Ben Stein may be most familiar to you as the economics teacher in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, the teacher blandly taking attendance who repeats “Bueller (dramatic pause), Bueller (dramatic pause, shot of the sister rolling her eyes), Bueller” with the most excellent deadpan expression and monotone voice. Stein is actually one of the more intelligent minds in North America, a person with the unique ability to mix bookish knowledge with wit and popular culture. Anybody remember the game show “Win Ben Stein’s Money” (1997-2003 on Comedy Central)? [Friend of this blogger, Tim McMahan, was once a contestant. As I recall, Stein was fascinated by Tim's knowledge of snakes (Tim lived in the Philippines as a kid, so he had greater access to such creatures than the average boy). Anyway, my point is that Stein is an intriguing person, and he carries with him a solid reputation and significant cultural credibility both in intellectual and popular media circles.
So, why the intro about Ben Stein? Well, because he seems the unlikely protagonist for a documentary confronting the arrogance of the mainstream scientific community and its suppression of legitimate research that questions Darwinism and its implications. Yet, indeed he is, and I think he is perfect for the part. He possesses just the right blend of practical knowledge, sardonic humor, winsome charm, disarming frankness, and popular credibility to bring the broadest audience to this important topic. I think with the help of viral marketing (like this blog post), this film will insert itself into the cultural marketplace as the next lightening rod of “inconvenient truth” to capture our society’s attention. I hope it will open some minds, further embolden those that wish to challenge the presuppositions of Darwinism, and lend validity (and increase resources) for scientific research that rejects the constraints of Darwinism.
I’ve embedded the YouTube version of the film’s trailer, but the official web site has a higher quality version.
Film Information
- Film Title: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
- The Movie Poster’s Tag Line: “Big Science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. What they forgot is that every generation has its Rebel… Ben Stein blows the horn on SUPPRESSION!”
- Release Date: Spring 2008
- Official Web Site: http://www.expelledthemovie.com
Noteworthy Links
- Ben Stein’s personal web site: http://benstein.com
- John Campea, editor of The Movie Blog, did an interview with Ben Stein about Expelled.
- Paul @ the blog, Life Needs a HUD, wrote a post entitled “Get Ben Steined” as a response to the interview at The Movie Blog.
Closing Thoughts…
My thoughts on the blog post, “Get Ben Steined,” and the kind of thinking it represents.
Paul is a proponent of evolutionary theory. In his estimation, “Intelligent Design” is rejected by the scientific community because it is bad science, and he sees ID and attempts to introduce it into classrooms alongside evolutionary theory as part of an Evangelical Christian agenda to unconstitutionally insert religious propoganda (creationism) disguised as science (intelligent design) into public education.
He is clearly disappointed that a popular icon like Ben Stein has been appropriated by conservative Christians and placed in service to what he sees as an appalling and destructive agenda. I think it is worth noting that Stein does not overtly claim any religious affiliation. He was raised in a Jewish home, but at most, I think we can safely label him a theist — he believes in an intelligent being (God) as Creator. Stein is not interested in advocating Evangelical Christianity, but if a group of scientists (that happen to be Christians) are asking legitimate questions of Darwinism and gathering worthy evidence in favor of ID, then why suppress their voice? Why be so threatened by them? If the mainstream scientific community is so confident that evolutionary theory best explains life, then why not welcome a competing theory to rise or fall in acceptance based on its merits. Instead, as the Expelled film tries to demonstrate, the community of academics that advocate evolutionary theory make preemptive strikes against scientists that step back and deny the hypothesis that is most compatible with macro-evolution, that there is no God. What if one were to start with the presupposition that an Intelligent Designer (Creator God) exists? Is there any scientific evidence that fits that hypothesis? Why not explore that possibility? How is it bad science to consider more than one presupposition in partnership with the evidence gathered over the centuries? In addition, what do we do with the devout Christians that believe there is a way to affirm both God as Creator and macro-evolution as a valid theory? I find it odd that the ID / evolutionary theory debate often overlooks this group. I suppose the majority on both sides perceive the Christian Darwinist as holding an untenable position.
Sadly, it seems that the two sides (evolutionary theorists and intelligent design theorists) cannot get past the fundamental differences in their worldviews and presuppositions, and they find it difficult to carry on honest and respectful dialogue. I find it troubling to read a post like Paul’s that is filled with the assumption (as though it is an undeniable and absolute fact) that an Evangelical Christian worldview and any “science” that is compatible with it is preposterous, intellectually dishonest, out of step with reality, supported by junk data (bad science), and ultimately destructive. Read any threaded discussion on Digg related to Evolution or ID, and you will discover a discourse filled with animosity and arrogance (sadly, spewed from all sides of the debate).
In my imagination, I ponder a hypothetical situation where I am a co-worker of Paul the blogger. We might enjoy one another’s company. We might get drinks after work. We might joke around and talk about football. He might call me his friend. Yet, based on the disdain his blog levels at Christians and those that believe in ID, I wonder how he would react once he learned I was one of those people? My point is that it is easy to abstractly label a group of people and call them fools. It is another thing to do so in personal confrontation. As I offer this illustration, I point the finger back at myself. How often do I speak of non-Christians, secular humanists, and those that believe in evolution in broadfully disdainful terms? In this battle over worldviews, theists and atheists find themselves in a severe culture war. It is far easier when we are aiming at large, impersonal labels representing groups. What happens when we discover that our neighbors, co-workers, and even friends are on the opposite side of the culture war? Can we tone down our rhetoric enough to maintain a friendship? Can we intelligently and respectfully debate our differing beliefs? How does a relationship proceed when the two parties realize that they both desperately want to win over the other to a new worldview?
These are just some of my honest thoughts as I struggle with this topic.
8 Comments, Comment or Ping
Aaron
Hey Jason,
Just in case you might be interested, Ben Stein will be showing his film at Biola on the 27th.
Check it out here.
Mar 15th, 2008
Trevor
J,
Did you get a chance to attend the screening at Biola last week? I would be interested to read more about any insights you gained from the event.
- Trev
Apr 1st, 2008
P Villarreal
Jason, it is not all bad science. Admitedly there are some who have erred but that does not dismiss the former evolutionist Jobe Martin in his documentary “Animals that defy evolution”. Dr. Jobe points outs that the giraffed could not have evolved all its specialized mechanisms and still be here today, it would have died off extinct long ago. It is all there in the websites ALL ABOUT GOD and ALL OF THE ANSWERS
Apr 9th, 2008
Surprised by Stein
I’ve long been a fan of Ben Stein through his financial columns, which are always well reasoned and a good antidote to some of the get rich quick claptrap that goes around, but I’m truly shocked by his efforts with “Expelled”.
This movie was just a second rate Michael Moore ripoff filled with non-sequiteurs clumsily trying to link a scientific theory about how creatures adapt to their surroundings to the Holocaust.
But I’d take issue with your review because you seem to have the wrong idea about the way Intelligent Design has been debated. You seem to agree with the film’s lie that Intelligent Design is being supressed politically instead of being allowed to be debated by scientists. That’s not the case at all. Intelligent Design has from the start failed to even attempt to get into a scientific debate and instead opted to bypass the scientific process and appeal directly to politicians for the right to teach it in schools.
Intelligent Design’s scientific argument, to the extent that one can be discerned, is that some features of organisms look too complicated to have arisen by evolutionary mechanisms. It then makes a logical leap that THEREFORE God did it. (Strategically most ID proponents avoid calling the designer “God”, though that is the undisputed identity of the intelligent designer.
The problem is, no ID proponent has ever succeeded in demonstrating that any organism could not have possibly evolved by natural selection. Many of the common examples which ID proponents classically like to name have now been explained by gradual evolution, including the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, the eye etc.
ID has already been defeated scientifically, which is why its active proponents are only allowed equal airtime in the science classroom to the extent that astrology is taught alongside astronomy and chemistry has to give equal time to alchemy.
Even intelligent design’s most enthusiastic supporters admit that only a handful of ID papers have ever been submitted for publication by them, compared to hundreds of thousands of papers against ID, and that the claims made by ID supporters have so far all been answered by conventional evolutionary biologists. Given that ID has completely failed to impress the scientific community, it has not earned the right to be considered science, let alone to be taught in science classes.
Apr 10th, 2008
DCave
In reply to surprised by Stein
I must take issue with a number of statements in your post, beginning with the following quote: “The problem is, no ID proponent has ever succeeded in demonstrating that any organism could not have possibly evolved by natural selection. Many of the common examples which ID proponents classically like to name have now been explained by gradual evolution, including the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, the eye etc.”
So ID prponents are expected to prove something could not have happened, while evolutionist get to assume the spontaneous generation of life. Until they can prove that happend then they cannot prove there was not a creator. None of the organisms mentioned have been explained by gradual evoulution. Oh, there are some fairty tales as to how it might have happened, but absolutely no proof that it did happen.
The reason not many ID articles are printed in scientific journals is because they won’t print them. Even if an editor wanted to, he would fear for his job if he did. While some ID proponents may be trying to slip religion into the schools, there are many who are trying to keep religion completely out of the debate.
The fact that many, though not all ID proponents, may be Biblical creationist does not have any bearing one way or the other on whether there is scientific evidence for design. Even Richard Dawkins made reference to the apperance of design in living organisms. Of course he dismissed it as only only the appearance of evidence, but as near as I can tell I just have to take his word for that assertion. The question of whether or not there is evidence for ID is within the purview of science, while the character of the designer (if any) is a philosophical question.
Any one who is willing to do a little research will find that evolution is just as much a faith based system as creationism. They will also find out that scientist in their zeal to protect evolution from any valid criticism can be just as closed minded as those “crazy creationist” that they claim want to take us back to the dark ages.
Apr 11th, 2008
Surprised by Stein
“Intelligent Design” is usually expressed by its exponents as “that looks complicated, I can’t figure out how it must have evolved, so it can’t have evolved. God must have done it.”
That is, I’m very sorry to say, a complete and accurate summary of what ID is about. Go right ahead and study it in as much depth as you like, but you won’t find anything more to it than that.
And since the ID exponents are making a really extraordinary claim, they must provide evidence to support this assertion.
The classic ID example is the bacterial flagellum. This is a biological outboard motor. A tail spins around with a little electric motor made from proteins, propelling the organism along. This is an amazing adaptation, and the ID guys claim this can’t possibly have evolved because the mechanism needs to be complete in order to work at all. Take away one part and it no longer functions as a motor. How, ask the ID proponents rhetorically, can this possibly have assembled from basic parts? God must have done it.
Evolutionary biologists have proven beyond any REASONABLE doubt how the famous flagellum evolved. They have compared the genes responsible for the flagellum with the same gene in related species that do not have the flagellum. By this method they were able to figure out, and prove, that the flagellum is a modification of a system normally used by bacteria to inject toxins into cells. Take away one part and the flagellum no longer works as a flagellum, but it does in fact work perfectly well as something else.
The flagellum isn’t just explained plausibly with a “this might be how it evolved” explanation. The evolution of the flagellum can be traced through a great many “missing links” in related bacterial species. It isn’t just a hypothesis, it is a fact.
That debunks the ID core assertion, because if there is a perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanation for how it evolved then it is not necessary to invoke any designer.
If you do a bit of research at reputable science sites (not Answers in Genesis!!) you’ll find that all of the most celebrated “irreducibly complex” organisms which ID guys like to talk about have naturalistic explanations, some merely plausible and others proven like the flagellum.
“So ID prponents are expected to prove something could not have happened” – yes! They’re the ones making the claim that certain organisms are irreducibly complex. It is a very hard thing to prove of course, and evolutionary biologists only need come up with a single plausible explanation to disprove it. As unfair as this sounds, that is the challenge the IDers set for THEMSELVES. If you run around claiming that an organism can’t possibly have evolved without an intelligent designer, and just one person demonstrates that it possibly could have, your claim is shot to pieces.
The failure to come up with a single example which has evolutionary biologists stumped is why ID has failed to gain any traction in the scientific community. You can’t make extraordinary claims, have your claims debunked, and then protest that it just isn’t fair that your papers aren’t passing peer review.
“while evolutionist get to assume the spontaneous generation of life.” – Yes. The mechanism for how exactly life began has never been proven. Biologists are more than willing to admit that this is at this point an unsolved problem. There are many theories of course. The general assertion is that life most likely started out as self-replicating organic molecules which got more and more complex and better at replication. Gradually these processes of organic chemistry created DNA’s predecessors and eventually biology began.
The theory that life began gradually in the form of complex self-replicating organic molecules and slowly built up in complexity over billions of years is a much less extraordinary claim than the claim that a magic man did it as a conjuring trick. For a start you’d have to explain how the magic man came to be, and if you explain the magic man in turn with “the magic man was just always there, and requires no further explanation” then your logical inquiry halts there. If we’d stopped at that point when trying to figure out why people get sick we’d never have discovered anything about what diseases are or how to prevent or treat them.
We are far from having to give up and conclude that the only plausible mechanism by which life could have started was a supernatural entity though. Not knowing what natural mechanism occurred does not require you to resort to the magic man.
However, that’s beside the point. The question of how life began is not part of the intelligent design debate. Evolution begins only when there is life already. The central claim of ID is that some organisms can’t have come into being via evolution because they’re too complicated. This claim has repeatedly been tested and repeatedly been disproven.
You can see a conspiracy theory in it if you must, and I am not going to waste any time arguing with your conspiracy theories about papers being rejected by a shady cabal of evil Darwinists. Past experience with 911 conspiracists, AIDS denialists, global warming denialists, moon landing hoax believers, UFO coverup believers and other assorted tinfoil hat wearing people on the internet has taught me that these guys are immune to logic.
I mean, if ID claims about e.g. the flagellum have already been debunked to the total satisfaction of the scientific community, but you or others want to just insist that it hasn’t been and keep claiming that this is a big scientific mystery which only an intelligent designer can explain, there isn’t much I can do about it. That’s why there is still a Flat Earth Society.
However, as long as IDers are going to stubbornly repeat as true facts which have already been shown to be false by real sciensts, they can’t expect to have their papers published in a peer reviewed journal of biology, because while they may convince a few unqualified people who desperately want to believe in it on the Internet, they won’t succeed in swaying anyone who knows anything about the subject.
You are also equivocating on the use of the word “faith”. Science is based not on faith, but on evidence. Unlike religion, scientific theories are continuously subjected to a battery of tests from highly trained and ingenious people seeking to win scientific fame and recognition by proving them wrong. If someone was able to prove that quantum mechanics or the standard model of particle physics was wrong he or she would be up for a Nobel prize and an eternal place in the text books alongside the greatest scientists.
A scientific theory is only ever accepted when it has been subjected to every test science can throw at it and survived. Even then it is only accepted tentatively pending revision in light of new data.
IDers have tried their hardest to knock down evolutionary biology and replace it with something else, but they have failed. In many ways they barely even tried, hardly any papers have been submitted and even fewer have passed the peer review process. If the papers get debunked during the peer review process, they don’t get published. No point whining about it, if you want your paper published you need to come up with a theory that doesn’t get shot down by other scientists!
Apr 12th, 2008
Surprised by Stein
““So ID prponents are expected to prove something could not have happened” – yes! They’re the ones making the claim that certain organisms are irreducibly complex.”
I’ll just make a point here if you missed it… the problem with ID is that no compelling positive evidence has ever been submitted which show it to be true.
Intelligent design theory hangs on the idea that some organisms have features which can’t possibly have evolved. If they didn’t evolve, then one alternative explanation would be that they were designed in their present form by God. (I won’t bother referring to god euphamistically as “a designer”. There isn’t a single serious ID advocate in the world who believes the designer to be any entity other than a god, specifically Jehova/Yawei.)
The challenge which ID’s advocates have to meet is they must prove that these organisms can’t have evolved. It’s a hard problem of course, because all they’ve really been able to say so far as that they don’t know how certain organisms could have evolved. Not being able to figure out how something evolved isn’t the same as proving that it couldn’t have evolved, it may simply mean you aren’t smart enough or haven’t done any work.
And that is the major criticism scientists have of ID. Essentially ID is just a God of the Gaps idea. When something is a mystery, you shouldn’t try to figure the mystery out… just say it was God’s work and you’re finished.
Obviously, “I don’t know how that happened, I guess God must have done it” isn’t much of a scientific theory because it explains very little and creates an intellectual dead end beyond which further study is impossible.
Do you see why scientists have such issues with ID now?
Do you really think that the only reason why ID isn’t accepted by scientists is because of an atheistic conspiracy?
Anyway, I found an interesting site about Expelled. I have nothing to do with the site or its authors, but it addresses the claims made in the movie in great depth and links to a lot of reviews. It doesn’t talk about the science side of the debate much, but it does challenge quite a few of the movie’s claims of a coverup and conspiracy, including more information on some of the allegedly discriminated-against pro-ID researchers.
See http://www.expelledexposed.com
Apr 14th, 2008
Surprised by Stein
There is a parody of the Expelled trailer which is pretty funny.
“Big Sex” has been suppressing Stork Theorists for too long. People who bring up stork theory at universities and school boards get laughed at and oppressed. Now, Ben Stein is…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM
Apr 18th, 2008
Reply to “Expelled - Ben Stein’s Inconvenient Truth”