Ben Stein Takes on Neo-Darwinism in "Expelled"

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.