"Expelled" Off-Shoot #1: Discussing the premise of the movie

[ricmat]

Pnewton, all Christians are creationists – myself included – we accept the doctrine that God created the world. This Christian doctrine was co-opted by Young Earth Creationists (YECs) during the 20th century to mean only one thing: a hexameral creation a few thousand years ago. I don’t like having commonly accepted theological terms stolen!

Petrus, thank you for the clarification above. Some folks throw the word “creationist” around on this forum, with the intended meaning being “young earth creationist”. Indeed, most folks believe that creationist = young earth creationist. It gets on one’s nerves after a while…

Intelligent Design Creationism is an updating of YEC. Most IDers accept an old earth and some form of evolution.

What you call Intelligent Design Creationism was a hijacking of the ID name, and those folks don’t speak for ID in general.

But they want to put the brakes on science at certain points, such as the biochemistry of the cell, or the evolution of the eye. The problem is, science doesn’t put on the brakes, and we now have very good evolutionary explanations of the evolution of these things.

OK - here is where we come to a disagreement. I know of young earth creationists who might want to put brakes on science, but I know of no ID folks who want to do that. Quite the contrary, ID uses standard scientific methods to investigate nature, but with an additional goal of looking for elements of design in nature. And by elements of design, I mean “planning”.

As ID was hijacked by a small number of folks to further their ends, so evolution has been hijacked by a small number of very vocal folks to further their end, which is atheism. Not all evolutionists do this, but some try to prove that complex life came about due to “random” (as in unguided, unplanned, God-not-necessary) circumstances. If ID has a “secret” agenda it is to provide scientific evidence that the universe was planned / designed. And if evidence is found, the next step would be a personal, philosophical one (not scientific), that the creator of this wonderfully planned and designed universe is what we commonly call God. So the secret agenda is actually to help people come to God via a deeper appreciation of his creation.

And the sadly ironic thing is, Catholic theology is perfectly compatible with evolutionary biology.

As it is compatible with ID. And truth be told, it is also compatible with young earth creationism, but we have lots of evidence that things didn’t happen that way.

 

[jman507]

Amy, free inquiry is exactly what science is all about – precisely what scientists engage in all the time – and that’s why “Expelled” is a ridiculous and pointless attack.

In the 150 years since Darwin published, scientists have studied and debated the theory of evolution, formulating and testing hypotheses, all in an effort to falsify Darwin’s idea of descent with modification through natural selection. Various hypotheses about how evolution might work (such as Lamarckian transmission of acquired characteristics) have been proposed discarded.

I gather from your note, Amy, that you are not a scientist. You might go to your nearest Catholic university biology department and talk with some biologists (priest biologists if you can find any) about how they go about their work. You would quickly learn why a scientifically ignorant charlatan like Ben Stein has zero credibility with scientists, and why virtually all reviews of this movie by educated critics have panned it.

You would no doubt agree that surgeons would be justified in ignoring the rantings of a medically ignorant person who wandered in off the street and began criticizing how they conduct heart surgery. The same is true in biology.

Petrus

Unfortunately with the isolation of educational disciples, intellectual arrogance will be a bigger problem than it needs to be. The thing is it doesn’t matter what type of credibility Ben Stein has with scientist, what will matter is the credibility he has with the non-scientist. For those on the margin he may come off looking for more sympathitic than a bunch of people who seem arrogant and to just be making an appeal on authority. Granted those people on the margin may be few, but the there is a significant amount of people who will cause unneeded conflict.

Of course it is my opinion, it would be far better to have the biologist do a better job of our reach rather than Amy having to go to the biologist. If it is specialist with public funds who needs to make his or her work intelligiable to the public, not the other way around. The people will come up with their own conclusions about the people in the ivory tower, if the people in the ivory tower don’t try to frame it first.

It may be true a surgon may ignore the rantings of a crazy person off the street, it though would not be true that the surgon may ignor the rantings of any person who is not a surgon. It may very well be necessary to figure out and calm the unneeded fears of a person who is having surgery. It may be needed to give a defence of what is a justifiable complaint and what is not of a public advocate. Systemic ethical problems can always occur if some specialty goes unchecked by those outside of it.

Biology, especially in the wake of genetics, really needs to maintain its integrity and outreach to the public. Those leading scientist in the field need to understand the fears of those outside of the field, and especially ought not give an appearance of contempt for those who pose objections. Of course, calming peoples fears may not be science, but its the cost of getting support. If science does not want to deal with philosphy, they ought never go into reseach that might bring up ethical contraversy.

The physist may have been on justifiable ground to work on the nuclear bomb in order to keep the Nazis from winner, but they were also right when many of the giants warned against the use of them. That may not have been science, but it seems very ethical of them to bring up the arguements that specialist in that field needed to deal with.

 

[drpmjhess]

Biology, especially in the wake of genetics, really needs to maintain its integrity and outreach to the public. Those leading scientist in the field need to understand the fears of those outside of the field, and especially ought not give an appearance of contempt for those who pose objections.

jman, you’re quite right, and there already exist lots of excellent resources along exactly these lines, accessible to the public. The following (available on Amazon.com) very much avoid any air of contempt:

(1) Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God
(2) Catholicism and Science (Greenwood, 2008)
(3) Zycinski, God and Evolution
(4) Ayala, Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion

Petrus

 

[pnewton]

jman, you’re quite right, and there already exist lots of excellent resources along exactly these lines, accessible to the public. The following (available on Amazon.com) very much avoid any air of contempt:

(2) Catholicism and Science (Greenwood, 2008)

Petrus

Oh, have you read that?

 

[Galandriel]

wow.

liars and cheaters?

“your not a real scientist, go and read…”

“the effect this has on a non-scientist…”

You don’t have to be a Ph.D scientist to understand and know where Ben Stein is coming from. Never did he say or come off as a scientist, but as an interviewer. Didn’t you see this movie?

Your almost as rabid and hostile in “exposing” Ben Stein as much as those depicted on the screen IMO.

Bottom line, if you’ve gone to school and college, evolution is being presented as the answer to the big question, “Where we came from”. By educators. By universities. By textbooks. Where we come from and how we came from apes. I’m no scientist by profession, but I have had to take zoology, biology, chemistry for almost 8 years of public and college education. Does that disqualify me from my opinions and my own logic in the matter?

I saw this film as affirmation of what many Catholics go through in public education. This is my personal experience and while it was stated he showed the most extreme in the movie, frankly, most of my teachers and professors in the science department were no different, especially in college. Where do you think most of the attacks on our faith comes from? English class? No, from my personal experience and my friends, the science class, and that continues today.

Again, while it is being stated that ID has no real evidence (again, this term seems to differ from the movie and on this thread), the extreme view of Darwinism does lead down a God-less outlook on life, and an advocate to a culture of death. Because the Darwinism you are defending is warped in public education, leaving no room for the possibility that there is a higher being who could be the cause of all this, leaving no room for God even in discussion in the classroom or debates in the realm of science leads to ignore the root of the problem. I have the highest regard for scientists, and was blessed to have a true Christian scientist as a professor. However, to ignore what is really happening in the universities and schools across the U.S. is to allow warped and extreme views to continue. And that is what this movie was about in my opinion. Science and religion go hand in hand from a true Christian scientist.

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”
Pope John Paul II

 

[drpmjhess]

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."Pope John Paul II

Yes, Galandriel, I love that quote, as do my Jesuit biologist friends!

Ben Stein is playing into the hands of the extreme rabid atheists – Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al., – and rendering true dialogue less and less likely. He and Premise Media didn’t bother to interview Catholic biologists, who see God’s creative majesty revealed through the lens of evolution. So when mainstream America sees this film, they’ll falsely conclude, “Well, I guess Stein is right: to accept evolution you have to be an atheist.”

How will our lives as centrists – Catholics and other Christians who accept evolution be made any easier by Stein’s false and one-sided screed? How will the life of my Catholic biologists be made easier when their research and teaching are interrupted by students and their parents who come screaming to them, denouncing this purported persecution of theistic biologists?

Did you know there is a large and active dialogue between religion and science in the world today? Did you know there are more than 1,000 courses being taught in American universities on issues at the intersection between religion and science? Did you know there are over 250 learned societies around the world specifically dedicated to widening the conversation between theology and the sciences? I didn’t think so – Ben Stein wouldn’t reveal that to you, because it would undermine his bearing of false witness!

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Oh, have you read that?

Yes, pnewton – I’ve read that one a few times. I think you might enjoy Archbishop Zycinski’s God and Evolution; he’s a good philosopher, and bishop of Pope John Paul II’s former see of Lublin in Poland. Australian priest Denis Edwards offers a systematic theological approach in The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology. Also good on the popular level is Michael Dowd’s Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Bottom line, if you’ve gone to school and college, evolution is being presented as the answer to the big question, “Where we came from”. By educators. By universities. By textbooks. Where we come from and how we came from apes. I’m no scientist by profession, but I have had to take zoology, biology, chemistry for almost 8 years of public and college education. Does that disqualify me from my opinions and my own logic in the matter?

Galandriel, an addendum: I don’t mean to discount how jarring it must have been for you to learn evolution from atheists. Your experience is certainly valid, and I respect that.

I’m coming from a different point of view, as a theologian who has been working with scientists – both atheists and theists – for twenty years on the international level to widen the dialogue between science and religion. I think that’s why I find Stein’s one-sided approach so angering – I see it as undoing in one weekend twenty years of hard and careful work by thousands of my colleagues. The consequences of bearing false witness – which this movie does – can be very damaging.

Petrus

 

[jman507]

Galandriel, an addendum: I don’t mean to discount how jarring it must have been for you to learn evolution from atheists. Your experience is certainly valid, and I respect that.

I’m coming from a different point of view, as a theologian who has been working with scientists – both atheists and theists – for twenty years on the international level to widen the dialogue between science and religion. I think that’s why I find Stein’s one-sided approach so angering – I see it as undoing in one weekend twenty years of hard and careful work by thousands of my colleagues. The consequences of bearing false witness – which this movie does – can be very damaging.

Petrus

Well from my point of view, all your work with your colleagues will be sabotaged by resentment created from experiences such as Galadriel. To expect that someone is just going to go out and read a book on the subject might be expecting too much. Not that people don’t care to read, usually they take care to read a book about something they really care about.

After the Minnesota bridge collapse it wasn’t like people were going to comment once they have taken enough engineering courses to understand the dynamics of the bridge collapse, they were going to comment on the issue out of fear of a bridge going out that they are driving over. A lot of that way going to be based on how much they trusted those with the responsibility of it. If the people responsible just said, “you are an idiot and your should comment on our work,” I wouldn’t be surprised if they were suspicious of their activity.

People more or less don’t really know of your work, but they probably do know the work of those such as Dawkins, and other people who they know personally who appear to sneer at their idea of religion. Perhaps it might even be one of their teachers in the past. If this movie gains any resonance it probably is more of a reaction to that. You call Ben Stein a charlton, well to some that may just appear to be the rantings of someone locked up in their ivory tower. There might just be plenty of resentment that is created by a teacher making one feel like an idiot for believing in religion, or blew off by their children who learned something new in school. As important as evolution may seem to be, it is rather trivial when compared to how one ought to set of their moral foundations in life.

That is why I would propose that telling someone to go contact a scientist or go read a book is not good enough. It would be far better to frame better what science is, and what its limitations are in school. If you leave that work for unrequired philosophy and religion courses, chances are that work will not be done. An atheistic teacher could still leave members of a class feeling they can believe in religion. Granted your not going to win over everyone to a better argued side. but at least you can frame the argument better and give a real since of its boundaries.

The other thing would be is to be very careful of the way you argue things in the public. People will tend to be a bit more sympathetic to the underdog. People will tend to be more trustworthy of someone who can seem reasonable in their arguments. Not someone who just whitewashes someone, but takes the time to say where another’s argument is credible and where it is not. One also needs be be careful of coming off as intellectually arrogant.

Being an expert can be a help and a hindrance. Your stuck usually with one of thinking when it comes to you and your colleagues, but there is a large number of valid concerns by others. Since they are not in your field, they may not be articulated the best, but they are not to be taken lightly. To do something in vitro and* in vivo* are two different things. You need to work a lot harder at understanding possible variables in vivo. Many variables may happen that are significant that are discounted, but the thing is those variables are real. You can work out your ideas in the confines of your conference rooms and lecture halls, but to most people that is rather worthless. Not that they are worthless, what is true is what is true. Until they can be properly conveyed to the public, the public will come to its opinions on its own. Perhaps in an easily accessible medium such as a movie.

 

[Galandriel]

drpmjhess, Thank you for your reply.You make a case that I personally didn’t see. The work that many good scientists were doing was ultimately being warped. That the work was not only being warped, but destroyed.

Did you see the film? Even if you didn’t, I can understand where you are coming from. When the Da Vinci Code came out, I thought, “People will believe anything!” and worried that the vast majority was going to get a biased view.

However, anyone who saw the film knows that evolution does not lead to atheism and saw the connection to extreme atheism. Both sides, IMHO were highly educated and scientists by profession. However, if you actually felt this when you saw this film, I wholeheartedly agree with you that if the science world is that concerned, then both outlets need to be heard fairly. When I saw this film, honestly, I did not see 20 years of work down the drain, it was an affirmation of the life long question being taught in public school, one that was being defended at all costs, even to the point of showing that there is no God. That was not a resentful statement as jman infers. That was a fact, plain and simple from my point of view.

And that is where I see the good in the film. Shedding light on the education system and the fact that many will not try to educate themselves as I did on the subject to defend their views. I wouldn’t be Catholic if I didn’t try to do my homework on the daily battles that most young Catholics fight in the public school system. I probably wouldn’t be Catholic if Catholic Answers only told me to go get a theology degree if I wanted part of the discussion. Being knowledgeable is one thing, being able to share that knowledge and educating people is another thing.

God Bless.

 

[AmyS]

Amy, free inquiry is exactly what science is all about – precisely what scientists engage in all the time – and that’s why “Expelled” is a ridiculous and pointless attack.

In the 150 years since Darwin published, scientists have studied and debated the theory of evolution, formulating and testing hypotheses, all in an effort to falsify Darwin’s idea of descent with modification through natural selection. Various hypotheses about how evolution might work (such as Lamarckian transmission of acquired characteristics) have been proposed discarded.

I gather from your note, Amy, that you are not a scientist. You might go to your nearest Catholic university biology department and talk with some biologists (priest biologists if you can find any) about how they go about their work. You would quickly learn why a scientifically ignorant charlatan like Ben Stein has zero credibility with scientists, and why virtually all reviews of this movie by educated critics have panned it.

You would no doubt agree that surgeons would be justified in ignoring the rantings of a medically ignorant person who wandered in off the street and began criticizing how they conduct heart surgery. The same is true in biology.

Petrus

You don’t know me, so don’t assume anything about me. I posted two SMALL posts about a movie I have seen, and I haven’t seen posted yet that you have, I could have missed that post though. Stein doesn’t claim in anyway in the movie to be a scientist. He asks QUESTIONS of both sides of the arguments. All he is advocating for is intellectual freedom. That doesn’t sound too bad to me. I really hate when I ask questions people like you have to insult my intelligence. It is a low blow that shows you arrogance, not mine.

 

[AmyS]

Did you know there is a large and active dialogue between religion and science in the world today? Did you know there are more than 1,000 courses being taught in American universities on issues at the intersection between religion and science? Did you know there are over 250 learned societies around the world specifically dedicated to widening the conversation between theology and the sciences? I didn’t think so – Ben Stein wouldn’t reveal that to you, because it would undermine his bearing of false witness!

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

Did you know that dialog between the Church and science isn’t just something that has been happening in the present? I believe science doesn’t void religion. I don’t think you believe that either. Some of science does though.

Have you seen the movie? It isn’t that bad…

 

[reggieM]

All he is advocating for is intellectual freedom. That doesn’t sound too bad to me…

Exactly right. He showed the fear and panic that has set into the evolutionary community – and how they are attacking any criticism of their theory in unjust ways.

 

[drpmjhess]

Did you know that dialog between the Church and science isn’t just something that has been happening in the present? I believe science doesn’t void religion. I don’t think you believe that either. Some of science does though. Have you seen the movie? It isn’t that bad…

Yes, Amy, I’ve seen the film and reviewed it extensively. I know the background to the cases of the six “martyrs” he highlights, and Ben Stein bears false witness throughout. This is probably something Catholics should not be cool with. The stories about Hitler and eugenics, Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Caroline Crocker, Robert Marks, Pamela Winnick, and Michael Egnor are based on falsehoods. That’s not a sign of a good film.

Yes, of course I know the science and religion dialogue is very ancient – I teach a whole graduate seminar on that. And that is why Stein’s film does not advance the dialogue in any way, because it posits a false dichotomy between atheist biologists on the one hand, and ID advocates on the other. Stein does not interview the hundreds of Catholic or other Christian biologists, including many Catholic priests, who use evolution every day in their work. The film is a serious distortion of the truth, another thing about which Catholics ought to be concerned.

 

[drpmjhess]

However, anyone who saw the film knows that evolution does not lead to atheism and saw the connection to extreme atheism. Both sides, IMHO were highly educated and scientists by profession. However, if you actually felt this when you saw this film, I wholeheartedly agree with you that if the science world is that concerned, then both outlets need to be heard fairly. When I saw this film, honestly, I did not see 20 years of work down the drain, it was an affirmation of the life long question being taught in public school, one that was being defended at all costs, even to the point of showing that there is no God.

Galandriel, within the profession of biology there is no controversy about the theory of evolution. There are approximately 100,000 biologists who use the theory every day to explore the evolving world. Many of these people are Catholic priests, who say Mass in the morning, who go to their labs and their classrooms to teach and research about how evolution works, and who retire at night praying for the evolving world. In Expelled all these faith-filled scientists are invisible. That’s a huge distortion, and it creates a serious problem for classroom scientists.

Petrus

 

[Orogeny]

The movie does point out that liberal Christians have made common cause with atheists in their defense of evolution and that the atheistic-Darwinists will use (manipulate?) the support that they get from the Christian left.

Expelled won’t change any of that. Evolutionism is only one plank in the liberal Christian platform and I can’t see it being threatened by ID. To suggest that Expelled will “undo” all the work of liberal Christianity over the past several decades is assigning the movie a lot more influence than even I could hope it would have.

Don’t worry, dissenting Christianity has a long life ahead of it. Perhaps the only thing that will kill it is the dissolution of Christianity itself and the resultant acceptance of atheism by the Christian left.

Interesting view. I consider myself quite conservative and very much in line with the Vatican, yet I accept evolution as a fact. How do I fit into your viewpoint?

Peace

Tim

 

[pnewton]

Interesting view. I consider myself quite conservative and very much in line with the Vatican, yet I accept evolution as a fact. How do I fit into your viewpoint?

Peace

Tim

The significant thing you say here is that you are in line with the Vatican. The Catholic Church does not teach evolution or creationism. These are considered areas of science, not theology.

 

[Orogeny]

The significant thing you say here is that you are in line with the Vatican. The Catholic Church does not teach evolution or creationism. These are considered areas of science, not theology.

Absolutely correct!

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

Darwinism doesn’t interest me, any more than Galileanism or Newtonianism or Einsteinianism. What interests me is the evolutionary biology in its relation to Catholic theology, and evolution has nothing to do with euthanasia or abortion. Petrus

“Darwin and Russel Wallace were the first scholars to put forward a theory of evolution which relied upon natural biological processes rather than on innate capabilities or divine interventions in whatever form. Moreover, Darwin’s Origins of Species (first published in 1859) demonstrated how natural selection and evolution explained the known data in biogeography, comparative morphology and embryology, taxonomy and systematics, and palaeontology.” British Centre for Higher Education

This “movie” is a sad low in Ben Stein’s life. It is nothing but propoaganda by the creationists. I hope it will be buried and forgotten.

and

Pnewton, all Christians are creationists – myself included – we accept the doctrine that God created the world. Petrus

and

Creationists (YEC and ID) lie blatantly.
Petrus

FYI, I’m a Roman Catholic woman who* isn’t *a creationist nor are the 300,000 Roman Catholic’s within a ten mile radius of my home. Children aren’t taught to be creationists in public or Catholic schools where I reside. As Roman Catholics who truly love Jesus, we were created in the image of Jesus Christ (a human being) who is the Son of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and we truly believe God the Father has given every man, woman, and child an immortal soul and allowed us the grace of time to discover his love for us… Thank you, my all loving and kind God for your continued patience.

As far as message 115, the make-believe (fairytale propoganda) movie **Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed **strongly insinuates that it was because of Charles Darwin that Adolf Hitler committed horrific crimes against innocent people. Charles Darwin didn’t have anything to do with the insane actions of Adolf Hilter. Talk Origins has written about it here:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

As far as Ben Stein is concerned, he is as fruity as they get. Read **Ben Stein’s Financial Rules…**To Wind Up In Bankruptcy Court
NEW YORK, April 21, 2004
cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/earlyshow/leisure/books/main610015.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/earlyshow/leisure/books/main610015.shtml

This is my last message on this topic. I rather be talking about my love for Jesus to the kids (some of them are non-Catholics) in my neighborhood that already understand The Theory of Evolution as do I. We love our dear Alec MacAndrew for helping us. Thanks Alec. You are super dupper! The best scientist in the Net.
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm#Darwinism
http://www.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm#Darwinism
Ta ~

 

[pnewton]

FYI, I’m a Roman Catholic woman who* isn’t *a creationist nor are the 300,000 Roman Catholic’s within a ten mile radius of my home.

In the context of the discussion, Petrus was explaining different uses of the term. When he said all Catholics are creationists, it was to show the broadest meaning of the word, specifically, that we believe God created all that there is from nothing. This is Catholic doctrine. Whether this took 15 billion years or ten thousand years is not a matter of Catholic doctrine. This is considered a matter for science.