Interesting to See Reviews on Expelled April 18.08
I am watching the movie reviews of Expelled with interest. It is amazing to me how many negative reviewers are claiming the movie is for Creationism and/or that it attempts to refute Darwinism when that is not what the movie does or claims. The movie is about freedom of inquiry. It simply argues that Intelligent Design (ID) should be allowed to come to the table.
I am watching the movie reviews of Expelled with interest. It is amazing to me how many negative reviewers are claiming the movie is for Creationism and/or that it attempts to refute Darwinism when that is not what the movie does or claims. The movie is about freedom of inquiry. It simply argues that Intelligent Design (ID) should be allowed to come to the table. It makes the case that scientists who ask questions about Darwinism or who mention ID should not be at risk for losing their jobs, especially when their writing appears in peer-reviewed settings. No science experiment, nor fossil find tells us where the origin of life started, something even the Darwinian scientists interviewed on the film affirmed. Reviewers who go after Ben Stein personally, who speak of fundamentalist propoganda, or who argue the movie is about Creationism are not reviewing the premise of the film. I have seen such claims in a variety of settings today. It makes me wonder how much attention they paid to the film’s actual content.
So let me clarify things for the record as one who teaches in a religious institution and knows the difference between these options. Creationism is the specific view that the Earth is young and usually argues that God created the world in six 24-hour days. ID does not argue this. It simply contends that the design and stability we see in creation, not to mention the finely balanced elements that have to work together to make up and sustain life, suggest a design and designer, hardly an unreasonable hypothesis. Just think how much intellectual effort humans have given just to determine this much about the world we live in. Many people who consider ID an option also hold to the Earth and the creation being quite old, hardly the stuff of fundamentalism. This is why many creationists debate people who hold to ID as not being on their side. So do not let some harsh reviewers fool you on this one by misrepresenting the background and premise of the film.
There also is a lot of complaining about the Holocaust-Darwinism connection. The suggestion is that raising this is a "low blow" of sorts. My daughter went to Northwestern University (read, not a religious school). She took a class on the Nazi period in which the class studied these connections and associations. Even the director of one of the museums in the film said the Eugenics choices of the German doctors at the locale where the insane were gassed was rooted in Darwinism. The idea became known as Social Darwinism. Now I was nervous about this section of the movie myself because I sensed that some might regard this claim as unfair or at least overplayed, a kind of exaggerated guilt by association. However, the one thing that is not fair for reviewers to do is to try to deny that some Darwinists in the past have made this kind of linkage with those kinds of results; that some who hold to Darwinism in bringing its teaching into the social sphere have travelled down this road. This is a matter of record, noted and studied at some of our universities.
Something about the origins of life and Darwinism brings out the worst in people, people on both sides trying to win the most points. Expelled is simply arguing, "Come let us reason together and have a real conversation." It shows that some are trying to prevent even having the conversation. Let both sides come to the table, with both admitting there is no experiment that proves scientifically either theory for the start of life. Reasonable people ought to be able to see that the variety of options people posit to answer this opening of life question deserve to all be entertained and discussed.
11 Comments
Anonymous
“This is why many
“This is why many creationists debate people who hold to ID as not being on their side.”
If the IDers aren’t on the creationists side then why aren’t creationists, like the creationist leader Ken Ham, debating the makers of this movie, rather than, as they are doing, urging everyone to support it? Instead, it is the moderate Old Earth organization, Reasons to Believe, which has much more in common with intelligent design than the Young Earth creationists, that has made reasoned and principled criticisms of ‘Expelled’ and refused to endorse it. [Cf. http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=1009#comments%5D
bock
This is why many dlb
Anonymous (a name would be nice):
Thanks as a pro-creationist making my point that the reviewers fail to understand: creationism is not ID.
dlb
David A. Porter
Expelled – No Intelligence Involved
You are completely right. The central point of this documentary is calling for a fair and balanced debate. Ben Stein does clearly let you know, while visiting concentration camps in Germany, where he stands on the issue. I suppose with the Darwinism/ID/Creationism debate being such a hot potato Stein risks loosing his message with so much attention paid to the issue.
I came away from the film thinking primarily about the origin of life debate and the freedom of speech seemed to take a second place.
As I think back, there was clearly a lot of time devoted, in the film, to the freedom of speech issue, but I seem to be pulled into the debate itself for some reason.
I hope that I am alone in the seduction of the debate. We really must assure ourselves that we have, in this country, free and equal access to ideas and the right to express them in a free and equal manner.
Steve Hill
It’s an elephant in the room
Here’s my own experience with the quashing of the discussion. While I was a Mechanical Engineering student at Kansas State University, I took a class called Fundamentals of Thermodynamics. Entropy was a major portion of the curriculum. During the class, I asked the professor to talk about the ramifications of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) upon the discussion of origins. Then I quoted from the class text book,
“The final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of the increase of entropy have philosophical implications…If all processes known to us have an increase in entropy associated with them, what is the future of the world as we know it?…Quite obviously it is impossible to give conclusive answers to these questions on the basis of the second law of thermodynamics alone. However, the authors see the second law of thermodynamics as man’s description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to the future destiny of man and the universe.” (page 248 of Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics)
The professor did not want to discuss the statements. In fact, the professor scorned me for bringing up religion.
Steve Hill
p.s. Dr. Bock, I had you for some Greek classes in the late 80’s
Michael Metts
My wife and I just returned
My wife and I just returned from seeing Expelled. It’s hard for me to understand the critical reviews since Ben Stein’s movie is really balanced. The movie allows you to hear the chilling cases against an extant God just as much as cases against Darwinism. The fact that the neo-Darwinists look like idiots, especially Dawkins, from their interviews should not be Ben Stein’s fault.
Being
For those who believe in the
For those who believe in the value of wikipedia (i.e. documentation sources, external links, plenty to read for the hungry mind…)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
PS: no need to specify a name, as I do not expect an answer or intend to return
One thing I want to mention though:
“Let both sides come to the table, with both admitting there is no experiment that proves scientifically either theory for the start of life.”
The theory of evolution (which origins are in Darvinism, but modified and adapted with new findings) does not pretend to explain the start of life.
It is an attempt, a theory explaining evolution of life. This is a major difference.
bock
For those dlb
Being:
Wikipedia. Quite a source.
One is well aware that evolution tries to explain the evolution of life. but the START of the process is a pretty important detail. The movie did a great job showing the problems for evolution in answering that question. Even those in the movie having questions about evolution noted the process of evolution works to explain some things. We all know the difference you point out. However, as we all know, the deepest emotion that comes with this issue is tied ot the question of origins. All the film asks for reflects a point you noted- neither side has an experiment that can prove the start. So both sides deserve to have floor time.
dlb
Brett Williams
Perhaps the main concern?
I read where the people behind this movie misrepresented to the evolutionists the name and purpose of the movie in order to get the interviews from Dawkins and others. Can anyone speak to that?
bock
Main concern dlb
Brent:
I do not know about this firsthand. I believe Premise Media did post recently their take on this claim at their site. I will let them speak for themselves.
Now I have been interviewed many, many times, not always by questioners favorable to what I am saying on issues that have two very different sides. They do not tell me their "take" on the issue before I interview, and I answer quite aware of the debate and what the "sides" are. In fact, I sometimes joke with those I know on the other side of the debate (and they with me) about the "roles" we have in such discussions in relationship to each other. (Often proponents on each side of such a public debate know each other, having been cast as opposites numerous times). In such circumstances, my answers are what they are. The movie has long clips of exchange where one can see what was asked and answered. Their answers are what they are. Don’t blame the filmmaker.
dlb
Anonymous
Read for yourself what American Scientist said about soc. darw.
Read for yourself what American Scientist said about social Darwinism in Nazi Germany.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Stein2.htm
backgammon
The one good thing about
The one good thing about seeing the film (through a critical lens)is that if you are unclear about what the Discovery Institute is trying to do, it unveils their message and strategy. ID itself is not explained at all, but it is used as a football in a game of “tear down the establishment”.