Expelled: The Movie Explores Intelligent Design and the Case Against Big Science
by Mike LaSalle | View comments |
Print This Post
Ben Stein's new movie showcases the battle between the evolution dogmatists and those who <gasp> might consider the evidence for intelligent design.
In Expelled: The Movie, economist, lawyer, presidential speech-writer, and all-around media personality Ben Stein will stare down the brutes of Establishment Academia with a singularly profound question: can modern cosmology offer any evidence of Intelligent Design in the universe?
The answer to this question can have unanticipated consequences, as Astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez learned earlier this year after he was denied tenure as a professor at Iowa State University.
Despite a uniquely brilliant and productive career as a scientist, Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure just three years after the publication of his pro-Intelligent Design book, co-authored with Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery.
Dr. Gonzalez has also published 68 articles in refereed astronomy and astrophysical journals including The Astrophysical Journal, The Astronomical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Icarus and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. He also co-authored a college astronomy textbook, Observational Astronomy, second edition.
Gonzalez's chief defender in this apparent case of academic bias is The Discovery Institute, a group notable for its defense of Intelligent Design.
According to a Discovery Institute report, Gonzalez's rate of publication in peer-reviewed journals exceeds by 350% the ISU Astronomy department's standard for tenure.
The report also showed that he has the "highest normalized citation count among ISU Astronomers for publications", and offered proof of his top rank in the department as demonstrated by a SMITHSONIAN/NASA database.
Even so, Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy declared that Gonzalez "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy — one of our strongest academic programs."
According to the press release available on the website of Expelled: The Movie,
Expelled uncovers that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature, challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance. For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double PhD biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Not long after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution where Sternberg was a research fellow began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist expelled from his position. This attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.
The growing body of evidence for University witch hunts of ID proponents bothers Ben Stein. "Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning.”
Stein put it succinctly: "Big Science," he says "…has lost its way."
“The incredible thing about Expelled," said the co-Executive Producer of the film, Walt Ruloff, "is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ‘shock effect,’ something that has become common in documentary film these days.”
Perhaps. But Expelled doesn't just interview a few poor scholars famously bullied by the orthodox hoods of the academic street; they take their beef to the leaders of the gang: Richard Dawkins — a strict Darwinist and author of The God Delusion — appears briefly, as does famed atheist blogger PZ Meyers, and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education.
The creators of Expelled are said to have spent two years traveling and interviewing dozens of scientists, doctors, philosophers, and public leaders across the globe.
"People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale," said Ruloff.
Expelled: The Movie comes at a good time, and will undoubtedly stir the debate among students about whether Darwin's theory of "Common Descent" really holds up as the best explanation for the available evidence.
These are dangerous ideas among Darwin's faithful, and it now appears that good scientists are being punished for sins of heresy – and for no other reason. Fortunately credible scientists around the country have "gone public" in voicing their collective "Dissent From Darwinism."
Read more articles by Mike LaSalle
I can hardly wait until the credentialed and esteemed vanguards of science - the blog article response posters - get a hold of this topic and begin the typically intellectually effervescent discussion that always follows. Now where's my 8th grade biology book and tin foil hat…
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | November 12, 2007
God created evolution; more expansively, both inorganic and organic evolution.
Duh. God created the universe. So what? Science deals with creation and not the Creator. Discovering ultimate causes is a metaphysical pursuit.
Let's posit that God exists. Evolution is still the only integral scientific theory that explains the world we observe. Instead, let's posit that God doesn't exist. Evolution is still the only integral scientific theory that explains the world we observe. Thus, any discourse involving Intelligent Design is entirely irrelevant to a discussion of evolution.
Science is reason. The existence of God is entirely opaque to reason. We can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. We must accept the existence of God on faith. For proof, please read Saint Thomas Aquinas.
But, reason and faith are not in conflict. Both the evolutionists and the Intelligent Designers speak truths, but truths whose set-theory intersection is the null set.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | November 12, 2007
I agree with the second post. That illustrates how so many scientists can understand religion and still hold to their science. Intelligent Design cannot be proven. Therefore it has no place in science. It works very well as a philosophy, but not as a science.
I read the case of the astronomer above. Simply, if it is chance that earth is perfect for life (which I beleive, and I am not an atheist), it is EASY to conclude that it was purposeful and not just pure chance because as far as we know this is the only place that sustains life.
Well part of the purpose for the Mars expeditions is to determine if life ever existed on mars. If we find life on Mars does that disporove intelligent design? I think not. Simply because one can't disprove design.
If ID is 'proven' will that stop research in more viable areas? Will we stop the quest for discovery of life other than ours in the solar system? Well the church has prevented research before, but fortunately human curiosity is more powerful than church doctrine.
I would support ID in a public school in a philisophy class, but never in a science class.
Comment by Carl | November 13, 2007
Why do people (on both sides) have this notion that evolution is creation? In order to work, evolution (if true) requires matter. Evolution doesn't explain where the matter came from in the first place.
Comment by sedonaman | November 13, 2007
OK, you conservative intellectuals. Can you help me? I have a few questions.
I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction that people have against intelligent design. And I don’t understand the reluctance to admit that intelligent design is a form of creationism. It seems that 90% of Americans profess a belief in God. Does it not naturally follow that God is the “creator” whom we often refer to, including in our Declaration of Independence? Why is not the idea of intelligent design just as popular as the idea of God?
And cannot it be that God intelligently designed evolution? I don’t understand why that idea never seems to be considered.
I don’t understand why evolution is considered 100% scientifically legitimate but intelligent design is considered a total fantasy. It seems to me that evolution is based on skeletal and DNA patterns. I don’t see how people can make such huge leaps in logic based on such similarities. It seems inherently obvious to me that most animal life will have much in common but that in no way discounts the idea of God or the idea that God designed it that way.
Intelligent design is also based on observing nature but I think in a more holistic way that better considers the incredible complexity and mysteriousness of our existence. I concede it is possible that we are just a cosmic accident but, after a period as an atheist, I finally resolved that it was more difficult to believe there was no god than to believe that there is a God. Considering matter, the perfect balance of that matter in the universe, and most of all human conscience, the idea of God and his creation is a perfectly reasonable belief.
The only significance I see to this whole debate is that many evolutionists seem to think that evolution is a way to promote a Leftist agenda by trying to diminish faith, particularly Christian faith, which is the biggest obstacle to the leftist agenda.
It is just me or does any of this make any sense to anyone?
Comment by Liberius | November 15, 2007
Liberius,
Good questions. To understand my answers, think reason & logic.
"Why is not the idea of intelligent design just as popular as the idea of God?"
The "idea of God" is not a proper subset of intelligent design. Intelligent design does not circumscribe God.
"And cannot it be that God intelligently designed evolution?"
I previously said, “God created evolution”.
“I don’t understand why evolution is considered 100% scientifically legitimate but intelligent design is considered a total fantasy."
Because intelligent design is not science. More properly, intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Whereas the theory of evolution can be entirely circumscribed by the scientific method, intelligent design cannot.
Science is the scientific method. Now, you may disagree with the scientific method. In fact, you must disagree with it if you propose intelligent design as an alternative “scientific theory” to the theory of evolution.
Science works via induction. We observe the Universe and then formulate scientific theories which explain the phenomena we observed. The resultant scientific theory must explain these phenomena, must be testable in the laboratory, and must predict new phenomena not yet observed. Such is the scientific method.
Can the existence of God be proven in a laboratory? If it cannot, intelligent design fails as a scientific theory. Evolution is the only scientific theory that withstands this test and all others that the scientific method prescribes.
Importantly, neither science nor the scientific method circumscribes the Universe. Questions regarding God’s existence lie outside the sphere of science. Science’s domain is limited.
Let’s recap. To do science, you must do the scientific method, but God is not circumscribable by the scientific method.
“And I don’t understand the reluctance to admit that intelligent design is a form of creationism”.
If so, then my contention that intelligent design-nee-creationism is not a scientific theory is a slam-dunk. If it is, please translate the Book of Genesis into a scientific theory. How does your resultant theory explain where the 6 miles of water came from and where it went, and how does your theory explain how Noah and his 3 sons collected the 2 million species of insects, including the 35,000 species of beetle in the Amazon basin, and how Noah’s family fed these 2 million insects for 40 days, including those insects who eat nearly half their body mass every day?
"It seems to me that evolution is based on skeletal and DNA patterns”.
Plus millions of other phenomena.
"Intelligent design is also based on observing nature but I think in a more holistic way that better considers the incredible complexity and mysteriousness of our existence".
Science is not holism. It is the scientific method.
"The only significance I see to this whole debate is that many evolutionists seem to think that evolution is a way to promote a Leftist agenda by trying to diminish faith, particularly Christian faith, which is the biggest obstacle to the leftist agenda".
Jesus is my Savior. Evolution (both inorganic and organic) is the only scientific theory which explains the changing nature of the universe.
Look, Liberius. There is zero conflict between believing in God and believing in evolution. However, there is no way to reconcile science and intelligent design.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | November 15, 2007
"People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale,"
if a "large majority" of uhmuruhkuns believe in creationism (because thats whats behind the intelligent design crap) then indeed, "simpletons who believe in a fairy tale" is quite accurate!
whats next christo-fascist cromwellian luddites? debunking galileo? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
watch that. typical fundyvangelist christo-fascist cromwellian luddite lying hypocrites trying to use public institutions to shove their religious beliefs down everyone else's throats…
the two principle participants in the above documentary who tried to push creationism on their community both got caught lying. then of course, good gentle christians proceeded to threaten the (conservative, bush appointed) judge and their neighbors with death throughout the affair and especially after they lost at the ballot box and in court!
awww…poor martyrs!
honestly i used to have a shred of respect for old ben, but this butt ignorant idiocy just blew that!
Comment by ibbleblibble | November 16, 2007
Liberius;
Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Archbishop of Vienna, authored an op-ed article in the New York Times a little over two years ago that addressed your question. Cardinal Schonborn argued that God’s presence in the world was detectable by mankind through faith – and also through reason. It was the “and through reason” that generated the controversy. Did he mean intelligent design theory, did he mean everyday, normal, human reason or did he mean something else?
The Catholic faith has never opposed evolution theory in its religious doctrine; evolution has been taught for decades in Catholic schools, not only by lay teachers but also by Catholic nuns and brothers – and with the same textbooks as used in the public schools. What Schonborn and the late Pope John Paul II objected to was the idea that God could be found only through religious faith and not through human reason – a position consistently rejected by the Catholic Church over the centuries.
The philosophy of science position that the methodology of science must exclude design based on supernatural forces is relatively recent – and sourced more from politics and the culture wars than from logic or historical reasons. Others have noted the historical giants of science, such as Newton or Einstein, who spoke and wrote of God’s presence in the universe, and obviously the concept of “intelligent design” is historically accepted science – ask any high school biology teacher if a beaver dam is intelligently designed or just appeared in the river based on statistical chance interacting with natural laws.
Nor is science willing to exclude study of certain phenomena that don’t fit neatly into the generally accepted definition of scientific methodology. Exceptions to the methodology had to be made for studying subjects such as biological origins, historic geological processes, certain historical events in astrophysics, etc. It isn’t possible to reconstruct events occurring millions or billions of years ago in the lab, yet that hasn’t prevented scientific speculation regarding the exact nature of those events.
Nor does the complete absence of empirical data present a barrier to legitimate scientific inquiry. The popular novelist Michael Crichton observed there isn’t a shred of scientific evidence or a tiny smidgeon of fact that extra-terrestrial beings exist somewhere in the universe, yet science considers it valid to assume there may be such beings and propose search techniques to detect their presence.
The psychology of scientists and what human emotional needs the study of science serves is interesting and would reveal part of the answer to your question – or at least I believe so. Schonborn and the late John Paul II may be wrong in their assessments of the psychological needs satisfied by evolution theory, but their position on the matter is worth reviewing.
Comment by Pat Skurka | November 19, 2007
Liberius,
Pat did a great job as usual. I would like to add a little history to the mix. In the mid to late 18th century it became fashionable to be a naturalist. Man at the time was becoming more able to control his environment and the intellectual elites were looking for a way to separate themselves from the common folk. Science was practiced by elites and when they became naturalist they incorporated the naturalistic view into science. It has been holding onto science ever since. In this environment geology was forming and the idea of millions of years came into acceptance. Very little fact was used for this idea. A hundred years later radiation decay was used to support the idea of long ages. This in the face of erosion which wipes out the long age assumption. Even today when dating any strata dates are tossed if they don't agree with historical assumptions. So when Darwin came along the stage was already set to hide his process in long ages. With waving of the arms and saying millions and millions of years the need to supply details was taken away from these two "sciences".
So the argument is not with science but with naturalist who have misused science for 250 years. When one has a world view that forces conclusions based on belief and not on gathered data then science in these cases has turned into a religion. That is why from the outside the fight over ID seems so strange. I suggest that you study the data and not the opinions from both camps.
A typical story from recent geology.
In 1929 a geologist Brentz proposed that the scablands in eastern washington were the result of a massive flood. He had mountians of data and had done his homework well. He did not know at the time where the water came from for this flood. Another geologist at the time knew of an ancient lake that could have provided the water. He of course did not speak up and support the findings of Brentz. It took 10 years of field work for Brentz to find the water source for his flood. The other geologist of his day refused to accept the idea of a flood. You see it violated the principle of slow processes. The other geologist even refused to visit the site to confirm Brentz work. The original geologist who listened to Brentz went to their graves with their beliefs in tact of slow processes. It took 40 years but now it is commonly accepted as fact that the Mossoula flood made the scablands of eastern Washington. The data in this case did not matter. The careful analysis of the data to fit a theory did not matter. The only thing that mattered is that the new idea did not match the preconceived notions of geologic activity.
To an outside observer we see the work of Brentz and of the opposition he faced and have a hard time accepting that educated men could be so blind. But today we have many more people defending the old school thoughts then in 1929. They know that soon their hold on science will fall it they don't hold tight as a group. So articles are blocked, degrees are refused, distortions abound in the name of science. The man who translated the latin Bible into english was burned at the stake. Closely held data makes people do the craziest things.
This country has a decision to make. It can bury its head or open its eyes. Right now I am of the opinion that in less than 30 years Bibles will be burned in the streets and Christians will go underground to avoid persecution. If the naturalist win the war on data it will spill over into everything we hold dear.
Comment by fbaginski | November 21, 2007
Post 9, update
Sorry about that, I tried to pull some names from memory and did not do so well. Geologist - Bretz Flood - Missoula
Comment by fbaginski | November 21, 2007