Absolutely!
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.
“Maybe, but then again, that’s not their thing, Science is.”
Science used to be “their thing,” but they are just as political as the rest of the media.
Case in point: bitching about “extras” in a movie scene. If they stuck to bitching about his misquoting Darwin, that would have been legit “Scientific complaint.
As an aside, social Darwinism is a complete mis-read of Darwin’s theory, no matter what you think of Darwin’s theory.
Social Darwinism assumes people get “better” through natural selection.
Darwin’s theory is that those who have babies are “more fit.” Cutting to the chase, the welfare moms and the polygamous freak fathers in the FLDS compound in El Dorado, Texas are “more fit” from a true biological Darwinian perspective than a brilliant doctor who cures cancer, but has one sickly child.
(Kindly don’t post to me about supporting/disputing Darwin; I don’t care about either side in the dispute. I am merely noting that Social Darwinism is a complete bastardization of biological Darwinism -— WHATEVER you think of his theory, pro- or con-).
Thanks to SciAm for the additional publicity for this film.
Even though I believe in God and also find Evolution to be the most compelling theory for speciation, I think Stein is right that certain elements of our educational (and especially our media) elite are acting in an unscientific manner when dealing with the question of intelligent design.
I think the Darwinists could save some time and cut and paste their rants against Ann Coulter. Same shit, different day.
"The truth is found when men are free to pursue it." FDR
Got that right.
Wouldn’t be funny if it wasn’t true.
Bitching? I think pointing out the Moore-ish tactics of the movie is fair game. I understand that this film is something of a comedy, and not strictly a documentary. Fine, but then so are Michael Moores films, and I took him to task for the same thing. We ought to be consistent, otherwise we'll end up acting like Liberals.
I agree with you about Social Darwinism.
None of these six “points” has any validity in criticizing the movie. The leftist “scientists” are really reaching to trash Stein.
Think of it as a public service to their readership. Some of them might otherwise wander into the movie thinking that it was about science.
Let you know soon as I’ve seen it. BTW, have YOU seen it? If not, you certainly cannot discuss in a logical manner anything the magazine claims. Anyone can claim anything.
Or some might actually be educated as to what goes on at universities.
Supporting Ben Stein is equated to supporting HRC? Why don't you just Godwin the thread and say I support Hitler by supporting Stein.
Thank you, and it wasn't really.
Many of us who believe in God do not do so “to get through our day” as you say. We believe because we are led to believe. I imagine that there are some who say they believe in order to comfort themselves in some manner, and others who say they believe in order to fit in with those they wish to associate with.
The bolded statement is my exact problem with organized religion. I'll let you read into that what you like, but I don't like people telling me what I can and can't believe. Give me the facts and I'll decide what's right and wrong. My experience with people who are religious not because of tradition (their parents and their grandparents etc.) but because something tripped in their lives (drug or alcohol abuse, other personal events) is that they are dogmatic to the point of being illogical and irrational about their belief. Those ARE the people who have chosen religion to "get through their day."
But I venture to say that MOST of those who believe in God do so out of a sense of internal logic, personal experience and/or a true, abiding faith totally independent of any comfort or relief that the belief may provide.
My personal experience with many (definitely not all, but many) religious people is that the belief in God gives them a way to explain away the unknown. I don't want to invoke imaginary all-powerful beings to explain the unknown. I want to know the underlying mechanisms. I want to explore and probe the unknown. A belief in God (as creator anyway) would hinder that goal rather than help me towards it.
My next statements may be construed by some as a fear of religion, but let me set you straight, I'm not afraid of it, I just know (perhaps too much) about it. I have done a non-trivial amount of study of the major religions. I don't consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination. But what i do know is that I don't want to be part of any of them, and I don't want to be forced to be part of any of them (RoP clause). Religion, much like government, is about control over a population. Many people are controlled by fear. That's a normal, healthy response. In this case it is fear of the unknown. I think that one major reason there is a clash between religion and science is not so much that they want to destroy eachother, but that they have competing goals. Science wants to explain the unknown, while religion already has explained it and now wants to consider the matter closed. That's not good enough for most scientists. We became scientists for the sole purpose of furthering knowledge. Not only our own, but also the collective knowledge bank of society.
In short, true faith is not something one merely elects to have (or pretend to have). For those who do not believe and who say so, I respect that and I respect the honesty of it. Because I believe, however, I hope and pray (yes, pray) that non-believers will be open to receiving the gift of faith if that gift should find its way to their doorstep.
You view your faith as a gift, that is your prerogative. I view it as a way of explaining away things that you don't want to bother yourself thinking about. Luckily for us, there are still some that want to know. That being said, if God were to show himself tomorrow and provide proof that he created the universe, I'd be the first one in line to subscribe to his recollection of events. But until that point, I'm going to keep searching.
I suspect they already know.
Who says I have “faith in the secular”?
Ah, but that is the point.
Gobul warming is helping the rise in gas and energy prices, never mind the rise in food costs. ( Have you seen the charts for rice? Yikes) Their policies are harming every day people.
Creationists, however aren’t causing economic harm at all.
The gobul warming crowd is alot more dangerous and unscientific than the God fearing people ever will be. I just don’t know why the evo’s don’t see that.
Did Scientific American do the same for “An Inconvenient Truth?”
Did some wander into that movie thinking that it was about science?
If they did not, they are biased. Period. They are NOT interested in science at all.
O’Doyle Rules!
1. The "selective" quoting of Darwin still illustrates the effect of Darwinian thinking on modern man. Perhaps Darwin tried to dress up his untestable theory of macro-evolution by insisting the elimination of the weak would be "evil". But that doesn't mean his analysis of sympathy as a mere "instinct" is subject to re-interpretation by his subsquent followers.
It is absurd to think that the work of Darwin did anything but encourage those who wanted to eliminate the "weaker races" of humankind.
2. A scene of a crowd in the film was cast? What a shock--filmmakers engage in creating a scene in an auditorium and put a crowd in the building. This is a far, far cry from Hitlery putting planted questions in her town meetings. Pretty weak.
3. Were Dawkins, etc. presenting their views in the film? If so, who cares what the name of the film was going to be? Perhaps the producers of the film can throw some light on how the name/subject of the film changed. But unless the guys being interviewed weren't speaking their minds, I hardly think this matters very much. By the way, how often are liberal interviewers taken to task when they sabotage their subjects--in a much more blatant way than Ben Stein supposedly did.
4. Wow, SA is being pretty lazy here. In 2005, the Wall Street Journal carried a piece about this--and Mr. Sternberg's status at the Smithsonian is clear. What is ALSO clear in the WSJ is that Sternberg was being punished for his views--
The fact that legit scientists are being attacked for daring to question evolution is, as I understand it, the theme of the film. Can anyone deny that?
5. This "revelation" really isn't a revelation--it merely is an apologetic for the scientific establishment.
I'd like to see disprovable, experimental examples of macro-evolution by random chance. Faith in that kind of explanation for the diversity of life is supposed to be tenable than those of us who think ID is reasonable? Ha.
6. The last argument is perhaps the most specious. "Thousands believe in it, so it must be so." Really? What an interesting, scientific take. ;-)
These thoughts are all pretty much off the top of my head, but I did read the article with interest. SA has failed to persuade me the producers of Expelled are being dishonest.
I look forward to seeing the movie, and I look forward to an honest vigourous debate between the best educated people who hold opinions on both sides. :)
A very interesting couple of related works I've seen, just in case anyone is interested:
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.
