Interview: 'Big Science' in America is Killing 1st Amendment, Says Ben Stein

Intelligent design theory, or ID, is opening new doors of scientific research, particularly in cancer and other disease research, according to its adherents, but a new movie, "Expelled" starring Ben Stein explores how an "elitist scientific establishment" is apparently muzzling and smearing scientists who publicly discuss ID.

The First Amendment is under brutal attack in the scientific community, Ben Stein, a former presidential speechwriter-turned-actor and commentator, says in the film, which opens in theaters on Feb. 12.

"I always assumed scientists were free to ask any question, pursue any line of inquiry without fear or reprisal," he says. "But recently, I've been alarmed to discover that this is not the case."

In an exclusive interview with Cybercast News Service - with audio clips below - Stein contends that rigid Darwinists are silencing their critics in academia, which the film explores, and discusses how ID ideas are helping in cancer research and similar work.

Yet the ID research that could potentially produce medical breakthroughs, says Stein, is also being undermined by Darwinian scientists who don't want ID research viewed as legitimate.

Cybercast News Service: Is this controversy about science versus religion, or is this more science versus science? Simply, is this about scientists with different worldviews -with one group more willing to open themselves up to alternative explanations than others - as the film suggests?

Ben Stein: Well, first of all, I question your premise. It's not just scientists versus scientists. It is a particular subset of science which does not admit any kind of questions - it is a kind of perversion of science, which doesn't allow for any kind of questioning of itself. Science should always be in the business of attempting to disprove itself. Neo-Darwinian science is exactly in the opposite business of endlessly trying to rationalize itself - and reprove itself, you might say - reprove that it's right without any kind of test. So it's not scientists - it's really, I would say, scientists are the ones willing to look into intelligent design. The people who are anti-science are the ones unwilling to look at anything new or different. So I'd say it's a perverted kind of science versus what I would call a more classical science. But it is also science versus at least the possibility of belief.

Cybercast News Service: There is a fair amount of discussion of creationism and how it might relate to intelligent design, and there are a lot of critics who say this is just folks with religious convictions trying to use intelligent design as a Trojan horse to advance a form of creationism. ... What sort of separation do you see or perhaps don't see between creationism, on the one hand, and intelligent design? Do you have your own definition of intelligent design, and is it distinct and different from creationism?

Ben Stein: Well, I would say it's creationism by someone. For me, I've always believed that there was a God. I've always believed that God created the heavens and earth - so, for me it's not a huge leap from there to intelligent design. I think for some of the people who work on intelligent design, they're not as long-time believers as I am. So, I would answer that question, in brief, by saying, I believe in God and God created the heavens and the earth and all the life on the earth. But what other people, who are intelligent design people, think, I could not characterize. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: There is a segment in the film, where it's made clear that intelligent design can open up new areas of inquiry that could improve the human condition. One involves a neurosurgeon, Michael Egnor, and another scientist, Jon Wells, who indicate that given how the cells are put together, with eye toward intelligent design, and with the idea that animal cells have tiny turbines - or if viewed as tiny turbines - he was able to formulate a theory that said in the event these things malfunction and don't properly shut down and could break apart, this is the first step on the way to cancer. He seemed to be suggesting that intelligent design theory could open up a lot of possibilities into improving the human condition. He doesn't explicitly say 'a cure for cancer,' but at least providing additional insight into new areas of treatment or a better understanding of how cancer is formed. What is your reaction to that part of the film? What sort of potential is attached to research going forward?

Ben Stein: Well, I think, I wouldn't say, if you say intelligent design is the answer and we're all created by an intelligent designer - that does not by itself provide the cure to cancer or any other disease or does not provide any ideas about how to deal with a stroke or with the heart hammering blood into the brain. But I would say, if you accept a broader, an even broader premise than intelligent design, namely, don't foreclose anything in your study of the human body and of the cell, then you are a lot more likely to get somewhere. I'd put it like that. I don't think saying intelligent design just automatically gets you anywhere. (Listen to Audio)

Ben Stein: But I think if you say we are going to study everything, and we are not going to let anyone close down our rights of inquiry, then I think we are getting somewhere. But also, there is this big issue about RNA and DNA, and whether RNA and DNA can respond to changes in the world around them. I think we say it can respond to changes in the world around them and that neo-Darwinians say it can only do that by random chance - it only happens by random chance. We say the cell may have the possibility of doing itself in an intelligent way that there may be some intelligence in the cell itself so that's probably a big difference between the two of us. We, on this side, think at least there's a possibility. We believe there's some possibility the cell could have an intelligence of its own. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: The film spends a fair amount of time on the complexity of the cell and makes the point that no one at the time, including Darwin himself - no one could have anticipated that level of complexity ...

Cybercast News Service: In what way did the film have any influence or change in your thinking and how it relates to intelligent design or scientific inquiry?

Ben Stein: Oh, when I first started working on this, I had no remote clue of how complicated the cell was, and I was believer just because I'd always been a believer and the idea that an intelligent being created the universe. But after working with these scientists and interviewing them and learning about how complex the cell was and how unlikely the proposition was that it all happened by random chance, then I was just overwhelmed by this data. And I was just overwhelmed by the fact, at least as I am told, that Darwinists have never observed natural species being originated ... There's not even a clear definition of what a species is - and the Darwinists have no theory whatsoever about the origin of life, none whatsoever, except the most hazy, the kind of preposterous, New Age hypothesis. And I think our theory that there is a creator strikes even some people, even Dawkins very possibly, as more likely than it all happened by total chance.

Cybercast News Service: Mr. Dawkins describes the proponents of ID as being ignorant. They don't buy into the scientific consensus - a lot of arguments made that there is a rock solid consensus in favor of evolution to explain biology. What is your reaction to this notion of consensus, and how does this complicate the journey for scientist or academics open to the idea?

Ben Stein: It doesn't complicate it at all because Dawkins, at least in my opinion, is completely wrong, and we produced a number of people who are bona fide scientists who clearly believe there is a possibility of intelligent design. So, his idea that there is a complete rock solid consensus is completely wrong. I mean, God bless him, he's obviously an intelligent guy, but it's obviously wrong. The people we produced weren't actors pretending to be scientists - they were scientists. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: Why do you think the very idea or suggestion of intelligent design is so antagonistic to scientists who claim they have evidence? Why not have the debate? If they are so confident, why not have debate?

Ben Stein: That's a deep question. That's a sociological, psychological and ethical question. One, if they are Darwinists and they owe their jobs to being Darwinists, they are not going to challenge the orthodoxy because that would challenge the whole basis of their jobs and their lives. So they are not going to challenge the ideology that has given them lush positions in real life. That's one thing. Second thing, once people are locked into a way of thinking, they are unlikely to change. Third is, if they acknowledge the possibility of intelligent design and that intelligent design is God, then they may think God has moral expectations of them and they may be falling short of those moral expectations, and they may be worried about some sort of judgment upon them. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: The film starts with you giving a presentation about American freedom, and when you get near the end of the film there's a Polish official - I believe a member of the EU Parliament - who said there's actually more freedom and latitude in Poland than here in the United States to explore these questions, and he blames it on political correctness. Mr. Stein how did we get to this point? ... If there's more latitude for scientific inquiry overseas in a recently released communist country than there is in the United States of America?

Ben Stein: That is a very, very, very good question. How did we get here? I don't know. How did we get to this point in Hollywood? There's (sic) only certain attitudes allowed about military, religion, or small towns or about business? I don't know how we got to this, this kind of orthodoxy. I think there is this kind of Marxist establishment in this country that has been overthrown in other countries, but not overthrown here. There is a very powerful Marxist establishment within the intelligentsia that does not allow questioning of its premises. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: What do you think needs to happen in academia? What suggestions or prescriptions do you think will come out of the film?

Ben Stein: We want more freedom. I just spoke to some young people in Orlando. And I said, this to us - at least to me, I don't know what it is to other people in the film - is a bit like the Civil Rights movement. You want to have freedom, where our goal is freedom. We want freedom. We want all our rights, not some of them, all our rights to free speech. We want them here in America, and we want them now. That's what we want; we're not going to get it. But we hope to open the door wider to some serious debate on these issues. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: The point is made that journalists have a tendency to embrace the establishment position ...

Ben Stein: If the establishment position is the sort of left-wing establishment position. They are certainly not going to embrace the Republican establishment position. (Listen to Audio)

Cybercast News Service: This reminds me of the global warming debate. The Union of Concerned Scientists, exactly one year ago, put out a report on Exxon Mobil for their position on global warming, and in their report they say too often journalists' inclination to provide political balance leads to inaccurate reporting - and that members of the media should not quote ExxonMobil officials or anybody who questions the scientific consensus.

Ben Stein: Yes, that is precisely the analogy. Very well done. I totally agree. There are still plenty of scientists who question fossil fuels' role in global warming, but you're not allowed to question that anymore.

” [emphasis added]

Although he shortly afterwards refers to ‘the myriad species of Creation’, it is clear that he accepted the reality of evolution.”

Futile attempts to discredit a great scientist - one whose work has saved countless lives. You might as well say “quotation made up” as well. This is the kind of lying, disingenuous nonsense that evolutionists try to pull. Defend your fable at all cost even if you have to rewrite history, assassinate a person’s character and outright lie so that truth (i.e the evolutionist version of it) can prevail against creationist heresies.

“He was, it must be said, opposed to the philosophical vogue of radical materialism in France, from which the spontaneous generation debate sprang, but he was hardly a model believer.”

What is that supposed to mean or prove? My theology allows for Pasteur to not have lived as sinless as Christ and still be a believer. In fact, I go to church with a man who believes in an ancient earth and claims it fully harmonizes with the Bible. Don’t try to run off down a rabbit trail exploring the nuances of a person’s doctrinal, political or moral views as the basis for choosing sides. The person in question could be the Devil himself, but if he performed a science experiment which tested a hypothesis which was formulated with respect to a belief, and the test succeeded, it substantiates the point at hand.

Let me reiterate. The example of Pasteur illustrates how faith can be part of science. In particular, his faith guided his hypothesis formulation and selection, as a person’s philosophy ALWAYS does. He specifically rejected the philosophical opinion that the empirical nature of scientific testing necessitates a materialistic world view.

Your obscure quote has not been found in any of the journals you mention. It is unclear whether he actually said it. If he said it, he did not say it in English as this would be a translation. And if he had said it in English, the terminology used here would be misleading as the concept of evolution would not mean the same thing as the context in which we use the term. The context of the statement is also absent. You could probably find something like this in my posts here on Free Republic. For all I know, he could have said something of this nature meaning that, sarcastically, if life on earth existed for millions of years and evolved every possible variant of virus during this time, why did one not arise that killed all the people?

What is clear from his own writings is that he rejected the spontaneous generation first because of his religious views, He proceeded to support his views with evidence.

” that Pasteur repeatedly ignored positive results in experiments, claiming that they were due to error rather than spontaneous generation; in fact only 10% of his experiments gave his desired result. “

Of course. You cannot disprove what is not falsifiable in the first place. How convenient to ignore this trivial point. Is the author you quote suggesting he should have given up after the first failed attempt and conceded that spontaneous generation does indeed occur? Maybe Edison should have abandoned the light bulb idea that was so silly.

Publishing trash like this only makes your side of the argument look foolish. I am embarrassed for you quite frankly.

“It also seems you are guilty, in a much more egregious manner than modern science, of extrapolating evidence well beyond what the context warrants.”

The only thing I am guilty of here is challenging nonsensical statements and a nonsensical dogma.

The same “positive results” that should have made Pasteur admit spontaneous generation exists are of the same anecdotal evidence that you are trying to convince me and others supports the spontaneous generation of new genetic information.

I find your arguments unconvincing.

“It seems your arrogance is unwarranted as well.”

Arrogance is not a Christian virtue. It is a sin. I am not trying to be offensive or rude. Please take into consideration that people of different persuasions take similar offense to some of the claims that evolution proponents make.

As a student of science AND the Bible I submit to the possibility of my being proved wrong.

But I think I can back up my original point fairly well. Pasteur happens to be an excellent example.

I appreciate your taking the time for a thoughtful and detailed response. If you are like me, it is not always easy to find the time to engage in meaningful dialog on a debate that sometimes seems endless and futile. Hopefully, even if we cannot arrive at consensus, it does lead to more accurate understanding of one another’s views.

And perhaps we can find some common political ground when it comes to supporting conservatism, whatever is left of it these days.

“Pastor’s contribution to the death of the slowly dying theory was a cleaver mechanism “

On this point I think we agree except that it should be clarified that spontaneous generation never really qualified as a theory. It never had a test that falsified it. It falls into the realm of unsubstantiated fact. That is, it could have represented observable data but it has never been demonstrated.

So, Pasteur and others did not really disprove it, they just demonstrated that it was not necessary to explain other observations and phenomena.

“I presume your ‘spontaneous information generation’ suggestion is referring to Dembski’s recent claim to have discovered a new ‘law’.”

Unfortunately, even though I support and share the views of creationism and maybe to a lesser extent ID, I am not well versed in any popular writings. So I am unfamiliar with this claim. The several science books that I have found time to read over the last few years (none of which was last year) were not directed toward supporting any particular philosophic or religious (or anti religious) viewpoint.

It is a personal interest of mine to learn how things work, as well as learning about science, epistemology, philosophy, and matters of faith.

In the past I spent some time engaged in these debates on Free Republic but found they were too time consuming for my busy schedule and had to withdraw my participation. More recently I have been coming back to this forum for political news, but find myself sucked into these old debates.

People on both (or various) sides seem to espouse the same arguments and seem to be making little if any progress in convincing anyone else to see things differently. So we are back to square one.

Regarding, the alleged Dembski’s law. If, as you described, I would have to concur that this is not how a law is established.

But you were not following my earlier point. My point is that, from the standpoint of genetic information, evolution carries the burden of proof, not to disprove some so-called law of information, but to show that the spontaneous generation of information can either be observed, or that a theoretical model of such can be tested (i.e. is falsifiable). My opinion is that, like spontaneous generation of organisms is not falsifiable, neither is spontaneous generation of genetic information. Therefore, for this position to be scientific, it is necessary to observe it empirically (not just as a theoretical model because it cannot be theoretical if it is not falsifiable).

“Even if there were a law of conservation of information, it would not necessarily invalidate evolution.”

Agreed.

“Information is transferred from the environment to organisms by natural selection and other processes.”

That doesn’t work. Natural selection occurs. It is a mechanism for the evolution of species as well as diversification and variation. For example, some earlier feline could be the predecessor of domestic cats as well as lions and tigers. (From a biblical creationist’s view, God could have made one “kind” of cat, or many.)

However, natural selection cannot be used as the explanatory mechanism of its own working. Natural selection can explain speciation. It can also help explain extinction. It cannot explain change from complex to more complex, or vice versa. By way of analogy, the law of universal gravitation explains the motion of planets, but it does not explain gravity; it only describes it. (Newton was perplexed by the action-at-a-distance issue which he was unable to account for.) Other theories are necessary to explain gravity.

So natural selection does not address the fundamental issue of WHY the evolutionary model shows lower life forms becoming increasingly diverse and complex over time. It may answer how they could. But why are higher life forms more fit than earlier life forms? To use natural selection as THE answer, is why creationists such as myself view it as a tautology.

I did try to read most of the reference you cited. I found it to be well-written overall. However, I have to take exception with this statement: “Since the decisions of intelligent agents
are supposedly not reducible to chance and natural law, it follows that these decisions are
irrational, in the sense of being inexplicable through rational processes.” Nonsequitor. And a couple other rules of logic and debate are broken in this one statement as well. But overall, a pretty good case against a treatise with which, again, I am unfamiliar. But it makes no difference really as I am not basing my position on this ID author.

What mechanism is responsible for increasing complexity of life forms over time? Natural selection is not the answer, it is the question.

I want to return the compliment for responding thoughtfully and earnestly. Scanning through some of your last 10-15 post, you consistently strived to be level headed.

I agree that economic and social conservatives should be able to align against the economic and social corruption of our mutual opposition. We can both get most of what we want by delaying if not totally avoiding pounding on each other.

Neither of us are scientists or philosophers, but we both are drawn here seeking greater understanding. Perhaps you are like me and learn best by teaching or defending what you believe.

Is our difference of opinion whether evolution or ID should be thought in science? I think before we can understand our differences, we need to roughly agree on what constitutes a a scientific theory, evolutionary theory and intelligent design. From there, we sould be able to agree on where they should be taught, in the hard sciences or the “soft sciences”.

I’m just not sure where to begin… I think Wikipedia’s presentation of The defining characteristic of a theory is as good as any. They also have an interesting comparison of evolutionary theory and facts to gravitational theory and facts. Although I see now that you don’t fully support ID, you may find DesignOrigin’s FAQs starting with #3 to be an interesting definition of ID that goes on to describe why it’s not a science. Wikipedia’s Objections to Evolution responds to several including unfalsifiability, tautology and information creation that you’ve mentioned. Maybe we could discuss just one of those,... or any other one specific objection.

Although I don’t believe in Creationism, I have no argument with those who do. I think perfectly reasonable people can believe in ID or Creationism. My only quarrel is when they attempt to claim either of the two belong in science classes or when they misrepresent either science or evolutionary theory to claim that it doesn’t.

I’m not sure what part of evolution you say need a “why” explanation. Why do organisms reproduce? Why do variations occur? Why does one variation lead itself to a survivability advantage? If it’s the latter, Talk Origins responds in more detail regarding evolutions supposed tautology.

>I did try to read most of the reference you cited. I found it to be well-written overall. However, I have to take exception with this statement: “Since the decisions of intelligent agents are supposedly not reducible to chance and natural law, it follows that these decisions are irrational, in the sense of being inexplicable through rational processes.” Nonsequitor.

I agree, and think the author made a big presumption beyond evolution theory. Although evolution is not fundamentally a random process, it does not predict the elimination chance.

“ What mechanism is responsible for increasing complexity of life forms over time? Natural selection is not the answer, it is the question”

I more or less agree. Evolution doesn’t predict it.

“Perhaps you are like me and learn best by teaching or defending what you believe.”

Yes. I read a challenge a few days ago which I have already shared with a few people as it made a deep impact on me. The suggestion was to begin keeping a journal which stood out to me because I had just decided to begin keeping one for certain areas of interest. The statement was that “you do not know what you are thinking until you first write it down”. I think that idea is simple but profound.

“comparison of evolutionary theory and facts to gravitational theory and facts.”

I read the linked pages you provided. I found some useful and objective. And some things were not. Half of this article was accurate in distinguishing between fact and theory. But then it proceeded to contradict itself by giving examples in the opposite. The most egregious violation is to claim man and modern apes descending from common ancestors to be a fact. That is a point of debate. But it really bothers me that otherwise levelheaded people would alter their own definition of science in such a reactionary fashion. It is one thing to claim this is a well-supported aspect of biological evolution (which I do not buy). It is ridiculous to the point of absurdity to call this a scientific fact.

I thought the ID criticism is the most fair evolution proponent response to the issue of materialism.

Similar to your perspective on creationism and ID, I do not have a quarrel with a materialist on a scientific level, only on a philosophical level. As long as a materialist recognizes that materialism is a philosophy and not science, we can get along. Those who see this will recognize the right of people of faith to participate in scientific inquiry. It makes sense to them that Pasteur could base a hypothesis on his biblical faith with the condition that it be tested empirically just like any other hypothesis.

“My only quarrel is when they attempt to claim either of the two belong in science classes or when they misrepresent either science or evolutionary theory to claim that it doesn’t.”

This is the most difficult issue to resolve. My perspective as a conservative is for limited government (especially federal) and parental rights. Ideally, in the open marketplace of ideas, everyone could be persuaded by logic to adopt a conservative perspective. Likewise, if most Americans held basically the same beliefs, public education could be successful. I think its success is greatly hampered by competing ideologies. At this time, I would favor privatizing public education the same way colleges are, and even doing away with compulsory education. I prefer it to be encouraged by tax incentives and that no one need go without education due to financial reasons. I believe this approach would resolve the conflict of ideologies. But it wont happen, sadly.

Meanwhile, we can strive to make for a peaceful coexistence by avoiding vitriolic exchanges even when where there is passionate disagreement. It’s not always easy to do, but thanks for the exchange. I, like you, find myself too busy to spend much time in these discussions.

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.