Monday, April 07, 2008

Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'

From http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=27761&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0404


Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'

Posted on Apr 4, 2008 by Michael Foust
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Actor, commentator and comedian Ben Stein promises he hasn't lost his mind. Well, he says with his famous dry monotone humor, at least not in this instance.

On the contrary, Stein -– whose documentary film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" opens in two weeks, April 18 -- believes he's involved in one of the leading cultural and political battles of his life: the fight for academic freedom against an establishment that teaches Darwinian evolution as fact. Intelligent Design (ID) -– the belief that certain aspects of the world are so complex that they must have been created by an intelligent being, instead of by a random process –- deserves a place at the academic table, he says.

"I think I'm engaged in a struggle that's very much uphill in which the establishment is very much against me," he said in a recent telephone conference call with reporters. "But I'm a rebel to my core ... and happy to be in an uphill struggle, as long as the cause is right."

Obviously, conservatives and supporters of Intelligent Design don't believe Stein has lost his mind. Rather, they believe "Expelled" –- one of the year's most controversial films -– has a chance to change dramatically the landscape in the ongoing struggle between evolution and Intelligent Design (ID). In the film, Stein travels the globe, interviewing scientists, philosophers and doctors who believe in evolution and those who believe in Intelligent Design. In case after case, Stein recounts the story of ID supporters who lost their jobs or couldn't get tenure because of their supposed controversial beliefs.

The documentary, rated PG for thematic material and very brief language, ends in a climactic scene with Stein interviewing one of the world's leading backers of evolution, atheist and author Richard Dawkins.

Stein's humor is on display throughout the film, although supporters of evolution likely won't find it too funny. Christian conservative leaders are on board, supporting it. The film was shown at the recent National Religious Broadcasters meeting. It's also scheduled to be the topic of an upcoming Focus on the Family broadcast.

ID supporters, Stein and the film assert, are facing staunch opposition in the academic world, in the media and in the courts.

"The case we're making," associate producer Mark Mathis said, "is that there needs to be freedom in science, that we have highly qualified scientists who are being persecuted for unscientific reasons [and] are being driven [away] by a philosophy. That is the core content of the film -– the persecution of scientists needs to stop."

A secondary theme is that evolution, taken to the extreme, can have deadly consequences. In one part of the documentary that likely will stir controversy, Stein tours a Jewish concentration camp and interviews an expert who argues that evolution was a contributing factor to the Holocaust. For Stein, who is Jewish, the moment was personal.

Some critics will say the documentary unfairly links evolution to the Holocaust, but Stein believes the film showed restraint. One person in the film says evolution was a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the Holocaust.

"If I had my way about this movie -- which I didn't, because I was not one of the producers -- I would have had much more of it [be] about Nazi Germany," Stein said. "The unequivocal nature of the evidence that Darwinism had a big part to play in rationalizing the Holocaust for the Nazis is so painful and so horrible that I think we touched on extreme, extreme restraint."

The film, Stein says, is not saying evolutionists are Nazis.

"What we're saying is that the Nazis thought they were carrying out Darwinian ideas in the sense of eliminating inferior races and making mankind healthy and so forth," he said.

Although the Nazi element might get the media's spotlight, the majority of the documentary focuses on the ongoing fight for academic freedom by supporters of Intelligent Design.

Stein interviews, among others, Guillermo Gonzalez, a supporter of ID and an astronomy professor at Iowa State University who was denied tenure, as well as Caroline Crocker, a biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out because she questioned Darwinian evolution and introduced Intelligent Design in the classroom. Stein also speaks with Richard Sternberg, a biologist who was ridiculed and harassed by his peers at the Smithsonian Institution for allowing the publishing of a pro-Intelligent Design paper in an academic journal. Sternberg's plight received national attention in 2005-06 and even led to a congressional investigation that found top officials had desired to make Sternberg's "life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave."

Stein also interviews Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary philosophy professor William Dembski, one of the nation's leading supporters of Intelligent Design.

Getting involved in the project, Stein says, wasn't a difficult decision.

"I was always interested in Darwinism because I never thought it gave a particularly coherent explanation of how life originated and developed," he said. "... I also was extremely concerned about the social implications of Darwinism and the moral, ethical and human costs of Darwinism, because I knew Darwinism was one of the main props under the national socialist regime of Adolf Hitler and that the Holocaust was commenced in large part to satisfy social Darwinists' aims of eliminating so-called inferior races. That was my starting point."

As he got involved in the project with the documentary's producers, Stein said, he began seeing it as a free speech issue. Stein and the producers conducted the interviews over a period of two years.

In addition to Dawkins, the film includes interviews of several prominent backers of evolution, including biologist PZ Myers, a biologist and atheist at the University of Minnesota Morris, and Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.

Some of the pro-evolution scientists and philosophers in the film have claimed the interviews were conducted under false pretenses -– a claim Stein and the producers reject. Mathis said he contacted each person, telling him or her they were working on a film about the cultural intersection of evolution, religion and Intelligent Design.

"[We said,] 'You, Mr. or Mrs. Scientist, are an outspoken person on this topic. Would you like to do an interview with us on this film? And you'll be paid.' And they said, 'Sure, we'd love to,' because they do this sort of thing all the time," Mathis said.

In some instances, he said, questions were sent to people in advance. After the interview was done, the person signed a form giving the producers the rights to use the footage as they deemed necessary. Those who believe in evolution, Mathis said, are given ample time in the film to explain their position. The producers didn't tell anyone the name of the film, he added, because the film didn't yet have one.

"We think we were very above board with them," Mathis said. "... The people who want to attack the film are raising some issues that are really kind of irrelevant issues –- side issues, diversionary issues -– and not addressing the content of the film."

The content, Stein agreed, should be the focus. Asked how he could question Darwinian evolution when those in academic leadership say it's been established as fact, Stein gave one of his patented half-serious, half-joking answers.

"The intelligentsia often is wrong," he said in a serious tone. "I'd say they're wrong at least as often as they're right. We aim to show them that they're wrong again. We're sick of being pushed around by the intelligentsia."

Then he added jokingly, in his famous monotone voice, "Even though I am one of the intelligentsia, we don't like to be pushed around; we don't like to be pushed around by other members of the intelligentsia, and I don't even like pushing myself around."

Mathis said the "biggest part" of the debate over evolution isn't about science but rather about a worldview.

"If you acknowledge this idea that design can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this atheistic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."
--30--
For more information visit www.expelledthemovie.com. Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.

1 comment:

Jaakonpoika said...

The whole title was: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). (Mein) KAMPF was a direct translation from that 'Struggle'. There was, supposedly, not enough Lebenstraume. That's why in the industrial revolution in England 12 year old proletariat girls had to work over 100 hours a week. Malthus set the paradigm that is today very relevant even to Islamist terrorists. They believe that unconscious myth that there is not just enough space for us all.

Stein is under heavy attack for 'exaggerating' or 'going easy' on the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I.

It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous Haeckel with his still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc. in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871.

Catch 22: Haeckel's 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled for the 'public understanding of science' (PUS) in most biology text books until this millennium, although Haeckel's crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS - and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it.

Some edited quotes from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a 'bit'):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf

The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between "white" and "colored races" was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).

The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould's scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87). Typically, the operations hit blacks the most in the US, poor women in the Europe, and often the victims were never even told they had been sterilized.

Mendelism outweighed recapitulation (embryos climbing up their evolutionary tree through fish-, amphibian- and reptilian stages), but that merely smoothened the way for the brutal 1930’s biolegislation - that quickly penetrated practically all Western countries. The laws were copied from country to country. The A-B-O blood groups, haemophilia, eye colours etc. were found to be inherited in a Mendelian fashion by 1910. So also the complex traits and social (mis)behaviour such as alcoholism, schizophrenia, manic depression, criminality, rebelliousness, artistic sense, pauperism, racial differences, inherited scholarship (and its converse, feeble-mindedness) were all thought to be determined by one or two genes. Mendelism was "experimental" and quantitative, and its exaggeration outweighed the more cautious biometry operating on smaller variations, not discontinuous leaps. Its advocates boldly claimed that these problems could be done away within a few generations through selection, persisted (although most biologists must have known that defective genes could not be eliminated, even with the most intense forced sterilizations and marriage restrictions due to recessive genes and synergism. Nevertheless, these laws were held until 1970's and were typically changed only when the abortion legislation were released (1973).

So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938 ) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the 'Up' of the ancient city from Plinius' Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17). Today, Swedish state church is definitely the most liberal in the face of the world.

Hitler's formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the "Nordics", a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel's position on the 'Judenfrage' was assimilation and Expelled-command from their university chairs, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

In 1917 the immigration of "defective" groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the "nordic" balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Regarding us Finns, Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the "yellow" group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.

Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century. And she went Full Monty.

Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, 'legally'. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee, that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm