Last week, Premise Media Corporation released a film to over 1000 theaters in the United States. It’s called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The movie is hosted by comedian Ben Stein and explores the suppression of scientific research on Intelligent Design (ID) theory in American academia. Expelled exposes a pattern of censorship in the scientific establishment; Intelligent Design ideas cannot even be discussed. The merest hint of ID sympathies can damage or end a scientist’s career.
The bottom line
I’ll give you the bottom line first because most of you are lazy and won’t read the article. Should you see Expelled? That depends on you.
- If you know what ID is and you think it doesn’t qualify as science, don’t bother to watch Expelled. It won’t change your mind.
- If you know little or nothing about ID, Expelled won’t give you enough background information to understand the issue. Don’t bother.
- If you have some basic knowledge about what ID is and how it differs from Creationism and from evolution, you should watch Expelled.
- If you’ve been following the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate in academia and you understand the issues, then you already know everything Expelled has to say and more. Skip it.
What Expelled does well
The film does a great job of highlighting several cases where scientists and journalists have lost their jobs and suffered damage to their reputations as a result of expressing sympathy toward Intelligent Design ideas.
Expelled also hits the mark in its interviews with prominent atheists and evolutionary scientists. Stein clearly shows that their support of evolution is intimately tied to their rejection of God and religion. There’s some truth to the saying that evolution is a religion.
The highlight of Expelled is an interview with the vituperative atheist Richard Dawkins. He holds nothing back. His antipathy for Intelligent Design is second only to his hatred of all things religious.
What Expelled does not do
Although Ben Stein interviews several people whose careers have suffered as a result of their ID beliefs, Expelled fails to establish any pattern of widespread persecution of ID. Stein mentions several times that he interviewed many scientists who were unwilling to go on the record about their ID belief for fear of the consequences. That’s troubling, but we need more on-the-record stories to establish that the censorship of ideas is widespread.
Curiously, Expelled fails to offer a good definition of either evolution or Intelligent Design. One would expect a documentary to at least define its subject matter precisely. This is important for any documentary, but even more critical when the subject is Intelligent Design: the whole debate hinges on whether Intelligent Design qualifies as legitimate science. Correctly defining ID might explain why some scientists believe it is unscientific and therefore should be booted out the science lab and left to the philosophers.
Another blatant omission is any mention of Michael Behe or his work on irreducible complexity, which is a key part of Intelligent Design.
Finally, the biggest problem is that Expelled does not stay on topic. It starts as an exploration of academic freedom and the supression of Intelligent Design theory. Then halfway through the movie, it suddenly shifts. Stein travels to Dachau to explore the link between Darwin and Nazism. What that has to do with academic freedom of speech in America is anyone’s guess. The connection between Darwin and the Nazi eugenics program is something worth exploring, yes, but not when the subject is academic freedom. It gets in the way of an otherwise good movie.
Kenneth Martens said, “The film does a great job of highlighting several cases where scientists and journalists have lost their jobs and suffered damage to their reputations as a result of expressing sympathy toward Intelligent Design ideas.”
First of all, I haven’t yet seen the film.
I have been doing some reading on both sides of this debate. While it seems pretty clear that in general academia doesn’t think very highly of God (although it accepts religion as a necessary evil for many humans), I wonder how honestly the film presents what has actually happened when scientists have been sympathetic to ID. Some of the stuff I’ve read indicates that the film took interviews out of context and dealt with some of the “facts” dishonestly:
from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&print=true
That being said, it doesn’t seem implausible that such things have indeed happened; I personally know of a case where a well-qualified history professor was not hired at UTArlington for no reason other than that he was a Christian (that word from the Department Chair).
On a related note, I’m reading Francis Collins’s The Language of God book at the moment. I’ll try to do a review eventually.
Sounds like a very thorough review. I only heard about this movie last week. I’ll probably see it when they release it on DVD.
I think the connections between evolutionary thought and eugenics (Nazi and otherwise) is well documented. Eugenics cannot exist without being predicated on this theory; it otherwise wouldn’t make sense. Whether eugenics belongs in the movie is a different matter altogether, but there are many eugenicists in American academics today. You can bet they are all adherents to the evolutionary faith.
If Expelled hadn’t spent so much time blaming evolution for the Holocaust maybe it could have explained the Richard Sternberg affair in more detail. I don’t think the affair was misrepresented, but it wasn’t fully explored.
In fact, Expelled left out what I consider the more interesting part of the story: the reaction to the article that was published, not the treatment of Dr. Sternberg. After Sternberg stepped down as editor, the journal issued a retraction and an apology for the article. The reason for the retraction? Not because it wasn’t peer-reviewed, but because “the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.” The fact that the journal felt it necessary to apologize for publishing an article that questioned the status quo is telling in itself.
Eugenics is Selective Breeding, a practice well known and used for centuries before Darwin suggested that Nature also selects. Hitler publicly denounced Darwin, and Stalin, and atheism.
The “Evolutionary Faith” was around for 40 years before Darwin was born. For over 200 years since then, eager scientists and amateurs have been trying to make names for themselves by finding and proving some flaw in it. No luck, so far. Certain details have changed, as we discovered chemistry, cell biology, germ theory, microscopy, cosmology, atomic theory, quantum theory, plate tectonics, and other disciplines that let us examine the idea from ever more widely ranged perspectives.
This movie is an agenda desperately searching for factual support. It fails to present any.
The kind of microevolution upon which eugenics is premised is accepted by even the staunchest literal Creationists. It’s not evolutionary thought that paves the way for genocidal eugenics, it’s a devaluation of human life. When we no longer value human life then we can implement eugenics programs.
just saw Expelled; the fact that Ben Stein isn’t trying to win any popularity contests helps to validate his message… i gather that his goal is to promote free thought, especially more thinking about the worldviews that drive American academia
“Eugenics is Selective Breeding, a practice well known and used for centuries before Darwin suggested that Nature also selects.”
That’s a pretty simple definition for a philosophy such as this. Let’s be honest, we’re dealing specifically with the “improvement” of human heredity by encouraging and discouraging specific people groups from reproducing, where certain races are considered undesirable and others are “good stock”. People selectively breed tomato plants, but that’s not eugenics.
“It’s not evolutionary thought that paves the way for genocidal eugenics, it’s a devaluation of human life.”
I think you are correct in part, but I believe evolutionary thought has led to the devaluation of human life. If there is no God and we all evolved from single-celled organisms, then where is the basis for morality? There is none, because there is no one to answer to. We are reduced to the simple biological impulse of survival, where the end will always justify the means.
I haven’t seen the film yet, but I am quite familiar with the ID/evolution debate. All in all this seemed to be a fair review from what I have heard from other reviewers, although there are a few points worth clarifying.
“There’s some truth to the saying that evolution is a religion.”
I would agree that belief in evolution or atheism are similar to religions, but only in the way that being a Democrat/Republican, vegan, accountant or Beatles fan are similar to religions. Yes, each is defined by a certain set of beliefs or opinions. But to call evolution or atheism religions dillutes the definition of a religion to include any idea under the sun. Having a preference for the color blue could be considered religious!
Also, for those who say that eugenics falls on Darwin’s shoulders should remember that even the most fundamentalist creationist knows & agrees that you can breed two members of the same species together to obtain certain traits (ie. breeding different colored fish together to achieve a specific coloration), and that knowledge has been around for thousands of years. The theory of evolution was hardly necessary for Hitler to believe he could breed certain characteristics into and out of the human race.
Finally, the Expelled Exposed website sites how none of the individuals mentioned in the film were directly fired for their belief in ID, nor have their careers been in any way destroyed. I’m not claiming to be an expert on their career histories, but it’s worth checking out the other side of the issue.
“Also, for those who say that eugenics falls on Darwin’s shoulders should remember that even the most fundamentalist creationist knows & agrees that you can breed two members of the same species together to obtain certain traits (ie. breeding different colored fish together to achieve a specific coloration), and that knowledge has been around for thousands of years.”
The fact still remains that the modern eugenics movement is a Darwinist movement. Simple selective breeding and eugenics is not one in the same. Eugenics is a social movement, not a basic understanding of genetics. Certainly a person could (however unlikely) have some eugenic attitudes without being an evolutionist, but evolution and the eugenics movement that began at the turn of the century cannot be separated. Modern eugenics is the invention of Francis Galton, who was the cousin of Charles Darwin. He basically took Darwin’s ideas and formulated his own branch of pseudoscience.
When I talk about eugenics as a movement I’m talking about the International Eugenics Conference, Nazism, Margaret Sanger, and the like. The motto of the International Eugenics Conference was “Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.” Even the Nazi brand of eugenics was based on recommendations from American eugenicist Harry Laughlin, who was part of the worldwide movement. So Nazism was only extreme in that it actually put into practice some of the ideas others had been plotting.
>>The film does a great job of highlighting several cases where scientists and >>journalists have lost their jobs and suffered damage to their reputations as >>a result of expressing sympathy toward Intelligent Design ideas.”
I saw the screening in Minneapolis with R. Dawkins and PZ meyers - (who was expelled from the theater).
Your analysis of the film is a reasonable response to viewing the film. But if one is unaware of what is behind it’s making, it can be very deceiving. The quote above appears to be accurate until you look closer at what these supposed “outcasts” are claiming - one of them misrepresented himself as a ousted employee of the Smithsonian - in fact he was a visiting assistant and still has his post! Others had no proof that they were victims of discrimination. People seldom give you a straight answer as to why you are being let go and it is all too easy to make something up to appease yourself. I’ve done this and I have been wrong in the past.
The film is very dishonest on many levels. Evolution is never mentioned in Mein Kampf and Hitler was a Catholic who stated that he was following God’s wishes fighting the Jew. It is an invented controversy and is purely propaganda.
I don’t think it is fair to say that Richard Dawkins “Hates religion”. I have met him several times and even had dinner with the man. He is really a very gentle man. He just doesn’t believe in a god. He understandably gets angry when religious fanatics try to make him look stupid as this film has attempted to do - and in this case it was very underhanded and quite unfair to him.
If you want to know the truth about ID, read “The Wedge Document”. This was written by the Discovery Institute and leaked to the internet. A wedge strategy is an underhanded political tool to bring about the motives of special interests. This document reveals an elaborate propaganda campaign to use ID as way to install a Theocracy in the US government. We have freedom of religion now - but whose particular Theism would we make the law of the land? Eckankar?
Just to be clear - Religion is a belief in a god. Science has nothing to do with religion or the absence of it (Atheism). Atheism is by definition the absence of religion - so it can’t be a religion unless you think black is the same as white. Atheist don’t deny God - they deny the belief in a god.
“He understandably gets angry when religious fanatics try to make him look stupid as this film has attempted to do - and in this case it was very underhanded and quite unfair to him.”
The only part that seemed unfair was when Ben Stein pressed him on the whole alien designers thing. The rest of the interview seemed in character with what he’s said elsewhere in his public writings. Richard Dawkins wasn’t misrepresented.
“Atheist don’t deny God - they deny the belief in a god.”
Huh?
Expelled also hits the mark in its interviews with prominent atheists and evolutionary scientists. Stein clearly shows that their support of evolution is intimately tied to their rejection of God and religion. There’s some truth to the saying that evolution is a religion.
Your third sentence does not follow from the second. Evolution is in no way a religion. Evolution is an extremely well-supported scientific theory for how certain things in the natural world work. Evolution thus offers a naturalistic explanation that eliminates a perceived gap in which any god might hide; as did Newton’s (PBUH) laws of motion, the germ theory of disease, and … well, every other scientific theory. No currently accepted scientific theory requires a deity. Would you also purport that gravity is a religion?
Evolution is harder for many religions to absorb because it deals with human origins. The whole Genesis creation story: out the window. the talking snake story: out the window. Noah’s flood: out the window. With the talking snake story gone, what has Jesus left to suffer for? Did God send his son to be crucified for a myth? Thus, evolution has led many scientifically literate people to abandon certain aspects of common religions, and in many cases, to abandon religion entirely. But just because evolution might lead some to abandon religion, this does not make evolution itself a religion.
In fact, Expelled left out what I consider the more interesting part of the story: the reaction to the article that was published, not the treatment of Dr. Sternberg…
Have you read that article, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories” by Stephen C. Meyer, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 117(2) pp. 213-239, 2004 ?
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
I have read it. The quality of “science” in that article is very low. It contains things I know to be false. The quality of that paper is central; if it really is poor quality, then Sternberg deserves criticism for sneaking it into print.
It is also ironic that ID supporters have been insisting that ID is science, not religion, but when they encounter resistance, they spin it as religious discrimination. Surely scientific discrimination is not a bad thing; quality control should be applauded.
Reginald Selkirk said: “But just because evolution might lead some to abandon religion, this does not make evolution itself a religion.”
I think you’re missing the point. Of course evolution isn’t a religion in the same way that Buddhism, Islam, or Christianity are religions. The point I was getting at (and I admit I was unclear) is that there are some people who think evolution is incompatible with religion and God. For an example of someone who thinks this, see Philip Kitcher’s book Living With Darwin. These people are unwilling to accept any challenge to the evolutionary model because to do so would reintroduce God into the equation.
Now, personally I don’t see why evolution and religion can’t be compatible, but it’s clear that some people do think that way.
Reginald Selkirk said: “No currently accepted scientific theory requires a deity. Would you also purport that gravity is a religion?”
No, of course not. But some people think evolution requires that there is no deity. That’s what Stein’s interviews in Expelled reveal, and that’s what I was trying to communicate. Evolution is different from gravity because (as you pointed out) evolution deals with the origins of human life.
Reginald Selkirk said: “The quality of that paper is central; if it really is poor quality, then Sternberg deserves criticism for sneaking it into print.”
Oh absolutely. I agree completely. The quality of the paper is the central question. That’s why I’m disturbed that the journal issued an apology for the paper simply because the paper supported ID. According to the apology notice:
Maybe the paper was good science, maybe it wasn’t. I’m not qualified to judge that. But by adhering to the anti-ID resolution, the journal refused to even consider the paper on its merits. It’s mind-boggling, really. They rejected a scientific paper supporting ID because of a resolution that says there is no scientific evidence to support ID.
“the journal refused to even consider the paper on its merits”
Since there really is no scientific evidence to support ID, all such papers that fail to produce any scientific evidence should be rejected. But this one got published anyway? I wonder why?
Basic premise at the above link:
“Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms.”
Since this idea does not really make any scientific sense, the paper really does fail on its merits.
The paraphrased argument is: “the theory of evolution does not explain THIS, therefore “intelligent design” must be correct.”
This argument is typical for a creationist. Handwaving disbelief, therefore …
But the easy way out for the journal retraction is: Our journal is about a narrow field in biology and our editors and reviewers are specialized in that field and this paper is not even close to being in that field, so it should not have been published in our journal regardless of its merits.
Let’s post the full text of the disownment to avoid any cherry-picking:
“STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.
We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (http://www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.”
Allow me to elaborate on one of the points they do make: the paper is outside their usual material. That means it would not have been published there through usual practice. Focusing on an area of expertise allows a journal to maintain quality.
In a similar manner, ID proponent Michael Behe managed to get a very poor paper on population genetics (Behe & Snoke (2004) Protein Science 13: 2651-2664.) published in a journal that usually concentrates on protein chemistry and structure. If he had instead submitted it to a pop bio journal, the editors would have easily spotted the lack of quality.
Here’s a thorough review/debunking of the Meyer paper for anyone who is new to the issue:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Meyer.cfm
Meyer’s hopeless Monster
by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry
“The only part that seemed unfair was when Ben Stein pressed him on the whole alien designers thing. The rest of the interview seemed in character with what he’s said elsewhere in his public writings. Richard Dawkins wasn’t misrepresented.”
OK, you have an opinion. I can give you some facts based on personal experience.
When the producers of the film contacted Dawkins, they told him that the title of the film was to be “Crossroads: The intersection of science and religion.”. I know this because Dawkins told me. After the interviews they changed the name to “Expelled: No intelligence allowed”. When we were at the screening with Dawkins, my partner asked Mark Mathis in the Q & A about the title change and he was rather smug in saying that is it very common for movies to have a “working title” - not only that, they already had the rights to the name Expelled before they did the interviews. A working title?! It was a ruse to get interviews out of the scientists. I wonder if you noticed that they asked loaded questions, added slow zoom effects and dark music and edited the footage of the interview to make him look and sound uncertain and malevolent. If that wasn’t heavy handed enough, they even added cartoons ridiculing him. I have personally spoken to Dawkins and PZ Meyers about this and neither of them would have granted interviews if they had had a hint of what the film makers intended to do. Do you still insist that he wasn’t misrepresented because I tell you that PZ and Dawkins both feel strongly that they were. I could asked them a again for you if you wish.
“Atheist don’t deny God - they deny the belief in a god.”
Huh?
It’s really not that difficult - if you believe in a god, then obviously YOU see others who don’t believe as deniers.
But.
If it is given that there does not exist such thing as a god and there exists such a thing as belief in one, then that is something that can be denied or rejected.
“Do you still insist that he wasn’t misrepresented because I tell you that PZ and Dawkins both feel strongly that they were. I could asked them a again for you if you wish.”
Well, actually that might be nice. I know Dawkins disagrees with the message of Expelled, that he thinks it’s shoddy film-making, and that he feels he was conned into granting the interview. But where, precisely, were his views misrepresented? The only specific thing I’ve seen him write about is the panspermia question, where he thinks Expelled implies that he believes in panspermia. (I didn’t get that impression at all. I thought it was very clear that Dawkins was presenting a preposterous scenario because he was indulging Stein’s childish request for a thought experiment.)
Did you see the film?
Yes, absolutely. I have seen the film.
First of all, I have not seen the film.
Second of all, I am a scientist.
Third of all, I am a Christian.
I would disagree with your first “group” who should not see the film–I don’t think ID is science, and I want to see it anyway. Why? Masochism. And a morbid fascination with things that infuriate me.
Two things to add to this discussion:
First of all, my gut reaction is to have little sympathy for scientists who lose their job over ID leanings. There are a lot of great ways to integrate faith and learning, to believe in God and still strive to understand every part of the process. The oft-repeated and unfortunately very true criticism of ID is that it inhibits science–”this could never have happened on its own!” is really “we don’t know why this happened” which is followed by “so why bother trying to find out? Science isn’t done yet, we haven’t discovered everything there is to know. Sometimes, tiny details lead to a world of consequences–such as the fact that things glow when they’re hot. It’s one thing to look at the amazing processes that govern life; the fantastic imagination and beauty found in nature, and give glory to God; it’s quite another to look at the mysteries _as a scientist_, and be done, claiming there’s no use or point in investigating further.
But then, I have to take a step back and concede as certain amount of bias against Christianity among scientists. It’s often a career ending move for Christians in science who decide to teach in Christian colleges. It is extremely difficult to move to a different field or a larger university from there. Other small liberal arts colleges don’t seem to have the problem to quite the same level, so it’s not just about “smaller college professors don’t do good research”. It’s often hard for people to believe that a Christian could be intelligent, rational, and a good scientist. Increasingly, religion seems to be equated with fairy tales, and willingly sticking your head in the sand. That’s where scientists step beyond their grounds.
It’s a sad little spiraling effect. Christians assume scientists are hostile towards them, and so preempt with their own attacks. Scientists get irritated with Christians–erm, sorry, I mean, ID proponents–hijacking science, and respond with more force than necessary, allowing disgust to slip into their responses. This gives a certain amount of legitimacy to Christians–ID proponents–constant harpy cries of “persecution! foul!”, starting the cycle anew. Lovely.
I think that is a very fair post Karen. As an Atheist, I can only imagine that the most plausible notion of being a scientist as well as a religious person is if one is Deistic in their convictions about a higher power. For me, science helped to expose the fallacies I recognized in my Catholic upbringing and the absurdity of holding on to the idea of an invisible friend in the sky. I understand what it is to have faith and I have studied science and I cannot put the two together in my mind. Some people seem to be able to do that. If professing your faith is frowned upon in the scientific community, you can thank people like the folks at the Discovery Institute who use it like a club to smash their way into the establishment in order to gain respect and as a crutch to feign victim hood for sympathy. Where is the voice of moderate or mainstream Christians on this issue? This is the first Christian oriented site that has offered any criticism of the film. Do the faithful really want this awful film to define their perspective of science?
I suggest for reference the Wikipedia entry for “Expelled” - it is comprehensive and well constructed as to the facts regarding this film and the events surrounding it. (at least it was last I looked at it). But, of course I am waiting for the pro-ID types to proclaim that Wikipedia is controlled by Nazi and Communists.
Rev. Barky said: “But, of course I am waiting for the pro-ID types to proclaim that Wikipedia is controlled by Nazi and Communists.”
I don’t know about Nazis and Communists, but I suspect Wikipedia is a tool of evil socialists and statists. It’s all a conspiracy against libertarians, I tell you. Conspiracy! Help help, I’m being repressed! Soylent green is evolutionists!
So you have gone from:
“Stein clearly shows that their support of evolution is intimately tied to their rejection of God and religion.”
which should read “their support of science”, to
“There’s some truth to the saying that evolution is a religion.”
which is absolutely ridiculous, and now
“Help help, I’m being repressed!”
My opinion is that you should delete this entire blog entry and claim it never happened. It exposes your ignorance about everything you have expressed an opinion on.
onein6billion wrote: “My opinion is that you should delete this entire blog entry and claim it never happened. It exposes your ignorance about everything you have expressed an opinion on.”
I don’t know if you’d care to write an article for us, but it might be an interesting counter-point or followup to my article. Zeal for Truth is a Christian site and we mostly lean libertarian when it comes to politics, but we sometimes run guest articles. Anyway, don’t feel obligated, but I just thought I’d ask.
You too, Rev. Barky. Colin is the editor so he’s the big boss, but I’m sure he’d welcome an article if you want to submit one. You can excoriate my review of Expelled, or actually, it might be interesting to hear a first-hand account of your journey toward atheism. I can’t say we’ll agree with you (Zeal for Truth is a Christian site, after all, so we tend to disagree with atheists about the existence of God [when I say “tend to disagree” I mean we always disagree.
]) but I know that I at least would be curious to hear your thoughts about why faith and science can’t be reconciled.
I spoke with God - he wills that these articles be presented. He also willed punch and pie, but first things first.
“Another blatant omission is any mention of Michael Behe or his work on irreducible complexity, which is a key part of Intelligent Design.”
Actually, so-called “irreducible complexity” is supposedly an argument against evolution. But it’s a silly, obviously false, argument. Which continues to show that the only argument for “intelligent design” is: “evolution is wrong, therefore intelligent design must be right”. A good non sequitur.
And yet, Kevin Miller claims that Expelled is not anti-evolution. They seem to have fooled a lot of people about that.
“an interesting counter-point”
All the appropriate information is right there at Expelled Exposed:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
I think your interest in hearing from an opposing viewpoint is laudable - however, I am under no illusion that it will sway you folks - I am not out to convert anyone. I can’t anyway since I have no “dogma” to present. When one leaves religion behind, ones opinions are entirely their own.
At present, I am have a poor understanding as to where you folks are coming from. I am not an experienced debater - although I do know several. Nor am I an accomplished writer as is my partner Kristine Harley at www.amused-muse.blogspot.com.
I might assume that since you are a Libertarian Christian website you support separation?
You may be interested in visiting a site I recently found http://malpoet.wordpress.com/ - he is a Libertarian Atheist Poet.
The mainstream argument on science vs religion is quite pointless and entirely divisive. This is the kind of thing that has led one Atheist organization to describe their members as “Friendly Neighborhood Atheists” so they don’t offend anyone. How very lame. Might as well be Humanists.;)
I suppose you’re right, Barky. An eloquent argument isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind. I’m under no illusions that my article swayed anyone, and that wasn’t my intention. I just wanted to extend the invitation in case you wanted to respond. Thanks for taking the time to participate by commenting. I admit I like it when people comment on what I write, even if they disagree. It’s more fun than being ignored.
I’m not sure what you mean by supporting separation. Do you mean separation of church and state? The libertarians among us mostly do. (We’re not all libertarians here.) But probably not in the way that most people think about the separation of church and state. I think that the government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what does and does not qualify as a religion. If the government decides what counts as religion and therefore must be banned from the public arena, then we’ve given too much power to our rulers. I prefer a system where the government is simply neutral, allowing religion to enter the public sphere without curtailing it. By that I mean the government shouldn’t care about having a Ten Commandments monument or a Buddha statue outside a courthouse. As long as the law treats everyone equally and everyone’s rights are respected, a piece of religious artwork isn’t going to hurt anyone. It might offend some people, but that’s life.
I’m skeptical of things that explicitly indicate that America is a Christian nation, like in 1954 when Congress added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. I don’t like that because I know the American government is secular and that the nation does not follow God. Frankly, the words “under God” are largely a sham. We’re not “under God” in any distinctive way. Oh sure, we’re under God in the sense that God is sovereign over all things, but other than that, no, we’re just another nation and just another people. America isn’t special.
Defining our Terms
Rev. Barky wrote:
Obviously if you define the terms that way, atheism is not a religion. That seems like a very petty way to define “religion”, “science”, and “atheism” though. I’ll share my definitions, and they point out why they are more useful than yours.
I define “religion” as a set of assumptions regarding the supernatural and the unprovable that shapes how one lives. Believing we live in a matrix style simulation would be a “religion”, as would the idea that we are all spiritual energy forms that happen to normalize to a physical form. Neither of these things can ever be falsified, so we must make assumptions regarding their existence. There is no need for “religion” to relate to a god or gods at all. This is far more accurate to normal usage, because what we normally think of as the religions of the world do not all assume a god or gods (see Scientology). What they DO is to assume something about the supernatural or unprovable.
Atheism is the definitive belief that there is no god. It may or may not believe in other supernatural powers, standards of morality, or purposes for life, but has decided there is no superior intelligence and power with moral authority over mankind. Obviously though, this is not something that can be proven. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove we do not all live in a Matrix, let alone that there is not a supernatural being who is in charge of us. Such a belief is therefore religious (using the above definition), since it derives something entirely unprovable about the supernatural.
Science is the study of cause and effect. It seeks to provide verifiable statements about the nature of physical interactions. By definition, atheism CANNOT be scientific, because its claims are entirely unfalsifiable. You cannot PROVE that there is no God. Even if you could disprove Christianity, there are infinite forms a god could take. Science can only really be sure about things that are reproducible. Things like string theory are interesting ideas, but until tests can be conducted even valid predictions are based on a single occurrence.
The same is true of evolution. Until we can actually demonstrate it happening from the base elements, all it can ever be is a plausible idea for how things might have happened. To take something that is only a plausible idea and build one’s moral belief system around it is not science, it’s religion. Someone can believe evolution most likely happened as postulated, but until reproduced taking that as a certainty is a religion assumption. The reason evolution vs ID discussions go nowhere useful is that they long ago stopped being scientific in nature and are now viewed with religious fervor by both sides. Of course, both sides think that they are “obviously right”, despite neither being able to prove anything they are saying in a lab.
Claims of misrepresentation and religious debate
Rev. Barky wrote:
Rev. Barky wrote:
Ok, so they tricked him into talking to the camera and made him look evil using camera trickery. This is massively common in religion fights like evolution vs Christianity and is done by both sides (wrongly). Can you give meaningful areas where they misrepresented his factual views? I haven’t actually seen it yet and am not familiar with his actual beliefs, so clarification would be useful. Making him look evil isn’t really the same as misrepresenting him. Again, I agree its unfair, but it is actually very common to religious debates and I have seen the same thing done to ID proponents when interviewed by evolutionists.
Rev. Barky wrote:
Yeah, that’s also common to religious debates. Both sides have long lists of offense the other has committed, and will not “act nice” until the other side does first. The existence of this behavior among the scientific community is one of the stronger arguments for the fact that evolution has become a religion to many of them. The no longer consider someone on the merits of the argument, but on whether they are one of “those people”. See Iraq for an example of how bad such religious disagreements can get over relatively minor areas of disagreement. For the most part, Christians were at the base of the modern scientific movement, yet over a minor religious disagreement are often marginalized.
The value of opposing positions
Rev. Barky wrote:
Almost nobody is ever swayed by rational argument from something they believe in strongly. I could likely offer you absolute proof that you were wrong and it wouldn’t change minds. That said, it is extremely healthy to be willing to listen to the arguments of others whether you agree or not. The more strongly you believe something, the more important to hear opposing points of view lest your beliefs totally lose contact with reality. Those here believe what we do because we have considered the options, and find our beliefs to be the most reasonable option available. We don’t go for “blind leaps of faith” unless we feel we have significant reason to have confidence in the result. Any well reasoned, well written position is always welcome here. From the amount you’ve already written in the comments, you definitely have plenty of “dogma” to share if you decide you are willing!
^^ article right there.
I would have no objection to my above post being reposted as an article.
Excellent! I’ll edit it together to take the conversational element out and sent you a pm/email or whatever so you can see what you think.
Colin
Ben(jamin) Stein is under heavy artillery for ‘exaggerating’ or ‘going easy’ on the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the ‘Politics-is-applied-biology’ Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I. It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous German Ernst Haeckel with his still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc. in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871. If Thomas Henry Huxley with his concept of ‘agnostism’ was Darwins bulldog in England, Haeckel was his Rotweiler in Germany.
‘Kampf’ was a direct translation of ’struggle’ from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Seinen Kampf. His application.
Catch 22: Haeckel’s 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled for the ‘public understanding of science’ (PUS) in most biology text books until this millennium. Despite factum est that Haeckel’s crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS - and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it.
Some edited quotes from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a ‘bit’):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf
The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between “white” and “colored races” was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).
The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould’s scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87). Typically, the operations hit blacks the most in the US, poor women in the Europe, and often the victims were never even told they had been sterilized.
Mendelism outweighed recapitulation (embryos climbing up their evolutionary tree through fish-, amphibian- and reptilian stages), but that merely smoothened the way for the brutal 1930’s biolegislation - that quickly penetrated practically all Western countries. The laws were copied from country to country. The A-B-O blood groups, haemophilia, eye colours etc. were found to be inherited in a Mendelian fashion by 1910. So also the complex traits and social (mis)behaviour such as alcoholism, schizophrenia, manic depression, criminality, rebelliousness, artistic sense, pauperism, racial differences, inherited scholarship (and its converse, feeble-mindedness) were all thought to be determined by one or two genes. Mendelism was “experimental” and quantitative, and its exaggeration outweighed the more cautious biometry operating on smaller variations, not discontinuous leaps. Its advocates boldly claimed that these problems could be done away within a few generations through selection, persisted (although most biologists must have known that defective genes could not be eliminated, even with the most intense forced sterilizations and marriage restrictions due to recessive genes and synergism. Nevertheless, these laws were held until 1970’s and were typically changed only when the abortion legislation were released (1973).
So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938 ) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the ‘Up’ of the ancient city from Plinius’ Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17). Today, Swedish state church is definitely the most liberal in the face of the world.
Hitler’s formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the “Nordics”, a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel’s position on the ‘Judenfrage’ was assimilation and Expelled-command from their university chairs, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?
In 1917 the immigration of “defective” groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census. Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the “nordic” balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).
Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Regarding us Finns, Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the “yellow” group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.
Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century. And she went Full Monty.
Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, ‘legally’. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.
I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee (contra epithumia, eros, filia & storge) (ahava in Hebrew), that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.
pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm
“Until we can actually demonstrate it happening from the base elements”
Set those goalposts pretty high, didn’t you? Are you trying to refer to “abiogenesis” or “evolution”? A new species of lizard in only 36 years is not good enough for you? Google Tiktaalik?
150 years of evidence of the “tree of life” in dozens of independent ways is not good enough for you?
Any creationist that believes in the story of Noah’s Flood believes in some degree of evolution. Show me life forming from nothing or a lizard turning into a bird and we’ll assume Evolution is provable.