I went to the Ben Stein movie- Expelled last night and it was worth the money and not what I had expected. It did not have much to do with The Discovery Institute. It was not a defense of Intelligent Design as science. I thought it was about freedom of thought, censorship and bias in academia. I recommend it. It was also non-Christian, but it was very much about religion and science. Ben Stein definately brought a Jewish tone to it, because he is Jewish. Yes, the theme of the movie is that Intelligent Design 'science' is unfairly oppressed, but I do not think it was unfair in its approach of the subject. It was rational and logical in approach and both ideas were presented honestly. There is no real defense made for Intelligent Design as science as much as the entire focus being the freedom of ideas vs. oppression and censorship. The basic movie is the story of 3-4 respected scientists losing their jobs not so much for propagating or teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design as science, but for these scientists being fired or losing tenure solely for writing papers that appear sympathetic to the idea of Intelligent Design. It is interesting that about half and half were religious in belief. That is what Stein thought was over the top, the fact that non-religious people could lose their jobs for mentioning ID in the scientific discussion. I personally thought the movie goes a little overboard trying to use the communist Berlin Wall as an analogy to oppressing ideas, but getting past that it presents a reasoned and interesting view of the issue of censorship. Most religious people will like it, most hard core evolutionists will find things to dismiss and laugh at. If you haven't seen it please see it before you say alot, but if you have seen it I would like to hear some more comments. Especially from those who strongly support evolution theory. BTW the universities that were involved in the issue of censorship of free exchange of ideas were George Mason, Iowa St., Baylor and a couple of others I think. Pretty interesting stuff. I am sure some will dismiss it as a Jewish rebuff of science, but I don't think Stein's Jewish slant distorted or twisted the reasoned views presented.
Losing their jobs is over the top. But ID should be mentioned in philosophical or theology discussions. Not science. Those people deserved to be rebuked. Thanks for the post though - I am curious now to see the movie, just to get a different point of view.
Yeah, the movie doesn't go hard after the ID is science or ID is theology, at least not as much as I had feared (I didn't want to go see a big presentation of why ID is scientific) You will see the Jewish or religious slant-it's there- but it is not hard core or in your face, it is more about the issue of repression of freedom of thought even when the thoughts are repulsive. If you see it please give me your comments, I would really appreciate that because I carry a religious bias and I want to hear the different point of view of the movie also. Thanks
I don't know if I'd consider it "repression of freedom of thought" to require scientific methods within scientific reports/analysis/papers. Nor would I consider it "repression of freedom of thought" if the catholic clergy was less than pleased with a catholic church teaching the hindu belief in reincarnation.
The scientific methods and reports/analysis/papers part is not what is in the movie. It is more along the lines of 'mentioning' ID and getting wacked for saying the forbidden word. That made it pretty interesting. Just see what you think if you get to see it. You will probably feel alot is reactionary, but you will also get more of a sense that the issue of freedom of expression and ideas is really legitimately a big part of the issue, I think. I think that was Stein's point. Thanks again.
I am curious, would it be ok to fire someone for teaching methods such as blood letting etc in medical school?
If you look around online you can find tons of information about how they cherry picked and distorted information for the movie. Here is an article from SciAm called "Six Things Ben Stein Doesn't Want You To Know" about the film. [rquoter] In the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, narrator Ben Stein poses as a "rebel" willing to stand up to the scientific establishment in defense of freedom and honest, open discussion of controversial ideas like intelligent design (ID). But Expelled has some problems of its own with honest, open presentations of the facts about evolution, ID—and with its own agenda. Here are a few examples—add your own with a comment, and we may add it to another draft of this story. For our complete coverage, see "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed—Scientific American's Take. 1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust. When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly: [rquoter] With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. [/rquoter] This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics): [rquoter] With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. [/rquoter] The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in italics): [rquoter] The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. [/rquoter] Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes. 2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup. "Viewers of Expelled might think that Ben Stein has been giving speeches on college campuses and at other public venues in support of ID and against "big science." But if he has, the producers did not include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein receives accordingly. 3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie. As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit. When exactly did Crossroads become Expelled? The producers have said that the shift in the film's title and message occurred after the interviews with the scientists, as the accumulating evidence gradually persuaded them that ID believers were oppressed. Yet as blogger Wesley Elsberry discovered when he searched domain registrations, the producers registered the URL "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007—more than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the scientists were interviewed. The producers never registered the URL "crossroadsthemovie.com". Those facts raise doubt that Crossroads was still the working title for the movie when the scientists were interviewed. 4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there. One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment. This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that are awkward for the movie's case, however. Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it. Sternberg had always been planning to step down as the journal's editor—the issue in which he published the paper was already scheduled to be his last. The report prepared by Rep. Souder, who had previously expressed pro-ID views, was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record. Notwithstanding the report's conclusions, its appendix contains copies of e-mails and other documents in which Sternberg's superiors and others specifically argued against penalizing him for his ID views. (More detailed descriptions of the Sternberg case can be found on Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars and on Wikipedia.) 5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism. Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are just described as having an atheistic preference. Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated. By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed." A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design. Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a productive or useful approach to science. 6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution. Expelled includes many clips of scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine and PZ Myers who are also well known as atheists. They talk about how their knowledge of science confirms their convictions and how in some cases science led them to atheism. And indeed, surveys do indicate that atheism is more common among scientists than in the general population. Nevertheless, the film is wrong to imply that understanding of evolution inevitably or necessarily leads to a rejection of religious belief. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, a leading neuroscientist who used to be a Dominican priest, continues to be a devout Catholic, as does the evolutionary biologist Ken Miller of Brown University. Thousands of other biologists across the U.S. who all know evolution to be true are also still religious. Moreover, billions of other people around the world simultaneously accept evolution and keep faith with their religion. The late Pope John Paul II said that evolution was compatible with Roman Catholicism as an explanation for mankind's physical origins. During Scientific American's post-screening conversation with Expelled associate producer Mark Mathis, we asked him why Ken Miller was not included in the film. Mathis explained that his presence would have "confused" viewers. But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film's major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God. Inside and outside the scientific community, people will no doubt continue to debate rationalism and religion and disagree about who has the better part of that argument. Evidence from evolution will probably remain at most a small part of that conflict, however. [/rquoter]
I think you should see the movie, The holocaust part directly was presented as a personal journey for Stein, it is protrayed that way and he makes no strong case that Hitler, Eugenics and Darwinism were responsible for the holocaust. He associates them in his own journey and heart and makes it very personal to his own Jewishness. So in that way you could say he made it a statement. His quotes are presented more as personal reflections. You have to see the movie to get that context. Also the interviews weren't anything more than interviews. There wasn't alot of interpretation given. And whether they were slanted, yes I think Stein deliberately slanted the selection of interviews to make his points. But if you watch the movie you aren't going to get Creationism slammed in your face, it really comes across as why can't we discuss openly ideas that are not popular or accepted. There is a big emphasis on free expression, even if it is unpopular. I admit that point is mixed with the religion science issues, but it is a point worth considering and why I think the movie is worth seeing. Again if it was a movie put out by religious crusaders for ID, I wouldn't have gone to see it myself. I don't need that, I am a pastor, I believe or have faith in the creation story. It is not pro-evolution, but it is not a big case for ID. It is really about how it is being handled and I think you should consider seeing it and then shooting it down on the merit of the movie and context.
Just to let you know, no one in the movie interviewed was fired for teaching ID or Creationism, and if I remember right none of the scientists fired or 'not renewed' taught any such thing (edit- take that back I am sure a couple of them openly were involved in ID). Some I think were definately evolutionists that had included the forbidden words in a paper without denouncing those forbidden words clearly and emphatically.
Based on previous discussions, I consider you a religious crusader against evolution, so truthfuly I think you are being disingenuous when you portray yourself as an uninterested third party observer, who doesn't really have a stake in the discussion.
I don't know if I'm a crusader against evolution. But we all have bias. That doesn't mean we can't try to be objective. But here we have a guy who saw a movie...and a bunch of people who haven't telling the guy who actually saw it that he's biased. just strikes me as funny. please don't take it personal, otto!! you're good people, and I know it!
I did not mean I was uniterested or disinterested as an observer. I am not a crusader for creation, I believe in it. I am not a crusader against evolution, I believe evolution is full of holes as a theory and not to be trusted as truth (that is simply my opinion) I do have a bias. I am not trying to trick anyone into going to the movie. The movie will not change anyones mind, I don't think. I just thought it was worth seeing and especially thought some feedback from those who are strongly evolutionists would be interesting. No I repeat I am not an unbiased observer, no one is. There are no perfect objective observers anyways. I apoligize if I was deceitful, I don't care that much if someone goes to the movie or not, I just saw it last night and I thought it was going to be this big defense of ID, I don't think it was.
It's got some stuff I didn't like, a couple pretty cool observations I thought. I went after getting several emails from other ministers recommending it. It is not Christian, but Jewish in context which I found interesting and engaging. It is slanted yes, but there is no ax to grind in it. The Baylor part was interesting and I thought of you. Actually like so much of what I do in D&D it is really not something you give alot of thought to as a Christian, but I don't feel I wasted the $5 And I knew when I left the theatre I wanted to post the thread.
Based on the reactions to my last post, I'm guessing I came across kind of more harshly than I intended. That wasn't what I was intending so sorry if that's how it came out.
No, I understand and you made good points, you are a good poster here. The topic itself leaves all that open to discuss. I am a creationist, but I rarely discuss that kind of thing at all, except here or with someone who wants to bring it up. I try to crudade for only one thing- Jesus Christ loves you and the entire world on a person by person basis and He is the savior, the chosen Messiah of the Bible. When I debate or discuss or argue here it relieves stress for me. That is why I keep coming back to D&D. Maybe I need therapy or counseling? (I know I struggle with spelling too)
Who isn't in favor of free inquiry? It's a manufactured issue. But if the things we're teaching our kids don't have to meet any kind of objective criteria, we might as well start teaching the stork theory of reproduction as a viable alternative to sex. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-ThQQuHtzHM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-ThQQuHtzHM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
You are talking in circles here. You believe in creation, yet evolution is full of holes and should not be trusted? If you "believe" in something, the "holes" in an alternative are moot. And that's what makes ID so preposterous scientifically. You don't march down a theory, get to a certain point that is challenging, and then simply state "oops! This is hard, I guess now I'll go believe in some mystical alternative!" That's not the way science works. Period.
I saw and advance screening with the Producer of this film. Ben Stein was actually skeptical about the idea that scientists were being blacklisted for questioning the holes in the Evolution Theory. After the film was through production, he had changed his mind. I think some of the problems that were being highlighted is that a highly respected scientist (Richard Dawkins) can say that its possible that aliens seeded life on earth, but its impossible to think that God created life. Yet, noone has a problem with Richard Dawkins' saying that the Alien theory is possible...where's the evidence supporting this theory? Therein lies the problem with the Scientific community. Suppression of certain ideas. Mention Aliens as a possibility...no problem. Mention God...problem. One Professor in the film did NOT mention ID during any of his classes, yet because in a personal Blog he mentioned it...he was fired. And this was at Baylor. The film really doesn't push ID or Creation, it just points out that many scientists face discrimination if they question any aspects of Evolution. I was a bit dissapointed that the film never really mentioned that even Darwin believed in God. I've said this before..but just to be clear. I believe in Creation by Evolution. The bible says a day to God is like a thousand of our days. I don't think the two theories are really incompatable at all.
Well the alien theory is easy to make because we as humans can already do this. If we find a planet suitable for life and bring some life form seeds to it using a space ship (for example, bateria to Mars), we would have just proven the theory is possible.
