It looks like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed made money for theater owners, stands to lose a lot of money for the producers, and was a colossal flop with the critics. If you are interested in these issues, see other posts in this series. In this post, I discuss whether Expelled is a benefit to the creationist cause.
Expelled is a contemptible propaganda movie that trumpets fallacious reasoning that readily can be disproven. Accepting evolutionary theory does not require that one be an atheist. Nazi atrocities were not caused by the acceptance of evolution. All decision-making personnel involved with this movie either knew these claims were false, or should have known.
It has been encouraging to read critics’ reviews. They do get it. As English majors who avoided as many science and math classes as possible, I was doubtful about their ability to see through the malarkey that is Expelled. I will have to revise upward my expectations of movie critics!
I suspect that their understanding was enhanced by the informative Internet responses from scientists, such as those from NCSE, Panda’s Thumb, and Pharyngula. Scientists should praise these efforts! I know I do! Praise be to NCSE, Panada’s Thumb, Pharyngula, and all the other science bloggers, commenters, and otherwise posters who countered Expelled‘s pernicious content!
Those opposing Expelled are mainly highly educated and liberal-leaning, if not far out in left field. We (I include myself in that category) have a tendency to dismiss this movie because it so scurrilously shills for its perspective, ignoring the normal rules of reasoned discourse, like, say, telling the TRUTH! and representing opponents’ positions FAIRLY!
While scientists (and, I am glad to say, movie critics!) will not be convinced by this reprehensible movie, with all due respect, I would like to point out that they are not the target audience.
A typical movie in wide release plays at around 3,000 theaters. Expelled only played at 1,052 on its opening weekend. That was because the movie was targeted to less-urban areas where educational levels are relatively low (fewer college graduates) and conservative attitudes prevail. The specious reasoning and emotional pleading in Expelled is designed to appeal to high school graduates and dropouts who do not have the analytical thinking skills of college graduates.
With its target audience, I am afraid, it will be a highly influential tool for shaping beliefs. For one thing, the mere fact that this movie was made and publicized causes the “lightly educated” and uncritical believers to whom it was targeted to believe that there is some doubt about the validity of evolution.
Beyond that, around 420,000 people saw the movie on the first weekend. It is a good guess that between 1 million and 2 million will have seen it before it ends its theatrical run. Every conservative church in the land, and plenty of liberal ones, will have several congregants who have seen the movie, sing its praises, and disperse its offal.
Furthermore, this movie will circulate on DVDs for decades. While the “lightly educated” are often averse to printed materials, they will watch television. This movie will be played innumerable times in church discussion groups and “educational” programs. Watch for the DVD, after a short initial full cost run, to be distributed at a greatly reduced price that only covers the costs of copying it. Before long–less than a year–I think they will be giving it away to church groups and encouraging believers to make their own copies.
One success scored in the run up to the movie and during the opening weekend is the movie got people using the term “Darwinism.” No, scientists won’t adopt the term at work. However, the “lightly educated” target audience will use the term freely. Even movie critics who detest the film are saying “Darwinism” and “Darwinist.” The point is to associate “Dawinism” with communism and Nazism. All three are pigeonholed as destructive social movements to which one might subscribe or not, as suits one tastes.
I’m afraid that Expelled is a win for the creationists, both in its short term and long term effects.
I am also afraid that the sterling response made before and during the movie’s release will not be built upon for the long term. There is talk of a film to be made in response to Expelled, but I am afraid that will turn out like a PBS or BBC nature program, most appealing to the college educated. There is already a lot of stuff like that out there! Please! if you have to make a movie like this to exorcise some evil spirit that blinds your insight, do so the least expensive way! Start with a bunch of those PBS and BBC docs and cut and splice them to make a new film. Add some narration and Voila! you’ve got yerself a response to Expelled.
Although we don’t need another nature documentary, a couple of responses are needed. One should be directed at the Expelled target audience of “lightly educated” believers who hate evolution because their pastors said that it is bad. The response to this group needs to begin where they are, “evolution is bad,” and take them to the point of understanding the basics of evolutionary theory, that evolution does not lead to negative social movements, and that acceptance of evolution does not require one to be an atheist. It is probably too much to attempt to convert them from their anti-evolution stance. Their guide in this journey should be a religious leader.
The Expelledists have already shown their screed to members of several state legislatures. Another response should be directed at state and Federal legislators and other politicians, and local school board members. These people are mostly college educated, with the possible exception of school boards in very rural areas. They have different concerns than the general populations, and they are able to understand more information and more complex issues. They need to learn the same material as the Expelled target audience, plus legal issues, plus the disservice done to students by omitting evolution from the curriculum.
The response to Expelled need not be a film or only a film. Whatever it is, I hope we get it right.
Rocky
Links for the posts in this series:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Is It a Critical Success?
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Is It a Success for Theater Owners?
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Is It a Success for the Producers?
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Is It a Success for Creationists?
“The specious reasoning and emotional pleading in Expelled is designed to appeal to high school graduates and dropouts who do not have the analytical thinking skills of college graduates.
With its target audience, I am afraid, it will be a highly influential tool for shaping beliefs. For one thing, the mere fact that this movie was made and publicized causes the “lightly educated” and uncritical believers to whom it was targeted to believe that there is some doubt about the validity of evolution.”
Don’t you think that this is a bit elitist? For full disclosure, I have a college degree, I am a Roman Catholic, and I work exclusively with other “degreed” people, and find that they seldom use their “analytical thinking skills” in day-to-day lives. I am not really that interested in the movie, because I believe in God, and find evolution nonthreatening. Actually what little I know about Quantum Mechanics has actually increased my faith.
You might not be aware and not mean anyone harm, but the way you used your language here implies a hierarchy of privilege. A college degree does not suddenly confer the ability to reason on people.
“Another response should be directed at state and Federal legislators and other politicians, and local school board members. These people are mostly college educated, with the possible exception of school boards in very rural areas. They have different concerns than the general populations, and they are able to understand more information and more complex issues. They need to learn the same material as the Expelled target audience, plus legal issues, plus the disservice done to students by omitting evolution from the curriculum.”
This is exactly why we fear this mentality. An appeal to federal legislators? It’s this attitude that paints people like myself as idiots for believing in God. When you say things like “They have different concerns than the general populations . . .” Why not replace the work “populations” with “mob” or “rabble”? It may not be intended, but can you at least see the contempt that could be interpreted?
Tell me, what scientific justification do you have to quantify why a college educated politician would have the ability “to understand more complex issues”?
I am not attacking you, but I would hope that you would see just how bigoted and elitist your language is. I said at cal catholic that the materialist turns to politics in absence of religion. This is the danger that I see in the rift, and what the film is getting at. When you don’t have a dialog you get propaganda. Once we begin talking to each other by means of propaganda, the end is going to be bad.
I mean my criticism with respect, and please don’t take it personally. My intent is to dialog not attack.
I am not attacking you, but I would hope that you would see just how bigoted and elitist your language is: Some people are smarter than others.
…the way you used your language here implies a hierarchy of privilege: Yes, I guess that you are correct. We don’t have much to do with how intelligent we are–that is mostly inherited. Smart people can get better jobs and make more money. They are privileged relative to unintelligent people who get bad jobs and barely make enough to live on, or less. You get paid more than the janitor who cleans your office because you were born with the privilege of high intelligence. It’s not fair. Deal with it.
I can think of a couple of ways that a concerned, altruistic Christian could deal with this inequity. (1) Tell your boss to reduce your pay to minimum wage. Then, the wealth you generate will go to the business owners as increased profit. (2) Find out what the take-home pay of a person working at minimum wage is. Give away all of your salary, except this amount. Giving your excess salary to poor people will more equitably distribute the wealth you generate.
Don’t you think that this is a bit elitist? I believe that a secretary with a high school education is worth less to a company than an accountant with a college education and a CPA. Accordingly, the accountant is paid more by the company. I believe that, as people, the secretary and the accountant are equally entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I’m not so sure they should get equal votes in national elections, but that is arguable.
College education and intelligence: See this: http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm Doctors, etc. are smarter than college grads, are smarter than high school grads, are smarter than high school dropouts. You have to be smarter to get into college; you have to get an acceptable score on the SAT and have acceptable high school grades, plus recommendations. About 2/3 of college students fail to graduate, so only those who are disciplined and smarter get through. One of the best proofs is to look at the incomes of college grads compared to those with less education. College grads’ salaries are higher because they are worth more to their employers. Otherwise, the employer would fire the college grad and hire the dropout for less money.
I understand that you are not attacking me, and please recognize that I am not attacking you. We are just having an honest exchange.
Some people are smarter than others.
Yes that is true, but that has very little to do with what we were talking about. There is a presumption in your language that people who support this movie are not intellectually gifted. Both smart people and not so smart people support this movie. It is a political movie, not a science movie. To put it frankly, we fear your politics, not your science.
Hierarchy of privilege
I get paid more than the janitor who cleans my office because I was privileged enough to be born in the United States. I cannot assume the lesser paid holding less esteemed jobs than mine are necessarily less intelligent. People have different learning styles, I cannot assume that the public schools were able to accommodate all people in all cases so they’d be able to reach their full potential. We also have to consider that that the willingness to lessen the ignorance quotient may have more to do with people’s achievement than native ability. I am sure that there are a lot of ignorant lazy geniuses laying around doing nothing. Until I have evidence, I cannot allow myself to think in those terms. Human dignity comes first.
You are not the only one to use this language. It is the patronizing language of the ruling elite. Materialists use politics to promote their ideologies. We use politics for defense. Our strategies are always defensive, protect life, protect the culture, etc.
Materialist philosophy has to answer for rivers of blood and mountains of corpses in the 20c. It is really not the science that is frightening. We would prefer not to be ruled by people who presume privilege, especially not by people who believe that their special training or a few accomplishments entitles them to that privilege.
What is it about the godless elite that makes them so comfortable with circular argumentation? E.G. Darwinism is what educated people should believe because it’s what educated people believe. Those who believe in God are always painted as uneducated. Sounds a lot like seeding life on earth, after their own lives were seeded by other aliens, whose lives in turn were seeded by other aliens. The fact of the matter is, these science is leaving these Darwinists behind. Cellular biology and sub-atomic particle physics are making more and more discoveries that show there is non-material force at work in living and even unliving things.
Godless elite: There is no “Godless elite.” It is a creation of your imagination.
Circular reasoning: Most educated people know only the very most basic aspects of evolution, but accept its veracity because they trust the scientists who say that it has been tested and is valid. The scientists are only convinced by the results of experiments and observations.
Uneducated believers: Some believers have little education and some have a lot. My guess would be that educational level is the same among believers as the general population.
Non-Material force: The Universe is comprised of matter and energy. By definition, energy is non-material and exerts force. The fundamental forces are: strong, weak, electromagnetism, gravity, and maybe dark energy.
Supernatural powers: I supposes you meant “supernatural powers” instead of “non-material forces.” Science cannot address questions concerning supernatural forces or entities because the supernatural cannot be controlled during experiments and observations. For example, if you wanted to test the effects of God upon bacterial growth, you could not grow one Petri dish of bacteria with God’s influence and another without it. The Bible says, “Thou shalt not test God,” or something to that effect.
The Bible says, “Thou shalt not test God,” or something to that effect.
Excellent point.
“Most educated people know only the very most basic aspects of evolution, but accept its veracity because they trust the scientists who say that it has been tested and is valid. The scientists are only convinced by the results of experiments and observations.”
In the broad context of science, the science is funded by Merck or Glaxo, or Pfizer is open to debate on whether one should “trust” it totally. If it comes out of a lab like the one in Cern, or Sandia etc. yes I would trust that it was vetted and that people are risking their reputations, hence careers, on their work. However, it is not accurate to say that scientists are only convinced by the results of experiments and observations. Because funding is involved it becomes a symbiotic relationship between the funder and the fundee.
Sure that’s why you have peer review, but if all the peers start from mental framework how objective can it be? In this case I have environmental science in mind.
I’ve met people and heard people from the sciences who clash with the views of the Church. It’s not the views where the Church and science will differ. It’s where we should be of the same mind. Where we should be in lock step and supportive of each other to ensure that society remains stable and productive and prosperous so we can continue to fund science. But instead there seems to be this poisonous uncessarry rift.
I think it is only a small fraction of all scientific research that is funded by vested interests like pharmaceutical companies. Anyway, the mythology of the Bible was tested scientifically before much of anyone supported science. By the early 1800’s scientific theories were replacing Biblical stories.
The basic question of whether evolution occurred and occurs and of whether human beings evolved from earlier species is so well supported that it would not be called into doubt by a little biased research. The evidence is literally overwhelming and comes from many disciplines from genetics to geology.
I think it is only a small percentage of scientists who have an antagonistic relationship to religion. The journal Science did a survey of scientists worldwide and found that 40% of them say they believe in a God. I have certainly known hundreds of scientists, most of them geologists, and only occasionally encountered anti-religious bigots.
Thank you for your hospitality. I hope this has been a fruitful exchange. I hope that it has been clear that science is not the issue, but it’s misuse by the larger society.
The most important understanding that I would like to convey is that as a Roman Catholic I look to the church to inform society. Governments have come and gone, but the church remains. It is not our first instinct to turn to the government, but to look to the church to inform society. A just society will produce just leaders.
What do you look to? Those in government who would be sympathetic to your cause, typically do not believe that certain rights come from God. Your side looks for justice from people who may have advanced degrees, but lack a moral center. They view the document that says human beings have inalienable rights as mutable. The society that guarantees your human rights, and allows you to live in relative peace and prosperity is/was informed by the teachings of Christ. It is completely ironic that people who enjoy these rights, freedoms, and prosperity would seek to undermine the Christian foundation from which all those intangible and immeasurable concepts emerge. With hostility, your supporters in academia and government arrogantly proclaim the supremacy of science, while hiding behind the unprovable thesis of our constitution.