Expelled: The Movie Explores Intelligent Design and the Case Against Big Science
In Expelled: The Movie, economist, lawyer, presidential speech-writer, and all-around media personality Ben Stein will stare down the brutes of Establishment Academia with a singularly profound question: can modern cosmology offer any evidence of Intelligent Design in the universe?
The answer to this question can have unanticipated consequences, as Astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez learned earlier this year after he was denied tenure as a professor at Iowa State University.
Despite a uniquely brilliant and productive career as a scientist, Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure just three years after the publication of his pro-Intelligent Design book, co-authored with Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery.
Dr. Gonzalez has also published 68 articles in refereed astronomy and astrophysical journals including The Astrophysical Journal, The Astronomical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Icarus and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. He also co-authored a college astronomy textbook, Observational Astronomy, second edition.
Gonzalez’s chief defender in this apparent case of academic bias is The Discovery Institute, a group notable for its defense of Intelligent Design.
According to a Discovery Institute report, Gonzalez’s rate of publication in peer-reviewed journals exceeds by 350% the ISU Astronomy department’s standard for tenure.
The report also showed that he has the “highest normalized citation count among ISU Astronomers for publications“, and offered proof of his top rank in the department as demonstrated by a SMITHSONIAN/NASA database.
Even so, Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy declared that Gonzalez “simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy — one of our strongest academic programs.”
According to the press release available on the website of Expelled: The Movie,
Expelled uncovers that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of ‘design’ in nature, challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance. For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double PhD biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Not long after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution where Sternberg was a research fellow began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist expelled from his position. This attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.
The growing body of evidence for University witch hunts of ID proponents bothers Ben Stein. “Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning.”
Stein put it succinctly: “Big Science,” he says “…has lost its way.”
“The incredible thing about Expelled,” said the co-Executive Producer of the film, Walt Ruloff, “is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ’shock effect,’ something that has become common in documentary film these days.”
Perhaps. But Expelled doesn’t just interview a few poor scholars famously bullied by the orthodox hoods of the academic street; they take their beef to the leaders of the gang: Richard Dawkins — a strict Darwinist and author of The God Delusion — appears briefly, as does famed atheist blogger PZ Meyers, and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education.
The creators of Expelled are said to have spent two years traveling and interviewing dozens of scientists, doctors, philosophers, and public leaders across the globe.
“People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale,” said Ruloff.
Expelled: The Movie comes at a good time, and will undoubtedly stir the debate among students about whether Darwin’s theory of “Common Descent” really holds up as the best explanation for the available evidence.
These are dangerous ideas among Darwin’s faithful, and it now appears that good scientists are being punished for sins of heresy – and for no other reason. Fortunately credible scientists around the country have “gone public” in voicing their collective “Dissent From Darwinism.”
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is scheduled for nationwide release in April 2008.
email: editor -@- mensnews daily.com | More from Mike LaSalle
Stumble It!
November 11th, 2007 at 4:34 am
Interesting that Stephen Hawking has called evolution unscientific.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoiyNL2Y4mg{!– this video is an apparent hoax with a faked soundtrack –!}But also, I have to wonder if this particular film is really going to provide an interesting and worthwhile perspective. It’s one thing to question evolution, but if it’s done in an Al Gore hype, get some politics going by defining the enemy kind of way – it’s of no value to me; possibly a film of negative value. It is the opinion of some that the film is a trick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnbEgOFGbJ4
November 11th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Newton said that “Nature is God’s handiwork”.
There is nothing incompatible between evolution/natural selection and belief in God.
Intelligent design, however, is nothing more than poorly cobbled together pseudoscience.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:50 am
So they keep telling me.
But declaring something “pseudoscience” so you don’t have to bother answering any questions is just too easy.
The breathless charges of “pseudoscience” are founded on the fact that some of the best possible scientific explanations are currently UNTESTABLE and therefore outside the realm of the scientific method. Two examples of this in modern physical cosmology are the theory of the multiverse, and the Anthropic Principle.
Some of the most reputable scientists in the world — including John Wheeler, Richard Feynman, David Deutsch, and Stephen Hawking — have concluded that the Mulitverse offers a good explanation for the state of things. But since the concept is inherently untestable, anyone — ANYONE — can dismiss it as “pseudoscience”.
In my view The Anthropic Principle — a concept well accepted in the fields of physics and cosmology — could well be applicable to the Theory of Evolution.
But again, how can you TEST such a concept, regardless of how well the idea may fit with the available evidence? Therefore — it’s “pseudoscience”. How convenient for the cozy lilied fields of Biology.
November 11th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
The religious urge to place belief ahead of evidence is alive and well in modern science, despite the objections to ID. Heresies are sometimes the seeds of new broad movements. There is a place, of course, for speculation, and it is through the few who dare to challenge orthodoxy that new paradigms get to see the light of day – and eventual popular acclaim. Old speculations are equal to new ones until they can be shown to be less valuable. Outcomes matter. Some of the claims of ID do not stack up well against evidence but the same can be said for much of modern science.
“”People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale,” said Ruloff.”
One can hardly argue with that. Just look at how many people go along with feminisms claims about domestic violence and women’s oppression. It is a very simple fact that 50% of the population – unconfined to Americans – are modestly endowed with intelligence, when not pretty thick. Of the remaining 50%, a sizable crowd are beset by some very strange positions.
As for the unfortunate Professor, he is in good company. Newton had quite bizarre ideas about alchemy and I very much doubt the Principia Mathematica would cut it in the citations game today. The urge to discredit, even punish scientists who step out of orthodox line has a sound history. The Russians were particularly good at it.
Burn the guy at the stake. That would make a good film.
November 11th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I give up. Mike. I post things and they disappear. Over and over again! Is there some pseudo-science affecting this site.
November 11th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
amfortas – despair does nothing to ameliorate the situation with the commenting function on MND. In order to ensure that our server can handle wide fluctuations in traffic loads, MND is endowed with a cacheing mechanism that effectively renders a live PHP page into temporary HTML file. The system then refreshes the page 3600 seconds later….
All of this means that your comment may not appear on the site for a little while.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
PBS will be running a docudrama on the Kitzmiller v. Dover Intelligent Design case. this week.
Nova’s [page here: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
Discovery Institute’s counterpoint: NOVA Program on Intelligent Design Biased, Not by Chance but Because They Designed It That Way
Here’s a more thoroughgoing investigation into Dover: Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision (DI Press, 2006)
November 11th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Roger,
But if you look at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNOYlySB46U
you’ll see that Dr Hawking is actually opposed to creationism. Obviously, the link you provide is to a video with a faked soundtrack. I’m sure this one is real, though.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Thank you for expalining that Mike. Please forgive my temporary terseness. Its not like me at all (hahahaha).
November 12th, 2007 at 5:50 am
GalapagosPete: I didn’t say that Stephen Hawking supports creationism. But I’m not at all convinced that the video I linked is fake (but perhaps it is too short, cut off before he completes his point). He said that there is no direct empirical evidence of the creation of life from non-living material. So far as I know, the only experimental evidence involves the creation of amino acids, not life. (And then there was some kind of contraversy regarding those experiments.) It does not seem at all likely to me that fossil evidence will ever be found that provides direct proof of the transformation. The popular scientific theory of creation is speculation that corresponds to evidence, but it has not been empirically confirmed.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
A scientist at the University of Hawaii argues against using the Anthropic Principle as a means to explain the improbabilities associated with random “evolution”:
Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics (Victor J. Stenger)
And a critique….
November 13th, 2007 at 1:01 am
There are several problems with these really being the words of Stephen Hawking. It is highly unlikely that he would say that “there has been much controversy over evolution” without specifying the nature of the controversy, specifically, a religious controversy, not a scientific one. It is extraordinarily unlikely that he would use the phrase, “…an action I believe many scientists on the list have naively done so.” Poor English, to say the least. Also highly insulting to his colleagues. He’s basically saying they’re stupid.
I find it impossible to believe that the NCSE would ignore his request to remove his name, if he ever even made such a request. Nor do I find it likely that he would baldly state that there is no empirical raw data for evolution, at least not without explaining how he can take that position in the face of what he has to know is overwhelming scientific evidence. He would also know that random chance is not a part of the theory of evolution, just as he would know that life “evolving from nonliving matter” isn’t either. These are creationist straw men. Regardless of his opinion, he would not make such basic errors. And if he had other ideas, he would state them. That’s what scientists do.
But here’s the kicker: When Antony Flew converted to a weak deism there were articles all over the place in real publications, not just creationist web sites. Creationists, of course, were beside themselves with glee. Do you, for one moment, really, truly imagine that Stephen Hawking could actually come out this strongly against the theory of evolution and it wouldn’t be everywhere? The networks would be all over it.
I’ll believe it when it shows up on his web site.
November 13th, 2007 at 1:15 am
A couple more things, Roger. If you want to know the truth about the Miller-Urey experiments and why they’re not particularly controversial, see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey
It’s a short read, but an educational one.
Science doesn’t look for proof, it looks for evidence. And there are many fossil transitional forms that have been found. How about a partial list:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
Many things may never be empirically confirmed. In fact, science operates with the philosophy that many or most things never will be. Science is provisional. However, when the evidence is as strong as the evidence for evolution is, it becomes unreasonable not to accept it, unless you can show that it’s wrong. And even if you do (unlikely given the amount of evidence in favor) you still have to establish your own idea as valid scientifically. It’s not like, “Ooooo, yours was wrong, so mine wins.”
Paraphrasing Isaac Asimov, if we discovered tomorrow that all our ideas about human reproduction were wrong, it would not automatically follow therefore that babies are brought by storks.
November 13th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
#12
I have to agree with GalapagosPete: I think the video is a fraud.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
[...] December 3, 2007 · No Comments Men’s News Daily has some more information about “Expelled” the new movie set to hit theaters next February. Check it out. [...]