The "Smackdown of the Week" is courtesy of...

... Martin Cothran of "Vere Loqui," who penned a devastating and hilarious fisking of John Derbyshire's "review" of the controversial movie, Expelled:

I have always admired G. K. Chesterton's dictum that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing badly, but I never appreciated the full scope of its application until reading John Derbyshire's recent review of Ben Stein's "Expelled" at National Review Online.

"What on earth has happened to Ben Stein?" asks Derbyshire. "He and I go a long way back." Are the two close? Are they old pals who have been through a lot together? "No," he says, "I've never met the guy." But wait. How can this be? How can Derbyshire have forged this bond of friendship with Stein without actually knowing him?

"Though I've never met him," he explains, "I know people who know him, and they all speak well of him."

Got it.

In fact, Derbyshire displays an amazing ability, far beyond that of the rest of us, to engage with people and things even though he has had no direct contact with them. Take "Expelled" for example. "So what's going on here with this stupid "Expelled" movie?" he asks--a question which could have been answered by the simple expedient of actually watching it. A man with Derbyshire's special talent, however, is not hampered by such constraints:

No, I haven't seen the dang thing. I've been reading about it steadily for weeks now though, both pro ... and con, and I can't believe it would yield up many surprises on an actual viewing.

That's right: Derbyshire reviews "Expelled" without actually having seen it! This is a man who has friends he has never met, and who can review movies he has never seen. It is perhaps fortuitous that Bill Buckley, the founder of National Review, recently passed from among us: this is a talent I am not sure he would have fully appreciated.

Read the entire post.

And for the record, I've not yet seen the movie, so I can't say much, if anything, about it. However, prior to the movie's release I did interview associate producer Mark Mathis. Go here to read that interview.

Comments

[Stohn]

"Derbyshire reviews "Expelled" without actually having seen it!"

Wow, "journalism" never ceases to amaze me.

[Carl Olson]

Derbyshire is a strange duck. I've read several of his essays over the years, and whenever it comes to religion and related matters (he is, apparently, an agnostic), he gets a wee bit...irrational.

[Todd]

I had heard that the producers did not make Expelled available to film critics in advance of the release. If a person writes about the film and concedes they weren't permitted to screen it, that seems caveat enough for me.

[crankycon]

The film had been out for two weeks plus by the time Derbyshire wrote his article. He had time to see it.

[Carl Olson]

If a person writes about the film and concedes they weren't permitted to screen it, that seems caveat enough for me.

Derbyshire's piece was published on April 28th; the movie opened on April 18th. I think he had time. But the bigger point is that Derbyshire makes critical remarks that, for the sake of intellectual integrity, require him to have seen the movie.

[crankycon]

But the bigger point is that Derbyshire makes critical remarks that, for the sake of intellectual integrity, require him to have seen the movie.

Good point, and it rebuts Derbyshire's own defense of himself - that this technically wasn't a "review." Perhaps technically true, but it was still a critical piece on Stein, and the Derb was making arguments based on assumptions of what he believed the movie to be about.

[MenTaLguY]

There can be good reasons to write about a work on the basis of others' comments without personally seeing it (for example if one is uncomfortable about giving money to its makers), but as Carl has pointed out, doing so requires a great deal of care and restraint, neither of which are in evidence in Derbyshire's piece, never mind some of the sneering and even mildly racist undertones which were present. I think his attitude actually illustrates one of the problems the filmmakers wanted to draw attention to.

I did happen to see Expelled a couple weekends ago on the 26th. There were positive aspects to it (there were moments where I laughed and cheered with the rest of the audience), although at the same time many of the criticisms made by others (who have also seen the movie) seem to me to be well-founded.

On the positive side, the movie is at its best when it alternately lampoons and critiques the ludicrous contortions some atheists go through to avoid the idea of God, and also the sad, sad places that the beliefs of a monist-materialist end up if followed to their natural conclusions: no morality, no free will, no self, no hope.

I was disappointed, however, in the version of Intelligent Design offered by the movie: very early in the movie they make a point of strongly excluding any sort of common descent, and to the extent that specific scientific questions were even addressed, the content was essentially identical to the Creationist tracts I grew up reading as a young Protestant. (They were very careful to distinguish ID from Creationism on the basis that ID does not make reference the Bible, but I also find that discouraging: a real love for Sacred Scripture is one of the good qualities of Biblical Creationism.) Given this, it isn't clear to me how the version of ID advanced by the movie is to be reconciled with the position of a few Intelligent Design proponents like Behe, but then Behe was neither shown nor even mentioned. I had wondered whether Behe's weak compatibilism was really representative of ID, and the movie reinforces my impression that it is not.

Another concern I have is that filmmakers spend a fair amount of time uncritically presenting atheist arguments that atheism is a necessary consequence of the idea of evolution, and in doing so effectively concede part of Aquinas' second objection to the existence of God:

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

The movie's message on this point is that atheism is wrong because natural things can't be wholly accounted for in natural terms; on the other hand it appears to agree that a fully natural account of natural things would make God superfluous. Whereas the Doctor of the Church replies:

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

(There's a lot more to be said, but I need to cut this short since Insight Scoop is not my blog, and I had not intended to write a full review here.)

[Rick]

MenTalguY, I saw the movie one week ago. IMO, the movie did not really offer any one version of ID, I would think rather it presented it as a question to those Darwinists that assume atheism as the default position. If Darwinists like Dawkins claim that ID and religion stifle academic freedom, then Stein certainly showed how the ideologies of materialism and Darwinism are guilty of the same charge they launch at others. Reminded me of Our Lord's words of pulling the plank out of one's eye, but Dawkins et al are often too blinded by vitriol for religion even to realize the plank is there.

Moreover, since science depends so heavily on "evidence", the film showed how much the scientism of Dawkins and Weinberg assumes things a priori like materialism and naturalism. If ID is sometimes critiqued for a God-of-the-gaps approach, I think the ID people can toss atheism-as-default right back at them. Since Darwinism is notorious for a view of moral determinism, I think Stein showed that at least they are true to their tenets; they are determined to stifle academic freedom by eliminating any discussion of ID at every level of education. Rather funny that as a group Darwinists only tend to believe in freedom when it favors them.

By the way, I should mention that I find types of ID philosophically problematic but nevertheless intriguing.

[Augustine II]

I saw the movie. Powerful. Only two things annoyed me, things clearly born of today's contemporaneity imperative:

1) The constant background music. Background music always implies that the material needs propping up, that it's too weak to stand on its own. The material here didn't need this propping up.

2) A postmodernist obsession with perspective, manifested in the constantly changing, entirely unnecessary schizophrenic camera shots.

[MenTaLguY]

Rick, as far as why I might conclude that the movie was espousing an essentially Creationist view of natural history in order to oppose it to the combination of evolution and atheism, please correct me on any points where I may be misremembering:

When they talked about the distinctions between between ID and Creationism, did they ever identify any differences between them besides Creationism having a Biblical basis and identifying a specific Creator?

Early in the movie, they set the tone by interviewing that one fellow who explained that common descent wasn't possible, only "micro-evolution" within a species. Do you remember that? Didn't they touch on it again later? Was an opposing view from a non-atheist (even Behe, who was certainly available) ever presented?

As far as I can remember the only time an alternative other than either strict Darwinisn or ID were even introduced were a few times when doctrinaire atheists were interviewed describing compatibilist liberal/"mainstream" Christians as useful allies (which they probably are...). Do you remember anyone, in the course of the entire movie, saying that they personally believed that evolution and theism were anything but incompatible? Did anyone interviewed say they believed evolution and theism could possibly be compatible? If so, were any of those theists?

(Also, do you really think Darwinists who assume atheism as the default position were the movie's intended audience, that the question might be asked of them as viewers?)

If ID is sometimes critiqued for a God-of-the-gaps approach, I think the ID people can toss atheism-as-default right back at them.

Certainly. Dawkins and his ilk are a big part of the problem here, and the critique of them was teh most successful part of the movie. But as long as the conversation assumes that the answer to which aspects of nature God is necessarily responsible for is either "some" (ID) or "none" (atheism), I don't think we're going to get anywhere productive. I would really like to hear why Saint Thomas' "all" isn't a vastly superior answer, especially given that atheism-by-default relies quite directly from one or both of the objections which Aquinas directly answered, but from which ID either prescinds or accepts. Why are we even giving ID the time of day?

[MenTaLguY]

Augustine II: Hm, I though the background music was fine, if a little bland in places; I actually really loved the string piece during the opening. (An aside: one of the criticisms of the movie which I'd heard but turned out to be unfounded was that music like "Imagine" had been used inappropriately without permission, but after seeing the movie it seems to me like the way it was used should qualify as Fair Use.)

I agree about the jarring editing, though, and I'd have to add a complaint about the lack of proper grading or lighting in a number of scenes. Some of the cinematography and lighting was beautiful and creative, but many shots looked like they were shot on consumer-grade video, with simply poor lighting design (e.g. static indoor shots without anything but a single underpowered key light, almost no fill light, and lots and lots of grain as a result).

At any rate, obviously none of the criticisms with the way it was filmed and edited have to do with the substance of the movie.

[Augustine II]

M, I think they do relate to the substance, because such manipulative techniques imply that the substance is lacking. And they imply that what substance there is is an entertainment. It didn't have to be this way here. The substance is strong. Yet one has to constantly cut through the music and editing to focus on it.

From all this it follows that my objection isn't to the music's quality, but to its very existence.

[Rick]

MenTalguY, My memory is often the best, but I can give these a shot:
When they talked about the distinctions between ID and Creationism, did they ever identify any differences between them besides Creationism having a Biblical basis and identifying a specific Creator?
As far as I remember, when Stein went to the Discovery Institute, I thought his line of questioning and the answers given showed the two are distinct and that ID (from the point of view of the Discovery Inst.) should not be confused with creationism.

Early in the movie, they set the tone by interviewing that one fellow who explained that common descent wasn't possible, only "micro-evolution" within a species. Do you remember that? Didn't they touch on it again later? Was an opposing view from a non-atheist (even Behe, who was certainly available) ever presented?
I think Stein raised the question at various times, and based on evidence, though incomplete, Stein even stated that common descent was a likely scenario. Don't quote me on that one, though.
Do you remember anyone, in the course of the entire movie, saying that they personally believed that evolution and theism were anything but incompatible? Dawkins
Did anyone interviewed say they believed evolution and theism could possibly be compatible? If so, were any of those theists? 1) Eugenie Scott-though I do not think she is a theist, 2) David Berlinski, 3) Gerald Schroeder, 4) I think that almost anyone interviewed from the Discovery Institute would also hold such a view, 5) Can’t recall if Owen Gingerich was either mentioned or interviewed, one or the other.
Do you really think Darwinists who assume atheism as the default position were the movie's intended audience, that the question might be asked of them as viewers?
No, I think the intended audience is theists, but also it was meant to show that abuses that have been incurred by ID advocates under the tenured radicals who advocate Darwinism.

As far as Aquinas objection, it holds if one holds onto the analogy of being, final causality and teleology within nature, which I think cannot be avoided. Unfortuantely science only appeals to any or all of them when convenient, But, in most modern definitions of science, attempts are made to jettison teleology, formal and final causality (at least since the Enlightenment according to Gilson and S. Jaki). All along, I have always thought that that design arguments were philosophical in nature and not science. St. Thomas' 5th Way appeals to a designer only by way of final causality.

That being said, while I may not agree with ID as science, it may be productive to at least push for a discussion of the points made in the movie which may open the door for Philosophy to be taught in schools where ID could debate Darwinism on a level playing field. Also, its questions to Darwinism may overthrow the some of the deterministic and nihilistic conclusions that logically flow from it. After all, Darwinism’s bastard child, eugenics, is still wreaking havoc on the unborn and the disabled under the guises of abortion and euthanasia.

[Rick]

Sorry above, it should read "my memory isn't often the best." I tried to pay close attention to the movie, I hope I got my facts straight.

I actually liked the music and cinematography, reminded me of a Michael Mann movie/show, thought that they served as decent context clues to the various concepts presented.

[Augustine II]

"I actually liked the music and cinematography, reminded me of a Michael Mann movie/show."

Exactly. They reminded you of an entertainment.

[Rick]

So, are you saying documentaries shouldn't be entertaining? It all depends on the target audience, anyway I think that Stein succeeded in making both an entertaining and informative documentary.

[MenTaLguY]

As far as I remember, when Stein went to the Discovery Institute, I thought his line of questioning and the answers given showed the two are distinct and that ID (from the point of view of the Discovery Inst.) should not be confused with creationism.

Exactly; my question was: in what ways did they show that ID was distinct from creationism?

1) Eugenie Scott-though I do not think she is a theist, 2) David Berlinski, 3) Gerald Schroeder, 4) I think that almost anyone interviewed from the Discovery Institute would also hold such a view, 5) Can’t recall if Owen Gingerich was either mentioned or interviewed, one or the other.

Eugenie Scott is an atheist, and was shown saying that evolution is compatible only with "mainstream" (read: liberal) Christianity. Berlinski and Schroeder both reject common descent; one obviously cannot hold evolution to be potentially compatible with theism if one believes it to be untrue. I will admit the possibility that folks at the Discovery Institute hold compatibilist views (Behe does, though I'm unsure of his status these days), but I recall no such expression being included in the movie. I believe Owen Gingerich is a critic of ID and was not interviewed.

As far as Aquinas objection, it holds if one holds onto the analogy of being, final causality and teleology within nature, which I think cannot be avoided. Unfortuantely science only appeals to any or all of them when convenient, But, in most modern definitions of science, attempts are made to jettison teleology, formal and final causality (at least since the Enlightenment according to Gilson and S. Jaki). All along, I have always thought that that design arguments were philosophical in nature and not science. St. Thomas' 5th Way appeals to a designer only by way of final causality.

The problem is not physical science prescinding from formal and final causes (which has become something of a methodological necessity) per se, but rather the idea that physical science is the only suitable venue for reason because reason can only conern itself with physical things. An insistence that physical science must by itself address formal and final causes is, at best, missing the point, and if accompanied by scientific error is actually destructive. It would be nice if we could recover the traditional sense of the term science—that is, the simple systematic application of reason to a field of knowledge—but first we need to establish as the basis of conversation that non-material things are suitable topics to reason about at all. We shouldn't talk about re-introducing philosophy if we aren't willing to fight to recover its basic prerequisites.

That being said, while I may not agree with ID as science, it may be productive to at least push for a discussion of the points made in the movie which may open the door for Philosophy to be taught in schools where ID could debate Darwinism on a level playing field. Also, its questions to Darwinism may overthrow the some of the deterministic and nihilistic conclusions that logically flow from it.

I do not share that expectation. My concern is that once we get past "yes it is/no it isn't" assertions, ID arguments are formulated in ways which are especially weak against Darwinism, since they fail to challenge most of its basic assumptions, and beyond that often display a willful ignorance of scientific data (by which I don't mean "not agreeing with accepted theories", I mean simply willfully ignoring data which any serious discussion must account for). To the extent that Christians introduce ID into a discussion, Darwinists invariably use its scientific carelessness as a convenient stick to beat Christianity with and we never have a chance to get anywhere near philosophy. If it turns out that (as was my impression leaving the movie) that ID is aligning itself with Creationists, then that just makes matters worse.

[To be really clear, by "Creationists" I am referring only to those who hold a particular set of untenable claims about natural history, not simply to anyone who takes the doctrine of Creation seriously (which I do).]

[MenTaLguY]

Augustine II: I'd have difficulty envisioning a movie without music. If the movie was manipulative (I have to agree that it did strike me as manipulative at times), I would have to blame the editing and juxtaposition rather than the music for the most part. Anyway, whatever else it tried to accomplish it most certainly was intended to be entertaining to its intended audience, and like Rick and most other people I went in with that expectation.

[Rick]

Your question dealt with theism and evolution being compatible-I guess I should have asked you what you meant by "evolution," based on your last post I assume it includes common descent. If you say that Berlinski and Schroeder reject common descent, does this mean man from apes or lower forms of organic life? Neither rejects evolution as a whole. In Schroeder’s The Hidden Face of God, he refers to evolution taking place in punctuated jumps, but he argues against a Darwinian mechanistic view of evolution.

In reference to Eugenie Scott, I think her reference to “mainstream” Christianity meant non-fundamentalists.

I agree, “would be nice if we could recover the traditional sense of the term science—that is, the simple systematic application of reason to a field of knowledge.” Today, the problem is there is no one definition of what exactly constitutes “science.” My only point is that teleology has little or no place in it, unfortunately. Jaki shows in his The Purpose of it All how teleology was replaced by the myth of “progress.” Like ID (per Stein’s movie), it “purposely” became excluded from the conversation of science through the Enlightenment. The question of Stein’s documentary does not concern the validity of ID per se, the film shows how materialism and Darwinism have become the politburo of science and anything that even threatens them is sent to the gulag. If ID even allows some questions to be asked, such as those dealing with formal and final causality with science, then I think it has done a service to truth. As Gingerich states in his God's Universe, "To believe in a designed universe means accpeting teology and purpose." He sees them as philosophical issues and not scientific one. I don't think that faith is required for teleogy. If those topics are continually excluded in science, I don’t see how any discussion of immaterial reality can be included.

One benefit of reading philosophy is that it exposes one to critical thinking, which can be applied to Darwinism and ID in it's many forms, when necessary. Basically, at the very least one can look at the question, “What is science?” Such a line of questioning should lead one to see the logical holes of materialism and naturalism and many of the basic tenets of the ostensible Enlightenment. Rather funny that even atheistic philosophers such as Nietzsche and Habermas (as indicated in his recent dialogue with the Holy Father) offered critiques of it.

[Augustine II]

Yes, a doc can be both entertaining and informative. I found this was too heavy on the entertainment side, with the deafening rock music and all the rest of it.

[Augustine II]

"Augustine II: I'd have difficulty envisioning a movie without music."

Such is the Brave New World. It conditions the mind to require constant titillation, to the point that anything else seems inconceivable.

[MenTaLguY]

I think a serious account of evolution must address common descent in some way: the notion that all living organisms have a common ancestor. The fossil record is very suggestive on this point, while the genetic and biochemical evidence is much stronger. In terms of contemporary biology, it isn't so much that evolution implies common descent as it is that evolutionary theories exist in order to explain the appearance of common descent on the basis of physical evidence. This does not mean that evolutionary theories are fully adequate descriptions of how this might have happened, but eliminating evolutionary theory does not remove the problem posed. This pervasive appearance of common descent also can't rule out things like God miraculously reconfiguring a fish, but if we are going to insist that miraculous intervention is necessary in a specific instance (it is always possible) a much stronger argument is required than an argument from ignorance based on misrepresentations about biochemistry or the fossil record (the content of most specific positive arguments put forth as ID).

Now, when we come to the descent of man specifically (which is supposed to be from hominids, not apes), a new issue is introduced: there is an unbridgeable ontological gap. Man is a creature with a rational rather than a merely animal soul, and a spiritual soul by definition cannot be produced by natural generation and by definition cannot be accounted for by strictly material causes. At the same time, for this precise reason, the material disciplines of paleontology or genetics or biochemistry must fall silent on this point. So on this side we have a hominid, and on this side we have a man, and the most an account from material causes can offer with certainty is that the two are physically similar in particular respects and may be connected in some way. Descent via generation in this instance may be possible in the way that it is possible for all subsequent human beings (with God creating each spiritual soul as a special act of creation -- see CCC 366).

The question of Stein’s documentary does not concern the validity of ID per se, the film shows how materialism and Darwinism have become the politburo of science and anything that even threatens them is sent to the gulag.

I would have felt it more an accomplishment if he had shown something less scientifically dicey than ID being persecuted. What the movie did successfully show was that the interest in opposing ID is not wholly scientific, whether or not there are scientific grounds for doing so, which is something.

If ID even allows some questions to be asked, such as those dealing with formal and final causality with science, then I think it has done a service to truth.

My concern is that weaknesses in ID claims often give Darwinists ammunition and afford them an opportunity to distract discussion from such questions.

As Gingerich states in his God's Universe, "To believe in a designed universe means accpeting teology and purpose." I don't think that faith is required for teleology.

Agreed.

If those topics are continually excluded in science, I don’t see how any discussion of immaterial reality can be included.

The basic problem is materialism; because materialist assumptions are already widespread anything immaterial is no longer considered "real" or consequently a legitimate topic for rational discussion. It is not an issue specific to the physical sciences; consider the distinction between religion and today's "spirituality": the former admits the science of theology and the latter explicitly rejects it.

[Rick]

MG, That which you state about common descent is not that far removed from Schroeder's in The Hidden Face of God.

I think we are in some basic agreement about the film. I agree with your assessment of materialism, as far as the application to Theology I fear the concept of immateriality is losing ground there, especially in Christian (and some Catholic) thought. The new buzz word is "non-reductive physicalism" which holds the mind=brain and any reference to the soul is illusory.