Ben Stein: Front Man for Creationism's Manufactroversy
Biblical creationism, repositioned as creation science and most recently intelligent design has lost the contest of ideas on all counts: the rules, the criteria and the judging. It doesn't follow the scientific method; it doesn't allow us to explain, predict, and control better; and the jury of relevant experts (aka biologists) keeps returning the same verdict.
Now the creationists have taken a new approach that they hope will help them achieve their goal of teaching religious beliefs in our schools as science. That approach can be summed up in one simple word: whining.
One week from today, the new movie, Expelled, attempts to turn creationist complaints into mainstream media. Featuring Ben Stein, one of the conservative right's biggest whiners, the film makes several plaintive appeals: There's a conspiracy among big government and big science, and it's not fair! All we ask is for our perspective to get equal time! (Read: we lost, so let's split the prize.) All we want is for teachers to "teach the controversy"! This is all about academic freedom. Americans like freedom, right?
The whiners actually have spent millions of dollars on the movie, and even more on the marketing of it. You have to give them credit: by bundling Creationism with freedom, they have created a sophisticated strategy. Of course, Americans like freedom! More importantly, both democracy and scientific progress depend on intellectual freedom -- the freedom to ask questions and, unencumbered by ideology, to follow the answers where they lead. After centuries of heresy trials and book burnings, for biblical creationists to position themselves as the champions of academic freedom is a brilliant Orwellian move.
University of Washington professor, Leah Ceccarelli has pointed out that their "teach the controversy" strategy depends on a very specific sleight of hand: blurring the difference between scientific controversy and manufactured controversy or Manufactroversy.
You can say you first heard it here, well, if you haven't heard it already on MySpace or Facebook: Manufactroversy -- a made up word for a made up controversy. There's even a new website, Manufactroversy.NewsLadder.net that aggregates articles and blog posts about this manufactroversy and some other pretty famous ones as well.
Scientific controversy exists only when the jury of relevant experts is out on whether a new finding meets the standard of evidence. The debate and evidence gathering still are in process. A manufactroversy is when someone motivated by profit or ideology fosters confusion in the public mind long after scientists have moved on to the next set of questions. Think tobacco and lung cancer. Think Exxon and global warming. Now think Ben Stein and evolution.
The fact is, there is no scientific controversy about evolution, just like there is no scientific controversy about whether tobacco causes lung cancer or whether human activity causes global warming. However, in all three examples, someone powerful and well established loses out when and if the scientific mountain of evidence becomes common knowledge and widely accepted.
The tobacco industry in the 1960's wasn't anxious to part with its profits just like the oil companies of the 1990's had no desire to walk away from theirs. So they manufactured controversies, paying scientists to publish papers they knew would distort the issue.
In the case of creationism, the a vast preponderance of evidence, conflicts with traditional mythos. What possible explanation but that the scientists are colluding, corrupt, and biased. But, of course, they're not. The proponents of intelligent design can't gain credibility among hard scientists because their evidence is pathetic. So what do they do? Follow in the footsteps of the tobacco and oil companies and spend millions in an effort to create public doubt. They plea for their side to be told, they imagine vast conspiracies and they cry out for fair play, but the reality is much simpler.
The mountain of evidence supporting mainstream biological science is overwhelming. The paltry evidence for "insurmountable gaps" and "irreducible complexity" is actually shrinking. Evolution should be taught as science and creationism, in its many guises, as religion, including the rich pre-scientific stories about origins from many cultures and traditions. So why not just ignore the whiners and hope they will go away? Because they won't until we force them to stop their marketing of religious beliefs as science. We're still fighting the tobacco industry to this day. Oil companies still fund global warming deniers.
Besides, how long has it been since the famous Scopes trial? How long have creationists been talking about "Darwinism" as if no one but Darwin had noticed the fossil record or the DNA code in the last 100 years? It does get tiresome, responding to their ever evolving anti-evolutionary rhetoric. But we need to expose the bizarre supernaturalist agenda behind all the sudden whining about academic freedom. And somebody needs to gently remind Stein and his creationist cronies that they haven't been expelled from school, they flunked.
Follow Valerie Tarico on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ValerieTarico
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
GOP4moretears Part 2
The Pandas and People thing is part of the culture wars. Why people keep fussing and fuming about this is a real mystery to me. It shouldn't scare the scientists. (What a timid bunch!) Nor should it provide overmuch comfort for religious fundamentalists. People doing cutting edge science are an elite group. They're really the only people who even understand what they're doing. Their chief problem is not designing high school curricula -- it's getting research grants. Scientists need the big bucks. So they must go courting the ignorant masses. Evidently scientists are not entirely comfortable in this role. Hence the sturm und drang. I don't, however, think one persuades anyone to reach for their wallets by notifying them how stupid they are. (Ms. Tarico, take heed.)
Fundamentalists pay taxes too. Carrots, my friends. Not sticks. Try carrots.
All of us who opposed the ass-in-chief's war are helping to pay the trillions in taxes it's going to cost; let's not go down that road.
The ancientness of a notion has little to do with it's validity. If Plato he were alive today with up to date knowledge, he'd be against ID, because he would surely see it clearly for what it is. ID is not what scientists find threatening, it's that for political and religious fervor of against real science. Leave Pandas and People for the culture wars then; keep it out of science class. It is in FACT the religious who feel threatened by evolution.
How 'bout this: before each American history lesson, the teacher is required to state that not all historians agree with the meta-narrative threaded through the history of our democracy. Many people think that socialism is a better system for most people. Some think that blah, blah, blah. If we start screwing with the curricula like that, where does it end? It's a subtle form of book burning.
"The ancientness of a notion has little to do with it's validity." -- Agree completely. I mention this only because the ID is supposed to be so controversial. If so, it's a very old controversy.
"If Plato he were alive today with up to date knowledge, he'd be against ID...." I am not so confortable as you, putting words into Plato's mouth. Moreover, I think Plato would have found the conflict between politics, religion and science very intriguing since similar conflicts erupt in the dialogues. He would perhaps smile at how accurately he depicted enduring aspects of human nature.
As to the American history teacher's lesson plans, I expressed no opinion on the topic except to say that the whole controversy was above the heads of the average high school student.
The whole thing strikes me as a tempest in a teapot.
Intolerant-Muse,
Fact is, your obvious threats against others in your closing paragraph is exactly the problem, it's witch burning, the Inquisitions, the crusades, it is your answer to everything threats leading to acts of violence against others.
Yeah, their Orwellian debates are becoming less rational as their sophistry increases.
Fact is they keep doing the same thing and following the same antiquated paradigm and expect a different outcome. Their divine guide has not proved out to be omniscient, omnipresent, and Omnipotent as foretold. Imagine that.
The religionists for all their bombastic screeds, holy transcendent hyperbolic rhetoric and superstitions, they are but snake oil peddlers, and all who greet them must be made aware, caveat empor!
Valerie, I just looked at your bio; I'm embarrassed to admit it took me so long (duh! what was I thinking?), as it's usually the first thing I do with a blogger I don't know.
I want to say welcome to HuffPo, I enjoyed this piece and I just read you March 19th piece on leaving Jesus, which was excellent as well. I"m looking forward to more from you.
As a life scientist, I think it is quite informative to discuss the various dogmatic theories of "creation" that people of various cultures around the world have developed and which have existed for thousands of years. This uniform human desire to explain our raison d'etre is in itself a phenomenon unto itself. Scientifically, our "evolution" of spiritual curiousity nakes a very interesting scientific question to answer - as far as we know, we are the one species that has such a keen desire to find out how we came to be the way we are. Of course, science class can't be the place or time for discussing stories of creationism - since science didn't provide the tools or background for their existance. This doesn't negate their intrigue or importance in forming human thought and behaviour. However, science should be honest about the gaps and hypothesis that are based on facts that are less clear. Genetics has provided a remarkable tale of "the journey of man" (I highly recommend this book by Spencer wells) - and the Perennial Philosophy (aldous huxley) should be mandatory reading for every philosophy and religious studies student in university. Scientists, however, should not panic when "anti-evol
Oh, good book! I read Spencer Wells' book a few months ago. About a year or so ago, I read one on the same subjects (DNA and Linguistic analysis of Human migration) by Nicholas Wade called "Before the Dawn". I recommend either or both.
Spencer Wells has a wonderful ability for talking about the complexity of genetics in both an entertaining and understandable way for people of all backgrounds. I have been enticed to actually order a couple of DNA ancestry kits from his genetics project with the National Geographic folks - and persuade a couple of male relatives from both sides of the family to donate some of their saliva to take a peak at my ancestral migration patterns. I also find the linguistic history of human evolution totally fascinating - one of the best undergrad anthropology courses I took as an elective opened that world for me.
1 of 2
avicenna,
I see you were having some problems expressing yourself clearly, your comment may have confused some readers and you might have come across like a stealth creationist, and not a scientist. So I fixed for you
"As a life scientist, I think it is quite informative to discuss the various dogmatic superstitions of "creation" that people of various cultures around the world have developed and which have existed for thousands of years. This uniform human desire to explain our raison d'etre is in itself a phenomenon unto itself. Scientifically, our "evolution" of spiritual curiosity makes a very interesting scientific question for our cognitive scientists.
Of course, science class should not be the place for discussing religious theology or the book of Genesis - since religion has its place in Sunday school. The reason God created the seventh day, and it was good? This doesn't negate the intrigue or spirituality in forming religious thought and behaviour. However, religions should be honest about the gaps in rational thought processes that are based on superstitions that they try to rationalize, which are clearly divisive, and counter productive.
2 of 2
Genetics has provided scientific evidence of "the journey of man" (I highly recommend this book by Spencer wells) - and the Perennial Philosophy (aldous huxley) should be mandatory reading for every philosophy and religious studies student in university. There is no need for concern when confronted by religious zealots and their antiquated views with regard to evolution and the Darwinian model, or its scientifically soundness, and the only possible explanation for the existence of all life as we know it. Especially when taking into account the human genome project, the proteome folding project and the human epigenome project."
No need to thank me, it was my pleasure.
Nye, you just have issues with what I said and stated them as you saw fit. Many do that with both academic and religious texts as well, I've noticed. I don't mention the book of genesis anywhere in my little piece - but you're welcome to add whatever you wish to make it more in synch with your world view. That's what we humans do best, afterall..
Other than science, I was also placed in advanced humanities studies (Canadian school system), and social studies was as important and educational as science. Culture (of which religion is a large part) shapes our priorities and our interest in science and the questions we seek through scientific reasoning. As a student of science, I find it interesting that physicists are the most religiously inclined, and biologists are the most threatened by it.
I read yesterday that Michael Schermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, and a staunch defender of the scientific approach to understanding our environment (including the principle of evolution), did not always believe that evolution was a sound principle.
When he graduated from Pepperdine University, he called himself a born-again Christian. He did not adopt a scientific approach to understanding our world until he was in graduate school.
My point in all of this is that maybe there is still hope for Ben Stein, for Bush and Cheney, for Petraeus, for McCain, and all the others who reject rational thought and seeking truth out of hand. The justification for hope may be miniscule, but it does exist. Lumping Ben Stein with Bush and Cheney may be unfair to Ben Stein, but that is the way I feel about what is going on in our nation.
The insistence on rejecting hard evidence and logical thought as a basis for action seems to have permeated most of our government.
You make the insulting claim that if someone doesn't accept evolution then they are irrational? The simplest form of life is a single cell creature. A team at Harvard made an animation called "Inner Life of A Cell" which you can see at http://mul
"It is irrational to think that it takes intelligent to make something so complex that we can't build anything even close to it's complexity?"
Yes it is. You're arguing from a position of ignorance. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't be true. The "It's too complex to have happened naturally" is a major cop out and you know it. Who decides what is too complex to have happened naturally? Just because Behe thinks something doesn't make it true. Most of the ID literature I've seen hinges on the "Too complex" idea, which is not and never will be proveable and is therefore unscientific.
>Yet the so-called rational view is that the cell just popped into existence.
Damn, this is so dirt-ignorant it's hard to know where to start.
If indeed you're interested in, say, morphogenesis, whether of cells or whole organisms, you will need to read more, and you will need to read more deeply. You will need to read *science* texts, which would involve dropping your deep insecurities regarding things you cannot easily understand. The ease with which the Grand Mystery of God's Creation comes to you is the clue: it's easiest of all to declare that you do not understand something - especially when you intend the statement as an embargo against doing any intellectual heavy lifting in future. Belief in God aside - are you aware how absolutely lazy you are? In the time you wasted advertising your stupidity to thousands of strangers (a low point in your life, though you're not aware), you could've visited an educational site and learned a thing or two about the formation of organisms on this earth. You may have learned for instance that this stupid bootstrapping notion you have of life on this planet is a straw man, a non-argument, except in your head.
Christ...w
Ya'll need to get it straightt, take away your fears, Jah Lives my bruddahs and sisters!
http://www
http://www
http://www
The Dover case was a sham from the start. There was no jury. Just a judge who had an agenda and it showed in everything he did and didn't do, if you followed the case you would know that. Here is a blog from the University of Chicago Law School Faculty that discussed the trial, and in the comments went on to be a long debate not only about the trial but also about ID vs Evolution. (my comments in the debate are by 'Kaiser Soze")
Here is part 1
http://uch
part 2
http://uch
As for PBS, it was a joke, propaganda nothing more. Nothing new from them. They did an earlier series just on evolution which showed their methods and agenda, it is critiqued here
http://www
The menu is that at the top of that page, it goes over every single point raised by the series and show how they get just about everything wrong.
ROTFLMAO! Thanks The Cult, I was having a bad day, I laughed SOooooooooooooo hard at your comment, I 'm feeling better now.
I forgot to add part 3 of the debate above at the University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog, here it is
http://uch
This issue (Intelligent design) has been exposed for the the ruse and conspiracy that it *WAS* in a court of law. The PBS series NOVA had an expose' on it that everyone should watch:
Judgement Day, intelligent design on trial.
http://www
I just watched this; very good. I followed that trial at the time and even read many of the transcripts, especially Behe's testimony.
For one to really appreciate the trial one must have an understanding of the law, and proper legal procedure, the conservative judge (who was appointed by Bush to the court) really ran a tight ship, and handed down an excellent well written decision.
If they want to "teach the controversy", fine.
I have two additions to the schedule.
1) Agnosticism 101
2) Atheism 101
Good! And let's not forget Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
Dear Ms. Tarico,
Would it be ok for me to heart ya? Thank you for your eloquent essay/post. Excellent analogy using the tobacco industry scam artists, it's is *SPOT- ON* ! The prevarications and sophistry these people use is almost impossible to believe, BUT, seeing it is a fact that they use it, no matter the harm they cause to their fellow human beings by doing so, one can only reach the conclusion they are very mean spirited and indeed hold contempt and not goodwill for others, the antithesis of that which they claim to hold in their hearts.
This issue (Intelligent design) has been exposed for the the ruse and conspiracy that it *WAS* in a court of law. The PBS series NOVA had an expose' on it that everyone should watch:
Judgement Day, intelligent design on trial.
http://www
Once again, thank you Ms. Tarico for keeping the spot-light on this fraud. Agape (Love in fellowship of our shaared fragile Humanity)
You're right, Valerie. "teach the controversy" is simply code for keep our children dumb and subservient.
With all their boobery, it's surprising they're not still trying to turn lead into gold to solve our economic crisis.
Yeah! that's the ticket, the "Alchemist's Stone". :)
Valerie you make some bold statements ,the problem is you have no real science to back it up. I don't
expect my letter to be posted because you at the Huffington Post love your dogma over opposing views.
The truth is Science has never observed a single Mutation in nature or in a lab that added information to an organism. The most remarkable fact about the THEORY of Evolution is that it is totally dependent upon the unobserved and unproven assumption that random mutations over a long period of time will result in improvements to a species via added DNA information that will be carried unto future generations to provide an enhanced opportunity for "survival of the fittest. Modern genetics and molecular biology have proven that mutations are genetic mistakes that fail to provide any evidence of evolutionary development.
To say that there is a" vast preponderance of evidence" to support Evolution is totality idiotic
and irresponsible journalism. Promote Science not your ideology.
And please don't come back at me with that tired "Punctuated equilbrium"Theory.
Get off the Blogs and do some legitimate research.
as opposed to the 'theory' that a being more intelligent than us is running things.
if a 'higher power' is running things, i question the intelligen
The problem with your response is the problem with the anti-ID fanatic. There is always a religious agenda that comes out when provided with legitimate scientific problems with evolution. It's the idea of god that you are against.. Then there is the political straw man argument where it is claimed that ID is just a christian fundamentalist scheme to force the teaching of the bible in schools and to promote right wing politics. But I am not a christian, I am not interested in forcing religion in schools,and I am a far left wing progressive in my politics. And I am not alone amongst supporters of ID, I know lots of people who are just like me. So their goes that argument out the window. The problem with ID bashing is that it is almost all coming from a few fanatic atheists who openly have an anti god agenda. Then when they write their critiques of ID they do not critique ID, they are attacks on what they perceive to be the ID "agenda" and contain nothing of real scientific examination of the ID position. It's just "ID is creationism, it's stupid, it's not science, only politically motivated people are behind it" Then that critique is repeated ad nauseum by people who don't take the time to actually study the ID position because they have been conned. Look how people react to "Expelled". They haven't even seen it but claim it is bogus? Who are the real propagandists?
There's plenty of science to back her up - that is if you are actually looking for it?
talkorigin
Disinteres
I love the Platypus. Next time you resort to insults rather than science don't run and hide
behind talkorigin
I made no arguments for ID or " purposeful developement" of any kind. My Question was,
How do random mutations over a long period of time result in improvements to a species via added DNA.
As for my understanding of Evolution, It comes from Darwins own writings concerning mutations. I than frame the theory using modern published research in the fields of genetics and molecular biology.
Maybe you'll avail yourself and answer my question. What YOUR hypothesis?
Try looking from both sides of the issue....(
The Safest thing for you is to just live up to your name.
The fact is the science of the epigenetics is bringing the answer you seek, as we speak. :-p
Epigenetics science has great promise, I look forward to see how cellular differentiation, answers the great gaps in evolutionary continuum as it pertains to DNA.
Respectfully
Theory is a misused term by anti-science types. In a general context theory is defined as:
"1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." http://dic
However, in the scientific context theory is defined as:
"A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena.
Example: Theory of gravity. At this time, science cannot explain what gravity is, only that it exists and can be calculated with mathematics. Since it is easily testable no one doubts that it exists. Go up on the roof, preferably several stories up, and step off. How's that for a theory?
Excuse me for being nit-picky but gravity is no longer considered a theory in scientific terminology, it is what is know as a proof. No need to jump off the roof. :)
And naturally you creationists have irrefutable hard evidence of your claims that Earth was terraformed and all biological species upon it are the product of genetic engineering, and all of this was performed by some hyperadvanced alien species simply to see if it could be done, in order to conclusively prove that the fossil record is nothing more than pocket litter?
What's that? You say all you have is a highly metaphoric and heavily plagiarized book written between 1400-3000 years ago by people who didn't have so much as a magnifying glass? That's your silver bullet? We're supposed to accept your explanation of the origin of humanity with less evidence than the average 9/11 or JFK conspiracy theory?
The kettle is holding on Line 2. He wishes to discuss coloration.
For a while when this controversy first began some years back I was really surprised at the bitter vitriolic writings and words of the critics of ID. Always it seemed to be little to no scientific critique, and if there was little it was usually straw man arguments. Then I came to realize that almost all of the critics had never really investigated what the ID scientists were writing. At most if any critic did read their books they only did so to look for anything which could be construed as a mistake in order to attack them. ID has been and still is, seeing the heated responses, being seen as an a scientific reason, giving scientific credibility, to belief in God. To some people this is simply unacceptable because they see religious faith as harmful in so many ways. You cannot win this argument no matter how much you jump up and own and scream and shout and call ID moronic or people of faith in a creator morons. In fact if you take that course of action then you look like the control freaks with a bigoted religious agenda you claim ID proponents are. Which is not true, they simply believe they have science on their side. Get educated on what they have to say before claiming to know what they think.
A hallmark of a scientific theory is not only it's explanatory power, but the ability to make predictions with it, and then run experiments or observations, to test the prediction. When ID can be used to do this, not only will it make huge news, but scientists all over the world will be rushing into their labs to repeat the experiments. When your ID "scientists" can get into that arena, you will then have some legitimate science to point to.
I agree with everything you say, but ID by its very nature could never be able to satisfy these perfectly reasonable demands of scientific theory. You will not believe me because I'm a Chistian. But if you think about it ID (which needn't have anything to do with Christianity) is a philosophical notion. It is the opposite of "random." In the simplest account that's all it is. Either/or. And either/or propositions are useful paradigms. They open up ideas to possibilities.
ID as a notion also exists in a part to whole relation. If ID were true, it would mean that "everything" was designed. Being a part of this "everything," we can not see the whole that we are trying to understand. This is a problem for scientific method as well. The latest physics paradigm is not more able to be corroborated by experiment than is ID. That doesn't make string theory and its competing theories illegitimate.
The legitimacy of ID would lie outside science by definition since it would represent a whole of which science is a part.
As to the chief problem of ID, predictability, you have a nice part to whole analogy that is helpful there as well. You possess intelligence yourself. But can you predict the next thing you will do, think, believe? The same might be true of intelligence on a larger scale.
Vampires can be explained scientifically: it's a virus that devours metal, especially iron, which is why they drink blood. It's transferred through fluid contact, which is why being bitten by them turns you into one of them. Said virus destroys the ability of the infected subject's skin to protect itself from ultraviolet light exposure and can even given them third-degree burns as a result, which is why they avoid sunlight. The virus can be killed by exposure to nitrogen, and as such you need a wooden stake (not metal, for the aforementioned reasons) in order to hold open the wound.
None of this means that vampires aren't anything more than the fictional construct of Bram Stoker.
LOL - why would we waste time reading Discovery Institute pamphlets? What, am I going to start reading every bit of crap printed by also-rans and fake "mavericks" and paranoid autodidacts? If a host of right-wing, religious and libertarian presses all churn out stupid broadsides as fast as they fly through the transom ('cause wingnut presses are truly vanity presses), does that mean that I have to be bothered with them? No. No time to spare to waste it perusing the vomitus of "maverick" Dean "I Can Haz Cold Fusion?" Kenyon!
It's time to start calling religion what it is: Fraud and learned mental illness
One thing is without doubt, fundamentalist religious theology can be considered Child abuse.
Amen to that, so to speak.
Did you see the doc "Jesus Camp"? These evangelical nutcases are indoctrinating their kids against the idea of anthropogenic global warming, and for the notion of a "baby" being so at "the moment of conception," even before they've had any proper science education! But - as with those polygamists raping young girls, religion is the legal figleaf for this kind of abuse. I was literally so creeped out & haunted by this documentary that I had to turn the DVD off!
When the arguments for Creationism are cloaked in 'freedom' of discussion it should make anyone of good conscience anxious. It's a scam cloaked in a words designed to deceive. It's a brand that's been designed to dominate the discussion, not share it.
Anyone who offers 'Freedom' should immediately inspire our suspicion. It's the same schtick as those late night TV commercials that offer gorgeous women, if you'll only call. They seem so tantalizing.
What's the price?
In this case the price is surrendering our intelligence and giving up free thought.
And which of these beautiful young women will actually answer the phone? I recall that one of the most successful phone sex workers was morbidly obese. She had a beautiful voice and knew how to create illusion.
That's all that Creationism is - an illusion that keeps us from getting what we want.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
