Ben Stein sez "It's ok not to think"

i-eaff9134d204a867e90752a77baa97b3-expelledexposed.jpg

If creationists had their way, today would be the "Waterloo" of evolutionary science. Lab equipment would begin to collect dust, once proud scientists would have to find jobs flipping burgers, and creationism's Trojan horse (intelligent design) would successfully "reclaim America for Christ," all thanks to a little documentary called Expelled. The film has been surrounded by controversy from day one, not only for it's propaganda-like vibe, but also for the dishonest tactics employed by the creators of the film. Popular songs have been lifted without permission/under shady pretenses, computer animations have been shoddily plagiarized, people in the film have been barred from seeing it for no other reason than spite, and the scientific community that the film rails against has largely been prevented from seeing screenings of the film while the target audience (Christians) have been welcomed with open arms.

The truth behind many of the claims made in the film Expelled is well-documented at the website Expelled Exposed, including the more troubling stories of people who were truly "expelled" (and sometimes worse) for refusing to acknowledge creationism as science. Given that the website and other bloggers have documented such cases in detail already I will not repeat the stories here, and I urge you to visit Expelled Exposed if you have not already done so. Rather, I'd like to focus on something about the poor-excuse for a documentary that is far more disturbing; that is fully acceptable not to think or to seek enlightenment about our own biological origins and that intelligent design is an issue of "freedom" rather than science.

For many years creationists have claimed that they don't want supernatural intervention taught in the classroom, but the presence of a film like Expelled (if not numerous articles in which people from groups like the Discovery Institute talk out of both sides of their mouths) shows that they are clearly resentful that time and again it has been determined that their view is not scientific. They have desperately tried to turn their case into an issue of freedom, asking schools to reveal the "gaps in Darwinism," such a technique begging the question "If evolution does not explain the unity and diversity of life on earth, what does?" True to the form of many suspicious ideas, intelligent design-creationists have been far more concerned with trying to poke holes in evolutionary science than supporting their own claims, all the while denying the obvious religious foundation of their crusade.

Creationists don't care one bit about science or trying to find the answers to major questions about natural history. They just want people to agree with them. In Expelled, for instance, the audience is never really told what evolution or intelligent design really are or what evidence there is for either (if, in the case of ID, there is any at all). Instead the film focuses on "freedom" and turns a scientific issue into a political one, professors who are so audacious as to teach their students about the fact and theory of evolution being cast as most-hated enemies of God. If we take the idea that any and all ideas should be permissible in the classroom, however, it can quickly become absurd.

In 2005, a number of prominent creationists allied with the Discovery Institute participated in the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see the NOVA documentary "Judgment Day"). One of them was the biochemist Michael Behe, and while on the stand he said that astrology counted as a scientific theory. He went on to say that he was thinking of astrology when it was in vogue, not now, but his statement still brings up an interesting point. If teaching intelligent design in the classroom is primarily an issue of freedom and scientific accuracy, should people who believe in astrology or that the Holocaust never happened or that aliens mated with hominids to produce our species be allowed to teach students about these ideas? Such propositions would be absolutely absurd because there is no evidence for the claims, the weight of information collected directly refuting such fringe ideas.

How, then, is intelligent design any different? Scientists have been asking for creationists to come up with some shred of empirical evidence for a Watchmaker for many years, yet the creationists are more concerned with publishing popular books and advising school boards that have been suckered into thinking that ID has some merit. They are trying to win a popularity contest and do not care one bit about elucidating mysteries of the natural world, but many people have bought into the notion that there is something to creationism. Why?

Many people don't know as much as they should about evolution or the roots of creationism, and that goes for people on both sides of the divide. Looking at a number of reviews for the film Expelled, some critics correctly see through Stein's shoddy showmanship but get tripped up when they talk about evolution. Simply put, too many people "believe" in evolution but don't know very much about it at all. The failure of our education system to properly inform students about science has made creationism seem like an appealing alternative, especially when there are people who try to put on the image of scientists and say that belief in supernaturally designed organisms or a 6-day creation of the universe is scientifically tenable.

Intelligent design is popular, yes, but not so much because of the efforts of Ben Stein, Michael Behe, or anyone else. There is a built-in audience for their views, and it may be comforting to some people to be told that top "scienticians" have empirically proven the existence of God, so they don't need to worry themselves with reconciling evidence from the natural world with their faith. Indeed, creationism is more of a symptom of a larger fundamental religious movement in which strict adherence to a narrow interpretation of a religious text is more cherished than the ability to think! Under this program, creationism becomes the ultimate answer to everything, and if something cannot be explained the Designer did it. Some think that this would make God bigger, giving credit where credit is due, but in reality it does little more than force a deity into the gaps. As we learn more about the natural world, those gaps often get smaller, and soon it seems like God only saw fit to fiddle around with the flagella of E. coli and little else.

Evolution also seems to be a popular scapegoat for any form of sin or evil some of the faithful feel threatened by. From the beginning, some saw Darwin's mechanism of natural selection for evolutionary change as a negative, destructive force. If we are the products of such a force, then the assumption of some was that all morality goes out the window, thus making our species nothing more than bloodthirsty brutes. After On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was published, some naturalists preferred other mechanisms for evolution that were viewed as more "positive" like Neo-Lamarckism. Under this competing system organisms could better themselves through achievement and what they did in life, which presented a more comfortable fit with religion.

Unfortunately for them evolution does not work in the fashion that they proposed, and the Modern Synthesis of the 20th century successfully married evidence from various disciplines to show that natural selection is the primary mechanism by which evolution occurs. Religious hardliners like George McCready Price didn't like any form of evolution at all, though, and during the 1920's creationists like him laid the groundwork for modern creationism. The "argument from design" can be traced back to Paley and beyond, but the rhetorical tactics of modern-day creationists are surprisingly similar to those used in much older works. In Price's The Predicament of Evolution, for instance, he says that evolution and socialism are effectively one, and thus teaching evolution in science classes makes children more susceptible to the despised political notions;

What more can I say here? I have already written quite fully on this subject in my "Poisoning Democracy." But I wish that somebody or something could make the people of America see what a viper they are holding to their bosom, when the children in the schools, as well as the university students, are being taught doctrines regarding the origin of man's body, and regarding the origin of the family and of social customs, that are making the rising generation a helpless prey to the radical agitators of tomorrow.

Although I doubt that Ben Stein has even heard of Price or read the tract, he takes a very similar approach to evolution in Expelled, linking Darwin to the Holocaust in such a way that you would think that the naturalist himself committed the atrocities the Nazis perpetrated. This tactic is not new, but no matter how many times it is refuted by credible scientists & historians, evolution is constantly blamed for any and all social ills, past or present. While not in vogue now, some 20th century fundamentalists went as far to suggest that accepting evolution as an idea led to the "devolution" of our species, perhaps ultimately causing people to become brutish, bloodthristy apes. There is no reason to believe this, and the idea of evolution did not cause the Holocaust. Evolution is a scientific description of what is, not what ought to be. As Niles Eldredge wrote in The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism;

To those who say there are moral lessons and ethical systems - evil or good - implicit in the very idea of evolution, I say, A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES.

Expelled will ultimately appeal to those who already agree with the ideas presented within it and Christians who wish to take a "Big Tent" philosophy to their spiritual siblings ("They may be jerks, but they're on our side.") If the film has any larger impact at all, it will inflame the problem rather than send people to the bookstore to start educating themselves about what evolution really is, and it just seems to be another attempt by the creationist camp to get their ideas accepted without doing any actual work. Regular readers of this blog already know all this, but I wonder how many other people do, and although I sincerely hope the film tanks, I know some people are going to walk away from it with a distorted view of what science is. It's these people that we ought to be trying harder to reach. It's easy to moan and groan about how the creationists are at it again, but unless we start actively trying to improve science education, how can we hope for improvement?

[Post-Script] If you're looking for some good resources to start learning about evolution, but sure to check out the Expelled Exposed website, a list of 24 misconceptions about evolution from New Scientist magazine, the Talk Origins Archive, and The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online. I'll put up a list of my favorite evolution books later in the day.

Categories

More like this

Orson Scott Card has written a long essay defending Intelligent Design. Oy, but it is depressing. It's a graceless hash, a cluttered and confusing mish-mash of poorly organized complaints about those darned wicked "Darwinists". He lists 7 arguments. Then he repeats his list, expanding on them.…
...as a piece of propaganda. I noticed that the local "art house" theater was screening Expelled, so I decided to check it out. There weren't many people there. It started off very heavy-handed, a montage of archetypical scenes from the Communist and Nazi regimes, but the production values…
I just finished reading Massimo Pigliucci's Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. I highly recommend this book as one of the best refuations of creationism out there. Also, he gives a very nuanced view of what science can and can not elucidate. While it won't change…
A professor at the University of Vermont, Nicholas Gotelli, got an invitation to debate one of the clowns at the Discovery Institute. Here's what they wrote. Dear Professor Gotelli, I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I…

Outstanding post - Your best ever, and I think you nailed it. This is an excellent primer for those that have not been exposed to all the ins and outs of the ID strategy.

I think you should save it for your CV!

Great post! Your point about the (mis)education of kids on evolution in many K-12 schools was especially interesting -- a lot of people have very mistaken impressions of what evolution is (and is not). It seems like the suppression of good science education, along with the general poor quality of many American K-12 schools, has a lot to do with perpetuating this problem.

A side note: how on earth does evolution lead to *socialism*? I have a problem with any moral/political judgment being made about evolutionary theory, but really, if you're going to make one, it seems more connected to capitalism than socialism. That's just crazy talk...

By Etha Williams (not verified) on 18 Apr 2008 #permalink

Terrific post, Brian.

I keep thinking of that high-school history teacher in New Jersey who not only preached at his students, but failed to teach them any history, and was lauded by so many of the parents. Unbelievable.

By Julie Stahlhut (not verified) on 18 Apr 2008 #permalink

The irony of releasing a 100 minute film with the message "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" also cannot be overemphasized. I'm reminded of a kook who accused "the establishment" of effectively suppressing his ideas, then asked everyone to buy his book from Amazon.com. Apparently the kooks equate criticism of widely available material with repression.

Furthermore, if one believed the accusations leveled against the scientific community in Expelled, one is left scratching their head as to why the filmmakers wouldn't use this opportunity to present the compelling evidence for Intelligent Design they claim scientists are preventing from getting out. This is equivalent of smuggling a message out of a war-torn country that reads "They are preventing us from sending messages." Yes, but what would you say if you could send messages?

The filmmakers petulantly repeat the notion that creationists aren't allowed to ask "certain questions," as if they need permission before trying to get out and find the answers. Four years ago creationists were trying to push ID in Dover classrooms as a robust alternative to the theory of evolution, but now they have nothing but a handful of "what ifs?" Or perhaps this is proof that it's all ID ever did have or ever will have.

However, the fact that Expelled stoops so low as to repeat the blatant falsehood that the theory of evolution was a necessary component of the Holocaust means this film isn't just inaccurate or dishonest, it is downright evil. Expelled ranks right up there with Birth of a Nation and Triumph of Will as a despicable example of vile propaganda, yet without any redeeming cinematic or historical value. A plague on the homes of everyone responsible for this monstrosity.

The truth behind many of the claims made in the film Expelled is well-documented at the website Expelled Exposed, including the more troubling stories of people who were truly "expelled" (and sometimes worse) for refusing to acknowledge creationism as science.

And on that note. . . .

Brilliant.

Excellent post. Also: 'The Radical Alligators' would make a great band name.

Ahem... Agitators. I think the wine is getting to me...

If creationists had their way, today would be the "Waterloo" of evolutionary science. Lab equipment would begin to collect dust, once proud scientists would have to find jobs flipping burgers, and creationism's Trojan horse (intelligent design) would successfully "reclaim America for Christ," all thanks to a little documentary called Expelled.

Perhaps it did have an effect - Panda's Thumb seems to be down.

By more of a tech guy (not verified) on 19 Apr 2008 #permalink

Amazing how 1 little documentary can have such an effect and bring all your frustrations to the light. Frustrated, perhaps because a glimmer of light is shed upon the darkness and deception. Wow! it truly is amazing how that small ray of hope can sting, but then the truth usually hurts.

Christy; If you want to be condescending, please take it elsewhere. Have you looked at any of the resources I explicitly mentioned at the end of the post? The "little documentary" is frustrating because people continue to buy into the lies promulgated by creationists because of "Big Tent" style Christianity. I would urge you to look at ExpelledExposed.com and the other links I mentioned here and not judge me (you don't even know me).

Physis & Elisabeth; I love the band names! Maybe we should start one up.

Perhaps it did have an effect - Panda's Thumb seems to be down.

I haven't tried Panda's Thumb, but I've been having a lot of trouble getting into antievolution.org since yesterday.

"Radical Alligators" RAWK!

By themadlolscientist (not verified) on 20 Apr 2008 #permalink

A great many band names have come out of the skeptical movement and the science-blogging world, but I still think the best one is due to Matt Nisbet:

"New Atheist Noise Machine".

Come on, you know it's true. :-)

Christy: I did not see any frustrations, but a reasoned and informed perspective. Maybe you should get one of those yourself: but I warn you, it requires self-education.