Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled (see the trailer and other movie clips HERE) is basically about the war going on in scientific circles between pure evolutionists (Darwinians) and those scientists that feel that Intelligent Design (ID) should be considered a valid area for scientific study.
Stein’s movie uses the Berlin Wall as a symbol that represents the division between these two sides — that’s a rather over-dramatic metaphor but, considering the viciousness of the dialogue between the two sides in this scientific standoff, it’s not entirely inappropriate.
What IS inappropriate, however, is the lengths he (Stein) has stretched the metaphor. He continually brings images of Nazis into the film and even devotes one portion of the film to the Nazi Germany program where 15,000 mentally and physically handicapped people were exterminated after being judged to be “useless eaters.” This program of Hitler’s Germany, and indeed almost every atrocity of Hitler’s Germany, was based on his twisted interpretations of the part of Darwin’s Theory of the Evolution that speaks to ‘survival of the fittest’ (natural selection) in nature. While Stein may or may not have told lies in this movie, his overt attempt to ‘paint’ today’s Darwinians with the same brush as Adolph Hitler is far beyond the bounds of decency — bounds that Ben Stein claims to prescribe to.
The centerpiece of this argument between the Darwinians and the “Designers” is, of course, religion. The Darwinians automatically jumped to the conclusion that the “Designer” in the Intelligent Design Theory is God — the very same God that stars (albeit behind the scenes) in ‘The Greatest Story Ever Told;’ their conclusion is, however, flawed (at least in my opinion).
Personal Observations
The way I see it, Intelligent Design is not about religion or the Bible or about the God of the Bible. It is simply an exploration into the proposition that complex life forms like us and the other life forms found on our planet were not just the results of random acts of nature — that there MAY have been an intelligent force behind our creation (personally, I don’t see how it could have been otherwise). This is suggested in the movie but one gets the feeling that neither the scientists or Ben Stein fully understand it. I understand it and personally feel that ID is (or could at least lead to) evolution’s missing link. That will never happen, however, until Darwinians stop acting like the schoolyard bullies who own the schoolyard.
One person interviewed in Stein’s movie freely admitted that allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design Theory in our schools might open the door for the teaching of Creationism. He might be right but, more than likely, as Left Wing as our universities are, Creation theory stands little chance of even getting it’s virtual foot in the door and that’s fine with me — I am neither a biblical Creationist nor a Darinian).
Recommendations:
‘Google’: “Ben Stein’s Expelled”. On the results page you will see attack after attack on this movie. Attacks by Scientific American, attacks by avowed Darwinians, and even attacks by some of the people who were interviewed in this movie (I guess they either didn’t like the final result or they were bullied into refuting their role in the movie).
If you have heard Ben Stein’s radio advertisement for his movie; try to put it out of your mind. The hype and misdirection of that radio ad is shameful — instead, see the trailer page linked above.
If you have any interest (vested or otherwise) in either the Darwinian Theory or Intelligent Design, this movie is a must see. Also interesting is Stein’s interviews with avowed, fervent atheists who won’t even consider anything as valid if the word Creation is used.
If you are looking for a reason to hate Darwinians — this is also the movie for you. Darwinians are treating the Design advocates very shabbily and are acting paranoid (as evidenced by the results of that Google search); Stein brings these facts into a very bright spotlight. He also, as I said before, shamelessly demonizes them.
If neither Darwinian Theory or Intelligent Design Theory interests you, don’t even bother renting the movie. You’ll be asleep long before its over.`
News Links:
Christian News Wire: Ben Stein is Coming to a Church Near You
One News Now: ‘Expelled’ DVD comes out this week
Blog Links
For Knowledge: Expelled – The Review
OCD Man: Ben Stein’s ‘EXPELLED’
14 users commented in " Ben Stein’s Movie: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback[…] Ben Stein’s Movie: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled (see the trailer and other movie clips HERE) is basically about the war going on in scientific circles between pure evolutionists (Darwinians) and those scientists that feel that Intelligent Design (ID) should be considered a valid area for scientific study. […]
Technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla’s book “The Evolution of Technology” (ISBN 0521296811) for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or “agency” in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim. No purpose, no evidence, no design.
Also probably worth tracking down if you don’t understand why a designer is unnecessary are the papers “Prevolutionary dynamics and the origin of evolution”, Martin A. Nowak and Hisashi Ohtsuki (doi:10.1073/pnas.0806714105) and “Natural selection for least action”, By Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178).
Life is a byproduct of differential autocatalysis rates and mass-energy flow.
Science only introduces speculative assumption (such as a “designer”) when a working hypothesis fails to fully explain a phenomena. There is no such failure in what you call “pure evolution” or “Darwinist” theory. Indeed, Evolutionary Theory is one of the best-understood, most reliable scientific theory there is. ID was invalidated as science centuries ago, even before Darwin first published. Today ID is a form of Creationist guerilla warfare. It’s hokum and bunkum.
Science requires evidence. While it is *possible* that an intelligent, aware outside force has intervened in the evolution of life on earth the fact remains that ther is no evidence at all that this has actually happened. Until some positive evidence is found ID will remain at best a tentative hypothesis, and more reasonably philosophical speculation. But it is not science and does not belong in science classrooms.
See http://www.expelledexposed.com for a summary of the many lies and distortions in Ben Stein’s anti-science propaganda movie.
Intelligent design creationism is not science – it is classic pseudoscience. There is no support from any of the actual science organizations in the United States for intelligent design creationism – they have all roundly condemned it as not being science. There is no hypothesis, and there are no experiments which support its supernatural “theory.”
There is a very basic reason that essentially all of the support for intelligent design creationism comes from overtly or covertly religious – not scientific – organizations. See if you can formulate a hypothesis why this is so.
Your points are all well taken but I am not a scientist and not interested in developing a hypothesis; it is just a curiosity why the possibility (or as Joe put it: the “tentative hypothesis”) is rejected before it is explored.
As a layman I see unbelievably complex organisims functioning in sync with each other and to me this suggests more than evolution or natural selection.
Nor am I a religious person — This post was not written from a religious POV. I’m not interested in proving the existence of any “God” any more than I am in disproving Darwin’s theories.
But the possibility behind “intelligent design” creationism was explored… we call it “the 19th century”. Rev. Paley’s proposals in his 1802 book, “Natural Theology”, are the recognizable precursors to the particular arguments made by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzalez, and the rest of the “intelligent design” advocates. That’s over two hundred years in which the advocates could have made a convincing case, if there were one to be made. It hasn’t happened.
I was at one of the first “intelligent design” conferences sponsored by the Discovery Institute. The plain goal there was to get critics to cough up a confession that “intelligent design” qualified, per se, as a scientific endeavor. What we critics said there, over and over, was that we wanted to see an “intelligent design” hypothesis and a proposed means of testing it. They said that they were working on it. I have periodically asked various advocates about progress on that, and consistently have been told that they are still working on it. It seems to me that if they want to be considered to be doing science, that they should show that they are actually doing some science. It isn’t a high bar to clear, if one actually has ideas that are scientific.
As for the “pure Darwinists” thing, what I tell people is that I’m not Darwin-only, I’m science-only.
I am a scientist who works on the evolution of protein polymers, and let me state that there is no “war in scientific circles” between evolutionists and neo-creationists (ID proponents). The person who takes credit as the father of the ID movement is a lawyer, not a scientist. The entire notion of ID was a legal maneuver to get around the Supreme Court’s prohibition on teaching Biblical Creationism in public school science classrooms. The full history is well documented, and it is readily available in the public domain. There are a handful of “scientists” in this country, with rather slim scientific credentials, who have spoken in favor of ID. But they have been completely repudiated by their departments, societies, etc. Every major scientific society in this country (and the world) has taken a position in support of evolution, so there is no battle or war. The less one knows about biology, the more plausible is the Intelligent Design idea. Do ID proponents believe that pathogens that attack humans, from HIV to Salmonella, are all the result of Intelligent Design?
If the writer of this piece thinks that “Darwinists” have treated ID advocates shabbily, how about the treatment that geologists have given those who think that the Earth is 5,000 years old? The issues are the same. If ID advocates had some real science (and they have never yet published a single paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal), then these issues would be debated within science. But they have no science, so this debate has been entirely in the popular media.
Whymrhymer said: “…it is just a curiosity why the possibility (or as Joe put it: the “tentative hypothesis”) is rejected before it is explored.”
The “tentative hypothesis” that the moon is made of green cheese can safely be rejected before it is explored. The “tentative hypothesis” that the earth was created in 4004 BC can safely be rejected before it is explored. Intelligent design creationism is really that bogus. Serious scientists would not waste their time with something so blatantly lacking in any actual scientific credibility – that’s why the intelligent design creationists spend so much time with religious audiences, not scientific audiences. That’s why the producers spent so much time and money “previewing” their movie in churches before its general release.
See Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf for a good explanation of the scientific vacuity of intelligent design creationism and what its creators and proponents are really after.
After years following this “debate”, darwinists are still spewing the same falsehoods as always.
“Evolutionary Theory is one of the best-understood, most reliable scientific theory there is.” – Except that of all scientific theories, it draws the largest amount of critisism – even from scientific circles. And ofcause, it is often claimed that those who disagree with it “does not understand” it. So tell me which one is it: is it misunderstood, or just plain wrong? Also, how can it be “reliable”? All it’s “predictions” are made after the fact. It’s about as “reliable” as Nostradamus.
“There is no such failure in what you call “pure evolution” or “Darwinist” theory.” – but there are many problems, starting with how normal, undirected chemistry can produce a living cell. Ofcause, some darwinists say it falls outside the study of evolution. However, this only avoids the problem of actually PROVING that live can come about without a designer. Ofcause, the Darwinist isn’t expected to prove such things: science just assumes that natural processes is sufficient to explain the origins of live, and then we say it’s a proven fact, because science says so. Objection, your Honour. Circular reasoning.
Then there is “Intelligent design creationism” – yawn! If they are unable to see the clear difference between those two concepts, why should we trust their interpretation of the fossil record?
Then there is the one that compares ID with medieval fields of study. So, if ID truely on the same level as alchemy, geocentrism, and all that, where are the large number of people who support those ideas? Go ahead: If you truely believe that putting ID on the same level as Darwinism is like putting alchemy on the same level as chemistry, try teaching it as such and see how many supporters for alchemy you get.
Darwinists like to misrepresent what ID is, because they now they can’t falsify the challenges ID raise for them. The simple truth is that the most passionate Darwinists simply don’t WANT darwinism to be wrong. It is not only a theory, it is a believe – a religious believe in the creative power of chaos to produce the appearance of design. A believe called “Materialism” or, atheism. Not that all Darwinists are atheists, but those who are most passionate about fighting ID usually are.
“Condemnation without investigation, is the height of ignorance” – Albert Einstein
Ascientist says : “The person who takes credit as the father of the ID movement is a lawyer, not a scientist”
Wrong. The laywer you’re talking about – Phillip Johnson – became interested in ID after reading Richard Dawkins book “The blind watch maker” and Micheal Behe’s book “Darwin’s black box”. ID was started by SCIENTISTS. You can read about it in “Doubts about Darwin” by Thomas Woodward. In this book he traces the history of ID.
But ofcause, Darwinists like Ascientists are experts at distorting history in their favour. Like claiming that Gallileo was persecuted for his scientific discoveries, rather than his remarks about the pope. (Copernicus, who was a priest and who proposed a solar centred system before Gallileo, is conveniently forgotten)
Hanno said: “Like claiming that Galileo was persecuted for his scientific discoveries…”
Are you saying that Galileo was not shown the instruments that would be used to torture him if he did not recant his notion that the Earth revolved around the Sun? Are you saying that Galileo did not then sign a formal recantation of his comments on the Earth moving? This is just crazy!
Does Hanno deny that Philip Johnson has called himself the Father of the ID movement? Hanno then said that Philip Johnson (the lawyer) was led to ID by scientists (Dawkins and Behe). Dawkins is one of the most prominent spokespersons for evolution, so this is silly. Behe’s model system, the icon of the ID movement, is the bacterial flagellum. Almost every statement that Behe has made about the flagellum (leading to “irreducible complexity”) has been shown to be wrong. It is like arguing that evolution could not take place since the world is 5,000 years old. Once shown that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the argument is wrong. Similarly, Behe’s argument that not one protein can be removed from the flagellum, showing that it is irreducibly complex, is completely false. Every other comment that he has made about the flagellum is also wrong. Ann Coulter actually wrote that “Behe disproved evolution” by his studies of the bacterial flagellum. Remarkably, these studies must be rather obscure, since he has never published a single scientific paper in this area! What type of scientist is this?
So if Inteligent design is not scientific then how might one determine whether earth was seeded with life or not? is it absolutely impossible?
We are already considering the viability of terraforming other planets and making custom bacteria, how far from realistic is it for us to be the intelligent designers for life on another planet?
There is great confusion (promoted by creationists and ID proponents) that the evolution of species is the same question as abiogenesis (the evolution of life forms from molecules). The two are quite distinct. Darwin’s Origin of Species had nothing to do with the question of the Origin of Life. One can imagine that little green men seeded the first life forms on Earth (which I do not), but then the question is still how species evolved. More than 99.9 percent of all species that have existed on Earth no longer exist. There is also a clear temporal separation of many species (such as humans and dinosaurs, despite what Sarah Palin may believe). So your question is interesting, but really has nothing to do with the so-called debate between evolution and creationism/ID. How the first life forms emerged tells us nothing about the common descent of all extant life forms, which is what the creationists deny.
Leave A Reply