Saturday, April 19, 2008

First impressions on Expelled

Following hotly on the footsteps of the great Dusman, here are a few of my first impressions and thoughts after watching Expelled:
  • I liked the interviews with some big wigs in the Intelligent Design movement (e.g. Stephen C. Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Douglas Axe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Kurt Wise, Jonathan Wells, William Dembski, Alistair McGrath, John Polkinghorne) as well as the interviews with atheists like Michael Ruse, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. Not all ID-proponents interviewed were religious though (e.g. David Berlinski). In any case, it was a good way to get a quick feel for the personalities behind some well-known publications on either side.

  • Maybe I missed them but I didn't notice Michael Behe, Francis Collins, or, perhaps most notably, Phillip E. Johnson.

  • I only wish the interviews were longer and more in-depth. But the movie wasn't so much about making arguments against neo-Darwinism or for Intelligent Design as it was about presenting the case that the American academic scientific establishment is anti-ID (and religion) and basically any dissenting view from the mainstream one when it comes to neo-Darwinism.

  • Seattle looked gorgeous! (And, yeah, the Discovery Institute's office space seemed rather modest in relation to their purported influence.)

  • For some reason, Ben Stein's usual comedic shtick as a drab, nerdy professor with a monotone voice and colorless demeanor (à la his role in Ferris Bueller's Day Off) didn't seem as funny to me as it might've in the past.

  • At one point, Ben Stein asked David Berlinski, if, in Darwin's day the cell might be compared to a Buick, what might it be compared to today? And Berlinski replied, "A galaxy." It's simply amazing to me how complicated any animal let alone human cell truly is.

  • Speaking of which, there were a couple of pretty neat cell animations in the movie. Not to mention at least one funny cartoon which ended with a cartoon version Dawkins cursing his luck on a slot machine. And I thought the movie made pretty good use of old black and white footage from other movies and elsewhere throughout its hour and a half run.

  • I was surprised that the German lady working as a concentration camp tour guide couldn't bring herself to condemn what one of the Nazi doctors did in murdering people. [Update: Please make sure to read Joe Carter's comment in the combox.]

  • I was somewhat surprised that several neo-Darwinists are apostates. Indeed, neo-Darwinism can undermine and erode the faith of many Christians. In fact, Dawkins admitted he lost any vestige of faith he may have once had after studying evolution. That's why it needs to be confronted. And more than ever these days.

  • On the flip side, there are some Christians who don't want the slightest thing to do with evolution, and will refuse to hear let alone learn about it for fear that they'll somehow be contaminated by it and perhaps led astray. Although the sentiments are understandable, their thinking is not.

  • One apostate neo-Darwinist mentioned that, since he now believes in unguided naturalistic evolution, he likewise no longer believes in free will or that there is any meaning in life. He said he has a brain tumor and that he would rather shoot himself in the head than to go through such suffering. [Update: This was William Provine. Thanks to Dusman for pointing it out in the combox.] So neo-Darwinism not only condemns one to a meaningless death but also to a meaningless life. What's more, neo-Darwinism devalues human life because life and death are nothing more than "natural processes."

  • Also, I think it's ironic to hear apostates in this movie talk about how "free" they feel now that they're no longer Christians. Now that they've been "liberated" from the shackles of Christianity after seeing the light of unguided naturalistic evolution and atheism. I don't doubt that that's how they may "feel." But, if unguided naturalistic evolution and atheism are true, then what does it mean to say that someone feels let alone is "free"? What, after all, is the "feeling" of "freedom" or "freedom" itself to the atheist and evolutionist (e.g. perhaps a series of biochemical reactions resulting in the illusion of choice)?

  • At the same time, we hear other neo-Darwinists call religion "evil." But I wonder if they have considered from where they derive this moral category of "evil" for religion given their presuppositions?

  • Ben Stein rightly noted that neo-Darwinism is not a sufficient but it is a necessary condition for Nazism.

  • Someone mentioned something along the lines of, science should go before one's worldview but one's worldview often goes before science. One should go where the evidence leads, not predetermine where one is going and then shoehorn the evidence to fit the destination. Of course, this could cut both ways (assuming there's at least some validity in the statement). But it seems to me it cuts so much more against neo-Darwinism. For instance, at least one neo-Darwinist scientist would rather believe in (as Ben Stein put it) "crystals" than the possibility that God may have been the source for life on earth as we know it.

  • Near the end of the movie, Dawkins himself admitted the possibility for Intelligent Design; he said panspermia was an intriguing possibility. It's just that he doesn't admit the possibility that the Judeo-Christian "God" might be the Intelligent Designer. He'll believe in anything in order to not believe in the God of the Bible. What a tragedy.

15 comments:

  1. One apostate Neo-Darwinist mentioned that, since he now believes in unguided naturalistic evolution, he likewise no longer believes in free will or that there is any meaning in life. He said he has a brain tumor and that he would rather shoot himself in the head than to go through such suffering. So Neo-Darwinism not only condemns one to a meaningless death but also to a meaningless life. What's more, Neo-Darwinism devalues human life because life and death are nothing more than "natural processes."

    This was one of the most riveting things that I heard in "Expelled". I appreciated this kind of honesty coming from Dr. Wm. Provine. Here's another one from him,

    "Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."
    Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

    And another goodie from him,

    ". . . belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." as quoted in "No free will". In Catching up with the Vision, ed. Margaret W Rossiter, Chicago University Press, 1999, p. S123.

    My studied opinion is that if Darwinism is true, then Provine's assertions are essentially correct and we are reduced to individual and/or cultural relativism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am grateful that Ben Stein is putting out this film but do you believe that Hollywood will shun him now for this? They have somewhat been against him for his involvement with the Republican Party but this involvement with the ID movement might just do him in. I pray not but Hollywood is full of liberals and any attack on their liberal causes buys you a ticket to nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And of course the emergents will attack this film. Since the emergents have the Rodney King theological view of life (why can't we just all get along?) they will no doubt attack Ben Stein and call this film "Fundamentalist lies" since it attacks the evolution of the human being of which they subscribe to with their post-modern view of man.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "On the flip side, there are some Christians who don't want the slightest thing to do with evolution, and will refuse to hear let alone learn about it for fear that they'll somehow be contaminated by it and perhaps led astray. Although the sentiments are understandable, their thinking is not."

    Yep. The only knowledge of evolution for these apostates came from their evolutionary biologist professors and teachers, and that's the problem. Evangelicals in today's church don't want to have to teach their children apologetics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Evangelicals in today's church don't want to have to teach their children apologetics."

    That's because they're "comfortable", just like those in Laodicea:

    NAU Revelation 3:14-17 "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: 15 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 17 'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,."

    ReplyDelete
  6. I didn't know that Dembski made an appearance. Can anyone expand on what he says?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I didn't know that Dembski made an appearance. Can anyone expand on what he says?"

    He essentially says the same thing the other ID proponents say. It went something like this: "We're not trying to argue for any particular designer, we're merely trying to argue that Darwinism has serious scientific problems and we think that we have a legitimate alternative and method for detecting design in nature without determining who or what that designer might be."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ben Stein and one of the producers spoke at the Heritage Foundation the other day. They said that the DVD will have extended versions of the interviews and will provide more of the scientific basis for ID.

    was surprised that the German lady working as a concentration camp tour guide couldn't bring herself to condemn what one of the Nazi doctors did in murdering people.

    I think that was a misunderstanding based on the language barrier. Stein asked her "what she'd say" to the doctor. He was expecting her to say how she'd condemn him. She took it to mean what would she want to talk to him about, which of course was nothing at all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ben Stein and one of the producers spoke at the Heritage Foundation the other day. They said that the DVD will have extended versions of the interviews and will provide more of the scientific basis for ID.

    Cool, this is good news! I plan on picking up the DVD when it comes out. Thanks, Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. # I was somewhat surprised that several neo-Darwinists are apostates. Indeed, neo-Darwinism can undermine and erode the faith of many Christians. In fact, Dawkins admitted he lost any vestige of faith he may have once had after studying evolution. That's why it needs to be confronted. And more than ever these days.

    Ugh. What a head in the sand mentality. Doesn't it bother you that intelligent people studying evolution lose their faith in the sense that it calls into question the underlying truth of that faith? The most important aspect to you in the above comment seems to be the existence of faith, not whether it's true.

    Maybe you're planning to adopt a George Bryson-esque defense of Christianity by attacking evolution: "If I can get to them early enough, I can emotionally poison their minds against evolution forever (whether or not it is true), and thereby preserve their faith (whether or not that is true)."

    ReplyDelete
  11. That God is the Creator is a central tenet of Christianity. It is the very first point raised in the Bible. It is one of the first points of John's gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  12. thnuhthnuh said...

    “Doesn't it bother you that intelligent people studying evolution lose their faith in the sense that it calls into question the underlying truth of that faith?”

    Can’t say it does. Intelligent people can be very ignorant and unsophisticated. Having read the likes of Kitcher, Futuyma, and Ridley attack “creationism,” I’m struck by the fact that they often have no grasp of what the opposing thesis amounts to. I’ve seen similar caricatures of ID-theory.

    I’d add that grad students are subject to peer pressure. Eager to please the prof. Make the grade. Get tenure. Get letters of reference.

    Indeed, that's a major pointed of the film, is it not?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd add to Steve's point that most people who lose their faith due to evolution have only heard one side. Their parents and their churches never taught them any counter-arguments to common descent or neo-Darwinism, and so, the only information coming to them about origins from a "scientific" aspect is from the propagandist establishment that bombards them while in high school and at college.

    Lastly, it should be noted that, in Calvinist theology, belief or unbelief in Christianity is not dependent upon intelligence but upon the sovereign grace of God. Thus, to make an ad populum argument from people with "intelligence" is to beg the very question under dispute.

    "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?...For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong" (1 Corinthians 1:20, 26, 27)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I find it interesting that many normally very intelligent people (Dr. Wm. Provine for example) conclude that biology or any type of science provess or disproves the existence of God. that is just ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Maybe I missed them but I didn't notice Michael Behe, Francis Collins, or, perhaps most notably, Phillip E. Johnson."

    Well of course. Behe accepts common descent. Collins is a religious critic of ID. (Phillip Johnson may just be in ill health, or too forightly religious about his ID) These sorts of views would seriously undermine the film's claims.

    "So neo-Darwinism not only condemns one to a meaningless death but also to a meaningless life."

    The film doesn't quite bother to explain what Provine means here: external meaning. It has nothing to do with whether or not Provine finds meaning in his own actions.

    "Ben Stein rightly noted that neo-Darwinism is not a sufficient but it is a necessary condition for Nazism."

    If you want to make that case, then you cannot avoid the statement that Christianity was necessary but not sufficient condition for it as well.

    There are a lot of other things the film confuses and misrepresents, which I cover here.

    ReplyDelete