Ben Stein and Intelligent Design
Posted by humphrey at 04-14-2008 02:30 PM 
Categories: Science, Controversy, politicalcorrectness, ID
Categories: Science, Controversy, politicalcorrectness, ID
The new film Expelled has garnered a lot of attention recently both because Ben Stein stars, doing his impression of Michael Moore, and because the film defends college professors and scientists who have been fired for professing belief in intelligent design.
Two different articles I have found display two different takes on the issue. The New York Sun's review is more kindly. It focuses mostly on Mr. Stein's role in the film and downplays the ID angle.
It ends with Mr. Stein claiming that Darwin himself was about dialogue, and that's what this film professes to want as well. He stops short of endorsing intelligent design, but rather claims all points of view should be heard.
The review of the film in Scientific American is a very different story. It scathingly attacks Stein and the filmmakers for what it deems careless and shoddy science.
No big surprise there: could we imagine Scientific American doing anything other than that?
I have not seen the film, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of the two reviews, but I do plan to see it.
What I find interesting about intelligent design is that it is NOT a mask for creationism. I'm sure some people use it that way, but most people I know who believe in some form of ID are not fundamentalist creationsists. ID, as I understand it, is an attempt to reconcile science with the idea that a creator of some sort — God, for lack of a better term — was involved with the design of the universe.
In short, ID rejects the total material randomness of today's evolutionists.
That does not mean that those of us who think there is something to ID don't believe evolutionary change does not occur. We do. And anyone who tries to simplify the issue into merely creationism vs. evolution is either doing so out of ignorance or political motivation.
As someone who has worked in higher ed, there are most definitely things one cannot say without fear of reprimand or termination.
Those items include questioning evolution, global warming, vaccinations and 9/11 truth.
Notice I said questioning, not refuting. If the academy is supposed to be a place where the free reign of ideas rules, then why are these professors and scientists getting fired?
The answer to that question alone is why I would see Expelled.
Those of you who normally read this blog know I am vigorously suspicious of orthodoxy. When views become rigid and institutionalized, when beliefs become unquestioned and impregnable, true intellectual thought ceases.
No idea, no theory, no historical "fact" should be beyond question. And yes, I mean even gravity.
Two different articles I have found display two different takes on the issue. The New York Sun's review is more kindly. It focuses mostly on Mr. Stein's role in the film and downplays the ID angle.
It ends with Mr. Stein claiming that Darwin himself was about dialogue, and that's what this film professes to want as well. He stops short of endorsing intelligent design, but rather claims all points of view should be heard.
The review of the film in Scientific American is a very different story. It scathingly attacks Stein and the filmmakers for what it deems careless and shoddy science.
No big surprise there: could we imagine Scientific American doing anything other than that?
I have not seen the film, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of the two reviews, but I do plan to see it.
What I find interesting about intelligent design is that it is NOT a mask for creationism. I'm sure some people use it that way, but most people I know who believe in some form of ID are not fundamentalist creationsists. ID, as I understand it, is an attempt to reconcile science with the idea that a creator of some sort — God, for lack of a better term — was involved with the design of the universe.
In short, ID rejects the total material randomness of today's evolutionists.
That does not mean that those of us who think there is something to ID don't believe evolutionary change does not occur. We do. And anyone who tries to simplify the issue into merely creationism vs. evolution is either doing so out of ignorance or political motivation.
As someone who has worked in higher ed, there are most definitely things one cannot say without fear of reprimand or termination.
Those items include questioning evolution, global warming, vaccinations and 9/11 truth.
Notice I said questioning, not refuting. If the academy is supposed to be a place where the free reign of ideas rules, then why are these professors and scientists getting fired?
The answer to that question alone is why I would see Expelled.
Those of you who normally read this blog know I am vigorously suspicious of orthodoxy. When views become rigid and institutionalized, when beliefs become unquestioned and impregnable, true intellectual thought ceases.
No idea, no theory, no historical "fact" should be beyond question. And yes, I mean even gravity.
Comments