I had a rare opportunity to actually go to a movie this weekend, so I thought I'd go see Expelled No Intelligence Allowed. I know it will be a point of contention, so I thought perhaps I'd offer a rare movie review.
I think the movie isn't what people expect ... on either side of the aisle. I also think that people will come away from the movie with whatever their initial bias and expectation is going in. If you are a Creationist or a staunch Intelligent Design type, you'll likely come away having heard an argument in favor of your view. If you are a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian Evolutionist, you'll likely come away having heard arguments against Darwinian Evolution. I have to say that I didn't come away with that at all.
The movie is Ben Stein's brain child that approaches the question, "Why can't we discuss Intelligent Design in academia?" It is, therefore, Ben Stein's approach. If you're familiar with his dry humor, you'll see this movie riddled with it. He starts by laying out the cases of people in the world of academia who suffered consequences for expressing ideas regarding Intelligent Design. The movie travels through his reasonable set of questions. What's the problem? (We are not being allowed to discuss the theory of Intelligent Design.) Is the problem really that bad? (Yes.) Should we forbid the argument? Are there reasons to question Darwinian Evolution? So, what do you want?
On the minus side, I think Stein's pointed humor gets in the way at times. For instance, when he tells of the plight of one professor who was told she would be disciplined for mentioning Intelligent Design, the video cuts to a black and white film of a guillotine. Humor. I get it. But is this kind of hyperbole really necessary? There are constant cuts back and forth between old film clips and current content. Some of it is helpful. Some of it is not. When a certain perspective is expressed and the video cuts to a Hitler or a Berlin Wall, it's not helpful. It's intended, as I say, for humor, but when an argument resorts to demeaning those on the other side, it's not helpful.
But there is far more on the plus side. For the most part, Stein lays out the discussion rationally and without emotion. He allows for discussion against whatever view he might purport. He examines the issues and the evidence on both sides. And, in the end, he frankly isn't trying to prove a point. Did you read that? Do it again. He isn't trying to prove Intelligent Design. Nor is he trying to disprove Darwinian Evolution. The movie asks for one thing. The movie draws a parallel between the Berlin Wall and the divide in academia between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. It decries the fact that academia puts a wall up, preventing the discussion. Using the Berlin Wall as an example, Ben Stein simply asks, "Academia, tear down this wall."
I would like to see the questions asked. I would like to see the dialog open up. I'd like to see academic freedom really occur. That's what Stein is asking for. But I'm pretty sure that Darwinian Evolutionists will argue against Ben Stein (not the question at hand) and Creationists will argue for Ben Stein (not the question at hand) and movement will be negligible.
If you are a person hoping for an argument against Darwin, don't see this movie. It's not there. Unfortunately, many of you will see it and come away thinking it said something it didn't. You'll end up in a red herring argument that will take away from the movie's intent. If you are a person who despises Christians, Creationists, or anyone who disagrees with Darwin, don't see this movie. While the movie's only point is to ask "Can we ask questions?", you'll certainly come away angry that it is attacking your favorite bastion (Darwinian Evolution) and clearly panders to the Christians. (The fact that Ben Stein is not a Christian is irrelevant. The fact that it simply points out that there are reasons to ask questions about Darwinian Evolution is beside the point.) You'll end up arguing against things the movie never intended to argue. But if you're willing to see the movie for what it is, a call to allow for academic freedom, then perhaps you'll enjoy it. I did.
15 comments:
Sounds like you had a similar reaction to the movie after all. In my review I wrote--The line in the movie that stuck with me was its purpose, "to make it apparent to the world that a wall exists".
But I do think he goes very far in explaining why ID is making such headway so fast. The scientists are clearly not crackpots. Evolution does not answer the question of origins in any way that would be considered satisfactory in any other field of study.
Excellent review, Stanley. Thank you. I do believe I'll go see the movie when time permits. I guess that's the key... sigh.
"The scientists are clearly not crackpots."
How would you know? They actually aren't even trying to do science, so they should not be called scientists.
"Evolution does not answer the question of origins in any way"
Correct. Evolution is "life changes over time" and is not concerned with "origins". So what? There is an Earth. There is life here. It obviously has evolved.
Another open-minded inquirer heard from. Thanks for that. Let's see if I followed your logic.
1. "People who are convinced that life on Earth was designed by a higher intelligence are not involved in science."
2. "We can prove that life on Earth evolved because life is on Earth."
Scintillating logic. Completely circular, but ...
"1. People who are convinced that life on Earth was designed by a higher intelligence are not involved in science."
True. Such people cannot actually propose any scientific research based on their opinion and so they cannot be productively involved in science by doing anything based on this opinion. But they certainly could be productive using the normal scientific method.
"2. We can prove that life on Earth evolved because life is on Earth."
Your reading comprehension failed, so your silly strawman interpretation is idiotic.
Okay, let's see, here was your argument: "There is an Earth. There is life here. It obviously has evolved." What, in that argument, is an argument? What does it say? What does it prove?
But I suspect it would be wise not to continue this. It's too easy to degenerate into name calling instead of actual conversation. What's the good of that? (I don't think that I can convince you you might be wrong by calling you stupid. Do you think it might work on me?)
"What, in that argument, is an argument?"
It seems quite clear that life on this Earth 1 billion years ago was much more primitive than it is now. So obviously life has evolved.
If you want real scientific evidence, then Google "talk origins" and a thousand other articles. And tiktaalik.
The Theory of Evolution has been explaining the "tree of life" for 150+ years. There has never been any convincing evidence against it. And DNA from a T Rex contains some similarities to chicken DNA!
So it's as good as the theory of gravity, the electromagnetic theory, and the nuclear theories. And that's why it's taught as a "fact" in high schools, universities, etc.
Merely curious here, but is it your standard, default position to assume that anyone who isn't in full agreement with you on, say, the Theory of Evolution is presumably stupid?
The fact that things change is indisputable. We call that evolution. The argument that one species becomes a different species is disputable. We call that Evolution. I've seen the Discovery Channel's computer-generated accounts of life in the Jurassic period (as an example) and I asked of them as I do of anyone else, "How do you know?" How do they know what life was actually like? Science is arguing, "They had scales" and "No, they had feathers!" and no one has been there to actually observe what life was like. Science makes assertions as if they are fact with no actual means of proving them, and people who like the theory accept them as unquestionable facts.
It is the fundamental practice of Evolutionary Science to summarily dismiss any questioning of the evidence for the Theory of Evolution. That shouldn't be a surprise. It has always been the fundamental practice of whatever is in power to dismiss that which questions its power. Despite your assertion that "There has never been any convincing evidence against it," there remains a pile of reasons to question the theory that Evolution created all life on this planet. And despite your earlier assertion that "Evolution is not concerned with origins", the very fact that you send me to a website called "Talk origins" denies this claim. It is all about origins, and you already admitted that Evolution doesn't give us origins. But I suppose that can be summarily dismissed as well.
"stupid?"
Of course not. There are other possibilities. "Rich and famous" (like Ken Ham and his multi-million dollar creationist "museum" or the "fellows" of the Discovery Institute) is a possibility. "Don't care one way or the other" is another. Of course the 50% of the US population that unthinkingly thinks that evolution is wrong is simply ignorant.
"to summarily dismiss any questioning of the evidence for the Theory of Evolution"
Of course not. But when the same creationist "evidence" against evolution is refuted 12 times per year times 20 years, it's pretty convenient to put all of the refutations on a single web site.
"there remains a pile of reasons to question the theory that Evolution created all life on this planet"
You are using the words "Evolution" and "created all life" in the same sentence. "Created all life" is appropriate for "abiogenesis", not evolution. If there are in fact a "pile of reasons" (name one), they are religious, not scientific.
"a website called "Talk origins""
If you read that web site, you would be informed that the name is a historical accident. There is, in fact, not much at all on that web site about "abiogenesis". It is 98% about evolution.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Let's see ... I have options now. I'm not necessarily stupid. I could be "rich and famous" (although I don't have much money and no one knows who I am), apathetic, or ignorant. Much better. You understand that painting those who disagree with you in such an uncharitable way will not go very far in promoting a friendly dialog with the possibility of convincing them that they may be wrong.
The Theory of Evolution is, at its core, an inquiry into origins. Mirriam Webster's dictionary says it is a theory about animals and plants whose origins are in pre-existing types. Berkley.edu explains, "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor." PBS has a nice little item on "The Origins of Humankind" that shows where people came from. The title of Darwin's book was On The Origin of the Species. It would seem that just about everyone but you agrees that the Theory of Evolution is about origins.
Interesting that you have determined that there are no objections to Evolution except religious ones. That would suggest that religious viewpoints ought to be discarded and only atheist viewpoints allowed. Gives credence to those who object "Evolution is, by its nature, a religious viewpoint in that it necessarily discards religion." But there are still non-religious objections. There is the fact that almost all evolutionists have discarded Darwinian evolution in favor of other forms because, well, there were ... problems. Like, where are all those missing links? So they have other ideas, like "punctuated equilibrium" and the like. There are the baffling origins of creatures like the giraffe and the elephant that science ties to completely unbelievable sources like deer and whales. Really? Deer and whales gave us giraffes and elephants? There are the problems with the observed affects of mutation versus the perceived affects. Evolution argues that the changes were mutations, but in our observation mutation is never a good thing. Intelligent Design is rejected because it is unfalsifiable, but how would one go about falsifying Evolution? Then there are the sheer numbers. What are the chances that unguided, random events would give us an orderly universe with finely tuned organisms to populate it? Others have multiple times raised the problems of "irreducible complexity" only to have them ridiculed (rather than examined). There is no rational explanation for the evolution of the eye or the circulatory system or ... lots of complex systems. "Survival of the fittest" itself is problematic because the fittest creature on the planet happens to be what is presumed to be the first creature, single-celled organisms. The more complex they become, the more fragile they are. Why evolve at all? And how does Evolution explain humanity with its reasoning capacities, its morality, its music and art, its complex language and all those other things that separate humans from the rest of the Animal Kingdom? And, of course, science is still baffled by the Cambrian Explosion. And that's just a quick sampling. None of it is based on religion. They are rational, scientific questions.
It is argued, either directly or indirectly, by atheists and Evolutionists that the arguments against Evolution are a product of an ulterior motive. Prove Evolution and prove No God. So theists fight it. It's simply not true. When scientists with no theistic leanings come to the conclusion (as many have) that there are insurmountable problems with the theory of evolution and jettison it on their own, it is ignored. When scientists with religious beliefs find problems and jettison the theory on their own, it is ignored. But the truth is that atheists and Evolutionists have the same biases and ulterior motives. Bring down Evolution now and it would be devastating to both.
Look, you're already decided on the matter and are already decided that disagreement with your view is stupid ... at best. I don't expect answers to the objections I've listed any more than I expect a friendly dialog from someone who summarily dismisses religious people because they're religious. I don't anticipate that anything I've written here will change your thinking. You shouldn't anticipate that I'll post any more comments on the topic. I prefer friendly dialog and this isn't one of them. I haven't defended Creationism or Intelligent Design. You have assaulted them and those who might believe in them. That's not friendly. So I'll just bid you farewell here.
onein6billion,
I told you not to expect me to post any more comments from you. Since you admit that it cannot be friendly, I think you'll also admit that there is sufficient reason not to continue. I would recommend you re-read my post on Expelled here. I did say that it won't be of much use to those arguing against Darwin and I did say that it won't be of any value to you -- to those who hate Christians, Creationists, or anyone who disagrees with Darwin.
You have nothing but disdain for Christians, the belief in Creation, and anyone who argues that there may be reasons to question Evolution. Fine. I think you got that across. End of discussion.
"But if you're willing to see the movie for what it is, a call to allow for academic freedom, then perhaps you'll enjoy it."
But, of course, that's stupid. So-called "intelligent design" is not and cannot ever be science. So there's no "academic freedom" to teach religious nonsense as science.
This is definitely the end, but you made a point I need to clarify. I said "academic freedom". You said, "Intelligent Design is not science." Contrary to popular belief, science is not the only field of academia. Intelligent Design may not be a scientific field, but teachers of philosophy and other fields are equally open to dismissal in academia for broaching the subject. That is not academic freedom. When we end up in a world where science argues outright, "There must not be academic freedom," then science has overstepped its bounds and freedom is lost. This is not a good thing.
"but teachers of philosophy and other fields are equally open to dismissal in academia for broaching the subject."
I think that this is also a lie.
It is, of course, mandatory that you believe that I'm lying because it would damage your perspective that academia is fair and open-minded and Christians are not. Since I personally know a college professor of philosophy who has been fired 4 times for broaching the subject of ID in his classes on philosophy, logic, and ethics, I know it's not a lie. But ... you keep telling yourself that it is.
Post a Comment