He Blinded Me Without Science
Ben Stein has a message for Darwin: "Fuck you!"
It seems incomprehensible that Stein -- former Nixon speech writer, game show host, eye drop pitchman and Neil Cavuto love interest -- could find a way to further cement his reputation as the smartest dumb person alive, but, bless his heart, he's done it. Today sees the theatrical release of a full-length documentary presented and narrated by Stein: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed casts the man with the velvet monotone as a sort of Michael Mooresque troublemaker -- a mischievous imp out to rankle the establishment and challenge the suffocating status quo, all in the name of getting to the truth that they don't want you to know about.
And against which authority figure is Stein playing the role of the uppity insurgent?
Science.
Feel free to stop reading if you've heard this one before, but Expelled assumes the position not only that the theory of evolution and the faith-based hypothesis known as "intelligent design" are on close-to-equal scientific footing, but that there's an Illuminatian cabal among the science community, no doubt sitting in a Star Chamber somewhere, seeing to it that any developmental view but Darwin's is suppressed at all costs. It's a hell of a parlor trick really, and one the religious right has become admirably adept at exploiting these days: to turn the tables on their adversaries by adopting the tactics and lexicon traditionally associated with the mutinous left, casting themselves as the victimized and oppressed -- the little guys, taking up the fight against (literally, as opposed to an omnipotent deity) "The Man."
In the end though, that's all it is -- a really clever trick, and one that's played to the hilt in Expelled.
Creating controversy where there is none is positively pedestrian by now, but taking it to the lengths that this new documentary does, and doing it with such a salient level of panache, borders on genius. The SNL writing staff, circa 1977, couldn't have created a more audaciously comical premise than Ben Stein -- a man so square he craps cubes -- writing "I Will Not Question Authority" on a blackboard while dressed like Angus Young. Stein is a Dangerous Mind only if you see mark-to-market accounting as a ballsy show of defiance, which makes him the perfect impertinent hero for the God-said-it-I-believe-it set.
Unfortunately, no matter how creative the packaging, the lesson being sold in Expelled remains little more than nonsense. Stein and company can wrap themselves in the American flag and the freedom to question that it provides; they can grab a handful of ostensible pop culture street cred by aligning themselves with the likes of Bono; in the end, it doesn't make so-called intelligent design any more logically sound. It's still a religious assertion, and not a scientific one. It doesn't stand up to even the most rudimentary evidential scrutiny, and while it's always important to ask questions and allow for healthy debate, no matter the topic, at some point a line has to be drawn separating fact from fiction -- or distraction. The truth is important because it's the yardstick by which we measure our reality, and Ben Stein -- or anyone else -- trying to pass off spectacular whimsy as legitimate fact is, yes, damaging. Not everything can be up for discussion, no matter how large a segment of the population might believe otherwise.
And that's the best part of all this: Stein and his supposedly rag-tag little group of freedom fighters are neither rag-tag nor little.
In fact, the idea that we're expected to believe that the religious in this country are few and persecuted is laughable, bordering on offensive.
Last Sunday evening, CNN aired something it called the "Compassion Forum." It was a live event, broadcast from Messiah College in Pennsylvania, in which an entire roomful of religious leaders -- mostly Christian -- were granted an audience with the two Democratic candidates for president, one of whom may eventually be the next leader of the free world. For two hours, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talked not about war, education and the economy, but about how their faith guides them and, to some extent, who loves Jesus more. The fact that either candidate believes that he or she has the luxury right now to spout metaphysical platitudes is nothing short of staggering -- though certainly not surprising. Just a few days prior to the "Compassion Forum," the entire cast of American Idol, dressed in evangelical white, belted its way through Shout to the Lord not once, but twice on national television. And today, the city in which I live, New York, is at a standstill as thousands crowd the streets -- streets which have been shut down by police -- to reverently welcome an unremarkable man in ridiculous robes and a funny hat who believes that he has a hotline to the creator of the universe and who just wrapped up a meeting with the President of the United States.
In other words, don't even attempt to claim that the religious suffer for their beliefs in this country. Hell, as long as you insist that you're doing it in the name of God, you can swap wives and molest children in The Middle of Nowhere, Texas for years before somebody finally comes and hauls your lunatic ass off to jail.
Ben Stein can rage against the scientific machine all he wants. He can shake his fist and shout, "Don't try to keep me down with your, your gravity, man!" It won't make a spurious assertion -- that intelligent design deserves a seat at the lab station -- any more sound, nor will it make Stein anything more than a rebel without a clue.
Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Great description of the Pope - and don't forget, the whole Papal entourage is VERY gay. Lots of colourful hats and robes, much flourish and ado - it's a real Liberace moment. While you're admiring him, buy some Pope Soap-On-A-Rope and cleanse those sins away! Wear a Pope Anything-But-Flat Hat and keep evil ideas from getting in! BTW - The Pope has a nice Popemobile, but why is he afraid of getting shot? Isn't he supposed to be looking forward to going to heaven?
As for Ben Stein - he's a walking and talking (and talking and talking and talking) monument to freedom of religion in the US. He can spout anything at all and not be arrested, since being an idiot is not illegal. Unfortunately, there are people who will believe him - being credulous isn't illegal, either. Of course, one can hear the same things inside mental hospitals, but those folks are crazy, right?
Wow. What a complete lack of surprise. The hostility against religion (particularly traditional Judaism or Christianity) is the only remaining allowable bigotry.
Here's the thing. If macroevolution (standard understanding of Darwinist theory) works, then there have to have been intermediary steps for every biological system we now see in place. Explain to me then how blood clotting EVOLVES. You have two separate and equally deadly chemical reactions constantly occuring in a delicate balance--one to keep your blood from clotting (without which your blood could not move), another to cause your blood to clot (without which you would bleed to death from a papercut or from the emergence of your first tooth--possibly even from the severing of your umbilical cord).
If macroevolution works, why does it violate the laws of thermodynamics?
If macroevolution works, how do you get from non-living chemical compounds to life? I don't care how long you posit--at some point, you have a moment where there is no life, and a moment later there is life. How do you make that jump?
If macroevolution works, how is it that this one process--against EVERY OTHER OBSERVED NATURAL PHENOMENON--go against the tendencies toward entropy and chaos and instead moves toward more highly organized data (ie DNA)?
I love this: "If macroevolution works, why does it violate the laws of thermodynamics?" Why don't you take a moment to explain how the overwhelmingly tested theory of evolution (which has nothing in it called macro-anything, btw) "violates" any aspect of the study of thermodynamics (you're excused, of course, from not recognizing that in science we have no 'laws'). Please explain this supposed violation.
RCRoss:
So if it's complex or complicated or difficult to explain, it mus be the work of some invisible man in the sky? OK, if you're going to posit that idea, what proof do you have that this "creator" being exists in the first place? What observable, measurable data can I look at to prove the existence of this being?
Basic principle 1: All things that have a beginning have a cause. If you see a table, you assume someone made that table, because all tables you have known had a beginning, therefore the most reasonable explanation is that this one does also.
Basic principle 2: The universe had a beginning. (See the relatively uncontroversial Big Bang)
Therefore, the universe most likely had a cause. (If I happen to be proven wrong, I would admit it, but if that's the case I'm not likely going to exist to do so.)
I can go into the reasons for choosing to believe in a personal, eternal, omniscient, and omipotent God elsewhere, but that's really not a relevant part of the discussion here.
Freaking 250 word limit.
Part 1:
Ok so your argument is "there is something I don't understand so god did it." FYI if we use that logic, according to my mom, god makes telephones work. Also, macroevolution is not a word real scientists use. macro/microevolution is what creationists resorted to after not being able to plausibly deny evolution any longer. Then it turned into "oh yeah microevolution happens, but not macroevolution. because god did that."
Anyhow, lets see what else. How is the law of thermodynamics violated? Just saying it is doesn't make it true. DNA is not some permanent entity. It originates from smaller molecules and it degrades back into smaller molecules. Its organization as a data storage device is quite temporary, much like how an apple forming on a tree is made from carbon that is fixed from CO2 in the air before ultimately degrading back into whatever doesn't violate thermodynamics.
Your mom is a prophet!
Part 2:
As has been addressed earlier in the comments section EVOLUTION does not describe where life came from. That's abiogenesis (or cosmology if you want to go back to where did everything come from). You're starting off on a false premise, which is a sign that you need to learn about evolution from a credible source. Personally, as a scientist I could care less what was around before the first life forms. I dont attempt to analyze data and start off with "well 6 billion years ago there were no life forms" but I consider the differences between 2 closely related bacteria whose evolution is recent enough to be measured with some accuracy (Yersinia pestis and Yeserinia tuberculosis or Burkholderia mallei and Burkholderia pseudomallei, for example).
You are trying to ascribe two things to evolution that are unrelated. In addition to confusing it with abiogenesis and whatnot, you're also giving it an "anti-god" characteristic which is not a part of the theory of evolution. It has been demonized by people who you don't question, and you've blindly accepted that fact and this is where we are.
When were you first exposed to Miller-Urey? I was taught it in a basic high school biology course.
That's essentially a lecture on abiogenesis, isn't it? Why are we teaching abiogenesis in high school at all? There are plenty of other topics that aren't controversial, aren't based on philosophy, and have far more supporting data.
I wasn't mad about being taught about pre-biotic soup and lightning and all the rest, but it seems stupid to me that scientists would turn around and attack ID proponents for belonging in philosophy class while they're teaching Miller-Urey in their own core curricula.
whoops
accuracy helps
Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million; oldest life forms seem to be 3.7 billion years old...lots of time, but not 6 billion
there is a good deal of fossil data available on very early life forms and IT IS an important part of research
"Explain to me then how blood clotting EVOLVES."
Here:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
"If macroevolution works, why does it violate the laws of thermodynamics?"
Answer: It doesn't because the Earth is not a closed system. It continuously receives an energy input from the sun.
"If macroevolution works, how do you get from non-living chemical compounds to life?"
That's not macroevolution, that abiogenesis.
Slept through basic biology, did you?
"slept through basic biology..?"
And physics.
THE FORCE OF LIFE IS IN THE WATER.
Who said I was limiting evolutionary theory to the earth? Where does the energy which the sun emits come from? Fusion. Where does the energy released by fusion come from? Nuclear and sub-nuclear bonds. But where did that come from? If matter, where did the matter come from? If the Big Bang (which I happen to believe lends equal credence to a creator as it does to an atheistic system), then where did it's energy and matter originate?
The question doesn't go away by changing the scope.
I never cease to be amazed by the audacity of those who want to tell God how he had to have created the universe! As a person of faith I find nothing threatening about the theory of evolution.
Science tells you how things happen - Religion is an attempt to tell you why they happen.
I got you, babe.
I haven't seen Ben Stein's movie, so I won't comment on it. I do believe in some kind of I.D., but I don't think it's ready for the classroom. Honestly, I don't think it ever will be. Whether here by chance or design, it's both folly and arrogant to imagine all secrets of the universe would somehow be accessible to the human mind. When we move beyond pragmatic uses of science and into its philisophical application the best we can hope for is some kind of logical model that best defines our world view. At some point, everyone who takes a position must apply a measure of faith.
I believe in I.D. too! In fact I carry an I.D., it is called my driver's license. Stein makes the point that some obscure academics who want to teach intelligent design have been denied tenure. I heard that those who teach the earth rides on the back of a turtle have been denied tenure, as well. Science is not a mechanism that is meant to define our world view. Science defines how the world is constructed and what goes into the construction, then we can adjust our world view or not. You, as other ideologues, want a science that completes your ideology, but empirical science does not have those narcissistic ends. Until then, let's teach science in science class and religion in religion class.
Science disporves all major organized religions, and when people lose their faith and others try to bring them back to the fold with something like design, it just feels so paltry. In truth the only real problem I have with intelligent design is that based off age old religous doctrines and until the ID acknowledges that and distinguishes itselfs from organized religion all their doing is arguing religions case without having to explain individuals tenets.
I'm not sure it's ready for high schools. Because it hasn't been allowed a vetting in the scientific literature. I'm just saying let the debate happen. Censorship does not lead to better information.
I think, maybe, BS is, rather, the dumbest smart person alive, or at least pretending to be for purposes one can only guess (money, maybe ?).
There are doubtless many financial opportunities out there in the conservative hinterlands for this Luddite confusion of faith for science, and Ben with his background and genes (that is, father Herbert) hasn't overlooked them.
It's sad in this day and age the recognition is not universal that theories, such as Natural Selection can be widely accepted as truths on the preponderance of evidence without the crossing of the last t and dotting of the last i.
Like health care, the acceptance of evolutionary theory is pretty much universal in every developed country except this one. How long must we suffer the fools?
As long as we tolerate science iliteracy. Even in our presidents. It may be a long time. (non cosmoslogical scale of course.)
While we "suffer the (religious) fools" this country is falling behind, as you state, in many areas where much of the world is moving forward. Religious fervor is holding our society hostage, and we will implode because of it.
People have been practicing artificial selection since they began domesticating animals. Just look at our pets; animals that don't quite exist in nature. Natural selection is but an extension of this notion. Take the same basic process operating over millions of years and voila, you end up with new species. We don’t even have to talk about the mechanism of random genetic mutation; just go with what you know. It’s really basic stuff – except for those with pre-existing biases.
It might require a leap of faith to go from pet and livestock breeding to accepting that people and rhesus macaques share a common ancestor, but surely that leap has got to be smaller than the one required to accept that some old guy parted a sea with a staff. Particularly when in the case of the former there is an everyday observable approximation of the process, while for the latter there is none.
The interesting thing about science is that it follows its own variation on natural selection, and that’s the fact that crappy theories die out and good one’s thrive and eventually yield useful results. The search for the mechanisms behind Darwin lead to the discovery of genes and DNA, and the benefits thereto.
Let's put ID and Darwin on an equal footing and see if anything useful comes out of the ID labs. Let’s allow students to choose whether to take the ID course or the Darwin course. My kids will be taking the Darwin course.
Putting ID on an equal footing with evolution is impossible. The teacher would have to say that ID is on an equal scientific footing with the theory of evolution. There simply is no scientific theory of ID so the teacher would have to lie. ID is a religous belief in a God of some kind.
silly, silly, silly
there is no "science" in ID and less intelligence
let's teach alchemy next to chemistry; astrology next to astronomy; phrenology, lines in the palms of your hands, chicken liver analysis, and intestines of slaughtered cattle...
we live in the 21st century...Darwin was bor in 1809, and with the publication of his work in 1859 and all of the work of all of the mainline scientists since, we have a reasonabl idea of what has happened in terms of evolution over the last 3.7 billion years of the history of life on this planet...
In light of the fact that we live in a free society what I'm advocating as a solution is educational choice. Let those who want to study an earth centered solar system go right ahead. As long as I don't have to attend that class I'm cool. I'm not sure if it's "right" to force science down the throats of those not desiring it. Give ‘em vouchers and let them learn anything they want.
The current approach to teaching science is intellectually imperialistic. There's no problem with teaching well established, well agreed up facts. The problem begins when the curriculum strays to other issues that are not well established, and not explained.
For instance, if they want to teach evolution by natural selection, fine. No problem. But when they take the next step and extrapolate that out to be an "Origins" lesson, they cross the line. At that point it's not about science, but about scientific philosophy. And if you're going to teach philosophy in science class, then they should be willing to accept other reasonable philosophies.
As it is now, I would argue that there is FAR more scientific proof that order in life and in the universe is created by intelligence than otherwise. We have scientists today creating the first entirely artificial life form. They didn't do it by putting proto-biotic soup in a shaker, either. They intelligently designed it.
There is also a completely unbalanced approach to criticizing scientific philosophies. If the idea matches the imperial edict, then it is attacked and rejected. But there are numerous examples of "hand-waving" style arguments within science that are not attacked in a similar way. "Convergent Evolution" and "Dark Matter" are two clear examples.
Ultimately, this entire issue is caused by the scientific establishment being utterly unable to defend their own curriculum choices based on objective scientific criteria, so they attack the other guy.
Pardon me, but the last time I checked, "Ph.D." still stood for Doctor of Philosophy, regardless of the discipline in which it was earned. All accredited institutions of higher learning employ only PhD's as professors. Ergo, students learn from one who professes a philosophical understanding of his/her area of expertise. Also, you might want to read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for a definitive explanation of how paradigm shifts drive theory.
This issue is usually related to high school teaching, not college level coursework. Most high school science teachers don't have a PhD in science. And regardless of whether they do or not, there are plenty of well agreed upon, well supported scientific concepts to teach teenagers without straying into philosophical areas. Not every high school teaches "Origins" lectures. Based on what I've found, I don't think having Origins as part of the core curriculum is very common in school districts around the country. But in those classes that do teach it, I think they should allow other philosophical arguments to be presented to consideration. If it's about teaching kids critical thinking, then how can they possibly think critically when only given one option and only provided with the most supportive indirect evidence and rationale?
"Origins" are not part of the theory of evolution.
Exactly. Teach the science, leave out the philosophy.
I would argue the opposite:
That this entire ID vs Evolution 'debate' (if one side arguing for something can be called a debate) is due to those with highly inflexible religious beliefs being utterly unable to understand how science differs from theology and philosphy.
As at least one representative scientist - I am perfectly willing to accept that there are all kinds of things 'we' don't understand yet. I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that there is some sort of 'god' out there. By definition 'we' mere mortals will never understand the nature of God if such exists.
Could there be an intellegent designer behind it all? Sure - it is possible and I like to think that there is. But - no matter how you slice it - ID is theology, dependent on a leap of faith. Science, and Evolutionary theory are not faith-based.
So - until somebody figures out a way to even theoretically 'test' for the presence of God - leave God out of science classes and I'll leave teaching Evolution out of your Church.
We shouldn't use Imperial Edicts! That would be evil, unless of course we are religious leaders. I think it would be worthwhile in a class to discuss how scientists are creating new life in the lab using intelligencd rather than the by the old-fashioned soup in a shaker method that we in the science community have been blinded by our years of study to believe in. Wait, aren't the scientists using intelligence to make life in the lab the same scientists who believe in the theory of evolution? Wow, those guys are messed up big time.
Most scientists believe in God.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
I would guess that most scientists would say that they do not know with absolute certainty how life came about, but would be fully capable of explaining the scientific philosophy of the origin of life on this planet if asked.
There is no god but Allah, and Mohamed is his prophet; Teach the debate!
Reincarnation is a valid theory; teach the debate!
UFOs are harvesting humans; teach the debate!
We should find a civics class that can analyze why in 2008 we are having this discussion. This would be worth teaching. How is it possible to pull the wool over so many peoples eyes even in the most informationally accessible country in the world. This actually should be studied.
it has been, its called fear of death and fear of growing old
You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it, eh.
To put a fairy tale such as 'intelligent design' anywhere close to a scientific theory such as evolution is preposterous.
After all, 'intelligent design' has no method of dealing with adaptations by species (i.e., evolution). For example, sans evolution, their play toy of an idea would have today's students believe that each year god decides to adapt certain viral species so they can....what? better attack humans? And this is going to better prepare our next generation of scientists?
What's even more baffling is that we still have people in America believing that shit.
ID is bad theology - if God can be proven to exist through the observations of natural science, then faith means nothing.
ID is bad science - if the organization of nature is a revealion by God, then the scientific method means nothing.
If God had intended to reveal himself through science and logic, he would have done so in a more comprehensive manner. But he didn't because he wants us to come to him by faith, not understanding.
Maybe the point Ben Stein is trying to make is that the scientists don't have the wit to defend their ground effectively. And in that he may be correct.
Oh those poor witless souls: Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Brian Greene. The wit is available by the boatload, the time and effort required to address what is nearly universally accepted by scientists as irrelevant, are not. The thumpers (as in bible-) of this country really ought to find a more productive hobby that actually benefits people, say like, oh, I don't know, passing universal health insurance coverage.
I think that part of the reason the ID is getting a foothold - and maybe more - is the inability of science to make its case convincingly.
Teaching is more than "because I say so" and the growing acceptance of ID is one measure of state of education in the US today.
If by wit you mean a desire to bash their heads against a brick wall you're quite correct. The only reason they're engaged at all is because creationists are trying to destroy science education.
This intelligent design discussion always frustrates me. Stephen Hawking believes in intelligent design (and whetaver the hell Stephen Hawking believes - so do I) He just doesn't have God confused with Dumbledore - nor did Einstein. They both believe/d in God.
Why do we dumb-down God & think that he shook the stars out of His robe?? Do we not think Him smart enough to create the Laws of Physics and Evolution?
This whole discussion, and Ben Stein, is just dumb.
Ben Stein is the ultimate proof that there is no intelligent design.
Consider, the film used unlicensed music [part of John Lennon's 'Imagine'], and shamelessly plagiarized a Harvard work in order to 'cut corners' [read: make money]. I have not seen it - doubt I will spend the money to do that - and will not comment on the quality of the film, other than to say that ID is barking mad, and Ben Stein as well. From now on, whenever I see the acronym, "B.S.", I will KNOW that it really stands for Ben Stein.
I've a lot of time for intelligent design. honda cars are designed very intelligently.
IKEA furniture is intelligently designed if shoddily made.
Tetra pack containers are intelligently designed.
As for me, if I'd been intelligently designed I'd have wheels attached to my arse. Or little track laying arrangements on my feet. Legs are ridiculously inefficient for a city dweller. Trouble is, I evolved from a blob of jelly and evolution has limits.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977305868&nav=MyGather
You wouldn't be the first that thought they could improve upon mother nature.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=516768&in_page_id=1773
http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/graphics/jackson3.jpg
... or how about a disease resistant baby? Or does god hate all children so that he wouldn't even give them a fighting chance?
How about regenerative capabilities? I’m not too keen on dying and I’d be one heck of a piano player after 900 years.
There will always be flat earth loonies.
I like your name! lol.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
