Expelled, part III

I will continue with my long review of Expelled. The second part of the movie tries to connect evolution, or science in general, with atheism. This is probably the strongest part of the movie, but it is still filled with misrepresentations. It probably connected with the target audience the best. We hear Dawkins, Myers, and William Provine belittle religion and religious believers. Generally, calling people idiots is not a way to create sympathy for your cause.

This is a stronger part because it has an element of truth. Scientists have a much lower belief in God than the general public (although this is not connected specifically with evolution or the biological sciences). It is true that evolution has affected some people's belief in God. Believers have a fear that if they send their children to college, they will come to reject what they were brought up to believe, and seeing Dawkins, Myers, and Provine say religion is bunk will only increase their fear of science.

It seems to me that if a belief is strong, you shouldn't be afraid to look at other ideas. You should be confident in its ability to confront those ideas. If your belief is correct, it should have nothing to fear from science. I certainly would never tell people not to read creationist materials for fear of them being contaminated. In fact, I bring in those materials and tell my students to read it.

But even if there is an element of truth to this part, it is still grossly distorted. They bring in Allistair McGrath and John Polkinghorne to argue against Dawkins. They point out that science does not need to go against belief. They edit it in such a way that it seems maybe they are even saying science and ID are compatible. What most viewers won't know is that McGrath and Polkinghorne both believe in evolution and reject creationism and ID.

This brings up the huge missing part of their story. They sought out the most outspoken atheist scientists to talk about religion, and found that they are outspoken against religion. This doesn't connect directly with evolution or ID. If they had found outspoken atheistic journalists or artists they could easily have found similar quotes against religion. Just read Mark Twain or H L Mencken (although Twain always colors his attacks with humor). And if they had interviewed biologist Ken Miller or Francis Collins they would have found devoutly religious people who support evolution and think ID is as foolish as does Dawkins. Or you could interview any of the 11,000 clergy who signed the clergy letter project to get similar views. There are a wide range of views on this topic, but if you interview only those on one end, you can leave the impression that the connection between science and atheism is necessary and complete.

One other comment on the interviews with scientists. I know most of what they said was meant to inflame the audience, but as I listened most of what they said seemed imminently reasonable. They weren't flaming ideologues, although William Provine came across as a bit over the top. He is the only one I am only vaguely familiar with from outside of this movie. The producers got their interviews by deceiving the interviewees into believing this was a pro-science documentary. I can see that they are being open, trusting, and unguarded in what they said, and knowing how they were lied to makes the producers seem like scum. This is especially true for Eugenie Scott and Micheal Schermer. Neither of them said an offensive word in their whole interview. I know that, because there isn't an offensive word from them in this movie, and had they uttered one, they would have included it. So the movie sets them up as naive fools who believe we can all get along, but the evil Dawkins shows them to be wrong. It is grossly manipulative and an abuse of trust and of the good intentions of those interviewed.

I will discuss the last part of the movie in my next post.