Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Posted May 23rd, 2008 by Samuel Clough
I can’t believe I’m posting another film. I have some other things to post, so I’ll try to get them up soon. I just stumbled on this film called “Expelled.” Basically it’s a documentary that is now in theaters starring Ben Stein (!). The film examines the bias against intelligent design that is now the de facto standard in main stream academia. I have observed this before such as when a court ruled that there could not even be a sticker on science text books mentioning that evolution was a theory and that other theories existed.
While I have not yet seen the film, this is a serious issue. I have noticed that leading scientists who are Darwinists no longer debate on the merits of their theory but rather have adopted an elitism that holds any possibility of God to be absurd and therefore any scientific theories involving intellegent design to therefore be absurd as well. Rather then debating evidence and merits, they choose a rigid platform that allows them to treat dissenters as if they are not even worthy of consideration. They no longer debate point by point but try to push their agenda by presenting that there is no debate at all and anything other than Darwinism is beneath the consideration of any civilized person.
History teaches us that this sort of attitude is dangerous. Anytime one view point tries to stifle any opposing viewpoint in this way, red flags should go up. When one considers the moral implications for society of acting from a Darwinistic viewpoint, even more red flags should go up. The issue is not that evolution cannot be taught or debated, but that the playing field must be level. There are very smart people that believe in intelligent design and they have a right to study, observe, and teach as much as Darwinists do. In fact, I find it odd that we forget that smart people have existed for a very long time. It is not just in the last 50-100 years that intelligent men appeared.
Very smart people have lived for literally thousands of years; some accomplishing feats that still baffles modern historians. All these people were free to speculate about the origins of the universe and were free to allow the idea of God a place in there scientific theories.The more we observe about the universe, the more incredibly complex we find living organisms (including ourselves) and scientists should be free to research and debate the fact that there is obvious design present.
This is not really a post to debate Darwinism vs Intelligent Design but rather to highlight the fact that a free society should encourage and tolerate the debate. This should be a major wake up call as to how free our educational institutions really are. Far from being “free” thinking areas, it seems to be clear in certain areas that an agenda has been adopted and that opposition to that agenda is not tolerated. Even in a “tolerant” and free society we are finding that there are those among us with very specific goals for what is and is not tolerated. So long as Darwinists try to silence the debate, it keeps me wondering why they are so frightened of competing theories? What skeletons are hiding in the closet anyway?
3 Responses to “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Intelligent Design doesn’t belong in Biology any more than Astrology belongs in Astrology, or Alchemy in Chemistry, or ESP in Psychology, or Magic in Physics.
All attempts to have ID taught in Biology have thus far failed and so Christians are using the idea of “academic freedom” and “freedom of speech” to force their ideas in where they don’t belong. ID makes no predictions and the only real theory behind it is that “God did it”. It has no usefulness in science, it solves no problems and stifles legitimitate scientific progress. It is not science by any stretch of the word and is not supported by anything but crudely circumstantial evidence which has thus far been proven wrong by scientists. Even Behe admits that if it’s okay to call ID science then it is okay to call Astrology science.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“This is not really a post to debate Darwinism vs Intelligent Design but rather to highlight the fact that a free society should encourage and tolerate the debate. This should be a major wake up call as to how free our educational institutions really are.”
Yes, it’s a wake-up call to another tactic that Christians are trying to use to insert their religion into the sciences and the classroom. All I can say is, “over my evolved body!”.
I think your fellow Christian and Evolutionary Biologist Ken Miller said it best in this clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc
Cheers!
May 24th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Intelligent Design (ID) is totally different from things like Astrology for example. In that case we have a process that is provably false. People make predictions and they do not happen. Thus we know it is not reliable. The same goes for Alchemy or ESP. We can measure the results of this process and see that the mystical methods employed are not reliable.
ID and evolution, on the other hand, are both trying to explain something that cannot be observed. No one can observe the initial creation or how we obtained the diversity of life and species that we now have. Neither ID or Darwinists can demonstrate their theory in totality. Darwinists can point to extremely minor adaptations in species (which ID could agree only demonstrates that the creator made organisms to adapt), but they can’t observe the kinds of massive changes in species that are required by evolution. If you ask an evolutionists for the evidence of one species morphing into another, they point to the time requirement as the reason why they cannot demonstrate or observe it. Because both ID and Darwinists cannot observe their theories acting out, they are left with simply interpreting the evidence we have. It is not as cut and dry as evaluating natural phenomena that can can observe and measure repeatedly, or evaluating mystical phenomena like astrology that we can observe at the present time.
What I find fascinating is that if you took a proponent of either ID or evolution and put them on a totally unexplored island that had no life and asked them to explore the island the first thing they would do is look for signs of life. If they found a sophisticated housing structure on the island, they would immediate begin looking for the living thing that designed and constructed that structure. When they observed some sort of nest, they would immediately look for a creature that build the nest. When we naturally observe things we recognize that natural processes to not produce the kinds of complexity that are all around us. Therefore, when we see things that are complex, we naturally assume a designer or a creator. When we see a computer, it would be laughable to think that natural forces somehow combined sand, metal, and plastic to automatically come up with that computer. Yet Darwinists are trying to explain humanity which is infinitely more complex via only natural processes and allowing no consideration for what would be considered a supernatural intervention.
Because neither side cannot put the origin of life in a test tube and measure and observe it, neither side has the scientific upper hand in that regard. ID proponents are simply following the fact that every time we as humans observe something complex in our world we assume a creature created or fashioned it. They are also interpreting other evidence which demonstrates that natural processes we can observe do not produce the massive complexity that is necessary for life.
The reality is that the issue here is more about God than it is science. Darwinists don’t want to deal with God. (And yes, I know there are those Christians who believe in evolution but they are trying to compromise or bow to pressure to be accepted why those they view as academic authorities). Darwinists don’t necesarrily want to be atheistic per se, although evolution tends to naturally go there, they just do not want to deal with the idea of a God that is personally involved with creation.
This is the way they are currently excluding ID scientists from the debate. They frame the debate this way: We can only debate using natural things we can measure and observe with our scientific instruments. Then as soon as the ID scientist mentions God they cry “foul” and close the door. Modern science is not an open area where these ideas can be freely pursued, but rather the Darwinists have gained numbers in academia, more because of the freedom from God that their theory brings than anything else, and so are now trying to control the debate by claiming that you cannot bring God into the equation in any way.
The reality is that what we are dealing with (the origin of life) cannot be observed and repeated per a scientific experiment because it was a past event. Therefore we are in a situation where all we can do is interpret evidence. The Darwinists are silencing the debate by saying that we cannot interpret the evidence in any way that is not “natural.”
Like the explorer on the fresh island, the ID scientist has the right to present the evidence that as he explores this little mud ball called earth he finds in each creature, including himself, incredibly complex and yet incredibly fragile systems that in any other arena would be very clear evidence of a designer and creator.
Darwinists keep trying to silence the debate by crying foul when God is mentioned since they cannot measure and observe Him scientifically. They also try to control the debate by saying religion and science or religion and education must remain separate. By that rule, you automatically exclude the ID scientists, not on the merit of their arguments, but on the way you frame the debate.
This is why Christians and others would believe in evolution are violating their own belief systems. If they believe in God then He is necessarily involved in His creation. Darwinists try to control the debate by saying you cannot include God in the discussion.
Darwinists need to realize their antagonism towards God does not give them a truly neutral viewpoint and they also need to recognize their theories are extremely young. Pretty much all of the brilliant scientists that are historical icons and had profound enough ideas that they are household names to a person believed in ID.
Leave a Reply