See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary film made by Ben Stein in 2008 exposing the bias against Intelligent Design in the science community and the media.
Contents |
Description
The format of the documentary is that Ben Stein interviews various victims of discrimination as well as various people opposed to Intelligent Design, exploring whether discrimination exists, whether it can be justified, and how suppression of Intelligent Design is enforced.
Its theme is freedom, arguing that scientists should be free to propose Intelligent Design as an explanation for the complexity of life, rather than being suppressed. Following this theme, it compares the situation to that in Nazi Germany, where people were restricted and persecuted.
Case studies include Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, and Guillermo Gonzalez. Sternberg was hounded for publishing a paper on Intelligent Design in the peer-reviewed journal he edited. Crocker lost her job for supposedly teaching creationism, and found herself blackballed as a result. Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University because he advocated that the universe was intelligently designed.
Critics included Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, William Provine, and P. Z. Myers. Dawkins, under questioning from Stein, admitted that Intelligent Design was, in principle, legitimate for science to consider. The film contrasts Scott's implication, made by citing Catholics and mainstream Protestants who accept evolution, that one could be a Christian and accept evolution, with Dawkins, Provine, and Myers admitting that evolution destroyed their belief in God.
Wikipedia bias
Despite the film demonstrating the bias of the science establishment and the mass media on the issue, Wikipedia's article on the movie cites in its introduction three negative reviews from media sources and one from the mainstream science magazine Scientific American. The only positive review mentioned is from Christianity Today, and unlike the others, no specifics were provided. It also cites a negative summary from the film review site "Rotten Tomatoes", whose bias is shown by it spending two thirds of its "synopsis" of the movie on defending evolution.[1]
A large part of Wikipedia's article[2] is devoted to critical comments of the film, including mentioning various people included in the film or commenting on it. Frequently the relevant qualifications of critics are provided, but not so often for supporters, and when they are, are often couched in terms that tend to minimise their importance. For example, in the introductory paragraphs of the section titled "People presented in the film", the victims of discrimination are either simply named (Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker) or are described simply as "intelligent design supporters" (William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Pamela Winnick, and Gerald Schroeder) or, in the case of David Berlinski, as a "contrarian". Yet most are scientists. Winnick was a reporter, who claims to be simply reporting on the issue fairly, and is thereby unfairly labelled an Intelligent Design supporter. Wikipedia apparently uncritically accepts this labelling by her critics.
Yet the critics are introduced as "scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution" (P. Z. Myers, William Provine, Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse, Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens, and Eugenie Scott).
In the subsections about some of these featured people, further information is sometimes given regarding qualifications, but even here there is bias shown. Two of those discriminated against are described not by what they are, but by how they are portrayed, implying some doubt about the accuracy of the description. For example, Richard Sternberg is "described [in the film] as an evolutionary biologist and a former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution." In contrast, none of the critics have this qualifier, with the exception of Dawkins, where the doubt is cast not about his qualifications, but his relevance. Wikipedia described Dawkins as "a British evolutionary biologist and popular science writer", but then adds that in the film he "is portrayed as one of the leading members of the scientific establishment."
Apart from a few quotes from people involved with making the film, most quotes about the film are from critics, with few if any from supporters.
See also
References
- ↑ Rotten Tomatoes' synopsis
- ↑ Article as at 16 January 2011.
