05.05.08
My Comments on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
There has been quite a stir in some blogging circles in response to Ben Stein’s recent documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. This movie has created some pretty heated discussions singling out various aspects of the film and thus diverting necessary attention from the primary message of the film. For instance, one of topics that has cropped up, which is “not” the primary message of Ben Stein’s movie, is in regards to whether God exists. That was not the primary thrust of the movie, but rather one of the main points that I felt the film was trying to convey was that the scientific community actively rejects scientists who feel that science itself suggests the possibility that an intelligent designer was involved with the beginnings of life as opposed to random chance (no creator or life seeded from somewhere else), which is strongly and defensively touted by mainstream evolutionists. Basically, there is a “wall” dividing scientists who believe in a creator and those who do not, or at least don’t admit it. The significance of this is that when rejected by the scientific community, a scientist can be denied tenure, grants, publication in peer reviewed journals, etc. This is quite significant because then only atheists will dominate the science field. “Who” the creator is is a side issue, and the real “problem” that needs to be addressed is that currently science has “no” “proof” or even concrete evidence of how life began, so therefore scientists who feel that life did not start spontaneously should not be rejected by the scientific community, and hence denied tenure, grants, publication in peer reviewed journals, etc. Many prominent scientists believed and do believe in God and that belief did not stop them from using science and the laws of nature to direct their studies and discoveries.
Since the topic is so emotionally charged and controversial and also extends out to other areas of our society, I think the message that scientists who believe in intelligent design are being singled out and black listed has been a bit obscured. One of the ideas that obscures that position and is being hotly discussed pertains to Darwinism and its role in the Holocaust in WWII. The suggestion that the belief in Darwin’s theories on evolution and the survival of the fittest paved the way for the Holocaust of WWII under Hitler’s leadership is being debated. Although I think that is a very important and valid topic to discuss, the arguments seem to be only an offshoot of why intelligent design scientists are being black listed. I think the important issue at hand is to find a way to make sure that “no” scientists, regardless of their beliefs on the origins of man, should be censured, ridiculed, and blacklisted. That is what is being done, and that is what we need to keep in sight when fighting for our rights of freedom of speech.
While I know there is much, much more on the subject to talk about, I want to stop here to make sure that the main point doesn’t get muddled and lost with the “side issues.” This main point needs to surface. Basically, the awareness needs to be made that scientists who believe in a creator are being singled out and blacklisted. This needs to stop. We need to acknowledge this. If there is a God, and He did create the world and everything in it, it is only a fool who would deny His hand in all of life. The Bible tells us that, “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.” If we take no stand, our society will eventually to be run by a bunch of fools, and we will be to blame.
Marlakins
Benjamin Franklin said,
May 5, 2008 at 2:09 pm
hi Marla-
I saw Expelled, and have done a great deal of research on the people interviewed. Expelled tries to make the case that the vicious cabal of “big Science” is out to silence the dreaded “non-Darwinists”, but that is demonstrably not the situation at all.
From “Reasons to Believe” –
“In Reasons To Believe’s interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.
Our main concern about EXPELLED is that it paints a distorted picture. It certainly doesn’t match our experience.”
.
It wouldn’t suprise me that some academicians are pompous asses, who would disparage anyone who disagrees with them, but to say that it is so prevalent as to threaten our freedom is both unproven and unjustified hyperbole.
I would be happy to provide you with some additional information about the people interviewed in Expelled, if you like.
Administrator said,
May 5, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Hello Benjamin Franklin:
Thank you for your comments, and yes, I would be interested in that additional information on the people interviewed in the Expelled movie.
Long before this movie came out, I have been reading here and there of the idea that “creationists” might be somewhat censored or treated as if they could not be “true scientists.” This is not a unique concept to Ben Stein. It has been suggested that if scientists believed in creation, particularly “young earth” creation (unlike Hugh Ross who essentially seems to believe in the millions of years scenario or evolution to the degree of macro-evolution or Darwin’s theory, as far as I know), they could not be true scientists or at least not welcomed into the community. One example of this is Raymond Damadian. Damadian was instrumental in the discovery and development of the MRI, yet he was denied the Nobel prize in physiology and medicine in 2003. The prize was instead given to Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield for their discoveries related to MRI even though their work was based on Damadian’s previous work. Wikipedia has a short blurb regarding the controversy why Damadian might have been refused the award even tho he was clearly the pioneer, and not the other two men. Here’s a clip:
“Some consider Damadian to be a controversial figure in academic circles, not least for his exuberant behavior at conferences.[17] He is also fundamentalist Christian and a young earth creationist[18] and a member of the ‘Technical Advisory Board’ of the Institute for Creation Research.[19] Philosopher Michael Ruse writing for the Metanexus Institute suggested that Damadian might have been denied a Nobel prize because of his creationist views, saying:
I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs. Having silly ideas in one field is no good reason to deny merit for great ideas in another field. Apart from the fact that this time the Creation Scientists will think that there is good reason to think that they are the objects of unfair treatment at the hands of the scientific community.| M. Ruse[20]
Damadian himself said, “Before this happened, nobody ever said to me ‘They will not give you the Nobel Prize for Medicine because you are a creation scientist.’… If people were actively campaigning against me because of that, I never knew it.”[3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Vahan_Damadian
More on that can also be read here: http://www.fonar.com/nobel.htm
Recently I read another blog post wherein the blogger claimed that he had attended a lecture wherein Dr. John Sanford, one of the inventors of the gene gun, spoke on genetic entropy. This is a clip of what he wrote:
“At any rate, before he began his talk, Dr. Sanford spoke a bit about Expelled and testified that the main point of the film is true. That being, good scientific men are being black listed from the circles of academia for daring to challenge the primary tenets of Darwinianism. Dr. Sanford began his scientific career as an evolutionary believing atheist, then moved to a theistic evolutionary viewpoint, then progressive creationism, and then biblical creationism when he and his family started attending a strong, Bible teaching church that challenged the core presuppositions of his governing scientific authorities. Even as a theistic evolutionist he learned quickly not to invoke God or the discussion of ID at great risk of being tarred and feathered by his academic peers.
In spite of the merit of his scientific accomplishments, because he is a biblical, young earth creationist, he receives lots of shrill criticism. One example he gave was an guy reviewing his book on the subject of genomic entropy. Dr. Sanford said, “Here’s a guy telling me, a person who has spent 30 years of his life studying this subject in detail, that I should be ashamed of myself for publishing a book like this that debunks Darwinianism.” He went on, “This guy has absolutely no training in genetics and he thinks I should be ashamed of something I have devoted my life to studying and coming to the conclusions I have?”
The blog and the rest of the post can be viewed here http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html Just scroll down to the post titled, “More Reactions for Expelled.”
So while I can appreciate that you and your colleagues have not encountered opposition, that still would not negate that it appears that other creationists or ID scientists are and have been discriminated against. Perhaps it was good that you saw the film to see that there are those out there who appear to be discriminated against based on their beliefs on the beginnings of life. OR are you about to tell me that there isn’t any discrimination at all?
Regarding Hugh Ross’s position, I think he falls in the category that people like Eugenia Scott “like” (that is, religious people who believe in evolution) so would not harass people like him because he does not challenge the current model of evolution. He’s not upsetting the status quo, so I wouldn’t expect him to have any negative feedback from scientists who believe in evolution. More on that, but I think that’s the gist.
Do you have a link for the people interviewed? Or did you want to send it to me via private email?
Marla
Bumble Bee said,
May 11, 2008 at 2:08 am
Marla,
You are superb. I have been using StumbleUpon to find some popular web sites related to creationism lately. I really get the impression that a lot of Darwinian Evolutionists are vexed over any encroachments creationists have made upon their claims to scientific prestige. I have read recent statements by some evolutionists claiming that the movie Expelled is political in nature. This is true because science is politics when it comes to government grants, university tenure, corporate networking, university extension programs, defense contract research, government funded and controlled primary and secondary education, and such things.
In this country science IS politics for the most part. This means to get and keep many scientific jobs or get research published you have to jump through the hoops and pretend you are on the same side philosophically as those people who pay the bills. Come on now. Who has not been discriminated against for some reason or another? By prospective employers? Or prospective friends? The scientific world out there is no different than the rest of the real world.
America is in denial. We pretend that science is unbiased due to checks and balances such as the scientific method. The term “science” has also become a catch-all term which has come to mean different things to different sectors of the scientific community. Then comes claims that you can’t be a true scientist unless you believe in one or another fundamental principle or law of science such as Darwinian evolution is presumed to be.
Many of us have heard of how government grants have funded innumerable research projects that don’t seem to have any practical value to humanity. So what is going on here? Why is there so much wasted on what science is supposed to be or what science is presumed to be? Much of what has become science is a massive politically driven and government funded machine that is running society and the world into the ground with claims that we are helping the world to evolve to higher planes of satisfaction and happiness. Science has become about jobs, money and prestige and very little of the billions of dollars that government has invested into science ever turns into benefit for humanity in ratio to what is spent.
We know that the world produces much enough food than is needed for the population of the world. Every year more land is abandoned for food production in America because of corporate consolidation of farming. What we call science has espoused an every increasing reliance on farming methods which produce a strange mix of mechanized efficiency without increasing yields per acre as opposed to intensive organic farming techniques. Yet merely about three percent of Americans are involved in agricultural industries. If vast numbers of that other ninety seven percent would simply grow useful plants and food on available residential land without toxic chemicals organically, for example, it would revolutionize our society beyond what the small segment of scientists could achieve with irrelevant technologies. The answer to problems comes not in us waiting for answers form academic experts, but in rather having the common people find their own natural solutions to life’s simple problems on smaller scales. No laboratory induced gene engineering is required.
So what has Darwinism done to better our environment, our air, our clean agriculture since the scopes trial? Darwinian scientists would have us believe that no one who denies Darwinian evolution is a true scientist, and rash rationalizations go with such assumptions. Scientists have over rated their beneficial contributions to society as compared to innovative contributions of ordinary industrious and intelligent people who have not jumped through the academic hoops scientific academia has contrived.
While debates rage on as to whether government schools should teach different models of origins, the most significant aspect of the origins argument is not just how things and life came to be and how it should be taught, but rather the implications each model presents for the future of society. For the Darwinist, chaos reigns in the past and shall dictate the future. Yet it is this very flippant disregard for the design in nature and purpose for that design which is propelling environmental catastrophe. Industrial Darwinism, Medical Darwinism, and Social Darwinism do not have the checks and balances required to avert industrial, medical, and social disaster. The scientific method that is so highly regarded to bring scientific achievement through forming hypothesis, making observations, and testing hypothesis through experimentation, might make for a more efficient machine gun, but the same scientific method does not prevent the misuse of machine guns gun down millions of poor politically dissatisfied peasants who just need land to grow their own food using empirically tested traditional farming methods.
Holding to intelligent design of nature is more consistent with respect for all aspects of nature having profound reasons for their existence, and therefore these properties of plants and animals are to be respected for our own humane survival. On the other hand, Darwinian principles logically result in the elimination of species through mindless chaos so that chaos and mindlessness reigns to the harm and potential destruction of any important natural living resource.
This Darwinistic mindset transfers over to the making of dangerous, deadly, and disease causing chemicals and method not only in agriculture, but in medicine. Those presumed primitives in places like the rain forests or mountains in Asia have empirically used the most intricately designed substances for treating and curing disease. Yet the enlightened Darwinian physicians disregard the complex cocktails designed into traditionally used herbs, and if they find any use for an herb it is to extract a presumed singular active chemical, which when used out of its designed and intelligent context of nature, provides a mountain of dangerous side effects to millions of unsuspecting sick people. Thus, Darwinism has afforded not only pretexts for extermination of unfit members of society as in Nazi Germany, but also affected environmental and medical devastation of the workings of nature and the body through assumptions that the human intellect must dominate the a natural world that has no viable intellectual component in itself.
Political associations with the creationist and Darwinistic debate must rage on since the implications of either world view is upon us. However inadequate Ben Stein may be perceived in his coverage of the issue of intelligent design, the merit of the issue before the public is firmly established in my mind.
I thank you, Marla, for your thoughtful and effective coverage on bringing to light significant incidences of discrimination against unquestionably brilliant creationist scientists. Bravo!
Administrator said,
May 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Well, Bumble Bee, thanks for your comments. You have definitely thought much about this and have made some excellent points. You have left me with much to comment on, however at this time, I’m pressed for time, so will have to respond later. I should be back online after the 29th of May.
Take care!
Marla