‘Expelled’: An argument for freedom

If you haven’t seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” yet, I highly recommend you take the opportunity.

I finally had the chance to see it, and I came away feeling that everyone should be made aware of the issues it raises. As attested by the nearly empty theater I saw it in, however, the truth is it will probably only find a small audience.

The subject of discussion in the film is the Darwinian theory of evolution and the competing theory called “intelligent design.” This in itself will keep away most people, particularly those who have been brought up to accept evolution as unquestionable fact or who have been trained by the media to view ID theory as just repackaging of a right-wing creationism.

Still more will be turned off by the derision from hard-core atheists and liberals who have labeled this film propaganda.

But those who are open-minded enough to give this film a chance will find that, while the subject discussed is Darwinism, the real topic of the movie is freedom of thought and speech.

Stein, made famous as the teacher in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” who couldn’t get a rise out of his class (”Anybody? Anybody?”), does a good job of delving into what happens to scientists who question the prevailing academic support for evolution by daring to point out patterns they believe could point to an intelligence behind the development of life on Earth.

Stein doesn’t actually spend a lot of time delineating the differences between evolution and ID theory, nor does he dwell long on the scientific shortcomings some scientists now see with Darwinian evolution. He has bigger fish to fry.

What he does spend the first third of the film doing, however, is interviewing academics from various fields and institutions who have been punished by the scientific and academic establishments because they looked into possible evidence for intelligent design.

Unlike certain documentarians who have become wealthy and received numerous awards for their one-sided propaganda pieces, Stein actually includes numerous representatives from the evolutionary camp for balance, including the infamous Richard Dawkins and various highly trained scientists and skeptics of ID theory.

Although Stein clearly personally favors ID, the point he makes is that the freedom to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead, and the right to ask unpopular questions as part of scientific inquiry, is being squelched by a rigid establishment that applies scientific, academic, political, social and even legal pressure to enforce its particular worldview. (The same could be said about global warming, stem cells, cancer research or any number of other scientific issues.)

Then Stein asks the question of where such an authoritarian attitude might lead, and he finds a disturbing answer in the beliefs of the Nazis. Stein’s no fool. He points out that Darwinism in itself doesn’t lead to Nazism, but he makes a strong historical case that rigid Darwinian beliefs were certainly key components of Nazism. And he points out disturbing modern parallels, such as the “right to die” movement, or selective abortions, that can come about because of the belief that it is OK to simply get rid of the sick and unfit.

Underlying all of the discussion is the theme that this conflict between evolution and ID theorists is less scientific in nature than it is religious, but Stein makes the case that it is atheism that is the religion being promoted. In one of the most telling portions of the movie’s many interviews, Stein pins down Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” on how he really would feel if someone were to find persuasive evidence for design in molecular biology. Dawkins admits that he wouldn’t have a problem with the idea that life on Earth was designed, say by aliens, so long as the “designer” wasn’t God.

Whether you accept all of Stein’s points or not, his overarching theme that scientific inquiry must be open, honest and unrestricted resonates strongly in light of the issues of today. The impulse in academic, political and media circles to declare debates closed, issues resolved and consensus established, while labeling the open-minded as “deniers” or “fringe,” is totalitarian in its essence and if ignored its practitioners will only become more prevalent and determined.