Letter: Intelligent design documentary fails to find science in concept
Film seeks to refute evolutionary theory.
KANSAN
Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008
The documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” represents the latest effort by intelligent design (ID) advocates to refute evolutionary theory.
Hosted by Ben Stein, the film claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that ID is evident in nature.
But instead of being an investigative inquiry that highlights the arguments, this film presents a ridiculous caricature of the scientific community bent on quashing free speech for the sake of protecting a failing ideology.
The audience is bombarded with images of the Berlin Wall, Holocaust mass graves and the downtrodden citizenry of totalitarian regimes. The result of the edited slices is a politicized rant that fails to note the vital distinction between Herbert Spencer’s long-discredited social darwinism and modern evolutionary theory as applied to the natural sciences and not human morality.
Stein, in his signature deadpan style, attempts to portray a group of disgruntled researchers as the victims of a Darwinian conspiracy for their roles in promoting ID instead of dealing with the real issue responsible for their professional failures — shoddy science. Curiously, “Expelled” does not even provide an adequate description of modern evolutionary theory, the very paradigm that is being contested in this film.
Perhaps the most important question that is never addressed in “Expelled” is whether or not ID is actually science. Stein argues that ID is being kept out of science curriculum in an attempt to stifle independent thought.
However, the ID program appeals to an unknown cosmic designer or supernatural power to explain biological variation, neither of which can be directly observed nor tested in an empirical fashion. Thus, ID is not science.
As much as Stein would like to tear down that ideological Berlin Wall he sees existing in academia, the wall needs to remain in order to keep ID and religious philosophies out of our science classrooms and laboratories.
—Mark Zlojutro, graduate student in the Laboratory of Biological Anthropology
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
Frankly, really nice to hear someone from Kansas not praising Stein and his movie for a change.
As an evolutionary biologist, I know well the evidence for evolution and the lack of any testable hypotheses in Intelligent Design (which would make it science), and yet I would not have a problem teaching it in a science class. It would take 10-12 minutes altogether, would debunk it completely, and would even be a good way to explain what is required of a theory to be a scientific theory.
I'm not a scientist. While I've read more on physics, astronomy, paleontology, and biology than most people, I'm no true expert. As a result, I'm forced to stand on the shoulders of those who have done the research for me. But if you really feel, BjornOstman, that macro-evolution is a testable theory, then take that up with Dr. Craig Martin, head of evolutionary biology at KU. By nature of the theory of macro-evolution, one cannot observe it. Quite a bummer for a scientist huh? Now, Dr. Martin certainly feels that there's enough evidence for it, but you cannot prove macro-evolution in the way you can photosynthesis. Maybe you believe he's a quack for believing you can't prove macro-evolution. You would certainly be more qualified than I.
Stein (who's not a creationist by the way) is pointing out how many scientists are not being listened to for going against the status quo.
Also, Mr. Zlojutro fails to realize that modern evolutionary theory does have a huge impact on the understanding of human morality. But I can excuse him, since his philosophy class may have glossed over that.
Unfortunately, a lot of creationists feel that the theory of evolution is a direct attack on their beliefs and specifically the belief system put forth in the book of Genesis. When analyzing the words of the bible, we cannot think that descriptions given are entirely literal. The old testament was written in a time much more primitive than our own, and God would have known this when disseminating knowledge of the world to the human race at the time. God would have known that ideas of evolution, microprocessors, and DNA would have eluded even the most inquisitive, open-minded people of the time. The world has been laid out before us to study and draw inferences from, so trying to debunk evolution actually goes against our purpose on this planet. Intelligent Design is admittedly a clever way to disguise what is really a reactionary belief held by those who are unwilling to admit that current belief systems may not be adequate. Anyway, what's more intelligent, the creation of humans in seven literal days or a beautifully orchestrated evolution spanning billions of years?
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.