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
It is amazing, Ben Stein, that the most basic principle of this non-debate escapes you: science and faith are mutually exclusive. By definition. Have you lost your dictionary?
All proponents (not believers, but gasbags) of "intelligent design" seem unaware of the fact that everyone else sees their protests for what they are: public confirmation of personal insecurity. If you want to skip science class to hang out in the church parking lot, go ahead. Why do you need all of us to go along to validate your self-perception as a "rebel"?
Honestly, there's nothing more annoying than a gu who isn't content to hold a conviction, but has to beat everyone else over the head with it to convince himself.
Mr. Pazienza:
Check out this web site. The Kansas School Board was actually going to allow "intelligent(sic) design" to be taught in schools, stating that the idea had just as much validity as the theory of evolution. So this guy comes up with this http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ and essentially presents an absolutely ridiculous theory that meets the same criteria as intelligent(sic) design. His position was that if intelligent(sic) design is taught for the reasons they stated that they must also include his theory. The school board decided not to teach intelligent(sic) design.
But, in the end, aren't we all devout Pastafarians?
Some are Gnocchists!
Ramen!
I tend to be more of a linguinearian myself,... especially with a nice clam sauce!
That is AWESOME! I hope he sends it to Stein. I can't believe someone with a shred of intelligence (and I've seen "Win Ben Stein's Money") could assert something so asinine. Then again, I could not believe Stein was so ridiculous as to claim that the record profits of the oil companies were solely due to the rise in raw materials (and somehow "not their doing").
He's sold his soul. I hope someone does a "You Tube" parody promoting the Spaghetti monster.
You can pick up THE GOSPEL OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER book on Amazon.
I SAW it! It was in the last scene of The Mist. It didn't FLY, but it was a monster that attacked with these big hideous noodles!!! I believe what I see, so I'm convinced~. The REformed Church of the Spagetti Monster is about to be born.
I thought we left this "Intelligent Design" Silliness behind after the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Whats weird about this whole "controversy is that creationism and id is about what to teach 10th graders in biology. It dosn't exsist in the grownup world of biology for profit. Ben, try some clear eyes!
chez, thank you for writing this
Intelligent design is a misnomer. The core assertion of ID is life and the operation of the universe are too complex to have arisen through undirected means. At most, that assertion promotes the belief of "intentional" design, but intent does not denote intelligence. Plants grow towards the sun. That's clearly intentional, but are plants intelligent? Furthermore, the many flaws in human design, such as the tailbone and appendix, indicate our "designer" suffers from either a lack of intelligence or a flawed intelligence. Thus, intelligent design theory disproves the existence of a perfect creator. We are perhaps the creation of one of the many other gods worshiped throughout history, but not the perfect being proponents of ID believe in.
The sheer complexity of the biosphere in general disproves creationism. Just consider how much effort it takes to generate the corroborating evidence for an undercover identity by the police or the CIA, and that's just to sell the idea that you're not who you claim to be to a small group of people.
Using irreducible complexity to disprove creationism? Impressive. However, I'm not sure that will convince people whose thesis is "an omnipotent being did it."
small point - the appendix is no longer thought to be a vestigial organ. It brews bacteria that live as normal flora in the intestines..
1) As noted above, this putative function is a still-unproven hypothesis.
2) Even if true, the existence of a function for the appendix does not prove that it is not vestigial. Vestigial does not mean useless.
3) Moreover, if the appendix is found to have a function, such as this one, that would be of benefit to all animals, then its absence from many species it would benefit is also evidence against intelligent design.
There is an excellent discussion of the vestigiality of the appendix at talkorigins.org that you should read if you are interested in this topic.
A possible function for human appendix is a reservoir of commensal bacteria that inhabit the lower GI tract. Functionally this would allow for repopulation if something wiped out the gut microbial population. The article has some neat stuff in it, sadly it's not open access so unless you're at a university library (or have proxy access through one) all you can do is read the abstract :(
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.08.0322)
OK, what about nipples on men?
Its worth mentioning that the paper cited was a a theoretical piece (Journal of theoretical biology, no less) and not backed by lab studies. Don't know why I felt the need to add that.
Ah, now I see the purpose of Ben Stein, the appendix of mass media. He repopulates us with gobbledygook when we start thinking to clearly.
Chez,
I agree with you that Christians are not being persecuted. I think the point of the movie is that certain academics have lost their job because of the I.D. position. The e-mails from one university overtly state that was the reason for firing Guillermo Gonzalez. I can't see why saying Christians aren't persecuted on-large in society therefore these examples of academic censure don't exist.
I don't know, I'd have to see the movie to see whether these claims are justified but I don't see the logical link in your argument.
Teaching that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory does not constitute teaching science. So if Mr. Gonzalez was trying to do that, then I can understand why he was let go. If Mr. Gonzalez was trying to teach I.D. as a philosophical framework (or even cosmological), then his firing was probably unfair. It's not about suppression of I.D. I don't care if you teach that to your hearts' content. Just don't pretend that I.D. is a valid scientific theory that can be tested experimentally..... it can not. The key difference is that some day a better theory may come along and supplant evolution (based on the preponderance of evidence and the ability to predict future changes/behavior) as the predominant theoretical framework. Nothing can EVER do that with I.D.
With a "theory" that starts with a creation event by a "being" who is a deity, there can be no disproving it, and therefore, by definition, it's not science.
By the way - while you are teaching I.D. - give other philosophical and religious frameworks equal time. No one's ever "disproven" the Navajo creation mythology either - why not teach it? What do Buddhists believe? Hindus? Australian Aboriginal peoples? Aren't their beliefs valid? They are part of their faith...and therefore are antithetical to scientific methodology. It is flat out irresponsible to teach them as science.
You should check out www.expelledexposed.com for some information on these "persecutions". The simple fact is that Gonzalez' publications dropped off significantly after he received his faculty position, that most of the publications he did get came from research performed before he got the position, and he didn't bring in much grant money. None of the graduate students he mentored had completed their degrees by the time of the tenure application. These facts alone would be enough to get him denied tenure in almost any scientific department at any university in America.
Moreover, Gonzalez submitted his book on the design conjecture as part of his tenure application. If the tenure committee considered his adherence to design conjecture as part of the review process, they did so appropriately, and at his invitation.
Ben Stein OLD Conventional Wisdom: Deadpan actor who talks funny (as in ha ha) whose hilarious cameo helped make "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" a hit.
Ben Stein NEW Conventional Wisdom: Just another fundamentalist Jesus freak who talks funny (as in strange).
Isn't it possible to equate "intelligent design" to the inherent logic of the universe? Need there be exclusive recourse to an external designer or to an immanent logic? What is made logically works according to its nature. Its activity is not random or chance activity. Darwinian evolution is not the expression of chaotic or random events, were that so there could be no "Darwinian theory"-- which seeks a logic to the events. All theoretical speculation rests upon the presupposition that contingency is grounded in necessity, in other words, chance events are only "chance events" because they are not essential to necessity -- that before one can have an "accident" there must be a logical basis upon which it rests. Two cars, each intending to proceed in a straight line, can, by chance (an unintended event) be deflected from that line, but that t is not a matter of "chance". They "act" as cars (subject to physical laws). If you wish to call God the "maker", fine. But what he has made acts according to its own logic (just as once anything is made it follows its own inner rules -- one cannot make a table which cannot support anything, that's illogical... and were in made it would not be a "table". I don't see the reason for either the Creationists or the "Scientists" to have any debate whatever -- they agree as to the effect but in one case the cause is external, the other internal. Ah well....
I don't mind Intelligent Design as a theological discussion.
It's not science though.
I love the argument: "Evolution is only a theory!" Yeah.. it is... and that means it can and is tested and does produce scientific evidence demonstrating its veracity. Can ID'ers produce some test for their beliefs? No.
In the evolution vs. ID "debate", there is no contest. From the evolution camp:
"We've got the fossils. We win."
Game over. Can we get back to reality now?
Exactly. And thus they cannot ever claim to be endorsing "science." There is no anecdotal evidence or that at best, but really is some kinda deductive thought with nothing as conclusive proof.
Ben Stein is a self-righteous jackass. One cannot claim intelligence without having an open mind and his is completely closed. However, his opponents' minds are also shut so the debate has come to down to this: we are either monkeys or voodoo. Is everyone a moron now??
Just because there's no God in religion doesn't mean there is no God. The problem with evangelical atheists is they believe debating religion means debating God. If you equate religion with God, then you *believe* in religion! Bottom line is all evangelicals suck. Stop worrying about what I think.
Do some reading before you get on your atheistic high horse. All the great strides in science have been done by men who were pursuing God.
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." - Einstein
"God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done" - Newton
"Seek the truth in all things, in so far as God has granted that to human reason." - Copernicus
Science is the pursuit of truth. If the truth is we are products of Intelligent Design, then that is science.
"Just because there's no God in religion doesn't mean there is no God?" By that logic, there's a mind control beam device installed in the Statue of Liberty's torch by the alien overlords who secretly manipulate the puppet strings of the leaders of all developed nations; just because nobody's seen either the mind control device or the alien overlords doesn't mean they're not there, and prove there's neither mind control device nor alien puppet masters.
Scientific strides were made because those scientists didn't take the proclamations of the clergy at their word. "The world is flat? Let's go see the edge of the world with our own eyes, then!"
Let's face it: intelligent design is little more than those old STAR TREK technical manuals Paramount used to publish to show how warp drive "works" beyond the simple fact that the show's writers needed a way for the Enterprise to go from one planet to the next in a reasonable amount of time.
The core of the intelligent design argument is this: some organisms are irreducibly complex, and, therefore, they must have been designed by something intelligent.
There is no proven connection between the two ideas, nor could there be.
The proponents of intelligent design make a "leap of faith" to get to their conclusion. That faith is not based on evidence or experiment; instead, it's based on a misuse of logic.
The Earth is flat -- teach the controversy.
The earth is hollow and a race of lizard men live in it -- teach the controversy.
the alignment of stars determines our fates (something that idiot, Reagan, actually believed) -- treach the controversy.
Global warming is not occurring ... er .... OK, it's occurring, but it's not caused by humans ...er... OK, we're causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it ... er ... jeez, it's hot in here ... teach the ... what?
So, where does it stop? When we have mechanics who pray over our cars to fix the evil spirits that make them run poorly? When the shores of the Atlantic lap at the base of the White House?
Medieval superstition does not become fact simply because you shout it louder. Stupidity doe not become wisdom simply because you say it is. The world and the universe is immune to your superstitions, impervious to your spells. It will go on confounding you, regardless of your beliefs. And if you deny what science reveals, or wrap it in Sophistry, you will doom yourself to dying in the stew of your own ignorance.
It was Nancy Reagan, I believe, that wore the astrologer's hat. President Reagan was merely her Alzheimic dupe (victim?).
You've got to remember, folks, we're pretty much fresh out of the caves. Like all children, If we survive infancy, we will grow past the need for imaginary friends.
I don't have to remember that there are some of us still dragging their evolutionary feet. I am here to yank them out of that stupid cave already.
The really sad thing is not the ascendency of the Evolution Thought Control Police, but the fascist control that the medical schools and pharmaceutical industry hold on our children's education in a scandal so well hidden that most Americans are unaware of it.
I am speaking, of course, of the heavy-handed suppression of the teachings of the medical genius Mary Baker Eddy at all levels of our education system.
Why, I ask, is Eddy's theory the Disease Is Error consistently sloughed over in favor of the germ theory (it's only a theory, after all) of disease?
Why aren't Christian Science prayers taught in medical school? Why? Because there is a permeating conspiracy to ignore the Controversy.
Can't tell if you're being serious or not :(
I'm guessing this is sarcasm because of the germ theory comment, but good job regardless :P
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
