The Expelled Revolution
Posted by theologyandsteak on April 24, 2008
Yes, I saw Expelled last weekend. Quite frankly, I wasn’t really interested in going, because I had heard all of the arguments and much of the whining about how evolutionists suppress all discussion about creation and intelligent design. However, I went with a group of friends, and wanted to show my support for the theaters that showed the movie. If you haven’t seen this documentary, GO SEE IT!
I have been reading some of the columnists rant about this film, but one of the best ones supporting the movie is Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists, by Brent Bozell. Man he makes some great points. He states,
It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay “rights.” Abortion “rights.” On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism’s power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension.
We see this reaction in nearly all of the comments against this film. No one really addresses the content specifically, but instead rails against the film as stupid, made for and watched by idiots, and only for those morons that believe the earth is flat. Listen to the comments by some of the stars of the film:
Now that the film is complete, the evolutionist prophets featured in the film are on the warpath inveighing against it, and the alleged idiots who would lower themselves to watching it. Richard Dawkins laments how the film will solicit “cheap laughs that could only be raised in an audience of scientific ignoramuses.” Minnesota professor and blogger P.Z. Myers predicts the movie is “going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant —- which means they’re going to draw in about 90 percent of the American market.”
Hmmm. If you can’t address their substance, then insult them, attack them, and slander them in the press.
It’s understood that God had nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. What, then, is the alternate explanation? Stein asks these experts, and their very serious answers are priceless. One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens. Anything but God.
This is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? If someone is adamant about denying the existence of God, then one must come up with a “creation” story that does not include any form of outside, supernatural deity. This is evolution. It is NOT a scientific explanation of the world or of its origins. It is, plain and simple, an explanation of the world and its origins WITHOUT God. That is the agenda of the evolution crowd. There is no science, no proof, no well-reasoned arguments, and no data. It is aliens, crystals, and chance. It continues to amaze me how strongly human beings will suppress the truth about God and nature in order to live life autonomously. What is amazing is that theories of the origins of the world have been around for along time. Our understanding of the natural world has changed considerably over the past several thousand years. What is amazing is that the Bible has endured for 3,500 years, in the same form with the same words as it is now, and is still truth. People have been suppressing the truth of God and His revelation in nature and His Word for thousands of years, and yet the truth still comes forth. This irritates the wise, the smart ones, because they think God is foolish.
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians chapter 1: But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, ”Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
Joel said
Brett, good post. I think the reason that Dawkins and friends have resorted to vitriolic name-calling because they are frustrated over their inability to control the minds of the people in spite of their absolute control over public educational institutes. God wins again!
Joel.
cindyinsd said
Thanks for your review!
I’ve read the article you referenced, as well as you quite good post. My daughter has been wanting to see this, so I looked it up, never expecting it would show here in Rapid City, SD, but there it was! Hooray! Looks like you’ve got a bunch of interesting posts–I’ll have a look around.
God’s strength,
Cindy
Jon said
1.) The Intelligent Design movement is twenty years old. No argument presented in “Expelled” is a new one. ID advocates have been making these same exact points for twenty years. And they’ve been thoroughly debunked over and over again. If you cannot find websites or books specifically addressing the arguments ID advocates make, you just haven’t been looking. Plain and simple. I can name two off the top of my head: talkorigins.org and expelledexposed.com
2.) Every argument you make about the supposed liberal suppression of non-liberal beliefs I can make about conservative suppression of non-conservative beliefs. I could give you a laundry list of beliefs which, if expressed publicly, would result in derision by, if not expulsion from, your church and community. The fact is, people are people. I might try to make an argument that liberals are actually more open-minded than conservatives, as it is liberalism which led to the abolition of slavery, and which gave women, Jews, Catholics, blacks, and homosexuals the right to vote, etcetera. So in that sense, if some sort of liberal suppression does exist, it can’t be any worse (and it’s probably less intense) than conservative suppression. If you read expelledexposed.com, you’ll find that all of the supposed suppression introduced in ‘Expelled’ was severely over-hyped (for instance, the movie claims Richard Sternberg and Caroline Crocker were fired from their jobs when they were not).
3.) Your criticism of movie reviewers is misplaced. These aren’t people well-versed in history or science, and their disagreements with the movie are largely political or technical (for instance, almost every negative reviewer I read mentions something about the poor production, writing, and direction of the movie). I urge you again to go look at talkorigins.org or expelledexposed.com.
4.) You conveniently forget to mention, or else you dismiss, all of the religious scientists who do accept evolutionary theory. Why? The movie does the same thing. Is this not the same kind of expulsion that the movie is trying to warn against? Why are scientists elitist for saying that creationists aren’t real scientists, but fundamentalist Christians aren’t elitist for thinking that religious scientists or liberal Christians aren’t real Christians? This is a double standard you neglect or refuse to address.
5.) I don’t think you really understand or know about the evidence for evolution. I suggest Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God”.
cindyinsd said
I did go and see the movie last night with my husband and daughter. I have to wonder why Jon cares? There were a few points presented to substantiate the credibility of intelligent design, or at least its right to be investigated in an open environment. Why do evolutionists have such a problem with this? On the whole, what I took away from Expelled was not so much an argument in favor of ID, but a question: Why are evolutionists so afraid? If further inquiry would only make thunderous fools of IDers, why are Darwinists not eager to see it happen?
I agree with pretty much everything Ben Stein had to say. I don’t know for a fact that the stories of suppression of scientists are true, not having experienced it myself or witnessed it firsthand, but I do know that patterns I have witnessed seem to tell me that it is a good possibility that Stein is telling the truth.
I’ve seen/heard a lot of bloggers, commenters on news, etc. who say ID is ridiculous, but that “so-called scientists” who study it are not suppressed. Some of them I’ve heard of, most I haven’t, but none have convinced me in anything like a credible manner. I believe, until further evidence from a credible and unbiased source that the scientists interviewed were telling the truth, at least from their point of view. (To all you angry Darwinists out there, you should remember that it doesn’t matter what I believe. I’m just a commoner.)
I’ve also read comments and experiences of scientists who claim suppression. These people seem level-headed and calm to me. They don’t rant or condemn or express bitterness or condescension the way many of the Darwinists do (not so much in the movie, mind,–in other venues). Frankly, many (certainly not all) of the Darwinists sound like priests offended by heresy.
I’m going to stop here, so as not to test the host’s patience, but I do plan to post a review of Expelled myself, so if anyone is interested in my silly foolishness, you’ll find it there.
God’s Strength,
Cindy
theologyandsteak said
Hey Cindy;
Thanks for the posts. I agree with you that primarily the question is, why are evolutionists so afraid? The fact is that creation in its original Biblical form has been around for thousands of years, in its current form, while scientific theories change every year or so. The evolutionists want to squash the debate, but in a few years, their theories will be obsolete, and they will have moved on to new ones. The are afraid because evolution has way to many holes with absolutely no support. You are right; it is basically another way of worshipping the earth and self instead of God.
Thanks!
Brett
theologyandsteak said
Hi Jon;
Thanks for the post. First, let me say that I am well-versed in evolutionary science, and understand we need to define some terms. I am not speaking of minor adaption within species based on environmental effects. That is well documented and observable. However, there is no proof, observable, repeatable, or reproducible, that supports evolution from “goo to you.” None. Zero. There are no lab experiments because no one can know for sure what the “early earth” was like. It is only speculation, and poor speculation at that. There is no real science behind macroevolution other than faith and hypotheses. I mean, when reputable scientists claim that life on earth could have started from aliens or from crystals, or from lightning striking a pool of chemicals to produce intelligent and conscious life, how wacky is that? That takes more faith to seriously believe in that than it does to believe in God.
As for scientists and others who believe in both evolution and God, they are either confused about evolution or Christianity, or both. They are mutually exclusive on their fundamentals. Supernatural vs natural, God vs chance, etc. Read my article here to see what I mean. http://theologyandsteak.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/the-incompatibility-of-biblical-christianity-and-evolution/
Biblical Christianity and evolution are incompatible. One or the other must be right and true, because they put forth opposite claims. If people on both sides would accept that fact, then it would make debating much easier. What liberal Christians and Catholics believe is not Biblical Christianity, either. They may use all of the same terms, but words can have different meanings. It is all in how the Bible and man define the terms.
Brett
Joel said
Jon, I don’t think the real issue is whether or not ID has weaknesses, but whether or not evolutionists are willing to recognize their own weaknesses – whether they will admit the veracity of it’s critic’s views or will they continue to seal themselves off from debate while becoming intellectual fossils.
Atheists, agnostics, moral relativists, and doubters of all sorts have chosen evolution as the hill to die on. It is a philosophical house of cards. When it falls, what will they be left with? Nothing.
But I would think that the ambiguity of nothingness would make modern “liberals” all the happier since modern liberalism can be defined as “disdain for certainty”. (Or should we say “all the less miserable”, since it seems to me that contemporary liberals have no happiness at all, but must sooth their consciences with self-promoting philanthropy while indulging their lusts in serial pleasures, material wealth, and chemically elevated mental states).
Jon said
I’ll answer your question with a question. If there is no good reason for teaching ID, if there’s no argument made for teaching it, then why should it be added to the curriculum? Do you expect any charlatan with some wacky hypothesis to get equal time in the classroom without any serious academic research to back him up? Because that’s the level ID is currently at. Deepak Chopra has more books out about quantum healing than ID has out about ID. Should quasi-mystical pseudo-Hinduism be taught as science in schools too? You must think so. If not, I have one question: why are you so afraid?
Contact the universities and institutions involved and see for yourself.
Is it impossible to be wrong while level-headed and calm? Is it impossible to be right while ranting and condemning? Sorry, but in science it IS heresy to simply claim something without any evidence. Scientists get mad when charlatans use and abuse science to trick and fool people.
cindyinsd said
You know, Jon,
I’m willing to bet that most of us here are ready to listen to any credible argument you would like to put forth in favor of the lack of discrimination against IDers or in favor of evolution itself. The problem is that all you’re doing is ranting and making assertions with no back-up. You may not convince us, but we’ll listen to you with the respect due to another human being and we won’t call you bone-headed or anything.
We could get into a big, long argument about science and the facts for/against evolution and ID(and I would enjoy that if it would do any good), but Expelled was really about freedom of speech, inquiry, and intellectual honesty. So, to reply to your remarks on my reply:
1. You answered my question with a question that has nothing to do with my question.
2. I’m afraid I wouldn’t consider the University staff in question to be an unbiased source. Would you, if the situation were reversed and evolutionary scientists were claiming similar discrimination?
3. a) Yes, it is both possible to lie in a calm and collected manner and to tell the truth with a red face and clenched fists. It is possible, but the cool, collected person is more believable. Perhaps the agitation is simply righteous indignation, but righteous indignation has never been particularly effective in convincing people.
b) Scientists claim (or at least hypothesize) things without any evidence all the time. Some of them did this in Expelled. Many, many do it in classrooms; elementary, secondary, and higher education. As long as God is not in view, this is considered protected speech and free inquiry and is spoken well of.
Bottom line: I truly believe, with no disrespect intended, that sincere scientists who have great faith in evolution are in a quandry. They don’t have the evidence to back up a theory that is very important to them (their careers, their work, their emotions, their reputations, their eternal destiny, etc.), and they’re afraid someone with a voice might find that out. They still believe in evolution and they believe that, given enough time, they’ll be proven right, but the evidence just isn’t turning out the way they need it to. They’re frustrated and afraid that people may get the idea that they’re wrong when they know they’re right.
Because the alternative to evolution is unthinkable. There just can’t be an intelligent designer. Can there?
Once you’ve eliminated all the solutions but one, the one remaining is the truth, however impossible it may seem. (Sherlock Holmes, very loosly paraphrased)
Grace and Peace to you,
Cindy
theologyandsteak said
Hi Jon;
You state that evolution has very little to do with the origins of life. Well, I agree with you, but many others don’t, including Dawkins, Dennet, etc, and many science textbooks I have read. They all claim evolution explains the origins of life on this planet. I can cite examples if you like. So yes, they DO make this claim.
Second, there is no necessary connection between microevolution and macroevolution as you stated above. To adhere to microevolution does not necessitate that one also adhere to macroevolution. Microevolution can be shown to happen within species, but again, nowhere has it been shown that one species evolves into another, like a sea animal becoming a land mammal. It is all pure conjecture with no proof. If there is, please show me specifically. Within species, yes. But one species evolving into another, no. Macroevolution is the gradual transformation of one organism/species into another, through time and chance. If not, please explain it to me, because of the many books I have read, that seems to be their gist.
It seems to me that you are a bit embarrassed that crystals and aliens are possibilities of the origins of the human race. These may not be in textbooks, but when people like Dawkins and Crick believe them, and offer them as seemingly viable alternatives, then they cannot be dismissed so lightly.
Christians do believe in the resurrection from the dead, miracles, etc because we believe in the supernatural. While miracles may be unusual, given the supernatural, they are not out of the question. So they are perfectly rational given our assumptions about the supernatural.
I am not trying to be condescending, but yes, I will state again that evolution and Biblical Christianity are incompatible. Christians hold the Bible as the word of God, and therefore it is our highest standard for faith and life. All faith, and all life. Yes, it is exclusionary, because it is the truth. In our world today, everyone wants to hold their religious beliefs as private, but if God is real, and the Bible is His Word, then Christianity reflects actual events that occurred in history. They are not private feelings but public events. Andyes, there is truth and there is falsehood, which is not popular in this day and age. So be it. It is not convenient for me; God has just happened to have blessed me with understanding of the truth out of his sheer grace. He can do the same for you, if you read his word. Yes, I believe in truth and error, right and wrong, fact and fiction.
I am certainly not against science. I am in the semiconductor business, and understand what science can do for technology and humanity. But macroevolutionary science seems to me pure hypothesis and completely unnecessary to understand how life works.
Brett