In several recent articles, we talked about the impact of the new documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. (See also: Can I Ask You a Question?) The movie was released about 2 weeks ago. The article I wrote last Saturday, Questions That Aren’t Properly Answered … received a number of interesting comments. It’s obviously too early to tell what the long term impact of the movie will be, and like many movies, it makes a big splash for about 2 weeks, and then disappears off the radar… only showing up in DVD rentals and video sales many months later.
When you look at the chart above (thanks to Google Trends), you can see where interest (”search volume”) in the Expelled movie (green line) and Ben Stein (red line) peaked around April 18th, 2008. It’s a 30 day view of the data. The bottom part of the chart above (labeled “News reference volume”) indicates a ripple effect in news articles with reference to “Intelligent Design” (blue line) slightly after the movie release.
The chart below takes a longer view of the data (showing 2004 - 2008), and indicates that most of the debate, public interest in Intelligent Design, and news articles about Intelligent Design took place in 2005. I was surprised by this — and had forgotten about the 2005 broohaahaa over ID.
The blue line indicates interest in Intelligent Design, both in search volume, and news articles. The red line shows a peak in queries about Ben Stein occurring at the time of his movie release. On the original Google Trend chart that I reviewed, item C (above) indicates a news item: “Schools Should Teach ‘Intelligent Design,’ Bush Says”. Item D was a news item: “Intelligent Design Debate to Take Center Stage”. Item E was most interesting - a news item: “Pennsylvania voters oust school board that backed intelligent design”. So there was a whole PA school board that was expelled. Finally, the big blue spike flagged as item F was tagged with news item “Judge rules in intelligent design lawsuit”.
For hundreds of years scientists have been asking the question: “Is there any credible scientific evidence supporting a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of life?”
In my research and observations for the past 30 years here is what I’ve observed:
April 29, 2008
at 7:08 am
· Filed under Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of how one knows what they know. Do you know how you know stuff? What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? What do people really know, and how do they know it?
NOTE: I recently reorganized this blog with a new taxonomy. Epistemology is one of the new major categories. (The whole idea was to group all of my articles into major topics, and then tag the articles with meta tags - for the sub topics, etc.) Some people might have been thinking… “Hey Dude, what’s up with the big words?” Someone might have been thinking… “I don’t even know what epistemology means, so I won’t click on that word.” In the midst of this, I also spelled epistemology wrong (previously spelled epistimology), so now I’m correcting my mistake, and cleaning up the tags.
Epistemology - The study of theories about knowledge; a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.
It’s been a week since Expelled was released into the theaters. That’s enough time for dozens of movie reviews; blogs about it; and blogs about other bloggers views, even from people who didn’t see the movie. So it’s safe to say that the movie has been successful — in getting people to talk — and ask questions.
Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can’t. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can’t bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET.
… as noted by D’Souza, Expelled exposes Richard Dawkins’s belief that life on earth was seeded by extraterrestrials. That is genuinely as good a demonstration as one can imagine that it’s not reasonable to think that life arose by chance…
We assert further that evolutionary biology and ID are really only different in very narrow areas that have to do with these very questions: is it reasonable to think that life arose by chance, and is it reasonable to think that an intelligence designed the universe?
Monado from Toronto asserts in her Science Notes that: “An invincible ignorance of science seems to be the real pre-requisite for Intelligent Design believers” — and appears comfortably ignorant of her own presuppositions.
Images of Hitler and the Berlin wall frighten people. Movies are supposed to have images — moving images. That’s what movies do. Movies sell ideas with imagery to make a point. Vodka advertisements use imagery to sell products, and the pundits just don’t like a movie that mixes imagery with science, religion, ethics, epistemology, and philosophy.
“Darwinism indeed was the philosophy that Nazi scientists held. Darwinism’s theory of natural selection was the foundation of policies and propaganda that helped build the menace of the Nazi regime. And Darwinism is today building the menace of academic totalitarianism and the abortion machine. And yes, this is the problem: Scientists have squelched philosophy as a pseudoscience, and in doing so have themselves become the philosophers.”
Stein prods the Darwinists enough that some of them — including Richard Dawkins — make some unexpected statements about the possibility of intelligence in biological design and the philosophical implications of Darwinian theory.
The new movie - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - from Premise Media, starring Ben Stein, asks an interesting question about scientific inquiry (asking questions) in the modern era. Can scientists ask questions without fear of being censored, ridiculed, ostracized, told to shut-up, or expelled? Is there still freedom of speech and academic freedom? Why are some scientific inquiries being censored on college campuses today?
From what I understand, the film asks some hard questions about university life in the Neo-Darwinian era.
It’s interesting that the film was released in theaters yesterday (April 18, 2008) — since 126 years ago (April 19, 1882) Charles Darwin died.
Darwin had studied medicine at Edinburgh University in 1825. According to an Encyclopedia Brittanica article about Charles Darwin “Edinburgh attracted English Dissenters who were barred from graduating at the Anglican universities of Oxford and Cambridge” and “Darwin heard freethinkers deny the Divine design”. However, some speech “was officially censored” and “was considered subversive”. The EB article goes on to state that “Darwin was witnessing the social penalties of holding deviant views.”
Today, we are witnessing a kind of “reverse reactionary apartheid” and prejudice against anyone who appears to be “Anti-Darwinian”. This whole thing seems a lot more like a high-school food fight, then a mature scientific discussion. Why is inquiry being stifled? Maybe these scientists (the ones being expelled from colleges and universities) are not really “Anti-Darwinian”. Maybe they want to be like Darwin, and have the academic freedom to ask intelligent questions. Is that OK with you?
I went into the screening bored. I came out of it stunned.
Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.
Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics — experts all — who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves “expelled” from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University).
… this documentary purporting to examine the issue of freedom of expression in the debate between the competing arguments of “intelligent design” and Darwinism squanders the potential fascination of its topic with its simplistic, heavy-handed approach.
Frank, I think you missed the point! How would you make a documentary that American young people will actually watch? If it wasn’t hard hitting would people even watch it? The American school system has been doing such a good job of dumbing people down, that we sometimes have to shock people to get them thinking again. The movie was supposed to be a defibrillator for the brain.
Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.
In fairness to Stein, his opponents have hardly covered themselves in glory. Evolutionary biologists and social commentators have lately taken to answering the claims of intelligent-design boosters not with clear-eyed scientific empiricism but with sneering, finger-in-the-eye atheism. Biologist P.Z. Myers, for example, tells Stein that religion ought to be seen as little more than a soothing pastime, a bit like knitting.
Shawn Barr said the movie did not live up to the criticisms thrown at it by the media:
The main focus of the movie is the question of academic freedom. By interviewing scholars who have been discriminated against because of their ID or faith views, Stein shows a form of bigotry in academia. Critics say these people had other issues affecting their job performance and scholarship. Of course that is the approach each institution representative took. How could they say anything else?
Iowa State University though actually admitted that eliminating a professor for his ID views was a part of their intent. Being an alumnus, I’m duly glad they were honest, and disappointed with their treatment of Gonzalez: a physics professor. One reason they may have been so honest is the existence of emails documenting the concern over his ID views. Whether or not there were other issues with his tenure, ID was certainly one of them.
Shawn Barr does make a good point about academic bigotry at Iowa State University in the case of Guillermo Gonzalez, and something worth investigating a little deeper. (It seems like they were singing a different song. It would be interesting to know the chronology of events.) According to a World Net Daily news article about Guillermo Gonzalez, published back on Feb. 7, 2008 (Regents reject tenure request without evidence, testimony) :
The school has continued to deny the handling of Gonzalez’ case was related to his support of ID, even though the Des Moines Register documented e-mails that confirmed Gonzalez’ colleagues wanted him flushed out of the system for that reason.
Was Gonzalez somehow derelict in publishing 350 percent more peer-reviewed publications than his own department’s stated standard for research excellence? Or in co-authoring a college astronomy textbook with Cambridge University Press? Or in having his research recognized by Science, Nature, Scientific American and other top science publications?
One of Gonzalez’ research papers had 153 citations listed; another had 139. This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure.
The movie seeks to ‘expose’ the bias in modern science against the concept of ‘Intelligent Design’. While the movie successfully accomplishes not only this, but also films Richard Dawkins making a case for Intelligent Design…
