Alright so it has been awhile since I have contributed into the mess we call the Internet.
As the title says I’m writing about the new documentary film called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I haven’t seen the film yet but I’m about to go see it. Let me begin by saying I in no way plan on refuting evolution and building up ‘creation’ or ‘intelligent design’. I just feel like in our society we totally give evolution a free pass. So I think this film starring Ben Stein is a great thing. However I do know that many out there are criticizing him and the producers for lying to the professors about what the film was about. I pretty much think that is the most ridiculous thing to be critical of. Seriously if I dedicated just enough time to get a Ph.D in a field like biology and I believed in evolution, there is absolutely no possible way you could get me to be in a movie that is going to completely rip on what I believe in. Where as if someone approached me saying they were making a movie about both evolution and ID, I’d be much more willing to give honest answers to get other people to believe what I believe. I realize that some scholars may have been willing to still be featured in Expelled if they knew the agenda but I might give different answers. On another note, if you’re going to consent to being in a film about evolution don’t you think you would research the people involved. It’s no secret what Ben Stein Believes in. So if Ben Stein shows up to interview me about evolution that would raise red flags.
Let me end by saying that I do not necessarily endorse the agenda of refuting evolution in order to get people to believe in ID or creation. I don’t really know if its possible. I do think it is perfectly ok to make a film on whatever the heck you want to make a movie about. So this business about completely dismissing Expelled because God forbid you disagree, then I think you need to get a grip.
Edit: After seeing the movie, my main comment is the final line spoken by Dawkins. In response to Steins comment of what would he say to God if found out there was a God, “why did you make yourself so hard to see?”
if you go by creation, in the beginning God was literally amongst the people, in relationship and community. Humans had the power of free will and thus ate of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil. At which point the first humans were expelled to a place where God was not just there. If God was your next door neighbor would you really have free will? Well it would at least be hard to not believe in him; therefore you get the choice to believe in evolution. Some Christians believe in evolution as well, and they aren’t all liberal as the movie suggested. Many Christians believe in 7 periods of time because God doesn’t work in time like we do.
I also don’t think think it proves anything looking at how bacteria mutates and develops immunity to antibiotics, just like how humans have the ability to defend themselves against certain diseases is a larger scale of what bacteria is doing all the time. I think it would just common sense to DESIGN creatures of all sizes from bacteria, to cells and beyond to be able to do that. Feel free to contribute whatever dialogue you would like. The only thing I get annoyed about is not really paying attention to what is being said. I think we need to go into the conversation with the idea in mind that you may change your belief, otherwise there’s no point in talking because it’s just I’m right you’re wrong and we’re both going nowhere.
I think people are dismissing Expelled because the so-called “martyrs” in the film haven’t actually been fired or expelled – not a single one of them! People are also very upset about the Nazi references, because on the one hand it insinuates that by accepting evolution we’re heading towards a moral nadir, and on the other hand it is a gross injustice to use those who lost their lives in the Holocaust to underscore the film’s message.
Anyway, the National Center for Science Education has started up a website to counter some of the dubious claims in the film at http://www.expelledexposed.com. I think it’s important to have a more balanced view when seeing this film, especially since it makes no attempt at being objective nor actually engaging in the actual science of evolution.
I left a really long comment on NP’s blog if you all want to read that. Mainly just me ranting after he annoyed me with his talking to party lines. My note on the holocaust part is that he/she totally misses the point of Bill Maher’s comments about silencing Christians, and the part with the protesters holding signs that basically said ‘only the religious are terrorists’. Well when you compare what some Christian and Muslim extremists, to what a darwin influenced regime (ie Nazis) did, the religious extremists really don’t seem too bad. Plus if you’re going to take that argument, look at what the modern and non-religious China thinks of human life with there many human rights abuses. Not to mention the fact that non-religious communist Russia under Stalin probably killed more people than hitler. So there are a lot of points that you simply leave out in order to make your claim.
However I’m not making the claim that religion can’t be used for bad things, it can and does.
Lastly, in academia rarely are professors fired, not receiving tenure basically screws you over as a professor. The reason it exists is to give scholars the security to stretch the bounds of scholarship without repercussions. If you don’t receive tenure its a nice way of saying you aren’t welcome.
I’ve actually seen the movie and there was laughter through the theater when the evolutionist tried to explain where life started. One theory was that aliens sowed life here. So, how did alien life get started? That is no answer. Then Stein asked “How did inanimate objects come to life?” This person said “chyrstals”. He did not explain any further. As far the Nazi references go there was no comparisons but the point was that Darwinism and Eugeinics was their world veiw. Eugeinics is the belief that we should kill off any one who might be less than perfect and was invented by Darwin. When you have no respect for life all kinds of atrocities become possibile! This movie was about making room for a dialogue between evolutionist and creationist. After watching it, it becomes obvious that the creationist will just keep asking question that the evoltionist cannot answer and they have beentelling us for more than a century that Darwinism has all the answers. So, the emperor really does have no clothes!
bhave-
On NP’s blog you left the statement:
“That people are literally wasting their whole lives trying to prove something that has no repercussions on society. We could change the world if all the scientists would focus on finding cures but instead their trying to prove evolution which can’t be proven without a time machine or dying. And in the end if they did prove it, then what does it change?”
Those scientists who are focused on “finding cures”, as you say, are using evolutionary theory as an essential part of their toolkit. You can’t have it both ways- both having scientists drop evolution and have them try to produce the best possible medicine. As it is, evolutionary techniques are used in managing drug regimes for HIV infections. They are used to design flu vaccines. They are used to model and predict the spread of cancer. They are the most successful predictor for the function of newly-discovered proteins- including those involved in disease. They are at the heart of public health measures.
When you muzzle good science, there are consequences for society. Stalin muzzled evolutionary biologists to promote the incorrect ideas Lysenko, and the effect of the non-scientific Lysenkoism for Soviet crop yields were disasterous.
Speaking as a scientist, we don’t use evolution because we are atheists and it fits with our worldview. We use it because it works. It suggests experiments. It makes concrete predictions- some correct, some incorrect- about all sorts of things in biology. And we are people of many faiths, from many cultures and countries.
We don’t use intelligent design because we don’t know how. No one has yet been able to figure out how to test it. It doesn’t make any specific predictions. It hasn’t produced any tangible results. There have been no medical applications, nor anything of significance for agriculture.
Myrmecos makes a good argument. I still don’t agree. And I’m not saying you can’t have faith to be in science. And I can’t vouch for science either I’m a political scientist so it’s not my field. However I don’t think common ancestry necessarily indicates evolution really occurred. It makes perfect sense to me that all species would have commonalities if they were placed here by something, like in the case of intelligent design. I actually think it makes more sense because life seems so diverse but it is so similar.
NP: “I think people are dismissing Expelled because the so-called “martyrs” in the film haven’t actually been fired or expelled.”
This is a lie reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels. Being denied tenure is the academic equivalent of being fired. Those who have tenure have been badly treated. There were attempts by evolutionists at the Smithsonian to get Sternberg fired–essentially, he was demoted.
myrmecos: “Those scientists who are focused on “finding cures”, as you say, are using evolutionary theory as an essential part of their toolkit.”
Ha ha–nope! Evolutionary theory is totally irrelevant.
myrmecos: “They are used to design flu vaccines.”
Go read the journals again! I’ve actually read some articles about flu vaccines. Flu vaccines are *designed* using last year’s virus. That’s why they only offer marginal protection against the flu. Still, they’re the best we have, though some people think that we should look at trends by various strains–especially migration patterns–and not base vaccines on mere variation of last year’s strain.
myrmecos: “When you muzzle good science, there are consequences for society.”
And when you make bad science public policy, you get Nazi and American eugenics as well as doctors unnecessarily removing organs because “science” has declared them to be vestigial. Doctors still remove appendices unnecessarily.
Speaking as someone who has done experimental science, I know the difference between science that can be tested in the lab and “historical science” which is merely philosophical conjecture. Real science results in technological advancement–which cannot be shown for evolution. There are more than a few creationist geneticists who obviously don’t consider biology reliant upon evolutionary theory–whatever it may be at the moment, since the modern synthesis is under attack by epigenetics and evo-devo.
myrmecos: “We don’t use intelligent design because we don’t know how.”
BWAHAHAHAHA. It’s used all the time in genetics, horticulture, and animal husbandry.
bhave: “Myrmecos makes a good argument.”
I disagree. I think his points are exceedingly weak and ignore how real science is done.
Tom Hogan:
This is a lie reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels. Being denied tenure is the academic equivalent of being fired. Those who have tenure have been badly treated. There were attempts by evolutionists at the Smithsonian to get Sternberg fired–essentially, he was demoted.
I see Expelled’s Nazi-laden rhetoric has rubbed off on you. It’s ironic too, considering the film itself is something Goebbels would be proud of.
The academic equivalent of getting fired is getting fired. That happens too, you know.
There was a colleague of Sternberg’s who emailed his superiors saying he should be terminated for his professional misconduct (which is what sneaking a paper into a journal is, especially when you have a conflict of interest). He was basically told to shut up, and the superiors paid no attention to him. He wasn’t demoted for the scandal either. The position of a Research Assistant requires a supervisor; Sternberg’s original supervisor passed away, and therefore without a supervisor Sternberg was offered a position as a Research Collaborator.