Anti-evolution movie is deceptive by design

Guest Post by Morbo

Last week I wrote about actor Ben Stein’s new documentary attacking evolution titled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” It now appears that Stein and the group that produced the film may have employed deceptive tactics to trick evolution proponents into appearing on camera. Three noted evolution supporters came forward this week to say they were misled.

Among them is Richard Dawkins, the famous zoologist and author from Oxford University. Dawkins told The New York Times he was approached by a group called Rampant Films inviting him to appear in a documentary called “Crossroads.” The names sound benign, and no indication was given that the production would criticize evolution. Dawkins said he would not have agreed to appear in the movie had he known it was a front for “intelligent design.”

Two other scientists interviewed by Stein’s crew — Genie Scott at the National Center for Science Education and P.Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota — say they would have appeared on camera anyway but would have appreciated knowing upfront that the producers were ID backers. It might have affected the type of answers they gave.

Stein insists he has done nothing wrong, but it seems to me he and his friends have a problem with honesty. In light of that, simple integrity calls on him to do two things: First, remove Dawkins from the documentary entirely. Then re-interview Scott and Myers, giving them the opportunity to provide more pointed answers. Will Stein have the fundamental decency to do this? I’m not holding my breath.

A couple of more thoughts on this: Religious moderates often wonder why some advocates of evolution get so worked up over intelligent design. After all, ID rejects the more outlandish claims of traditional creationism (young Earth, literal worldwide flood, etc.) and merely asserts that God must have been involved in the creation of the universe. What’s the big deal?

A clue is found in the Times story. Stein told the paper “he accepted the producers’ invitation to participate in the film not because he disavows the theory of evolution — he said there was a ‘very high likelihood’ that Darwin was on to something — but because he does not accept that evolution alone can explain life on earth. He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called ‘From Darwin to Hitler.'”

So, a scientific principle that maintains that humankind has a common origin (from southern Africa, no less) and that underscores the fact that we’re all related (thus meaning that distinctions of race, class, religion and tribe are all equally meaningless) leads to racism and genocide? If Stein really believes this, he is a moron, and such idiotic views must be kept far away from our classrooms.

Finally, kudos to Cornelia Dean, the author of The Times story. She wrote in part:

There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature. As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are “not within the scope or abilities of science.”

At long last — a journalist who understands that “balance” does not require that discredited, pseudoscientific nonsense must be treated the same as actual science.

Stein makes me sick. He also gave the world Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel was his sidekick on “Win Ben Stein’s Money.”

I am a Christian who actually understands evolutionary biology, at least in the terms of a layperson. I get tired of ID proponents, and it makes Christians on the Left defensive, because they find themselves in defensive posture against those who should be allies.

Harris and Dawkins have not helped matters.

  • Stein insists he has done nothing wrong, but it seems to me he and his friends have a problem with honesty.

    As much as I dislike Stein and his views, I think that the way Dawkins was sandbagged happens regularly, and the honesty really depends on how the interview material was edited and used. Didn’t Charlton Heston have similar comments about his appearance in Bowling for Columbine?

  • I tend to agree with RSA. Sad as it is, such “gotcha” approaches to discourse and the arts is part of the times in which we live – and both sides (and plenty of less political projects, see Borat) use that approach. Smart and sensible people need to do their own due diligence on a project before allowing themsevles to be exploited. One consequence of free speech rights in unethical times is that the bottom line is “caveat interviewee” – no one will be held responsible, so you have to take that responsibility yourself. (Note I am not suggesting this is right, ideal or commendable – it is none of the above. It is, however, reality.)

  • I thought racism/separate-but-equal stemmed from the Old Testament which clearly states that Africans come from the line of Ham (not kidding here).

    Maybe Stein is confusing Darwin’s evolution with its perversion into a social survival of the fittest, which conveniently perpetuated the Protestant conceit that the chosen of god will flourish and everyone else struggles miserably.

    And I agree with zeitgeist: while it is gratifying to one’s vanity to be asked for an interview, it’s not always in one’s best interests.

  • I get so tired of all this evolution/creationism jibber jabber. Evolution and intelligent are both theories, meaning there’s no concrete proof either is true. Me, I beleive that earth was created by God, but that each creature evolved by Gods order. As liberals we should not be slamming people for using freedom of speech.

  • Evolution and intelligent are both theories, meaning there’s no concrete proof either is true. — Joshua Davis
    Apparently there are still people who believe this bullshit. Intelligent design is a not a theory, it’s a conjecture. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it is solid and acceptable as the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and germ theory.

    This isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about intellectual honesty, or hadn’t you noticed?

  • In my lifelong pursuit of truth, anecdotal stories like this are one of the means I use to measure the credibility of both the advocate’s character and paradigm. I personally have nothing but contempt for those who must make their case using deceit as if the objective of education is to “win” arguments rather than learn truth. This obsession with catapulting propaganda is the reason why my education (and I use the term loosely) in private fundamentalist schools throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s turned this once prospective minister of the gospel into the atheist I am today. There is absolutely nothing that infuriates me more than hypocrisy, particularly when it comes from self-proclaimed vessels of morality and integrity. At least on that point the Xtian god-object and I agree (see Matthew 23).

    Mr. Davis, evolution is indeed a theory. Intelligent design is not. It is at best a hypothesis; an assumption or guess or someone’s wet dream. Don’t conflate freedom of speech with blowback in the presence of absurdity and hypocrisy. I also weary of constant “jibber jabber” attempts to equate evolution with creationism and/or ID. There is no equivalency.

    CB, I am a frequent reader of both you and Kevin Drum (who first linked me to your blog). Between the two of you, I have been consistently and thoroughly informed on many issues of importance to me, often long before (if ever) the topics pierce the MSM. Thank you, sir. Your work is appreciated.

  • Joshua, you are entitled to your views in regards of ID. As long as you realize that ID is based on faith rather than science. ID should not be taught in schools during a science class as a balance against evolution.

    There are plenty of people who believe in UFO’s and will never be convinced that there is very little evidence to support it, other than people who have tried to scam people by fabricating evidence. The same can be said about people who believe in the Loch Ness monster, Ogo Pogo, Big Foot, Sasquatch, etc…

    They are all entitled to make documentaries of their findings and have them shown on TV. We watch those programs for their entertainment value,not because we actually believe every word they say in their. I’d watch the ID ‘documentary’ but that’s what it would be: a documentary about how some Christians actually believe that evolution isn’t true the way that Darwin said, unless God had the final say on it.

    It is fun to see kids grow up who truly believe in the ‘tooth faery’, the ‘boogie man’, “Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, etc…. However as those kids grow up they figure out that those are all nice stories but that none of those mythical figures actually exists. Why? They become more educated. Some people grow up and will always believe in certain things regardless of the lack of evidence: UFO, bigfoot, conspiracy theories, flat earthers, etc…

    People who believe in ID fit in that category as well; except they think that they are different because they are Christians and they believe in the bible and they know they’re right because the bible says so, etc….. They want us to believe that those rules don’t apply to them and they feel that their views should be construed as ‘real’ science, because they want us to.

    I wonder what their reaction would be when a Native American elder came to their school board meeting and insisted that their view on creation is taught in science classes?

    As history shows, the ‘church’ has always been late in accepting and integrating new scientific evidence. It will take a few more decades until the ID believers will start feeling ashamed of having been so silly, but until then they KNOW they are right. They are entitled to their believe, just like the Big Foot believers.

    Don’t push it on us.

  • RSA and Zeitgeist (@2 & 3),

    People who appeared in “Jesus Camp” documentary weren’t altogether happy with the finished product either; they felt they were made to look like fools. I guess, living that kind of life on a daily basis made them so used to it, they didn’t realize just how foolish they were until they watched the film with others and saw themselves through the others’ eyes. Haggard’s “outing” shortly after the film was finished was a cherry on top, which nobody could have predicted when the film was made but it too, showed them from a less-than-complimentary side.

    But in the case of Stein/Dawkins, the situation seems to have been slightly different. As far as I understood the article, Dawkins did do some checking into the bona fides of the purported filmmakers before agreing to appear on camera and was flim-flammed. Not only did the title of the film change but a different money-bag took the final responsibility for it.

  • Intelligent designists traffic in lies and misrepresentations, which is just one of several reasons why they and their ideas do not merit serious scientific discussion. Nonetheless, I see deceptive “gotcha” journalism is a necessary, appropriate, and ethical tool in investigative journalism. An interviewer can’t make up quotes or misrepresent what an interviewee says, but IMHO should otherwise be welcome to go undercover as an employee in a company, to try to trip up the interviewee any way they want, to figuratively give interviewees enough rope to hang themselves, and so on.

    In my opinion, journalists may consider that they need to break laws to get a story (e.g., trespass, publication of privately held information and commerical secrets, publication of information given to them by people who had no legal right of disclosure). This does not give them immunity from prosecution, but exposure of illegal practices, the well-being of the public, and the public’s right to know may justify breaking laws and behaving in ways that would be considered unethical in other professions. Deceptive interviews can fall into the latter category.

  • Hitler, of course, was a creationists who rejected the idea that man had descended from apes

    From Mein Kampf – Volume 2

    “Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth.

    “And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image.”

    From Hitler’s Tischgespraeche for 1942 ‘Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.’

    shall translate Hitler’s words, as recorded by the stenographer.

    ‘From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

    A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is now.

  • There is nothing that has emanated from religion that would lead me to believe that it originated with some supreme deity, not the Bible, not the Koran, not the 10 Commandments. These are all too prosaic and could not come from anything other than the musings of mere mortals. If a supreme being were to communicate with us, one would hope that he could come up with something better than a bunch of “Shall nots” and ambiguous stories. The nature of the Cosmos would have been much more useful, as would the nature of matter, or even DNA. Of course, these were not provided to us in a revelation, but by the hard work of scientists.

    If in our history someone had said, “God spoke to me last night and provided me with the Periodic Table of the Elements”, and proceeded to right it all down, then I might be more inclined to believe in revelation than those who say, “Non-believers are going to Hell”.

    Would a supreme being be so careless as to let his stone tablets that contain his prime commandments disappear from the face of the Earth? I think not, so they could not have emanated from a supreme being. In fact, there is nothing material on this planet that is directly traceable to a supreme being, it all emanates from the minds and hands of mortals. There is no shiny black indestructible obelisk, no temple in the sky, and no stone tablets.

    One can only conclude that there either is no supreme being, or if there is one, he cannot or will not manifest himself in the material world. If that is good enough for God, it should be good enough for the rest of us. Leave God in the spiritual realm where he belongs and stop dragging him into every argument and conflict in the material realm. I am sure everyone will be the better for it.

  • Proof that even Yale Law graduates can be total idiots. Or maybe this is yet another example of how he’ll sell his soul to the highest bidder? Don’t forget this guy was Nixon’s speechwriter.

    For some common sense info on the battle between science and theism, check out:
    http://FreeThoughtPedia.com/

  • Many people, when they can’t provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
    If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. ‘Surely they have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell.

    And after all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemical collisions, without an instruction manual, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists estimation. Without any intelligence at all available to help them these ‘simple ‘ cells miraculously created themselves into a living entity. Surely then today’s evolutionists scientists should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell.

    If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

    Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of the flood of evidence CONTRARY to evolution which is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.

    Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and EUREKA, LIFE!

    Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
    Please don’t swallow the lies they tell about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And, is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it, how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

  • James Collins:

    What a load of crap. You’re complete ignorance of anything scientific or rational is disheartening, if not downright frightening. Put down your bible for a second, reverend, and pick a copy of Nature – or heck, even a fifth-grade biology textbook.

    Scientists are “falling all over themselves” to create a cell? Whaaaaa??? What makes you think that the atmosphere today is in any way similar to what it was 4 billion years ago? Can scientists recreate those exact conditions? No. Can they conduct experiments to approximate similar conditions? Sure, and they have (google Oparin’s theory for one example).

    Evolution is NOT propraganda. It is scientific fact. IT IS NOT CHANCE, as you faithheads like to claim. Nothing happend “by accident”. Organisms evolved naturally over time. The “chance” you’re referring to is related to mutations. Although mutations occur by chance, natural selection ensures that only the most adaptive of these chance mutations are carried forward. This is emphatically the OPPOSITE of chance.

    You make ridiculous claims like “people believe in evolution because sources they admire say it is so.” How old do you think we are, twelve? I think most people tend to accept ideas based on evidence. Evolution is not something to be “believed in” – unlike some supernatural entity that requires no evidence. Evolution is fact.

    Oh, and by the way – you want us to believe that Answers in Genesis uses evidence for anything? Are you freakin’ kidding me? I love how you people claim there’s ample “evidence” for the flood, etc. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. You know, I gathered that by reading the “flood” of peer reviewed literature out there supporting it.

    Oh, I forgot. You don’t need evidence. God dunnit.

  • Well, then call me a fool…

    Hey Rod, since we’re quoting the bible, here’s a few you missed:

    “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

    “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again….”(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    “All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.” (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

    Do you want me to continue??

  • Ben Stein is right on here. Mainstream science has turned itself into religious dogma when it comes to Darwinism. The notion that the detection of an intelligence besides human intelligence must appeal to a God-of-the-gaps argument is to misunderstand how science really works.

    For example, SETI science searches for extraterrestrial non-human intelligence by proposing that only deliberate intelligent action would likely produce certain types of radio signals – that the “gap” between natural signals and those that appear unnatural or artifactual could only reasonably be filled by intelligent deliberate activity.

    This is the basis for all hypotheses in science. What solution most likely fills the “gap” or explains a given phenomenon the best? Can the ID hypothesis be falsified, even when it comes to the predictions of SETI scientists? Sure it can – just like any other valid scientific hypothesis. All one has to do is show a non-intelligent natural process producing the phenomenon in question and the ID-only hypothesis is falsified.

    In short, it is unreasonable and unscientific to automatically rule out the ID hypothesis a priori – before any serious investigation has even been carried out or considered.

    Keep up the good work Ben.

  • Seriously, Dawkins, Myers, Scott, etc. should require all movie and TV producers (outside of the major news media) to include in the release a stipulation that they get to view a final cut prior to release and that they then have discretion to veto the footage of them and any references to them from the film.

    This way, the worst case scenario is that the producers don’t allow such a stipulation and claim (still quite dishonestly, but hey…) that they refused to be interviewed for the film.

  • Pingback: decrypter dvd
  • If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. ‘Surely they have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.

    If creationist want to end all argument all they have to do is to pray a living cell into
    Existence, Ex Nihlo. Is that a fair test? Since the the theory of evolution doesn’t concern the origin of life but the complexity and adaptation of life I have a hard time understanding what it is that you think your accomplishing? Abiogensis is poorly understood, but the inability of scientist to create cells in a lab doesn’t prove “Jehovah did it”.

  • So, a scientific principle that maintains that humankind has a common origin (from southern Africa, no less) and that underscores the fact that we’re all related (thus meaning that distinctions of race, class, religion and tribe are all equally meaningless) leads to racism and genocide? If Stein really believes this, he is a moron, and such idiotic views must be kept far away from our classrooms.

    This is somewhat uninformed. Social Darwinism was a belief that became increasingly popular after the publication of On the Origin of the Species. It’s the idea that might makes right and if one class or race of people is dominated, enslaved, or killed by another, then it’s only “selection of the fittest” working itself out among humans. The assumption is that humans are just an advanced form of animal life, and therefore are acting in accordance with the progressive nature of evolution.

    But that’s a big assumption. Are humans only advanced animals? (I’m playing devil’s advocate here.) If so, there’s no moral obligation to not enslave or kill weaker humans. Wouldn’t you be just following Darwinism? Isn’t calling it “Social” Darwinism just an optimistic distinction? If there is some reason that we shouldn’t practice Social Darwinism, science can’t (or hasn’t) provided it. In fact, the insistence of evolution that man has no divine origin strips morality out of the equation anyway. Religionists are left trying to somehow shoe-horn it back in after the Big Bang. But if I’m just advanced protoplasm, who cares if I die or if I take over other blobs of advanced protoplasm? If I’m not just protoplasm, where am I getting this special valuation from? Sheer sentiment (I don’t like thinking of myself or my friends that way)? That’s hardly compelling.

    Hitler believed the Germans were a superior race to the Jews, and the Jews could and should be exterminated to make place for the Aryan race. And if humans don’t have some greater assigned value than their biology, Darwinism has nothing but applause for Hitler’s actions.

    I think that’s the line of thinking Stein is referring to when he says “From Darwin to Hitler.”

  • A problem with honesty. Perhaps he should take a page from Michael Moore’s book. Oh, wait…

  • James Collins said:
    Many people, when they can’t provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
    If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell.
    What a hypocrite you are. You claim that evolutionists traffic in lies, yet you claim that creationists would stop arguing if a cell were assembled, a clear lie.

    Surely they have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.
    But if they were to use any of that knowledge, creationist would whine that they’re not creating the cell “from scratch”.

    And after all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemical collisions, without an instruction manual, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists estimation.
    No.

    Try answersingenesis.org.
    I already have. They post blatant lies, such as that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it, how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????
    The sun, the moon, and the Earth have solved the three-body problem. Does that mean scientists should be able to solve it too”?

    Craig said:
    What a load of crap. You’re complete ignorance of anything scientific or rational is disheartening, if not downright frightening.
    You mean “your”.

    esaskar said:
    This is the basis for all hypotheses in science. What solution most likely fills the “gap” or explains a given phenomenon the best?
    No, the goal with science is to find as universal an explanation as possible, rather having explanations that only apply when there’s nothing else.

    Can the ID hypothesis be falsified, even when it comes to the predictions of SETI scientists? Sure it can – just like any other valid scientific hypothesis. All one has to do is show a non-intelligent natural process producing the phenomenon in question and the ID-only hypothesis is falsified.
    Except that we have an example of a natural process: evolution. So clearly it’s not enough to have a process; we have to prove it too. And proving it is just another word for falsifying. So to falsify ID, we have to first falsify ID. ID proponents have set up a logically impossible task, then proclaimed victory when we fail to perform it. And if we were to produce life in a lab, IDers would simply reply that the scientists were created by God, so the ultimate creator of the life is still God. There’s simply no way to falsify ID, because even if we have a natural process, the IDers will simply say that God created the process.

    In short, it is unreasonable and unscientific to automatically rule out the ID hypothesis a priori
    No, it’s not. ID is completely nonsensical , meaningless claim which provides no explanatory power.

  • Hmm. Apparently you can’t import formatting from Word.

    James Collins said:
    Many people, when they can’t provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
    If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell.

    What a hypocrite you are. You claim that evolutionists traffic in lies, yet you claim that creationists would stop arguing if a cell were assembled, a clear lie.

    Surely they have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.
    But if they were to use any of that knowledge, creationist would whine that they’re not creating the cell “from scratch”.

    And after all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemical collisions, without an instruction manual, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists estimation.
    No.

    Try answersingenesis.org.
    I already have. They post blatant lies, such as that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it, how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????
    The sun, the moon, and the Earth have solved the three-body problem. Does that mean scientists should be able to solve it too”?

    Craig said:
    What a load of crap. You’re complete ignorance of anything scientific or rational is disheartening, if not downright frightening.
    You mean “your”.

    esaskar said:
    This is the basis for all hypotheses in science. What solution most likely fills the “gap” or explains a given phenomenon the best?
    No, the goal with science is to find as universal an explanation as possible, rather having explanations that only apply when there’s nothing else.

    Can the ID hypothesis be falsified, even when it comes to the predictions of SETI scientists? Sure it can – just like any other valid scientific hypothesis. All one has to do is show a non-intelligent natural process producing the phenomenon in question and the ID-only hypothesis is falsified.
    Except that we have an example of a natural process: evolution. So clearly it’s not enough to have a process; we have to prove it too. And proving it is just another word for falsifying. So to falsify ID, we have to first falsify ID. ID proponents have set up a logically impossible task, then proclaimed victory when we fail to perform it. And if we were to produce life in a lab, IDers would simply reply that the scientists were created by God, so the ultimate creator of the life is still God. There’s simply no way to falsify ID, because even if we have a natural process, the IDers will simply say that God created the process.

    In short, it is unreasonable and unscientific to automatically rule out the ID hypothesis a priori
    No, it’s not. ID is completely nonsensical , meaningless claim which provides no explanatory power.

    Jeff said:
    But that’s a big assumption. Are humans only advanced animals? (I’m playing devil’s advocate here.) If so, there’s no moral obligation to not enslave or kill weaker humans.
    The big assumption is yours. The idea that evolution means there is no moral obligation is not Darwin’s idea, it’s yours. Just because you’re too small-minded to imagine a moral code that doesn’t depend on God doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    Darwinism has nothing but applause for Hitler’s actions.
    I think that’s the line of thinking Stein is referring to when he says “From Darwin to Hitler.”

    We are quite familiar with the slander that Darwinism somehow approves of genocide. It doesn’t make it any less a load of bullshit.

  • It’s about time somebody with half a brain spoke out against the pseudo “science” called “Evolution.”

    I haven’t even seen this movie yet, but already know that what it says will blow the atheistic blowhards out of the slime pits that they’ve been bathing in.

    Let me put it this way: It would be more feasible for a tornado to blow through a junk yard and assemble a 747 Jet airplane than for the so-called evolutionary theory to produce one gnat.

    The religion of evolution will fall to the ground one day just like the city of Babylon did.

  • Craig, you shouldn’t have written “You’re.” It’s “Your” dumb bunny.
    Where was your scientific degree obtained?

  • OK. Craig…You’re a fool.
    And you’re also a biblical illiterate.
    Put it in context if you’re going to quote Scripture mud puddle.

  • Evolution is not even a “theory.” It’s no more than the opinion of a man without God.

    And, guess what? The missing link is still missing.

  • I am the happiest man on earth. I want to live much more than 100 years. All you religionists are slowing the human march to near immortality. A curse on your bibles, korans, and all such foolishness. Lets throw a party for the Easter Bunny and Jesus and Mohammad and ask them to grow one leg on one soldier who lost it in the same explosion that spilled a little girl’s intestines on the street and splattered her mother’s brains on a wall.

  • Most critiques of this film seem to miss the point. At least now Ben Stein has people talking (perhaps not friendly arguements, either). I am a Creationist. However, I am not stupid. I studied evolution in a college biology class (the only thing I was taught in college biology class). Years ago, the concept of Intelligent Design was not even thought of. This, to me, seems like a brilliant way to allow people faith (whatever faith that is) to study science and bring their faith into science. However, as a Creationist and a Christian, I will tell you that the Bible and science do not collide. As a matter of fact, as Christians, we are told to “Consider the lilies of the field…” Biology, astronomy, human anatomy, and other science is written right into the Bible. God does not forbid me to study creation. Nor should academia forbid me the freedom to allow my faith to guide my study of science. Now, do I disagree with Dawkins? Absolutely. But this country gives him the right to publish his book and expound on his theories, which require as much faith for him to believe as what requires me to believe the Bible. Therefore, why shouldn’t I have the freedom to participate in science? And why shouldn’t scientists be free to question certain things such as Darwinism, with or without faith, if it helps them develop new theories or even leads them to believe in “Intelligent Design”. That was the point of the movie.
    By the way: if the evolutionsists were being honest, why would they have answered differently if they knew that the movie was about Intelligent Design?

  • Will you people PLEASE shut the hell up? Boy, I am so sorry I created you all… I’M the one who needs a “do-over!”

  • A little girl asked her mother, ‘How did the human race come about?’

    The Mother answered, ‘Well, God made Adam and Eve; they had children and, so all mankind was made.’

    A few days later, the little girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, ‘Many years ago there were monkeys, and we evolved from them.’

    The confused girl returns to her mother and says, ‘Mom, how is it possible that you told me that the human race was created by God, but Papa says we evolved from monkeys?’

    The Mother answers, ‘Well, dear, it’s very simple… I told you about the origin of my side of the family, and your father told you about his side.’

  • Best scientific answers coalesce when one can observe, measure, replicate by experiment, and compute formulas for a phenomenon. Examinations for many physical events have not reached this four-fold rationality.

    One example is String Theory, or the “theory of everything”; everything for atomic, micro-processes. Elegant mathematical models utilize eleven dimensions to unify gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear strong and weak forces. Here is computation without experiment, measurement, or observation. Niels Bohr would say, “Yes, yes you have the mathematics. But does it make sense?” Notable critics say scientists utilize mathematics, but inadvertently venture into philosophy or religion. Rigorous debate continues.

    At the other extreme is Darwinism, where all is observation. Rigorous measurements and experiments require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history. Scientists contemplate observed phenomenon, and decide evolution explains everything. Yet evolution does fail computational testing with Thermodynamics covering macro-processes. Natural processes, required by natural selection, create increased disorder, release energy, and increase entropy. Even huge energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge absent intentionality. Debate prohibited.

    One standard for good science is usefulness. Even if Darwinism stumbles in explaining physical phenomenon, it has already contributed vital social and political apologetics. Darwin’s life on PBS explained his important contributions to predatory nationalism, capitalism and socialism as seen through lives of Adolf Hitler, John D. Rockefeller, and Vladimir Lenin. Darwinism’s utility remains esteemed for convincing masses to relinquish control to elites. That is an important inference from Ben Stein’s movie Expelled.

  • Jeff said:

    But that’s a big assumption. Are humans only advanced animals? (I’m playing devil’s advocate here.) If so, there’s no moral obligation to not enslave or kill weaker humans.

    The big assumption is yours. The idea that evolution means there is no moral obligation is not Darwin’s idea, it’s yours. Just because you’re too small-minded to imagine a moral code that doesn’t depend on God doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
    Anon… I’m not sure you’ve thought through this entirely.

    Darwinism has historically provided a logical “out” for people wanting to view humans as merely animals. And animal relations involve no morality. We don’t tell a spider that it’s evil for sucking the fluids from a housefly. It’s doing what it’s programmed to do via its genes. The assumption for many scientists is that humans, too, do only what they are programmed to do via their genes. You can see the short step from there to a moral-less view of human relations. I’m not saying Darwin proposed this model–merely that his ideas provided the logical foundation for that kind of thinking. If humans are entirely the product of random mutation and variation through natural selection, there’s no God (or higher force) giving human activity any kind of morality. And if there’s no absolute to appeal to, then no morality is binding on anyone (read Stanley Fish’s The Trouble with Principle for a good treatment of this subject). We may not like that idea, but the onus has squarely landed on the followers of Darwin to provide some kind of stable morality that logically fits with the morally-random universe they claim we’re living in. Otherwise, arguing against slavery or murder is merely an argument of taste or convenience. We can “imagine” moralities all we want, but the definition of morality means that it has to be binding on more than just me. And if it just came out of my head, then it’s not binding to anyone.

    Darwinism has nothing but applause for Hitler’s actions.

    I think that’s the line of thinking Stein is referring to when he says “From Darwin to Hitler.”

    We are quite familiar with the slander that Darwinism somehow approves of genocide. It doesn’t make it any less a load of bullshit.
    But it does. It may deny that it does. It may hate that it does. But it does.

    Think about it this way: if we are not the products of divine intervention but are merely highly-complex protoplasm, then we are not beholden to any God. That means there is no morality binding on us. That means that you (and I) get to decide what’s moral and what’s not. But since we’ve already admitted there is no morality that’s binding, we must admit that whatever I declare moral is meaningless to you and vice versa.

    Interestingly, we may actually decide on mutually exclusive moralities. So what happens when one of us decides that it’s moral for him to enslave the other? Might makes right. Survival of the fittest. I may get some friends to help keep me free of your enslavement, but that just means that the might of me and my friends beat you. There’s no moral arbiter to decide between us who was right and who was wrong.

    See, this is why religious people respond so vehemently against Darwinism: it’s stripped out the whole idea of divine ownership and, therefore, divine law (since creation implies ownership which in turn implies that the owner gets to control his own creations). That means morality is gone. Divine law is gone. All we’re left with is convenience and taste. It’s not that I can’t imagine something else. It’s that, if Darwinism is true, anything moral I can imagine is binding on no one (not even me). “Morality” is simply a contentless word for a wishful thought. It provides no meaning. It’s completely empty.

    Darwinism wants to liberate humankind from the idea of divine creation… but it conceptually leaves us in an absolute waste land.

  • Three things jump out at any thinking person after reading the majority of these blogs by opponents of ID.

    First, the opponents of ID always use derogatory, insulting rhetoric in the debate, aimed not at the topic but at their debate opponents. It is almost as if they believe argument ad hominum is a valid logical construct. Name calling accomplishes nothing. How persuasive is such argument to a thinking person, really? By having nothing to offer on the debate itself, such persons establish their ignorance of both logic and debate. Why can’t the ideas be argued rather than the personalities? I think this is a fair question. And I think the answer is: it is easier and requires less energy and time to merely throw stones than to actually study the topic and form intelligent conclusions. Study, then comment.

    Second, it is apparent that very few if any of the bloggers have actually studied the current science on the topic. I mean current as in the last 40-50 years. There is a significant — and growing — movement in the scientific community, from physics to astronomy to cosmology to biology, that is coming around to the idea that the complexity of the universe could not have “just happened.” Even Steven Hawking has come around to the idea that the universe did not “just happen.” For instance (and this is only one example among hundreds), the so-called “scientific experts” believed until around 1964 (when the existence of background radiation in the cosmos was proven to exist; look it up) that the universe had always existed, which would have given plenty of time for complex mechanisms like stars and kindergarteners to have “evolved” in an endless stream of random trial-and-error. After all, given enough time, anything is possible, right? Actually, no, but there is something even more wrong with this once-widely-accepted scientific theory that time is endless backwards: the second law of thermodynamics, also known as entropy, really messes it up. If time is endless backwards, then no matter how long the time period is for full and complete entropy to happen (pick a time, say, 4 quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion years), that time period has already passed, ergo none of us are here because entropy has already rendered the entire universe a dull glow of evenly spaced particles at near zero degrees Kelvin (the hypothesized ultimate end of entropy)! This grand collision of two cherished “scientific” theories, and other new discoveries, lead many scientists to engage in further investigation, which lead to the new theory called the “big bang,” in which (as the theory goes) the universe — and time itself, by the way — actually began in a cosmic explosion around 14.5 billion years ago. This new theory naturally disposed of the endless-time theory of the universe, and by the way, also helped us in understanding many other scientific laws and theories much better. So, when anyone tells you that “science” now has all the answers and the rest of us will just need to “catch up”, tell them about the big bang and suggest that maybe, just maybe, so-called “science” still may not have all the answers. Or tell them about irreducible complexities, or RNA replication theory, or the fact that all DNA molecules are left-handed which utterly defies statistics, or that the fossil record does not support the theory in any way, shape, or form, or about 350 other “scientific theories” that are not proven facts but merely theories — Darwinian evolution being only one of them. Real scientists are NEVER satisfied that they know anything; they are always investigating and challenging their own views so they might better understand and learn more than they now think they understand. Too bad the bloggers above do not share in that curious nature.

    Third, the bloggers demonstrate that they know nothing about Darwin’s actual theory. I can wager that almost none of those writing above have actually read “On the Origin of Species.” It is a tedious read, I grant you that, but before you go off accepting what someone else says the book says, perhaps you should take the time to read it yourself. You will find an amazing thing: Mr. Darwin himself, if he were true to his book, would today NOT be a proponent of his own theory of Darwinian evolution! What a claim, huh? Is it true? Do you care if it is true or not? You can only find out the answer if you read his book. But here’s a hint: Darwin said his entire theory would utterly collapse if one could demonstrate that any complex mechanism exists which cannot be explained by a gradual transition from a less complex mechanism into the complex mechanism under review. Unfortunately for the proponents of evolution, since 1859 (when Darwin wrote) real scientists have discovered in nature literally thousands of what are known as “irreducible complexities.” These are mechanism that could not have “evolved” because it takes both (or all) of the parts in place before the whole will operate. Here is one example: termites cannot digest wood. They must have in their intestines microbes called protists. These microbes are “anarobic” meaning they only exist in an environment without oxygen. The termite’s gut is the perfect environment for them; they cannot live outside it. But the termite cannot live without the protists inside its gut because it would starve. So how did the first protist get inside the first termite’s gut? How did the first termite exist for the protist to crawl inside of, since without the protist the first termite never would have existed because it could not eat. Hey, and how did that protist live outside the termite’s gut to begin with since oxygen kills them? Termite genes do not create protists, or vice versa. So how did they get together? Oh, and you would have to have two termites or how would they propogate? So, you would need two separate conglomerations of the first protists and termites, near each other, at the exact same time. Do statistics have anything to do with this? What are the odds that this would happen??? Oh, here’s another difficulty: actually, the protists do not digest the wood either; bacteria living inside the protists do that. It is thus even more weird how those bacteria got inside the protists, neither of which could live without the other, at jsut the right time, right before the protists climbed inside the first male and female termites who, at the time, were obviously very hungry! And you know what the Darwinists answer to this dillemna is? “Hey, we don’t know how it happened but it did so it must have happened by natural processes.” They assume the very conclusion they are trying to prove, a process which logic describes as “circular reasoning.” Most logicians do NOT consider circular reasoning a valid logical construct. Except when it comes to evolution, I guess. There are over 5,000 of these “irreducible complexities” currently cataloged in science, and that is just with living organisms, so please don’t even attempt to argue that “science” has all the answers. It doesn’t, and it never will. Be a critical thinker! Do not accept what someone says just because they proclaim themselves to be an “expert.” Think for yourself. Study. Learn. THINK!!!

    The debate about “intelligent design” is not a purely religious debate. That it has religious implications is a given. But so does evolution! The fact that theories have implications in other areas of thought is not grounds to reject them, or support them. Critical thinkers know this. Those of you who are not critical thinkers should try to master the art of debate, and then do your homework, before you enter the arena. You look foolish otherwise.

    One final comment on the Stein issue. Dawkins would supposedly have answered questions differently had he known the agenda of the interviewer. Does this bode well for his intellectual honesty? Should it matter who the interviewer is, or should he give the same, honest answers no matter what? Apparently, Dawkins is also a proponent of moral relativism, in which “truth” depends on who is asking the questions. Now, where do the evolutionists get their moral benchmark again? I forgot.

  • Comments are closed.