Show me the Science (On Ben Stein's "Expelled")

National Review ^ | May 2, 2008 | Jim Manzi

[curiosity]

Expelled seems to me to be the right-wing analog of Fahrenheit 9/11...An effort to take a preexisting belief about the illegitimate use of power, find some facts to fit to it, and do the rest of the work with insinuation and innuendo...

...But the obvious question for ID proponents is never asked: OK, this great science is being suppressed, so please show me the data, lab notebooks, scientific work papers, unpublished manuscripts, and so on that contain all of these amazing discoveries that nobody will confront. But we never see it...

...One argument the movie makes, without any support that I noticed, is that almost none of this exists because research today takes a lot of money, and ID-based research can’t get funded...O.K...[l]et’s at least see the grant proposals. Sorry, you see, there are all of these scientists out there who would do such theoretical work and write such grant proposals, but they’re afraid to do so because their careers would be ruined.

...How do we know they exist? Well, one of interview subjects in Expelled tells us that after three or four beers at a conference, evolutionists will tell you that there are so many problems with the evolutionary paradigm that it is doomed. Of course, if we were to ask any of them to confirm and defend such statements, they would refuse because they are intimidated. So, as with most such conspiracy theories, both examples of the apparent visible operation of the conspiracy and the absence of such examples count as evidence for it. You know, in science there is a term for such theories: non-falsifiable.

[curiosity]

Manzi tears appart Stein's propaganda piece quite nicely. I'd also add one thing.

There's plenty of money to fund ID research. The Discovery Institute has hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal, and its "fellows" have yet to produce a single scientific discovery relating to Intelligent Design.

There's a simple reason the IDiots can't show us any science: they don't actually do any scientific research. Instead of writing scientific papers, they focus on Op-Eds and propaganda films. That's why "Big Science" won't give them a hearing, and justifiably so.

[Coyoteman]

Trying to wish away valid scientific findings because you believe that they imperil religious or ethical beliefs is a fool’s errand on many levels.

It is also deliberately ignoring a mountain of evidence because it's inconvenient. That's certainly not a conservative trait.

[blasater1960]

It only took you three sentences to go ad hominem. I’d say that Ben is right on target.

[Caramelgal]

From Wikipedia:

The institute does not provide details about its backers, out of "harassment" fears according to Chapman.[20] A review of tax documents on guidestar.org,[90] a Web site that collects data on foundations, showed grants and gifts totaling $4.1 million in 2003, the most recent year available. This is in contrast to $1.4 million in 1997, the oldest year available. The records show financial support from 22 foundations, at least two-thirds of which state explicitly religious missions. The Discovery Institute's CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, has reported much of the institute's money comes from such wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservatives like Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," as well as the MacLellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture."[91] Ahmanson, who now sits on the Discovery Institute board, had pledged in 2001 $2.8 million to the institute through 2003.[92] Most Discovery Institute donors have also contributed significantly to the Bush campaign.[81][20][55] The Discovery Institute denies allegations that its intelligent design agenda is religious, and downplays the religious source of much of its funding. In an interview of Stephen C. Meyer when ABC News' asked about the Discovery Institute's many evangelical Christian donors the institute's public relations representative stopped the interview saying "I don't think we want to go down that path."[52]

[SandyInSeattle]

I don’t think we’ll ever prove one way or another evolution or intelligence design or any other THEORY that comes our way.

I’d just be happy if both THEORIES are taught as possibilities for the origin of earth and mankind, rather than evolution being presented as FACT to the exclusion of all other explanations.

I doubt that’ll happen any time soon.

[gusopol3]

Of course, it would be just as hard to convince them to publish a paper that was premised on the phlogiston theory

since Lamarck is already making a comeback , maybe someone exhibiting as little knowledge about the ferment in genetics as this writer shouldn't bet against phlogiston either.

[Colinsky]

As long as you allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory to be taught, too, I’ll go along with you.

[Skywalk]

But intelligent design really only means one thing, whereas the actual concept of intelligent design could also leave the possibility open that life on Earth was designed by a mad scientist alien, an omnipotent and amoral entity interested in unpredictability or a magical unicorn from another dimension.

You also seem to misunderstand the meaning of ‘theory’ when used in science. It certainly does not mean ‘conjecture’ or ‘hypothesis.’

[The Right Stuff]

I have seen the movie and I think these articles are missing the point. Stein’s point is that the evolutionists refuse to consider any evidence that does not point to a rigid adherence of Darwinian theory. I minored in anthropology and I can tell you that several textbook examples that were given as gospel Darwinian proof have been totally disproven. Yet, I’ll bet you a dollar that those same examples are in textbooks today.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

I would encourage you to watch this video, about half way down this page: RC Sproul interviewing Ben Stein.
http://www.a1m.org/index.php

[Coyoteman]

In an interview of Stephen C. Meyer when ABC News' asked about the Discovery Institute's many evangelical Christian donors the institute's public relations representative stopped the interview saying "I don't think we want to go down that path."

According to the Wedge Strategy,

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

...

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

That sure sounds like science, doesn't it. [/sarcasm]

And they actually think they are fooling people with this charade.

[gusopol3]

didn’t read the article, didya? This is a defense of Pope Benedict, has nothing to do with science one way or the other.

[SandyInSeattle]

I completely understand the word “theory”.

[JLS]

That is my view. People with a bit more sophisticated view of science than one encounters here know that often no single theory fits all the data.

In such cases you have competing theories. So in this case we have the ID theory competing with the random probability theory or the origin of life. Natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with proving either theory.

Perhaps science has nothing to say about the origin of life. Certainly the random accident theory believer have not produced a single experiement result either. Perhaps if the evolutionist would SHUT UP about their unproven religious belief about random chance and life and quit black listing scientist who do not share their religious beliefs about random chance, this whole issue would go away.

[Coyoteman]

I don’t think we’ll ever prove one way or another evolution or intelligence design or any other THEORY that comes our way.

I’d just be happy if both THEORIES are taught as possibilities for the origin of earth and mankind, rather than evolution being presented as FACT to the exclusion of all other explanations.

You have so many errors I can't help but point some of them out:

• Theories in science are never proved. They are supported or falsified, but never proved. (They do not grow up to become laws either.)

• Intelligent Design is not a theory. The term "theory" is well defined in science, and ID does not qualify under the definition. A theory is not an idea, a conjecture, or a guess; to be a theory an hypothesis must have been rigorously tested, must pass those tests, and must have made accurate predictions.

• Teaching "both theories" is not possible because in science there is only one theory covering the development of species. ID is not a theory, nor does it cover the development of species.

• The theory of evolution does not cover the origin of the earth or the origin of life. There are several competing hypotheses covering the origin of life, but the theory of evolution works just fine with any of them.

• Within science, the theory of evolution is as close to "fact" as any other theory we have. Here is a definition of "theory" as used in science:

  Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

  From another source: A theory is "a scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory." [Source]

What you are really asking for is to have one particular religion taught in public schools side by side with science.

[jwalsh07]

There's a simple reason the IDiots can't show us any science: they don't actually do any scientific research.

You don't look good in a brown shirt curiosity. There are plenty of scientists who do not dismiss design out of hand who do scientific research.

So you're lying.

Any particular reason why you find lies advance your view?

[Non-Sequitur]

As long as you allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory to be taught, too, I’ll go along with you.

Let the congregation say, "RAH-men."

[Recovering_Democrat]

There's a simple reason the IDiots....

:) Ah, it only took, what, three paragraphs for an ad hominem attack.

No big whoop. The quest to expose the empty claims of Darwinism continues, and no matter what Manzi or the others say, it won't be stopped.

[Non-Sequitur]

I have seen the movie and I think these articles are missing the point. Stein’s point is that the evolutionists refuse to consider any evidence that does not point to a rigid adherence of Darwinian theory.

If ID provided some evidence to support their claims then perhaps science would take them seriously. But ID tries to poke holes in evolution and expect to be accepted as the only other alternative. That is not science.

[SandyInSeattle]

What you are really asking for is to have one particular religion taught in public schools side by side with science.

No.

I'd like information to be taught, and let students draw their own conclusions. If not that, then at least teach evolution and random chance as "possible" explanations, and encourage the students to seek truth on their own, wherever it may lead them.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I said the same thing. :)

Terribly frightened of debate, aren't they?

[Recovering_Democrat]

Yeah, Ben dealt with that “objection” in the film, too, I believe.

[Coyoteman]

Terribly frightened of debate, aren't they?

No. The scientific debate has been ongoing for 150 years or more. The overall theory is pretty well established; it is the finer details that are now being discovered and debated.

The debate is conducted in journals like these (very partial list):

American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics

[windsorknot]

I have observed that ID opponents respond viscerally to ID proponents. It goes beyond intellectual or scientific objections.

[curiosity]

Stein’s point is that the evolutionists refuse to consider any evidence that does not point to a rigid adherence of Darwinian theory.

Actually, that's exactly the point the author of this article is addressing: there is no such evidence.

[WVKayaker]

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Scientific Religious belief does not constitute religious scientific evidence, nor does it convey religious scientific knowledge. Sounds just the same, different aspect. Of course, you can't be proven wrong... You have a theory!

[Szent_Adam_Kiraly]

Its real simple. ID is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophical or theological idea. If you want ID to become a theory, I would suggest allocating more resource to research in that field. Until there is empirical data to support ID all this publicity is putting the cart before the horse.

In my opinion ID is a thinly veiled attempt to teach religion as science.

[jwalsh07]

But ID tries to poke holes in evolution and expect to be accepted as the only other alternative. That is not science.

Incorrect.

Poking holes in theories is exactly how science progresses.

Science regresses when artificial limits are placed on the search for knowledge. Limiting the search for how life began on planet Gaia to natural processes occurring on Gaia may make the materialists happy but it also may keep the solution out of bounds.

Why would one do that?

[curiosity]

There are plenty of scientists who do not dismiss design out of hand who do scientific research.

Name one scientist who does ID research. Just one.

And no, scientists, like Michael Behe, who are pro-ID but do research in other areas don't count. I'm talking about actual scientific reseach on ID.

[jas3]

I'd like information to be taught, and let students draw their own conclusions. If not that, then at least teach evolution and random chance as "possible" explanations, and encourage the students to seek truth on their own, wherever it may lead them.

So how do you determine which of the creation stories you want taught? There are thousands of them, thus the line about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If Intelligent Design is "information", then so is Roman Mythology. Neither belong in a science class.

jas3

[curiosity]

Here's what I don't get: what do they do with all that money? Seriously, you'd think with all that money they'd be able to fund just one scientific study into ID research. What do they spend it on instead?

[jwalsh07]

Its real simple. ID is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophical or theological idea.

While I agree that ID is not a scientific theory, intelligent design is a mechanism for changing allele frequencies in populations. That's a fact, not a theory btw.

If you want ID to become a theory, I would suggest allocating more resource to research in that field. Until there is empirical data to support ID all this publicity is putting the cart before the horse.

I'm not an ID'ist, I'm a Catholic, a Genesis 1:1 kind of guy. I don't have a problem with evolutionary theory though I do question the power of some of the mechanism, like natural selection for one.

In my opinion ID is a thinly veiled attempt to teach religion as science.

If ID is religion, the those who practice it outside the classroom are protected by the 1st Amendment. You agree?

[jwalsh07]

Perhaps you should learn to write more clearly curiosity. I won’t quote your words back at you unless you insist.

[SandyInSeattle]

There is plenty of scientific evidence that supports design.

[curiosity]

Perhaps I should write more clearly, but what I wrote originally is beside the point.

Are you admitting that no one has has produced any scientific research on ID despite the millions of dollars the Discovery Institute takes in every year?

[curiosity]

There is plenty of scientific evidence that supports design.

Where?

[Amendment10]

...But the obvious question for ID proponents is never asked: OK, this great science is being suppressed, so please show me the data, lab notebooks, scientific work papers, unpublished manuscripts, and so on that contain all of these amazing discoveries that nobody will confront. But we never see it...

The problem with the ID critique above is that macroevolution ideas are no more a scientifically verified science than ID is. After all, the scientific-method based experimentation that would be needed to verify the claim by evolution "scientists" that single-cell organisms evolved into humans over the course of billions of years, for example, would likewise take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility. And then there's the "minor" problem of repeating such time-consuming experiments to verify outcome.

Also, the problem with evolution-verifying experiments that were said to simulate billions of years of evolution is that they backfired by showing that harmful mutations were a major obstacle to so-called evolution processes.

The bottom line concerning ID is that the accusation by evolutionists that pro-ID factions have not coughed up the experimental data to substantiate ID ideas is just another example of the pot calling the kettle black.

The truth of the matter concerning today's unlawful stifling of religious free speech in public schools is that the seeds for today's evolution versus creationism feuding, for example, got sewn when constitutional flunky FDR and the USSC scandalously politically repealed the 10th A. protected powers of the states in order for FDR to establish his constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs. Corrupt USSC justices then continued to use FDR's "license" to ignore the 10th A. to further weaken traditional family values every time that they got the opportunity to decide religion-related state-power cases.

This post (<-click) provides more details as to how corrupt justices began using FDR's "license" to ignore 10th A. protected state powers to eventually stifle traditional family values. The USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion and today's suppression of ID discussion in public school classrooms are examples of this corruption.

The bottom line is that the people need to reconnect with the Founder's intentions for the division of federal and government state powers. The people then need to get in the faces of the feds, demanding that the feds start respecting the Constitution that they have sworn to defend, particularly where wrongly ignored 10th A. protected state powers are concerned. This not only includes allowing religion-related discussions in public schools while respecting people's 14th A. protections, but also putting a stop to all constitutionally unauthorized federal spending while appropriately lowering federal taxes.

[jwalsh07]

What do I win if I give you some peer reviewed papers by the evil ID'ists?

WHile you're thinking about that think about this.

The term Galactic Habitable Zone was coined by Guillermo Gonzalez and his co-author in 1991. Now search Galactic Habitable Zone on Wikipedia.

Notice that neither Gonzalez nor his co-author are mentioned? That is what Ben Stein's thesis is. Gonzalez' name doesn't even appear in a Wikipedia entry describing soemthing that he coined the named for.

Why do you suppose that is curosity?

[SandyInSeattle]

Do some research. It’s out there.

You could start with Chuch Missler’s study on the creation week of Genesis, which is 99% science. Explore for yourself the science that he presents, and decide whether or not it has validity.

There’s also “In Six Days”, a book by 50 scientists of various disciplines who support the creation theory. Two minor examples; I’m sure in this age of internet information you can find tons more.

{This post will now be followed by numerous posts denouncing anything Missler has to say as uninformed and ignorant, dismissing the book as nonsense, and calling me an idiot.}

[dr_lew]

Perhaps science has nothing to say about the origin of life. Certainly the random accident theory believer have not produced a single experiement result either. Perhaps if the evolutionist would SHUT UP about their unproven religious belief about random chance and life and quit black listing scientist who do not share their religious beliefs about random chance, this whole issue would go away.

Does the theory of ID confine itself to the origin of the first prokaryotic living cells? ( You seem to imply this. ) If not, what else? How many different supernatural interventions does it advocate?

[SandyInSeattle]

Chuch = Chuck. Sheesh.

[curiosity]

What do I win if I give you some peer reviewed papers by the evil ID'ists?

Nothing, because it's not a mystery that a few ID proponents have published peer-reviewed studies on topics unrelated to ID.

What I want is a scientific working paper, it doesn't even have to be peer reviewed, that conducts some scientific research into the ID question. Specifically, I want to see someone doing some experiment, or gathering some evidence, that tests an ID-related hypothesis. That's it.

[gusopol3]

If Intelligent Design is "information", then so is Roman Mythology. Neither belong in a science class.

then apparently, much of what has been taught in Bio I (really the only place that any of this counts for anything at all) hasn't belonged there either. Take the "central tenet" one gene>> one protein, overturned 20 years ago by reverse transcriptase. And every Bio I student who was marked off on their final for answereing "T" instead of "F" to the question "acquired characteristics can be transmitted from one generation to the next," should now be hammering at the door of their Bio I prof.

[Xa Shue]

It is not true as you and some others have posted here that there is no scientific research to support ID. In point of fact, there is a mountain of such research. All scientific research conducted, and all scientific discoveries made prior to the theory invented by Darwin, were made by scientist who accepted the truth of ID. The only reason to support Darwinism today, as it has been so easily shown to be severely flawed as a scientific theory or even as a good guess, is do to the politics of destroying any faith in God. All Darwinian scientist start with the a priori belief that there is no God. That, by any definition is dogma, not scientific inquiry.

[SatinDoll]

Religion and science are not the same things.

Religion is about having faith and recognizing truth. “I believe because I have faith that my beliefs are true.” For example, one believes that a miracle occurred - even though that miracle cannot be duplicated over and over again. Faith, belief and truth - all are intrinsic to religion.

Science is about proof. for example, scientists require that an experiment proving a physics theorem be duplicated over and over again with exact (or nearly) exact results. Once that proof exists, it stands until disproved. There is little in the way of faith, belief or truth in science except for one: the Law of Gravity. That one definiely exists!

Religion is about truth.

Science is about proof.

They are exclusive of each other, like ying/yang, light/dark, and pretty much explain the spiritual/material aspects of our universe. To try and mix them is explosive and a vast waste of time.

[GlennD]

Coyoteman,
Haven't discussed with you for 6 or 8 months. How are you?

I watched Stein's flick and enjoyed it.

I'm just coming in to add my ideas, which you are well aware of, in that evolution is no more science that the ID stuff. We've been through this before. I realize you think it's important that all those “science” magazines are arguing “evolutionary details,” but as you know they are all operating completely out of their fields. This whole idea is metaphysics or religion, if you will, not science.

You posted a reference to a definition of a theory. By that definition, evolution is not a valid theory.

“From another source: A theory is “a scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.” [Source]

It's not a “...a scientifically testable general principle...”

Last time we conversed, I mentioned that this is philosophy, and not what the evolutionists are trained in. You said you doubted that philosophy was a science, and certainly not theology. I had written a quite long note to dispute that, and lost my connection just before sending, and never got back to it. Philosophy is for sure, a science, and indeed, the basis of what is now called science. Theology is also, though slightly different

Since we last talked, I've been reading as you suggested, and I've been leaning more toward evolution and big-bang stuff being fairy tales for adults. I have to thank you for forcing me to read more on this stuff.

As for you comment a couple post down, you say you assume they (the ID folks) want one religion taught in schools. That's the case right now with evolution. It's not science, but a body of beliefs propped up by unprovable propositions, coddled together to make a seemless garment of stuff that sounds like science, but is really philosophy, of which none of the philosophers are trained in the field of philosophy.

I realize you are a scientist, but so am I. Logic requires one to reason. I assume, from Stein's flick, and the consequent disavowal of free will, that logic is also in question. That's just my take on it. If we are all chemical reactions, we really do not have the wherewithal to actually claim any truth.

It's a nice religion, for some folks. Not me.-Glenn

[eeevil conservative]

exactly— show me the science...

Ben just let the fools talk and expose themselves on the truth...

THEY DON’T KNOW where life began— but they are hostile and intolerent to even the discussion that it may be GOD!

THAT is the point...

[curiosity]

The term Galactic Habitable Zone was coined by Guillermo Gonzalez and his co-author in 1991. Now search Galactic Habitable Zone on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia? LOL! You've got to be kidding me. FYI, Wikipedia is in no way representative of what goes into scientific journals.

Now if you found some paper on the Galactic Habitable Zone published in a scientific journal that fails to cite Gonzalez, then you might have a point. I seriously doubt you'll find such a paper, however. But feel free to search for it.

[Coyoteman]

Specifically, I want to see someone doing some experiment, or gathering some evidence, that tests an ID-related hypothesis. That's it.

The closest I can think of is the RATE Project designed to show that the decay constant was not a constant and that radiometric dating was unreliable, this opening the door for a young earth.

After spending over a million dollars on research, the creationist scientists produced data that supported mainstream science, but because it disagreed with their religious beliefs they refused to accept their own data!

See Assessing the RATE Project.

[Szent_Adam_Kiraly]

“Intelligent design is a mechanism for changing allele frequencies in populations. That’s a fact, not a theory”

Are you talking about agriculture/livestock selective breeding? If so, I would hardly say that falls under the “ID” idea.

” If ID is religion, the those who practice it outside the classroom are protected by the 1st Amendment. You agree?”

Of course I agree. In fact I would go so far as to say ID and other creation ideas could have a place in the classroom (in a theology or philosophy class for example).