The stated idea behind IntelligentFaith is twofold. First, we want to use our minds to study and explore the world around us, and second, we want to present our thoughts and perspectives in a way that is humble and respectful towards others. Based on the way evolutionary biologists are described in the trailer below, it appeared that Ben Stein and others from the film Expelled (which will be released nationwide on April 18) were walking with us. Then came the news a little over a week ago that a couple of these evolutionary biologists were, as some have described it, "Expelled from Expelled".
At first, like the Times article implies, I assumed that there were just two versions of the tale and, depending on how you looked at it, either side could claim the higher ground. Now, if this were simply an "argue as the world works" situation (which I'd say is quite possible with debates on evolution and intelligent design), then I'd expect both sides to be cut throat and really attack one another with well grounded arguments (the evolutionary biologists, who also happen to be militant atheists, have done just this).
However, at the same time, given that Ben Stein is a self-proclaimed Christian (my wife has personally heard him speak about his faith in Jesus), you would hope that he'd take Jesus' words about loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you in the end of Matthew 5 to heart when dealing with issues like these. So, what was the response from Expelled (which isn't the same as Ben Stein, but it does bear his image and name)? This. Needless to say, it's neither loving or cut throat, it's just childish finger pointing and playground mockery.
When you combine this with claims by evolutionary biologists that they were tricked into the interviews (they were told it was a film about faith and science, not a defense of those supporting intelligent design), you have to wonder if a film that could have beautifully brought important issues to the table and encouraged honest dialogue has already become a wedge that will simply increase the cultural divide.
Jesus came to cross a divide between God and humanity. Crossing that divide meant that he was attacked, slandered and killed. Yet, it was the very way that he handled himself that would define his witness. The same can be said of Early Christians, who had such an incredible hope in Christ, that those outside the faith came to them wanting to know what made them tick (1 Peter 3:15). It seems these lessons from history past need to be revisited as we seek to share our intelligent faith today.
Ben Stein
Pastor Joe,
Thanks for this post. I'm looking forward to seeing the film, but hadn't heard about this latest controversy. I agree with your comment that dialogue has sunk to "childish finger pointing and playground mockery". I've found myself lately turning to 2 Timothy 2.24-25 ("patiently enduring evil, correcting (your) opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth..." The truth, of course, being the Lord Jesus) and the first half of 2 Tim. 3. We all need and want to be corrected with gentleness when we're wrong. These are challenging times.
There's a great interview with Ben Stein, talking about the movie, science in general and intelligent design, at: http://blip.tv/file/735754/ (it's about 28 minutes long, but really good)
Peace to you,
Jake
Video
Thanks for the link, that's a great video. I appreciated them focusing on the issue of assumptions. Sort of reminded me of this article: http://www.fshbwl.com/fishfood/intelligentfaith/open-assumptions
For The Good
It's really quite a shame that this project was carried out the way it was. I was really wondering how they got so many scientists to admit the things they did if they knew what the project was about. This is a big issue that we do need to talk about. But, bringing it to light via false pretenses is no better than keeping it quiet with false pretenses.
All that being said, I really hope the content of this movie can be used for good despite all that's gone bad. When stuff goes bad it can be easy to quickly dismiss something. I really hope that doesn't happen here and that this topic can really get out into our discussions.
Redemption
I join you in the prayer that, somehow, despite all of this, the project would be redeemed and bring about positive discussion.
"Admissions"
Sadly, based on my past experience in this field, the answer to how they got "so many scientists to admit the things they did", is 1) use the same handful of tame scientists from the Discovery Institute that are trotted out in all these ID propaganda vehicles; 2) pad it out with some non-scientists with Ph.D's in humanities subjects or some scientists working in totally unrelated areas; 3) use selective quotations from genuine experts in the field to make it appear that they are saying something which is the opposite of what they actually believe and say.
Let's Reserve Our Assessment
Let's reserve our assessment until we see the movie. This is an area I've read about in a bit of detail so I know there is some real and good information out there. Let's see what kind of case they make.
Reserving judgement
This is the area in which I did my Ph.D research, so I too have read about it in detail - hence my comment about past experience with 'Creation Scientists', 'Intelligent Design' and the like.
I'm happy to reserve judgement till I see the film but to be honest I see the signs of what the movie is going to be even in the trailer linked in the OP.
For example, my comment about trotting out the same old Discovery Institute scientists - well in the 7 minute trailer we see Stephen C. Meyer, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, and I think I also saw William Dembski - all Fellows of the Discovery Institute or its subsidiary Centre for Science and Culture.
Or thinking about selective quotations - did you see in the trailer Richard Dawkins saying, "As a scientist I'm pretty hostile to a rival doctrine." Gosh - that doesn't sound very open-minded or scientific does it? But if you look again at it, it seems pretty clear that he's been cut off in mid-sentence. What's the bet he said something like, "As a scientist I'm pretty hostile to a rival doctrine which undercuts the very methodological basis of science." or "As a scientist I'm pretty hostile to a rival doctrine which leads to generations of school children being ill-prepared for life." or whatever.
And don't even get me started on the inaccurate representations of evolutionary theory ('pure dumb chance', 'random particle collisions') or the entirely outrageous visual linking of images of the holocaust with commentary about evolutionary theory being 'dangerous'.
Sure, let's reserve judgement, but the film's off to a pretty bad start by any decent measure...
Your Thoughts
Obviously I'd agree with you that any Michael Moore style editing is simply unacceptable with a project like this, after all, it's deceptive and therefore a lie. I'm also going to obviously be opposed to over simplifying another person's argument as it does no good to beat up straw men.
However, there is one of your comments that I'm curious about, namely the list of scientists that are used to support creationism / ID. I'm curious about your fundamental objection to these guys, specifically those who have degrees in microbiology or other important and relevant fields.
I'm asking because, over time, much of what I've heard from evolutionists would imply that their fundamental objection centers on the need to approach things from a perspective that is bound to naturalism, as opposed to creating space for the metaphysical.
The typical response I've heard to this question is that you can't measure the metaphysical so it has no place in science which demands quantitative measurements. However, if the metaphysical is there, and involved, and active, but you're forced by naturalism to find a non-metaphysical explanation, then you're going to come up with wrong conclusions because you have the wrong base assumptions (Ptolmy's model of the solar system would be an example of a wrong conclusion because of a wrong assumption).
So am I missing the reason for opposition to those in that group who are actually scientists, or is there something else that I've misunderstood?
Scientists and naturalism
Thanks for your comments pastor joe.
Firstly, as to the use of the Discovery Institute people - of course it's not that I have any objection to anyone having, or sharing, a point of view - certainly scientists, but non-scientists too for that matter. My objection is to the way that it is portrayed as a 'controversy' within the scientific community or that there are many, many scientists uneasy with evolutionary theory and unhappily staying quiet for fear of their jobs. In reality there are only a tiny handful of scientists with any credentials in the field who question the general outlines of evolutionary theory, and it is often that exact same group of people who are brought out on each occasion the issue is raised, sometimes without making mention of the fact that they are all people who work for one organization rather than scientists springing up here and there with doubts.
Secondly, rather than argue about the term 'naturalism' which I think has a bunch of baggage, I'd say that one of the foundational principles of science is falsifiability. In other words, if I propose an explanation to some phenomenon, my explanation has to be capable of being shown to be false by some further experimentation or observation. Otherwise you just can't 'do' science with that explanation. Now some people think that non-natural explanations are in principle unfalsifiable, but it's not necessary to go there - it's enough to say that any explanation which is trying to be scientific must propose testable outcomes. So if ID theorists really want to be taken seriously, they need to propose explanations which are testable and advance scientific knowledge. In fact what mostly happens (and I believe this is the case with the film we're discussing) is that no alternative, testable hypotheses are advanced, instead the entire project is concerned with saying (in one way or another) "But Evolution couldn't possibly have done THIS!" (Whatever is the 'this' of the moment - bacterial flagellum being the latest candidate.)
Now of course it is NOT necessary to say that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge there is or that it is invalid to believe things which cannot be scientifically tested. As a Christian I have a number of faith commitments which are not scientifically testable and I'm fine with that. But if you CLAIM to be doing science (as ID people do) you have to play by the rules.
So those are my thoughts. ;-)
Cheers
Linz
A move of venue
May I suggest we move over to the intelligent faith forum for this conversation. I started a thread exploring the definition of naturalism. I think this is a place where many conversation have gone bad before they ever begin.