A couple of weeks ago I posted a preview of the movie Expelled, which hit theaters a few days ago. Now I have seen it, and it exceeded my expectations. I would like to share some random thoughts rather than a well-structured review.
1. Ben Stein was very funny. I enjoy his dry wit a lot. He is also very smart, and he included lots of smart people in the documentary–smart people on both sides of the debate.
2. The metaphor of the Berlin Wall was probably a bit over the top, but it was certainly effective. It is true that a group of anointed scientists has built a wall to keep out any scientific challenges to Darwinism. Boiled down to its essence, the expulsion of ID proponents from science jobs is very similar to the Berlin Wall. Both were meant to keep out unwelcome and unsettling ideas.
3. One of my internal reactions while I watched the film was Hey, they can’t have it both ways. By that I mean that elite scientists are very unethical when they prevent ID proponents from getting tenure, from publishing research, and from winning grants, and then turn around and say that ID theory is invalid because none of the proponents is a recognized scientist with tenure, and that ID has no peer-reviewed, published works to cite. They are also vey unethical when they expel one ID proponent after another and then claim that no ID proponents are getting expelled, as they did in the interviews shown in the film.
4. Stein very clearly and powerfully established the link between Darwinism and the Nazi eugenics program, which included the attempted extermination of the Jews as an inferior breed of humans.
5. In light of Darwinism’s link to eugenics, which is then linked to euthansia and abortion, we must understand that there is a lot more at stake than the tenure of a few professors. The soul of humanity, and our future, are very much at stake.
6. The funniest moment for me was when Richard Dawkins posited the hypothesis that the very first self-replicating molecule on earth might have been engineered by highly intelligent creatures from somewhere else in the universe. A lady in the audience called out, “Where did they come from?” I thought to myself that he will regret those remarks for the rest of his life.
7. People think that they have given a final death blow to the film’s credibility by saying that it is propaganda. Yes, it’s propaganda. So what? It’s no more and no less propaganda than Fahrenheit 9/11 or than An Inconvenient Truth. What matters is not whether the film is propaganda but whether or not its assertions are true. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I beleive that most of them are.
8 responses so far ↓
Andrew Stevens // April 24, 2008 at 11:15 pm |
We will probably get a whole slew of people claiming that Nazism was not influenced by Darwinism, but I actually trivially grant the link. I just don’t see how this is relevant to whether or not Darwinism is actually true. Even if Darwinism entailed racist theories like the Nazis had, which it quite clearly does not, that still wouldn’t say anything about its truth.
RG’s Response: Andrew, it isn’t relevant to the truth of Darwinism. However, once the untrue theory of evolution was accepted, so was the idea of superior and inferior “breeds” of humanity. We should oppose Darwinism on both scientific and moral grounds, I believe.
I firmly believe that Darwinism is a neccesary cause of the acceptance of abortion and euthanasia. The biblical teaching that man is a special created being with inherent worth and dignity provides a basis for opposing the taking of innocent human life. The Darwinistic view that man is an evolved species of animal takes away that important basis. If we are merely animals, and not creatures who possess the imago Dei, then why should we not behave as other animals?
I’ve often believed that a number of creationists balk at Darwinism because they believe that belief in Darwinism entails approval of natural selection. But this is a clear naturalistic fallacy, which Christians, of all people, should not be making. (A male lion who takes over a pride will immediately kill all the cubs of the lion it defeated. This is perfectly natural. Does that make it right?) I both believe that evolution was brought about by natural selection and simultaneously believe that natural selection is brutal and unjust. These two beliefs are easily reconciled so long as one isn’t unconsciously swallowing the naturalistic fallacy.
RG’s Response: Well, there might not be widespread approval of natural selection, but there is certainly widespread acceptance of it as the way things are. And the eugenicists of the early Twentieth Century not only approved of it, but believed they were entitled to give it a boost by euthanizing or sterilizing inferior specimins of humans. They also believed that birth control for the “unwashed masses” would allow more highly evolved humans to thrive and improve the race.
Your word brutal is interesting, because it literally means “animal-like”. Again I ask, if humans are merely another species of animal, why should we not act as other animals do? And where in the world do the concepts of “just” and “unjust,” come from, since you describe natural selection as unjust?
(By the by, on this site, I have previously decried the prevalence of the flipside fallacy – the moralistic fallacy, which claims that if something is wrong, it cannot be a part of nature. E.g. because it is right to treat people of all races and gender the same does not necessarily mean that all races and genders are exactly the same biologically. Or because rape is wrong, it must not have a biological basis.)
Dawkins would respond, by the way, that the aliens evolved perfectly naturally on their own planet. The theory that life evolved elsewhere first and then spread to Earth is an old, but not highly regarded, theory called panspermia, notably endorsed by the astronomer Fred Hoyle.
RG’s Response: Yes, Dawkins would and basically did so in the movie. You certainly realize the problem–from both a logical and rhetorical standpoint in saying so. Moving the origin to another evolutionary system does not answer the question of the ultimate origin. I think that’s what the lady meant by Where did they come from?
Andrew Stevens // April 25, 2008 at 1:30 am |
Clearly, you are not familiar with my moral philosophy, which I’m a rather outspoken advocate of and I rather assumed that you were already familiar with my take on morality.
RG’s Response: I did not know it precisely, although I knew that you didn’t believe in God and that you still had strong moral principles.
The long and short of it is that moral values are objective facts, that we apprehend these facts through moral intuition (as we do the laws of mathematics and of logic), and the existence of a god or gods is neither a necessary nor even a possible cause for the existence of these objective moral values. I.e. it is not necessary for a god or gods to exist in order for moral values to exist and, indeed, that moral values must exist independently of a god or gods or of any other mind, in order for them to be objective and non-arbitrary.
Any theory which requires a god or gods for the existence of morality cannot possibly claim that morality has any real force. If God is the source of all morality, then He is nothing more than a celestial dictator and morality is entirely subjective. Of course, it is possible for both an objective morality to exist and for a god or gods to exist simultaneously.
RG’s Response: Thanks for explaining your beliefs. They are intriguing and worth further consideration on my part. On the spur of the moment I have to say that I don’t agree, but you already knew that.
Abortion and euthanasia were accepted in cultures before ours which had never heard of natural selection, so I have to reject that particular argument.
RG’s Response: But they were rejected and outlawed in Christian Europe and the United States. Since the publication of Origin of Species and Descent of Man, nominal Christians have become more and more permissive regarding ethical dilemmas. Causation? Maybe not. Partial causation? I am pretty certain that it is so.
(People do not favor abortion because they believe it enhances the gene pool.)
RG’s Response: Actually people are currently aborting babies with deformities for just that reason.
And the fact that stupid and/or evil men used Darwinism to justify their stupidity and/or evil is no argument against Darwinism, any more than the fact that stupid and/or evil men have done similarly with Christianity is an argument against Christianity.
RG’s Response: Ah, but we’re talking about ideas. If you remove the labels “Darwinism” and “Christianity” you could simply talk about one’s worldview in regard to the nature of humanity.
Are human beings simply complex combinations of chemicals that exist for awhile with no greater meaning and purpose? Are they slightly more advanced slugs that are of little consequence in the grand scheme of things? Are some of them more advance than others and therefore worthy to decide which members of the pack or herd should be exterminated?
Or are they special beings with eternal worth and inherent sacredness? Are they endowed with inalienable rights by a Supreme Being? Are they in a whole other class from other creatures, and therefore entitled to utilize those other creatures as resources? Are we our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers?
How people view humanity determines how they treat their fellow human beings. History shows it. Atheistic regimes have killed many times more people in the Twentieth Century than misguided Christians ever have.
The ultimate origin, according to Dawkins (and probably Hoyle, though he waffled) was still completely natural. The theory doesn’t posit a supernatural creator, so much as it posits life evolving naturally on some other planet than Earth.
RG’s Response: I know that, but it’s game-playing. The ultimate question is how and why it all got started. Pushing it back to another planet, or whatever, just avoids the question.
Leigh Ann // April 25, 2008 at 6:34 am |
“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” That’s all I can say there.
I endured F9/11 & Inconvenient Truth, barf bag & all, so am excited about Expelled & very much looking forward to seeing a film on my side of the fence. Finally!
Thanks for the review.
RG’s Response: I agree. And you’re welcome.
Andrew Stevens // April 25, 2008 at 11:08 pm |
Thanks for explaining your beliefs. They are intriguing and worth further consideration on my part. On the spur of the moment I have to say that I don’t agree, but you already knew that.
I would be happy to explicate them any time; I have done so at length on Micah Tillman’s blog, for example, though it might be hard to find the thread. My argument against God as the source of morality hinges on the Euthyphro dilemma. This same dilemma is the one used by theists (usually without knowing its formal name) when they correctly argue against naturalistic theories of morality (i.e. the view that humans evolved some sort of morality and we should obey it for that reason). Correctly, they ask why we should. This exact same dilemma can be used against the Divine Command Theory of morality or any other mind-dependent theory of morality. Ultimately, it can never escape the charge of arbitrariness. If someone made up morality in his head, even if that someone is God, then morality is just an arbitrary set of rules and it’s impossible to argue why anyone should obey them. ( If “what is right” is equated to “what God commands,” then arguing “it is right to obey God’s commands” is simply saying “you should obey God’s commands because God commands you to.” )
My view is by and large a Natural Law view. This view is often associated with Christianity, but the Church Fathers adopted it from the Stoics who were pagans or atheists. (I would happily accept the label of “modern Stoic” or “neo-Stoic,” though nobody actually calls me that.) Christianity can sit comfortably with Natural Law and has done so for some theist philosophers. They assert that morality is part of the fabric of the universe and that it is God’s Reason which makes Him the foremost moral authority, i.e. He sees what is right better than anyone else does, rather than God’s Will as in Divine Command Theory.
Actually people are currently aborting babies with deformities for just that reason.
I totally disagree with this. People are aborting babies with deformities because they don’t wish to raise them, not to “improve the gene pool.” The people deciding to do the aborting are the parents. Their genes created the baby with deformities. So, if this was their intent, they would presumably stop breeding in order to eliminate their own “defective” genes. I’m not defending the people who abort babies with deformities, by the way, but we shouldn’t misstate their motives.
I am pro-life myself though admittedly in probably a more squishy-soft way than you or most of the other commenters on your site.
Are human beings simply complex combinations of chemicals that exist for awhile with no greater meaning and purpose? Are they slightly more advanced slugs that are of little consequence in the grand scheme of things? Are some of them more advance than others and therefore worthy to decide which members of the pack or herd should be exterminated?
Or are they special beings with eternal worth and inherent sacredness? Are they endowed with inalienable rights by a Supreme Being? Are they in a whole other class from other creatures, and therefore entitled to utilize those other creatures as resources? Are we our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers?
This is a false dichotomy. The two views you give are not exhaustive. My view, for example, appears nowhere in your list. I must confess that I probably would answer yes to the first two of your first three questions. This has no bearing on how I live my life, though. If nothing that we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. I strive to do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do and for no other reason. I need no Heavenly reward nor threat of punishment nor any ultimate purpose. If the radical Islamic terrorists are right in their worldview and Allah came down from Heaven and told me to strap a bomb to my chest and blow up a mall full of children and if I did, I’d go to Paradise, and if I didn’t, I’d suffer in Hell for all eternity, I’d choose Hell even if I knew for sure that this would actually happen. That’s what morality is.
How people view humanity determines how they treat their fellow human beings. History shows it. Atheistic regimes have killed many times more people in the Twentieth Century than misguided Christians ever have.
Every sentence in the above is true, but they are non-sequiturs. How people view humanity does indeed determine how they treat their fellow human beings. Atheist regimes have indeed killed many more people than Christians have. But atheism (or theism) does not determine how people view humanity.
Pauli Ojala // April 26, 2008 at 12:23 am |
I wish an analogous documentary film was made concerning the DINOGLYFS or dinolits:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say).
Bruce Alberts it was who first accepted from his post as the president of the National Academy of Sciences USA that the biological machinery can be called as such, machinery, without asserting to metaphora. He gave the students that license in 1998. Other animations on the tiny cellular machineries apart from the Expelled movie can be seen in here:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Videos_animations_flagella_evidence_existence_creation_contra_evolution.htm
Anyway: It is interesting that it is the People of the Book who once more are the initiative spectators who have the balls to question the ambient amen and go against the loudy majority. Not the first time. Here’s some statistics and charts regarding the success of the Jews in science and technological innovations when the others were too stubborn to change their minds:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Indicator.html
This conference poster of mine shows how profoundly the continental, Haeckelian type of evolutionism drived not only the racial World War II but also the nationalistic World War I:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelian_legacy.pdf
pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm
onein6billion // April 27, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
“any scientific challenges to Darwinism”
Hello? Hello? Buehler? There are not any scientific challenges to the Modern Theory of Evolution. There are some creationist pseudo-challenges, but those don’t count.
“scientists are very unethical when they prevent ID proponents from getting tenure, from publishing research”
2) Since ID is not science, the reviewers for scientific journals are going to reject it. So the creationists publish books, articles, blogs, and a movie. It really doesn’t seem like they are being silenced/censored/suppressed.
“link between Darwinism and the Nazi eugenics program”
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Read Martin Luther’s message about what to do about the Jews. Read the Catholic bishops approval of Hitler. Why not “Einstein led to Hiroshima”? Non sequitur.
Mike Lovell // April 29, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
Just to make one comment (petty as it may be), but aren’t ALL videos essentially propoganda? Aren’t they all made with a specific point or message they are trying to get across? I would appreciate it if if you might email your response to this possibly moronic inquiry.
RG’s Response: I did e-mail a response. I also looked at your blog, which I will check out more thoroughly when I have time.
The answer, in my opinion, is yes. All videos are essentially propaganda. However, some videos are made specifically for the purpose of supporting a particular viewpoint, whether it is religious, political, or whatever. That makes them more obviously and directly propagandistic.
onein6billion // May 4, 2008 at 11:30 pm |
“We should oppose Darwinism on both scientific and moral grounds, I believe.”
Even Darwin opposed “Darwinism” on moral grounds. In other words “survival of the fittest”, “might makes right”, “bloody in tooth and claw”, etc. are terrible “moral” (actually immoral) principles.
But there are no scientific grounds to oppose the Modern Theory of Evolution. And now there is DNA evidence that birds are descended from dinosaurs.