "Lake of Fire"

I just recently got around to renting Lake of Fire, a documentary about abortion that gives remarkably evenhanded treatment to the opposing sides of one of the most polarizing and divisive issues of our day.

If anything, Christians and pro-lifers get the negative coverage, if only because those who portray pro-lifers in a negative light are louder and their actions more outrageous than those of the majority. The actions of these misguided people are balanced, though, with footage of the more rational and Christlike champions of the pro-life movement, including coverage of a peaceful 1993 protest at the nation's Capitol. The movie pulls no punches, and shows footage of abortion procedures in all of their gut-wrenching detail. However, I also felt like it lacked many details that would have been helpful, even though it clocks in at a lengthy 2.5 hours. I would have liked to have seen a lot more about the history of abortion and especially the legal background in this country, but instead much time was spent focusing on just a few cases and personalities. This limitation makes the film more of an introductory work, in my mind—something of a jumping-off point for further investigation. Still, there is quite a lot of useful information to be had.

Oddly enough, what was to me the most poignant argument presented for the pro-life position came from the outspokenly pro-choice Noam Chomsky. He attempted to put the issue in perspective by uncovering the rhetoric as he sees it. Chomsky boils it down to an issue of how we define a "child"—more specifically, whether an unborn child is included in that definition—and how that definition affects our morality. He then goes on to [mistakenly] imply that pro-lifers often see pro-choice activists as women who are simply choosing convenience over life. No one on either side of the debate, he points out, would advocate taking the life of a 3-year-old child just because the mother didn't want to take care of it. He is absolutely and obviously correct on this presumption, but for me, following Chomsky's logic begs the question: if it's not right to take the life of a newborn child, why is it alright to take the life of one who is about to be born? And if it's not acceptable to kill a child who will be born in one month, why is it okay if she won't be born for another six? Where do we draw the line, and what criteria do we use? I see no basis—logical, moral, or otherwise—for being able to draw a distinct line between the fetus as "just a fetus" and the fetus as "an unborn child."

Lake of Fire, far from being a vehicle to push the filmmakers' agenda as I had somewhat cynically suspected, had the effect all the same of solidifying my views on abortion and pushing me further toward one end of the spectrum. As someone who, until the past several years, has been relatively lukewarm on the argument, the disturbing images, heartfelt testimonies, and emotive anecdotes forced me to contemplate the issues at hand. In being compelled to rethink and evaluate where I stand on the issue, the only conscientious "choice" I could make was on the side of "life."