(Candace #16) — Greg of Greg’s Plate gave his two cents recently about Ben Stein’s new documentary, “Expelled,” which is prompting me to add my own. (Multiply that by 100, and you’ve got yourself a whole gallon of gas.)
I’m not a big Ben Stein fan. I find his voice — and eyebrows — and, OK, his sneakers — distracting, but here’s what I did find fascinating.
1. The free speech issues raised by the film. If no one has come up with definitive evidence as to how life began, then don’t we have to stay open to all possibilities, even if that includes an unseen, divine being? It is bothersome that some seemingly intelligent academic proponents of intelligent design have been chastised, censored — and, Stein would argue, ousted — for reasons that seem related to their views on this matter. Science, as with any discipline worth its salt, should constantly be asking questions, testing its theories and welcoming diversity of opinion. And where better to have these debates than within the classrooms of a university?
2. The science/religion debate. The documentary pulls back the curtain on this boxing ring, and it’s bloody. Can they coexist in the same room? It’s a classic controversy and an interesting one to ponder. National Public Radio’s “Fresh Air” has a great pair of interviews exploring this topic: one with atheist Richard Dawkins, author of the best-selling book, The God Delusion, the other with scientist Francis Collins, head of the National Human Genome Research Project.
3. Though I dislike political labels, I found it interesting to see what many would characterize as a more conservative, right-leaning viewpoint expressed through the medium of documentary, which has typically been the artistic domain of those described as more liberal and left-leaning in their politics (Michael Moore’s “Sicko” and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” are recent examples). A well-done documentary is incredibly powerful in its ability to convey fact or spin in a way that engages eyes, ears and brain.
No surprise that the movie has generated lots o’ comments, including plenty from an incensed Dawkins. It’s worth asking why this issue stirs people so deeply.
“Expelled” is showing at Prime 11 Cinemas in Anderson and at Movies 8 in Redding.
Yes, this issue stirs me deeply, so apologies in advance for my verbosity. In addition to ranting, I’ll provide a bit of background and some links — hope they work.
For an objective analysis of the “science” in Expelled, you might find this Scientific American article enlightening. Aside from issues of plagiarism, inaccuracies, dishonest interviewing techniques and falsified scenes, I also found the film’s specious conflation of Darwinism with the Holocaust to be extremely offensive, and wondered about your take on that, since you didn’t mention it in your post.
I’m puzzled by this: “If no one has come up with definitive evidence as to how life began, then don’t we have to stay open to all possibilities, even if that includes an unseen, divine being?” Evolutionary theory doesn’t attempt to answer the question of the origin of life on earth. It has nothing to do with atheism or belief. Instead, it deals solely with the development of life on earth.
In countless ID books and websites, I read this same straw-man logic (“Evolution can’t explain creation; therefore, God must have been involved, and ID should be taught!”). But by the same thinking, I could say, just as legitimately, “Since no one has come up with definitive evidence on how life began, we must stay open to all possibilities, including my belief that a glowing pink trilobite created the universe. And we should give it equal study time at universities, and make sure that this alternate theory is taught in the elementary schools as well, to preserve our right to free speech and open-mindedness from the earliest years.”
ID may have more adherents than Glowing Pink Trilobitism, but the two theories share the same objective evidence: zilch.
Regarding your suggestion that “science test its theories,” that’s exactly what science does. But it can’t test the “theory” of ID because ID is not a scientific theory; it’s religion masquerading as science. Indeed, it’s the primary tool of a political/religious movement that was concocted specifically to discredit evolutionary theory — all because Christian fundamentalists view evolution as a major threat to their worldview, which depends on a physical/spiritual dominance hierarchy that ascribes varying degrees of “soul” to biological life on earth.
ID was founded by Philip E. Johnson, a born-again fundamentalist law professor with no scientific background. Since evolutionary theory didn’t sync with his literal interpretation of the Bible, in 1991 Mr. Johnson wrote up his version of how it all came down: the ID “Bible,” Darwin on Trial, a own Biblical-based “debunking” of evolution. Among U.S. fundamentalists, this spawned the ID movement to drive the study of evolution out of the American educational system and ultimately substitute secular science study with Christian-based material — in the public schools and the wider public arena.
But, as opposed to religion, which bases its validity on faith — the individual’s subjective belief or conviction — in science, theory isn’t just one guy’s random idea — it must be based on rational analysis of rigorous physical evidence in the objective world.
ID has scrambled for years to come up with some semblance of this rational analysis and objective evidence, but in both criticism of evolution and in its own alternative theory, has consistently come up short – to anyone who knows the field.
Regardless of Expelled’s panoply of the standard ID specious claims of flaws in evolutionary theory, the vast majority of biologists — those folks who have extensive training in the subject and who use biology every day, see that evolution is supported by the evidence and is a solid foundation for research.
The data supporting evolutionary theory is voluminous; this brief overview brief overview> might be a good place to start.
The scientific method is simple, really: analyzing the validity of opposing points of view as supported by objective evidence. ID critiques of evolution aren’t taken seriously by the academic establishment for a simple reason that has nothing to do with suppression of free speech and everything to do with science: ID’s purported “evidence” is a sham, and its critiques of evolution are disingenous, ill-informed and subjective, simply not supported by facts in the real world.
These issues have a valid place in a university’s religious studies, psychology and political science departments, but do we really want to require a freshman Science 101 class in, say, the alternative origin philosophy of my own Glowing Pink Trilobitism, for example, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other, even more obscure religious (or antireligious) cosmologies? ID is no different than any of these — except in the number and zeal of its adherents.
It might be useful to take a step outside the U.S.’s heated religious/political powderkeg to find a rational response from a less emotionally driven realm. In June of 2007 the Council of Europe’s Committee on Culture, Science and Education issued a report, “The Dangers of Creationism in Education,” which states “Creationism in any of its forms, such as ‘intelligent design’, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.”
In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as “anti-science” and involving “blatant scientific fraud” and “intellectual deception” that “blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science” and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism.
Regarding your call for presenting alternative views in university classroom, unfortunately, higher education is not the ultimate ID target; the IDers are reaching farther back, into the playground.
For years, public school science curricula in many states (most recently, the legal battle in Kansas) has been held hostage to the ID/fundamentalist worldview, depriving many of our nation’s children the benefit of a decent science education. And with this ongoing infringement of religion upon the objective pursuit of knowledge, it’s no surprise that, compared on a competitive global standard, U.S. students’ scientific rankings are abysmal.
Closer to home, here in Redding, where textbooks offer information on evolutionary theory and a state mandate to teach it, several public-school biology teachers I know have confessed that they feel intimidated by both schools and parents into avoiding teaching the topic. They expressed frustration and even despair at the state of our country’s current science education dumbed-down by religious extremists.
In defiance of state mandate, local students can choose to opt out of studying evolution. Can you imagine this being allowed in any other subject? (“I won’t be reading Othello because I don’t believe in miscegenation.”) Intelligent design, Christian fundamentalism, and the subsequent ramifications of the ignorance and intolerance they engender, speak ominously of the disintegrating barrier between church and state, and our country’s shaky future as a member of the global community.
As we’ve seen repeated in history, when the church muscles its way into secular life, science – along with the freedom of independent thought that we Americans rightly prize — suffers. In the 21st century, as our increasingly complex and dangerous world threatens to degenerate into a faith-based battleground, can we afford to regress to superstition and stifle the very science that may help the planet survive?
Why does this stir people so deeply? Because faith is fine – within reason. But when faith — any faith — trumps rational thought, and tries to take control of the secular world (i.e., science and government) – fear, oppression and ignorance ensue.
With Christian extremists taking increasing control in the classroom, the courts and the government, we’re heading toward a new dark age — and the ID faithful are leading the way. Our children and our country deserve a brighter future.
Thanks for the post, and apologies for the length of this comment.
P.S. I DO agree with you about the voice and the eyebrows. Not so sure about the sneakers, though…