Rarely do you find a movie so courteous as to write a review into the title, but Ben Stein's crockumentary Expelled does just that. Attacking the education establishment and modern science based on their refusal to accept Intelligent Design is like attacking the Metropolitan Opera Company for refusing to sing "I Think I Love You."
Intelligent Design is not science. Period. I say this as a committed Christian who firmly believes that God created the earth, the heavens and all the things in them.
I've dealt with Intelligent Design many times over the course of this blog,so there's no point in recovering that ground in depth. Follow the links if you're interested. The short version is that ID rests on a couple of logical flaws:
By basing his attack on science and education on their rejection of non-science, Stein has hamstrung himself before he ever started.
Posted by Rich at April 19, 2008 10:01 PM | TrackBackIt may be interesting to hear from professors who teach science who HAVE been granted tenure, even while being known to express doubt that every event experienced by mortals is determined --- completely and solely by natural processes, in respect of which any superior expression of consciousness or will is foreclosed.
There is an "ExpelledExposed" blog, for which its contents may be more meaningful were there not so many recent books being published in a vein of seeming messianic atheism, some of whose authors, in documented biases as expressed to Ben Stein, speak quite frankly enough for themselves.
Indeed, the immediate and organized venom against Stein's movie seems calculated more to make Stein's points than to refute them.
May such Bloggers, in simple single-mindedness, simply fail to comprehend Stein's points?
EVIDENCE:
Regarding the "ExpelledExposed" blog comment of "no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity":
?So, then, is there credible evidence supporting anti-ID as a testable hypothesis?
WORLDVIEW:
One may entertain a philosophical belief that ultimate reality is based in superior consciousness, of which physics is derivative.
Or, one may entertain a philosophical belief that ultimate reality is based only in superior physics, of which consciousness is derivative.
For many folks, fundamental aspects of mathematics, together with concerns about morality, implicate that consciousness may be superior.
Among philosophers, reason to believe may be rationalized as well for a belief that superior reality is based in consciousness as for a belief that superior reality is based in physics.
But, neither of such beliefs or worldviews is testable, falsifiable, or hindering to science.
MISREPRESENTING WORLDVIEW:
Apart from apparent hysterics (on both sides), who among ID people is really saying that ID, as a proof, is "testable"?
Are there not responsible ID people who are only suggesting that information be gathered by which we may appreciate how extremely coincidental is the origin of life (if indeed there is an "explanation" that truly is based purely in materialism)?
BTW --- Are anti-ID people saying anti-ID is "testable"?
Are they saying it would be "scientific" to publish a paper purporting to prove that "God is extremely unlikely"?
DEEMING (?) SCIENCE: If not, by power of scientists, is it simply to be "deemed scientific" to assume there is no god and that everything that happens has a purely physically determining explanation?
REASON TO BELIEVE:
Regardless of one's preferred worldview, would it not be appropriate to appreciate that "evidence" only affords "rationale to believe" --- as opposed to proof?
IRONY:
Intriguingly, for one to scientifically demonstrate or replicate how a universe, world, species, or even living cell could "just happen" to come into being as a result of a purely material process of natural selection, would not the consciousness of the person making such demonstration necessarily accompany its manifestation?
Would not such a one's conscious effort accompany his or her manifesting of natural selection? (Are not most ID folks suggesting God may employ a means quite like what we take to be natural selection?)
TRIVIAL MINDS:
When science is defined so as to be concerned only with finding or supporting material explanations, then, of course, looking for reason to believe in anti-ID would be practicing science, while looking for reason to believe in ID would not be practicing science.
But, such "proof" would be based, trivially, only in its beginning assumption or definition.
SCIENTIFIC MEASURING ABOUT COINCIDENCES:
Regardless, would not looking for information by which to appreciate measures of coincidence constitute science?
In reviewing some of the comments, it appears many folks just start out with a premise (like, "this is a joke, right?") and seem thereafter incapable of considering what Stein himself was suggesting.
The best I can suggest for such folks is that they simply try a remedial second viewing --- to try to engage their minds in addition to their pre-fabbed positions. But don't hold your breath.
Wow. Try using simple words and short sentences.
Here's the problem. Evolution, with all of it's holes and flaws, is a scientific theory for two reasons. First, it is falsifiable. We can test it by making predictions about the past based on the theory, and then examine the fossil record and see of those predictions are accurate.
Additionally, we can make predictions based on theory. A great example of that is the growing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. This is a clear demonstration of evolution on a small scale, i.e. variation within a species. While this does not prove evolution on a grander scale, i.e. variation between species, it certainly adds credence to the possibility.
Creationism, even ID, is not testable. We cannot make any predictions based on it, because any result will be chalked up to "God made it that way."
Second, and more importantly(I'm not a big fan of the Poop0er Doctrine), the definition of science excludes any consideration of supernatural actions. This doesn't mean that they don't exist; it does mean that they are not considered in the realm of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God; it totally avoids the question.
Certainly other world views and philosophies are possible; but they are not science.
ID invokes a supernatural force where it is not needed. Therefore, it is not science. To attack scientific and educational institutions for refusing to allow a non science to be taught as science is ridiculous.
That's why the film fails.
Posted by: rich on April 22, 2008 2:27 AM"Apart from apparent hysterics (on both sides), who among ID people is really saying that ID, as a proof, is "testable"?"
Anyone who also claims that IDC is suitable for instruction in high school science classes. Or that IDC represents "scientific information". Or that IDC "is science".
The various major IDC advocates from the Discovery Institute have all said that sort of thing. DI Senior Fellow William Dembski, for instance, has a whole chapter in "The Design Revolution" discussing IDC as a testable conjecture. He's wrong, of course, but he does make the claim.
IDC, in its current form, is by no means scientific or falsifiable.
Be that as it may, the intervention of non-material forces is a legitimate avenue for scientific pursuit.
In the same way that "electrons," "bacteria," and "radio waves" were once thought to be purely fictional and "magical" so in the same way can the supernatural be analyzed and become scientific.
We simply lack the current capacity to observe it in controlled circumstances. (Note: A lot of "supernatural", is just magical thinking... but some of it we simply lack the devices to "measure" the reality of it. It's like measuring radiation by looking at the glow of radium.)
Bearing in mind, the first scientists (Thales, Aristotle, etc) observed *nature* not laboratories. And anthropologists observe *people* not laboratory events which can be mass produced.
In the same way, if our existence is not materialistically determined, we must look (like Quantum Physicists are now looking) for idiosyncrasies in nature that expose the true governing principles (If there are any).
"The hogwash and magic of so-called viruses is not science." "It is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to fly in an aircraft that is not lighter than air." Maybe, our definition of science has become too unnatural from the original understanding for us to comprehend, that knowing Idiosyncratic existence may be part of it.
Posted by: Neddy on May 6, 2008 2:04 AM