The Atheist Blogger

After writing my satiric review of Expelled, I am compelled to write a proper review, but I’m afraid the result would just be a mess of obscenities. In the course of writing the review, I watched the movie twice (once the whole way through, and then second partially to get plot “info”). Watching the movie in it’s entirety almost twice was a pain (believe me), and I really couldn’t say more about it than I did in the satirical review. When you know the facts that are being either lied about or misused, Expelled really does play more like a science fiction piece than anything.

That said, it was quite a well written piece of intolerable propaganda. I suspect it would have been more interesting if they hadn’t chosen the dullest voice in film to narrate and star in it. Of course, a lot of stars in Hollywood actually support science and accept Evolution. Matt Damon nicely brought the subject up in a election video^[1], where he stated “it’s like a really bad Disney movie…I really need to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago…because she’s gonna have the nuclear codes.”

Since writing the review, I have watched Expelled an extra time, and it was this time that I actually enjoyed the film. Why? Because it had lie-correcting subtitles. If you want to watch this film, I suggest you download the subtitles file first, because it really makes a difference.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Now that “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” has come out on DVD, it seemed only right that I watched it to see what all the fuss was about. For those who are unaware, Expelled is a science fiction thriller that revolves around a post-Nazi, communist Darwinian world, ruled by tyrants, where anyone who simply mentions “God” is quietly removed from academic positions.

The film starts out by highlighting the relationship the story has with oppression and Communism; images of the separation of East Germany from West Germany and the building of the Berlin Wall is shown as the opening credits are edited onto signs in the archive footage (an applaudable effort by the visual effects team). A ball is accidentally kicked over the wall by a group of young boys playing football in the streets, and this foreshadows the people who are “expelled” later in the film. They too are “kicked” over the wall of oppression and their freedoms taken from them.

Ben Stein, the narrator and hero of the film, is introduced in a lecture set in the present day, where he is planning to tell his amazing story to a group of eager listeners. As Ben walks down the long corridor to present his talk, the faces and voices of the villains of the movie are seen and heard, each one arguing their position as the absolute truth, and therefore absolute law.

Ben Stein stars as the film's hero, locked in a war with SCIENCE.

Our hero talks about how freedom made America great, but how he has seen those freedoms torn down by the neo-Nazi organisation known collectively as “SCIENCE”. Over the course of the film, Ben meets in secret, the people who were kicked out of the organisation for questioning the methods used in controlling the people. Those who questioned the doctrine of Darwinism and the Dawkinsian Act (enforced to crush opponents of SCIENCE) were branded as “Intellectual Terrorists”, and forced to live in hiding from the brutal regime, their lives in ruins.

Ben’s view of the SCIENCE organisation begins to crumble, and he realises the corruption that has been hidden from the public view. Confused and scared, he visits his close friend Michael Shermer, a propaganda writer for SCIENCE, who attempts to explain the actions of SCIENCE in a purely positive way. Ben’s realisation that Shermer is just as corrupt as the leaders of SCIENCE leads to some dramatic scenes between the two friends, and ends with Shermer betraying Ben to the authorities.

Now on the run from the SCIENCE police (led by Richard Dawkins himself), Ben seeks out the resistance movement in the confusing back-alleys of Seattle. He seeks refuge with the anti-SCIENCE organisation “The Discovery Institute”, and from there sets out on his missions to bring down the evil leaders of SCIENCE.

The finale of the film comes in the confrontational encounter with the ruthless SCIENCE leader, Richard Dawkins. Ben is captured and interrogated by Dawkins, although Ben gets the upper hand in the process and forces Dawkins into a intellectual trap. The film ends with Ben escaping the clutches of SCIENCE, and pledging to tell the world about the corruption in the organisation.

This was an exciting movie, very well written, with plot twists that even M. Night Shyamalan would have trouble coming up with. It is so amazingly well done that at points I was actually convinced that this could happen in the real world, which is yet another credit to the realism the writers managed to convey in the film.

Both Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins gave fantastic performances in their roles as hero and villain respectively. I suspect an Oscar nomination might be just around the corner for such talented people; they certainly deserved one!

Overall, this movie scores 9/10. Very enjoyable.

For those who haven’t been following the “Coveted Golden Crocoduck” awards on YouTube, you may wish to have a look at some of the entries. Voting started about a month ago and “Dr” Kent Hovind won in a landslide:

Total Votes: 1061

Kent Hovind: 575

Ben Stein: 160

VenomFangX: 78

Kirk Cameron: 68

NephilimFree: 48

(For full list see the awards video below)

Dear Mr. Oktar,

I hereby present Tiktaalik, a “intermediate-form fossil” as you call it, illustrating the evolution of fish into reptiles.

Apparently worth £4,400,000,000,000

If you need to get in contact with me in order to send me the money, you can do so here.

Kind Regards,

Adrian Hayter

Professor Michael Reiss has resigned from the position of director of education at the Royal Society^[1]. He was thrust into controversy after he endorsed the discussion of creationism in the science classroom in the UK. He later insisted he wasn’t endorsing creationism lessons, but rather the issue of students raising religious questions:

Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.

I agree with his decision to resign, because what he said above is not the kind of thing a secular nation needs, especially coming from a director of education. Let’s reword a few things to make an example:

Alchemy has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about alchemy in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why atoms and the chemical bond are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why alchemy has no scientific basis.

Same paragraph, just addressing a different subject of science. Should we expect chemistry teachers to answer questions on alchemy and show why it has no scientific basis? No. Should we expect physics teachers to answer questions on astrology and show why it has no scientific basis? No.

If I put my hand up in a biology classroom and said “what about creationism”, I would expect the only response to be “creationism is not science and has no scientific basis…now, look at genomes…”. This would be a perfectly suitable way of dealing with it, although preferably the teacher would respond “shut up and pay attention”. Mentioning creationism is a science classroom is akin to writing “The Earth Is Flat” in big letters on the white board. It is disruptive, and behaviour expected of indivduals who want to divert the attention of their fellow students.

So, I agree with Mr Reiss on the principle that if the subject is brought up, it should be commented on and dismissed. What I do not agree with is his opinion that “they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis“. Creationism shouldn’t be given more than 10 seconds in a science classroom. If it is mentioned for more than that amount of time, students might get the impression that it is actually a worthwhile subject to talk about, instead of learning how evolution works, and all the evidence for that.

The best way to ensure students do not get pulled in by creationism is to provide them with the evidence for evolution. Once the students understand the theory of evolution and how it is supported, you could put them in front of a creationist preacher for 24 hours straight and they would laugh and shake their heads.

Coincidently, this little issue has given me a bit more hope in an otherwise failing country. Our economy might be going downhill, we might be led by a lunatic who is looking ever more like a totalitarian dictator^[2][3], but if we can keep science as science, I count that as a win.

Michael Reiss is now working as the director of science for the Institute of Education, which deals with posgraduate studies of education. At least he isn’t anywhere near children’s education anymore.