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
I personally know lots of scientists who are Christian, and others who are Muslim, Buddhist, and Jewish. They are climate scientists, oceanographers, physicists, electrical engineers, and biologists. They are professors, researchers, and business owners.
The concept of some great intelligence that "we cannot understand" pulling the strings, is amusing or appalling to them. They do not believe there is one answer and only one answer to why we are here or our purpose. That would steer scientific inquiry in a single direction.
This ID / Creationism business is not about religion it's about trying to fix things in some permanent position. It's about assuming that one belief is the only true belief. Look for the number of times that 'Tradition' comes up.
Science assumes that we adopt a process for learning and discovery. We let the process lead us towards greater knowledge which can lead to more discoveries.
Creationism assumes an answer - intelligent thing running everything - and then works full tilt at justifying the belief.
Science is interested in knowledge. Creationism is concerned about dogmatic belief, with a lot of tinkering around the edges to make it seem as though it's active and vital.
Anyone who believes that Creationism is based upon religion has already demeaned the variety and validity of most people of faith.
This is a Manufactroversy on all sides; neither a strictly evolutionary (meaning, through biological processes devoid of consciousness or 'intelligence') nor a strictly "God did it, and that's that" position has it correct. Both sides are indeed right, but neither is yet correct. Unfortunately this movie does nothing for a coherent discussion of the relevant facts. It is so obviously propaganda.
Ben Stein is one of those people who, when speaking, comes off as an intellectual, and therefore intelligent and wise. But he's a doofus. A Nixon-loving, conservative, stuck-in-a
Nothing in the ancient creation stories is supported by facts. And unless they ever are, there's no reason to give them credence.
I love (actually, hate) the way people who are not scientists have the gall to question things beyond their scope, that have been vetted by the scientific community. And here's the bottom line: Darwin's writings have been around for over a hundred years; during that time they have been scrutinized by scientists all over the world. Darwin has been vetted by scientists the world over, from all nationalities and beliefs, for a CENTURY -- probably more so than any scientist, including Einstein. Only someone willfully out of touch would have the balls to say, "I still disagree, simply because I don't feel comfortable with the findings."
Here's Stein in an interview:
"5. What would you like to say to Darwin?
[Ben Stein replies]"You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy
woman, why don't you just live quietly out in the countryside and not
torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so
much misery?"
http://www
There you are, Stein would essentially tell Darwin to shut up, not to
publish his science. It's the complete opposite of the freedom-fighting persona that he's trying to put over onto a gullible public.
This alone indicates that Stein is primarily interested in repressing
freedom of inquiry, and freedom of speech, at least where this goes
against his prejudices.
Glen Davidson
http://geo
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. What "misery" is Stein talking about? I hear this from lots of ID supporters, whether they are fundie Christians or not. Evolutionary theory is the basis for pretty much all biology. It's brought us all kinds of advancements that couldn't have been done without the theory to guide research. Without Darwin where would we be in respects to what the biological sciences can offer these days? Other than their offense at the theory not sticking their god-thingy on a pedestal like they do, exactly what harm has evolutionary theory caused?
What's most laughable is his phrase "half-baked suppositio
Would Stein also say that the writings of Stephen J Gould and Carl Sagan were also "half-baked"? Because they concluded that Darwin's science was sound.
It's also interesting that Stein uses the words "torture" and "misery." Think of Galileo. Inquisition, anyone?
Part 2
What they have to say has nothing to do with bible thumping, although those who don't look closely see what they want to see. Aristotle, Plato and Cicero all taught ID. There has been a continual philosophical tradition in the western world about ID ever since. In India ID has been taught since the Upanishads. The modern ID movement is a continuation of those traditions with the addition of modern science. Just because there are some Christians involved some of them may have an agenda to spread their faith, that doesn't disqualify the tradition of ID anymore then being a militant atheist like a Dawkins or others of his ilk who are leading the charge against ID should be disqualified because they have an agenda to push their faith. The new movie Expelled is about the attempt to silence ID proponents in the scientific and academic community by holding witchhunts and trying to get anyone who questions evolution fired and blackballed. http://www
Aristotle, Plato, and Cicero, didn't even know what a molecule was. The didn't know what a protein was, they didn't know about microbes, they didn't even know about genes let alone DNA. Their ideas about this are irrelevant. I.D. is NOT a tradition with science added to it. It is explicitly NOT a scientific theory or even hypothesis.
The anti ID crowd is not an atheist movemen; it is a defense of the scientific method. The ID movement is not only religious it is political as well, which is where Stein enters. Who will save us from this gobbledygook masquerading as science?..
1 of 2
Brother HeevenSteven this is from where we got cut off on the Zack Exley thread about Karen Armstrong and her TED Prize Dream.
Good day HS, The psychological issues in understanding the God paradigm are vast. I only became aware of Karen Armstrong through your interest in her work, over the years now I've come to respect your interest and reasoning prowess with regard to the issues surrounding religion, therefore I have taken an interest in her work too, especially since I found that she would be a recipient of a TED prize. That many others along with you should recognise Ms. Armstrong's work and hold it in such high regard is indeed notable. That's why I've also chosen to support her efforts. Even though my personal quest has already covered the path Ms. Armstrong now undertakes.
It is easy for me to understand such needs, especially for someone devoted as a one time Nun. For most that have been indoctrinated with religious theology, have their schemata set from and early age, it is almost impossible even with reasonable doubts to overcome such psychologically deeply held thought processes, those chains are not broken easily, nor do many have the consciousness to overcome their own subconscious where these schemata are held in in long term memory along with emotions.
.
And where do we learn about Aristotle, Plato and Cicero? Other than in History (or 'history of...'), in Philosophy class where ID belongs along with all the other creation myths and theories. Not in Science class, where the topic is, as you would expect - Science. No one in the academic community would exclude the discussion of ID theories from the Philosophy or Theology departments, for that is exactly where the discussion belongs.
Also no one can prevent the IDers from conducting scientific experiments, meaningful or otherwise (although they might find difficulty in finding funding for their less meaningful ones - but they don't seem to be short of funding sources do they?) What they can't do is stretch the evidence and data from their experiments to fit any conclusion the evidence can not support - which unfortunately they attempt to do.
Why do they not expend their energies into having standard Philosophy or Comparative Religion courses introduced into high school rather than pushing non-science into the science curriculum? I would certainly support that endeavor, including discussions of ID and any perceived shortcomings with the evolutionary model. Is it because they would have to include discussions of all the major (and maybe some minor) religions as well as non-religious philosophical thought? I would welcome those types of critical thinking courses in my daughter's high school - do you think most ID supporters would? I suspect they would prefer to restrict their religious teachings to their particular religious institutions.
ID may qualify as a philosophical idea, but it's a thoroughly anti-scientific one. The goal would seem to be to get people to think "God did it" whenever they encounter anything that they cannot easily explain instead of trying to study it and understand it. If people like that ran the world our technology and understanding of the universe would not have advanced much after the Bible was written.
I love the way this stupid little "movement" gloms onto the history of philosophical thought *worldwide*. if that isn't megalomania, then what isn't?
Boy, home-schoolers and libertarian UFO-freaks and Jesus fanatics will love this movie! Since Jim Varney died, and thus stopped making the "Ernest" series of films, they haven't had anything entertaining to see since!
part 1
I have some problems with what you have written Valerie. First off since I am going to criticize what you have written I don't want you to think I am some kind of Christian fundamentalist seeking to shove the bible down your throat. I am not a Christian, never have been. I consider myself to be a mystic coming from the yoga tradition, yet I support Intelligent design (ID). So I have to differ with you when you claim that ID is really about biblical creationists repackaging bible myths. In reality the ID movement is loathed by a large percentage of biblical creationists for a number of reason, as do many muslim fundamentalists loath ID. The ID movement rejects biblical literalism, which is what biblical creationists are all about. Bible thumpers teach that creation happened because the bible says it happened, and it happened literally in the way the bible says it happened. If you go to ID blogs you will find something very different. They are not biblical creationists, a large percentage are not even christian. Ben Stein is jewish, as are the ID proponents in the film; scientists David Berlinski and Gerald Schroeder.
What does being Jewish have to do with it? You see, there's the New Testament, and there's the Old Testament. The creation myth is in the Old. Ever hear the phrase "Judeo-Christian"? It means the Old Testament, the part of the bible both faiths have in common. There's nothing specifically Christian about believing in Moses, for example, or any of the other ancient stories. (I'm amazed you didn't know this.)
"(I'm amazed you didn't know this.)"
I'm not at all amazed.
ID may not be "biblical" but it's certainly Creationism. As far as I know, no ID supporter has ever seriously suggested a creator other than "God". ID is religion, pure and simple.
O Wise Mystic from the Yogi Tradition: the fact that Ben Stein is Jewish now has me convinced that ID is perfectly true, and evolution is a menace tyrannizing humanity!
Ask these people if they would fight so hard for a Muslim viewpoint being taught in American public schools.
Creationists can argue all they want about offering freedom to argue diverse points of view, but the fact remains that those morons are attempting to inject "faith" into the scientific ciriculum, which would inevitbly contradict the process of utilizing experimentation and hypothesis as a means to evaluate problems, and possibly even produce a few disasters to boot when one's faith over the impending result of a "scientific" experiment is offset by the laws of nature
The problem with these ID, creationist, great gobbledy-g
It is really more complex than that in fact.
Fact is, it is *NOT* that these religious People don't have brains, it is that are without proper information, what they believe lacks knowledge and carries that bias of what they do know. Strange part is that is true of all of us, as we are all ignorant to many things.
It's a complex matter of one's perspective.
The Curse Of Knowledge (psychology)
This is the curse of knowledge--once we know something, we find it hard to imagine what it was like not to know it.(Or be know by others) Our knowledge has 'cursed' us, and it becomes difficult for us to share our knowledge with others because we can't readily re-create our listeners' state of mind.
http://fra
I attended a class in college called "Creation and Evolution". Wonderful stuff. Learned about many different creation myths, as well as evolution. I would be very happy to see this type of class added to mainstream curricula. I suspect, however, the so-called proponents of Creationism would protest.
Creation myth: http://en.
Fine as long as it's not taught as dogma (read prosetylizing), science or fact, perhaps as religious studies or humanities.
And I was in science class, Darwin was taught as theory with scientific methodology.
ID can't do that.
Surprising that this is even still a debate years and years after the Scopes trial.
Next you can bet Ben Stein will be yakking about that there is no global warming.
"Next you can bet Ben Stein will be yakking about that there is no global warming."
He's been there, done that. Stein is a right wing propagandist, and this is all part of an effort to confuse the gullible masses, so they can continue with their own agenda.
"they have created a sophisticated strategy. "
Sophist strategy is more like it; it's the only one they have.
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.
Ben Stein needed the $ since his game show went off cable TV, musta not got enough royalties from playing the teacher on 'The Wonder Years' and conservative punditry and shilling apparently is not that lucrative either. Creationism called and said 'have we got a good deal for you that you can't turn down'.
A new thought in the science world is that it was the change in diet that made the structural changes from "ape to man". That going from a diet of raw food to cooked food caused modern man to emerge.
Cooked food gives the body more immediate nutrition and the body doesn't have to work to digest it. So the digestive system shrinks. Plus the cooked meat tastes better than raw so protohumans ate alot more of it than raw meat, this in turn gave the body more energy than it used, so the body had to store it. and it stored it as fat in the brain area,and our brains got bigger, and humans than gained a layer of fat in the body that simians don't have. The cooked food also created heat in the body so our body hair was reduced. Our jaws got smaller because the food wasn't as tough to eat.
But with this idea you have to realize that it was protohumans that tamed fire and not modern man.
And that notion is heresy.
A problem with this theory immediately comes to mind: Cooking food causes more fat to be burned off of the meat and thus not consumed. Fat is what provides us with fuel and heat.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
