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

[PhilVaz]

petrus << Stein himself deliberately omitted Catholic biologist Ken Miller from the film because he didn’t want to “confuse” his audience. By this, I presume he meant he didn’t want to offer a nuanced discussion that would shoot his little one-sided tirade in the foot. >>

Any of these guys would have been nice: Ken Miller, Keith Miller (no relation), Denis Lamoureux, Francis Collins, Darrel Falk. At least they got Alister McGrath and John Polkinhorne for a few seconds.

For me, the documentary was better than expected (saw it three times, paid for it twice). It was professionally done from a production standpoint. Dawkins is wrong when he says it was poorly produced.

The content is another story. You don’t blame the Nazis on evolution any more than you blame the Nazis on Christianity. Hitler said he was for "positive Christianity." Eugenics, nazism, etc are abuses and distortions of the science. Same with Hitler’s religion, etc. I haven’t read Weikarts From Darwin to Hitler yet.

Another main problem with the documentary is you don’t or can’t explain the origin of life in a 30 second sound bite. If you really want to find out the cutting edge research on origin of life / abiogenesis, you go to a university library, find at least 50 books on the topic, and start studying. Or you interview an origin of life expert (not Michael Ruse, not Richard Dawkins, etc) for 5 hours at least. Let him explain it to you carefully. You don’t look for a 10 second quote that you can ridicule.

I am sure that Shermer, Dawkins, PZ Myers and the rest gave them much more evidence for evolution, but they probably cut all that. The documentary wanted to emphasize their atheism, not the science. Although Dembski made clear in the movie many IDers have no problem with evolution.

For production I give it 4 out of 5, for content one star. So maybe 2 out of 5 stars.

For the counter to the movie, see www.ExpelledExposed.com

Phil P

 

[RosaMystica]

Petrus and PNewton,

Thank you both for your insightful comments about this movie. My kids go to a Protestant school, and I had received some emails promoting the film. I have struggled several times over the science curriculum at the school, because promotes this ID stuff and is very unscientific. I don’t claim to be a scientist, but I did take quite a bit of biology in college, yet I never even encountered some of the “theories” that are being put forth! My kids are young enough, fortunately, and I know enough so far, for me to supplement and explain that it is perfectly Christian to accept evolutionary science.

It frightens me that a film like this can be so persuasive to good, thoughtful, intelligent Catholics. It brings to mind things like the DaVinci Code and Eckhart Tolle (bad scholarship packaged for the mass media). I’m not sure whether to take the issue up with our school or just ignore it.

You have clearly, and patiently, defended both science and Catholicism, and for that I thank you. You may not convince everyone posting of that, but remember, there are many more reading than posting. Courtesy and clear thinking wins out in the end!

 

[pnewton]

The Catholic Chruch does not endorse Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

You are absolutely correct. We are free at to beleive as we will on the subject.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

 

[uther]

Paying attention only to the loud, theologically ignorant yammering of atheist philosophers like Dawkins-Harris-Hitches on the one hand, and the scientifically ignorant yammering of YEC and IDC on the other, mean that real dialogue is excluded. Stein himself deliberately omitted Catholic biologist Ken Miller from the film because he didn’t want to “confuse” his audience. By this, I presume he meant he didn’t want to offer a nuanced discussion that would shoot his little one-sided tirade in the foot. For that reason, Expelled will for a time raise a bit of dust and excitement with the science-challenged. Thereafter it will drop into being a staple of church basement screenings to the scientifically illiterate, a footnote in what I hope might eventually evolve into a deep and sustained conversation about faith, science, and truth.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

Tsk, tsk. Petrus. This is just what enflames people. “A staple of church basement screenings to the scientifically illiterate.” You have just presented the attitude that motivates people to go see Ben Stein stick it to the elitists of the science establishment.
That is the point of this movie/documentary. It’s not to present a nuanced discussion, because the scientific establishment, the intelligensia, the elite will not even tolerate that much.
Whether or not ID or Evolution or some mixture of the two answers to scientific rigour has never been even asked. The answer has always, since Darwin, been assumed. And he stepped immediately beyond science intrinsically within his theory from the very beginning, and his followers, scientific or polemical, have carried on this charade ever since that they have confined themselves to science and any talk of a creator is out of bounds.
Absolute nonsense. Darwin stepped beyond those bounds and the willfully ignorant and the malicious and mischevious have perpetuated the myth that he did not, simply to shut down the discussion, not to encourage it, as you might reasonably expect in academe, and they have done so in consistently arrogant style.
I, for one, am quite amused to see a little exposure of their arrogance and condescension.
I think the evidence shows an old earth, a record of creatures long gone, etc., etc. and it may even circumstantially show a pattern that could be a progression of growth of simple to complex. I’m happy to call that, with Cardinal Schoenborn, evolution. But the science is limited to seeing patterns, commonalities, genetic structures, ratios of populations, and so forth and so on.
But give me just one magical mutation and I’ll give you God, because you have moved into metaphysics, unfounded by science.

 

[drpmjhess]

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.

Pnewton, perhaps the best book on this is Christopher B. Kaiser’s Creational theology and the history of physical science: the creationist tradition from Basil to Bohr (Leiden; New York : Brill, 1997).

Petrus

 

[PhilVaz]

Reggie to Petrus << You express concern that the film wasn’t more balanced with a variety of views. But that assumes that the purpose of the film was to show the diversity of opinion that people in the world can have. The purpose was to show how these influential and dominant voices in the evolutionist community really harbor an animosity towards God and religion (Meyers envisions a utopian world where religion has disappeared from the earth). >>

I will answer. The (false) “two sides” presented primarily in “Expelled” are:

Side (1) those nasty atheists who accept evolution as fact
Side (2) those persecuted theists who (for the most part) reject evolution, and accept God and some form of “intelligent design”

Whereas, the true real two sides (in the real world of practicing scientists) are:

Side (A) those nice atheists who accept evolution as fact
Side (B) those equally nice theists who accept evolution as fact

And these two sides (A) and (B) get along for the most part, the reason being there is really nothing to debate as far as the overall science of evolution is concerned. Evolution happened, the evidence is overwhelming. What scientists debate are the details, how it happened, by what natural mechanisms, etc. They don’t debate “God did it” since that isn’t a scientific question. Origin of life (abiogenesis) is also another area scientists research and debate, but that is to be distinguished from the evolution of life, as the movie somewhat brought out.

Time to quote (evangelical geologist) Keith Miller again as I have a dozen times in past threads:

“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)

I could also quote several things from Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God but the above quote is what I have handy. The “debate” isn’t over the factual evidence for evolution. Furthermore, there is no “scientific content” to “Intelligent Design” (here I am talking about biological ID, which I would distinguish from Cosmological ID or the “Anthropic Principle”). Since there is no content, there’s nothing to teach in science class. So-called “problems” with evolution is not scientific evidence for ID. Most of the so-called “problems” are simply wrong, or have been answered for decades when the original creationists brought them up (in the 1970s and 80s).

Further, the philosophical “debate on God” (between general atheists and theists, not just scientists) is separate from the scientific evidence for evolution. Macroevlution or Common Descent is a fact. There is no debate on that in the biological and other scientific communities. That did not come out clearly enough in the documentary, aside from Dawkins saying “evolution is a fact.” More of the evidence could have been presented. I assume it was, but it was probably cut.

What was missing from the film were the actual two sides fully represented. Better interviewees would have been

Side (A) Dawkins, PZ Myers, Michael Ruse, Dan Dennett, Will Provine on the one side.
Side (B) Ken Miller, Keith Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Darrel Falk, Francis Collins on the other side.

But it wouldn’t be a “debate” on the science, since they fully agree on the science. It would be a philosophical / metaphysical / theological debate and disagreement which as I’ve mentioned is a totally separate issue from the science.

At least they did bring in Alister McGrath, who fully accepts evolution and I believe he rejects (uppercase) “Intelligent Design” as well, also the same with John Polkinhorne (he only had a few seconds clip I think).

As for the ID people supposedly being persecuted, get the full story from www.ExpelledExposed.com

The stuff on Darwin to Hitler was also nonsense, though I mentioned I haven’t read Weikert’s book yet.

Phil P

 

[Bean61]

[SIGN]The stuff on Darwin to Hitler was also nonsense, though I mentioned I haven’t read Weikert’s book yet. [/SIGN]
Phil P quote

Richard Weikart, in his book “From Darwin To Hitler”, explains the impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates (demonstrates) that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary “fitness” as the highest arbiter of morality. Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all of which were embraced by the Nazis.

Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones.

All this just from the dust jacket of “From Darwin to Hitler”.

Is it possible that Darwin has much to answer for in abortion that is taking place across the world? Fifty million dead in our country alone

 

[PhilVaz]

bean << Richard Weikart, in his book “From Darwin To Hitler”, explains the impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. >>

Yes, I understand that is his view, and he probably presents a good amount of evidence and argument in the book.

Regardless, it would be an abuse and distortion of the science. Scientific data by itself is neutral. Scientifically the data and evidence points to macroevolution (i.e. “common descent”) via “natural selection” which has been directly observed in both field and laboratory (although on a “small scale” since you can’t observe millions of years in a lab).

As I pointed out in a previous post, Hitler himself was for something called "Positive Christianity" (in German: Positives Christentum). If we say “Darwinism” caused the Nazis, can we also say that “Christianity” caused the Nazis?

You know in the Gospels that Jesus had a lot of things to say about the Jews or at least the Pharisees (calling them poisonous snakes, hypocrites, blind guides, tombs, liars, and devils, “you are of your father, the devil”, cf. Matthew 23; John 8:44; etc). St. Paul says the Jews were directly responsible for killing Jesus (see 1 Thess 2:14-15). Maybe Hitler was inspired by this as well?

Therefore, “Christianity” caused Nazism. The same “logic” applies to “Darwinism.” But I will try to find or buy Weikhart’s book. At least one of his lectures is online at his home page. I will convert to MP3 and make available here:

From Darwin to Hitler (MP3 audio) click in an hour or so should be ready

Phil P

 

[pnewton]

Darwinism and Nazis. All I can think is…

This is starting to sound like a Jack Chick tract.

 

[reggieM]

I thought this was a good review by an opponent of ID … from the blog link I posted elsewhere. I don’t agree with all of it but I liked the sympathy he showed regarding religion. Especially this paragraph:

Myers takes something that the audience treasures as the most valuable element of their lives, the source of comfort in pain and tragedy, the source of the ethical and social systems they live by, and compares it to a trivial hobby (accompanied by ad by an old clip of an ugly, foolish-looking woman knitting). The very off-handedness of his comment reads as a powerful insult. The method by which one is dealing with the death of a child, the way in which one makes life-altering decisions, all a trivial hobby? That doesn’t come across so much as a put-down of religion as a dismissing of the pain, hopes, and lives of the people themselves.

It’s strange that I find the same attitude among some of the Catholics on this forum. They sympathize with atheists and will tip-toe around their anti-God rhetoric. But the same Catholics spit out venom against “fundies” (never missing a chance to ridicule) or even “fundie Catholics” – attacking them at every chance. There is none of the gentleness which is reserved for atheism, shown to “creationists” – instead, they are blamed at every opportunity (and atheism never even getting a mild criticism).

---

Extremely effective as propaganda.

I went to see the movie this weekend because I can’t expect to have any credibility in discussing it with my church friends if I haven’t seen it.

I’m comfortable with the context of witty debate, and, viewed as part of that context, Myers and Dawkins were clever and surprisingly mild-mannered.

I’m also familiar with the context of conservative Christian conversations about religion, and in that context, Myers and Dawkins look cold, callous, arrogant, and hateful.

Myers takes something that the audience treasures as the most valuable element of their lives, the source of comfort in pain and tragedy, the source of the ethical and social systems they live by, and compares it to a trivial hobby (accompanied by ad by an old clip of an ugly, foolish-looking woman knitting). The very off-handedness of his comment reads as a powerful insult. The method by which one is dealing with the death of a child, the way in which one makes life-altering decisions, all a trivial hobby? That doesn’t come across so much as a put-down of religion as a dismissing of the pain, hopes, and lives of the people themselves.

Dawkins’ face, with a sort of nose-in-the-air “I’m better-than-you” implication is used as a theme in the movie. The climax reveals Dawkins saying that intelligent design could have occurred, and left a sort of signature that can be recognized, if life had arrived here from outside, and Stein interprets this as “aliens” created the world (complete with a silly clip of an alien). The audience sees this as arrogant know-it-all evolution scientist believing in science fiction notions and, when pushed to admit the truth, acknowledging that Stein is right about claiming that Intelligent Design is a reasonable idea.

Stein repeatedly asks Dawkins about his belief in God (Do you believe in any of the Hindu gods?) and Dawkins responds with impatience and anger, apparently without reason, as for the audience this level of detail makes sense in trying to understand an atheist claim not to believe in God.

The movie shows Stein arriving neat and dignified-looking straight from a taxi ride to talk with Dawkins, while we see Dawkins having make-up applied in preparation. There is no sense he is preparing to be filmed in a movie, just a feeling that this is what he does to get ready for a conversation with the honest Stein who seems to have made no effort to fake a better aappearance. Even with the make-up, Dawkins looks a little wild and unkempt, as the camera zooms in to pick up nose hairs and a little patch of hair sticking out over one ear.

The supposedly persecuted Sternberg and others appear at the beginning of the film as calm, pleasant, reasonable, and quite rightly bewildered at being denied the opportunity even to speak of a view that has scientific promise. Contrast that with Dawkins at the end appearing to agree that Intelligent Design is a legitimate idea, and the movie makes a powerful case for Intelligent Design to replace the “Darwinism” of callous, arrogant atheists whose ideas helped the Holocaust to happen.

As a Christian who is entirely comfortable with the scientific Theory of Evolution, I hope that very few of my fellow church members see this movie because I think its effect may be hard to counteract. I’m sorry to see today so much scienceblog discussion focused on money - for the fundamentalists, this is an investment in missions, not a source of income - and so much less focused on what a powerful tool this movie is for turning a religious person who has known and cared little about the evolution/ID struggle in public schools into a determined advocate for ID.

 

[Bean61]

I find the only difference between the answers for Darwinism given here and on other chat groups is that here the atheists and skeptics are more polite. In other chat groups disagreeing with the atheists and skeptics would remind one of being attacked by pagan aborigines. The foulness of their language would far surpass anything even an aborigine would utter.

The attack is full of opinion with no substance. It’s as if just because they say so, that’s what it is.

One more point, it is not just one man that claims Darwinism led to Nazi brutality. Even the Germans of today believe this.
By the way, if you reread my message, I never said that Darwinism caused Naziism.

 

[PhilVaz]

bean << By the way, if you reread my message, I never said that Darwinism caused Naziism. >>

You might not have, but that is the message of the Expelled movie. I think a few caveats were made by Berlinski or Weikart however.

Expelled can be accurately distilled down into a couple messages:

(1) all scientists are atheists, or at least all biologists are atheists, or at least the “ones in control” of the “scientific establishment” are all atheists, and all those atheists hate theists, hate God, and hate all religion

(2) the “ones in control” of the “scientific establishment” and virtually all the atheist professors in the atheist universities will not allow any concept of God or “intelligent design” to be mentioned, murmered, mumbled, hinted at or even thought about quietly in any science class, never ever never ever

(3) all the atheist scientists, atheist biologists, atheist geologists, and atheist “origin of life” (abiogenesis) researchers are so stupid to believe in their “theories” because there is really no scientific evidence for them at all; there are gigantic holes in evolutionary theory and “intelligent design” would patch up those holes if the atheist “scientific establishment” would just allow it; i.e. this is a matter of “freedom” in science

(4) Darwinism/Evolution caused the Nazi holocaust, and Darwinism/Evolution is directly responsible for the deliberate murder of billions of people.

That about sums up the movie correctly. OK I exaggerated a little bit.

Phil P

 

[reggieM]

OK I exaggerated a little bit.

Wildly exaggerated – in a way that just affirms the reasons why Expelled was created and why some audiences are appreciating that film.

“some who are a part of the scientific establishment will not allow any concept of God or “intelligent design” to be mentioned in any science class” …

The film did show that, and it was worthwhile for many who have never known that fact to be able to see it quite clearly played out on film.

 

[reggieM]

My issue has always been one of justice, as the topic of evolution/creationism is not my area. If this movie is propaganda, that does not change that there is also good.

That is an honest reply – thank you.

 

[Bean61]

drpmjhess:

bean << By the way, if you reread my message, I never said that Darwinism caused Naziism. >>

You might not have, but that is the message of the Expelled movie. I think a few caveats were made by Berlinski or Weikart however.

Expelled can be accurately distilled down into a couple messages:

(1) all scientists are atheists, or at least all biologists are atheists, or at least the “ones in control” of the “scientific establishment” are all atheists, and all those atheists hate theists, hate God, and hate all religion

1. the “ones in control” of the “scientific establishment” and virtually all the atheist professors in the atheist universities will not allow any concept of God or “intelligent design” to be mentioned, murmered, mumbled, hinted at or even thought about quietly in any science class, never ever never ever

(3) all the atheist scientists, atheist biologists, atheist geologists, and atheist “origin of life” (abiogenesis) researchers are so stupid to believe in their “theories” because there is really no scientific evidence for them at all; there are gigantic holes in evolutionary theory and “intelligent design” would patch up those holes if the atheist “scientific establishment” would just allow it; i.e. this is a matter of “freedom” in science

(4) Darwinism/Evolution caused the Nazi holocaust, and Darwinism/Evolution is directly responsible for the deliberate murder of billions of people.

That about sums up the movie correctly. OK I exaggerated a little bit.

Phil P

1. No one ever said that everyone that is in the scientific establishment are all atheists. No one ever mentioned what they hated, if anything.
2. This may very well be true. Probably not as isolated as people think it is.
3. No one ever said that you have to be stupid to be an atheist. It’s obvious that you don’t have to be very smart either.
   There are huge holes in evolutionary theory. I agree with you on that one. Intelligent design hasn’t had the chance, as near as I can tell, to show whether there are holes in it or not.
4. I find it shocking that Darwinism is associated with the deaths of billions of people. The causality here is enough to stop Darwinism and take a much closer look at it.

 

[drpmjhess]

1. I find it shocking that Darwinism is associated with the deaths of billions of people. The causality here is enough to stop Darwinism and take a much closer look at it.

I find it shocking that the invention of matches has resulted in the death of thousands of people from arson. The causality here is enough to stop manufacturing matches and take a much closer look at them.

 

[jwu]

One more point, it is not just one man that claims Darwinism led to Nazi brutality. Even the Germans of today believe this.

I happen to be German but i never encountered this point of view.

Darwin’s work was not exactly popular during the nazi period:

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland).

2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.

3. Pacifist literature.

4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).

5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).

**6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

**
7. Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn).

8. Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk (Hirschfeld).

9. The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of “Asphalt and Civilization” literati! (Graf, H. Mann, Stefan Zweig, Wassermann, Franz Blei). [transl. note: a derogatory term for writers dealing with upper middle class urban society].

10. Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field.

11. Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life’s goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life.

12. Nationalistic and patriotic kitsch in literature (P.O. Höcker!).

[Source for German text: pp. 143-144 of Strothmann, Dietrich. Nationalsozialistische Literaturpolitik: ein Beitrag zur Publizistik im Dritten Reich. Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1968. Translation by Dr. Roland Richter. Bold added.]

pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/10/from-darwin-to-2.html

 

[HollyDolly]

Haven’t seen it yet,but it isn’t just about Intelligent Design. I think the point that they are trying to make,is modern academia doesn’t want to discuss alternate theories or anything that would distrube their little world.That you have to tow the offical party line or be branded a nut.
Not only in regards to the creation of life on earth,but in regards to certain inconvient facts and objects in history.
The History Channel did a show about Egyptian mummies
and how they have found cocaine in some of them.Well how did they get it? My answer is trade.
look at some of the enormus heads created by the Olmecs,some of which show definte nergo features,in otherwords they look like black men.
There are rune stones that have been found in North America,
the Mandan indians had been discribed in the past as having fair skin in some of them,and light colored eyes.like blue,etc.
Then there are the people in the Appalachias known as the Melugeons,who some believed to be desendents of portoguese and spanish sailors.There is all kinds of evidence out there both in North and South America that various cultures traded or visited there.However scientists ignore the evidence ,and refuse to recognize that man has to the Americas,not just by land bridge,but through other means.

 

[drpmjhess]

:There is all kinds of evidence out there both in North and South America that various cultures traded or visited there.However scientists ignore the evidence ,and refuse to recognize that man has to the Americas,not just by land bridge,but through other means.

HollyDolly, scientists eagerly look at new evidence, and evaluate the hypotheses and theories that attempt to explain that evidence. Do you have specific evidence to show that there is a general scientific cover-up regarding the peopling of the Americas?

Petrus

 

[jwu]

There’s another curious thing about evolution and Natural Selection; whenever there’s a serious disagreement with evolution and the rest of the scientific world, the definitions change along with the terminology. Can’t you people get anything straight? Maybe I’m wrong about this, but is sounds like smoke and mirrors.

Do you have a specific case as an example?