There may be a good argument to make on behalf of teaching Intelligent Design in science class, but this documentary from Ben Stein does not make it. The movie itself is an example of design by faith and emotion rather than intelligence, defined as rationality grounded in proof. Instead of making a straightforward case for Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, Stein employs misdirection and guilt by very tangential association to try to make his case.
Intelligent Design advocates believe that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected or random or mechanical process such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. Stein begins by interviewing scientists who lost their jobs for even mentioning the theory, baits some Darwinian scientists in selective clips from interviews, and then visits Dachau and the Hadamar euthanasia center, where the Nazis murdered thousands of disabled people. Stein tells us he is not saying that Darwinism leads to mass murder, but the connection he draws is unmistakable.
Like the tobacco companies once they could no longer question the legitimacy of the scientific evidence connecting cigarettes and disease, Stein quickly shifts the debate from a head-to-head assessment of analysis of data to frame the issue as one of freedom of speech. The movie opens with archival footage not of science labs or the animal life on Galapagos Island, where Darwin first began to develop his theory, but of the construction of the Berlin Wall. Stein tries to draw a parallel between the wall that divided Germany and the impenetrable wall that keeps Intelligent Design out of the science establishment. But he is also associating Darwinian science with Godlessness, communism, and totalitarianism, with detours into Nazi atrocities and atheism so over-the-top that it becomes shrill and irrational.
And irrationality is the opposite of scientific inquiry. Stein says that freedom of speech requires that both Intelligent Design and Darwin's natural selection should be taught in America's classrooms. But he never subjects Intelligent Design to the kind of scrutiny required by scientific analysis, which is based on observation and experimentation. Intelligent Design is based the fact that (1) there are questions that natural selection does not answer -- which Darwinian scientists admit, and (2) therefore, some intelligent force must be behind creation -- which cannot be proven by scientific means and therefore is more appropriately considered within the fields of philosophy or religion.
Science is all about challenging, refining, and refuting established theories, as the movie concedes, with Albert Einstein's improvement of the theories of Isaac Newton as an example. But both Newton and Einstein agreed on what science was and how to evaluate scientific theories. As presented by Stein, Intelligent Design and Darwinian theory make the same observations, but come to different conclusions. Darwin says that life forms evolved through random mutation and natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Intelligent Design says that life is so complex that it is all the evidence we need to show that some intelligent (conscious, intentional) force must have created it. Stein never shows that Intelligent Design can go from theory to explanation as it must to be considered science. As a lawyer, he should understand that freedom of speech also guarantees the freedom not to have to listen to mangled, manipulative, and disingenuous rhetoric like this.
Parents should know that the movie has some disturbing themes, and some Holocaust images, including dead bodies and gas chambers. Some audience members may also be disturbed by the debate over how life was created.
Families who see this movie should talk about the difference between science and faith, particularly when it comes to matters of proof. They may want to explore resources on the intersection between science and religion.
Families who enjoy this film will also enjoy INDOCTRINATE U
Families who would like to know more about this issue should review the court's decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first federal court case to address the question of whether Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. A Republican Christian judge appointed by President George W. Bush ruled that Intelligent Design is not science. He ruled, "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory...ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID...Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause [of the Constitution]." The school board, all of whom were elected after the decision to try to include Intelligent Design in the curriculum, declined to appeal. To find out more about Intelligent Design, see Dissent from Darwin from the Discovery Institute featured in the film, and the resources it recommends and the website for the movie.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Thanks for the comment, Andrew. Evolution is extensively covered in the scientific literature and is not incompatible with the idea of God as the creator of the process of evolution. But for those who are unwilling to be persuaded by scientific methods or who misunderstand the limits of what can be proven scientifically or who are just asking for a fight, that will never be sufficient.
You cannot make a case for intelligent design as a scientific theory. It is not. ID "scientists" have not published any research papers and those nice sounding ideas as "irreducible complexity" have been completely debunked in each invidual case. Within the scientific community there is no controversy over Evolution vs. ID. It does not exist. Any claim to the contrary is - sorry to say - a lie. This is so pathetic about creationism: The phenomenon which Dawkins labelled "lying for Jesus" is so widespread among them. The only way for them to convince people is through deception and exploitation of credulity. Just as Ben Stein did by deliberately misrepresenting Dawkin's views. (Dawkins does not support the idea of extraterrestrial origin of life. He just answered to a what if question) This is so depressing: One observation which made me discount ID once and for all is that atheists and scientists like Dawkins care so much more about what is actually true and are ready to change their mind if proven wrong, while creationists only care what they /want/ to be true. They seem to think that if they hard enough believe in creation and the ressourection of Christ, both will magically become truth. Pathetic.
Thanks, Yahya. There is no inconsistency in believing in God and evolution. But science and religion are two different things with different vocabularies of proof and as you suggest, the mistake is trying to cram one into the language of the other. ID is not science and science is not religion. But they can co-exist compatibly as many scientists who have faith and many religious people who apply scientific method can attest.
Thank-you very much for your reply. If I may, I would humbly submit that when it becomes crystal clear the scientific establishment will abide by no "limits" when declaring a theory they favor as "scientifically proven" (i.e. not letting somthing as trivial as, oh, I don't know, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics interfere with global warming or evolution gospel), perhaps one could be forgiven for approaching their "scientific methods" with just a wee bit of caution.
Again, thanks for your delicious reply. It reminded me of this quote by a guy whose smile is 1/1,000,000 as wonderful as yours:
What One Famous Scientist Said About Evolution...
"One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me ..."
"[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school"."
—Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History by Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) in 1981. Unpublished transcript.
and this:
“Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it.” —H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31
and this:
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.
"or who are just asking for a fight, that will never be sufficient. "
In the words of The Joker in the film The Dark Knight: you have some fight in you. I like that;)
Perhaps it is the limitations of online correspondence, Andrew, but I see little if any humility in your response and absolutely no evidence of any interest in any genuine engagement or learning, just trying to pick a fight. We will leave the epistemological and hermeneutical issues of the nature of proof and knowledge and meaning for another time and another forum, and I will say only that all systems are closed systems with their own conventions and limits and it is a grave mistake to assess one by the standards of another. So let's just leave it at that.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.