Monday, April 21, 2008

Expelled: The Film Only Nazis Won't Like





I've seen the ads for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the new documentary from Ben Stein about the suppression of ideas from "Big Science", and I am intrigued. I'm so inspired by the heated religious debate that I have to blog about it. Because, as you may have already guessed, I'm very pro-religion. Atheism I find a bit lonely.

Me personally, I'm not very good with science, so I can't say that I can justify, or not justify, any belief in the idea that man evolved from apes. But I can say, that no matter what science says about the origins of the human species, it will have no effect on my belief in God. I don't subscribe to any literal interpretation of any sacred text. I believe the Bible is divinely inspired but is not the actual Word of God. The author's used their reason to the best of their ability to communicate the message of God, but naturally fall short a bit because of their limited abilities. I think it is a living document, meaning interpretation is an active ongoing process. So when it comes to things like scientific explanations of the world, I do not fault any of the authors for less than accurate descriptions, nor do I feel that any new discoveries invalidate any of the stories. In short, my faith in God does not hinge on science, so science or scientific theories pose no threat.

That being said, I reject the idea that Ben Stein puts forward that intelligent design is being supressed and/or persecuted. Everyone wants to be persecuted so that they may legitimize themselves and solidify their positions. So minus 50 points for Ben Stein.

Of course intelligent design deserves a place in academia, but not necessarily in the science department. Anything that seeks to explain divine influences needs to be put into theological or philsophical studies. Even from a religious perspective, the idea that God can be studied scientifically is near blasphemy. His creations may be studied this way, but not his nature.

So should science be atheistic? No, of course not. Atheism is the rejection of God, and scientists should have the freedom to choose what will guide their research. However, I do think science should seek to be theistic neutral. It should neither reject nor accept the acceptance of God, but leave that up to other disciplines to figure out. Science cannot explain God and therefore should not seek to.

One of the more troubling things I find in an overview of the movie, is the idea that Darwinism (old school origin of species) is linked to Nazism and other various strands of evilness. If we banned everything that was used to justify evil deeds, we'd have nothing left, so bad Mr. Stein, very bad. Both science and religion have been warped and twisted in order justify violence and oppression, and I'm not tossing either of those out the window.

By the way, why are we so obsessed with comparing things to Hitler? Anything that's slightly bad, we say "You're a Nazi!". Come on...the Nazis were pretty bad. As Jon Stewart once said, "That guy worked too hard to be that evil for every Tom, Dick and Jane to be called Hitler."

4 comments:

mynym said...

That being said, I reject the idea that Ben Stein puts forward that intelligent design is being supressed and/or persecuted.

If you haven't seen the movie then it's not clear how you can reject what he puts forward.

Given that you believe in keeping theology and science separate (although it's not clear how such would work in practice) then what do you think of the theological arguments which Darwinists often make? E.g., the "panda's thumb" argument by which one of their main blogs is named: "God wouldn't make a panda's thumb like this, therefore natural selection probably did." It seems that they're already allowing for some forms of theology in science, as long as it is negative or atheistic.

redb said...

You make several excellent points that I agree with (being a strong Atheist) - belief in God is based on faith NOT science or reason and any attempt to use science or reason to justify belief in God is futile at best (and ultimately corrosive to genuine FAITH-BASED belief at worst).

I also agree with your point that intelligent design is a theory that belongs to the realm of theology. Quite correct.



So should science be atheistic? No, of course not. Atheism is the rejection of God[...]
It is not. Atheism is the absence of belief in God and all humans are Atheist by default.
[...]and scientists should have the freedom to choose what will guide their research.
I would argue that any "research" not based on reason is simply mysticism and far outside the realm of science or legitimate research.

However, I do think science should seek to be theistic neutral. It should neither reject nor accept the acceptance of God, but leave that up to other disciplines to figure out. Science cannot explain God and therefore should not seek to.
You're starting the the premise that God exists and arguing that science shouldn't try to disprove what, apparently, you've already accepted as fact. This is entirely unscientific! Scientific inquiry begins with as few assumptions as possible and builds knowledge hierarchically using observations made in the real world. At no point will any of these observations lend credence to theistic belief. Does this disprove religion? No, because if you're using the word "disprove" you are assuming GOD was already proven! No, Theists are UNABLE to prove GOD and Science continues on its merry way confirming that God touches no part of the natural world and leaves no trace of his supposed existence.

And as a personal note, as an Atheist (that DOES reject God), I find life quite fulfilling and not at all "lonely" as you say.

Jaakonpoika said...

Ben(jamin) Stein is under heavy artillery 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 German Ernst 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. If Thomas Henry Huxley with his concept of 'agnostism' was Darwins bulldog in England, Haeckel was his Rotweiler in Germany.

'Kampf' was a direct translation of 'struggle' from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Seinen Kampf. His application.

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

redb said...

Thanks for the wall of text, Pauli. TL;DR.

Instead of participating in discussions, this guy just spams this copypasta onto every blog on the interwebs that mentions this movie. Google search a phrase from the post and you'll get 50 hits of the same spam all over the tubes.