Well, I finally had a chance to watch Expelled, Ben Stein’s movie on anti-intelligent design sentiments in academia.  

This movie was a major undertaking for Stein.  It was not a major undertaking in the sense of production costs etc - in fact, it was a fairly basic production in the sense of including mostly shots of Ben walking around interviewing scholars.  It was a major undertaking in the sense of launching a frontal assault on evolutionary dogma in higher education.  It is good that Ben is an actor and not an academician.  If he were an academician he would have been completely ostracized by the academic community for making this film.

I was not surprised by anything in this film.  As a university and college instructor for the last 8 years, I know the hostility facing proponents of intelligent design.  But this hostility is not limited to intelligent design.  There is an undercurrent of hostility and intolerance towards scholars who espouse conservative views contrary to the liberal agenda dominating higher education.  The godless liberal agenda is firmly entrenched in academia and science.  This means that people who question evolution and bring intelligent design into the classroom run the risk of being ostracized and denied tenure because they are seen as operating outside of “true science.”  

The opponents of intelligent design that Stein interviewed for the movie basically stated that they could never accept intelligent design as scientific.  For them anything that points to God is not science.  Like 17th century scholastic scholars who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope for fear of seeing anything that might make them question an earth-centered solar system, the atheistic scholars in the video refuse to consider evidence suggesting that intelligent design might be at work in the universe.  The thought that we might be able to scientifically evaluate the merits of an intelligent designer is revolting to them.  

Some of the anti-intelligent design scholars who agreed to be interviewed for the movie are Mike Schumer, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins.  I have read books by Schumer and Dennett – they are accomplished scholars.  I respect what they have achieved and I think they are generally good people, that is, until they start trash talking believers.  Their harsh attitudes toward intelligent design are, I think, a result of feeling as though science is under attack by religious fanatics.  They fear that if anything resembling God makes it into science then we will regress to the Dark Ages.  I have even heard these sorts of arguments from Latter-day Saints - interesting, indeed. 

Stein’s movie adequately portrays the state of conflict in science today.  There are the non-believers who feel that they must defend science against religious fanaticism, and then there are the believers who feel they must defend their faith against scientific atheism which is overstepping its bounds.  There is more to this conflict, but that about sums it up.  True to his humorous side, Stein manages to capture this conflict in an entertaining manner.  The entertainment comes from brief clips portraying conflict, censorship, and dominance.  I had some good laughs watching these.  

With the intelligent design (ID) debate raging, I think that now would be a good time to discuss the merits of ID.  In the next three posts I will address three questions: (1) What is ID?  (2) Is ID any more or any less scientific than evolution? and (3) Should ID be permitted in education?  I will attempt to answer these questions in an objective manner, but first I have a little reading to do.

 


Comments

Jared*

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 2:03:58 pm

Are you aware that the 'bad guys' in the film (ie. Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins) say that they agreed to be interviewed under false pretenses? It certainly seems like a dishonest production through-and-through.

I'd recommend that you have a look at <a href="http://www.expelledexposed.com/">Expelled Exposed</a>, as well as the reviews at <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled">Scientific American</a>.

 

Dave

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 2:45:23 pm

Jared,

Thanks for raising those concerns. I have heard that some have taken issue with a few of the things in the movie. For example, I've heard that the first guy who got "expelled" was fired for not submitting the ID article for peer review. Anyway, I will look into the concerns after finishing the 3-part series on ID. One concern I had was Stein making Dawkins wait for him in the final interview. I would not have done that nor would I have portrayed Dawkins as waiting rather impatiently. I thought that was a poor decision, but then I am not Ben Stein.

Anyway, I think that the general message is right on, however. There is hostility towards ID in higher education. I can overlook Stein's efforts to intentionally over-sensationalize some of the issues for entertainment value - every movie producer does.

 

Imperfection

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 7:24:31 pm

Worse then just bad science, ID is an attempt to redefine how science operates. That is why it faces such hostility in academia. The scientific method is not arbitrary. It has been honed over centuries and at great personal sacrifice for many. Those in higher education who appreciate its power guard it jealously, and for good reason. The acceptance of pseudo science in place of real science would destroy our ability to understand our world and plunge us into a new dark age.

ID deserves absolutely no recognition or respect from anyone in education.

This argument, by the way, has nothing to do with the existence of God.

 

SteveP

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 9:56:46 pm

ID is just not science. It's not a war of God and science as you've portrayed with atheists on one side and theists on the other. It's just an attempt by evangelical Christians to get their brand of creationism in the classroom. There are lots of believing scientists who want nothing to do with ID. I'm one. It's just not science. Like in the Chronicles of Narnia, putting a lion costume on a donkey did not make it Aslan, trussing creationism in scientific clothes does not make it science. It's just a bad idea anyway you look at it.

 

Ryan

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:13:24 am

In response to : “ID is just not science.”
Looks like we have the pot calling the kettle black here. Evolution claims all life evolved from a single-celled organism. Creationism/ID claims life must have been purposely designed more or less in the state we see it today. Both options are ultimately unverifiable, both require belief, and both would lay claim to interesting evidences. Based on this, it seems to me that we must consider either both as science or both as religion. To do otherwise, I think, is to engage in aggressive marginalization and smacks of arrogance.

 

Jared*

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 7:54:24 pm

The demarcation between science and non-science is not a clean one. Some things are firmly in one category or the other, while others lay somewhere in between.

Nevertheless, a starting place would be the scientific method--hypothesis testing, vulnerability to falsification, and so forth. Based on these criteria evolution is deeply rooted in science. It was not conceived fully formed, but was built up gradually by multiple disciplines. Some parts of it are more firmly established than others, but the overall picture is well supported and continues to gain additional support in spite of the fact that it could have been falsified at many points.

Creationism, on the other hand, starts with preconceived notions based on scripture and has largely developed in reaction to mainstream science (usually misrepresenting it in the process), and constantly appeals to miracles to avoid falsification.

Some versions of ID have more characteristics of science than others. ID as promoted by the Discovery Institute is really an ideological tool used in an attempt to redefine science in a manner that suits their religious agenda, as shown by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy">their own document</a>.

 

Ryan

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 8:37:46 am

The idea that all life evolved from a single-celled organism and is therefore related to each other is not a notion that is subject to falsification. What laboratory experiment will you design that will demonstrate a non-repeatable past event like this? Even if it did happen long ago, it will have to remain forever unverified (i.e. you have to simply believe it happened that way). To suggest that this notion is scientifically more falsifiable than the ID alternative is a mistake.

 

Jared*

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 9:10:15 pm

<i>is not a notion that is subject to falsification.</i>

Sure it is. For example, the fossil record could show rabbits in the pre-Cambrian (to paraphrase Haldane), instead of cyanobacteria and stomatolites. The fossil record could show no change. Different lineages of organisms could have no related genes and radically different cell biology. Spontaneous generation could occur (it was once commonly thought to). Organic molecules like amino acids could be harder to produce from inorganic precursors, and not show up in meteorites. All dating methods could point to an earth of a few thousand years old. Or the tools, garbage, notes, etc of the IDer could be found in the oldest rocks. Some of these would be powerful alone, others in combination.

Of course we will never know what happened with absolute certainty. That's just the way it is. But that doesn't mean all ideas are of equal merit--especially in a scientific setting. (By the way, it's difficult to do laboratory experiments in astronomy, but it is still considered by most people to be a legitimate science. So is epidemiology.)

 

Ryan

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 9:17:05 am

The things you listed do not even demonstrate that evolution from a single-celled organism can happen, let alone that it did indeed happen (i.e. it does not come close to falsification). What you have listed are contemporary evidences that that can neither confirm nor deny the actuality of a one-time, non-repeatable past event. A similarity among genomes does not display that we all evolved from a single-celled organism (that would be a mere interpretation of an observation). A creationist would tell you similarity in genome denotes a common designer rather than universal relation – and who could prove them wrong? Both views are unfalsifiable.
The simple idea that spontaneous generation might have occurred (a big, big “might”) does not make anything falsifiable. Using a fanciful unobserved principle to argue your point will not strengthen your argument, and definitely will not make the evolution story falsifiable. This is a little like saying that the idea that God “could” have specially created life makes Creationism falsifiable. Of course, an argument like that has no merit. And you talk about Creationism “appealing to miracles” – consider the spontaneous generation beam in your own eye for a moment.
Even Popper (the guy who came up with the idea of falsification) admitted that evolution as an explanation for life is not falsifiable. Ultimately, it comes down to what you choose to believe. You may prefer evolution, but your mere preference does not make evolution from a single-cell a falsifiable event, nor does it discount evidences perceived by Creationists, or repair any holes in evolution theory. One alternative is just as unfalsifiable as the other, and both require belief in order to subscribe.

 

Jared*

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 7:17:09 pm

My point is that abiogenesis (which is really what we're talking about here) is not compatible with all potential findings. It has made it over several potential hurdles, and may or may not make it over others.

For more on Popper, see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html

You may have the last word. I'm sure we will have further discussions.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics