Ben Stein Takes on Neo-Darwinism in "Expelled"

[12th Doctor]

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

This looks very promising indeed.  The link I provided is to the trailer page.

[Ebowed]

Um, actually, the main point of the film is to assert that evolutionary theory is what motivated the holocaust.  Whatever the hell 'neo-darwinism' means.

You'll note, if you're interested in the movie, that the interviews with prominent credible scientists were procured under false pretenses for another, fake film.

[Alcon]

Sounds like a frivolous complaint, Dan.  If they feel screwed over, they should have asked more questions.  Using a more innocuous title in production for films like these is pretty common.

I've heard a little about Expelled, and it seems to be a movie exclusively about academic suppression of believers in Intelligent Design.  It doesn't focus at all on scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.  That's a big disappointment to me, because the central argument that results in these "expulsions" is over whether ID is a scientifically valid theory.  If it isn't, I can hardly blame scientists for ostracizing scientists who believe it.  They would belong in the theological community, not scientific.

I look forward to seeing the actual movie, though.  But what's "promising" about it?  It's going to be an activist film, invariably ignoring valid counter-arguments in favor of stunts, and won't do much more than bring semi-educated people into a debate already filled with misunderstanding and half-informedness.

Oh, and:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ouch!

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Um, actually, the main point of the film is to assert that evolutionary theory is what motivated the holocaust.  Whatever the hell 'neo-darwinism' means.

You'll note, if you're interested in the movie, that the interviews with prominent credible scientists were procured under false pretenses for another, fake film.

The theory of Evolution has contributed to numerous social ills and ideologies that use the theory to motivate and justify their racial hatred.  Just because a theory can be used for evil does not make it false, but it does mean that the theory should be handled with some care.

I think the scientific consensus is that life has evolved on this planet over millions of years, and this must be respected and taught where appropriate.  However, one should not interpret the theory of Evolution to mean that there was no intelligent hand guiding the process or beginning it in the first place.

Our country was founded on the principle that All men were created equal.  I fail to understand why so many liberal intellectuals are so desperate to prove this concept wrong and eliminate it from the public discourse.  An untempered understanding of Evolution would suggest - by the very nature of the theory - that men are inherently unequal, that the fittest members of the species reproduce and pass on their genetic lineage.

Evolution is good science.  Evolution is really, really, really, really, really, really bad social theory.

[afleitch]

Evolution is good science.  Evolution is really, really, really, really, really, really bad social theory.

It's a great shame that so many politicians who don't believe in evolution by natural selection are such 'evolutionists' when it comes to their social and economic policy and the 'survival of the fittest.'

[Alcon]

The theory of Evolution has contributed to numerous social ills and ideologies that use the theory to motivate and justify their racial hatred.  Just because a theory can be used for evil does not make it false, but it does mean that the theory should be handled with some care.

Handled with care, how?  Not applied as a system of morality - yes.  "Natural" does not equate to good, at least not in the modern world.

I think the scientific consensus is that life has evolved on this planet over millions of years, and this must be respected and taught where appropriate.  However, one should not interpret the theory of Evolution to mean that there was no intelligent hand guiding the process or beginning it in the first place.

That's a fair belief to have, but when something is not scientifically testable and is being presented in a scientific arena, to what extent can it be embraced scientifically?

Our country was founded on the principle that All men were created equal.  I fail to understand why so many liberal intellectuals are so desperate to prove this concept wrong and eliminate it from the public discourse.  An untempered understanding of Evolution would suggest - by the very nature of the theory - that men are inherently unequal, that the fittest members of the species reproduce and pass on their genetic lineage.

"Liberal intellectuals"?  Are we really going to bring politics into this?  Chris Hitchens is not exactly a leftist, and he's a paragon of antitheistic zealotry.

The "all men are created equally" mantra was created in the context of legal treatment.  Our legal system assumes that all men are equal before the law.  It does not assume that all men are equal at surviving, mating, whatever.  If it did, our country would be wrong.  Evolution determines superiority only in self-perpetuation.  Even the Constitution cannot change that it's a reality that not all men are equal on those levels.

Evolution is good science.  Evolution is really, really, really, really, really, really bad social theory.

It's perfectly fine social theory, as part of social theory.  But we've evolved (socially) to a point where our existence goes beyond reproduction and sustaining the race.  That needs to be (and I hope is) recognized in any discussion of human evolution beyond the most basic.

[Ebowed]

Sounds like a frivolous complaint, Dan.  If they feel screwed over, they should have asked more questions.  Using a more innocuous title in production for films like these is pretty common.

I don't think it's frivolous at all.  Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and others were informed that they were being interviewed for a movie about an entirely different subject - not to mention different movie title.  They were given enough information to grant interviews- it was just all false.  The fact that the web domain for 'Expelled' has been registered since long before those interviews were procured just gives us a look at how intellectually dishonest these people are.

Honestly, I'd love to see the intelligent design movement come up with something that doesn't have fraud and blatant lies all over it.  At the moment, they haven't been able to do that.

It doesn't focus at all on scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.

I hear the film never actually defines evolution, either.

[Ebowed]

The theory of Evolution has contributed to numerous social ills and ideologies that use the theory to motivate and justify their racial hatred.  Just because a theory can be used for evil does not make it false, but it does mean that the theory should be handled with some care.

Evolution is good science.  Evolution is really, really, really, really, really, really bad social theory.

I couldn't disagree more strongly, Don, but hear me out.

It's true that you can apply evolutionary theory to humans in an evil way- but I don't think most scientists do that.  In fact, they use evolution and biology as a framework from which to look at diseases, illness, and the human body, to understand better how these things work, and to come up with cures for things which kill humans everyday.  Medicine relies heavily on a good biological understanding of the human body and how it interacts with disease.

A creationist who believes that God simply created everything has no reason to study why different parts of the human body work like they do.  It wasn't creationists or 'ID' proponents who have spent years studying obscure sections of human anatomy to help sick people get better.

[Person Man]

Some evolutionary social theory can reenforce our Christian idea of equality. In evolutionary theory, every being has a niche and therefore, diversity is good because it creates a more fail-safe system. Also, those who are not today the "fittest" in our environment could one day be more fit in a future environment. Therefore, the weakest matter as much as the strongest as "The first will be the last and the last, first".

[jokerman]

Our country was founded on the principle that All men were created equal.  I fail to understand why so many liberal intellectuals are so desperate to prove this concept wrong and eliminate it from the public discourse.

Conservative intellectuals, Don, please.  I think you could talk to 100 political scientists and not one of them would describe the folks you're talking about as "liberal" intellectuals.  You're very confused.

[Alcon]

I don't think it's frivolous at all.  Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and others were informed that they were being interviewed for a movie about an entirely different subject - not to mention different movie title.  They were given enough information to grant interviews- it was just all false.  The fact that the web domain for 'Expelled' has been registered since long before those interviews were procured just gives us a look at how intellectually dishonest these people are.

Sounds to me like the producers and Dawkins are giving conflicting explanations.

Who to trust to be more upfront:  Movie producers or Richard Dawkins.  Movie producers or Richard Dawkins.

Speaking of that, is he still at UC-Berkeley?  I swear that I saw a guy sleeping on a park bench who looked exactly like him.

[12th Doctor]

Um, actually, the main point of the film is to assert that evolutionary theory is what motivated the holocaust.

It is my understanding that the main point of the film is to show that "intellectuals" who discredit any notion of God in favor of an evolution only model not assigning any purpose to life are standing on grounds that are nearly as flimsy as those who support a strictly creationist perspective.

Unlike you, I'll actually wait until I see the movie before I pull the trigger on it... which is far more than The Great Dawkins tends to grant those he disagrees with.

I'm not a creationist, in the strict sense, but Dawkins and his cronies love to level a whole series of charges at religion, branding it for all the worlds ills, especially the Holocaust.  The fact is that evolutionary theory actually motivated the Nazis alot more than religion did... and the charges that monotheistic religion was the cause of the holocaust is even more fallacious, as Nazi ideology was largely motivated by pagan German cults.

When it comes to refuting believers, Dawkins and his disciples tend far far more often than not to attack a persons specific belief rather than their arguments... (typically by saying that the person's belief is entirely dependent on background, without addressing the higher arguments for a diety in any form)  using the excuse that even a child could see that atheism is self-evident.  Well, its about time someone got a chance to present an educated argument for the other side and was actually heard.

Dawkins is no more a scientist than Billy Graham because he discounts possibilities out of hand that can't be scientifically disproven... and aggressively so.  His ideas are as much opinion and bias as anyone else's.

Moreover, he treats all people who don't know everything about evolution (as he thinks he does) as being ignorant at best, total idiots at worst.  But if he was really as well informed as he claimed then he would be more than well aware, as I am, about work being done is physics that could very well demonstrate the existence of higher beings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

The amazing thing about the modern world is that you can actually get an education for almost nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As far as I can tell, whether they were "duped" about the subject of the film or not, they were told that the concept of the film was about the clash between science and religion (BTW... the very fact that those have become opposites in popular thought just goes to show how far the Dawkins Disciples have gone in stamping out God from science, since only a minority of religious see a serious conflict) so there is no reason to think that that knowledge would have changed their answers any.

BTW... doing this is a time honored tactic employed by journalists to get interviews with people who would otherwise be hostile, and Micheal Moore (who I am sure you applaud) goes alot further in how he "structures" and rearranges his interviews for films.  Of course, I am sure you are more than willing to grant him a pass.

[Alcon]

Chris,

Do you really think the best way to go about taking down a pop ideology whose advocates are cherry-picking activist fools, is through a movie that is likely to be cherry-picked activism?

I'm probably being presumptive, but a film that doesn't even define "evolution" or present scientific evidence for ID (the main defense for the dismissal of ID as a scientific theory) -- the tea leaves do not read well.

[12th Doctor]

Chris,

Do you really think the best way to go about taking down a pop ideology whose advocates are cherry-picking activist fools, is through a movie that is likely to be cherry-picked activism?

I'm probably being presumptive, but a film that doesn't even define "evolution" or present scientific evidence for ID (the main defense for the dismissal of ID as a scientific theory) -- the tea leaves do not read well.

No, not at all.  But sadly this is the only forum where we can have such a point of view presented now.  My best hope for the film is that it will at least present points that might get people talking about "the other side" as though it has some merit and then we might be able to actually have a fiar discussion about the issue.

[JSojourner]

It's ironic that the opponents of scientific Darwinism are often the most enthusiastic enablers of social Darwinism.  Ben Stein's not a bad example of that.

[opebo]

It's ironic that the opponents of scientific Darwinism are often the most enthusiastic enablers of social Darwinism.  Ben Stein's not a bad example of that.

Yeah.  Happily his participation in this movie will not help revive the disgusting old fascist's 'acting career'.

[12th Doctor]

It's ironic that the opponents of scientific Darwinism are often the most enthusiastic enablers of social Darwinism.  Ben Stein's not a bad example of that.

Stein's response to the Larry Craig case according to wiki:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that sounds super fascist.

[Person Man]

No, that just sounds super-hypocritical. What individual rights DOES Stein believe in, anyway? The right to do whatever you want so long as you don't get caught? lol.

[12th Doctor]

No, that just sounds super-hypocritical. What individual rights DOES Stein believe in, anyway? The right to do whatever you want so long as you don't get caught? lol.

I think the point was that the over-whelming emphasis during the episode was the homosexual aspect.  Stein was merely saying that that shouldn't concern people.

[JSojourner]

It's ironic that the opponents of scientific Darwinism are often the most enthusiastic enablers of social Darwinism.  Ben Stein's not a bad example of that.

Stein's response to the Larry Craig case according to wiki:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that sounds super fascist.

Oh, I have no doubt as to Stein's social liberalism.  Social Darwinism has little, or nothing, to do with gay encounters in men's toilet stalls.  (And I agree with Stein, btw, and Arlen Specter on Craig.)

Social Darwinism is the notion that the strong survive.  Those who can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps survive.  Those who have no boots to strap up are sh**t outta luck.  Another way of phrasing it is, "I got mine, Jack.  Now root, hog or die."  That's a classically Republican, Ayn Rand kind of thing and it flow right from the Darwinist concept that only the strong survive and are, therefore, worth saving. It's a perfectly understandable position to take and lots of really intelligent people have embraced it, in varying degrees, over the last 150 or so years.

The irony I see in all of this is that a significant portion of those who wish to completely ban or at least marginalize scientific Darwinism (which has, at the very least -- SOME basis in fact) are usually the most eager to advance the cause of Social Darwinism.  Say what you will about William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial.  But Bryan's primary concern was less the preservation of Theism in the teaching of science and more the impact scientific Darwinism would have on the poor, the needy and those at the margins of a cruel, Gilded Age society.

While I accept scientific Darwinism as the most likely explanation of the origin of the species, I fail to see anything Christian, compassionate or even particularly conservative (at least when taking the long view) in social Darwinism.

But I do realize everyone's mileage varies.  And those who say "root, hog or die" have as much right to vote, express themselves in the public square and hold office as anyone else.

[Person Man]

One thing that I find interesting is how you can be both a social darwinist and a creationist. I saw a really article about Buckley's Fusionism, but I didn't see any explaination.

[Person Man]

...or maybe social darwinism and biological darwinism have nothing to do with eachother. In fact, what we call social darwinism came before biological darwinism and was known as "social statics". This entire idea of social statics is based obeying the natural order. This is where conservativism comes in. Conservativism isn't about being opposed to change in policy, its about being opposed to changing the natural order- or quite simply- "the way things are". Perhaps conservativism can accept one at the expense of the other because social darwinism is about obeying the natural order while biological darwinism holds that the natural order can be changed and therefore doesn't need to be followed. Therefore, under this scheme- you can "pick and choose" amoung several different ideas and schools of though and come out with a coherent ideology.

For example-

Economic Conservativism- It is the natural order that those on top dominate those on the bottom, it is what the design of the universe is about. Also, the environment takes an inferior position to man and if for him for the picking. Any changes to this natural order cut people off from the natural order and that is "unsustainable".

Social Conservativism-  What is natural is what continues on. Things such as evolution challenge what happens now and abortion and homosexuality are outside of what is succesful now. Same thing with racism and prayer in schools. These institutions prevent our societal universe from being changed. It grants universal values and a place for each person so that there may be harmony.

Neo-Conservativism- This is in place for two-fold. Constant Conflict pervents the forces of change from being entrained into the universe. Constant Conflict creates devotion to the universe by creating the threat of eminent pain for trying to change the universe. 

[Friz]

The theory of Evolution has contributed to numerous social ills and ideologies that use the theory to motivate and justify their racial hatred.  Just because a theory can be used for evil does not make it false, but it does mean that the theory should be handled with some care.

Evolution is good science.  Evolution is really, really, really, really, really, really bad social theory.

I couldn't disagree more strongly, Don, but hear me out.

It's true that you can apply evolutionary theory to humans in an evil way- but I don't think most scientists do that.  In fact, they use evolution and biology as a framework from which to look at diseases, illness, and the human body, to understand better how these things work, and to come up with cures for things which kill humans everyday.  Medicine relies heavily on a good biological understanding of the human body and how it interacts with disease.

A creationist who believes that God simply created everything has no reason to study why different parts of the human body work like they do.  It wasn't creationists or 'ID' proponents who have spent years studying obscure sections of human anatomy to help sick people get better.

I have to agree with Ebowed here. 

And it's despicable and unfortunate that people were interviewed under false pretenses.  Can't they take legal action?

[Friz]

Richard Dawkins weighs in:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Speaking of this:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/

LOL.

BTW, I saw an ad for this in the City Pages in the section where all the movie ads are where it included at the top a snippet from some rare positive review from the Washington Times (gee, what a surprise) which said something along the lines of "What Michael Moore would produce if h was injected with a dose of truth serum." And I was thinking who the hell honestly though that would appeal to City Pages readers.