Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Expelled at Biola — Ben Stein Receives the Phillip Johnson Award

Categories
Expelled
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Last evening I attended a big Expelled event at Biola University in La Mirada, California. Presenters included Ben Stein, Walt Ruloff, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Stephen Meyer, and Biola faculty.

Expelled executive producer Walt Ruloff began with a short presentation. He talked about his background in computer technology and how he founded a logistics-optimization software company in his early 20s that became spectacularly successful, primarily, according to Walt, because they thought outside the box and questioned everything.

After Walt sold his company he became involved with the biological research and technology world, and discovered that the exact opposite was the case: people in this field were and are not allowed to ask questions. Walt was totally shocked when it was revealed to him by one of the leading genomic researchers in the U.S., who gets all his funding from the NIH and NSF, that the only way to get funding is to pretend to believe in Darwinian orthodoxy. Even more horrifyingly, this leading genomic researcher (whose face is blacked out and voice disguised in the movie, to protect him from the destruction of his life and career by Darwinists) said that as much as 30% of the research in his field is shelved and never published because it might provide ammunition for “creationists.” In order to stand any chance of being published, interpretations of biological research must be artificially force-fit into the Darwinian paradigm, regardless of the evidence.

Walt decided to do something about it.

Ben Stein talked about his early years in the civil-rights movement, and how he and others in that movement were spat upon, denigrated and vilified, because they dared to challenge the reigning racist orthodoxy.

Caroline Crocker talked about how she was blacklisted in academia for daring to suggest that there might be problems with orthodox Darwinism, even though her students could not detect what her personal opinions were.

Guillermo gave a timeline about his expulsion from academia, for daring to suggest that there might be evidence of design in the universe.

The main thing that struck me about Caroline and Guillermo was that they displayed no hostility or vitriol toward their persecutors. Think about this, and what it indicates about personal character on both sides.

At the end of the evening Ben was presented with the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth, to a thunderous standing ovation.

While accepting the award, Ben commented that in the end ID will win, because the truth is on our side. He also commented that Americans don’t like to be bullied and told what to think — by anyone.

I paraphrase Ben: “People don’t like to be told that what is obviously true is false.”

Amen to that.

Gil

Comments
Perhaps Dr. Dembski should persuade this researcher to submit his research to PCID, under a pseudonym. I wouldn’t be happy if 30% of a field was being censored in this way. If this claim is true, there should be plenty of research there to be published. Let’s see it!
I'm not an academic, so I'm not familiar with the publication process, but it would seem to me that different niches of research science would constitute a "small world", where people doing similar research are familiar with one another. If this is the case, is a mere pseudonym really sufficient to protect one's identity from peers and coworkers?russ
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PST
Walt Ruloff is my hero.DeepDesign
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PST
Hi Gil, I went, too, along with my daughter, son-in-law, their 3 month old daughter, and another friend. I especially liked Ms. Crocker's presentation and the quote "When something is true, if you think about it, it will still be true". My granddaughter got very excited every time there was applause. However, I was disappointed at not seeing more of the movie. Somehow I didn't understand that we were only to see a few clips. Oh well, I was planning to go see it in the theater anyway.Jack Golightly
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PST
You can listen to a two-part interview with Walt Ruloff here and here.GilDodgen
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PST
If 30% of research is being shelved then the conspiracy must extend to the accountants too. After all, don't you think somebody would be kicking up a fuss by now if 1/3 of the money spend just appeared to vanish? Won't they be wondering what happened? Or is there a special "scientific" phrase for this 1/3 of results? Let me guess, "the study was inconclusive"? Or lets try "funding was removed before the end of the study"? Or even better "the researcher had to be fired (expelled) due to the wrong results"? 30% does sound like an awful lot to keep suppressed consistently. I'd be more inclined to believe 3% - perhaps a decimal point has shifted by accident?f.blair
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PST
No, actually the issue here is that it isn't science to claim that God didn't create the universe--which is the metadata of Darwinism. The point of Expelled (all together now) is that the materialism of the modern age is, first of all, exclusionary and brutal in its tactics, and most importantly, questionable on many fronts. If the rhetoric of Huxley, Gould, Dawkins and Myers does not make the first point clear, then it can never make clear. And the second point doesn't have to be exposited: it is a fait accompli on the basis of modern molecular science.allanius
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PST
Even more horrifyingly, this leading genomic researcher (whose face is blacked out and voice disguised in the movie, to protect him from the destruction of his life and career by Darwinists) said that as much as 30% of the research in his field is shelved and never published because it might provide ammunition for “creationists.”
Perhaps Dr. Dembski should persuade this researcher to submit his research to PCID, under a pseudonym. I wouldn't be happy if 30% of a field was being censored in this way. If this claim is true, there should be plenty of research there to be published. Let's see it!Bob O'H
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PST
"It seems to me that materialistic “scientists” are saying that we’re not allowed to believe in God until we can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt — using methods woefully inadequate to the task — that He exists. It’s like saying we’re not allowed to make love to our wives until we can demonstrate, via both formula and experiment, that the ladies are actually in love with us." Gerry, this simply isn't true. No scientist says you or anyone else can't believe in God, or for that matter anything else - unicorns, celestial teapots or that 2+2+5. Anyone can believe in what they want. The issue is, claiming that your belief is something that it isn't - like claiming that God created the universe is a science, which it isn't.Portishead
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PST
William Wallace says, "the fact that a scientist has to have his face masked is more evidence that the PT-mafia... will destroy those who do not toe the neo-Darwinian line." Or evidence of a scientist who cares more about his career than Truth. Just a few posts down we find a real man resigning when NASA opposed publication of his findings. That is the proper response. Everyone seems to forget that evil rarely enters through the front door -- it creeps in, one compromise at a time. The reason someone can be fired today for not toeing the party line is because someone ignored an easier opportunity to stand up for truth yesterday, and someone else an even easier opportunity the day before that, etc. The Nazis didn't appear suddenly at every Jew's door, y'know. Everyone who wasn't thinking wishfully saw it coming...Gerry Rzeppa
March 29, 2008
March
03
Mar
29
29
2008
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PST
I want the movie to come out so I can stop having to worry about reading spoilers. But the fact that a scientist has to have his face masked is more evidence that the PT-mafia (NCSE/TalkOrigins/Panda's Thumb/wickedpedia) will destroy those who do not toe the neo-Darwinian line.William Wallace
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PST
“People don’t like to be told that what is obviously true is false.” Great line, Gil, even if it is a paraphrase. The key words being "obviously true" -- not "empirically demonstrable and published in at least three peer-reviewed journals." It seems to me that materialistic "scientists" are saying that we're not allowed to believe in God until we can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt -- using methods woefully inadequate to the task -- that He exists. It's like saying we're not allowed to make love to our wives until we can demonstrate, via both formula and experiment, that the ladies are actually in love with us.Gerry Rzeppa
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply