Ben Stein's Dangerous Idea (three false assumptions about the movie "Expelled")

National Ledger ^ | May 7, 2008 | Bob Meyer

[SeekAndFind]

Ben Stein has a dangerous idea. His idea is that professors and teachers who express skepticism about Darwinism are likely to find themselves not granted tenure, castigated and ridiculed, and disqualified from the opportunity to have research papers published. Stein documents this in his new movie "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed."

As you would expect, it is drawing highly critical reviews from the usual suspects. One agitated reviewer on a blog said the movie was filled with half-truths and outright lies. It would be interesting to see what this same source had to say about the latest documentary movies promoted by Al Gore and Michael Moore.

Having reviewed the movie myself, it appeared that Stein was trying to make the case for academic freedom, not attempted to convert anyone to a particular ideological position. Stein, in fact, never makes it known what particular beliefs he holds personally, he merely makes it known that he is disgusted by the idea that someone could lose their job over honest doubts about Darwinism.

Critics will respond to all of this by saying that “Intelligent Design” is not science. Of course not, for to say so would be a semantic or categorical confusion. ID is “science” in the same way that a snowball is “weather.” The snow ball is a result of weather, but not weather itself. Intelligent Design is not science, but a conclusion inferred by applying the scientific method. Asking whether or not a particular object of study is too complex to have evolved by chance is a question germane to scientific examination. Such questions can be quantified by mathematical probabilities.

Any form of “science” that claims it is possible disprove Intelligent Design is no longer applied science, but philosophical speculation. That is really what is so egregious.

The customary way of attacking “crackpots” who have doubts about Darwinism, is usually with appeals to expertise. We will be told that 99.9% of credible scientists believe in Darwinism. The problem is the word “credible.” Since one must believe in Darwinism to be considered credible in the first place, the only question is why the number isn’t 100%. We basically have a meaningless tautology of circular reasoning on our hands.

What I always tell these people is that I don’t care to hear about an appeal to expertise, I want a methodology. Even those who are not scientifically astute should want to philosophically cross examine the cogency Darwinist assertions for themselves.

The are three false assumptions here. First, an implication that expertise equals perfect objectivity. No agenda or orthodox dogma is seen as responsible for the virtually unanimous compliance. Secondly, that all scientists who are cited began with no preconceived biases, and came to their conclusions by following the evidence wherever it led them. Finally, coercion and intimidation have no influence or effects in maintaining the monolithic consensus.

One quickly realizes that both Darwinists and Intelligent Design theorists, use the same scientific methodology in their investigations. What differentiates them is the interpretation of the evidence, the ultimate conclusions, and the presuppositions each group have going into their endeavors.

A belief in either Darwinism or ID is a metaphysical (philosophical or religious) preference, not a scientifically demonstrable fact. As far back as 1874, John Tyndall, in his famous Belfast Address, stated…

“The strength of the doctrine of Evolution consists, not in an experimental demonstration (for the subject is hardly accessible to this mode of proof), but in its general harmony with scientific thought.”

In the 20th century, Aldous Huxley commented about the implications of accepting Darwinism in his treatise Ends and Means…

“For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

In Nancy Pearcey’s essay from a few years back, “You Guys Lost, Is Design a Closed Issue?” she states…

“If it can be shown that historically the primary motivation for advancing Darwin’s cause was not so much scientific as philosophical, then the theory loses much of its persuasive force. For scientists have authority to tell us how the natural world functions, but they have no comparable authority to tell us what philosophy we ought to hold. If the motivation for accepting Darwinism was primarily philosophical, then we in the twentieth century are justified in calling for a resurrection of the old debate.”

If we had no other reason for believing that Darwinism was not merely a scientific explanation of origins, but something far more encompassing, any doubts would quickly be dispelled by observing the fervor by which this piece will be rebutted. Had I claimed that gravity was not a physical law, nobody would bother which angry responses. Question Darwinism and you arose passion reserved for those who wantonly desecrate a sacred shrine.

So the important question is not whether ID is science, but whether Darwinism is really philosophy with a scientific patina. One seems to be the opposite side of the coin from the other, but one idea is taught in public education, the other is taboo.

That circles us back to Ben Stein. Stein’s motivation may have been merely to blow the whistle against threats to academic freedom. Maybe the genie that Stein is trying to let out of the bottle is even bigger than he thought.

[Neoliberalnot]

Academic freedom and diversity of opinion died a couple of decades ago. Here is how the game is played: They will first try to convince you that you are a racist, a sexist, and an enemy of social justice. Then they will argue that the victims of racism, sexism, and cultural elitism have a privileged view of these issues. It is as if the victim of the crime were to be given the first, last, and only word in a trial, with no cross-examination and no other witnesses called. Your job as a student in the multicultural classroom is to grant unquestioned authority to those who come from underprivileged or marginalized backgrounds. You have to do this because, you will learn, because Western culture has exploited every other culture, and your experiences are so shaped by Western culture that you cannot question those who criticize you. And thus you will become a good cultural leftist (which is the shape liberalism takes in the academy), or, if you are not convinced by these arguments, you will learn how to fake it for the sake of getting a good grade.

All of this is profoundly anti-Christian, which is why Christian students are typically the most radical questioners of higher education. Because Christians believe in a universal human nature, they also believe they can make universal truth claims about human nature. That does not mean that every statement about human nature is true. Of course not! A central part of education is learning how to argue by testing your own ideas about human nature against the ideas found in great books and the ideas espoused by your teachers and fellow students. Christians believe, for example, that because we are created in the image of God, every single person is of infinite worth, but Christians also believe that humans are fallen creatures, in need of grace and forgiveness. Christians are thus able to appreciate both the majesty and the misery of human actions. That is a powerful framework for questioning what you read and hear. What Christians do not believe is that every culture has its own truths and that the only way to learn about another culture is to refrain from seeking the universal truth. Excerpt.

[Neoliberalnot]

“Christianity inspired and informed the highest achievements of Western culture in order to challenge people to think about the eternal things, like heaven and hell, God, grace, forgiveness, and death. A college education should immerse you in the highest achievements of Western culture in order to give you the tools to enrich your experiences and refine you moral judgments. Education in this sense is about coming to know yourself, not because you construct your own reality, but because your nature is the same as everyone else’s. When a multiculturalist professor tells you that all truth is relative, ask him how he knows that, and when he tells you that Western culture is wicked and wrong, ask him what cultural criteria he is using to make that comparison. Better yet, do not ask your professors these questions, because multiculturalism is killing higher education as sure as the Romans killed Jesus. Share your questions with your friends, find a professor friendly to your faith, and keep higher education in your prayers.”

Stephen H. Webb, ’83, is professor of religion and philosophy at Wabash College.

[D-fendr]

Good post, thanks.

Lays out the science AND philosophy underpinning the debate.

[Milhous]

Anti-Intellectual?

Christianity and education are strongly linked. The university, for example, "was born in the bosom of the church," according to Dr. Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University.

Alexander Murray, a retired history professor at Oxford University agrees. "The church had a lot to do with the birth of the university," he said. "The church positively encouraged the creation of schools and the financing system." Starting with Harvard, which instructed students to "lay Christ at the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning," nearly every one of the first 123 colleges founded in the United States was established by Christians for Christian purposes. "Harvard, and Yale, and Princeton, and Dartmouth, and Brown were all explicitly rooted in the Christian faith," according to author and speaker Dr. Os Guinness. The most commonly cited motto in American institutions of higher learning, Guinness said, is taken from Jesus' words, "The truth shall set you free."

"For the first 200 years of this nation's history, education was explicitly Christian," said Dr. Kennedy. "And it produced amazing results. In the early 1800s, John Adams observed that to find an illiterate man in New England was as rare as a comet."

[Amendment10]

From a related thread...

In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.

If anybody wants to see the USSC's bogus separation of church and state disappear before their eyes, a politically correct perversion of our constitutional religious freedoms that was wrongly legislated from the bench when the Court decided Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940, then please read the following post. Note that while the post concerns a 10 Commandments issue it is also applicable to this thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992174/posts?page=22#22

The bottom line, as mentioned in the referenced post, is that the people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state powers, particularly where the wrongly ignored 10th A. power of the states to address religious issues is concerned, power now limited by the honest interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The people then need to get in the faces of renegade justices and do a major spring cleaning where USSC respect for our religious freedoms is concerned. President Lincoln put it this way.

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln (Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas), 1858.

[kallisti]

Thank you. The Huxley quote was new to me. I have to think about this.

[Coyoteman]

Is this article somehow connected to the Discovery Institute? Sounds like the propaganda they are peddling.

Intelligent Design is not science, but a conclusion inferred by applying the scientific method.

Actually intelligent design is religion with the serial numbers filed off in an attempt to fool the unwary. It is a conclusion from scripture and revelation, not science. But folks can't admit that or it won't be allowed in schools. So they stick to the dodge, and pretend it is some kind of science. (Wink, wink.)

Any form of “science” that claims it is possible disprove Intelligent Design is no longer applied science, but philosophical speculation. That is really what is so egregious.

So intelligent design can't be disproved? Would you mind explaining that in a bit more detail. That seems like it is contrary to science to have something that can't be disproved; something more akin to dogma or "revealed truth."

[Ken H]

Stein's motivation may have been merely to blow the whistle against threats to academic freedom.

Doubtful proposition, in view of the following interview on the Trinity Broadcast Network:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that's where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that's where science leads you.

Crouch: That's right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

[Sun]

Bob Meyer seems pretty clueless about the loss of academic freedom (not only with ID, but with so many things).

[TeleStraightShooter]

One quickly realizes that both Darwinists and Intelligent Design theorists, use the same scientific methodology in their investigations. What differentiates them is the interpretation of the evidence, the ultimate conclusions, and the presuppositions each group have going into their endeavors.

Concur
Unfortunately the flix Expelled does not make that distinction clear. IMO their definition of Darwinism, ID, evolution & creationism evolved and devolved during the film.

[cookcounty]

"Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."

Stein was obviously not referring to the study of nature and the laudable attempt to explain the world by natural causes, he was referring to the philosophical view that naturalistic explanations are the only explanations possible and that all other attempts at explanations are illegitimate at their root.

Stein is talking about the reality that those who insist that the world can only be seen as a result of accidental, impersonal causes, have no intelligible basis on which to form a morality or ethic.

Hitler argued that the survival of the fittest, the engine of human development, had been interrupted by superficial ideas of equality and inherent value of all humans. His racialist projects were attempts to "catch the human race up" to where it should be. I have no idea at all how a Richard Dawkins would argue that Hitler was wrong (would he bother to make the argument?). Maybe you can explain this.

[YHAOS]

"In the early 1800s, John Adams observed that to find an illiterate man in New England was as rare as a comet."

This Adams quote is unfamiliar to me. The Kennedy source is unattributed. Do you have an attributed source?

Just wondering.

[joebuck]

"When a multiculturalist professor tells you that all truth is relative....

I would respond if this is the case then how could I possibly accept that statement as true?

[The_Pickle]

Ok here is my two cents on this entire debate for what its worth.

Darwinism vs Creationism or Intelligent Design

1. Both require a giant leaps of "faith" on the parts of those that adhere to either "belief"

2. Neither has been proven to be anything more than a theory.

So..

Final Score on the Science Scale..

Darwinism: 0

Intelligent Design: 0

[Bluebird Singing]

“It is a conclusion from scripture and revelation ...”

You are too funny.

All I have to do is look at the incredible complexity and (invisible to the naked eye) workings of each and every microscopic living cell to know that there is intelligent design.

[Coyoteman]

All I have to do is look at the incredible complexity and (invisible to the naked eye) workings of each and every microscopic living cell to know that there is intelligent design.

Great. But don't mistake your belief for science.

[Milhous]

This Adams quote is unfamiliar to me. The Kennedy source is unattributed. Do you have an attributed source?

Look at the last line of this page from John Adams' diary.

[mvpel]

If "Darwinism," per se, were "nothing more than a theory," then that would come as a very big surprise to every farmer who ever lived since the dawn of domesticated livestock.

Animal husbandry is a practical example of the basic principles that Darwin observed - you selectively breed in order to enhance certain traits and weed out other traits.

You don't need to posit some mysterious as-yet-unexplained cause to explain the difference between an English Mastiff and a Chihuahua. Human beings carefully selected, over thousands of years, which traits of the wolves they tamed would be permitted to pass on to successive generations.

Replace human selection with natural selection, and thousands of years with millions of years, and you have the essence of Darwin's notions on The Origin of Species. Not the "origin of life," mind you, but the origin of species. Yes, a Chihuahua and an English Mastiff are both still dogs, but if selective breeding can produce creatures as wildly different as an English Mastiff and a Chihuahua in perhaps as little as 15,000 years, imagine what a time span 250,000 times longer than that could produce?

[webstersII]

“Great. But don’t mistake your belief for science. “

That’s true, it’s not science, it is a belief.

But neither is the fossil record an appropriate method of testing the TOE, which would be the only way of verifying the TOE.

There is a way to test the TOE (which makes it a valid theory) but no one can actually accomplish the testing because it takes so long.