Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

World Net Daily on “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Expelled

Ben Stein to battle Darwin in major film

Actor-commentator stars in ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’

Ben Stein, the lovable, monotone teacher from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and “The Wonder Years” is back in the classroom in a major motion picture release slated for February 2008.

But this time, the actor will be on the big screen asking one of life’s biggest questions: “Were we designed, or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?”

That’s right. Evolution – and the explosive debate over its virtual monopoly on America’s public school classrooms – is the focus of the film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”

In the movie, Stein, who is also a lawyer, economist, former presidential speechwriter, author and social commentator, is stunned by what he discovers – an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma. Even worse, say publicists for the feature film, “along the way, Stein uncovers a long line of biologists, astronomers, chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection.”

I have four words for the producers and fans of Flock of Dodos:

Payback is a b*tch.

Read More

Comments
timothee Yeah, as if scientists were more dogmatics than you proponents of intelligent design. Many ID proponents ARE scientists. I know and communicate with at least a hundred of them. Most of them are afraid to be open about their beliefs for the very reasons this movie "Expelled" documents. They fear expulsion from the scientific community, expulsion from the academic community, loss of income, and loss of respect. It isn't baseless paranoia. Bad things happen to the careers of ID proponents who make their beliefs public. Is that how science is supposed to work? P.S. Random mutation is the ultimate source of all variation in the Darwinian dogma. Whether it's neutral drift, positive selection, recombination, or whatever other upstream mechanism you care to name the ultimate source of variation is random mutation. Here's a little thought experiment for you. If random mutation didn't exist, if all DNA copy operations were perfect, if there were no errors, no gene duplications or deletions, how far could evolution go? Could a bacteria eventually become a baboon in that scenario and if so how? P.P.S. If I read any more snotty condescending crap from you it'll be your last comment here. DaveScot
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Timothee, I am curious. How would you characterize your scientific world view? Is it close to that of Stephen J. Gould? I know you disapprove of intelligent design and you seem skeptical about neo-Darwinism. Is there any well-known position that you identify with?StephenB
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Timothee, You will be hit with a lot of counterargumens and hopefully, you will stay around to sort them all out. We are well aware of the arguments proposed by Ken Miller and summarized by Nick Matzke about the flagellum. Hopefully, on this or another thread a detailed discussion can take place. The presence of the same proteins in other pathways is by no means a proof that they were available in one place at one time and then could have been assembled in so complex a manner. This assumes not only the concept of co-option but also a magical power of self assembly that can almost do anything one wants. This is sometimes called the argument from Mars approach and is best summed up by someone who is not necessarily a friend of ID. His name is David Opderbeck and here is his quote from the ASA site "David C. said:* Co-option falsifies IC (irreducible complexity) because it provides a way to assemble the complex system step by step.* Not so. In itself, co-option shows only that some components of a putatively IC system could possibly have been borrowed from some other system. It does not, in itself, show how the entire system could have been assembled step-by-step such that there is some utility in the system at each step. The possibility of co-option might suggest a system really isn't IC, but it would have to be the case not only that there are coopt-able parts that would "fit" the system, but also that the putatively co-opted parts were available for co-option and that they could have been assembled all at once into the IC system. This requires both some kind of proximity as well as some possibility of self organization of the system. It isn't enough to suggest that there is a small piece of metal on Mars that could be used as the catch bar in a mouse trap; you have to show that there is a small piece of metal in proximity to the other components and that there is a mechanism for spontaneous and complete self-assembly of the proximate parts into a system; or that there are intermediate systems to which proximately available parts could gradually be added, each of which intermediate systems has some utility. So, to suggest that co-option in itself falsifies IC, it seems to me, is really just hand-waiving. Either that, or it really is a fundamental misunderstanding of what IC is supposed to mean. Now, Ken Miller cites a bunch a papers that supposedly show a pathway in which the bacterial flagellum could have been assembled through gradual co-option of parts into the present motor system. But this is where it gets frustrating for someone like me: when you dig into the papers he cites, they don't seem to support anything like such a grandiose claim. In some instances, it seems more like "well, there's a little piece of metal on Mars that could serve as the catch on a mousetrap," rather than any kind of meaningfully plausible scenario. (Either that, or my incompetence with the literature makes me -- and Angus Menuge, from whose "Agents Under Fire" much of this rebuttal comes from -- miss something.) I do think it's fair to say that the possibility of co-option suggests that something that *seems* to be IC *might* be derivable through natural selection after all, which I would agree should make us chary of grand claims for the concept of IC -- certainly it should make us reject any claim that the concept of IC *must be* a show-stopper. However, it equally overstates the case, IMHO, to claim that the concept of co-option conclusively settles the matter against IC as a possible roadblock for natural selection. " If such an argument as co-option was presented in other fields they would laugh at you but in evolutionary biology it is the norm.jerry
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Who says "Darwinism"?
Darwinism http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm Michael Ruse: I am a Darwinian. "Many contemporary Darwinists show a strong liberal commitment in their politics and sexual morality, whereas advocates of creation want to go back to a strict biblical morality." "Darwinism has a great past. Let us work to see that it has an even greater future." Live in debate: But I do agree, I do hope that Darwinism does have a great future, and I hope that you and I can contribute together to do this. Right. Yes, I think that Darwinism -- Darwinism is a scientific theory. Of course I think -- Eugenie Scott: "Darwinism, which is natural selection - evolution by natural selection". "ES: I'm finishing. Um, Darwinism -- evolution by natural selection is one of the ways by which evolution can take place. The argument that has been presented so frequently from your side of the table is that if you -- all we have to do is disprove Darwinism, and we disprove evolution. That's nonsense. Another point, I will try to answer your question, I'm sorry -- " ===== I'm a Darwinist because I believe the only alternatives are Lamarckism or God ... , -Richard Dawkins The real core of Darwinism … is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaptation, the ‘design’ of the natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine intervention. (p. 138 Ernst Mayr (Foreword to M. Ruse, Darwinism Defended, Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley, 1982, pp. xi-xii) ) ... , it is simply not true that Darwinism works with any substrate, no matter what. Indeed Darwinism can't even explain old-fashioned *biological* evolution if the hereditary substrate doesn't behave just right. ...This substrate problem was so acute that turn-ofthe-century biologists -- all fans of blending inheritance -- concluded that Darwinism just can't work. ...." (Orr H.A., "Dennett's Strange Idea: Natural Selection: Science of Everything, Universal Acid, Cure for the Common Cold ... . Review of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," by Daniel C. Dennett, Simon and Schuster. Boston Review, Vol. 21., No. 3., Summer 1996.) http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2005/07/popular-opponents-of-id-backing-away.html Catholic biologist Ken Miller, author of Finding Darwin's God, is introduced. "I'm an orthodox Catholic, and an orthodox Darwinist ... www.staycatholic.com/evolution.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages Lynn Margulis: "It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist.” But, she quickly added, “I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point.” http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/lynn_margulis_d.html 1860 April The term "Darwinism" was coined by Thomas Huxley in the Westminster Journal http://www.aboutdarwin.com/timeline/time_07.html 9. Richard Dawkins, "Darwin Triumphant: Darwinism as a Universal Truth," in Michael H. Robinson and Lionel Tiger, eds., Man and Beast Revisited (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), 38; also see Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 317. ... As Dawkins has stressed, discovery of "a single, well-verified mammal skull . . . in 500 million year-old rocks" would utterly destroy core Darwinism (The Blind Watchmaker, 225). http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair52/m52c8n.html Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory. SJ Gould. The essence of Darwinism lies in the claim that natural selection is a creative force, ... www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/216/4544/380 Ayala "Beyond Darwinism?" - RPB Ch 11. EI lab (Hubbard Hall G36) open for evolutionary ... www.msu.edu/~pennock5/courses/484Spring2007.htm Mayr :“I’m an old-time fighter for Darwinism. I say, ‘Please tell me what’s wrong with Darwinism. I can’t see anything wrong with Darwinism.” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/mayr-m03.shtml Confessions of a Darwinist Niles Eldredge It takes a true Darwinist to tweak the great man’s vision, bringing it into line with the facts of the matter. I confess that I am a true Darwinist. http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2006/spring/eldredge-confessions-darwinist/
Charlie
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
@ jerry : 1. T3SS, plus the fact that 40 out of 42 proteins are used in other pathways, for a starter. We could engage in a "reference battle" (only PR journals of course), I'm trained (quite well) for that, as my field is rich in contrversials subjects. 2. It's the first thing my teachers told me. It's the only point of agreement i have with some evolutionnists. That's also the first thing I say when someone tells me that a result is not coherent with his previous results. I'm also pretty sure to have read it in some evolution books. I mean, used in University and stuff… @StephenB : I was talking of dogmatism in science. The denial of doubt, and the acceptance of facts without prudence seems a good definition to me. I'm not involved in Darwinism, by the way. Darwin's theory don't make any use of the works of, say, Mendel, and it's quite a flaw in it. Anyway, just by observation, he defined what is still one (out of four) evolutionnary force: natural selection. Besides, I'm a scientist, I feel no emotion whatsoever for a theory. I eventually feel such a thing for the excitation of discovering new facts, of empathy with the animals I work with, but not for a conceptual object as Darwin's theory is. The last time I felt something about Darwin was when I left his book felt on my bare foot by lack of cofee. @PaV : I must confess I have no answer to junk-DNA (and, despite a BSc in genomics, I don't consider that I have enough knowledge of the subject to talk about it – and with my research going on, I have no time to digg into papers). I can, however, see something like a structural role, or the presence of very distal elements, or elements involved in chemical regulation of chromatid structure. We don't need to invoke a designer here. We need to carry out good science. Then find out. I'm pretty confident the "mystery" of junk-DNA will be solved in the next 5 years. About Wikipedia : that's not an encyclopedia. Don't believe, it's crappy. Trust me one this one, I used to wrote articles in it ;-) Seriously. The word Darwinist is used for someone who trust the ideas of Charles, ok, right. So I'm a part-Darwinist. Because I read his books, compared with the newest evidences, read other people books, read a lot of papers, look at my results, look at other people results, talk with colleagues and friends, and made my own point of view. I'm sure that any of the evolutionist in post (even in USA) is in agreement with Darwin on every word. Because it scientifically impossible, Darwin's theory is 200 years old. As you noticed, some people in systematics can be dogmatists. It's easily explained by sociological analysis, or epistemology. It's the nature of systematics to be dogmatic. But the most prominent systematicians in france are one of the most open-minded people I've ever heard of. And you will notice that I said : "Never, unless you bring them solid evidences that they are wrong". We still are scientifics… As for your last sentence: intelligent designers are yet to prove anything (and to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Some of them exist outside US, so "local specificity" is a poor excuse). Inductivism or inference alone are not demonstrative. @Apollos: I don't talked about a step-by-step pathway of evolution. Reconstructing step-by-step pathway is part of my research (even if it's not sensu stricto pathways I'm reconstructing, but nevermind) It's just that the flagellum is a perfect exemple to show that a theory such as "irreducible complexity" is totally wrong. Because parts of the flagellum exists outside the flagellum, and are fully functionnal. I'm sure you've not read even the smallest paper on the subject. Am I right? Let's take a look at, say, oncogenic receptors, you will find out that biochemistry is all about using small functionnal units (proteic domains, for that matter) and modulate them in space to provide another function. And Michael Behe is aware of this fact, but he just refused to see it when writing is theory. Anyway, we know step-by-step pathways for a lot of things far more amazing than the flagellum. In immunogenetics, for example - evolution of MHC genes, Ig complexes, and so on. You'll be surprised of the vast amount of knowledge we've gathered on the evolution of behaviors in animals. Open up pubmed / google scholar / ISI WoS and go find out by yourself. And it's not only "Darwinism" (NS). In fact, it's a combination of the four major forces driving evolution (who in this topic can give me their name, by the way?), plus environment.Timothee
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
"That’s the problem with proponents of ID. The few examples you rely on (example: the flagellum who is displayed in this blog header) have been bunked out by science, but you still use them as proofs that evolutionnists are wrong. That’s dogmatism."
So apparently, according to Timothee, we now know the step by step pathway for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum by RM+NS. Everyone will want to remember where they were on this day, at this moment in time. I'll wait for a link to the press release (all the while not holding my breath). The implications are staggering. What comes next? Empirical evidence of evolutionary pathways for vision, blood clotting, and of course all aspects of human and animal psychology can't be far behind. Evolution explains everything, of course, we just haven't found any of the explanations yet. Give it time. Honestly, what does NDE really even attempt to explain except for how a universe full of staggering complexity, purpose, and design can be the result of nothing more than a string of cosmic accidents? Wait. Were we talking about Darwinism or dogmatism? They're so easy to get confused.Apollos
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Timothee: Dogmatism is the kind of behavior when someone refuses to see evidences against his view of the world. But Timothee, that is what most evolutionary biologists do: they refuse to see evidence against their own theory. What about so-called "junk DNA"? It is highly conserved, and without any known function at this time. This is entirely in contradiction of Darwinian theory. You would think, based on the reaction of the biological community, as if these facts don't exist. That's, per your definition, "dogmatism". The most blatant example of dogmatism among proponents of ID is the use of the term “Darwinism”. Are you kidding? Here's what Wikipedia says about "Darwinism": "Darwinism is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection." Does that make Widipedia an ID resource? . . . I don’t know a single evolutionnist (and I know a huge number of them) who will look at a problem only with the ides of Darwin. Timothee, that's encouraging. But, here in America (I'm positive you're not from here) if you "doubt" Darwin's theory, your career in biology is in terrible peril. Isn't that what Dogmatists do, as in: " work sometimes with people engaged in systematics, and trust me, they are devoted to the ideas of their masters, and would never accept any other idea. Never, unless you bring them solid evidences that they are wrong." Of course, here in the United States, Darwinists won't accept any other idea even when you prove that they are wrong. Again, they're dogmatists.PaV
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Timothee wrote, "No. Dogmatism in science was really clearly defined by Robert Shapiro (also a reviewer of Behe’s “black box”, by the way) as the denial of the essential criteria of scientific thought : doubt." Impressive. You set up the criteria for dogmatism the same way you set up the criteria for science. Anyone is disagrees with you is dogmatic. Dogmatism is the arrogant assertion of opinion as fact, it has nothing to do with denial. For example, your definition of dogmatism is dogmatic. Not only is it opinion asserted as fact, it is flat out illogical. You make this logical error because you are so emotionally invested in Darwinism.StephenB
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Timothee, Couple things. 1. How would you like to discuss the debunking of flagellum by science and we can see who is dogmatic here. 2. Since you say "Scientists doesn’t believe in Darwin, nor they believe in Jay-Gould or Maynard-Smith. They believe in science, and truth" What are the chances that this statement or a comparable statement be read at the beginning of every evolution section of every biology book sold/used in every public school and university in the US? Let me hear about the non-dogmatic response to the acceptance of such a statement.jerry
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
"I have four words for the producers and fans of Flock of Dodos: Payback is a b*tch." ***trying really hard not to laugh hysterically*** BTW, if anyone lives near Birmingham, Alabama, Expelled is going to have a huge rally before the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at the University of Alabama Birmingham.Forthekids
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
No. Dogmatism in science was really clearly defined by Robert Shapiro (also a reviewer of Behe's "black box", by the way) as the denial of the essential criteria of scientific thought : doubt. I think it's in the very early chapters of his book The Origins of Life, the one dealing with scientific methodology (according to me one of the best essay on the subject). As he said, science is not a corpus of answer, but a way to find those answers. In my own conception of science, the results themselves are not science, because they are only the product of the methodology, not the process itself. I guess that's not the point. Dogmatism is the kind of behavior when someone refuses to see evidences against his view of the world. The most blatant example of dogmatism among proponents of ID is the use of the term "Darwinism". There's not such a thing as Darwinism! The theory of Darwin (it would be better to say "the model he proposed to explain evolution") is only a theory, and I don't know a single evolutionnist (and I know a huge number of them) who will look at a problem only with the ides of Darwin. Scientists doesn't believe in Darwin, nor they believe in Jay-Gould or Maynard-Smith. They believe in science, and truth (and cofee, more than anything else). Tje only way for a scientist to find this truth is by looking at the facts. I don't say that there is no dogmatism among scientist. I work sometimes with people engaged in systematics, and trust me, they are devoted to the ideas of their masters, and would never accept any other idea. Never, unless you bring them solid evidences that they are wrong. That's the problem with proponents of ID. The few examples you rely on (example: the flagellum who is displayed in this blog header) have been bunked out by science, but you still use them as proofs that evolutionnists are wrong. That's dogmatism.Timothee
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Timothee, There is a lot of disagreement here about ID. What isn't allowed is dogmatism?jerry
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
Yeah, as if scientists were more dogmatics than you proponents of intelligent design. As for the method use to obtain interviews for people as Myers… Two thumbs down for Ben Stein.Timothee
September 29, 2007
September
09
Sep
29
29
2007
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply