= 
Posted on 04/17/2008 10:54:25 AM PDT by Boxen
...about intelligent design and evolution
In the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, narrator Ben Stein poses as a "rebel" willing to stand up to the scientific establishment in defense of freedom and honest, open discussion of controversial ideas like intelligent design (ID). But Expelled has some problems of its own with honest, open presentations of the facts about evolution, ID—and with its own agenda. Here are a few examples—add your own with a comment, and we may add it to another draft of this story. For our complete coverage, see "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed—Scientific American's Take.
1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust. When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics):
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in italics):
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes.
2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup. Viewers of Expelled might think that Ben Stein has been giving speeches on college campuses and at other public venues in support of ID and against "big science." But if he has, the producers did not include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein receives accordingly.
3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie. As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.
When exactly did Crossroads become Expelled? The producers have said that the shift in the film's title and message occurred after the interviews with the scientists, as the accumulating evidence gradually persuaded them that ID believers were oppressed. Yet as blogger Wesley Elsberry discovered when he searched domain registrations, the producers registered the URL "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007—more than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the scientists were interviewed. The producers never registered the URL "crossroadsthemovie.com". Those facts raise doubt that Crossroads was still the working title for the movie when the scientists were interviewed.
4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there. One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment.
This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that are awkward for the movie's case, however. Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it. Sternberg had always been planning to step down as the journal's editor—the issue in which he published the paper was already scheduled to be his last.
The report prepared by Rep. Souder, who had previously expressed pro-ID views, was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record. Notwithstanding the report's conclusions, its appendix contains copies of e-mails and other documents in which Sternberg's superiors and others specifically argued against penalizing him for his ID views. (More detailed descriptions of the Sternberg case can be found on Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars and on Wikipedia.)
5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism. Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference.
Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated.
By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed."
A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science.
6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution. Expelled includes many clips of scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine and PZ Myers who are also well known as atheists. They talk about how their knowledge of science confirms their convictions and how in some cases science led them to atheism. And indeed, surveys do indicate that atheism is more common among scientists than in the general population.
Nevertheless, the film is wrong to imply that understanding of evolution inevitably or necessarily leads to a rejection of religious belief. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, a leading neuroscientist who used to be a Dominican priest, continues to be a devout Catholic, as does the evolutionary biologist Ken Miller of Brown University. Thousands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true are also still religious. Moreover, billions of other people around the world simultaneously accept evolution and keep faith with their religion. The late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was compatible with Roman Catholicism as an explanation for mankind's physical origins.
During Scientific American's post-screening conversation with Expelled associate producer Mark Mathis, we asked him why Ken Miller was not included in the film. Mathis explained that his presence would have "confused" viewers. But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film's major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God.
Inside and outside the scientific community, people will no doubt continue to debate rationalism and religion and disagree about who has the better part of that argument. Evidence from evolution will probably remain at most a small part of that conflict, however.
You have proven you have absolutely no idea what the Theory of Evolution states, none at all. It HAS, I repeat HAS TO BE ABSENT ANY GOD OR ANY GUIDING AT ALL. Even the evolutionistas in the film didn't deny this. You hold to just the most ridiculous ID argument, i.e. “that it's ID, but the mechanism is evolution or natural selection.
What is horrifying is that even evolutions proponents don't have any grasp of just how ridiculous the damned thing is, or that it's bereft of any fossil evidence for it's claims.
The theory of evolution has absolutely no place for God, you are holding to a really bastardized version of nothingness, it’s the biggest cop out of all. The true evolutionist has no room for anything like “theistic evolution”, the very term itself implies ignorance of either argument.
I don’t mind correcting ignorance, God knows I’ve needed some correcting, but lose the attitude if you want this to be a discussion.
Talk Origins is as far as I know the premiere site in defense of evolution. This is from their Evolution and Creationism FAQ page,
Q3: Does evolution contradict creationism:
"There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did. (emphasis mine)Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists. "
No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.In other words, the theory of evolution is agnostic as to the first origins of life, operates under the assumption that there is no divine intervention (ID), but does not claim to be incompatible with it. Abiogenesis, not evolution, is the study of how life may have developed without God’s intervention, and even then, Abiogenesis does not necessarily deny the existence of God or his roll behind creation.There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.
I can't speak to your movie, but if you think it contradicted this, you should reconsider your interpretation of it or your trust in it. What I've given you is straight from the source. Still don't believe it, google up another evo site online. There must be hundreds.
PS, loose the attitude.
Well said...
Well said indeed.
You're not alone. Logic and intellectual honesty seems to disappear out the window for many otherwise sensible people when this is the topic.
Your argument and accusation of 'ignorance' contradicts both sides of this issue, including leading scientists who believe in theistic evolution such as Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome project) as well as Christian leaders and apologists such as Pope John Paul II and CS Lewis- both of whom viewed evolution as the path God used for creation. Of course, for all I know, your opinion is based on the fact that you are theologically versed more than the Pope and CS Lewis, and you are more scientifically versed than Dr. Collins. If, however, you are not, then maybe you should check where the 'ignorance' is coming from and stop trying to make God in your image. We in the church have done that far too often and the arrogance of many a layperson claiming to understand the mechanisms that God uses in the universe is no less arrogant than the atheist claiming to understand the power of God's spirit on our hearts.
ping 206
=
>>But the question he asks the “dude” professor in his television commercial for this movie is, frankly, silly: asking the professor how he explains life’s origin—and thereby implying that if no answer is immediately forthcoming from science, none ever will be—is mere sophistry.<<
I have not seen the movie, but to me, that line in the commercial could mean more than what you stated. Remember that the professor had just asserted that different forms of life are explained by “unguided” and “undesigned” processes. I believe that none of us, including scientists, is smart enough to know the answer to Ben’s question, and some apologists for science are too arrogant. Science has some useful and impressive accomplishments, but it has limitations.
Have you considered the possibility that when humans try to understand life through human science, their understanding is like a worm’s understanding of humans?
I have not seen the movie, but to me, that line in the commercial could mean more than what you stated. Remember that the professor had just asserted that different forms of life are explained by “unguided” and “undesigned” processes. I believe that none of us, including scientists, is smart enough to know the answer to Ben’s question, and some apologists for science are too arrogant. Science has some useful and impressive accomplishments, but it has limitations.
I don't think it's about our being smart enough to answer Stein's question, but rather about our having enough information at the present time to answer it. As for the limitations of science, they no doubt exist, but where they lie precisely with respect to any specific empirical question cannot be determined a priori; we have to keep working, continue moving towards seeing what it is we can know and what it is we can't know.
Have you considered the possibility that when humans try to understand life through human science, their understanding is like a worm’s understanding of humans?
No, not really. Living things are part of the furniture of the physical world; there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to continue to expand our knowledge of them indefinitely, or until we decide we've learned all there is to learn about them (and who knows whether that day will ever come?).
>>I don’t think it’s about our being smart enough to answer Stein’s question<<
I do.
>>Living things are part of the furniture of the physical world<<
No, there is a big difference between life and the physical world, although living beings do have a connection with the physical world. I guess if you can’t understand that, that explains why you underestimate Ben’s question.
I want science to learn all it can about everything (as long as it does it without abusing living things), but science needs a super-sized dose of humility WRT life.
No, there is a big difference between life and the physical world, although living beings do have a connection with the physical world. I guess if you can’t understand that, that explains why you underestimate Ben’s question.
If I am understanding you as you seek to be understood, you are claiming that I am wrong in saying that living things are part of the furniture of the physical world, and you are further claiming to know that there is a big difference between life and the physical world. How do you know that? What is the source of that 'knowledge'? Is it scientific knowledge? Apparently not. Does it come from some sort of 'higher intution'? If so, where is the supporting evidence for it? And if you have no supporting evidence for it, why should we believe it?
>>If I am understanding you as you seek to be understood, you are claiming that I am wrong in saying that living things are part of the furniture of the physical world, and you are further claiming to know that there is a big difference between life and the physical world. How do you know that? What is the source of that ‘knowledge’? Is it scientific knowledge? Apparently not.<<
I say that my belief is no more “unscientific” than your belief that science will eventually understand life and death. My “supporting evidence” is simply that humans have always tried to answer the question of what life is, and the only progress they have made is to acquire the skills needed to tinker with the physical sciences.
If I understand what your belief is, you see no difference between living and nonliving things, you and I are merely physical objects in your religion of materialism. If that is the case, I think we may have reached a “parting of the minds,” rather than a meeting, here.
But then if living things are “furniture” then, for example, a murderer is guilty of no worse than property damage.
Dostoevski said, “Without God, everything is permitted”. And that would include the most despicable forms of abortion, cannibalism, everything. But even an atheist with a conscience could recognize that living beings are different from bricks in a fundamental way.
I say that my belief is no more “unscientific” than your belief that science will eventually understand life and death. My “supporting evidence” is simply that humans have always tried to answer the question of what life is, and the only progress they have made is to acquire the skills needed to tinker with the physical sciences.
I did not say that I believed that science will eventually understand life and death. What I said was that science is a process of seeking to understand things encountered in the physical world, and living things are among those things (my use of the word 'furniture' is metaphorical, of course). Unless you're prepared to deny that living things are encountered in the physical world, I don't see what else there is to say about that. Now, in saying that humans have always tried to answer the question of what life is, you say something which is pretty much true. But to imply next that they've made no progress on the question is mistaken. Indeed, we are even now on the eve of witnessing the announcement that a living thing has been made from scratch in a laboratory; if we didn't understand anything about life, such an announcement would never be forthcoming.
If I understand what your belief is, you see no difference between living and nonliving things, you and I are merely physical objects in your religion of materialism. If that is the case, I think we may have reached a “parting of the minds,” rather than a meeting, here.
Viewed properly, materialism is not a religion...it's a hypothetical foundation from which one investigates the phenomena one encounters. If some phenomenon should appear that obstinately resists any reasonable materialistic interpretation, you can be sure that scientists would be quite intrigued by it and seek to understand it further. On the other hand, to those who already 'know' that materialism is false (how do they know that, by the way?), there's no need for such investigations.
But then if living things are “furniture” then, for example, a murderer is guilty of no worse than property damage.Dostoevski said, “Without God, everything is permitted”. And that would include the most despicable forms of abortion, cannibalism, everything. But even an atheist with a conscience could recognize that living beings are different from bricks in a fundamental way.
Even with the God for whom you appear to advocate, everything is permitted; or was God just looking the other way when, for example, Chairman Mao murdered 70 million of his fellow citizens (and, yes, Mao was an atheist, but what does that matter if God exists? Could not God have done something to prevent such horror?)? And how many infidels would Usama bin Laden slaughter were he able to manage it? All of them, I'd surmise, and all in the name of his lunatic deity.
No, in a world in which the deity holds his tongue, or at best only whispers in the ears of madmen, there's nothing to be gained by erecting barriers here or there to scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry is a robust thing, and the scientific method is among the greatest inventions of humankind. In the absence of science, our lives would be changed beyond recognition, and for the worse, in my view. A return to the days in which life was nasty, brutish and short is not something to be sought, in spite of what the islamists (and others of their ilk) may maintain.
Since old age has attenuated my attention-span, I'll give you the last word for now.
Best regards to you...
>>Unless you’re prepared to deny that living things are encountered in the physical world, I don’t see what else there is to say about that.<<
Well, first we assume that we live in a “physical world” rather than a virtual reality of some kind. I believe we really do live in a physical world more or less, but we may perceive it a little differently than other animals (or even some humans who are blind, deaf, or what we call “insane”). And science can correlate that our senses “make sense” because, for example, 99.99% of all people identify light with a certain wavelength as “red.”
One could build a device that would detect colors, and if that device looked like a human, could parse human language, and generate sounds that were like human speech, I might be tricked into believing it was really human. The Turing Test! I could be a machine that is programmed to post to this forum for all you know.
Deciding whether something is alive is more difficult. What is it that makes something alive? Are there a physical characteristics of my being conscious? Yes, but I think there is also something that we can’t see or measure.
You might say that whatever it is, it must be physical, because everything is physical. And yet most people in the world believe it’s not that simple. Is that because they are all superstitious or stupid and you are not? Or have you taken the easy way out? Is the real problem that some people have such arrogance that they could not accept the possibility that human beings are not the highest form of life?
Actually, I suppose that humans could evolve (with the help of “artificial” biological enhancements perhaps) into a life form with superior intelligence, awareness and perceptions, and that life form might just understand life. So I guess I would amend my assertion that we will never understand life, to say that I don’t think we will get there with the brains and senses we currently possess.
>>Indeed, we are even now on the eve of witnessing the announcement that a living thing has been made from scratch in a laboratory<<
If the experiment was successful, how could we be sure that the thing created was really alive? Could a non-living thing look like a life form, grow, reproduce, and evolve (Like the Turing Test but appearing to be a simple one celled organism)? Of course it could. I think we need more criteria than that.
>>Viewed properly, materialism is not a religion...it’s a hypothetical foundation from which one investigates the phenomena one encounters. If some phenomenon should appear that obstinately resists any reasonable materialistic interpretation, you can be sure that scientists would be quite intrigued by it and seek to understand it further. On the other hand, to those who already ‘know’ that materialism is false (how do they know that, by the way?), there’s no need for such investigations.<<
What you attribute to “those who already ‘know’ that materialism is false” could also apply to those who “know” that everything is physical. And some who believe in God seek to investigate phenomena that do not seem to be consistent with their current understanding.
>>No, in a world in which the deity holds his tongue, or at best only whispers in the ears of madmen, there’s nothing to be gained by erecting barriers here or there to scientific inquiry.<<
I don’t want to erect barriers, but I believe that science clings too closely to materialism, and does not see its own limitations.
>>Scientific inquiry is a robust thing,<<
In principle, yes it is.
>>and the scientific method is among the greatest inventions of humankind. In the absence of science, our lives would be changed beyond recognition, and for the worse, in my view. A return to the days in which life was nasty, brutish and short is not something to be sought, in spite of what the islamists (and others of their ilk) may maintain.
You got that right! But step back and look at what it really means. Science has allowed us to live longer and more healthy, but without what I consider the gift of life, that means absolutely nothing.
>>Chairman Mao murdered 70 million of his fellow citizens (and, yes, Mao was an atheist, but what does that matter if God exists? Could not God have done something to prevent such horror?)? And how many infidels would Usama bin Laden slaughter were he able to manage it? All of them, I’d surmise, and all in the name of his lunatic deity.<<
I believe in free will rather than predestination. The way I see it, there are a lot of things that God does not intervene in.
Cheers!
He must also be a "godless atheist", according to the William Jennings Bryan wing of "conservatives". After all, you CAN'T believe in evolution and be a Christian. Those millions of people who attend church weekly and whole-heartily support modern science are imaginary persons made up by the media elites.
Yes, he's a Jewish theocrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.