Topic: Social and Cultural Issues
Expelled I took my children to see Ben Stein's movie, 'Expelled, No Intelligence allowed' about the debate between Darwinistic evolution and Intelligent Design proponents. Turns out, there isn't much of a debate. This is only because those who hold the power in academia don't want to talk about it. Sad, really, because at some point in our lives, we all want to talk about it.by Right Rev. Rowland
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Today, (Sunday, 4/23) I took the family out to see Ben Stein's movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.' I was captivated by the narrative from the start. Ben manages to take a documentary format and make a very compelling and entertaining presentation of the bias and prejudice against proponents of Intelligent Design.
This is the movie that world-famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, was apoplectic about before it even came out. Once I saw the movie, I understood why. Mr. Dawkins' narrow-minded bigotry comes across glaringly through two separate interviews in which he was very candid.
Many of the secular scientists interviewed were amazingly candid. The absolute conviction they held that there was no possibility of a designer of our amazing world and creation was telling. In Mr. Dawkins case, he did allow for highly-evolved alien designers having seeded' our planet, but on the whole, in each and every case, they were adamant that there was no place for a designer of the world and everything in it.
Or so it seems. Those scientists, physicists, biologists, MDs, and historians that allow for ANY mention or consideration of a designer are immediately and ruthlessly silenced. Expelled' does an amazing job of documenting the intimidation and coercion unleashed on these superstitious fools.'
When you hear the stories of these academics who have been ostracized for not holding to the establishment propaganda, it is infuriating. To hear those who hold the reins of power in our modern collegiate system coldly and blankly calling religion a fairytale' and superstition' is almost unnerving. They would not even pause to discuss the claims of Intelligent Design, they had already dismissed it out of hand as, gasp, religious.'
Instead, they launched into a monologue on the need to marginalize religion and supplant it with science.' They were very pointed and focused on their belief that the more they could discredit God and faith, the better off society would be as a whole.
What was incredibly gratifying was to hear these PhDs stumble about and see them blink and squirm when they were asked the simple question of the origin of all life. They had to admit that nobody knows. There were theories they had, aliens included, but the crystals, the lightning, the primordial soup none of these give a definitive answer to the question: How did life first begin?' All we have are postulates and theorems.
To which I'd like to say, Not that there's anything wrong with that,' but if it's still the evolutionary THEORY, then stop behaving as if it is proven scientific fact. Which brings us to the main feature of this movie, the revealing of a group of arrogant elites who want us to believe that they have all the answers and we just need to shut up and take what they say as fact. Never mind the fact that there is no PROOF, never mind the fact that they will allow no debate on the subject, never mind the fact that it takes as much faith to believe in the Darwinian view of the beginnings of life on Earth as it does to believe that a loving God created us with a purpose No, just shut up and swallow it.
This is a debate that we as a nation need to have, but those who hold the purse-strings and the tenure-power are running a strict campaign of no free-thinking allowed' especially in this area of science. This question, the origin of life, holds the key to our future as a society. If you don't believe me, then read the Declaration of Independence.
If we are endowed by our CREATOR and not the government with inalienable rights, what happens when we cease to believe there is a Creator, a Designer? The continued success of this political experiment in democracy, the Democratic Republic, rests on the premise that our rights come from God and not from man. Take God out of the picture, and we lose the inalienable' part of our rights, because now man is the final arbiter of our freedoms. Men and governments always stifle freedom, which is why the Founders saw the need for very specific and difficult steps to alter the Constitution.
So why aren't scientists in American Academia allowed to explore and ask the difficult questions about our world and how it got here? Because there is a controlling establishment that will not be held accountable, and which refuses to acknowledge that there might be a Deity. Funny, I've read about this before.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." Romans 1:20-23
Seems almost prophetic, doesn't it?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
2008 Right Rev. Rowland, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Right Rev. Rowland only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Right Rev. Rowland is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
If there is an intelligent designer do you truly believe he/she needs us to grovel before him/her? Is that the purpose of the designer, accolades and awards? Does he/she need somebody defending his/her design? Does the design all fall apart if we aren't constantly offering sacrifices and burning heretics to him or her? Sounds like pretty flimsy design to me that needs recognition in order for it to continue on.
If you add up all the years, centuries really, where the only accepted idea was the "poof seven days to creation" idea was the norm surrounding our origins, then your argument regarding the bias in todays institutions does not hold any water. Sounds to me like it is your side that wants to supress different theories.
The Church burned the "heretical" scientist at the stake, 500 years of terror and torture in Europe in the name of God. At this point the scientific community is afraid of any theory that sounds religious due to the idea that we could see times such as those arise again. Interestingly enough they are now using some of the tactics of the Inquisitors themselves. I say, dismiss nothing out of hand because it doesn't fit your favorite model of the universe. We know just a fraction of what there is to know. If we stop being closed minded we may just learn something. By the way, Jefferson rejected the idea that the mountains in Virginia were ever under water because it sounded too much like Noah's flood to him, he also rewrote the Bible so that Jesus was just a man who did good works.(Don't believe me? Read the Jefferson Bible.) Our founding fathers were not all Christians in the way we think of it. Some were Deists and the term Nature's God wasn't a reference to Jehova, but a way of ensuring our rights in perpetuity by invoking the divine as a defense against those who would oppose or erode them. If it was intended that the Christian Gods law was to be the Law of the land they would have never divided Church and State or guaranteed scientific, as well as religious, freedom. Jefferson said " What do I care if my neighbor worship 20 gods or none, it does me no harm."
It is unclear to me why the religious right wants to teach religion in science class. It makes as much sense as teaching physics in Sunday school.
As has been noted so many times before "intelligent design" is nothing more than creationism in a cheap suit. It is exactly as scientific as fortune telling or astrology. That is not just my opinion. That is what Michael Bethe, a biochemist at Lehigh University and a leading ID proponent, acknowledged under cross-examination in the landmark Dover trial. In that case U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that the testimony provided in the suit provided “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” (Judge Jones is a Republican and a churchgoer who was appointed to the federal bench by the Bush administration.)
I don't care what religious beliefs others may espouse. I just don't want their religious views taught as science in my sons' school.
Reverend Rowland, I can respect your infuration with the antics displayed in the movie Expelled, and your frustration with mind-bigots like Dawkins, who basicaly equate anyone who does not believe what he believes as mentally damaged or insane.
Howwever, there is indeed a larger premise here at work, and it would do you and all of us some good to examine it. I, myself, am a believer. I believe manifestly in a Divine Creator, and the major points we have been presented -- that His Son died for our sins, that we are to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, that we should try to live good lives for the sake of good rather than selifsh lives for the sake of self.
The details, however, are what have caused misery, strive, war, bloodshed, anger, hatred, and death time and time again. It is the details -- the details in the Old Testament, or the Haddith, or the lesser books of Mormon -- that infurate ahtiests. It is the statements such as women should submit to men that came from not from God's mouth but man's mouth that make people doubtful.
Scientists are, by nature, men who must define the very cornerstones of what they do with provable, hard fact -- or theories that tie all the holes together. I think so many of them supress intelligent design for two reasons.
One, all too often, it's conflated in the public eye with creationism and with religion, and the scientific community is tired of being bashed by religion. It was persecuted for hundreds of years and villified even to this day. Science can point to many areas where "traditional belief" was flat out wrong , and where relgious views -- the Catholic Church's stupid insistance on no birth control, the Evangelicals refusal to admit reality and deal with a sexually promiscous culture openlyl and instead trying to preach "abstenance" when the social stigma that made abstinence work is gone, the stupid genital mutliation in Africa in teh name of religion , the blind hate directed towards anyone who claims the Earth is more than 6,000 years old -- ALL of these thigns have basically been pushed in such a light that I fear most scientists simply write off most religous folks as uneducated and proud of being uneducated.
In terms of intellgent design, though, the problem with the theory is that it's intellectualy lazy. It says that a being created life and moved it or created the various stages we see in the fossil record. There certainly is no proof this is not the case, but there is also no proof that it IS the case -- and therin lies the problem. If an intellgient creator made all life, what point researching? You can't define the rules followed because it's not a natural proces, but a supernatural one. Every single unexplained thing, instead of a challenge to find evidence and produce a workable theory, simply falls back to "the Designer made it that way".
I personally think God made the Universe according to His Laws, and life arose from those Laws, and they were so perfect, and His understanding so deep and overpowering, that we are simply too weak intellectually to understand the scope of the power and .. sight required. I think Man was "created" by God directly, since no one can find any direct link from more primitive ancestors to the clearly superior Homo Sapiens. Evolved apes probably went to Homo Neanderthalis, and thus, the children of Adam and Eve probably had to mate with the very near human Neanderthals (tying up that point in the Bible about who they had to marry if it was just Adam, Eve, and their kids.)
In all of this, though, we cannot villify scientists for being unwilling to talk on the supernatural. That is the court in which you are a specialist , Reverend, not them. To them, it's nothign they can pin down with exactitude.
Dawkin's viewpoint is extreme, and extremely stupid. I do not think all scientists who reject ID follow his point of view, but to be fair, I have not seen the movie and I am only putting forward my opinion.
1. Make ALL schools private and with no public funding. Elementary, Middle, High and Universities. Education must be voluntary as we are supposed to be free to decide whats best for us or our children. Let each institution decide what do they want to teach in their curriculum. If you don't like 'ID', evolution, sexual ed, religion, even Math and Grammar in your school, find another school, change it's curriculum by convincing the other students or parents (customers), homeschool or create your own school and find your own customers (students).
2. No more government sponsored research whether religious or scientific. No more public money grants, scholarshipts, etc..
End results: No more government intervention either way. No more waste of public funding. Lower taxes. Everything done at the private level. More freedom of choices with your believes.
I myself lean towards evolution without any 'intelligent design' because most of the data points heavily in that direction. However, since I have no proof either way it is a belief. It is our right to believe in whatever we want no matter how ridiculous it may sound. Just let the individuals and parents decide, not the governments or their educational institutions.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-24 10:42:50
Science isn't "afraid" of ID. They simply call it "non-science".
Non-science does not belong anywhere near science. It does not belong in science classes. It does not belong in science research centers.
Labeling your ignorance of the origins of everything "god" doesn't resolve anything. It simply demonstrates that you are wiling to believe in things you have been told by people who, quite frankly, lie to you.
The fact that "science" says it doesn't know the origin of life demonstrates the intellectual honesty of scientist. The fact that ID or Creationists claim to "know" the origin of life, demonstrates just how gullible and deluded they are willing to be. To know something you cannot know is the epitome of arrogance and hubris, two things very contradictory to the teachings of Christianity many claim to adhere to. How one can live with that contradiction without going insane is a study worth studying...
I ask you all, do you lie to your kids and tell them you know how life started?
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-24 10:49:17
"Dawkin's viewpoint is extreme, and extremely stupid. I do not think all scientists who reject ID follow his point of view"
Ummm... what is so extreme about believing that it is dangerous to have deluded societies? History will inform you of why this is a prudent belief.
What is so extreme about believing that "magic" has no place in science, that "the truth" is more important than the feel good system of untrue beliefs frail human minds cling to?
I'd be interested to know what belief Dawkins holds that is "extreme".
As someone who believe in the account that the world was created by his noodlyness the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am thrilled that you wrote this review. Our theories that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster a long time ago are being hidden by the Scientists. Our research shows that the global average temperature has increased due to the global decrease of pirates. Why do they choose to ignore us?
Curious how many around here assert proof for evolution but never offer any. Reminds me of the time that Dr. Carl Sagan stated on the Johnny Carson Show and in Time Magazine that Evolution was a fact and that he was willing to debate the issue with any credible opponent. Immediately, Dr. Thomas Warren Ph.D. Vanderbilt University took up the challenge. At that, Dr. Sagan, Johnny Carson, and the Editors of Time Magazine conveniently hid under their desks. Evolutionists shun the polemic platform. Perhaps there is a reason for that.
DX10, the proofs of evolution are so well established that many scientists have not considered it worth their time to debate non-scientists, particularly those they consider to be zealots. Your Dr. Warren was not a scientist but a gospel preacher. I can understand why Sagan did not consider him credible.
Recently scientists have begun taking the threat of creationism seriously which is why, for example the Dover case was such a clear-cut victory. They took on the best of the advocates for ID and blew them out of the water.
Anyone who thinks that scientists haven't addressed the claims made by creationists should spend a little time reviewing the archives at Talk-Origins. http://www.talkorigins.org/
Far better use of ones time than watching Ben Stein willfully distort the facts.
Rick, the Dover case decision was based on the Judges ruling that ID was just a method to back door God into the school system, not based on any scientific evidence.
Dr. Warren was more than just a gospel preacher as his Ph.D. was in philosophy and he had already debated Antony Flew. If Dr. Sagan thought him not credible then why didn't he say so?
BTW, I am not interested in any scientist addressing the claims of creation, but rather addressing the claims of the general theory of organic evolution.
Tell me, wouldn't asexual development comport better with the general theory of organic evoulution than bisexual development where half of each parents DNA is dumped?
The Dover case established that all the claims made about ID being science are fiction.
And why should a scientist like Sagan debate science with a non-scientist? Doesn't make sense to me.
"Tell me, wouldn't asexual development comport better with the general theory of organic evoulution than bisexual development where half of each parents DNA is dumped? "
Given that we observe the latter why would you presume the former?
The judge is not qualified to make that decision. The decision he made is as I said. Science comes from the latin scientia, to know. Anyone can know. Because it is one of the fundamental principles of evolution that progress is always upward. Dumping DNA hardly fits. The best and honest answer I ever heard from an evolutionist was, "Perhaps so, but it wouldn't be as much fun."
"Tell me, wouldn't asexual development comport better with the general theory of organic evoulution than bisexual development where half of each parents DNA is dumped?"
The advantage of sex is that stronger genetic features can develope to aid the species survival against pathogens, disease, and environmental factors. Asexual reproduction as seen in several species of plants keeps the same genetics. The minute that a pest becomes attracted to the plants as a food source that is not resistant to that parasite, disease, or germ the entire crop will be subject to failure. Humans have the ability to develop resistant genetically to diseases because of gene sharing.
It is now a theory that is in preliminary stages that Diabetes was developed by Northern Europeans and Inuit to survive the Ice Age. This theory was brought about because the disease is a genetic heridity that exists mostly in the decendants of White Europeans. Sickle cell disease is thought to have evolved to resist malaria. These theories while relatively new and not yet proven are a far better explanation that an invisible man in the sky created it as a punishment for eating a fruit that let man know what god knew. Evolution is a better theory than ID and Creation because evidence of it is in far greater supply than evidence of a creator.
I see Dx10 that you prefer to keep changing or at least shifting the subject. Now you claim the "judge is not qualified" without anything to support the claim. I guess you would prefer to ignore that the ID "expert" Bethe admitted under oath that astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria he uses to justify his claim that ID is science.
Then you misrepresent evolutionary theory to build your straw man argument about DNA. That is a typical creationist tactic but it isn't very impressive.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-04-25 04:31:54
Why is it necessary to treat the idea of intelligent design as if it were science? The advocates of intelligent design resolutely avoid this fundamental question.
The truth is that those who want intelligent design taught in science classes feel threatened by the idea of evolution, and that's their real motivation. They don't like the idea of being genetically connected to apes and other primates. They feel that such connections threaten their religious views...an absurd proposition. It makes me wonder just how weak their faith really is.
"Why is it necessary to treat the idea of intelligent design as if it were science? The advocates of intelligent design resolutely avoid this fundamental question."
It isn't necessary to treat ID as science, because it isn't. Nevertheless the advocates of ID specifically claim that "intelligent design" is science, even if they have to redefine the word so that it becomes meaningless. If the ID proponents didn't not claim that ID was science there would be no reason for Ben Stein to make his stupid little film.
"We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality."
Who says god is not real? I can tell you with proof that it is very real. Just as real as Santa Claus or Mickey Mouse.
Humans created god, Zeus, Mickey Mouse, Santa Claus, etc, therefore they are real. As long as people talk about them, they are real. They will still be here long after we are gone. We cant't proof that they exist physically in flesh and bones, but they exist in imaginary form in our brains. Movies, books and songs have been done about them, lots of money has been made from those creations as intangible assets in corporate accounting books. Every Christmas, stores have images of Santa Claus everywhere. People flock to go to vacation in Florida to visit Mickey Mouse. People go to church to worship god. So in essence they are all real! They are real creations of our wonderful human brain. Therefore they do exist. They just exist in a different form than us.
Straw man? Just because you cannot explain your theory without the broad brush statement that given enough time anything can happen. You don't answer any question about your theory. Is it observable, demonstrable in the laboratory, and falsifiable? Do you have an answer for a first cause? Starting with the premise of abiogenesis and proceeding from there by the processes of survival of the fittest, natural selection, and mutations adding genetic material you manufacture a complete answer for all existence. (And, I might add the mutations have to be benevolent.) And, your theory is in a constant state of flux. I put the question to Scott regarding the fact that in the human circulatory system that the arterial is clear bore and elastic, whereas the venous is non-elastic and contains one way valves to assure that the blood returns to the heart, so how did natural selection account for this? Did I get an answer? No! Isn't your real motive for adopting your theory the fact that you could not abide the thought that there is a Creator? You have seminars in Las Vegas to discuss how you can eliminate religion from the world. (And, I agree that there are a lot of stupid religions.) Isn't Lewontin on record saying that you cannot allow a divine foot in the door? Isn't that your real problem. Not too long back in one of your scientific journals one of your scientists had stated that the universe was created out of nothing. He was then asked how big was nothing, to which he replied probably no more than 25 pounds. Figure that. You guys ascribe motive without knowing my motives. Your motives are on record.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-25 11:10:31
"I put the question to Scott regarding the fact that in the human circulatory system that the arterial is clear bore and elastic, whereas the venous is non-elastic and contains one way valves to assure that the blood returns to the heart, so how did natural selection account for this? Did I get an answer? No!"
You put a difficult question of biology to a carpenter and expected an answer from me? And THAT is your rational for your reasoning?
That just shows how desperate you are to defend the undefendable.
Lack of an answer for anything is not reason enough to put "magical mysterious being" in its place- which is exactly what you are doing.
The closest anyone can get to the origin question is "We cannot know".
One can make stabs at it, guesses, and one can hypothesize. Heck, I don't even have a problem with those who suggest a magical dude theory. I really don't. Just don't call it science and try to make it BE science.
And do not profess to KNOW anything about the origin, as many who follow the bible and the Quran and other silly books do.
It makes you look silly and gullible and deludes you. And that can't be good.
I am not defending anything. And, by your refusal to answer the questions you are not either. Carpenters as well as anyone should have a measure of common sense. If you dispute teleology, then tell us why. Your assertions in the absence of any evidence is the silly part. If you can't answer the question, then just say you don't know.
My position is God and science, but my questions run to your TOE. Here is an idea. A public debate. No mention of God, Religion, ID, or Creation. Just the merits of the TOE. For and against. Then let the results be printed and taught in the government schools and let the teachers and students make up their own minds. Fair enough?
I started elementary school in KCMO in 1940 and as mostly orphaned attended 14 different elementary schools, one junior high, three high schools, and then worked my way through college. In all those years I never heard anyone talk about shooting the teacher or bombing the school. But in Columbine the shooter asked the girl if she was a Christian and when she admitted she was he blew her brains out. Something changed. Wonder what?
Spare me DX10. You start with a assertion which is simply wrong - "one of the fundamental principles of evolution that progress is always upward" and then attempt to disprove your false assertion. That is the text book definition of a straw man argument. Then you continue with a pretty typical and frankly boring creationist diatribe. Why bother?
You give yourself away when you say "and, your theory is in a constant state of flux. " Of course it is. That is the nature of science. Only those peddling faith have all the answers, which is why this sort of discussion is always a waste of time. Your only interest is pushing your moldy religion, which is fine by me, as long as you and yours stay out my kid's science class.
Consider yourself spared, Rick. I have made no attempt to push any religion your way. Whereas you push your religion clothed as science all the time. You own the classrooms and it takes a lot of faith to believe the TOE.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-25 13:34:28
"My position is God and science, but my questions run to your TOE. Here is an idea. A public debate. No mention of God, Religion, ID, or Creation. Just the merits of the TOE. For and against."
A little research will give you all you need "for and against" the TOE. It has been debated for 150 years. I would advise looking at the evidence presented in these debates. They may help you make up your mind.
And see, even you agree Religion should be kept out of the debate, by your very own assertion...
"Consider yourself spared, Rick. I have made no attempt to push any religion your way. Whereas you push your religion clothed as science all the time. You own the classrooms and it takes a lot of faith to believe the TOE."
Well you are amusing DX. As Scott points out there is nothing really new in the discussion about the theory of evolution or the creationists claptrap offered as an alternative. If you wish to see these discussed point by point read the archives at :
Well DX10, if I insulted you please report me. (I really didn't insult you but it is a convenient dodge.) I did provide sources if you really cared about the topics you raised, which you obviously did not. Be well.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Right Rev. Rowland, all rights reserved.