Ben Stein's Intelligent Adventure (Review of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed)

American Thinker ^ | April 13,2008 | Kate Wright

[SeekAndFind]

Ben Stein's new film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, is a documentary that appears to be about Intelligent Design and the shortcomings of Darwinism. The film is not just an exploration of the limitations of The Origin of Species, but a journey to uncover the mindset that Darwinism engendered among those with an agenda to replace traditional understandings of God with pure materialism.

But far from offering a weighty discourse on theories of monism, Stein delivers a pop culture MTV-style Road Film that has already reignited the Culture Wars, with a just-issued cease and desist letter from a group at Harvard. The Harvard letter claims that a clip in the film plagiarizes an "Inner Life of the Cell" animation, and possible further legal action could disrupt the opening of the film on April 18.

We enter Ben Stein's argument through images of the building of the Berlin Wall. Using inter-cuts, upbeat music, original text, and exciting graphics, Ben creates his own music video genre, as he visits professors who were "expelled" from universities and think tanks for merely mentioning the words "Intelligent Design" in their work.

Then, unexpectedly, we find ourselves in Dachau Concentration Camp, but this is no ordinary detour. Suddenly, we realize that Ben is about to link Darwinism to Nazism, by way of exposing the mindset of that gave way to the Jewish Holocaust.

The gas chambers of Dachau are horrifyingly familiar. What begs question of the ontological connection between Darwinism and Nazism, however, is the tour of the Nazi Hadamar Eugenics Labs. Watching a modern-day German woman guide Ben through the labs is, to put it mildly, revolting. Despite Ben's gentle prodding, she remains neutral throughout, unmoved, as she impassively informs Ben that 15,000 victims were exterminated in the gas ovens of the Eugenics labs during World War II. Then, despite her polite demeanor, she confirms what we fear most. She is unable to express any remorse whatsoever for the atrocities that happened; how Nazis, in pursuit of the master race, exterminated disabled, insane, feeble-minded, homosexual, and fragile human beings, alongside 6,000,000 Jews.

By revealing this mindset for its arrogance and profound lack of shame, Ben succeeds in motivating a new generation of film-goers to "Never again!" tolerate genocide. At the same time, he pushes the "story" forward through the ideas behind the story.

The "Story Spine": Materialism vs. Consciousness

All great movies reveal moral truth. They reveal what the story is about through the ideas behind the story. In this film, the "spine" that reveals the "story" hinges on the conflict between materialism, as Darwinism, and consciousness, as Intelligent Design.

Materialism is a philosophy that holds that the only thing that can be proven to exist is matter. In general terms, Darwinism relies on materialism, to the exclusion of dualism, pluralism, and idealism. Intelligent Design, by contrast, relies on consciousness in the realm of phenomenal reality, to explain that which cannot be explained by matter.

In simple terms, Darwinism addresses the material changes that take place in cells in evolution, but never addresses the origin of life itself. In a world where materialism prevails, there is a permanent academic divide between Darwinism and Intelligent Design; and like two cultures separated by the Berlin Wall, never the twain shall meet.

The reality that godless materialism gave way to Darwinism and, at the same time, became the basis (as historical materialism) for Nazism, may be too much 19th Century German intellectual history (Kant, Kierkegaard, Feuerbach, Nietsche, Marx, Engels, and Hegel) for some viewers to appreciate within this 93-minute film. For others, this is why Ben's nexus creates a fascinating road-trip unlike any other.

Free Speech

Rather than detail the implications of Neo-Darwinism by tracing the history of dialectical materialism and historical materialism in the development of Nazism, Ben makes his satirical case by featuring the flappable faces of authoritarian academics who ferociously deny Ben's right of academic inquiry into the origin of life and the universe. In so doing, Ben succeeds in positioning this film, in the narrow context, as an argument against academic suppression, and in the larger context, as the "must see" pop culture argument for free speech.

Via onscreen interviews with Neo-Darwinists such as Professor Richard ("The God Delusion") Dawkins, Ben typifies the pervasive practice of authoritarian attitudes in academic elites, particularly toward God-fearing people. As such, this is not a film about believers vs. non-believers. This is a first-rate expose about the consequences of suppressing freedom of expression, based on the questionable assumption that atheistic secularism is the state religion of the United States of America.

As history reveals, however, the proliferation of any fascist, authoritarian or totalitarian mindset wreaks grave consequences that are not limited to the atrocities that happened in Hitler's Germany. Stalinism, Maoism, and Communism plagued the 20th Century with the world's most sinister dictators (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, to name a few) who delivered mass genocides totaling well over 130 million deaths.

The Problem of God

This film states that Neo-Darwinism is about world view, not scientific exploration. At its heart, however, the film also addresses the role of consciousness in human development; that is, the capacity to discern right from wrong. By depicting this dialectic through the prism of the Holocaust, the film succeeds in raising the most basic philosophical question we all face as human beings: The Problem of God.

To make this point in the historical context, Ben visits the Jefferson Memorial and the Washington Monument, to rediscover the true meaning of freedom. By reminding us that freedom exists as a gift from God, Ben brings to light that America defends the dignity and rights of all human beings, regardless of race or creed, by virtue of the fact that that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights."

The Desire to be God

Meanwhile, the viewer is tacitly making his or her private assessment of the two sets of onscreen proponents and their opposing world views: 1) those that ascribe to the atheistic (Darwinian) view that reflects itself in the extreme end of the materialist realm as the desire to be god, and 2) those that credit the theistic (Intelligent Design) view that reveals itself in the idealist realm, as the search for God.

In a sublime moment at the film's climax, Ben presses Professor Richard Dawkins to explain the origins of life. According to Professor Dawkins, there is no God; but it is possible, and indeed likely, that intelligent life from outer space landed on earth, and that's how it all got going.

Freedom of Moral Conscience (The Moral of the Story)

Discerning right from wrong is different from knowing right from wrong. The German tour guide at Hadamar Eugenics Labs may have been able to discern right from wrong, but somehow, was not able to know right from wrong.

This capacity for moral conscience, like academic and scientific inquiry, is fundamental to freedom of expression. Despite all the failed ideas and experiments along the continuum of intellectual history, we still return to, and America relies on, the universal moral truths handed down by the Jews, to all human beings in the form of moral conscience, through Christian Enlightenment.

And for those who insist on authoritarian scientific inquiry to the exclusion of other forms of expression, please be referred to Webster for the etymology of the word conscience, with its Latin roots "com+scire" which literally means "to know more...at science."

As images of the Berlin Wall being torn down fill the screen, we are left with the idea that freedom of thought is fundamental to the scientific process, as well as to the search for God and the development of a moral conscience.

Above all, we appreciate that America (where 82% believe in God) is the hope for mankind. And this movie, thanks to freedom of expression, is for grown-ups, regardless of age.

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed opens nationally on April 18.

--------------------------------------------------------

Kate Wright is the author of Screenwriting is Storytelling.

[r9etb]

balanced?

= "agrees with Coyoteman."

[onewhowatches]

Since all Evo's are either Socialist or Communist It is evident you don't like Cohn for his anti-Communism rather than possibly being homosexual; go back to Huffington Post!

Man, you got that socialist/communist bit way off....In fact, the reason I became a Republican, back in the days of Reagan, was because it was the Anti-Communist party.

[celmak]

As to #7: "Care to try again, without the invective and personal attacks this time?

This is a perfect example of your paranoia, there are no personal attacks there, only the fact that there are homosexuals running the magazine. I can tell your a believer in sensitivity training. LOL!

Let's face it Coyoteman, no one with your beliefs can possibly be Conservative, you should just go back to Huffington Post too and leave this site for real Conservatives.

[celmak]

There were personal attacks; that is why your posts were removed by the moderators.

I repeated what was on the removed post in this chain virtually verbatim and the others have not been removed, i.e., that your Evo "sudo-science is killing homosexuals" and they have not been removed.

I never have tried removing someone for writing something I thought was offensive in FreeRepublic although there were, like yours, very offensive writings. I'm seeing that it is evident that the moderator will feel sorry for someone like you and not even read what was written if and when someone reports "Abuse" and remove the "offensive" post like my supposedly "offensive" post.

[celmak]

"Since all..."

OK, I correct myself; "Since most Evo's are either Socialist or Communist...

[atlaw]

“sudo-science” placemarker

[celmak]

I thought about it and I correct myself on this point for the last time:

"Since all devout fundamentalist Evo's are either Socialist or Communist...

[spotbust1]

Your bump for later read may not be worth it. This has become a flame war. I keep waiting to see what people’s opinions of the movie are, but they are arguing about all kind of other stuff. Good luck wading through it. ;-)

[Captainpaintball]

balanced? = "agrees with Coyoteman."

Silly me! I should have known better!

[Gumlegs]

I hope coyoteman will forgive me for reposting this vile piece of trash from celmak, but since celmak can't seem to refrain from lying about his own posting history, I thought this little trip back to post 52 (now deleted), in this thread might be useful for the purposes of finding out who's doing the lying about whom. Here it is in its repellent entirety:

To: Coyoteman

If I hate them than[sic] you obviously love them (probably physically too).

Do you deny the destructiveness of there[sic] lifestyle too? I have and have had homosexual friends and associates, some have died because of there[sic] behavior and some have made the CHOICE to turn away from it. You and your Evo ilk are killing them with your sudo[sic]-science while we want them to live free of their bondage!

52 posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:33:33 PM by celmak

Offensive personal smear bolded for those too dumb to figure it out on their own.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Let's face it Coyoteman, no one with your beliefs can possibly be Conservative

Coyoteman has said that calling conservatives "science deniers" is a leftist smear tactic. Since that's basically all he does on FR, he must be a leftist.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

you obviously love them (probably physically too)... Offensive personal smear bolded

Why do you find that offensive?

[Gumlegs]

It's obvious from celmak's postings that he/she/it finds homosexual behavior repellent. Thus, the accusation that coyoteman might engage in such behavior is a personal attack. The accusation has nothing whatever to do with an argument about science, so celmak would appear to flunk the logic test as well.

I was taking celmak's words as what they were obviously intended to be, a personal attack.

There used to be some rule around here about "no personal attacks." I'm given to understand it's not invoked mucj any more when the personal attacks are directed at someone who has the temerity to defend science against the Yahoos, but for the sake of balance, it might be interesting to try and apply it equally.

Or is that idea now offensive?

[Gumlegs]

That would be “much” not “mucj” in sentence two, paragraph three, above.

[ChessExpert]

Are there rabbit homosexuals? Male couplings wouldn't seem to make much evolutionary sense. Rabbits are reputed to breed often, as the saying goes, like rabbits. This suggests a strong sexual urge. But why would one male rabbit be willing to satisfy the sexual urges of another male? In the case of humans, there is enough intellect to determine a quid-pro-quo arrangement. You satisfy me, and I'll satisfy you (yuck). But whether one believes in Darwinism, God, or both, male-male sex would seem to be some sort of perversion of normal sexual urges.

I'm just curious. Do you suppose that bunny picture (picture of bunny ceramic sculpture?) originally have an innocent intent?

[ChessExpert]

The Harvard letter claims that a clip in the film plagiarizes an "Inner Life of the Cell" animation, and possible further legal action could disrupt the opening of the film on April 18.

I doubt Harvard would have taken this course of action if Ben Stein’s movie had supported evolution. This is a form of censorship. Harvard is making Ben Stein’s case. Those who disagree with Stein, and intelligent design, prefer to censor a debate than to have a debate. Efforts to intimidate and coerce, this being an example, is common on the left. Shame on Harvard.

[ChessExpert]

Good article. Thanks for posting it.

I will go and see this movie, if it is shown. From the article, it seems that Harvard is threatening legal action if the movie is released. I take this to be the Darwinist response. I'm not surprised. It would be a shame if their lawyers have found a valid legal pretext for censorship. So much for their love of freedom, freedom of speech, or the right of conscience.

I'm trying to keep score:

The Path to 9/11 was stopped by liberal censors (one time only showing).

The Passion made it's way to the theaters despite threats and recrimination.

FITNA, the movie by Geert Wilders, was locked out of the theaters and the original two company servers, but can be found on YouTube.

The Global Warming Swindle is excellent, but has been repeatedly "trashed." It can be found on the internet, but the likelihood of a broader showing is remote given the attacks against it.

I'm sure there are many more that I am forgetting, or never knew about.

Censorship, or the attempt, is alive and well. When it doesn't come from liberals it comes from Muslims.

[celmak]

Be careful, Coyoteman and Gumlegs may take offense and feel they have been personally attacked by calling them leftist; LOL!

[celmak]

It's obvious from celmak's postings that he/she/it...

IT??? Oh, I am so hurt by your PERSONAL attack! Why, I think I'll just do what Coyoteman does and whine to the moderator of such brutality! This kind of behavior should invoke more Evos to uphold the rule of censorship "MUCJ (SIC)" more !!!

LOL! That felt good!

PS to Gumlegs: Thanks for proving my point.

[savagesusie]

It's obvious from celmak's postings that he/she/it finds homosexual behavior repellent.

Well, isn't it???? Who could say that it isn't???? HA! Can you admit the TRUTH---that is all that Ben Stein is exposing....the TRUTH. I can not wait to see Expelled!