March 24

See Ben Stein’s Movie

Expelledthemovie.com

Ben Stein

A central component of those disputes has always been the origin of life. Intelligent design — the idea that the “irreducible complexity” of living things can’t be explained without some notion of a creator — continues to fuel struggles on the local level to control K-12 school boards. Now proponents of the controversial idea — dismissed as pseudoscience by a wide consensus of scientists — have graduated to college, and they wield a powerful new weapon: Ben Stein.

The author, actor and lawyer, a former speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford, perfected his monotone delivery in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” when he memorably induced a state of catatonia by lecturing his students about voodoo economics. ("Anyone? ... Anyone?") He used the deadpan style to similar effect in the quiz show “Win Ben Stein’s Money,” which pitted contestants against the host for a portion of his own paycheck. Now the conservative commentator is more interested in waking America up, with a documentary that seeks to challenge the “progressive orthodoxy of government-issued science in its winter of discontent.”

The movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is already generating press in advance of its April 18 release. With a widely recognizable host, an explosive topic and a self-consciously conspiratorial tone, the slickly produced documentary at least has the ingredients for success on a Michael Moore scale. While popular conceptions of academe as a haven for aloof, godless eggheads isn’t uncommon, some scholars are especially worried that the movie could make an end run around science and take a misleading message to the public. The producers retort that intelligent design, prohibited in the classroom, has rightly reappeared in the cineplex.

Or, like Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” the film could reinforce the existing beliefs of both those attracted and repelled by it. “I’d be surprised if it had much of an effect, just from what I’ve heard about it. Without having seen it, it doesn’t sound like it’s really that serious. So it may have some popular effect, but there it’s probably going to be people who are already converted to that point of view,” said Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University who studies biopolitical theory.

Stein presents the issue as having two sides. One is taught in biology class; the other is banned. “Basically, we’ve got one possibility out of two possibilities that’s taught, and it’s Darwinism and it’s taught to the exclusion of any other idea,” said Mark Mathis, a TV news reporter turned speaker who is credited in the film as an associate producer.

Last week, bloggers pounced on a different kind of exclusion at a screening of the movie in the Mall of America. “I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled!” wrote University of Minnesota Morris biologist P.Z. Myers on Pharyngula, his popular blog devoted to debunking attacks on evolution. “It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn’t even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested.”

The post’s punchline: The producers didn’t bar Myers’ companion, Richard Dawkins, one of the more prominent critics of religious belief. Like subjects of the Borat movie, both biologists were interviewed for the documentary under the auspices of a neutral film called “Crossroads.” (The producers said it was an honest title change, but the present Web site address was registered two months before the interviews took place.)

Mathis later confirmed in an e-mail that he had barred Myers from the screening. “Yes, I turned Mr. Myers away. He was not an invited guest of Premise Media. This was a private screening of an unfinished film. I could have let him in, just as I invited Michael Shermer to a screening in Nashville. Shermer is in the film as well. But, in light of Myers’ untruthful blogging about ‘Expelled’ I decided it was better to have him wait until April 18 and pay to see the film. Others, notable others, were permitted to see the film. At a private screening it’s my call.

“Unlike the Darwinist establishment, we expell no one.”

“Expelled” begins, according to a preview on the documentary’s Web site, with a montage sequence that introduces Stein’s quest to investigate scientists who have lost tenure bids or their jobs for supporting intelligent design or questioning evolution’s ability to fully explain the origins of human life. As a lone professor repeatedly scrawls “Do Not Question Darwinism” on a classroom blackboard, Stein pits the victims of evolutionary dogma against Dawkins and other atheists. As Martin Luther King Jr. addresses a crowd on screen, Stein suggests that suppressing intelligent design contradicts America’s ideals of free expression. Flashes of Nazi death camps accompany the assertion of evolution’s “dangerous” implications.

The message is clear: Our universities — plus the media, the courts and the educational establishment that support them — are suppressing vital questions about humanity’s origins, all to prop up an explanation that begins with, as Stein characterizes it, “mud animated by lightning.”

Stein ends the introduction with a monologue:

“Feel free to watch this film if you must, and I hope you do. But you’ve got to know that doing so could land you in a heap of trouble. Some of you are going to lose your friends for watching this film. Some of you may even lose your jobs. In fact, if you’re a scientist with any hope of a future, I suggest you leave right now.... Anyone else with a stake in this debate should probably leave right now as well. But if you do leave, will anyone be left to fight this battle?

“Anyone? ... Anyone?”

Debating Darwin

Without question, a number of scientists who question evolution have faced hostile colleagues, lost tenure or worse, although the specific circumstances surrounding each case have left them open to interpretation. For example, Iowa State University claimed the views of Guillermo Gonzalez were not a significant factor in denying him tenure — he did not receive any major research grants, for example, and some say he did not live up to his initial promise as a postdoctoral student — while groups supporting the professor cite disclosed e-mails among faculty criticizing his outspoken support of intelligent design. The documentary covers that case as well as the Smithsonian Institution’s alleged actions against biologist Richard von Sternberg.

“It’s hard to judge some of these cases that involve tenure because there’s always the problem of people wanting to keep the tenure deliberations confidential, so it’s always hard to judge the evidence of whether there was some unfair bias or not,” Arnhart said.

One case the documentary doesn’t cover is that of Richard Colling, a professor at Olivet Nazarene University whose book about reconciling belief in God and evolution led the Christian institution to bar him from teaching general biology.

Supporters of teaching intelligent design frame the issue as one of academic freedom, and “Expelled” is no exception. “These scientists, number one, should have the freedom to examine the evidence in ways that they feel is appropriate, and number two, most importantly, if a scientist disagrees with the establishment view, that scientist shouldn’t be excommunicated, and that’s what’s going on today,” Mathis said.

But common conceptions of academic freedom only protect material relevant to a discipline. Nearly unanimously, scientists say that intelligent design isn’t a theory at all. Unlike the theory of relativity or of gravity, intelligent design cannot produce testable hypotheses or be refined over successive experimentation. (The National Center for Science Education has created a Web site to debunk the documentary’s arguments.)

Proponents of intelligent design use “almost entirely a strategy of negative argumentation; that is, they criticize ... what they think are major gaps in the evidence or the reasoning then demand that the proponents of evolutionary theory defend themselves against this criticism,” Arnhart said. “But they don’t have much of a positive theory of their own, so they really depend upon getting into this rhetorical battle where they put their opponents on the defensive.... That’s why some then on the evolutionary theory side say, well, this isn’t science if you don’t have an alternative theory.”

Still, Arnhart and others have argued that scientists shouldn’t be as reluctant to discuss the issue in their classrooms, if only to bring it out into the open and expose the arguments to scrutiny.

“I cannot imagine teaching high school evolution sections by muzzling the students from mentioning creationism in many stripes, all based upon religion,” said William B. Provine, the Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor in evolutionary biology at Cornell University, in an e-mail. “Thus I recommend to students to raise the issues they consider important in their science classes. The teacher does not teach ID. They do and other students do respond to student comments. If you wish to have a revolution in the teaching of evolution in high schools, this is the way to do it legally, and improve the quality of the class.”

Professors have no such restrictions on what they can teach, and a similar approach could presumably be applied in college classes.

“I’ve had the experience of teaching students where we’ve talked about evolutionary theory and these kinds of debates ... and I ask them, What happens in your biology classes when this comes up? And their answer is, We keep our mouths shut,” Arnhart recounted. “That is, they are told we will not permit you to discuss this. This is not a permissible debate in this science class.”

— Andy Guess

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Andy Guess accurately quotes from his interview with me. But he doesn’t quote my recommendation that university courses in biology should allow students to discuss the debate over Darwinian evolution versus “intelligent design theory.” They can then see for themselves how shallow the “intelligent design” position is. I have set forth my proposal in an article I wrote for INSIDE HIGHER ED a few years ago—"The Fear of Teaching Darwin.”

Larry Arnhart, Professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University, at 8:20 am EDT on March 24, 2008

Ah, so the hard scientists are the dangerous liberals. As are the soft sciences. At least we know that the fine arts don’t post a threat to anyone.

Larry, at 8:25 am EDT on March 24, 2008

Ben Stein’s Involvement

Ben Stein gives anti-Semitism a good name. He is nothing more than a modern day Esau willing to sell his birthright for a bowl of stew.

Can you really expect intellectual honesty from someone who worked in the Nixon White House?

Member of the Tribe, at 8:30 am EDT on March 24, 2008

I Just Can’t Wait For The Rapture

Seriously Andy, it is difficult to imagine that this strange article could have any purpose other than (1) to fan the flames of true believers whose worldviews are so limited they must resort to faith to explain natural phenomena and (2) to frustrate scientists who live in awe that, in this day and age – and given what we already know about our universe and continue to learn about it — there are still Americans who eschew evolution in favor of “intelligent” design ... and, no, science and “religion” are not invariably mutually exclusive even though they are in this particular instance.

Ah yes, we are such an advanced species – we products of the higher education system that is imagined to be the envy of the rest of the world – that at least half of us (more than 150,000,000 of us) embrace superstition in preference to science.

The InsideHigherEd hit-rate must be waaay below average this month, else why would such an inconsequential report be “feature news.”

Frizbane Manley, at 8:45 am EDT on March 24, 2008

Can anyone say VOODOO debate?

Thank you, Larry Arnhart, for pointing out the hypocrisy in the Creationism movement about their free speech rights. Creationists argue that they aren’t allowed to speak up in a science class. Of course they are — but under the rules of scientific inquiry, not faith and dogma. If they can explain to me, in a science class, how Creationism can meet the basic standards of scientific theory — that is, tested through controlled, replicable experiments, and falsifiable — then I’m all ears. Until then, this is a political debate masquerading as an academic freedom issue, Creationism belongs in the philosophy classroom and not the science lab, and Ben Stein is full of it. But we already knew that last part.

Hoosier Prof, at 9:10 am EDT on March 24, 2008

Dawkins on Expelled

One item the article does not mention is Richard Dawkins’ allowance for ID, not from a deity but from extraterrestrials. Although such a hypothesis may not be disturbing to some, it does seem rather detrimental to the fundamentals of his evolutionary theory.

Shawn, at 9:35 am EDT on March 24, 2008

Why WOULD a discussion of religion-based concepts be a permissible debate in a science class? As someone else said, this kind of discussion belongs in a philosophy or religion class. It’s not that it’s “banned,” but that the science classroom is the place for learning science. Creationism is religion, and ID has not proven itself to be science.

Bad JuJu, at 10:10 am EDT on March 24, 2008

it’s just a movie

look folks, let’s not be too hard on Mr. Stein – after all, he is nothing more, nor less, than a paid laborer in the media entertainment industry — like the rest of us, he does what he’s paid to do.

good ole Frizbane; need to go easier on Inside Higher Ed — i read most of this last week on Prof. Myers blog and associated links/comments — i think Inside Higher Ed deserves some recognition for being somewhat ahead of the curve (mainstream media) on this one.

remember, it’s just a movie, it’s just a movie —

cheers

Joe Viscomi, at 10:10 am EDT on March 24, 2008

Voodo Debate

Hoosier Prof You mention that ‘under the rules of scientific inquiry, not faith and dogma’, ID should not be presented in the science classroom. I guess the same could be said of ’string theory’, a remarkably interesting field of strictly theoretical physics...it cannot (currently) be tested through controlled, replicable experiments’. Would you say string theory would be inadmissable in the classroom as well?By the way, I think creationism is, frankly, dumb. I agree with much of what you say.

Steve, at 10:10 am EDT on March 24, 2008

a delicacy of hypocrisy

OK, so let me get this straight. The producer of Expelled, Mark Mathis, admits in an e-mail that he had police officers remove one of the movie’s interview subjects, PZ Myers, from a screening, and threaten to arrest him if he did not promptly depart the theater.

Mathis’s conclusion? “Unlike the Darwinist establishment, we expell no one.” Thanks for clarifying that.

Really, Frizbane, must we eat spinach all the time? This is a delicious truffle of double standards. And biology instructors at many colleges in southern states know that being viewed as a running dog of Darwinism can end your career. It’s no laughing matter.

TomH, at 10:10 am EDT on March 24, 2008

Intellegent Design

Proponents of Intellegent Design complain that their philosophy should be taught as an alternative to traditional Evolution. There are two problems with this: 1. Evolution is not the only scientific theory that debunks Intellegent Design. Almost all scientific theories do. From astronomy to zenography and hundreds in between, science disavows Intellegent Design. Shall we teach Intellegent Design in Astronomy class, too? 2. Intellegent Design is not the only alternative to Evolution. How about Martianism, the belief that all living creatures came from Mars on a spaceship names ARK and piloted by NoWa. There is exactly the same amount of proof for this belief as there is for Intellegent Design, so let’s teach it in the schools, as an alternative. And what about Mama’s-Da-Bossism, the belief that my mother is the actual creator of the universe. There is exactly the same amount of proof for this belief as there is for Intellegent Design. Let’s teach that in the schools.And what about Potterism, the belief that the Harry Potter. . . oh well, you get the idea.

Rodger Mitchell, at 11:00 am EDT on March 24, 2008

what is the scientific theory of intelligent design?

Rather than constructing fanciful claims about being suppressed and censored, shouldn’t ID advocates get to work actually building and testing a scientific theory of intelligent design? They seem to have forgotten that part of the Wedge strategy.

Jim Lippard, at 11:05 am EDT on March 24, 2008

Everything else being equal

Steve,

I would agree with your argument if String Theory was a 2000 year old religious dogma, supported by the fanatical followers of the church, but of course it is not...

It is scientific theory, built on a foundation of cumulative knowledge, most of which has been tested.

Again, Perhaps scientists should organize as a religion, then they could have a “moment of science” in the classroom.

Bob, at 11:35 am EDT on March 24, 2008

TWO sides?

So “Stein presents the issue as having two sides"? Why was this vicious exclusionary bigotry against the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster not delved into further? Or perhaps Stein was referring to side dishes, that would make a lot more sense.

Reginal Selkirk, at 12:25 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Historically

Historically, any time that the scientific establishment has claimed to know all the answers about anything, from the heliocentricity of the solar system to embryonic stem cell research, they have been proven incorrect.

I am suspicious of any scientific field that doesn’t have all the answers, but claims that possibilities outside of their precise theories are automatically wrong.

kh, at 12:30 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

My Apologies InsideHigherEd

But of course, TomH, I guess I wasn’t thinking this morning when I went on that rant about superstition and science. I completely forgot that if you’re going to address “intelligent” design in these here parts, you had best put on your clown suit and get with the program.

Now that a couple of cups of coffee have put my mind straight, I thought a limerick and a haiku would constitute my restitution ...

My proof of intelligent design

Is consistent of that of Ben Stein

I know there’s a God

Who created my bod

In his image ... That’s why I’m divine

http://www.fotosearch.com/RBL008/a01484b/

I know there’s a God ... Without Him you are nothing ... But me? ... I’m Ben Stine!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4_CYVGN15E

God, do I ever love religion in America!

Frizbane Manley, at 12:30 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

An analogy to the ID’s claim of “teaching the controversy":

There are some historians that insist the Holocaust never happened. Should we teach kids in history classes both sides of that and let them come to the conclusion themselves?

Lurky, at 12:55 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Shawn said:One item the article does not mention is Richard Dawkins’ allowance for ID, not from a deity but from extraterrestrials. Although such a hypothesis may not be disturbing to some, it does seem rather detrimental to the fundamentals of his evolutionary theory.

Dawkins does admit to the possibility that life originated off this planet. However, evolutionary theory does not address the origin of life, only the diversity generated if that life reproduces with variation and is subjected to selection pressures. Whether life originated here or elsewhere has no impact on the veracity of evolutionary theory

Ray, at 12:55 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Dawkins contradicts himself?

Not really. He even goes out of his way to explain to the gentle souls and mushy brains of the faithful in his comments on the film.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

Uthgar, at 3:10 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

compatable

I think evolution and creationism are compatible and probable. Where is the contradiction?

bill dakelski, billdak, at 3:10 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

It seems there might be a genetic predisposition to believe in a Creator, as more than 90 percent of the world’s population seems to be of one mind on the the matter. If this is so, there is not much the scientific community can do to convince the world otherwise. Now, of course, there is the discourse of nature vs. nurture. If the nurturing of religious belief is predominantly to blame for the majority’s resistance to the exclusive theory of natural evolution, then we can always resort to ridicule or force if need be.

Denise, at 3:30 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Evotution

Teaching evolution by professors and academies is reasonable. Recall that evolution is only one of potentially thousands of conflicting views about how things came to be as we think they are. Animism still exists, something called the cargo cult, multiple “great spirit” views, etc.

Schools have limited resources and time gets spent on what appears to be the closest possible approach to the truth.

Perhaps tomorrow, or a thousand years from now, different explanations will come to have better justification than evolution. I doubt it, but if it should occur, then teaching can adjust to the new reality.

Marvin McConoughey, at 3:40 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Anyone hired as a scientist, who then pursues or promotes Intelligent Design as a bona fide scientific theory should be expelled.

This is not a violation of academic freedom, it is merely a rejection of scientific incompetence. Flat-earth adherents should be expelled too.

sam green, at 4:40 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Historically

kh said: “Historically, any time that the scientific establishment has claimed to know all the answers about anything, from the heliocentricity of the solar system to embryonic stem cell research, they have been proven incorrect.”

Almost right. Science proves itself incorrect, this is how it improves. Science has NEVER been proven incorrect by religion. In fact, it’s usually the religious that oppose these types of advances and improvements, as was the case with heliocentricity and embryonic stem cell research. I believe the Pope apologized to Galileo, and admitted that the Earth does revolve around the sun. This happened in 1992, a few hundred years after the rest of us figured it out.

Michael, at 4:40 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Do the advocates of Intelligent Design want me teaching atheism in a Catechism class? Tom use their argument: There are two possibilities but religion class only teach one

econmavin, at 6:20 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Ben Stein’s Movie

Wow — such biased, hate-filled, caustic comments against Ben Stein and anyone that may hold to the idea that human life, the universe, etc. have not evolved over millions of years, but by intelligent design of some sort! Go to see the movie and check out the research for yourself before offering your condescending comments.

Lois, at 6:20 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

“Historically, any time that the scientific establishment has claimed to know all the answers about anything, from the heliocentricity of the solar system to embryonic stem cell research, they have been proven incorrect.”

Any time? I would say the scientific establishment has for the past few centuries been as certain of the heliocentricity of the solar system as they have claimed to be about anything. They have not been proven incorrect on this matter. Do you expect it to happen any time soon?

sam green, at 6:20 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Love Them Probabilists

Okay bill dakelski, let’s pretend you’re right that “evolution and creationism are [both] compatible and probable”. The probability to which you refer is, I think, clearly neither theoretical (abstract) nor relative frequency (although your god surely has plenty of time on his hands for replicating experiments). So it must be subjective.

Not that they will matter to you, here are my subjective probability conjectures ...

* Pr[Darwinian evolution is consistent with “reality”] = 0.99994

* Pr[I am a direct or indirect consequence of a supernatural creator] = 0.00000031

Your turn.

Frizbane Manley, at 6:55 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Re: Member of a Tribe

“Ben Stein gives anti-semitism a good name...” Any argument you have against this creationist movie looses all integrity with such a blatant racist comment. It really makes you sound rediculous. The point of your post is less about your position on the subject of evolution than it is about voicing your hatred for Jews?

Not sure what tribe you’re from, but the majority of the American Tribe has great disdain for racism.

denise, at 8:55 pm EDT on March 24, 2008

Not Wishing To Be Part Of This Argument

Denise, your statement “Not sure what tribe you’re from, but the majority of the American Tribe has great disdain for racism” is so inconsistent with my experience, I cannot resist responding. I am inclined to accuse you of spending waaay too much time in enlightened academic institutions – where the racism is often very subtle – but I can assure you that if you really believe what you said, you need to get out into the real world a bit more often (ever hear of Katrina?).

Frankly, Denise, your statement – and especially the claim that a MAJORITY of Americans are not racist – is just so outrageous, I could post dozens of URLs taking you to sites that would surely cause you to question your “theory.” I’ll give you just one ... not necessarily the best one I happened upon, just one of the first.

http://www.vernonjohns.org/plcooney/whiterac.html

I have read your posts from time to time, so I know you are a bright woman. But I can also tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that, in this case, you are flat-out wrong. I suggest you embrace reality by spending this coming summer reading “Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-Blind Society” by Michael K. Brown, et al.; “Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States” by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva; “The Racial Contract” by Charles W. Mills; “The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality” by Thomas M. Shapiro; and “Strangers Among Us: Latino Lives in a Changing America” by Roberto Suro.

Then when you’re through with Racial Prejudice 101, get back to me and I’ll send you your next reading list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E&feature=related

Frizbane Manley, at 1:00 am EDT on March 25, 2008

Lois: “Go to see the movie and check out the research for yourself”

I’m a biologist. I’m familiar with the research. You won’t find any research in the movie. You won’t find any research being done by the proponents of ID which supports ID. The research supporting evolution is vast and overwhelming.

Here is the Discovery Institute’s list of “Peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design” (BTW, they have never actually formulated or expressed a “theory of intelligent design"):http://www.discovery.org/scripts/...ch%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

Resume padders, take note. Here you will find: Publications listed twice, once as “Featured Articles,” and again as part of a complete list A book listed, and chapters from the book listed separately. (BTW, “Let’s get together and review each other’s papers and call ourselves “peers” is not proper peer-review.) Journal articles so bad they have been disowned by the journal’s governing board. Non-peer-reviewed books. Books and articles of philosophy, not peer-reviewed scienceChristian apologetics

—-

Denise: “Not sure what tribe you’re from, but...”

I’ll clue you in Denise: “Member of the Tribe” is Jewish. Does that put his anti-Semitic comments in a new light for you?

Reginal Selkirk, at 9:35 am EDT on March 25, 2008

I find the level of discourse here very disappointing. As a Christian who personally does not believe that evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive, I would have hoped for a more enlightened, objective discussion on what is a very interesting subject that has significant scientific, cultural, and sociological implications. Instead, the long string of remarks is largely biased and full of rhetoric.

I find ID to be an interesting concept, and one that should not necessarily be discounted by intelligent thinkers. Ironically, if Ben Stein is correct that academics have been ostracized for thiking outside the box (I have not seen the movie, nor could I indepently validate his claims), this is a reprehensible indictment of the academic establishment akin to the narrow-minded thinking which obstructed Darwin’s own theory.

Certainly ID does not have the force of many years of vetting behind it that evolution does, and it is obviously very difficult, if not impossible, to prove. However, string theory likewise cannot be proved (and has many advocates whose interpretations contradict each other), and yet some of the greatest minds in the world spend their entire careers studying and developing this idea. I do not pretend to equate ID with string theory, but the point is that some ideas that may seem unorthodox or indeed be unprovable does not automatically preclude them from a legitimate discourse. The quality of this discourse will, like the “survival of the fittest” concept that goes hand-in-hand with evolution, ultimately dictate whether ID is worthy of further consideration or a fallacy.

Let us also not forget that macroevolution itself is also a theory, as the evidence for this idea, while compelling on paper, is circumstantial and cannot be proven via rigorous scientific principles the way one can experimentally demonstrate gravity or even relativity. There is no doubt that the case is at present far more substantial for evolution than intelligent design, and it is possible that this may always be so. But to derisiely shun ID seems to me an injustice to the scientific process more than insult to intelligent design.

JBG, at 5:05 am EDT on March 26, 2008

The problem with ID is not that it can’t be proved, it’s that it can’t be falsified, or (equivalently) that it is borne of myth, and not of observation. These criticisms do not apply to string theory or evolution, and in my view, do justify ostracizing its advocates by the scientific establishment.

sam green, at 8:50 am EDT on March 26, 2008

Enlightened already, thanks.

JBG is hoping “for a more enlightened, objective discussion” about Creationism? Oh but we ARE having an enlightened, objective conversation about Creationism — a conversation ENLIGHTENED by OBJECTIVE scientific methods. Or were you asking us to operate under some other kind of enlightenment — perhaps religious enlightenment? Well, to do that, we would have to be believers, right? So we would be operating under faith, not objectivism. I think you see where I’m going with this. Asking someone to express objectivism and faith in the same breath is — well, breathtakingly inane (yes, I stole that line from Dover).

Hoosier Prof, at 9:05 am EDT on March 26, 2008

Note To JBG

Three Things:

First, this is not the place for a level of discourse that you will not find disappointing. This is a blog ... the purpose of which is to allow us to snip at each other anonymously.

Second, I was not joking when I asked bill dakelski (see above) for his subjective probability estimates. Since you apparently also believe “evolution and creationism are [both] compatible and probable,” I’d like to see your subjective probability estimates. How about it?

* Pr[Darwinian evolution is consistent with “reality”] = ?

* Pr[I am a direct or indirect consequence of a supernatural creator] = ?

Third, it’s difficult for me to imagine that you read the posts by Jim Lippard, Bob, Michael, and Reginal Selkirk before you wrote your comments. Surely you have read and re-read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Although it is an avocation – not my profession — I am very serious about understanding science (as an undergraduate I was a pre-ministerial student, so it is not surprising that I am also very serious about understanding creation and existence). Among my various efforts to understand, I have watched the NOVA series about string theory four times and I have read more than a few articles about it ... and I still don’t understand what it’s all about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

What I can tell you though is that string theory is a legitimate paradigm that is driving research, debate, and revision in physics and has led to some interesting discoveries already. Not that there is a physicist anywhere who cares, I would say (based on what I know) ...

* Pr[String theory is a (reasonably) accurate model of our physical world] = 0.138.

As an undergraduate in the 1950s, I took two semesters of physics (Sears and Zemansky), followed by a course in Modern Physics. Comparing how physicists modeled the physical world in 1950 (remember the Neils Bohr model of the atom?) with how they model it today is almost mind-boggling. Thousands upon thousands of physicists have spent billions upon billions of dollars in the interim to debate and experiment and correct and debate and experiment and expand the boundaries of our knowledge.

To even imagine “intelligent” design in the same context is laughable. Evolution is about knowledge. “Intelligent” design is about faith. It IS an either/or ... take your pick.

Frizbane Manley, at 9:30 am EDT on March 26, 2008

The Bohr atom is from the 20s, not the 50s. I don’t know what they taught undergraduates in the 50s, but the published descriptions of atomic structure have not advanced mind bogglingly since then (in contrast to other areas of physics).

sam green, at 3:30 pm EDT on March 26, 2008

Note To Sam Green

Man, you certainly picked a piece of trivia to use to criticize my post, a parenthetical remark that was almost a light year away from my point (which is about evolution and “intelligent” design, if you happened to miss it).

First, I am well aware of the history of Bohr’s model of the atom, but, inasmuch as I was not an undergraduate in 1913, I had no first-hand knowledge of what the textbooks looked like at that time.

Second, “mind boggling” may have been a bit of an overstatement, but I think that once you graduate from Hydrogen 101, you had better start looking for alternatives to Bohr.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17961

http://www.lnhatom.com/bohrrutherford.html

By the way, when I flip through the pages of my old Modern Physics text and compare what was cutting-edge then and what is common knowledge today, it is, indeed, mind boggling.

In any event, I certainly don’t know enough about modern physics to argue with an expert in the field ... especially one who has his own definition of “mind boggling.”

Frizbane Manley, at 5:55 pm EDT on March 26, 2008

ID and research

Any idea, to be considered a valid scientific theory, needs to be subjected to repeated tests (usually predictions of as yet unobserved phenomena)where both positive and negative outcomes are possible. Until such tests of ID can be designed (oops, wrong word), it cannot be considered scientific.

But, if the idea is rejected out of hand, one can never be sure. But development of such tests usually requires research and discussion amongst the stakeholders of both old and new ideas. If this is curtailed, then victory or defeat for either camp will be elusive (sorry, but a Nixon strategy — declaring victory and leaving the fray just won’t cut it).

In the present discussion I personally hear echos of the early days of Continental Drift, Germ theory and Cold Fusion.

And honestly, present theories of evolution ani’t got it all figured out either. (See: genes turned on by environmental factors; Hobbits and similar, far younger skeletons found on Palau [recent issue of Science] and so on.)

A voice of moderation?, at 5:55 pm EDT on March 26, 2008

My comment was not intended as a criticism of your general theses (with which I agree), only as a bit of correcting trivia, since you seemed to think people were relying on the Bohr atom in the 50s, and you still seem to think so:

“Second, “mind boggling” may have been a bit of an overstatement, but I think that once you graduate from Hydrogen 101, you had better start looking for alternatives to Bohr.”

Of course this is true, but QM was formalized in the late 20s, after which the Bohr atom was used only as a pedagogical intro to QM (it still is). The essential tools used to describe atomic structure (beyond hydrogen), were well established in the 50s.

sam green, at 11:55 pm EDT on March 26, 2008

Moderation wrote:

“But, if the idea [ID] is rejected out of hand, one can never be sure.”

“In the present discussion I personally hear echos of the early days of Continental Drift, Germ theory and Cold Fusion.”

Two points:

1) ID is dismissed out of hand because it has a supernatural and not scientific origin. That is not true of the other theories you mention.

2) This is hardly the early days of ID. Creationism has been around a long time, and has been crushed repeatedly. Renaming it does not make it new.

sam green, at 12:05 am EDT on March 27, 2008

I wonder, would a public school teacher in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, be allowed to say the following:

“It is interesting to contemplate ... [all the many forms of life on earth] ... so different from each other, have all been produced by laws acting around us. ... There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

Just imagine a public school teacher who says those words: that God creates life and places it on the earth in a few forms, and then that life evolves according to the physical and natural laws that God put into place in the universe.

Would that be allowed?

Actually, it should be REQUIRED FOR THE TEACHER TO SAY THAT.

Why? Because the quote is from: On the Origin of the Species, Chapter XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion, By Charles Darwin.

If you are going to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools, you should teach what Darwin actually wrote about it.

Michael S. ClassAuthor

Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame: The History Book with a Message for Today’s Young Americans

Read the book. Remember the truth. Share it with your children.

Web Site: www.MagicPictureFrame.com

———————————-

Michael Class, at 2:20 pm EDT on April 9, 2008

End of Debate

Simply end this debate with proof of either claim. Until then I reserve judgement.

benny, at 3:25 pm EDT on April 20, 2008

Wake up and allow testing of theories !

It still amazes me that in post 2000 America people still are ignorant of even Darwin criticizing himself. In his post Survival of the Fittest era, he acknowledges that he needed a theory to fit his worldview of no God. His main fleet captain was a believer in God he mentions. And to accept his position was to condemn his (non believer) family to eternal damnation — “something he couldn’t accept". He states that it takes more faith to believe his position than existence of a deity. I’ll not soon forget how I sat at the largest university in MI many years ago and watched a 4.5 hr debate — an MIT prof & a Boston college prof — take positions. Within 45 minutes the pro evolution position was so weak the secular student attendees simply laughed at him. He had virtually nothing. Let evolution be challenged w/ science people — learn from it even if you disagree w/ Darwin questioning himself !

Bill Jackson, Educator, at 2:20 pm EDT on April 23, 2008

In 500 years

Problem I see with the the scientific establishment shutting down an oposing theory is that every few hundred years we figure out that all the ideas we held as true and solidly proven for the past couple centuries, turn out to be debunked foolishness. It’s a bit arrogant of todays scientist to believe wholeheartedly that they have finally gotten it right with thier technology. I don’t think ID has all the answers, but when scientist start clinging to a theory controversial or not, on a long enough time line, the theories which shaped world view during a certain century tend to get usurped by newer discoveries. There are valid challenges to Darwin’s theory, and though ID claims it’s proof in a lack thereof, truth doesn’t have to point to theism for Darwin to be wrong.

brian, Big Dog at Engineering Limited, at 4:55 pm EDT on April 25, 2008

-1

OK, we’ve got some really intelligent people designing infallible scientific notions here, so please allow me to ask this class of knowledgable folks: what about Big Bang -1? What does Darwinism say about that period of non-time? Thanks in advance.

James Ellis, at 12:40 am EDT on April 29, 2008

Darwnism v Intelligent design

Anyone who is afraid to hear alternatives to their own theories concerning the beginning of the universe can’t defend his/her own theory. Their attitude seems to be “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up". If Darwinism is proven, why do we still call it a theory? As long as it is a theory we shoud be able to question it. I have a hard time looking at all the beauty on earth and attribute it to an accident. Some accident!

George Wilson, at 7:05 am EDT on May 3, 2008

Fine Arts

Hey Larry, The fine arts are the venue in which one can spout hate speech or biased rhetoric and call it ART

it is a very “LIBERAL” Art

Dean, MSW at State of Ohio, at 10:45 am EDT on May 14, 2008

Academe

The realm of “leftademe” is full of pseudo-intellectuals who practice the craft of one-dimensional thought. Graduates of some programs are merely ardent ideologists who are unable to think outside the little craniums that their enclose little minds.

Such higher ed. programs, reminiscent of cold war communism, seek to limit investigation to ideological pursuits.

In short, “leftademe” is waging an intellectual war against any idea that runs counter to its Nietzschen creed. The goal of leftademe is to suppress both free thought and free speech.

As universities have tilted to the far left, U.S. students have fallen farther and farther behind other countries in mathematical and science education. But if you ask these students about ideology, they can talk all day!

Hugh Colburn, at 10:45 pm EDT on May 15, 2008

Stein to Stein

Hi Guys, Well, as a doctorate student at the Ph.D. level, I just have to ask another probability question; What is the probability that one Stein would mislead another Stein? Not very probable. I think the Steins’ have it! I have another question for the so-called scientists whom identify themselves with hurling derogatory comments at Ben Stein; “What is the difference between a human and a tulip?” I believe that when they can answer this question, they will not only stop complaining about Ben, but they will have taken a better assessment of themselves! Thank you,Thomas S. Stein

Thomas S. Stein, at 7:50 pm EDT on May 29, 2008

Ethical Considerations

I find it interesting that the article and comments about this movie and “debate” do not even mention what I believe is a major underlying motivation behind Ben Stein’s and other sincere religious and non-religious persons; that is the ethical questions and implications of teaching any scientific theory or reliable hypotheses apart from ethics. How do we treat the elderly, handicapped, chronically ill, deformed, brain damaged, unborn, etc. Wouldn’t it be better for the future of humanity as a whole to quit “interfering” with the evolutionary process and just let the weaker members of our species die off? Ben and others seem to fear that the acceptance of evolution will help justify euthanasia and abortion and genetic experimentation ultimately at the will of a powerful educated elite. Who is considering the practical implications of the sold-out acceptance of a non-intelligently designed universe?

Chuck D., at 8:50 am EDT on July 16, 2008

The Case for Not Allowing Theories to Become Institutionalized

I saw Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” which I thought was brilliant. The movie should be required viewing on all college campuses, grant making foundations, scientific research centers, and Capitol Hill.

I never felt comfortbale with the creation and evolution debate so avoided the topic due to what I felt were overly polarized positions, each of which required a lot of faith. I felt even less comfortable when I attended a public university to earn my BA. The place was so politically correct that it was offensive simply because that type of environment suppressed free thinking and free speech. There’s a word for manipulating consent and conformity, and it is not freedom.

Ben Stein’s movie indirectly establishes that all dominant paradigms must be challenged and eventually must be overthrown. They cannot be allowed to become institutionalized and then mainatained by threats of burning those at the stake for questioning and for not believing in what is unbelievable.

Peter Hebert, Author, at 11:05 am EDT on October 29, 2008

Jobs Related to See Ben Stein's Movie

or search for jobs directly.

Biological Sciences Instructor
Hillsborough Community College

Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job

Jr. Scientist
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant or Associate Professor
East Carolina University

East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job

KAUST — Marine Biology (EG#2)
American University in Cairo

POST DOCTORAL POSITIONS KING ABDULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (KAUST) AND THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY IN CAIRO (AUC) ... see job

Assistant Professor
SUNY College of Technology at Alfred

Nestled in a beautiful valley in the western Southern Tier of New York State, Alfred State College has a long tradition of ... see job

Comparative Anatomy and Physiology
American University in Cairo

Comparative Anatomy and Physiology (BIOL-1-09) American University in Cairo About The American University in Cairo: Founded ... see job

Center for Learning Innovation
University of Minnesota-Rochester

The University of Minnesota Rochester (UMR) invites applications for open-rank, tenure-track faculty positions for its degree ... see job

Professor, Clinical Pathology
University of California, Irvine

School of Medicine Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Division of Anatomic Pathology Position: ... see job

Anatomy & Physiology Instructor
Lee College

Description: Essential job functions include but are not limited to: Teach freshman and sophomore level courses in Anatomy ... see job

Research Associate/EEB
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

See Ben Stein’s Movie

Related stories

Comments

Ben Stein’s Involvement

I Just Can’t Wait For The Rapture

Can anyone say VOODOO debate?

Dawkins on Expelled

it’s just a movie

Voodo Debate

a delicacy of hypocrisy

Intellegent Design

what is the scientific theory of intelligent design?

Everything else being equal

TWO sides?

Historically

My Apologies InsideHigherEd

Dawkins contradicts himself?

compatable

Evotution

Historically

Ben Stein’s Movie

Love Them Probabilists

Re: Member of a Tribe

Not Wishing To Be Part Of This Argument

Enlightened already, thanks.

Note To JBG

Note To Sam Green

ID and research

End of Debate

Wake up and allow testing of theories !

In 500 years

-1

Darwnism v Intelligent design

Fine Arts

Academe

Stein to Stein

Ethical Considerations

The Case for Not Allowing Theories to Become Institutionalized

Jobs Related to See Ben Stein's Movie

Biological Sciences Instructor Hillsborough Community College

Jr. Scientist University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Assistant or Associate Professor East Carolina University

KAUST — Marine Biology (EG#2) American University in Cairo

Assistant Professor SUNY College of Technology at Alfred

Comparative Anatomy and Physiology American University in Cairo

Center for Learning Innovation University of Minnesota-Rochester

Professor, Clinical Pathology University of California, Irvine

Anatomy & Physiology Instructor Lee College

Research Associate/EEB University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Biological Sciences Instructor
Hillsborough Community College

Jr. Scientist
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Assistant or Associate Professor
East Carolina University

KAUST — Marine Biology (EG#2)
American University in Cairo

Assistant Professor
SUNY College of Technology at Alfred

Comparative Anatomy and Physiology
American University in Cairo

Center for Learning Innovation
University of Minnesota-Rochester

Professor, Clinical Pathology
University of California, Irvine

Anatomy & Physiology Instructor
Lee College

Research Associate/EEB
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities