I've been accused of refusing to review Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled," a defense of Creationism, because of my belief in the theory of evolution. Here is my response.
Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away two of the wrong answers. Now you are faced with two choices: (A) Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or (B) Intelligent Design.
Because this is a special edition of the program, you can use a Hotline to telephone every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer (A). A million bucks hangs in the balance. The clock is ticking. You could use the money. Which do you choose? You, a firm believer in the Constitution, are not intimidated and exercise your freedom of speech. You choose (B).
Squaaawk!!! The klaxon horn sounds. You have lost. Outraged, you file suit against the program, charging it is biased and has denied a hearing for your belief. Your suit argues that the "correct" answer was chosen because of a prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, despite the fact that .025 of one percent of all scientists support it. You call for (B) to be discussed in schools as an alternative theory to (A).
Your rights have been violated. You're at wit's end. You think perhaps the field of Indie Documentaries offers you hope. You accept a position at the Institute of Undocumented Documentaries in Dallas, Texas. This Institute teaches that the rules of the "$64,000 Question" are the only valid game show rules. All later game shows must follow them literally. The "$64,000 Question" came into existence in 1955. False evidence for earlier game shows has been refuted by scientists at the Institute.
You look for a documentary subject. You know you cannot hope to find backing from the Main Stream Media, because they all fear reprisals from the powerful Game Show Establishment. You seek a cause that parallels your own dilemma, and also illustrates an offense against the Freedom of Speech. Your attention falls on the persecution of Intelligent Design advocates like you, who have been banished from Main Stream Academia.
This looks like your ideal subject. But where can you find financing for such a documentary? You discover a small, promising production company named Premise Media. You like the sound of that word premise. It sounds like a plausible alternative to the word theory. To confirm this, you look both up in your dictionary:
premise noun. A previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion: if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true. e.g., if God exists, then he created everything.
theory noun. A system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. e.g., Darwin's theory of evolution.
Your point exactly! You do a web search for Premise Media. Its co-founder, Walt Ruloff, has observed, "the scientific and academic communities were deeply resistant to innovation, in this case innovation that might revise Darwin's theory that random mutation and natural selection drive all variation in life forms." You could not agree more. Darwin's theory has been around for 150 years, and is stubbornly entrenched. This is a time for innovation, for drawing on fresh theories that life and the universe were intelligently created in recent times, perhaps within the last 10,000 years. How to account for dinosaur fossils? Obviously, dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as human beings.
Dinosaurs walk the earth at the same time as Alley Oop.
Ben Stein, you are growing more excited. You continue your research into Premise Media. Its CEO, A. Logan Craft, once observed that questions about the origin of Earth and its life forms "are answered very differently by secularists and people who hold religious beliefs." Can you believe your eyes? Craft has depended upon one of your own favorite logical practices, the principle of the excluded middle! This is too good to be true.
By his premise no secularists believe in Intelligent Design, and no people with religious beliefs subscribe to Darwin's theory. If there are people with religious beliefs who agree with Darwin (Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, for example) they are mistaken because they do not subscribe to A. Logan Craft's religious beliefs.
He is certainly right about secularists. You think it's a shame he's right, because then the 1968 Supreme Court decision was correct, and Tennessee's anti-evolution law was "an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account, taken literally." Therefore, according to the Court, ID was a religious belief and did not belong in a science classroom but in a theology classroom. This clearly would be wrong, because the new approach to teaching ID in schools omits any reference whatsoever to religion. It depends entirely on the findings of scientists who are well-respected within A. Logan Craft's religious tradition. These scientists of course are perfectly free to be secularists, although almost every single one seems to be a fundamentalist Christian. This is America.
You meet with the people at Premise Media. It is a meeting of the minds. At a pitch meeting, they are receptive to your ideas, although with the proviso that you should change the proposed title of your film, "From Darwin to Hitler," because that might limit the market to those who had heard of neither, or only one.
You and Premise Media agreed that the case for ID had not always been argued very well in the past. For example, a photograph of a human footprint overlapping a dinosaur track (proof that Man walked the Earth side by side with dinosaurs) has been questioned by secularists, who say the footprint looks more like the print of a running shoe. If you studied it carefully, it could be argued that they had a point, although skewed by their secularist bias.
What was needed was better use of photographic evidence. For example, in your film, "eXpelled: no intelligence allowed," you document the story of Guillermo Gonzales, who was denied tenure at Iowa State because of his personal premises, after 400 professors signed a petition opposing "all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor." Gonzales was forced to accept employment at Grove City College, an evangelical Christian school in Grove City, Pennsylvania.
In documenting the secularist hysteria and outrage against Gonzales, you use more convincing photographic evidence than the footprint. For example, you use footage showing a newsstand selling copies of the New York Post with this front page headline:
CRISIS:
1. Creationist on the loose
2. Support the Petition
3.Stop Gonzales
The typographical design of the New York Post logo, the cars and store signs in the background, and the clothing of the people in the street establish without question that this footage was filmed in the late 1940s. Gonzales was born in 1963. So your film would prove beyond doubt that his enemies walked the Earth with his parents.
Charles Darwin, caught in the act of evolving from a monkey
Gonzales, trained as an astronomer, cited as proof of Intelligent Design that "Earth is in a prime location for observing the universe." Thus he refutes the theory of elitist secularist academia that the universe "does not have an edge nor center, just as the Earth's surface does not have an edge or center." Since all you have to do is look up at the sky to realize that the whole universe is right up there to be seen, the secularists fly in the face of common sense. Yet for stating such an obvious premise, Gonzales was opposed for tenure at Iowa State. That hit home, Ben Stein. He was a victim like you.
You release your film "eXpelled."As you fully expect from all your experience, it is rejected almost unanimously by the MSM. It receives an 8% rating on the TomatoMeter, earning it a place on the list of the worst-reviewed films of all time. In a review not catalogued by Tomatoes, ChristianAnwers.net writes that your film "has made Ben Stein the new hero of believers in God everywhere, and has landed a smart right cross to the protruding jaw of evolution's elite."
Again, the useful excluded middle. Those for whom Ben Stein is not a hero are not believers in God. It also follows that the phrase "believers in God everywhere" does not extend to believers in God who agree with Darwin. So ChristanAnswers has excluded two middles at one fell stroke.
Let's hope that word doesn't get back to the bosses of the critic named "Yo" at hollywoodjesus.com. Yo takes a chance by saying:
This creator could have been anything of intelligence, including aliens. Intelligent Design is a scientific movement, not a religious one, a fact stated more than once in interviews in this film. Unfortunately, those statements are constantly ignored as 'Expelled' continually brings up the question of God's existence and thereby equates the movement with a belief in God.
And right there, Ben Stein, we can clearly see Yo's error. He has included the middle.
Here is Stein's most urgent question: "How does something that is not life turn into something that is?"
Stein poses this stumper to a jolly British professor who seems direct from Monty Python. He thinks there's a "very good chance" that life might have started with molecules on crystals, which have a tendency to mutate. Cut to a shot of a turbaned crystal-ball gazer. Stein dubs them "joy riding crystals." He wonders what the odds would be of life starting that way.
"You would have to have a minimum of 250 proteins to provide minimal life functions," an ID defender explains. We see an animated cartoon of the Darwinian scientist Richard Dawkins pulling at a slot machine and lining up--three in a row! Not so fast there, "Lucky" Dawkins! The camera pulls back to show one-armed bandits stretching into infinity. To win, he'd have to hit the jackpot about a gazillion times in a row. An Intelligent Design advocate estimates a streak like that would take a trillion, trillion, trillion tries. (That number is a fair piece larger than 3 trillion.)
Quite a joy ride. ID's argument against the crystal theory seems like a new version of its classic argument, "How could an eye evolve without knowing there was anything to see?" Very easily, apparently, because various forms of eyes have evolved 26 different times that scientists know about, and they can explain how it happened. So can I. So can you if you understand Darwinian principles.
Anyway, the slot machine conundrum is based on an ignorance of both math and gambling. From math we know that the odds of winning a coin toss are exactly the same every time. The coin doesn't remember the last try. Hey, sometimes you get lucky. That's why casinos stay in business.
The odds of winning on a single number at roulette are 37 to 1. The odds of winning a second time in a row are also 37 to 1, because the table doesn't know who you are. Every single winning roll beats the odds of 37-to-1. And on and on. The more times in a row you win, the more times you face 37-1 against you. If Russian Roulette were played with a gun containing 37 bullets and one empty chamber, it would quickly lose most of its allure--by a process explained, oddly enough, by Darwin.
Still, in July 1891 at Monte Carlo, the same man broke the 100,000 franc bank at a roulette table three times. Wikipedia reports, "A man named Charles Wells won 23 times out of 30 successive spins of the wheel...Despite hiring private detectives the Casino never discovered Wells's system. Wells later admitted it was just a lucky streak. His system was the high-risk martingale, doubling the stake to make up losses."
The odds against Wells doing that are pretty high. But as every gambler knows, sometimes you do actually hit a number. You don't have to do it a trillion trillion trillion times to be a winner. You only have to do it once. This is explained by Darwin. If you are playing at a table with other gamblers and you win $100 and none of them do, you are just that much better able to outlast them as competitors. When the casino closes, one person at that table must have won more than any of the others. That's why casinos never close. Of course if you gamble long enough, you will eventually lose back more than the others. Your poor spouse tells you this. You know it is true.
But tonight you feel lucky. If you leave the table still holding your pot, you could become as rich as Warren Buffett. Somebody has to. Look at Warren Buffett. Evolution involves holding onto your winnings and investing them wisely. You don't even have to know to how to hold onto your winnings. Evolution does it for you; it is the bank in which useful genetic mutations deposit themselves. There is a very slow rate of return, but it's compounded. At the end of one eon, you get your bank statement and find your pittance has grown into an orang utan. At the end of the next eon, it has grown into Charles Darwin. Scientists, at least 99.875 percent of them, believe that in the long run only useful mutations deposit in this bank. Those mutations with no use, or a negative effect, squander their savings in a long-running bunko game, and die forgotten in the gutter. [1]
The assumption of "Expelled" is that no one could possibly explain how Prof. Monty Python's molecules and their joy-riding crystals could possibly produce life. As luck would have it, at about the same time as the film was being made, teams of scientists at the universities of Oregon and North Carolina explained it. They "determined for the first time the atomic structure of an ancient protein, revealing in unprecedented detail how genes evolved their functions."
"This is the ultimate level of detail," said the evolutionary biologist Joe Thornton. "We were able to see exactly how evolution tinkered with the ancient structure to produce a new function that is crucial to our own bodies today. Nobody's ever done that before." Unfortunately, this momentous discovery was announced almost too late to be mentioned in Ben Stein's film. It wasn't totally too late, but it would have been a great inconvenience for the editor.
What tools did the scientists use? Supercomputer programs and, I quote, "ultra-high energy X-rays from a stadium-sized Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago to chart the precise position of each of the 2,000 atoms in the ancient proteins." What did you expect? They put a molecule under a microscope and picked off bits with their tweezers?
Richard Dawkins: Rafting the River out of Eden
Intelligent Design "scientists" in "Expelled" are offended by being called ignorant. When Stein points out that "Catholics and mainstream Protestant groups" have no problem with the theory of Evolution, he is informed by an ID advocate, "liberal Christians side with anybody against Creationists." Now we have the smoking gun. It is the word liberal. What is the word liberal doing here? The Theory of Evolution is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply provable or not.
Besides, I would not describe the Vatican as liberal. Look how cautiously it approached Galileo. He only claimed the earth revolved around the sun. No big deal like the earth being ideally placed in the universe. There are millions of conservative scientists, and only a tiny handful disagree with evolution, because rejecting scientific proof is not permissive conservative behavior. In that one use of the word "liberal" the Creationist religious agenda is peeking through. I would translate it as "evolutionists side with anybody against a cherished Evangelical belief." Why are they always trying to push evolutionists over the edge, when they're the ones clinging by their fingernails?
Scientists deserving of the name would share the delight of 99.975 percent of his or her colleagues after learning of the Oregon-North Carolina findings. Then, if they found a plausible reason to doubt them, they would go right to work hoping to win fame by disproving them. A theory, like a molecule, a sea slug and a polar bear, has to fight it out in the survival of the fittest.
"Expelled" is not a bad film from the technical point of view. It is well photographed and edited, sometimes amusing, has well-chosen talking heads, gives an airing to evolutionists however truncated and interrupted with belittling images, and incorporates entertainingly unfair historical footage, as when it compares academia's rejection of Creationism to the erection of the Berlin Wall.
Hilariously, the film argues that evolutionists cannot tolerate dissent. If you were to stand up at a "Catholic and mainstream Protestant" debate and express your support of Creationism, you would in most cases be politely listened to. There are few places as liberal as Boulder, Colo., where I twice debated a Creationist at the Conference on World Affairs, and yet his views were heard politely there. If you were to stand up at an evangelical meeting to defend evolution, I doubt if you would be made to feel as welcome, or that your dissent would be quite as cheerfully tolerated.
Ben Stein and the author of "On the Origin of Species"
In the film, Ben Stein asks predictable questions, and exploits an unending capacity for counterfeit astonishment. Example:
Scientist: "But Darwin did not title his book On the Origin of Life. He titled it, On the Origin of Species."
Ben Stein (nods, grateful to learn this): "I see!"
The more you know about evolution, or simple logic, the more you are likely to be appalled by the film. No one with an ability for critical thinking could watch more than three minutes without becoming aware of its tactics. It isn't even subtle. Take its treatment of Dawkins, who throughout his interviews with Stein is honest, plain-spoken, and courteous. As Stein goes to interview him for the last time, we see a makeup artist carefully patting on rouge and dusting Dawkins' face. After he is prepared and composed, after the shine has been taken off his nose, here comes plain, down-to-earth, workaday Ben Stein. So we get the vain Dawkins with his effete makeup, talking to the ordinary Joe.
I have done television interviews for more than 40 years. I have been on both ends of the questions. I have news for you. Everyone is made up before going on television. If they are not, they will look like death warmed over. There is not a person reading this right now who should go on camera without some kind of makeup. Even the obligatory "shocked neighbors" standing in their front yards after a murder usually have some powder brushed on by the camera person. Was Ben Stein wearing makeup? Of course he was. Did he whisper to his camera crew to roll while Dawkins was being made up? Of course he did. Otherwise, no camera operator on earth would have taped that. That incident dramatizes his approach throughout the film. If you want to study Gotcha! moments, start here.
That is simply one revealing fragment. This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.
And there is worse, much worse. Toward the end of the film, we find that Stein actually did want to title it "From Darwin to Hitler." He finds a Creationist who informs him, "Darwinism inspired and advanced Nazism." He refers to advocates of eugenics as liberal. I would not call Hitler liberal. Arbitrary forced sterilization in our country has been promoted mostly by racists, who curiously found many times more blacks than whites suitable for such treatment.
Ben Stein is only getting warmed up. He takes a field trip to visit one "result" of Darwinism: Nazi concentration camps. "As a Jew," he says, "I wanted to see for myself." We see footage of gaunt, skeletal prisoners. Pathetic children. A mound of naked Jewish corpses. "It's difficult to describe how it felt to walk through such a haunting place," he says. Oh, go ahead, Ben Stein. Describe. It filled you with hatred for Charles Darwin and his followers, who represent the overwhelming majority of educated people in every nation on earth. It is not difficult for me to describe how you made me feel by exploiting the deaths of millions of Jews in support of your argument for a peripheral Christian belief. It fills me with contempt.
¶
[Footnote 1] My statement is correct as far as it goes, but a reader, Steve Vanden-Eykel, supplies a much clearer explanation of the principle. He writes me:
Imagine flipping a coin over and over. For each toss, the odds are fifty-fifty that it will come up heads (a one-in-two chance). The odds of getting two heads in a row is a one-in-two-to-the-power-of-two chance, or one-in-four. Five heads in a row is 1:2^5, or one-in-thirty-two. A hundred heads? 1:2^100, or roughly one in 1.3 trillion trillion trillion (thank Gates for the little calculator program on my computer). A creationist would claim that all the lucky chances that evolution requires is like getting not one, not five, but millions upon millions of heads in a row."But the creationists are forgetting something. Evolution ISN'T random, as they often claim. It's selected. You can't really blame creationists for missing this fact...Darwin cleverly concealed it from view by calling his theory 'natural selection.' Let's return to our coin-tossing example, this time including the principle of selection. What if, after every toss, we had the option of not counting it? What if we were allowed to simply discard every toss that came up tails? Now, given the ability to select, how long would it take to rack up a hundred heads in a row? About two hundred throws.
"Once you understand the concept of selection, and how it applies to evolution, you realize that what was thought to be vanishingly unlikely actually becomes virtually inevitable."
¶
Auth (c) 2005 The Philadelphia Inquirer. Reprinted by permission of Universal Press Syndicate. All rights reserved.
Oh. My. God.
And yes, I'm a believer, and I agree and am blown away by every one of your words. If only I had the state of mind at this hour to articulate it more in depth. Oh well, it'll be great stuff for the cerebrum as I drift off into REM's.
This is all great, and logical, and Voice of Reason. It would be nice to think that the people who need to see it will see it. It would also be nice if Marilyn vos Savant's The Power of Logical Thinking were a runaway best-seller. Alas--neither are remotely likely.
But it is comforting to HEAR the Voice of Reason. Thank you, Roger.
I must say I completely agree with the points you make. I refuse to see a movie that is so well just plain dumb.
Hey Roger,
Nice review of the film (which of course i havent seen nor would i want to lest my brain explode and send lava into my eyes - which of course could never have evolved by themselves: irreducible complexity dont you know). I think the tact that you take is completely the way we should deal with I.D./creationists: view it not in any way in terms of scientific merit but rather as an odd sociological example. Considering the amount of valid and meaningful debates that can, and should, be had within the general 'field' of evolution, it is a shame that 90% of the times we hear about it is when it has to defend itself from the ridiculousness of creationists.
Just a side note: one thing i have noticed is that while for athiests the theory of evolution is assented to unequivocally, there seems to be this tendency from many left wing people to be suspicious of evolution. I suspect it has something to do with the social darwinist stuff, but of course a cursory understanding of the mechanics of evolutionary theory should surely ease their mind.
Anyway nice work once again Rog!
Dilan
I actually saw this film for review purposes. As appalling as it is, I nearly laughed out loud at the scene where Ben Stein's speech in favor of free scientific inquisition is juxtaposed with Reagan's "Tear down that wall" speech.
Incidentally, I think this review is, in its own way, as good as your Synecdoche one.
I would just like to say, well done. 'Expelled' was a farce... one would almost think a parody, but no, Stein was serious.
Dear Roger,
Allow me to comment: You've just written your best blog! Genius. Take a bow. And take that, Ben Stein!
"Besides, I would not describe the Vatican as liberal. Look how cautiously it approached Galileo." I'm still laughing five minutes after reading that. Of course it's still so damn spooky.
I've always thought that religion was nothing more than a short cut to actual thinking.
This is lovely. Thanks! The forced connections between Darwin, an agnostic, and Hitler, a Catholic who dabbled in the occult, are so strenuous that it is utterly baffling that they continue to be made by creationists and intelligent design proponents. Darwin taught us about the way nature selects evolutionarily beneficial traits for survival; Hitler and his insidious regime sought an artificial genocide to select their own favorite traits. Artificial selection has been understood and practiced long before Darwin ever came to the scene. To conflate evolution by means of natural selection with the racist, homophobic, and antisemitic prejudices that have been around since the dawn of civilization is simply shameful.
I loved the last two sentences. My thoughts exactly! Bravo
Well said Mr. Ebert, I found the films obvious manipulation to be so blatent as to drive me to the other side and I'm an evangelical christian! I also by the way have no problems with evolution nor does it shake my belief system in any way. I would say that it is perhaps unfair to point out all of the tricks and manipulation in the film while ignoring the equally low tricks Micheal Moore puts into his films simply because you agree with his point of view. Manipulation of facts is wrong no matter who is doing it, and Moore should not be excused just because he is better at it.
More anti-intellectualism, this time in the guise of religion. I find it scary.
What I keep wondering is where and when this sentiment arose. I noticed a while ago that the term 'intellectual elites' wandered into the common language as if universities and culture were something to be ashamed of.
I'm Canadian, and our re-elected prime minister had thrown about the notion that government spending on the arts should be cut as the arts are something considered out of touch with ordinary, everyday Canadians. (Our Joe Six-packs, I suppose.) Sarah Palin talked not long ago about the uselessness of fruit fly studies.
Am I wrong in thinking that people used to appreciate diversity in interests, or is that just some sort of nostalgic mistake?
It's a good thing for Ben Stein that this review probably came in too late to make it to the tomatometer. Well written and accurate. A whole 8%, eh?
Thank the intelligent creator for Roger Ebert!
The only issue left unresolved: Should one win Ben Stein's mind, what would one do with it, since it is obviously useless as a functioning organ?
Expelled, indeed.
Get out of class, Stein!
"It also follows that the phrase "believers in God everywhere" does not extend to believers in God who agree with Darwin. "
This statement is at the very heart of how I feel about Creationism vs. Evolution. Why does only ONE side get to be the winner? Can it not be a possibility that by standing so firmly to one set of beliefs you lose by lacking perspective?
Far too many people take science to be the answer OR the Bible. Why is it so hard to believe that God created all things AND that they have the ability to evolve?! We can see through scientific study that indeed evolution does occur, although perhaps not on the grand scale Darwin claimed. The fact that either religion wins OR science wins is leaving even me, a Christian, annoyed with both sides.
Truthfully, I believe in a higher power that created everything and had enough knowledge to create things to evolve and adapt. I also believe that there are more pollutants than at any other time and altered evolution does occur as a result. I guess what it boils down to is simply that both religion and science are man-made. Religion speaks of God, yet somehow winds up perverting all that a higher power is due to mans need to control other men. Science is governed by laws created by man, which comes in handy to disprove a higher power; it is easy to say that the Bible is wrong in saying that the earth is only thousands of years old when you personally create your own way of calculating it to be millions.
The world is not simply black or white. Until both sides realize that they are not involved in a childish argument and instead take up intellectual discussion, we might as well use a test tube as a telescope.
What a -fantastic- skewer! It's hard to argue with facts, but I can almost guarantee that ID supporters would attempt to dismantle your words -- to hilarious results.
Is it wrong that I actually WANT to see this film now? Thanks a lot, pal! I had successfully ignored "eXpelled" without any problem until 10 minutes ago.
I would like to suggest that this movie easily fits your endlessly pliable criteria for an overlooked film. Perhaps you and Nate will decide to open the next festival with this gem.
By the way - I understand that the star rating system is arbitrary and basically worthless, but my brain is not as developed as some, and therefore I must ask the question: What is your star rating for "eXpelled?" Better than zero stars, I'm certain; but how much better?
To your health,
Joe
Mr Ebert, I admire you for taking apart this 'documentary' in such a brilliant and humoristic way. I have laughed troughout your review, but I got the message. And the message is; beware of Ben Stein's film. Thank you.
Mr. Ebert, I thank you for calling a spade a spade, and showing deserved contempt for the indefensible superstitious nonsense that is the obvious agenda of Ben Stein's film.
Wow. Mr Ebert, growing up in Chicago watching you rate movies, I didn't suspect this from you (although in retrospect I should have - yu do have a way with words). This is simply .... marvelous. A round of applause for the eloquent takedown of the propaganda film. I have a feeling this will be quoted often.
I used to think Ben Stein was brilliant. Now, that possibility eludes me.
What a thorough and sound review.
I read this earlier on the site and noticed I couldn't comment. I thought it was dated sometime in November, but maybe I misread it. Regardless, in an effort to not get into another lively discussion on creation vs. evolution, I'll simply applaud your taking the time to review it on a technical level and not just an idealogical one. From what it sounds like, it may not have been the best way of undertaking the subject from Stein's position, which I'll admit disappoints me.
Quote: "That is simply one revealing fragment. This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions..."
Still, isn't pushing one's point of view in a documentary sort of the point for a film-maker? I am instantly reminded of Michael Moore's documentaries of the past several years, but no doubt this is common practice. In my opinion, Moore has made a living of manipulating quotes and scenes, being ignorant of some facts, etc. Is Moore somehow more effective at this?
Still, if Stein doesn't do it effectively, or believably, then it will likely get poor reviews regardless of viewers' opinions on the subject, as well it should. I just hope that other people reviewing the film review it simply as a documentary in and of itself, not as a piece on ID, thus instantly awarding in a low rating.
There are two main species of modern documentary. On the one hand you have observational, insightful and factual (and in some cases even truthful) film making. An example of this would be Herzog's "Encounters at the End of the World" (now available on DVD). On the other hand, you have agenda films, which want to sell you a point of view (see the above film as an example).
If you wanted to go back to Evolution vs. ID, a Herzog doc. seems to start with the evidence and evolve from there. A propaganda doc. starts with a conclusion and designs a pattern of evidence to support it.
The question remains: did all of these films evolve from earlier filmic forms, or have both types existed from time immemorial, handed down to us from the mountaintop?
Well, I think it's fine that you've reviewed this film on your blog. You've just opened pandora's box.
At any rate, I'm not sure a documentary about either creation or evolutionary theories is a good idea. Unless, of course, you plan on making your film ten hours long so that the details of these theories can actually be explored. Even the whole idea of the film as political essay is sort of dull. It's fine for anyone like Mr. Stien or Michael Moore, men who are only interested in pontificating their views to death. If you want to actually think about complex issues like this one, you'd be better off checking out a few select books from the library.
Roger I have yet to see the film but on a purely technical level, these gotcha moments, the dubious practices of contemporary documentarians, seem to me a rather large problem forming what I would label without hyperbole a crisis in the documentary genre. It’s true that more and more documentaries seem to be produced each year, and a sizable portion even find their way to blockbuster video. Yet the majority seems to me biased, flashy, and predictable. Granted I haven't seen every doc made in the last few years, but without Herzog there is little I have liked. How can one compare Wiseman's High School with American Teen or Hearts and Minds with Standard Operating Procedure. There seems a kind of honesty or agreement to find truth though art that is missing from these more recent films (as both were well received I understand I am in the minority.) True story, while attending Fahrenheit 911 in the local Red Bank, New Jersey art theater, an old man appeared to be watching the movie with his daughter, the eager audience leapt at every one of Moore's punch lines, while through the laughter I could hear the old man's audible sighs punctuated by a polite shoosh from his daughter, less than half way through the movie he got up and said paraphrasing "Enough, enough I can't take anymore of this garbage." Of course this kind of divisive, disingenuous "documenting" has only spread further since that film, which makes me wonder when Darwinian principles will kick in and bring the doc genre back into the realm of the fit.
I have some hope Keep the River on Your Right and Jimmy Carter: Man from Plains were both outstanding, and of course everything Herzog has made has always been at *least* worthwhile.
Ebert: I haven't seen every single documentary Herzog has made, but I've seen a lot of them, including the short ones, and I can't think of a single one where he sets out to prove anything. His subject is the planet and people he has met here, and his motivation is curiosity. He may have an opinion (about Timothy Treadwell, for example) but he discovers it while considering the material. In fact, I can't easily tell you what Herzog's politics are. I have assumptions, but I can't prove them from his films. The more I think about that man, the more singular he becomes. He doesn't manipulate facts--he creates them! As when he shows Dieter Dingler obsessively making sure all the doors and windows in his house will open. That invented behavior finds an essential truth. And Herzog is always willing to disclose what he has invented. Aborigines do not dream of green ants, but his film uses that invention to suggest a deep truth about Aborigines.
Religious Creationism is just funny. 'The Lord works in mysterious ways'. Thereby, to the tiny nugget of population belonging to that camp - and to them, alone - the Lord evidently works through science.
Oh, the paradox.
I hope that Ben Stein realizes what a service you did to his movie, Roger.
Normally I'd sooner see Cannibal the Musical or Open Water again (the movie equivalent of gnaw my leg off) than see a movie that defends Intelligent Design.
But to so thoroughly examine a movie and accuse it of at best being Sophist and at worst being duplicitous is to at the same time suggest it has some brains to it (innocently wrong or consciously malicious brains, of course).
I may now just have to check this movie out some time. Thanks.
Hear, hear! +1
The use of the word "liberal" is key to understanding why seemingly intelligent and rational people adopt ID doctrine. It's all the more important that we educate ourselves on evolution so as to not fall for Creationist nonsense and to confront it. For all the talk of "liberal" professors for example, my professor in my personality psychology class actually attempted to encourage students to go watch Stein's "documentary". When he called it "interesting", I raised my hand and asked him if he found it immoral how Stein attempts to connect Darwinism as causation for the Holocaust. As psychology students, we knew well that correlation did not assert causation. He had no argument, just repeated that it was an interesting film and then began the lecture.
Having said that, if this is a review, where is your star rating? I know it is ultimately irrelevant but I would enjoy seeing it this time around. Is it "ZERO" stars for its immorality? A half-star for not being a bad film from the technical point of view? May I be as bold as to suggest the first ever "NEGATIVE" star?
Good review.
I agree totally. What a terrible thing to link Darwin with Hitler.
My only question has to do with this paragraph.
"Hilariously, the film argues that evolutionists cannot tolerate dissent. If you were to stand up at a "Catholic and mainstream Protestant" debate and express your support of Creationism, you would in most cases be politely listened to. There are few places as liberal as Boulder, Colo., where I twice debated a Creationist at the Conference on World Affairs, and yet his views were heard politely there. If you were to stand up at an evangelical meeting to defend evolution, I doubt if you would be made to feel as welcome, or that your dissent would be quite as cheerfully tolerated."
Isn't this point a bit hypocritical? You argue for a middle but then you divide and polarize sides yourself with this point. I am in the middle but I am a Christian. I know many groups that would welcome an evolutionary discussion. I just felt it weakened an otherwise brilliant review.
Please keep these articles coming...
P.S. I was really curious about your thoughts on Rocky Balboa. You never went back and reviewed it.
Wow. That was outstanding. And it's fascinating that in Israel, home to many of the survivors of "Darwin's Legacy", the idea of teaching ID in a science classroom has never even been broached. Holocaust survivors must be inherently liberal.
Dear Roger,
Is Man, as a race, destined to shrivel away with the passing of time, to dissipate and die out into the darkness of the space? Or worse, is it fated that our Existence should someday meet its end under the shadow of a radiant mushroom cloud? (If indeed there is such a thing as predestination.)
If not, then to what is Man heading for? Since Evolution is ever-changing, where is this all leading us? What does the Future have in store for us? If we can extrapolate the very distant past through empirical means, then can we not also envision Man’s future with the same study?
I have been cogitating through these philosophical questions for many years now, and am very certain that down into the far future, we will reach a very advanced stage in our existence where we will have created sentient Life, playing the role of Creator. When that comes to pass, how should our moral responsibilities to this New Life be played out? Do we play it out to the fullest, choking its bickering life and forcing it to accept our higher ways? Or do we set it free, stay silent and render our unseen guidance in the background?
Wouldn't it be amusing for our creations to regard us as non-existent?
And now we know that word limits aren't always a good thing. There is always a premium put on articles and entries that are short and to the point (such as a movie review), but when an exceptional author can be freed from any type of arbitrary limit when there is a lot to say, the results tend to be beneficial to the reader.
Or maybe I should just say, it was beneficial to me.
I have not seen "Expelled", but I find it ridiculous that he was able to connect Darwinism with the Holocaust. That isn't even subtle. Its clear what he is trying to do with that comparison, and its appalling.
You know, I try to separate an actors personal life from their on-screen roles, but its hard to do that when the actor makes a movie exposing their personal agenda and parades their ignorance around for all to see.
Wonderful analysis, as always. It does fill me with a simple question for you, though: at what point does an argument fail to be worthy of response? I am befuddled by the ID movement because it fails on its face to be a scientific movement. It would be like trying to pretend that we should use alchemy for our materials science. And I wonder how much we've stunted our intellectual development by wasting time on this issue. While I believe academic and intellectual diversity is a crucial component of life, it seems like the ID folks are so disingenuous in their approach that they do not merit serious consideration.
On a separate note, your classic (and excellent) standard of film review is, "it is not what the film is about, but how it is about it." (Apologies for poor paraphrasing.) How does this apply to documentaries? Is persuasiveness sufficient or does the inherent bias of the viewer tint this somewhat? Depending on our leanings, we might find an agenda driven documentary more persuasive than is reasonable or less so. I'd love your thoughts on that.
Thanks very much for your thoughts Roger, I could not agree more. Ben Stein is a despicable and dangerous man (dangerous because he gets publicity).
Perhaps not surprisingly Stein does not confine his ignorant and mocking nature to propaganda regarding religion and scientists. Watch this video (at the 4 minute mark) to hear him pouring scorn on Peter Schiff for predicting that America would face a financial crisis http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
I wish America was paying more attention to Peter Schiff and less to Ben Stein.
Well, this one's sure to get a lot of responses. If you're comments weren't filled with "duud, you re a libeal wiener" by now, chances are this post will fuel it. But then, you've always had smart readers, so maybe there isn't much to worry about. As for the review itself...well, to be honest (and I am truly not saying this to sound mean), this didn't feel like much of a review rather then a 500+ word rant on how stupid you think some guys ideas are. While you have always been a great film critic, once in awhile you tend to let your personal feelings get in the way of the actual movie itself. See your reviews for "The Life of David Gale," "Courage Under Fire," "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Gangs of New York," etc, etc...
Actually, "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be a perfect example of why people accuse you of some of the things you do, because Michael Moore uses every evil, cheap, and unfair technique that this movie uses, yet you gave that three and a half stars. Same thing with "Sicko," which was even less subtle in it's "documentary" approach. I'm not even going to get started on your "thumbs up" for "Outfoxed," where you were happy that a movie exposed how Fox slanted the news to a conservative viewpoint, never mind the fact that all news stations are in some way slanted and unfair. Which brings us back to "eXpelled." Now here's the thing: I'm, in a technical sense, a "creationist." I believe that a God created the world, and whether it happened through instant speed (like a text message) or through an evolutionary process, I believe there was intelligence in the mix.
I can't see this world and universe being working as well as it does without some thought put into it. Does that mean I like this movie? Kind of. It's refreshing to actually see the evolutionary process challenged, which it isn't very often, so it's nice. But yes, the film is flawed. It's overly sentimental. It's cheap. It doesn't play fair. It's not balanced. It's ignorant to the other point of view. It's...holy cow, it's just like EVERY OTHER "DOCUMENTARY" OUT THERE!!! See, the thing that makes your readers upset is not that you have a viewpoint (because if this did bother them they wouldn't bother reading), but that you yourself tend to not be very subtle about it. Reading the above post I'd say roughly 85% of it was creationist/Stein bashing and 15% spent arguing the merits of the film itself.
You give Moore a pass for his films because you say he's upfront about it. Well wasn't Stein upfront about this movie too? He's trying to argue a case too, it's just fewer people agree with that stance. Most of the reviews I've read on this film are more Stein-bashing then actual reviews, and the few positives I've read actually didn't agree with the subject matter, but the critics were impressed with the argument none-the-less. The point I have (and there is one) is that you are too emotionally involved with this subject to be fair with it. You've proved multiple times that you can't be in this discussion without being a little bully.
You give this film hell for points that you let slide with other documentaries you agree with. Of course, this can't all be your fault. No, I think there's ultimately some fault with the way documentaries are made these days. If the documentaries did less to prove a point and more to tell a straight, non-cynical story of real life events (or in other words practiced journalism), then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Roger, you're not smarter than Ben Stein, so please go back and edit this down to half as long. It reads like Geek (you) vs. Super Geek (Stein). It's embarassing. What you are is "right", and what you have is "integrity", both traits lacking in Mr. Stein. Ben Stein is a super smart idiot and ugly opportunist. There! I cut it down for you. Much love and admiration to you Roger Ebert. Your pal James in Phoenix.
Roger, you're not smarter than Ben Stein, so please go back and edit this down to half as long. It reads like Geek (you) vs. Super Geek (Stein). It's embarassing. What you are is "right", and what you have is "integrity", both traits lacking in Mr. Stein. Ben Stein is a super smart idiot and ugly opportunist. There! I cut it down for you. Much love and admiration to you Roger Ebert. Your pal James in Phoenix.
That is an awesome and entertaining takedown :-) Many thanks for wading through the pile of cr*p and spending your time deconstructing it.
What I don't understand is why Ben Stein made this film. He's always struck me as a reasonably intelligent person, humorous person. Even if he is of a different ideological stance, I am shocked at his disregard of logic.
I never would have guessed he'd make a fundamentalist propaganda flick and package it as a documentary. It seems as ludicrous as taking a religious belief and packaging it as a scientific theory.
I had planned to type "Perhaps Stein's portrayal of a clueless teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off was actually a documentary clip packaged as a teen comedy seen" next, but I realized that type of smarmy response is exactly what's wrong with Stein's film and the general strategy of proponents of ID. Scientists, the vast majority of which support evolution as a theory, don't reject alternative theories and criticism outright. They do ask that alternative theories be presented in an honest manner and based in evidence.
Finally, if God exists, what would be a more awe-inspiring display of God's power? Why do some religious people so harshly reject a theory that Human Beings came into existence despite the odds of this occurring being extremely slim? Couldn't this be seen as a miracle of God? Why must some see science, explanations of the physical world, as conflicting with religion? As you allude, it used to be unthinkably offensive to God to suggest the Earth be located anywhere besides the center of the universe. If this view can change, why must creation views remain stubbornly static?
thank you, mr ebert. mr stein has promoted himself into the unusual position of unfunny class clown, a palin without the l, a cynical exploiter of the weak minded. his economics is no less ridiculous. back in january he wrote 'This isn't a development to strike terror into your hearts -- if you're a long-term investor, it signals a time to buy. (As I've said many times, if you're a short-term investor you can just skip my column.) The history of stock market investing is unequivocal on this point: When the market is low, when the economy is in a recession, it is -- in the long run -- by far the best time to buy."
stein is that most remarkable of modern american media frauds, a false contrarian, the pretend mencken, a pretend mensch. his only flaw is that he expects his audience to take him seriously.
Hi Roger,
As far as I can see it, there are just a couple of salient points to the whole ID skerfuffel: 1) literal but selective interpretation of the Old Testament (Leviticus, anyone?), and 2) an agenda that benefits from such an agenda. Scientific evidence to the contrary is anathema, ergo fight back with Alley Oop and that really cool Dinoboy museum.
Stein et al's premises are easily refuted, absurd on the face of it. Cells and organisms mutate in response to external forces, cf. drug-resistant bacteria and hoo boy those viruses and cockroaches get immune pretty quick. In the inimitable words of Spielberg/Goldblum "nature finds a way". There's also spontaneous mutation, what is exactly a carcinogen? Google pubmed and question methods always.
I can't say whether there's benevolence behind these changes in living things. Vonnegut wrote a wonderful book called Galapagos, in which the artist refutes the Darwinistic idea of survival of the fittest, puts evolution on a random, haphazard course, as one might expect from him.
I think it's somewhere in between.
Ciao for nao,
Ben Y not S
Roger, it happens to be my birthday today. This is the best birthday present I could wish for. I know there are plenty of other scathing Expelled reviews out there, but yours was the one I was always looking forward to.
Anyway, now you've got this heap of crap out the way, I know of the ideal cleaning agent to scour away its dirty taste in your mouth: Hitchcock. I've been watching his films recently, and I've noticed you haven't reviewed all of them.
Your comments are spot on. I saw the movie, because I like Ben Stein and was expecting a comical take on the evolution debate a la Bill Maher. Wow, was I wrong. I was amazed by how easily he compared scientists to killers. Maybe I'm dumb, but I don't see how Ben Stein gets from Darwin to Hitler. When the concentration camp imagery came up I was totally dumbfounded. It is like he pulled out the ultimate trump card with his stupid chain of logic:
Darwin->Theory of Evolution->Survival of Fittest->Eugenics->Hitler->Greatest Horror World Has Ever Known->Scientists' fault???
He wants you to believe that because Hitler is evil, evolutionists are evil by extension because evolutionists influenced Hitler. I'm not a logician, but I know there is something wrong with that logic.
I am a creationist and I firmly believe that science makes the world a better place. There is no place for religious belief in science, because Theories are tools, not dogma like Ben Stein wants you to think. If the Theory of Evolution has done such an excellent job of advancing our understanding of how the ENTIRE PLANET works...well, how can you be against that?
Wow. I don't think I've ever read a better indictment of that ignorance laden excrement pile of a movie that is Expelled. BRAVO Mr. Ebert and THANK YOU! :)
Excellent as usual Roger, yet can't we see this becoming a huge success? I imagine the accusations you've received indicate some level of support already. At the very least I suppose we should be grateful the film isn't telling us about how all of that 'climate change' stuff is a load of nonsense too.
Excellent review. Excellent. I was hoping the film was actually a "mockumentary" -- a straight-faced satire of pro-creationist gibberish -- but apparently Stein is taking it, and himself, seriously. I've lost a lot of respect for the man. My respect for you, however, continues to grow.
Ebert,
Great article as usual, but I have two questions. First: Why is this not listed as a review? Is it because you felt you were approaching the material in a different manner? I've always appreciated your view that a film should be looked at in relation to "how it goes about" its material. Expelled sounds like a distracted work at best.
Second: I'm only passingly familiar with intelligent design, but would believing that God created the universe, with an idea for the outcome, count as ID? I've always found the concept of a God who can nudge the universe at its start and create people more engaging than a Big Man who dropped people in a garden 5,000 years ago. I myself am Catholic and I think several people take Genesis as being an abstract work (though certainly not all).
Wonderful read. You have nailed this miserable excuse for a documentary as precisely as it may be nailed. Thank you for this review.
JC
Brilliantly on target, Roger. Thank you for giving this intellectual twaddle and its proponents the spanking they deserve.
What did I do to deserve such beautiful writing so early on my birthday?
Thanks Roger.
Much kudos, Mr. Ebert, for seeing straight through the fundamentalist flim-flam. The common descent of life on earth is not scientifically controversial; it's on the list of propositions such as "The earth orbits the sun once a year." We thought about it for a few centuries, we checked, look what we found.
Incidentally, Hitler explicitly said that his program of elimination of "inferior races" was inspired by Pasteur and Koch- a matter of hygiene. Therefore, use of household cleaning agents consitutes fascism. We await Ben Stein's next documentary on the subject.
Roger:
Being deaf, movies have played a minimal part in my life, at least until the advent of VCRs and closed captioning, but I have read every review of yours I could lay eyeballs on.
You are not only my favorite film reviewer, but one of my favorite cultural touchstones as well. However. . .
I believe you have strayed, my friend. As a movie review, this does not measure up, and as cultural commentary, well, you've touched on ID already, and I believe everyone already knows where you stand. This "rant" is neither a satisfactory review of a movie, nor a successfull refutation of ID.
I fully agree with the points you have made about ID, but, really, why do you wear yourself out refuting idiot notions? You're mainly preaching to the choir. I enjoyed reading it, of course, as I expected I would, but I would rather have read about the view out your window.
Keep on keepin' on.
--Alfred
Much kudos, Mr. Ebert, for seeing straight through the fundamentalist flim-flam. The common descent of life on earth is not scientifically controversial; it's on the list of propositions such as "The earth orbits the sun once a year." We thought about it for a few centuries, we checked, look what we found.
Incidentally, Hitler explicitly said that his program of elimination of "inferior races" was inspired by Pasteur and Koch- a matter of hygiene. Therefore, use of household cleaning agents consitutes fascism. We await Ben Stein's next documentary on the subject.
As a devout Mormon with a PhD in genetics, I am always amazed at the anger that evolution evokes in some people or why they think that learning evolution is so dangerous to faith. Personally I think that religion that cannot handle truth gained from looking at the world around us is denying the most important works of God. The Bible is a short and incomplete book that does not attempt to explain orchids or dinosaurs or many other things.
Haven't you just described everything that Michael Moore has ever produced, PLUS Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? And yet, you give their films 3- and 4-star reviews, and Ben Stein gets vilified.
Nope. No political bias there.
What long and penetrating article. I think you do a wonderful job explaining a difficult scientific theory, and I also applaud you for equating the survivability of viable scientific theories as an example of natural selection as well. I think one thing that those unversed in science don't realize is that science itself is constantly evolving and changing. The recent demotion of Pluto as a planet is a perfect, accessable example.
I wanted to draw you attention to a recent New York Times - Science Times article about the early times on Earth (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/science/02eart.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink). In the article it was discussed that perhaps the very earliest period in Earth's formation wasn't nearly as hot and hellish as previously thought. The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and one of the connundrums has always been, when the earliest life formed 3.85 billion years ago, it seemed to do so at the earliest possible time, after the Earth had cooled and settled down sufficiently, almost immediately. This would imply that those trillions of random protiens formed at a terrific rate, more than could be easily accounted for. The new findinds, however, mean that only about 4.4 billions years ago, the conditions on Earth may have started to be more suitable for life, so it is now likely that the protien roullete wheels now had about a billion years to turn, instead of some very small amount of time. Given our ability to create said protiens in a lab, with little effort or time, I think this puts to bed the difficulty of doing it on a large scale. With a billion years to play the game, it seems almost inevitable at this point.
Just thought I would share one more nail for the coffin of ID. Keep up the good work, you are fighting the good fight against ignorance and demogoguery.
Miles Blanton
Ebert: That important NYTimes article about the cooling of the earth fits perfectly with the theory that life may have had its earliest origins on crystals. The scientists I cited demonstrated how it could have happened. Now it is provided with another billion years in which to happen. And both findings will be subjected to rigorous scientific challenge. That's how science works.
Thank you Mr. Ebert for yet another insightful film review. I wonder if Mr. Stein would be okay with colleges teaching alternatives to the theory of heliocentrism (the idea that the sun is at the center of the solar system)? Would he seriously want the next generation of American kids (our future pilots, astronauts, engineers) to grow up questioning that, to think that the idea of the sun being at the center of the solar system is "just a theory" while the rest of the world is educated with actual science? Probably not, but that's because the idea of a heliocentric solar system does not threaten his worldview. As an anthropologist, I agree with a court ruling from the Simpsons: "Religion must stay 500 yards from Science at all times."
I have not seen Ben Stein's movie and I never will. As for arguing with people like him, I have found that they enjoy playing the martyr so I'm not going to be the one to give them any fodder. Creationism is not even a poorly proven science, it is not even science at all. The scientific method involves coming up with a theory and doing everything possible to try and disprove it. A Creationist does the opposite and attempts to come up any evidence they can to collaborate with their ideas. It is such flawed logic that it is not logic at all, so what is there to argue with?
Also, almost all of your arguments about his disreputable tactics could be applied to most documentaries. The manipulative nature of film is what makes it appealing to audiences, so he is just attempting to make something that will resonate with audiences. The fact that he is completely unsubtle is more of a commentary on his abilities as a filmmaker then his personality. The Holocaust sequence sounds really low of him, but I've seen worse things used in documentaries for dramatic effect. The next time he makes a poorly made documentary, you should just send him a copy of Grizzly Man and let him see how its done. No, that would probably be a bad idea. He might hunt down the tape of the couple being torn apart by bears and play it to audiences in an attempt to prove the existence of God.
For someone who is so proud of his intellect and has made a career of touting it, through all the many manifestations of the Ben Stein experience, I have never seen any actual evidence of it. I am not sure that he isn't just goofing with us.
I don't begrudge anyone their faith, but it has never made sense to me why evolution would not be seen as a wonderful mechanism worthy of God's impetus and approval. Complexity as an argument for a supreme being is ridiculous. An omnipotent being would have no need for complexity. A God would make a seeing eye out of a solid orb. Complexity is evidence of kludging together things over time, which, if we'd like, we could call evolution.
I saw Expelled (with 2 friends who, like me, have a science background) as a "know your enemy" exercise. We were appalled. But what I would like to know is how CBS News' Sunday Morning program justifies having this anti-science, media-manipulating moron on their roster of commentators.
Ugh.
Yeah..... But he was very good in FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, do you not agree?
Seriously though... Fantastic stuff! The impression I get is that there is more (and more interesting) things to learn on this subject from your blog of it, then the documentary itself!
Being a Unitarian Universalist, one of the two "rules" I have to follow is to respect the beliefs of others as there is a kernel of truth to be found in all religions. While this is true in the vast majority of cases, what makes me a bad UU is that I can't honestly say the same thing about creationism. It is founded in a deliberate disregard of the facts and its "justifications" require one to throw critical thinking out the window.
Seeing films like this bother me, because I just know people will be watching, and since they similarly lack in critical thinking, will follow along blindly, dragging on an argument that should have been buried 30 years ago.
Being of the agnostic variety, I have a hard time understanding why people of deep faith find it impossible to reconcile "God" and Evolution. The two need not be mutually exclusive. If they were so inclined, one might ask how such a complex and beautiful biological system came to be? What spark drove the Big Bang? Far deeper and more meaningful philosophical questions and statements than: "I ain't descended from no damn monkey!"
Wow. Thank you! That was a most entertaining review and it was spot-on. I agree with you that one of the most insulting things in the film was Stein's exploitation of the Holocaust.
Mr. Stein spoke at my university just after the release of the film and delivered an interesting speech about politics and the economy (forecasting that there would be no recession). He was most unwilling to answer questions about Expelled during the lecture and instead asked that we address them afterwards at the reception. I remember thinking that you don't get to make a movie blaming a set of people for eugenics without having to answer to it.
I am constantly amused by the fact that our presence on this planet is explained by EITHER Creationsim OR evolution. Personally I believe in both. There are obvious records of species no longer with us, that look suspiciously similar to species that followed them immediately. This would support evolution rather solidly I think. Else, where would all these skeletal remains come from?
I had that explained to me once by someone who said in all sinserity that there were no fossils, they were created by scientists. This, because if they could convince us of the existance of dinosaurs, they could convince us of anything, and therefore we were good litle sheep. No hyoles in that theory.
I believe in Creationsim, because I find it impossible to think otherwise. Too much exists to assume it is the simple outcome of natural events strung out over time. I cannot explain God, but it makes more sense that we are the result of trial and error and not intial concept. I mean WD-40 was attempt 40, and it's just WD-40.
It's not the big picture that convinces me, but the little pictures. My grandmother saw a beautiful moth one day, and very matter of factly remarked, 'How can someone look at that and not believe in God?' The simplest thing that convinces me of a greater being is an eclipse. Think of how stirring it is to see, and the wonder that must have inspired in the peoples of long ago. The moon passes between the sun and Earth, and for the briefest of moments covers the sun perfectly, leaving only the outer glow of the sun peaking around the edges. When one realizes that the sun is 400 times the size of the moon, we have to accept that they are positioned at the precise distance apart to make this effect possible. In all of the vastness of space, they are perfectly placed. Evolution? No. Design. An element of creation undoubtedly inplace to begin our evolution from simple hunter gatherers to wonderers, philosophers, and explorers.
We are not accidental survivors of evolution, and we did not drop from the heavens one morning. We were but troubled seeds, planted to grow and perish.
Thanks, Roger.
Careful what you wish for, Expelled.
Hee!
See also Wondermark's "In which the classroom becomes tense".
I remember thinking that the movie's subtitle was quite apropos, just not in the way its makers intended.
It fills me with contempt too, and I haven't even seen the film. (I never will.) I just blogged about some articles Ben Stein left lying around on the web:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/ben-stein-admits-he-has-only-little-pea.html
Thanks for the review. I will not be watching the movie. That's not very scientific of me, I know. I should really watch it and prove to myself that it is as base, biased and unfounded as you have written. Then again, it's been a while since I learned that hot water scalds.
For those keen to at least dip their toe in the hot water, however, I hope you will let me recommend the "Expelled" review on "Answers in Genesis" as a fine example of the Creationist/ID viewpoint Link!. It has the same aroma as many Creationist/ID work and takes less time to get through than the movie.
I am a scientist. I know at least one person who devoted years of his live to a research area, only to see it die because of the weight of evidence which built up against the core theory. It's a little like when she tells you that she doesn't love you. The way to keep your dignity is to just accept it and move on. The other way is to make up a new name (like "friendship" or "intelligent design") and keep that torch burning.
Incidentally, the AiG review of Expelled is the first result on a Google search for "expelled review". I would suggest that you move this movie review over to your standard page, if only to save the poor folk who Google for a review.
cheers,
Andy
It's a little weird to hear (bah, to read) someone talking like this about a person I always knew as "the guy from 'The Mask'".
I'm a catholic from a catholic family, my mother was born in a little town in the middle of nowhere (and, as everybody knows, little towns in south america are very religous) and my father went to a highschool run by the order of Friars Minor Capuchin in the middle of the swiss Alps. I went to a catholic school. None of us belive in creationism (well, my mother likes to think that God is the origin and then evolution happened). That doesn't mean at all that we deny our christian roots. Unfortunately the grand majority cannot deal with nothing but absoluts: everything must be black or white, pro or against, good or bad (of course that doesn't apply only to this subject, once a friend was shocked when I told him that I enjoy watching every weekend with my niece "my neighbour Totoro", because, as he said, "you can't love Fellini adn enjoy kid movies at the same time)
P.D.: sorry if my english is to "Tarzan-like", I'm from Argentina and I quit my english class almost the day after I realised I could watch "Pulp Fiction" without subtitles.
Ebert: I'd say if you can pass that test, your English is pretty good.
"It's not what a movie is about, but how it is about it." -R. Ebert
Your reviews of other documentaries generally tend not to discuss the truth or falsity of the claims made within, but the success or failure of the persuasiveness or dramatization of the director's vision. "Fahrenheit 9/11," for instance, was effective not because of whether certain statements are inherently true, but because candid footage is effective and "vintage Moore." "Super Size Me" was effective in spite of the acknowledged qualifier that, yes, fast food is part of a "responsible" diet. "The King of Kong" eschewed hard facts about who scored which score, but it presented a compelling story of two hardened competitors.
I was saddened, then, to see you take the bait. You give it away with this acknowledgment: "'Expelled' is not a bad film from the technical point of view. It is well photographed and edited, sometimes amusing, has well-chosen talking heads, gives an airing to evolutionists however truncated and interrupted with belittling images, and incorporates entertainingly unfair historical footage."
I have not seen "Expelled." I do not anticipate viewing it. But your review is entirely unhelpful for someone evaluating whether or not it is a good film--whether how it is about its subject is any good. Instead, it is a series of nit-picks, of philosophical and scientific counter-thrusts, of "Shocked! Shocked!" ejaculations regarding "gotcha" footage (as if no documentarian, not even Michael Moore himself, would use "gotcha" footage).
It seems that Stein is held to a different standard. While other documentaries are evaluated based on how they are about it, your review of "Expelled" is focused almost exclusively on what it is about, and why you disagree, and which facts are wrong, and how unfair or ludicrous or arbitrary it is.
Golden Rule, anyone?
It pained me to see this film in theaters. When I pondered to myself that I had actually given money to the Fundamentalist Christian Agenda, I felt a pang of disgust deep inside. Stein's shameless attempts to set up lame duck interviews (with Dawkins! One of the most erudite men on the subject!) and baseless historical juxtaposition injured the film somehow even more than the subject matter. Of course, as an atheist, my views are perhaps compromised by my personal beliefs, but in the interest of objectivity I gave this one a chance and I have never been more wrong about a movie. After hearing about this film on word-of-mouth, I thought perhaps it might have a good spirit, or at least a sense of humor about the credulity of its content. But Mr. Stein is dead serious about actually having this drivel taught in school! I hope Mr. Ebert discouraged anyone from seeing this on DVD. And thank you, Mr. Ebert, for calling out the film on its awful use of Holocaust footage for their own hideous agenda.
I have always wondered what Ben Stein's agenda was. Here was a Jew (I am Jewish) who was a speech writer for Richard Nixon, I believe,(Nixon made no bones about being anti-semitic,) and a right wing politician who supported a neocon agenda that is so opposite of what the Jewish religion teaches. And now a Creationist theory that is supported by the right wing Christian movement. The Jewish religion is based on education and the Creationist Theory is an anti education belief.
Hi Roger,
You compare the process of evolution to the gambling, where mutations are the occasional lucky "wins" at games of chance and the buildup of complexity is analgous to a large number of lucky wins in a row.
In fact, it's actually easier than that. Since any mutation that is favorable will, by definition, have a higher chance of reproducing, evolution is like playing poker, where you get to turn in cards over and over again until you've built up a good hand.
To illustrate: Imagine you're dealt an ace in a regular poker hand, and a bunch of other cards. Since that "ace" is favorable, evolution encourages you to hold onto it and turn in the other cards for more tries. These "turn ins" are like mutations. You turn all "bad" (that is, bad mutations) picks in for more cards. When another ace turns up (a favorable mutation), you can hold onto that (it conveys an advantage). Play long enough, and you've got four aces (a "miraculously well-designed" hand!).
I loved reading this. Thanks Roger. Now for me to ramble my (identical, if I've understood you) opinion in a much less eloquent way.
Dinosaur fossils: the late, great comedian Bill Hicks pointed to another Creationist explanation -- "God put those there to test our faith." Hicks was rightly horrified at the idea of such a childish God. The Creationist reply usually comes -- "But God works in mysterious ways." To believe in those ways is to have mysterious beliefs, which don't belong in the science-classroom.
And, of course, the "scientized" version of Creationism -- ID: it can't distinguish fundamental simplicity from apparent simplicity. Yes, the theory of evolution relies on a very complicated body of science, with subatomic particles and nano-scale crystals and game-theory and is compatible with this crazy unedged spacetime idea. But it will always be simpler than introducing an unexplainable Intelligent Designer. If ID wants to be scientific, it must accept that the simplest theory wins, when all else is equal with regard to explanatory and predictive power. Even ignoring ID's pantsing in the simplicity stakes, it would be a brave ID-defender who'd dismiss the theory of evolution's explanatory power, and even braver one to claim that ID had any predicitive power.
And a final Bill Hicks quote [not verbatim]: "Ever notice how Creationists all look really unevolved?". Maybe we're only seeing the final 0.025% of Stein's haircut in that photo.
As someone who was a huge fan of "Win Ben Stein's Money", i was really shocked to read the description of this movie when it came out. I remember re-reading it to make sure i had it the right way around.
Still, i have to call you on "Bowling for Columbine" here, by a guy who started this recent "documentary" craze. As you said about this movie, "If you want to study Gotcha! moments, start here." Ben Stein got the torch from Michael Moore (though im sure it was passed to someone else in the interim) and is just passing it along.
I found it especially nice when he pulled "gotcha" on a tired old man who, im sorry to say, was losing his marbles. (and i am no fan of the NRA)
I dont need to go on, there are plenty of sites detailing the complete crap in "Bowling for Columbine", and when you read them you realize almost the entire movie is Gotcha's. The stuff about there being a factory that makes rockets in the town (and therefore its more violent, or else they all get free subscriptions to satellite TV, i cant remember which) was grasping at straws at the very least.
Though those movies were, at the very least, very entertaining. Best documentary oscar.... i definitely wouldnt go that far, considering that there were actual documentaries in it the same year. Moore was right about Bush all along though, in fact he was using kid gloves on him.
I am sure if say a documentary say by someone like Michael Moore used Historical footage unfairly or out of perspective you would be applauding it be you agree even if what they are saying is false.
Did you mean to post this on the same day more Nixon tapes were released? Ben Stein accuses all of us of censorship when he made his living speech writing for the man who said,
"I don't give a s*** what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up or anything else."
Nov. 17, 1973
Ben Stein somehow manages to equate the Holocaust to Darwin while defending Nixon to this day. Here’s how Nixon felt about Stein’s fellow Jews:
“The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards.”
February 1, 1972
And blacks:
"The second point is that coming out--coming back and saying
that black Americans aren't as good as black Africans--most
of them , basically, are just out of the trees. Now, let's
face it, they are."
July 11, 1971
(He said that one to Donald Rumsfeld, by the way.)
And Gays:
"I don't want to see this country to go that way.
You know what happened to the Greeks.
Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was
a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates."
May 26, 1971
And the Vietnamese:
Nixon: The only place where you and I disagree ... is with regard to the bombing. You're so goddamned concerned about civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care.
Kissinger: I'm concerned about the civilians because I don't want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher.
Wow, Ben really got under your skin. But I don't think left-wing docu-types have been as shameless with their metaphors and conclusions as Ben was here. Michael Moore may be winking at the camera when he says Cuba and France are cool, but America sucks. This movie blames evolutionists for the Holocaust. Where do you really go from there? I was entertained at times watching Stein try to out-Moore Moore. Did he sell me on his argument? No. I don't think the 8% that liked it were sold on the argument.
Excellent statement Roger.
For myself, I have summed up the issue of creationism and its advocates like Ben Stein with one word - dishonesty. Obviously there must be many ignorant people who believe the nonsense, but many advocates and leaders in the movement cannot be that ignorant. It comes down to other motives which essentially means they are being dishonest.
Thank you Roger for such a well written piece on this film. I had been following this film for a while but as yet have been unable to see it for myself as I don't believe it has been, or if it will be released here in Australia. I had always wanted to know what you're opinion on this film would be and I found this a fascinating read.
Thank you for going so indepth and providing an opinion backed up with actual facts, a technique that seems to be lost in much of society today.
It's funny that you should mention the scene with Richard Dawkins getting make-up applied. The ones applying the stuff were actually employed by Premise Media, and were doing so under orders of Mathis, the movie director. Mathis reportedly insisted to Dr. Dawkins that it was necessary, due to glare. This was mentioned by Dr. Paul Myers, who was also targeted in this movie, on his own website.
Ebert: Another smoking gun.
I'd rather watch Ben Stein's Visine commercials than listen to his nonsensical adventures with creationists vs what really happened. Go back to hawking eye drops for the liberal pot smokers you loathe Ben. Well done Mr. Ebert.
Mr. Ebert,
I have to agree with you about the makeup--I went on camera for the first time last month and didn't receive the proper brush-up. The video, an interview with a local television station in Iowa, is ghastly to say the least.
Cheers!
Roger,
While I agree with a number of your comments about some parts of the film (e.g., the manipulative editing, the "connection" between Darwin and the Nazi agenda, etc.), I think Stein's key point has been lost in this discussion. The core point of this documentary is that the collegiate academic community, which is supposed to encourage discussion of conflicting view points, in this arena appears to be unwilling to tolerate any viewpoint other than "Darwin was 100% correct". Stein showed several people in the film who had lost their jobs not because they argued that Darwin was wrong, but because they suggested the possibility that evolution may not have been an entirely biological process.
Galileo is an intersting analogy here. The church's condemnation of his theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun prevented us from even discussing the problems with Galileo's math. Once we were allowed to discuss the theory, it was altered over time to account for slight differences between the theory and the observed locations of the planets. Finally Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity which put the last piece of the puzzle in place.
The theory of evolution is suffering the same problem. There are some parts of the theory that don't agree with observed phenomenon. If we can't discuss those problems and offer alternative hypotheses, how will we we ever complete the theory?
I know some people reading this are thinking that since Intelligent Design posits a supernatural influence, it does not belong in a scientific discussion. That viewpoint suffers the same closed mindedness that often afflicts the Christian Right. Suggesting that an intelligent being influenced evolution is a perfectly valid scientific hypotheses. It may be difficult or impossible to test, but so are a number of other scientific theories. It may suggest the presence of something outside the observable universe, but so do a number of other scientific theories. It may be wrong, but so were a lot of other scientific theories.
The point is that the academic community should be encouraging these discussions instead of black listing people who suggest an alternative view.
For whatever reason, people strongly defend their thoughts on both religion and politics, and Stein's movie (which I did see, it was ok. Thought he took a bad turn with the Nazi = Darwinism angle) both expresses a belief in God, but also a belief in conservatism. They say the two things you shouldn't discuss are politics and religion. Mr. Ebert, do you think this entry just might be the biggest commented on entry you have written since you started your journal?
Ebert: Seems to be starting out that way.
Roger--
Good article, even from the perspective of this OLD-earth Creationist.
One thought, though. You accuse the film of being "cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions...segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association(s)." (whew!)
The only thing I can say to that is...welcome to the club. As a Christian (albeit a fairly liberal one), I could say the same thing about 95% of what the mainstream media reports about my faith. It's frustrating, isn't it, to see what you believe in so maligned and misrepresented? I'm not saying Ben Stein was right to do it (and I refuse to give his film money, so I haven't seen it), but I think it's indicative of the larger tendency in our culture to demean and demonize those who believe differently from us.
I long for productive and fruitful discourse on this subject, but I fear it will never happen. Both sides seem too interested in painting the other as agenda-driven ignorance-mongers.
Roger, you do realize that there is a creationism of the political left that's in denial about evolution as applied to humans.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
The impression I got from Roger's review is that the movie only sets out to criticize the theory of evolution, rather than to provide substantive arguments in favor of Intelligent Design. It strikes me as an exercise in futility, as science itself most often refutes long-held theories when evidence rejecting them is discovered. That the criticisms offered by Stein are baseless and outlandish just adds insult to injury.
I am agnostic and don't particularly care if evolution or creation or a mix between both of them is what lead our universe to its current state. My take on it is: we're here now, so let's make the best of it and try to make things a little better. What does frighten me is that, while evolutionists are not satisfied with the answers they have found and continue to seek for new evidence to explain the world, those advocating for intelligent design are throwing out no arguments; instead, they attempt to interfere with research and education by jamming school boards with unsubstantiated faith-based claims.
I question the existence of God but know that I am surrounded by amazing and inexplicable things. While I am unwilling to make the leap of faith and be confident that there is a God, I know I'd be much quicker to accept that if there were a God who were omniscient, omnipotent, and with limitless foresight, It surely would have allowed for evolution, if only to maintain humanity's inquisitive nature and to ensure progress until the very end.
I see that many others before me have thrown down the Michael Moore gauntlet, so I was hesitant to beat that dead horse, but what the heck, I'll throw in my own two cents anyway.
But first off, I'd like to say that I am an evolutionist, always have been an evolutionist, and always will be an evolutionist. Just like my mother and father, both in the medical profession, and both Southern Baptist conservative Christians. They believe in the Bible, but both, without hesitation, embrace the facts about biology and how species evolve over time to adapt to their environment. Ah yes, that pesky middle again. My parents, like the rational-minded pastor of my youth, fled the church (but not the faith) after it became shanghaid by the fanatics.
Oh, I'll never forget the last day I was required by my parents to attend Sunday school. The "teacher", with veins bulging in his neck, was scremaing "they are stupid. Anybody who believes in evolution, that we're nothing but monkeys, is stupid stupid STUPID!!!!" I politely raised my hand and offered, "both my parents believe in evolution. Are they stupid?" At that moment, I knew what it was like to be in a vacuum. All the air was sucked out of the room. The man froze, completely clueless as how to respond. Where could he have gone from there? Does he back away from the courage of his convictions? Or does he say something insulting (and potentially abusive) to a child? I let him off the hook. I politely excused myself from the room. I always assumed the subject was immediately changed.
So I respond here to neither praise Ben Stein's documentary or to bury your review, but to make an observation (admittedly one that has already been made). And I'll spare you the charge of Liberal Bias. Oh, no. Your brazen double standards are not present because you are liberal, but because you are human, a sentient being with an Ego, a Super Ego, and an Id. It is human nature to embrace arguments with which we agree, and scrutinize those with which we don't.
Now here is where I'm going to take the rod to that deceased equine. I quote:
As Stein goes to interview him for the last time, we see a makeup artist carefully patting on rouge and dusting Dawkins' face. After he is prepared and composed, after the shine has been taken off his nose, here comes plain, down-to-earth, workaday Ben Stein. So we get the vain Dawkins with his effete makeup, talking to the ordinary Joe.
You did not have these objections to the identical scenes in Fahrenheit 9/11, which began with a montage of the Bush administration being "prepared and composed", prior to being raked over the coals for the next two hours by plain, down-to-earth, workaday Michael Moore, with his baseball cap, working class, attire and scraggly beard. The effete vs the ordinary. And if you want to talk about the mother of all "gotcha" moments, let's not forget that completely irrelevant, yet no less uncouth, bit of Paul Wolfowitz licking his comb.
Again, I make this observation not to denounce you as a liberal shill, or to denounce you in any way whatsoever. I'm not here to call you out on any supposed obligation to view any film with total objectivity. You're a critic, for crying out loud. The fact that you have biases is the whole point of your job. And many people seem to forget that you did call Michael Moore out on his shifty tactics in Bowling For Columbine when you discovered how deceptively he edited the Charlton Heston speech. But (*whack*), you had to "discover" it. You didn't think to question it when you first viewed the movie. You accepted it at face value and described Heston as "borderline pathetic" in your initial review. Hey, let's go back earlier to Roger and Me. Upon learning of how Michael Moore shifted chronology and omitted key details, you (*whack*) defended it as "making a good story better".
But you've heard all this before. That dead horse has been beat real good. But this is an open message, not just to you, but to everybody reading this journal. We are all, each and every one of us, to varying degrees, solipsistic. We want our values and beliefs to be confirmed, not challenged. We crave reinforcement and validation. It is human nature. I'm am just as bad about this as the next day. So I do not wag my finger at you. If I wag my finger at anybody, it's to the Michael Moore's and Ben Stein's of the world. Here's something that the honest among us call all agree upon: they don't win hearts and minds. Their detractors see easily through their tactics and dismisses the premsise. And the end of the day, all they so is produce rousing sermons for the choir. The glowing reviews they receive is their "Amen".
Two thumbs up!
And thank god for opposing thumbs. A miracle of human evolution.
I just want to point out one thing about Expelled that annoys me more than most: When Stein asks Dawkins if there's any situation where intelligent design could conceivably be true, Dawkins offers up the very reasonable hypothesis that life on Earth could have been seeded by some alien life form, but that you would still need to use some sort of evolution-style process to explain the existence of the aliens. Then Stein uses this statement to ridicule Dawkins, pretending that (a) Dawkins believes in little green men and (b) that Dawkins is proposing an unexplainable creator no more reasonable than a god.
But that's a blatant lie since even in the heavily edited clip the film uses Dawkins adequately explains this hypothesis. An alien culture that seeded Earth is HIGHLY improbable, but because it's a natural explanation with an evolution-like backstory built into it it is still MANY, MANY, MANY times more likely than creationism. IF Stein had cut out Dawkins' statement that the aliens would have needed to have evolved then Stein could pretend that the scientist believes in unsupportable fairy tales (which would have been disingenuous as well as hilarious, since Stein himself seems to believe in fairy tales) but the fact that Stein left Dawkins' disclaimer in and STILL ridicules him shows that he's not only disingenuous but also incredibly stupid.
And this BS is the climax of the entire movie! It's the clip that Stein took on shows like Glenn Beck. Beck, an impossible stupid person saw this clip (with the alien-evolution disclaimer intact) and exclaimed "But where did the aliens come from?!?!?!" And Stein agreed that this is a reasonable question, even though (a) Dawkins answered it IN THE CLIP and (b) that VERY SAME question can legitimately be asked of Beck and Stein's (incompatible) deities.
The whole thing makes no sense!
I must say, this is certainly one of your longest blog posts, but I was drawn to read every word because once again, you've hit on an issue I've recently devoted a lot of time to.
For my journalism class, I did a content analysis on Creationism and Evolution, viewing both the New York Times and the St. Petersburg Times, hoping to glean some facts based on geography. Anyway, I found that in most cases, people challenging Creationist beliefs rarely cite Evolutionary theories in order to justify their argument, but instead prove why Creationism has no place in science classrooms and why their arguments are logically and even psychologically unsound, despite the fact that an understanding of Evolution is something most skeptics are lacking.
The truth is, there need be no debate between Evolution and Creationism. The two are asking different things. Evolution asks how life has formed, and Creationism asks why life has formed. Most religious people feel by embracing Evolution, it threatens their religious values, when the two are incompatible.
I've recently been quoting one of your own statements that science will one day explain everything, discovering realms we can't even imagine. "You could call that realm God; the realm won't mind."
While I agree with that sentiment, I find God to be more of a mental concept, providing for internal stability, confidence and hope, as opposed to an actual presence. In doing so, I feel it does not conflict with any religious values, and in a follow up to my project, I intend to explain why so many people feel this way about Evolution and religion.
Thank you for this.
The entire notion of Intelligent Design has always struck me as absurd. It has also greatly worried me. As an earlier commenter remarked, the movement smacks of anti-intellectualism – and yet its backers try so hard to couch their language in terms of reason. They use pseudo-scientific terms to help legitimize their ideas to people who might be on the fence.
And they try so hard to suggest that they haven’t rejected all of scientific fact but are rather proposing a ‘reasonable’ way of explaining, and combining, evolution with fundamentalist religion. Of course the whole notion is absurd, but I’ve met people – actually met people – who feel that there might be something to Intelligent Design.
Of course, from the way you describe the film, Stein’s tactics aren’t even close to being subtle. As you noted, his use of the word ‘liberal’ would seem to be an immediate reveal of his agenda.
I haven’t seen the film, and thus cannot comment first-hand on its content. From your description, however, its sounds as though it is jaw-dropping in its intellectual and moral dishonesty. Stein actually went to Auschwitz and equated Darwinism with Nazi concentration camps?
Wow. That is wrong on so many levels.
Roger-
Great review. I would just like to clarify how Stein was selected to appear.
This is from an interview with Logan Craft (executive producer of Expelled), with the Texas Southern Baptist Convention magazine-
TEXAN: How did Ben Stein come to be involved in the film?
CRAFT: Well, John (Sullivan, producer of Expelled) had a real insight, we believe, into the necessity to have a person, first of all, who wasn’t overtly Christian or overtly religious...
Ben Stein is a hack.
While I will stipulate that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, we all must insist that opinions are only as good as the information that they are based on. ID is inherently intellectually dishonest, it takes a mathematical trick and raises it to the level of scientific proof. To anyone who has a curiosity on this subject I would recommend the writing of Michael Schermer and that they visit . Many proponents of ID often site the vehemence of the criticisms against them as proof of bias and equate resistance to ID theory to ad hominum attacks. To that I will say that politeness is wasted on the dishonest, who take any well meaning concession as validation. ID theory is creationism in sheep's clothing and it is false science put forward by those who have no real understanding of the goals of scientific exploration.
Bloody brilliant. I have never respected Ebert so much! I wish everyone who'd seen the movie were able to read this review. Just perfect! I will certainly be posting this on religious discussion forums ^^.
Though I know it will be largely ignored, perhaps one person will see the light and be driven by curiosity and a thirst for knowledge.
Ben is a moron. Triva knowelge is not actual intellegence if it were I'd be a fucking King. His crimes include more than just a documentary on an outdated controveral subject. This is a man who let Nixon make him look like a fool and still sticks up for Dickey and his place in history. For the past 20+ years he's lived off a cameo in a 80s movie. His game show gave Jimmy (I'm really not funny) Kimble a career. He's only job seems to be that of the TVAd pitchman which I believe is lower than Crackwhore on the "what do I wanna be when I grow up" career list. Win Ben Steins money- That was a lie too wasn't it. It wasn't Ben's money it was part of his paycheck from the show that he "bet" against the other players in a game so rigged in his favor that no-one really had a chance. Why cause (ask Jimmy) Ben couldn't take losing to the "norms". His huge out of wack with reality ego couldn't take it. Smuggly superior Ben Stien is really just talentless jackass and should be ingored at every turn. Not really shocked a guy with a an ego so large he mistakes it for intellegence can't understand evloution it kind of passed him by.
Your comments on the 'gotcha' moments in eXpelled reminded me a lot of another documentary in which I left feeling emotionally manipulated, Bowling for Columbine. To me, having Michael Moore stand in Charlton Heston's home holding a picture of that poor little girl as the old man turned and walked away from what he had probably realized by that point was a hit job seemed fairly gross; I'm no fan of Heston, but who wouldn't walk away in a situation like that? I quite liked Michael Moore before that film, but haven't been able to watch anything of his since then. To me he represents the same kinds of manipulative tactics you describe in eXpelled; I get so sick of that kind of thing from the right, why on earth would I want someone who more closely represents my views to do the same thing? But your review of Bowling for Columbine was 3 1/2 stars, so I'm curious as to why you think Moore's tactics were better or more acceptable than Stein's?
Ben Stein wants us to believe that people like him are being silenced. But his refusal to accept modern science is, in fact, one of the oldest "viewpoints" on the planet and has always been the mainstream. For centuries, it has been the scientists and non-believers who have been silenced. And so we should celebrate the fact that FINALLY, science is having a say and is at long last standing up to the pressures to put non-scientific, religious ideas into the science classrooms.
But the religious people are still trying to silence those of us who do not agree with them. As the author of the book Christian No More (ISBN 0981631304), I can say first hand what a struggle it is, a struggle that Ben Stein and his likes really haven't experienced, no matter how much they claim to have. Films like Ben Stein's and religious museums like the Creation Museum are treated with far more welcome by the people of this country than a book like mine (or a book by any of the bigger names such as Dawkins or Harris). If I wrote a book celebrating Christianity, I would have no fear of being attacked. But having written a book explaining why I'm no longer a Christian, I feel constantly attacked and I do no feel comfortable telling just everyone about it. And so we smaller-named authors with something to say continue to struggle to get our message out as we are constantly silenced by the likes of Ben Stein and his religious community.
Ben Stein has everything backwards, from his understanding of freedom of speech, to his understanding of the scientific method, to his delusion of who exactly has, for centuries, been silenced by whom.
Great job, Mr. Ebert. (And I'm also thrilled to see you still going strong after your struggles with health issues. Keep up the great work!)
Jeffrey Mark
jeff at EscapingChristianity dot com
Roger,
Nice review. However, while it seems you have your logic correct in the roulette example in that you state "Every single winning roll beats the odds of 37-to-1", the odds you talk of are the odds against winning on a single number not the converse. In addition, they are actually 1:35 for winning versus 35:1 against since the total number of possibilities has to be 36, not 37 (for each try, one chance of winning, 35 chances of not winning).
Ebert: Thank you for demonstrating why I did not get straight As at math. When my error is corrected on the blog, it will be with my gratitude to you.
I've been listening to and reading your articles on a weekly (now daily) basis for over 25 years. This has got to be one of my favorites. Thank you Mr. Ebert. I wish you much health and joy.
My beautiful friend Roger,
The question of humans, humanity, existence, freedom, love, joy is no longer a question of logic or science but irreparably a question a beauty a question of ecstacy.
"People commonly travel the world over to see rivers and mountains, new stars, garish birds, freak fish, grotesque breeds of human; they fall into an animal stupor that gapes at existence and they think they have seen something" *Kierkegaard* "It was completely fruitless to quarrel with the world, whereas the quarrel with oneself was occasionally fruitful and always, she had to admit, interesting" *Kierkegaard* " "not much chance for survival, if the neon bible is right" *arcade fire* The world is too much with us and could never produce us of itself before it would destory us and take us and grab our hearts and our souls and lift them, while destroying them, while destroying them, while destroying em, "we're just - a million little gods causing rain storms - turning every good thing to rust. - I GUESS WE'LL JUST HAVE TO ADJUST!!!" *arcade fire* "been singing hallelujah with the fear in your heart!" *arcade fire* My God is everywhere and he is nowhere contained. " Men go abroad to wonder at the heights of mountains, at the huge waves of the sea, at the long courses of the rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motions of the stars, and they pass by themselves without wondering." *arcade fire* If I keep this up I will fall apart apart apart. "You live in a deranged age, more deranged that usual, because in spite of great scientific and technological advances, man has not the faintest idea of who he is or what he is doing." *Walker Percy* Oh my sweet beautiful love. My soul is free and despairing. My love is true. I will sit in the classrooms with the children with the children and with myself, and listen to the teachers the scientists, the posters on the walls and ask myself about myself. If we don't teach the children they were made while in these walls maybe, perhaps, they will believe it... rosebud... rosebud...
"now who here among us still believes in choice? not i" *arcade fire* "I want very much to tell, to talk about, the wholeness inside every human being. It's a strange thing that every human being has a sort of dignity or wholeness in him, and out of that develops relationships to other human beings, tensions, misunderstandings, tenderness, coming in contact, touching and being touched, the cutting off of a contact and what happens then." - Ingmar Bergman... meaningless, meangingless, everything is meaningless. Do those who love, love truly or does their creation and createdness fail them precisely at this moment. What does it mean to BE created. To be created means to be loved, to be reckoned with? Or to fall, fall short and empty? Less. Less. Less. Flags wave at night and we fall into despair.
"Film as dream, film as music. No form of art goes beyond ordinary consciousness as film does, straight to our emotions, deep into the twilight room of the soul." *Bergman* There is no room that is not twilight that is worth dreaming about or worth knowing. You can have my mind, but please oh please do not take my SOUL. I want to be enveloped deep deep in the recesses of my own heart. Fill my heart in all it has and knows...
The question is not that of knowledge but that of beauty. (the lions and the lambs ain't sleeping yet *arcade fire*)
Mr. Ebert, this is one of the best reviews you've ever done, dissecting the film with logic and razor wit. It seems that truly bad movies do bring out the best in you sometimes.
At this point I am ready to bankroll a pro-creationist movie: "Deuce Bigalo, Intelligent Design Gigolo" written by Ben Stein, just to read your resultant review.
Good work, sir.
First-time poster, long-time reader, and a huge fan of your writing. Like usual, this was a total pleasure to read.
Has intellectual laziness always been this widespread? Or do you think this is a result of the complete media saturation we live in thanks to cheap internet and 700-channel cable TV, where everybody is clamoring to be the MOST OUTRAGEOUS just to get noticed?
What a paradox... I have no doubt that Ben Stein is a very intelligent man, but how can you know so much and still support such a fantasy? Faith, I guess. Can you prove God didn't invent the world exactly as it is 10,000 years ago, along with all the evidence to make us believe otherwise? No. And so it comes down to what people prefer to believe. A lot of people just like the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent God at the wheel of a rather chaotic world. Maybe it's reassuring, maybe it's out of loyalty to whoever taught them about God, maybe they just don't care.
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but a disturbing trend I think I see in today's always-online world is--due to the sheer incomprehensible volume of data available--people's tendency to only expose themselves to views they already agree with. How many supporters of I.D. have ever even glanced at Dawkin's website?
Sometimes I imagine that humanity is on the cusp of becoming a true sci-fi cybernetic hive consciousness... except it's schizophrenic. How's that for next summer's sci-fi blockbuster thriller? :-)
Wow, 100+ comments already. I love how a few folks compare your dislike of this film to your approval of some of Michael Moore's work, as if they have anything in common aside from being documentaries. So pathetic.
I'd love to see Ben Stein's "response" to this.
What's a darned shame is that at one time Ben Stein was fairly watchable on "Win Ben Stein's Money." What's unfortunate is that he thinks so highly of himself.
"Yeah, yeah, but MICHAEL MOORE, wah, wah, nah-nah-nah-nahnah."
Fundamentalists are so weak-minded! Confronted by challenges based on facts they always, automatically, deflect. It's as if they are six-years-old! "No Mommy, I didn't take the cookie I am chewing because sissy took my coloring book."
It would be funny, if it weren't actually so serious.
And, I can't be comforted by the natural swing of the pendulum. The blade is never sharp enough to strike a fatal blow.
Speaking as one of the resident conservatives who enjoy this blog immensely:
Never saw the movie, probably never will. So, how well it is made I take Mr. E's word for it. But I have suffered through most of Michael Moore's docu-dramadies and I think he took the documentary to the point it is today: filmmakers bring a hypothesis into the film and do whatever they may to prove that hypothesis, or falsely take one side of a belief only to be shockingly enlightened as the denouement. Oh, or the revisionist filmmaker that attempts to redress past wrongs by over-emphasizing people and events that were not necessarily part of the record at the time. Regardless of what the filmmaker is trying to say, they are FAR more entertaining than the dreck we were forced to watch in school.
Regarding the "science" behind the theory of evolution of the universe (not species that populate it), I think that we have wonderful scientists that do a fair amount of work to figure out why we are here, but have as many "facts" behind their beliefs as creationists do about their beliefs. Scientists hold to a different dogma than creationists. You can choose to believe one over the other, or a combination of both. That's pretty much how religion has been degraded in this country, if not the world, over the past 50 years - constant erosion of faith by the scientific community and society which holds those who believe in a higher power as ignorant and unimaginative neanderthals.
I profess my faith in God and Jesus Christ. I believe that the world and everything in it was created by God. It does not mean that species could not have evolved to deal with the ever-changing planet. God created a living universe, and not to evolve with the universe would be a death-sentence to any species that populates it.
The existence dinosaur is fairly easy to explain to anyone who is not completely anti-religion: Dinosaurs predate humans. The scientific record is clear on that. What is the Bible? It is the historical record of a people and their coming to know and understand their God. Man could not have known about dinosaurs because there were no humans around to write about it. And certainly, Moses was not going to the mountain to dig up a T-Rex.
I don't hold to the notion that God wrote the Bible. However, men and women INSPIRED by God wrote the Bible. The Jews who wrote the Old Testament mainly transcribed the origin of man from a rich oral tradition that passed on from generation to generation. Adam and Eve (symbols of the creation of humanity) did not have blogs back in the day. So, to hold the early actors in the great Biblical stories as accountable for not identifying dinosaurs and the different geological epochs is much like holding Copernicus accountable for not having the foresight to use the Hubble Telescope.
Oh, and I still think that science is woefully deficient on explaining the origin of the eye. To even mention an alternative theory on the eye's development to refute the concept of creationism is as ignorant as using the Genesis story in the Bible to refute Darwinism.
And, with two similies in consecutive paragraphs, I hail Ebert for another great blog entry.
The spate of tu quoque responses to Ebert's review makes me wonder if the political right is now hoping to take up Adlai Stevenson's famous offer—“If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”
Sorry fellows, that expired a long time ago.
I am an advocate of the Intelligent Design idea, because I think the evolutionary theory has some serious flaws. However, as a whole, I was very disappointed with the film, mostly because of the hyperbole, juvenile jibes, and silly editing. I was hoping for a more intelligent debate on the subject. Instead, we get the Darwin/Nazi implication (duh, just because a megalomaniac uses a theory to justify murder does not make the theory itself wrong). I would have liked to see more scientific refutation of the origin of species, especially an exposure of the paucity of evidence behind its assumptions. That was what I was hoping for, rather than the farce we got. Oh, and Ebert, I am disappointed in you for lazy thinking. Just because 99+% of scientists agree with something doesn't make it fact. There was a time when 99+% of scientists believed in the sun revolving around the earth, spontaneous generation, and a whole host of other nonsense that was eventually and rancorously disproved. I am willing to keep an open mind and look at the actual evidence, rather than base my opinions on what the majority believes.
Kevin T. Rodriguez said, "See, the thing that makes your readers upset is not that you have a viewpoint (because if this did bother them they wouldn't bother reading), but that you yourself tend to not be very subtle about it. Reading the above post I'd say roughly 85% of it was creationist/Stein bashing and 15% spent arguing the merits of the film itself.... you are too emotionally involved with this subject to be fair with it. You've proved multiple times that you can't be in this discussion without being a little bully."
Yes, yes, yes! Please listen to this man, Roger. I love that you're writing more these days, but I wish that you would limit yourself to the art of film. When you start discussing political/worldview matters you start to sound like Bill Maher--just throwing out spiteful comments against the other side.
Greetings Mr.Ebert,
thank you for another wonderful article, a great read.
I had not heard of Stein till today, and I am appalled certainly by what your review points to, in regards to his film. Frightening that there are people like this out there. Sometimes I just feel a little sad for the human race when it comes to this kind of ignorance and manipulation. I've been quite down this week just with the events occurring in Mumbai (and I pray the people of that wonderful nation, where men and women of every faith, colour, creed, belief, language jam pack the streets, do not retailiate in anger and with impulse towards the innocent). Reading about Stein just confirmed my belief again that there the human shadow is alive and well on our planet, and education and facing it full on is the only solution. We need more brilliant, intelligent people like you in this world! My hats off to you and your review.
But i did want to make on comment about the cartoon at the end of the page, the one box pitting astronomy versus astrology. I am an avid believer in astrology/numerology -- it is tied in deeply with hinduism, and a science -- yes a science -- that spans into history over thousands of years. Albert Einstein himself acknowledge there is real science and theory and truth behind astrology. Astrology, God, conciousness -- they are all linked, they hold the mysteries and answers to life. Unfortunately, in the west, (and yes in the east as well), the science of astrology has been reduced to a ridiculous joke, an entertainment, and the 'science' is gone -- it's a side-show, that would like to claim it can "foretell the future".
This is not the case. But I can tell, you from personal, un-biased experience, that it holds gobs of information -- there is enlightenment, God, and science, all rolled into one in the depths of astrology and the study of the science of the plants, and their position in the sky when one was born. ifyou were to look into the volumes, thousands of books available on the subject, which such precise, intricate math and science written by scholars and sages over thousands of years -- it would stun the western mind.
Like I said...it's a lost science,and what's left in the west, is largely a lot of gobbldy gook. But there are some points of light out, that there is something wonderful here - an ignored world of science that is just starting to reclaim knowledge, and grow, and develop, and move out of the shadow of silliness that has claimed it.
The most beautiful thing? The science behind astrology, much like the most meaningful interpreations of the bible, of the Hindu Gita, and of buddhis teachigns, etc., -- are all compatible with the Darwinian theory of evolution and with current scientific thinking about the quantum nature of the universe.
Respectfully,
Vikas =)
how does one insert a slow clap into a comment???
Thank you Roger.
The capacity for people to blind themselves to clear, logical, rational thinking due to their own biases continues to astonish me. Not that I'm not susceptible to making logical errors too, but if someone can point them out to me I'll be more than happy to adjust.
Which is what science is all about - a continuous feedback loop of theories, experimentation and validation (to the person who claimed "It's refreshing to actually see the evolutionary process challenged, which it isn't very often" - you simply don't understand the scientific method. It's constantly being looked at). Science is very dispassionate in this sense. It doesn't care if your theory is new or been around for centuries - if the facts or experimental evidence falsify it, then it's back to the drawing board with you.
The late Stephen Jay Gould had a brilliant article in Discover magazine years ago called "Evolution: Fact And Theory" (I may not be wholly accurate in the title here). He described how the specific methods and details of how evolution worked were still being debated as we continue to learn more and discover more evidence. But evolution itself had so much evidence behind it and had withstood so many arguments that it was indeed fact.
Kinda like the Theory of Gravity. Apples might fall upwards tomorrow, but I think we're pretty safe in stating that they won't.
Intelligent Design is not a Scientific Theory because it isn't falsifiable. It's very much like Astrology from that point of view.
The attempt to tie evolution to the Nazis is not only deplorable, but shows how desperate they are and how little evidence and logic they possess.
Reply to: For my journalism class, I did a content analysis on Creationism and Evolution, viewing both the New York Times and the St. Petersburg Times... despite the fact that an understanding of Evolution is something most skeptics are lacking. The truth is, there need be no debate between Evolution and Creationism. The two are asking different things. Evolution asks how life has formed, and *** Creationism asks why life has formed...***
That last statement is wrong.
You're confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design. Creationism says that human beings were created in their current form, and if you go back in time, you will NOT find a point where our direct ancestors were mammals the size of rabbits.
What you fail to understand is, Intelligent Design is a scam. A former law professor at Berkeley, Phil Johnston, created a phony science because a statement by Supreme Justice Scalia seemed to open a loophole, and Phil wanted to teach 'supernatural origins' in public schools as a first step to teach full-blown Christianity.
Many Christians think you can be both a Christian and believe in evolution. What they're missing is, Christianity is a con game. You can always believe in a Con Game AND scientitic truth, in the same way you can drive to Los Angeles AND Chicago at the same time. (ie, it's a joke on how stupidity works.)
If you don't understand what I mean by con game, let me give an example: Mark 1:32 When the sun had set, they brought to Jesus all who were sick and demon-possessed, and... Jesus did not allow the demons to speak because they knew him.
The con game is simple. Sickness is caused by demonic possession, and a man with the power to command demons can cure illness.
But Christianity takes it one step farther: Jesus did not allow the demonic spirits to speak BECAUSE they knew him.
It's like, trying to think of a premise so stupid, only the stupid stay past the opening credits.
That's Creationism. Creationism began at a time before we understood DNA. Creationism has the premise, our human minds and bodies are so complex, they couldn't have evolved from a less complex form. They must have been created in their present form.
Young-Earth Creationism is the religious belief that humans did not have ancestors going back before Adam and Eve, that the first two human beings were created in their present form and, well, never had human parents. Other forms of Creationism avoid the two-parent controversy, but they share a common central premise: if you go back in time beyond 10,000 years, you won't find a direct ancestor of modern humans. Our ancestors were created as humans, and didn't evolve from a smaller mammal with a smaller brain.
Evolution and Creationism cannot co-exist. They describe events that contradict each other. I know this is difficult to see when you're using a newspaper as your source material,
The lesson from Ben Stein's mistake is, Don't Accept Authority. Question Authority. Find out the facts and don't be afraid to reject a silly idea. Don't cling to a belief after it's been proven wrong. And, demonic spirits do not exist. Anyone who claims that demons are silent because of his power to command them, and if allowed to talk, the demons might reveal his true identity, is a con man. Don't be afraid to say it. If intelligent people remain silent, the Creationists could win.
While not defending Intelligent Design at all, there is an intriguing concept called "the Antropic Principle" which operates outside of Darwin's theory.
It sounds like a tautology, but it isn't quite, but maybe my limited ability to express its subtlety it will lead to that result.
The question it addresses: "gee if the universe could have developed along all sorts of different paths, then how come it leads to one with human beings in it?"
The simplistic answer: "if it didn't develop in a way that would result in human beings, then we wouldn't be here to pose these questions."
This answer says nothing about causality; it merely observes something that might sound superficial but also has some depth to it.
Mr. Ebert, do you think Ben Stein realizes that he is being dishonest in so many of his tactics or do you think his prejudice blinds him to it? This is a question that perpetually fascinates me. It seems pure chicanery, but to what extent are such dogmatists really not able to hear opposing viewpoints? I used to give them the benfit of the doubt, but the last 8 years have really opened my eyes to the extent that a certain set really does think their end justifies any means.
First off I have to say awesome blog post! It's poignant and hilarious all at once. I always get caught up in reading them and then my boss strolls in, and I keep reading. It's a risk worth taking. Here are some of my thoughts...
Many scientists have spent their lives devoted to the study and testing of this Universe. I look to up these people and highly respect their endeavours. It doesn't seem reasonable to think one's own fantasies would somehow disprove scientific theories, which have been so rigourously tested. If anything science seems like a good start to double check if you have a relatively sane outlook on the world.
Why would anyone be so arrogant as to claim that these people, who have devoted their lives to studying and informing people of how the Universe operates, are wrong? Science grows and scientists do make mistakes along the path of discovery yet it is the intellectually honest avenue. I definitely don't understand all the beauty and complexity of every scientific theory (although I wish I somehow could), but I feel confident I can rely on scientists to provide insight into the workings of the Universe with some accuracy.
The human brain is limited and as Socrates more or less said, it's wise to be aware of your own ignorance. If only Ben Stein could follow this great advice and put a little more trust in the scientific community, or at the least apply some greater use of critical thinking. Really, if you're going to clash with the titans of science than you'll need some critical thinking to debate. Then again critical thinking would probably cause you to agree with science. I digress.
The truth is scientists aren't evil demons come to delude people (just clarifying for any fundamentalists reading blog comments) - they're just telling you how it is - and it's a strange, beautiful and dangerous Universe we live in. I don't think any human or other species will ever really understand it all. The Universe is a living question. You just have to enjoy the mystery.
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense." ---Carl Sagan
Hey, since it worked so well in Iraq when we started with the conclusion we wanted to come to and then used cherry-picking, distortion, misunderstanding and suppression to manufacture the "facts" that would support such a conclusion, why not apply the same rigorous intellectual process to the origins of life? The scientific method is obviously best applied when it mirrors America's progress since 9/11: blind, half-assed, and in reverse.
Once again, I am frustrated by an arguement. What makes me mad is the fact that there is two sides to an issue, which leads to a stalemate. Just think of this: we have had three major forms of protests against descrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexuality. But wait, aren't those three in their own ways different than each other? So the problem isn't what is under descrimination, but the fact that something is under descrimination. Now when you get into a Creationist vs. Evolutionist fight, I think we have to look at it in the same way. Could the fact that we are fighting each other be the real problem? I believe in God and that he created the earth, but that is not why I believe in him. I believe in him because he helped my father overcome insainity and drug addictions, and completely restored several family relationships. What it all comes done to is that their is no logic to forgiveness, and yet that is the only thing that will save people from destroing their inner self.
Roger,
Ben Stein makes light of darwinism and he should.
You are very wrong about the way ID proponents are treated in academia. This is so clear in the Dover case. There are even some petitions currently in circulation on several university campus' trying to coerce their faculties into signing solidarity agreements for the unquestioned endorsement of evolution as the only existing theory for the origin of life. Their excuse is "protecting science".
The real motivation for evolution isn't even science. It's the "scientific establishment" desperately trying to keep "science" atheistic.
The proof of ID is clear and pervasive in all living things at every level. Nano technology exists everywhere within every living cell. Nano technology uses machinery operating at the molecular and atomic level. Much if not all using zero tolerances, meaning that even a single molecule out of place can shut down the entire cell.
This is just one example of the problems facing darwins theory. Yes, small changes can take place and organisms can adapt in a limited sense. But, the machinery of living things must remain basically constant. If you would bother to take a course in developmental biology, you'd understand a little better just how critical the process of cellular differentiation is.
Ben's critics are really trying to keep "science" atheistic. Evolution is the new creation myth that seems to explain everything, but needs a critical reevaluation.
Wayne
www.scifaith.com/blog
How did I know people were going to raise hell because you gave "Bowling for Columbine" and "An Inconvenient Truth" good reviews? I hate it when people turn everything into simple black/white liberal/conservative issues. And yes, that goes for the guys at the Huff Post too, so please don't accuse me of being another one of them damn liberals.
First of all, "Bowling for Columbine" and "An Inconvenient Truth" have nothing to do with "eXpelled". Just like Chappaquiddick has nothing to do with George W. Bush, but people still bring it up as some weird defense for the Republicans. I'm sure there are similar unreasonable things that the ultra-liberal democrats yell about when people trash Bill and Hillary. But once again, these two films have nothing to do with "eXpelled." "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has more in common with "eXpelled" than these two films. Both have evil Nazi's and God is real and tangible in both their film universes. But no one is yelling because "Raiders" got a good review. Because one film obviously has absolutely nothing to do with the other one.
Secondly, both those movies won Academy Awards. They were the best documentaries of the year. So why not ask the question "Why did Ebert give good reviews two two Academy Award winners, but not to some crappy film that isn't getting ANY nominations?" Probably because the answer is obvious. It makes it a little harder to accuse Mr. Ebert of liberal bias now, doesn't it?
Add Episcopalians to that list of science-minded believers. Can't wait to discuss this Sunday in adult ed as we're watching "Inherit The Wind" at St Nicholas Episcopal, Elk Grove. It's at 10am between services in the parish house. I'll save this for when we get onto the ID part of our ongoing discussions in the next few weeks.
Everybody's welcome. Church website is in the link.
The core point of this documentary is that the collegiate academic community, which is supposed to encourage discussion of conflicting view points, in this arena appears to be unwilling to tolerate any viewpoint other than "Darwin was 100% correct". Stein showed several people in the film who had lost their jobs not because they argued that Darwin was wrong, but because they suggested the possibility that evolution may not have been an entirely biological process.
Which might have actually been a useful argument, had it, or anything else in the movie, been factually true. I don't remember the specifics of each of the stated "cases", but you can find explanations for the real reasons these people where denied tenure, **chose** to move to different schools, etc., all over the net. The fact is though that in every single case they either failed to make the grade, failed to publish anything worthy of the institution they worked for, or intentionally chose to work someplace else, because they preferred that school over the one they where "supposedly" expelled from. In no case was evolution, or their disbelief in it, ***ever*** even brought up, either by the institutions they left, or themselves, until later, when it became a convenient political football for Stein and the DI.
Your even more off with the rest of your rant my friend. The reality is that Darwin's version has been pretty much set aside for some time now, and its that version that all these clowns always argue against, the underlying principles are as rock solid as steller mechanics at this point, and all the arguments fall into categories like, "Well, classic evolution doesn't quite explain this case, so is there something that does?", for precisely the same reason that Steven Hawkins came up with Hawkins radiation to explain some things about black holes that didn't quite "fit" into the existing framework.
Basically, at this point, suggesting that we don't ask questions is absurd, and suggesting that ID, which amounts to "It is just to hard to figure out, so God must have been involved", is even more absurd, and not just because there isn't one scrap of actual science going on at DI, or that ever time they come up with some "trump card", they think the science can't adequately explain, someone points out some scientist some place that has published an article on that very subject weeks, months, or even years prior, which the DI somehow **missed**. No, at this point, suggesting that ID is a valid "alternative" would be a bit like suggesting to a particle physicist that they need to take a serious second look at alchemy, because its "easier" than doing all that complicated and confusing stuff involving particle accelerators, and they, "won't even find the answers anyway".
Seriously, try to learn something about what "is" being researched and what the real science says, then maybe someone will listen to you, instead of laughing their ass off.
Brazenness of dishonesty is certainly painful.....disrespect of reason is disrespect of humanity.....disrespect of Man is the antithesis of religion.....it is the legal mind in a less edifying manifestation more than the scientific or spiritual,keen to win a losing "case" rather than advancing authentic social discourse or dialogue,which is surely the propellant in man's continuing evolution as a social animal....bringing in the camps out of nowhere is certainly most distasteful......that said,agreeing that the molecules had to win the roulette game only once,and further is only the cumulative bonanza of an initial wise investment....science,like film and literature has it's own austere beauty....but then that initial 1 to 37 chance WAS favourable.....there's your caring Godess of chance,minimally.....not necessarily a universe which is a chunk of dead rock...
To quote Daisaku Ikeda
"In closing, I would like to share with you a passage from Rabindranath Tagore ....... This poem is a paean to the eternal rhythm of life that permeates all people, society and the universe.
'The same stream of life that runs through my veins night and day runs through the world and dances in rhythmic measures.
It is the same life that shoots in joy through the dust of the earth in numberless blades of grass and breaks into tumultuous waves of leaves and flowers.
It is the same life that is rocked in the ocean-cradle of birth and of death, in ebb and inflow.
I feel my limbs are made glorious by the touch of this world of life.
And my pride is from the life-throb of ages dancing in my blood this moment.' "
I don't think the world, universe, or a higher power if there is one, would allow humans and dinosaurs to exist at the same time.
Life would most likely be difficult for humans that had to coexist with dinosaurs. Imagine a dinosaur taking an afternoon walk. Its neck is so long and its head is so high that it is unable to see the humans below. It accidentally stomps on a nice family having a barbecue in their backyard and flattens them like pancakes. Than again, the world has allowed humans and ants to coexist. Humans flatten ants every day, don't they?
There is another problem, however. If humans had to coexist with dinosaurs, wouldn't humans have legal battles over whether or not dinosaurs should be hunted and killed. Wouldn't there be liberal animal rights activists trying to protect the rights of dinosaurs and possibly attempting to domesticate them? Wouldn't there be conservatives fighting for their rights to hunt dinos and own the weapons to kill them?
What would life be like for humans and dinosaurs if they coexisted? Would it be like Jurassic Park with meat eating dinos chomping on humans? Or would there be a friendly relationship between the two in which humans ride on dinosaurs rather than in automobiles to get to their local grocery stores.
The question is what would Ben Stein do with a dinosaur. Try to convert it to Christianity. Could evangelical Christians and dinosaurs have meetings together? Ben Stein might think so.
Yikes. Mr Ebert, whatever happened to reviewing a film objectively? This was a film review, was it not? Although I must say...it certainly didnt appear like one. I hate to say it..but your "review", which was scathingly condescending and at times downright mean, coupled with the almost rabid response of 99.975 percent of your commenters has proved exactly the point of Stein's film. I believe what he was setting out to document, more than the argument for a mere discussion on ID, was the immediate dismissal and mockery of anything to do with ID. The majority of your review felt like a mockery of not only the film but the idea of ID itself...and Im sure that was your intention. Regardless of your religious beleifs (or lackthereof) or your views on ID or creationism, you can't possibly believe that there shouldn't at least be a discussion or a debate on the subject, right? We live in a democracy where every voice and every opinion supposedly matters yet you feel that the final decision on how we all came to be should be determined by an inconclusive theory that has been around for a little over 100 years?! Why has this suddenly become a closed case? That is what I truly took away from the film. That the argument for ID has been shunned completely and that the evolutionist camp has tried to belittle and squash any idea other than their own. And I feel that the film did a superb job in exposing that. And also, one more thing...I dont believe I know a single protestant that subscribes to the theory of evolution. Do you?
Ebert: Let's do the math.
*U.S. Population: About 300 million.
*Percent Protestant: 51.3%, or 153,900,900
*Percent of Protestants believing mankind has only existed in its present form: 32%, or 49,248,000
*Remaining Protestants: 104,652,900
I personally know quite a number of them who subscribe to the theory of evolution. Anybody else met some?
You'd think Ben Stein would have heard of the "reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy. Not that it would matter to his target audience: "logical fallacy" is liberal elitist speak.
Who needs logic or rationality when you got Jesus in your heart?
This whole rant is just a result of your liberal Catholic School education. Your whole argument reeks of intelligence and rationality aforethought.
I must state for the record, however, that Einstein would have been an awesome magic teacher...
Roger,
Clearly there are plenty here and elsewhere who would fall in lock-step with your dismissal of the film and the points which its author attempts to make. However, since when does a majority belief automatically equal truth?
The repression of evidence in opposition to one's theories -- however commonly held they may be -- represents intellectual fascism and willful ignorance quite unbecoming of scientists, politicians, filmmakers, and journalists alike.
Ebert: A 99.975% agreement on something does not make it right. But it makes it the wiser choice if you stand to lose the million bucks. Any reasonable person examines all the available evidence and bases an opinion on the findings. There is no credible evidence for ID. Every one of its attempts to advance such evidence has been debunked and demolished time and time again. To ignore this looks to me very much like willful ignorance. Darwin's original theory, on the other hand, has been extensively criticized, revised, refined and challenged by the scientific method, and its underlying principles thus proven all the more credible. And what does fascism have to do with any of this?
-Eric
Being a devout Evangelical Christian I recently saw eXpelled & I thought it was a bit dry at times & the info was nothing new either. The film was OK...but "The Privilged Planet" or "Darwins Black Box" were better sources of ID info.
Mr. Ebert, you act as if Ben Stein was the originator of the documentary "gotcha" moment. Please, save your indignity for Michael Moore or Al Gore. Richard Dawkins can handle himself & is no intellectual slouch, so if he came off a bit badly...well who is really at fault for that? Dawkins knows that the red light in front of the camera means it's rolling, so making an issue of the make-up scene is disingenuous.
Overall, all of you evolutionists patting yourselves on the back for disagreeing with ID are somewhat silly in my view. It's no better than one lemming giving directions to the next as they plunge themselves over a cliff. Also Mr. Ebert you cannot deny the racist bent that is clearly in "Origin of Species". Darwin did not hide it & it was definitely a factor in both Germany & Russia in some of this world's bleakest times. Did Stein play this portion up a bit? Probably....but it's his film, so deal with it.
ID simply asks the question, where did all of this come from, as getting something from nothing has long been rejected as a plausible explanation....except where origins are concerned of course.
If you don't believe in Intelligent Design then no big deal. Live your lives & let others live theirs....what I can't understand is the hate & anger from evolutionists. Why are some of you so mad? If you don't agree with an idea, no worries...just move on. I'm a Christian & if you don't agree with me, no problem we can still get along. I have friends from all faiths & some that are agnostic & atheistic....we disagree on religion & origins, but we're still friends.
I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on you...try not to do the same to me.
Last thought, regardless of the percentages of those who do or don't believe in ID or evolution...it's irrelevant. If a 100% of the scientists believe that money grows on trees....they'd still be wrong. Percentages of those who think something are not a valid arguing point. For instance it was generally agreed upon 150 years ago by most scientists that the inhabitants of the African continent were less evolved & less intelligent than those from Europe...they were wrong too. New information often causes those percentages to shift & should never be used as a method of proving a truth.
Ben Stein tried to make a funny & thought provoking movie/documentary....he succeeded in some aspects & others not so much. Better luck next time Ben.
The subtitle of Stein’s film is spot-on: “no intelligence allowed.” Seemingly, Stein’s treatment of the subject matter was unencumbered by critical thought or intelligence of any kind whatsoever.
Stein’s motives are only to promote his version of creationism, and as such is nothing more than religious indoctrination. I have zero respect for the religious right when they feel it necessary to lie to promote their views. Theology and science are not necessarily antagonistic, but neither are they synonymous. I would suggest that Stein heed the words of a well known fellow Jew, namely Jesus:
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)
After reading the comments here, I am quite astounded over how many people are calling you out for your bias in this post to your reviews on documentaries by Michael Moore and others of a liberal leaning.
I'm astounded because this wasn't posted as a review but as a blog entry. Since when are blog entries (or movie reviews for that matter) constrained by journalistic impartiality? It reminds me of reading letters to the editor complaining about the bias of commentaries on a newspaper's opinion pages.
If this was posted as a review complete with stars or thumbs on your review page, they might have a leg to stand on - if reviews were supposed to be objective. But it's not. It's presented as an opinion piece on your blog, a purely subjective and completely biased arena as it should be. I know I've never read an unbiased blog.
With that off my chest, I'd like to say how much I love this particular blog entry.
I've fallen to my knees and given thanks to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, grateful that Roger agreed to watch this film, so that I don't have to.
All praise His noodly Goodness!
It's a measure of how mucked up things are, in terms of the clash between religion and politics around here, that I simply can't believe for one moment that Ben Stein believes in God. How could such a harsh, harsh capitalist, with such a smug outlook, possibly believe in something that requires so much soul? He's a negative guy, gives off negative vibes, wrote speeches for Dick Nixon, etc.
Maybe I'm wrong. I probably am. Ben Stein probably falls to his knees in humility before the Creator at every chance he gets, overwhelmed by the impossible beauty of even the grubbiest morning. But I don't know: the radical right's hi-jacking of Christianity in this country has really negated at least my ability to see an endeavor like EXPELLED as anything other than a way to sneak religious folk across party lines in the middle of the night, with devious intent.
And further, when we're talking about the basic revulsion most of the less-fun religious types have for Darwinism, I find it almost always has to do with horror at the thought that we could be related to the other species of animal life on this planet, which implies that humanity has a smug superiority all its own - we simply MUST have a system of belief that explains why we can open a can of tuna, and the cats can't. In fact, simply the way we'll open a can of tuna s-l-o-w-l-y for a whining cat says more about humanity's frailty than BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ... (I've always held the strong belief that a human life, in principle, isn't inherently WORTH any more than a dog or a cat or a bee or a fly. It's what the human, dog, cat, bee, or fly DOES that measures their worth - and since all those other types of life are "innocent", it would seem to be us humans that need to prove that we are good enough to be related to all of THEM, and not vice-versa.)
But I don't need that broader image of humanity to remind me of my species' smugness and superiority. Just look at that picture of Ben Stein at the top of the posting. I say it again: Can someone CAPABLE of making such an insincere face have enough soul to be the one making this argument?
You know what? When dolphins finally deign to learn English, a lot of this will be cleared up for us. But I don't blame them for playing hard to get.
Points duly noted and agreed with, with one exception --- that being the point some responders take which is this: why must one disbelieve the notion of a supreme being if we also believe in evolution? Karl Sagan didn't. Neither, most say, did Einstein. Though Linus Pauling did.
If the requirement for belonging to the league of believers in evolution is that we must also be atheists, then that echoes and sustains Ben Stein's irrational outlook --- that believers of evolution have to be atheists.
If there is a God, as I believe there is, than a being capable of creating the universe is an entity far beyond human comprehension. God is, in fact, Wallace Shawn's cigar store --- understanding God would blow our brains out.
So in "God" terms --- God created the world in seven days --- is basically a simplification of what really happened. After all, the Bible would scarcely serve its purpose were it to contain the "billions and billions"* of pages of scientific explanations of the evolution of life. "And then God created Man" is much simpler, and in God terms maybe only took one of his days.
How's this for an argument that would blow Ben Stein's brains out --- Creationism and Evolution are exactly the same thing!
*Ibid Carl Sagan
Thanks for writing this. To paraphrase Lewis Black, "the Flintstones was not a documentary!"
To get a scientific theory recognized, you have to prove it. You have to perform tests on it and experiments; you have to figure out what predictions it makes about the world and see if those predictions are true. You can't just sue people until they're forced to teach your half-baked fairy tale.
Elitism - does it equate with the Chinese re-education period of Mao? Reminds me of that interesting movie "The Little Seamstress."
Matt Hone: "Roger, it happens to be my birthday today. This is the best birthday present I could wish for."
Hey, Matt: Mine, too. And I agree: Roger, you've given us a swell present.
I'm sitting in my office--should be grading papers, but it's my Ebert Lunch Break--and at my back is not only Time's winged chariot hurrying near but also a Darwin poster. He's his usual solemn self, and below the portrait is the obligatory quotation: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."
Say Amen, somebody. The God I believe in loves us so much he makes us absolutely free--and seals the deal by plunking us into a Universe whose First Principle is Absolute Freedom. Free to bounce around, rub random crystals, do what-all whenever--responding to change, trying to do the right thing. The alternative would be a Universe of childish fools, shielded from harm--and joy, and terror, and all the rest. But God wants free agents, come what may; this time around, He got bipedal primates with opposable thumbs and enormously complex brains. I can hear Him now: "Primates, schmi-mates, just be good to each other."
As for miracles, I'm reminded of Bogart's Rick in Casablanca. Every once in a while, we make Him feel just enough pity He fixes the wheel so that we can get our letters of transit. Now that's an intelligent design.
Ebert: In fact, having read all the comments, I can tell you we're up to three birthdays. Isn't there some party game that that if x-number of people are in a room, you're safe in betting that two of them will have the same birthday? As we move toward 150 posters (an all-time speed record), the odds are we could get up a nice-sized poker game.
I find it extremely unlikely that Rev (smirk!) Stein would choose "Answer 'B'" and lose one million dollars: he surely is not stupid enough to put his lies to the test. I do not doubt for an instant that Stein knows evolution happened and happens, and that evolutionary theory correctly explains how evolution works--- he just claims otherwise because it is popular and financially rewarding.
By Paul West on December 3, 2008 10:39 AM
I love how a few folks compare your dislike of this film to your approval of some of Michael Moore's work, as if they have anything in common aside from being documentaries. So pathetic.
The reason why a few of us have made the comparison because Roger Ebert criticizes Ben Stein for the same tactics that Michael Moore uses them in his documentaries: cherry picking quotations, makes outrageous juxtapositions, segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, etc. Roger has defended this when Moore did this (although stopping short of how Charlton Heston was treated in Bowling For Columbine) as "making a good story better"
I have no opinion of this movie. I haven't seen it, and the mere fact that Ben Stein with a straight face draws a parallel of the theory of evolution to the Holocaust means I never will. Even Moore never stooped that low. But regardless, many of the points that some of the people have been making here in comparing this film to Moore's have been valid. The two have more in common than you would like to believe.
My favorite line in this review, and I think the one that encapsulates all the reasons why Stein and ID proponents are wrong: "A theory, like a molecule, a sea slug and a polar bear, has to fight it out in the survival of the fittest."
ID has been given its chance, and like a mutation with no use, it has lost. We're just watching it founder in the gutter. Its death rattle is noisy.
Mr. Ebert,
Well said. The sort of lies and filth disguised as a film from Ben needs to be called out more and then thrown into the trash where it belongs. I'm just sad that this deceit gets more exposure. I can only hope that eventually mankind will give up on these childish superstitions and get to work on actually cooperating as a species.
Ebert: In fact, having read all the comments, I can tell you we're up to three birthdays. Isn't there some party game that that if x-number of people are in a room, you're safe in betting that two of them will have the same birthday? As we move toward 150 posters (an all-time speed record), the odds are we could get up a nice-sized poker game.
**raises hand**
I turned 38 today. I suggest Texas Hold 'Em.
Wow. You eviscerated this film much more thoroughly than I did or could have. I was equally filled with contempt as you. Yet I don't agree completely with the review.
I watched the film out of fairness to my sister, who is Born Again and recommended it. I had already read the reviews and did not expect to like it. I hated it.
But for about the first half, it had me. And by "had me," I don't mean "converted me." Merely, I took it as a call for greater intellectual curiosity: Do not demonize opposing perspectives, debate them, study them, prove or refute them. Let the best science win. That's the great thing about science: Once something is proven objectively, it can speak for itself.
For instance, you cite that 99.975% of scientists agree with Darwin's theory of evolution. I think the other 0.025% might have interesting thoughts on the subject, and if they can prove God using scientific methods, more power to them. Or if our earliest molecules were manufactured by aliens, I'd love to meet them.
Early in your review, you conflate Creationism with intelligent design. But the film establishes, if nothing else, that there is an approach to intelligent design distinct from Creationism, in the sense that it doesn't claim man walked with dinosaurs or stepped barefoot out of the Garden of Eden. It's about a fundamental question that I think consumes all of science: Why is there something instead of nothing?
Is the film dishonest about its agenda? Certainly. But is it fair to equate ID with Creationism? I don't think so. It's not necessary to condemn this wretched film. It condemns itself.
What tanks the film is its abject hypocrisy. It appeals to our reason and then throws reason out the window. It asks us to be fair to other points of view but then proceeds its shameful smear campaign that would implicate evolutionists in the Holocaust. It claims that intelligent design isn't about religion but then argues Darwin destroys God and that godless science results in eugenics and genocide. It sets itself up as the victim of intellectual bigotry, and then that snide treatment of Richard Dawkins. It even vilifies Planned Parenthood. May as well have thrown in the ACLU and broadcast the whole ugly mess on FOX News.
It isn't even artful propaganda. Subtlety is not its strong suit. It takes a sledgehammer to Darwin and then compares Stein to Ronald Reagan. Hitler, the Berlin Wall, the Civil Rights Movement -- and then a roaring standing ovation at film's end. Understandable I guess: A film such as this has to applaud itself. No one else is going to.
Kevin T. Rodriguez (December 3, 2008 4:49 AM) said
"You give Moore a pass for his films because you say he's upfront about it. Well wasn't Stein upfront about this movie too? He's trying to argue a case too, it's just fewer people agree with that stance... You give this film hell for points that you let slide with other documentaries you agree with."
Here's the thing: that way of communication, presenting both sides of an issue in a way that lets people discover the truth for themselves, DOESN'T WORK IN TODAY'S SOCIETY. Your argument will be drowned out by all the flashy graphics and talking-heads shouting at each other.
In order for an idea to receive attention, it must be MARKETABLE now. Intellectual curiosity, the desire to understand who we are, is not enough by itself anymore. (Just look at the grosses of Herzog's lastest films.) Advertising and mainstream culture have have answered those questions for us.
Kevin T. Rodriguez (December 3, 2008 4:49 AM) said:
"If the documentaries did less to prove a point and more to tell a straight, non-cynical story of real life events (or in other words practiced journalism), then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion."
Intellectual curiosity is currently not very marketable (reminds people too much of school, I guess). The market demands flashy graphics and "gotcha" moments. It's harder to create "a straight, non-cynical story of real life events" with enough gotcha moments to be marketable.
I agree that it's a problem our society needs to deal with. But the fault isn't just within documentary makers--the problem is that we, the consumers, insist that our information be entertaining: "the marriage of communication with entertainment." Things won't improve until we get past that.
Mr Ebert, Congratulations, your review is proof positive of the great lengths that man will go in order to make a monkey out of himself. Hey, hey we're the monkeys. Instead of calling your review,"Win Ben Stein's Mind" you should have called it "Stroke Roger Ebert's Ego." I amazed how a movie critic is an expert on every subject. You should have left well enough alone and not reviewed the film at all because all your review revealed is your bias on the subject. Your review fills me with contempt. Your critique is guilty of the very same things that you accuse Ben Stein of. Starting with "99.975" of scientists agree that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the beginning of the universe. That statement alone is more ridiculous than any statement made in Stein's docudrama. Poor Ben he ought to be congratulated that he was even able to find more than one person to interview out of the .025 of all scientists who support something besides Darwinism. I amazed how you are guilty of making quotes such as "various forms of eyes have evolved 26 different times that scientists know about, and they can explain how it happened. So can I." as case closed factual statements as if there is no debate on the other side. You want tolerance in films, in society towards alternative lifestyles, etc.. but when it comes to the science classrooms, you are so afraid of even one alternate choice such as ID that you lambast even the thought of it. You only preach freedom when that freedom supports your views. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The constant theme of the film from beginning to end, (which was obviously missed by you,) is there was a time in this country when only creationism was taught in the public classrooms. And if you check your history, you will find out that was the prevailing view at that time. Then those on the other side, the Darwinists screamed bloody murder enough years, for their view to be taught that it finally was. But eventually that wasn't good enough and since 1954 only one view has been taught in schools. All the film asks is where is the freedom in that? I mean, Mr Ebert, what made your movie review shows so interesting to watch (as opposed to your print columns to read) is that, Gene Siskel and later Richard Roeper also reviewed the same films as you and sometimes (as you well know) they might angrily disagree with your review of the film and vice versa. But it would not have been much of a show ( and we would not have learned as much about the film)if you just said, here is my review, end of discussion, no debate. There is always two sides to every story and to completely silence one viewpoint is the worst form of censorship imaginable. I think your view is wrong, "Even a big bang requires a big banger," but I don't have a right to censore it as you want to with my view. As the Bible says, "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."
Chad Kelley said, "I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on you...try not to do the same to me."
That is all fine and well, but you just made an argument based on how angry "evolutionists" (is that even a defined belief-system like you make it sound? how about "non-crazies" instead?) are, without seeming to notice that the entire point of the documentary can be summed up as: HEY! AREN'T THESE GUYS REALLY BIG, FASCIST, ANTI-RELIGIOUS IDIOTS WHO DON'T WANT YOUR KIDS TO LEARN ABOUT THE TOOTH FAIRY IN A SCIENCE CLASS?!? DON'T WE WANT EVERYONE TO LEARN EXACTLY WHAT WE THINK, EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD BE OUR PERSONAL PLACE AS PARENTS TO INSTILL PERSONAL BELIEFS IN OUR OWN KIDS WE DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO?
Sure, go ahead. Teach about mythologies in a class that deals with establishment of fact-based observations and accounts for how the world operates on a day-to-day (or millenia-to-millenia basis.)
How about I just come to your Sunday school class and teach a little bit about evolution and how science can be used to disprove the idea of God, say, next week? 10:00 a.m. okay for you? Special topic: 80 Year-Old Drunks and 40 Day Floods: The Hidden Talents of One Family and Their Struggle to Re-Establish All Life On This Planet As We Know It From a Significantly lowered Gene Pool (or, How I learned to stop worrying and trust in God to save the "chosen" people).
Yeah, thought not. But, hey, what's it matter? Human beings are all going to go extinct one day anyway. Who cares if you call it the rapture? I wonder what the dinosaurs called their final throes...it probably sounded a lot like "Roar...[fart]."
Hey all:
Again, not seeing the film, I do not know how tastefully the discussion of Darwisnism as the progenitor of the holocaust was done (I am thinking it was not, but what do I know). I see a lot of comments stating how reprehensible it is to use in the ID/Darwinism argument and genocide.
But just look up eugenics on wiki or google, or hell, even an encyclopedia, and you will find that eugenics was a pseudo-science based upon Darwinism (The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin - wiki), and oh by the way, proponents of eugenics implemented the racial philosophies of Nazi Germany.
I don't think it is an absolute stretch to say that maybe the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews and at the same time populate the Earth with the Aryan ideal. People perverting Darwin's theory should not debunk the theory, much like a deviant priest or the Crusades should discredit the whole of Christendom.
Kevin T. Rodriguez (December 3, 2008 4:49 AM) said
"You give Moore a pass for his films because you say he's upfront about it. Well wasn't Stein upfront about this movie too? He's trying to argue a case too, it's just fewer people agree with that stance... You give this film hell for points that you let slide with other documentaries you agree with."
Here's the thing: that way of communication, presenting both sides of an issue in a way that lets people discover the truth for themselves, DOESN'T WORK IN TODAY'S SOCIETY. Your argument will be drowned out by all the flashy graphics and talking-heads shouting at each other. In order for an idea to receive attention, it must be MARKETABLE now. Intellectual curiosity, the desire to understand who we are, is not enough by itself anymore. (Just look at the grosses of Herzog's lastest films.) Advertising and mainstream culture have have answered those questions for us.
Kevin T. Rodriguez (December 3, 2008 4:49 AM) said:
"If the documentaries did less to prove a point and more to tell a straight, non-cynical story of real life events (or in other words practiced journalism), then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion."
Intellectual curiosity is currently not very marketable (reminds people too much of school, I guess). The market demands flashy graphics and "gotcha" moments. It's harder to create "a straight, non-cynical story of real life events" with enough gotcha moments to be marketable. I agree that it's a problem our society needs to deal with. But the fault isn't just within documentary makers--the problem is that we, the consumers, insist that our information be entertaining: "the marriage of communication with entertainment." Things won't improve until we get past that.
So how was the film? Seems to me that this "review" fails your mantra, which, to paraphrase, is that a good or bad film is not what the film is about, but rather how it is about what it is about. Had you been as scientifically rigorous in your review relative to Al Gore's film, you may have been able to cite those knowledgeable, credible scientists who think human caused global warming is hot air.
Ebert: In fact, having read all the comments, I can tell you we're up to three birthdays. Isn't there some party game that that if x-number of people are in a room, you're safe in betting that two of them will have the same birthday? As we move toward 150 posters (an all-time speed record), the odds are we could get up a nice-sized poker game.
Well, today is also Daryl Hannah's birthday. I for one would be more than willing to play a little Texas Hold-em with Ms. Hannah. (Sorry; it's the cake talking. I'll go back to work now.)
Roger, you are da man. Thanks for this masterpiece of reason. Loved the snark! It doesn't matter how late you reviewed that piece of garbage lie-fest, it just matters that you did. I love it!!!
I too saw "Expelled" for review purposes. There were six people in the theater and all six thought it stank. Ebert pretty well covered all the ground. The creationists do not have a leg to stand on, yet they are giving Texas fits and Gov Jindal in neighboring Louisiana recently signed a bill to push creationism in that state. Ben Stein should hang his head in shame.
" Stein showed several people in the film who had lost their jobs not because they argued that Darwin was wrong, but because they suggested the possibility that evolution may not have been an entirely biological process."
Actually, Stein lied and thus you are vastly misinformed. Richard von Sternberg didn't lose either of his two jobs, though he should have. Guilliermo Gonzales failed to get tenure at Iowa State because his academic record as an astronomy researcher there was weak (and of course like all ID 'scientists' he produced no actual scientific research in support of ID). Carolyn Crocker, who taught blatantly inaccurate science in her classes, suffered the same fate as vast numbers of itinerant, non-tenured, visiting faculty : she finished out her contract, and it was not renewed. As is also typical, she got another academic job in short order, and also decided to pursue postdoctoral work (i.e., her career did not 'come to an abrupt end' as Stein claims). Eventually she *quit* academia to take a position with an ID group, giving ID lectures at $1K-$5K a pop. Robert Marks was not fired from Baylor; his pro-ID website was removed from Baylor's website because Marks refused to put in a disclaimer dissociating its contents from the University, and refused to remove his false claim that he ran a 'laboratory' of 'Evolutionary Informatics'. Pamela Winnick's journalism career seems not to have suffered from her pro_ID 'reporting' on evolution -- she was still writing for her Pittsburgh paper several years after the first pro_ID article, and more recently has written for such obscure rags as the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.
That's the roll call of the supposedly 'Expelled'. You can read all about them at Expelled Exposed
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Would that there were this much skepticism aimed at the ludicrous man-made Global Warming hoax!
Ebert: Can't believe that even George W. Bush has fallen for it.
Great review.
Even if it were true that Darwin's theory led in a straight line to Nazism, that doesn't mean that Darwin was wrong. Physics and chemistry and mathematics led in a straight line to Hiroshima. Are they wrong, too, Ben Stein? Should they not be taught?
COuld Dinosaurs live among humans? we know they didn't, but could they?
This writing is illuminating and entertaining, as always, but I must confess I still don't understand why the film wasn't reviewed originally. On the TV show, you and Richard began doing a segment where you chastised the studios and filmmakers when they kept a movie from the critics. These were usually bad, very bad, movies, but you guys voiced that you wanted to see them and review them for your audience. Now, here's a film that I don't believe was kept from critics, and one that you admit is "not a bad film from the technical point of view," but it doesn't get reviewed. Because of philosophical differences with the filmmaker, I suppose (even though "The Birth of a Nation" has a slot, deservedly so, in your Great Movies list). I am an agnostic and a vehement supporter of Darwinian theory, but I do love to be entertained with opposing viewpoints. Thank you for finally reviewing a film I confess to being quite curious about.
Ebert: It opened in April, when I was still in the hospital. I bought my copy of the DVD.
Brilliant Roger!…and funny too!
Here’s the biggest laugh of all. The religious right has totally missed their own astonishing biblical heresy, that’s right heresy, in invoking the concept of “accidental evolution.” According to the Bible (Pv. 16:33) God controls all chance and there are no accidents. That’s a pretty big Ooops! You might enjoy this from the current Google News listings:
Intelligent Design Rules Out God's Sovereignty Over Chance
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977514804
“What proponents of so-called intelligent design have cynically omitted in their polemic is that according to Biblical tradition, chance has always been considered God's choice as well.”
Does anyone else find it astonishing that Ben Stein- who is obviously not some sort of feral simpleton -can pretend not to understand what constitutes a fact? The human capacity for self-deception is bottomless. Thanks for calling this liar out.
Reply to: Wayne :The real motivation for evolution isn't even science. It's the "scientific establishment" desperately trying to keep "science" atheistic.
False. Science is inherently atheistic, and no one needs to keep it atheistic. why? God does not exist. If there was even one legitimate evidence for God, science would embrace the supernatural.
Reply to: The proof of ID is clear and pervasive in all living things at every level... This is just one example of the problems facing darwins theory. Yes, small changes can take place and organisms can adapt in a limited sense. But, the machinery of living things must remain basically constant. If you would bother to take a course in developmental biology, you'd understand a little better just how critical the process of cellular differentiation is.
This is a perfect example of the Nonsense. These are the people who are NOT allowed to publish in peer journals. They are presenting a "straw man" theory, which they say is wrong, and then pretend it's part of evolutionary theory.
Yes, small changes take place. And if you look at human evolution over the last million years, ONLY small changes have taken place. If you look at human evolution over the last ten million years, ONLY small changes have taken place, at the molecular level and at every other level. If you add the proper time frame into your answer, you might realize your mistake.
ID proponents are victims of a scam. Until you realize that Intelligent Design is a scam that spreads false information, you can't get rid of it. You have to actually say "con game." People are lying to you, because they have an agenda, to fool you into thinking there is evidence of a God.
Think of the lottery. The odds against any single combination of 5 plus 1 coming up, in the Mega Millions, is 175,711,536 to 1. And yet, someone wins every month or so.
Reply to: Ed: You want tolerance in films, in society towards alternative lifestyles, etc.. but when it comes to the science classrooms, you are so afraid of even one alternate choice such as ID that you lambast even the thought of it. You only preach freedom when that freedom supports your views... There is always two sides to every story and to completely silence one viewpoint is the worst form of censorship imaginable.
Again, completely wrong. Every legitimate alternative choice is being presented in science classrooms. Your mistake is, Creationism is NOT a legitimate alternative. It's a con game. By far the prefered alternative would be to examine ID in a classroom and show WHY it's wrong. And that's being done. Seriously, every time there's a discussion of evolution, the evidence is presented. The proponents of ID are the ones who don't listen, and can't read the Cliff notes.
Young-Earth Creationism limits the number of times humans have produced a "new generation," which is the mechanism of evolution. Even worse, they include a Global Flood where one family survived. Well, let's look at sexually transmitted diseases. Did they all evolve in the 5,000 years since the Great Flood? Or were Noah and his family infected with the ancestors of every SD around today? The evidence PROVES Creationism is wrong. A hundred different tests, many of which you've never considered, but are part of legitimate evolutionary theory.
That's the standard. Legitimate Evolutionary Theory.... learn what it is, and quit trying to fool us by shooting down ridiculous "Straw Man" theories that aren't part of modern science.
"On the Origin of Species" was published 24 November 1859.
Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau published a book called "An Essay on the Inequality of the Races" or as it was originally known: "Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines." American physician Josiah Clark Nott translated this 1853 essay with Henry Hotz into English in 1956.
It was Nott who wrote "Types of Mankind or Ethnological Research" in 1854 along with George Robins Gliddon in which he put forth the polygenist theory of separate originals of the human races.
All this predates Charles Darwin's 1871 "The Descent of Man" as well as his "On the Origin of Species."Darwin concluded that the races were one species.
Gobineau is a well-known name amongst people who have studied the social aspects of racism, but as Mr. Ebert points out, intelligent discussion probably isn't what Ben Stein was interested in.
What is interesting is the article written in "Scientific American," entitled: "Six Things in Expelled that Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know."
According to the article, Stein has taken Darwin's words out of context. Shame on Stein.
Darwin was also influenced by his interest in horticulture according to the exhibit "Darwin's Garden" (currently at the Huntington Library in Pasadena, CA). In the garden we find that variation within a species as beautiful and something to be sought after and even actively pursued. Think of a rose garden or peonies or bamboo. Diversity is treasured in such gardens. In the garden that is the planet Earth, it is unfortunate that too many people do not find diversity within the species of homo sapiens as something wonderful.
Kudos to Roger Ebert! I would have never spent a dime to see this movie, so thankfully I was able to see it for free for review purposes, and the comments from Roger Ebert are dead-on! I actually used to like and respect Ben Stein quite a bit (and probably still do), but the ideas and conclusions he tries to draw in this film are just a shame. An otherwise intelligent man, and seemingly personable, WHY he is unable to separate fantasy from reality when it comes to religion and science, I have no idea! Science can explain it, I guess, with the theory of "Cognitive Dissonance," where you actually KNOW and have been explained the truth, but you still cling to the wrong ideas, and indeed embrace them more powerfully! And I agree with Ebert when he is "filled with contempt" over Stein's connection with the Nazis to Evolution ... SHAMEFUL, Ben Stein!
I think a great deal of the motive force behind ID is a unwarranted fear of science. These religious people feel that science makes very broad claims about reality and in great part these claims are contrary to their dearly held traditions.
They ascribe to science abilities and powers of scope that science does not claim for itself. They are afraid of a fake science. I think a understanding of modern science's philosophic underpinnings would be very useful. Science's power comes from its LIMITED scope. The claims of science are narrow assertions limited by the practical limit of experimentation and the theoretical limits of sensory experience. It is by imposing strict experimental limits on its claims that science creates knowledge that is supremely cumulative and transferable.
The questions of God and religion are outside this narrow range. Science can make no claim on the existence of a personal God. That assertion is outside the theoretical, and therefor ultimate, limits of science. The idea of a threat by science to religion is a psychological one based on a misunderstanding of the limits of science.
Mr. Dawkins likewise makes the same error, but I imagine with less excuse of ignorance. He makes broad claims, specifically against God, that can not be subject to experimentation. That God does not exist is as much a scientific claim as that God does exist. Mr. Dawkins cloaks his personal beliefs in scientific jargon and sells it as science itself. In my opinion this confusion about what science is from a scientist is more damaging to the public than ID. It frightens unnecessarily and confuses his readers who assume he propounds a rigorous scientific viewpoint.
Hi Roger,
Thanks for wadding into such dangerous waters with your wit and intelligence as weapons against the superstitious and ignorant.
In reading through the replies, I see Michael Moore cropping up as an example of the 'same' cheap tricks on the left towards which you are apparently tolerant. Can you address your views on the distinction between Stein and Moore in this regard. Are they different in kind, quality, intent, or outcome?
Thanks again for such a marveloud journal entry,
Don in Huntsville, AL
Whatever Ben Stein says must be truth because he wrote speeches for Nixon.
"I love how a few folks compare your dislike of this film to your approval of some of Michael Moore's work, as if they have anything in common aside from being documentaries. So pathetic."
First, they do have something in common...it's called motive. Moore has a distinct motive going into all of his works & in this case so does Stein. They started with an end in mind & that's the rub here...both Moore & Stein had an agenda they were trying to forward.
Roger,
About those shared birthdays....
Amazingly, if you have 24 people gathered together, the chances are better than 50% - 50% that two of them will have the same month and day of birth.
With 30 people, the chances are 68.7% that two will have the same month and day of birth, and with 35 people the chances are 80.0%.
I don't know how to upload the math or send it to you, but the concept is pretty simple:
[ chances people have shared birthday ] + [ chances people do not have shared birthday ] = 100%.
The chance that they do not have a shared birthday is (364/365) * (363/365)*(362/365) etc. carried out for the number of people in the group (actually the math I cited above also contains a technical factor to account for Feb 29 birthdays in leap years).
I've tested this empirically as well at large gatherings and even though the numbers seem astounding they do seem to hold true (i.e., in groups of about 20 - 25 people, around half the time there is a shared birthday).
I have yet to come across a creationist who is able to present me with evidence of a 700 million year old rabbit fossil. J.B.S. Haldane said it would blow evolution out of the water.
Still waiting, guys.
The truth is that even if Expelled and Moore's movies use similar tactics, Moore tackles concepts that are real controversies, while ID VS Evolution has not been a legitimate scientific controversy for over a hundred years. Because the point of the movie is baseless, the creators are forced to manufacture their story to a much higher degree than Michael Moore ever does. This erodes the quality of the movie.
Also, even if Ebert is wrong in his anlysis for Moore's film does not change how right he is about this film.
Yes. (to the article).
Incidentally, the logic is that with 23 people in a room, there is a 50% chance that to of them will have the same birthday.
At 200 people, which we must be at by now, there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999998 % chance that 2 will have the same birthday. Seriously.
Roger, I don't watch movies very often therefore I'm not up on reviews, but this essay you've created is far more than a simple review. You are a wordsmith who deserves praise for your intellect and wisdom. Never has the foolish belief in Intelligent design been dragged out in the daylight in the center of town and exposed for the hokum crap it is, the way you have done so.
Thank you.
Signed, A new fan.
PS I read every review you write from today forward.
With regard to X people in the room leading to two of them having the same birthday, the odds are lower than you might think - with 23 people in the room, the odds are 2 to 1.
That's right - the number 23 strikes again!
"but I don't have a right to censore it as you want to with my view"
Tell me Ed Hamilton, how is your view (or Ben Stein's view or the producers' view) of ID being censored? Didn't an entire film about it just get released? Aren't you able to discuss it here and elsewhere on the Internet? Is it because ID is not taught in the Science classroom? Ah, well if that is it, there's actually a good reason:
ID is not a scientific theory.
It simply isn't. It isn't falsifiable.
If you want to have a debate about origins of life and match up Evolution vs. ID please go right ahead. Just don't do it under the guise of science.
That's what many of us are concerned about. Not because it threatens evolution. Seriously (I really mean this), if evolution were disproved by new evidence, evidence that was validated and found by others as well, but was also consistent with all previous evidence found, scientists as a whole would actually be happy. Yes, happy. Stunned likely, but indeed they would be happy.
This will be a legendary essay.
Mr Ebert, re: your question about the chance of people in a group of a certain size having the same birthday — Wikipedia has been there (of course):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox
A quote:
In a group of 23 (or more) randomly chosen people, there is more than 50% probability that some pair of them will both have been born on the same day. For 57 or more people, the probability is more than 99%, reaching 100% as the number of people reaches 366.
Excellent article, btw. Maybe you could look into why this creationist bs is such a hot topic amongst Americans. The last time it was an issue in the Netherlands was a few years ago, when a Christian Secretary of Education tried to put it on the agenda. During the row that ensued she weakened her stance and declared herself a believer in “iets-isme”, a Dutch term meaning ”believing in something”. Our current Secretary is a biologist/geneticist, thank Darwin. ; )
Ed Hamilton's post above would have us believe that since alternate ideas to evolution are not taught in public schools today, it is evidence of liberal, elitist, academic intolerance. Nonsense. First of all, the only thing taught in any science class should be SCIENCE, not religion. Intelligent Design/Creationism has not met the most basic standards of scientific proof. If it ever does, it will be given the same level of credence as Darwin's work. Until then, it is just ignorant nonsense.
Secondly, no intolerance has occurred. Intolerance would suggest an effort to limit freedom of speech, an unwillingness on the part of liberals to even allow Stein, Hamilton, et al., the right to give voice to their absurdities. Last time I checked, no one prevented the Stein film from being made or distributed, and as evidenced by Hamilton's post above, no one has prevented him from promulgating his ludimocrosity-as-science rant.
Mr. Hamilton, if you ever need surgery, which surgeon do you want operating on you: A.) a medical scientist who understands and respects empiricism, has thorough command of basic human anatomy, is familiar with the concept of an aseptic field, and has a record of continuous education in the latest advancements in surgical technique, or; B.) a religious zealot who received a faith-based education, assiduously avoided any offending inconvenient scientific truths, who thus remains pure in thought, and is content to let faith and prayer alone guide his knife?
Ignorance marketed as alternatives to demonstrable fact is a threat to us all.
As one of the few bloggers who has seen this film, I think its important to correct one common misconception people are getting from your review. Stein did not blame Darwin or evolutionists in general for the Holocaust. What Stein points out (accurately, by the way) is that some "scientists" used the theory of evolution to support their theories of eugenics, race superiority, etc.
And just to be clear, I agree that this was not an appropriate subject for the documentary. Even mentioning Nazis, Hitler, or eugenics in this documentary was a huge mistake becuase it leads people to immedately make the kinds of inaccurate conclusions that several posters on this blog have made, namely that Stein is blaming Darwin for the Holocaust. It was a mistake for Stein for include this section in the film as it distracts from his main thesis which is that the academic community is waging an all out war against any type of intellgient design discussion and, ultimatley, against religion itself.
Loved the review, and in it's own special way, I loved the movie, too. It was easily the funniest movie I've seen all year, culminating with what could easily be seen as one of the very funniest scenes in all of film history: the climactic showdown between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. I haven't laughed so hard in years: here's this man, Dawkins, clearly the movie's "villain", and he just dominates all over the ill-prepared, condescending "hero" Stein. Stein comes off in these final scenes as a babbling moron, while the composed and intelligent Dawkins hands him back his questions with a fat slice of humble pie. It was so funny and so satisfying that it almost made me forget that I'd been called a Nazi and a robot for the last hour and a half for believing something that's more or less, you know, true.
Rather than praising this wonderful essay or insulting Mr. "Bueller-Bueller-ClearEyes-Wow!" some more, I'd like to tell a quick anecdote on the subject.
I remember once as a kid closing the front gate of my home one morning and being called behind it by Word-spreading passers-by. (Evangelists? Mormons? Jehova's witnesses? I didn't ask.) I can't remember the debate that followed with specifics, but I recall its central theme being: "Do you believe in dinosaurs or God? One or the other." I said: "Both."
"Don't you believe in the Bible?," they asked.
"Sure," I answered.
"Genesis says God created the world in seven days, but dinosaurs supposedly existed millions of years ago. How can that be?"
I responded: "Well, time for God isn't the same as time for people."
Would that I could be as wise an adult.
Obviously you are right, and any sensible person will agree. What I wanted to comment on was the quality of your writing, which just seems to be getting better and better. And it was great to begin with.
(it's my birthday today too. deal me in.)
It seems odd to me that someone hasn't proposed a middle ground for this ridiculous argument. As a person in the scientific community I'm a firm believer in evolution, however, I also hold a believe in God. Is it so blasphemous to say that God used evolution as a tool to create the creatures of this earth (including humans)? Evolution is an incredible process that allows life to accommodate to an ever changing environment. It seems to me that giving God credit for its implementation is a compliment, and certainly not a negative. If the religious community doesn't stop taking every specific detail of the bible (dates, lengths of time, the rapture) so seriously, then they will only succeed in driving away every person of intelligence.
Roger, excellent work! While I have nothing substantive to add regarding the article, I wanted to comment on this comment:
By Tor Ramsey on December 3, 2008 1:05 PM
"Points duly noted and agreed with, with one exception --- that being the point some responders take which is this: why must one disbelieve the notion of a supreme being if we also believe in evolution? Karl Sagan didn't. Neither, most say, did Einstein. Though Linus Pauling did."
I do believe it is generally thought now that Einstein was a nonbeliever, at least in any traditional sense. In a letter to a colleague (Edgar Meyer) dated January 2, 1915, he said:
"Why do you write to me "God should punish the English"? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
Similarly, Carl Sagan on God:
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
It is my understanding that both Sagan and Einstein were not believers in a sentient supreme being. There are other quotes and sources that would suggest the same as the above.
matt said "How about I just come to your Sunday school class and teach a little bit about evolution and how science can be used to disprove the idea of God, say, next week? 10:00 a.m. okay for you?"
You're welcome anytime, we can setup up the discussion for the adult & teen Sunday School Classes. I go to church at the Maple Hill Community Congregational Church in Maple Hill, KS. You're always welcome although you should take your meds first....that anger again?
These claims of mythology you say ID believers subscribe too, perhaps you're oversimplifying it. It's not as if I believe in ID because I don't understand anything else....I love science. Love it. My faith is not in jeopardy & I don't check my brain in when I go to church just the opposite. I actually came to faith because of science & it is bolstered by it...if you'd like to discuss actual specifics, I feel pretty confident with my beliefs & we could certainly engage in a debate...but dude you gotta check your anger at the door. Emotional debates are useless, it invariably turns into conjecture & name-calling. I'm all for a discussion & can easily articulate my beliefs without all of the emotion. Just the facts...I'm not intimidated by science.
So if you're serious, let's talk.....not yell or rant...talk.
"Isn't there some party game that that if x-number of people are in a room, you're safe in betting that two of them will have the same birthday?"
If you have as little as 23 people in a room, it is more likely than not (51%), two of them have the same birthday. 57 people in the room, 99% chance. 100 people, 99.99997%. 366 people, 100%.
See here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox
I like Ben Stein. I liked Expelled, too.
Ben Stein is important because, like our friend Socrates, he makes the weaker argument the stronger. That's always fun. It helps that Stein's smart enough to put the evolution argument on the run, and they have little room for retreat. Right or wrong, they only have the past 200 years or so to draw on, and creationism has all that longevity and writing on its side. Pretty fertile ground.
Many of the writers have already mentioned Michael Moore's celebrated techniques being picked up and used by Stein. I would add that Bob Eubanks knows all too well what can happen to you when the camera's rolling during makeup. That was when I broke with Michael Moore, and although it's entertaining to see Stein stoop to the same tricks, it is a stoop, and I think he's more than capable of giving his argument a good run without trickery.
I think rational well-intentioned people can at least agree to this: both systems come down to belief. Science is still unable to solve Hox's paradox and until they can, there will be no definitive proof for evolution. After they do--and they will--and we find that we have in our hands the solution to aging and cancer, we'll all throw creationism out the window.
Another worthwhile attribute to this movie is that it shows that it's possible, in fact preferred, to investigate and tolerate competing belief systems in order to determine truth. As you pointed out, Roger, Deiter Dengler did not open and shut doors in his house until Herzog asked him to. So was that a lie? No. It was a method.
The truth does not lie around in the back yard hoping we'll trip over it and then move on. It requires some sort of apparatus for us to get at it, and after that what we do with it determines who we are. No one would be foolish enough to posit that climbing a rope is a lie, while climbing a mountain is true. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact--they're interdependent. That's a good lesson for everyone.
My favorite prof was a fellow who branched out into semiotics from Boolean algebra and kept a copy of the Shroud of Turin over his desk. He was a believer, but he did not preach anything but method, and if that method let you use Christianity as a stepping stone for more arcane beliefs, then go ahead, he said. Or, as Wittgenstein (no relation to Benstein) pointed out, language in and of itself is a technique and once used to gain perspective, should be thrown away, like a ladder you've used to get on the roof. It's a tool. Don't confuse the tool and the work--even when they seem to trade places.
All I would tell Ben Stein as he clomps around in the Socratic method is to remember what happens when you make the weaker argument the stronger. It may soon be Ben that requests a sacrifice be made in his name to Aeschylus as the cold, cold hemlock does its job. Vanity vanity all is vanity and there is no new thing under the sun.
Roger,
In response to your reply, how does one scientifically prove there is or isn't a God? It can't be done. How, then, can anyone authoritatively state that Intelligent Design is completely without basis? As I recall from the film, Richard Dawkins himself made a fairly interesting case for at least some form of ID.
Furthermore, I'm curious as to how exactly you arrived at this "99.975%" figure. Which scientists were polled to produce such a result? Which ones were sick that day? Was the poll taken on a Sunday morning, perhaps? When all the dissenters were in church?
Fascism has a great deal to do with this, Roger. People are being actively persecuted for having this non-conformist notion that there's more to the universe than random chance and chaos. Why is it so important to repress even the mere possibility that someone or something might have put us here?
Finally, I consider it particularly interesting that you so readily dismiss the tactics of this film, yet you seem to hold the highest regard for "Religulous", "Farenheit: 9/11" and "An Inconvenient Truth". I suppose "Expelled" does lack the same polish and finesse of those others, but surely the topic itself isn't off-limits? After all, "it's not what the film is about but how it's about it", right?
-Eric
I was a physics student at Iowa State University, and Alberto Gonzales was my astronomy teacher. He was a fine teacher. But, I recall he didn't get tenure because he secured way less research grants than the typical professor.
Great review, by the way. I feel like watching, just to see what they make of Gonzales.
It may be a nit pick of CR's comment, but before you change your blog Roger, and to defend your math capabilities, your use of 37 chances of losing for the Roulette odds is correct. CR said 1:35 but that "denies the existence" of the "0" and "00" on every Roulette table that allows casinos to make such a killing.Thus, 1:37 is correct.
I had hoped this movie was a joke - especially when I saw Ben Stein's name attached to it. My opinion of him really took a dive - since he always seemed so learned and sincere. Oh well.....
ID'er need to get over the fact that their idea is not Science, never has been Science, and never will be Science. The Scientific Method mandates that you test, re-test, and test again the various hypotheses - ID'ers can't. Their answer to every question is "God did it." How do you test that?
And, if the you look at the history of Science, you will see a field of continuous change, as new information and insight is gained into the natural world, theories change to conform to the new information that is available. People who claim that Scientists have been wrong in the past - well yes, of course they were wrong (like the Sun revolving around the Earth and other outdated and discredited theories) because they didn't have access to the tools that would allow them to make the observations necessary to disprove the "mainstream" theory.
Science constantly changes - ID'ers don't accept any change at all. "God Did It" is the one and only answer - so tell me, which side is biased & inflexible?
Mr. Ebert, I am a great admirer of your work, but I must stand with the minority on this one and say that this review was not up to your usual standard.
Yes, Intelligent Design (or whatever they're calling it now) is, to put it kindly, idiotic. But for that very reason, a drawn-out attack on it from an intelligent debater smacks of bullying, like watching a prizefighter beat up a cripple. A light touch is sufficient to knock it down. Yes, there will still be some who still believe it, but no amount of logic or evidence will sway them, so why bother?
And yes, from what you say this film sounds like garbage. But it would be garbage even if it espoused a conclusion which happened to be correct. If you had simply described the film's trickery and illogic -- too obvious to be sinister but too offensive to be laughable -- it would have been a good read, but by railing against the subject matter you spoiled your own prose style and diluted what could have been a crisp, sharp review.
If the film had been a subtle and persuasive defense of an utterly bankrupt idea, now that would have been interesting!
For a wonderful exposition on how something that is not life turns into life, I heartily recommend the book At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-organisation and Complexity by Stuart Kauffman. Absolutely wonderful stuff.
I love it, still I was reading through the pop references and hoping that a Ferris Bueller one was going to come along at any second.
You're thinking of the Birthday Paradox in the comment above, where the magic number hovers around 25 people as the minimum to guarantee a match, depending on who is providing the analysis.
And in an off-topic comment, check out Odetta's Christmas record if you don't have it. Good stuff.
Ebert: So sad that she died today.
"But eventually that wasn't good enough and since 1954 only one view has been taught in schools. All the film asks is where is the freedom in that?"
Scroll back up, look at the comic at the end of the article. It's also been a good long while since chemistry teachers taught alchemy, but I don't see all that many people whining about intellectual repression, the "cult of chemistry", etc. etc. There are people who believe lots of crazy things - there is in fact a society that proclaims the truth of the flat earth - but that doesn't mean we should be giving them equal, or even partial time in academic discussion. It's not censorship, it's merely following the principles of good science. There are unanswered questions about evolution, but scientists are constantly striving to solve such problems, and new discoveries are constantly being made. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, and all the "problems" they've identified with the theory of evolution have been thoroughly addressed by scientists, using, once again, the principles of science and rationality and truth. The creationists, in spite of all that, continue to rant about how nobody can answer their questions, how horribly repressed they are, etc. (And, for the record, the stories of academic repression are largely exaggerated, if not completely false - check out Expelled Exposed and various other websites.)
"There is always two sides to every story and to completely silence one viewpoint is the worst form of censorship imaginable."
There really aren't two sides to this though. No matter how much you may scream it. There really aren't.
Here's the thing - you can hold your views all you want. You can believe that evolution is a flawed theory and that intelligent design is a more probable answer. I don't think you're being completely rational, but everyone has some irrational aspects about them. However, when you try to say that such views should be allowed to be taught in schools, and that they should have a place in scientific institutions and the sort - well, I'm going to fight against that as much as I'm going to fight against someone trying to teach that the earth is flat or that the theory of gravity is false. No, it shouldn't even be taught as an option because there's absolutely nothing scientific about it.
"I think your view is wrong, "Even a big bang requires a big banger"
And even a god requires a godmaker. You may say - "well, God is infinite and eternal and has always existed", but that, unfortunately, doesn't make any more sense than the idea of the big bang.
Let me clarify the end of my last post. I wasnt saying that I believed that evolution thinking protestants do not exist. Astonishingly, they do. I was simply saying that of the hundreds that I know (at least the ones that are true followers of Christ and believe the Bible to be God's Word) I have yet to meet one that believes that we weren't created by God and God alone. Sure there are some that may believe that somewhere along the way, some forms of evolution occured. I respectfully disagree with them. But as far as a true protestant who claims to believe the very word of God that says "Man was created by God", I have yet to meet one who believes that we....well, weren't. Mr. Ebert, I respect you and have admired your writing for some time now, but I feel that you are way off base here. Judging by your review and the responses to some of the commenters here, I have concluded (and correct me if Im wrong) that you think anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution is in some way ignorant or "of lesser intelligence." Really? Am I just an ignorant American because I have a faith in something greater than a microscope? I wont get into the whole "faith vs. science" thing, but in practicing my faith and aligning my beliefs with what the Bible says do I therefore forfeit my right to a voice in the discussion? I certainly don't think so.
Ebert: In other words, no Protestant as you define a Protestant subscribes to Darwin's theory. Yet two out of three Protestants as they define themselves apparently have no problem with it. I suppose by your definition Catholics aren't even Christians at all, so their opinions, including the Pope's, are not relevant here.
This is, without a doubt, one of the clearest, most brilliant refutations of the nonsense that is ID, that I've ever read. Thank you Roger.
Roger, this was an extraordinary piece of writing, as usual. Once again, I have so much admiration for your passion and insight in championing the cause of reason and logic in the face of willful ignorance. Ben Stein should be ashamed of himself, though it's unlikely he will be. And you should be very proud. You are among my literary heroes.
The very basis of creationalism is steeped in a tradition that is not attempting to answer the "hows" of this world. And as many "101" theologian/spiritualists would agree, the important question faith attempts to answer is not so much the how, but the why.
Quick tangent. You have moved into a new phase of critique that I hope to see more of in the media. Why don't we get more depth in our reviews and news? We deserve better.
Isn't Ben Stein that dude from the Clear Eyes commercials?
You've always been more than just another film critic, Roger, and this blog shows that even more so. An extraordinarily lucid voice of reason in whatever you choose to write about. Bravo!
Mr. Ebert,
Why did you not throw such a fit over Michael Moore's Faranheit 9/11, when he used the exact same tactics (distortions, manipulating facts, lying, etc.) to get his point across? I don't believe you objected to that movie. What's the difference here?
Roger, this was an extraordinary piece of writing, as usual. Once again, I have so much admiration for your passion and insight in championing the cause of reason and logic in the face of willful ignorance. Ben Stein should be ashamed of himself, though it's unlikely he will be. And you should be very proud. You are among my literary heroes.
Oh, and the birthday party game: probably no one is interested in this, but given the discussion of odds within the article it's not entirely irrelevant. If there are 367 people in the room it is absolutely certain that two people have the same birthday (366 days in a year, including Feb 29, plus 1); if there are N people in the room, the probability of at least two people having a birthday is about (1 - 365!/N!/366^N), where N! = N*(N-1)*(N-2)*...*3*2*1, and 366^N is 366 times itself 366 times; this is a bit of an approximation as it assumes it's equally likely to be born on any day of the year, including Feb. 29! So the actual point where the probability crosses 50% is, somewhat surprisingly, 23 people, and it crosses 90% at about 41. Of course the probability of more than one poster having a birthday TODAY is somewhat different. For N posters, that's 1-(365/366)^N, which crosses 50% at...254 posters.
For a summary (better than mine), see Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox.
As an agnostic who grew up in a family of intelligent Episcopalians that use the Bible more as a guidebook than as a strict set of rules, I ate this review up. I watched about half of the film (for the 'know your enemy' argument) but I had to turn it off because I knew that there has to be other, better researched arguments out there for ID.
I don't understand the people criticizing your tactic in reviewing this. The point of a documentary is both to inform and, in some cases, entertain. Michael Moore's documentaries may have cherry picked quotes and cheap editing tactics at times, but they also have facts and figures that are accurate and cross referenced on Moore's website. He also never equated Bush with Hitler in Fahrenheit 9/11. Stein's film has a few moments (from what I saw) where there are legitimate facts and figures, but for the most part, it's cheap shots, and that's just wrong and immoral.
I watched a great documentary called "For The Bible Tells Me So" a month or so ago, which explained how homosexuals are viewed within the church and how the Bible is misinterpreted to further the agendas of political figures. I felt like I learned more about religion from that film in four minutes than I did from Stein in forty five.
Ultimately, as Dawkins said, if there was some sort of undeniable proof that ID was legitimate, then I would believe it. But at this point, it's all conjecture and hearsay. God may exist, and he may have created the heavens and the earth, but we sure as hell can't prove it. Atheists have the fossils. We win.
Sorry. This is just too much. There is an enormous amount of misinformation here. I was going to limit myself one comment, as I'd already had it out with Tyler D. on a previous post.
HERE IT IS: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/the_third_most_important_story.html#more
1. Science is NOT democratic. Science is based solely upon evidence. The evidence (look at all the links I provided Tyler) overwhelmingly shows that evolution occurred and occurs. It doesn't matter at all if 99.9% of believers in special creation voted in favor of it. There is no evidence for special creation. The reason nearly all scientists accept evolution is because of the preponderance of the evidence.
2. Charles Darwin (like most 19th century Englishmen) was racist. The full title of his book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." To label this as racist is a misnomer, though, as the subtitle refers to natural selection, not races that census takers measure. But whether he was right about evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with his racism. Evolution happened and happens.
3. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. It is neither Republican nor Democrat, liberal nor conservative. I have colleagues colleague who teach science that are fiscal and social conservatives, while I am a liberal both fiscally and socially. We teach science and fully accept evolution.
4. Not all people who accept evolution are Darwinists. Some adhere to Margulis' theory (theory meaning she actually has evidence to support it) of an endosymbiotic relationship driving evolution. This does NOT mean Margulis denies that evolution occurs and occurred. She provides a theory of the mechanism that drives it.
5. Intelligent Design is NOT a new theory brought forth by Michael Behe and his ilk. It is the result of the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard. In that case, the Supreme Court (rightly) decided that creationism could not be taught in public school science classes because science teachers would be advancing a religion by doing so, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution. During the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District trial, the plantiffs representing the parents pointed out a piece of text in which the word "creationist" was partially whited out and "designist" was typed in. At the trial, Michael Behe admitted his "theory" was no more scientifically valid that astrology.
6. I am a Protestant Christian, fully accept evolution, and share the same birthday with Jessica Alba, Sadaam Hussein, Ann Margaret, Harper Lee, Oskar Schindler and James Monroe.
The only problem I have with people who claim to "believe in Evolution" is that most of them don't have a clue what they're talking about. Darwin espoused Natural Selection. The word "evolution" is used only once in Origin of the Species, and then in a different context than how "Evolutionists" tend to use it. There's a HUGE difference between Natural Selection, which says organisms with stronger survival traits tend to pass along their traits, and Evolution, which says "Fish magically grow wings". I've found that most so-called "Evolutionists" are really just anti-religious, and use "Evolution" as a cover for their own hatred and prejudice.
I haven't seen this film, but I probably will now. I have a degree in Geology, and this whole argument disgusts me. Not because of ID or evolutionism or any of that, but because I find so many people saying that someone else is an idiot just because they say so and then offer no real scientific evidence to prove their point. I see very little scientific evidence offered in the original review or in the comments (some, but still very little). Of course, I got tired of reading all the logical jumps in both and never got to the end of either. Logic can be skewed too easily for my tastes. I did get to where one commenter said this:
"The scientific method involves coming up with a theory and doing everything possible to try and disprove it."
I would agree with that - but no one has done this with evolutionism in a long time, to be fair. While I probably won't like the bias in Expelled, I have to agree with the basic thought that dissent is not allowed in current scientific circles - it is mocked. Just look at how many comments here offer no real substance, just mockery. Are scientists really above that? My experience would say No. I applaud ID followers and even creationists just for their guts in being the voice of dissent. And for that matter Hindu and Islamic creationists, devolutionists, teleologists (the non-creationist strain, that is), etc. If Science were true anymore, we would allow anyone to debate their theory based on its scientific merits - which all of the above can do despite what many have said. But, no - you have to accept the current party line or else. Why all the fear and all-out sissy-ness I say? If you really believe in evolution, then grow a backbone and let people challenge it. Who cares if they have religious motives? Who cares if you don't agree with their science? And learn something called respect for those that disagree with you.
I think that is what makes me sick about all of this. Since when did it become cool to mock someone just because they believe differently than you? Both sides are guilty of this, and it is just stupidity. Pure stupidity.
Also, I must point out that, while earning my degree, I did read polls that indicated as many as 20% of the scientists polled believed in ID. And I read studies and polls that indicated anywhere between that and your 0.025%. But picking the lowest possible number of all polls and using as a basis for your review seems cheap to me. And a little biased.
And for heaven's sake, yes is it bad to blame Darwin for Hitler, but it is also a historical fact that many Nazi leaders wrote about how they were inspired by Darwinism. Once again, we scientists need to grow a backbone and not be so offended just because someone points out how people took our theories incorrectly.
Scientists have got to be the biggest wimps I have ever met. And I is one.
In a way, watching this has desensitized me to similar things. Seriously, comparing Evolution "Darwinism" to Nazism and Hitler?
When my friends told me to expect this coming, I was fraught of anticipation. I really wanted to catch this "gem" I was expecting that would make the movie all the more ridiculous. Contrary to my expectations, I did not find a slight tidbit or an interview answer that ended up suggesting that. I found an extended length of the documentary spent on looking at the Holocaust and why it was bad.
Why?
Why is this is in the movie? Why do we have to be reminded that the holocaust is bad? Of course, we can easily realize what the movie is trying to do, it's not subtle in the least to the intelligent viewer. Propaganda equating "Darwinism" with Hitler, Stalin, the Holocaust, the Berlin Wall... It was ridiculous. I won't even go into all the individual problems.
Worse of all, it was sickening.
@ CJ
Don't be so quick to correct Roger's math! You assert that the odds against winning on a single number are not 37 to 1, but 35 to 1; actually, they are either 36 or 37 to 1, depending on whether the wheel has just a 0, or whether it has a 00, also. In the latter case, with both a 0 and a 00 on the roulette wheel, the odds against are, in fact, 37 to 1, although the payoff is only 35 to 1 in either case, thus the house edge.
See what you did? Now I want to see this film, because I want to have a good laugh...
It's rare these days to see a film having no idea what it is about. I watched this film believing it be a high school comedy - I know, I am the fool.
It was far funnier than I had any right to imagine. I sat there in amazement wondering how someone in 2008 could actually believe this sort of stuff. My mind drifted onto other things. Who actually financed this junk? Who was it aimed at? Is Ben Stein serious? Is this the film that finally kills film criticism :-) Could this only happen in America, land of the free and the stupid? And of course, as Monty Python might say... the Meaning Of Life.
The sad fact is that whilst I have an open mind and love meeting well constructed arguments that are opposed to my point of view. Those who believe in this theory will doubtless switch off to your marvelous discussion as they really don't want to know anyway.
Great stuff as always!
Anglophile Rob
What you say is mildly true, if not stereotypical. There are many ways that this could have been broken down. No one can truly understand the meaning of life. It is because we lack this comprehension we develop a need for there to be someone or something will all the answers to questions we never even asked. This is how God was introduced into the world. First by Yaweh, then by "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit" otherwise known as God, and then for a thrice version Allah. Not to mention the countless others. Man's curiosity betrays itself when we believe what we create. Did God truly do this? Does he even exist? That is open to wide spread debate and it is not ours to say. I would prefer to believe that something is brought upon as a similiarity to having a God with all the answers, but I would be just as well without that comfort.
Darwin sent out to strudy the similarities between speicies, it is only through his pain staking work that he found similarities that allowed him to combine that with common sense. If everything is similar, then they must have been created by the same thing. Then adding common sense into the mix. He speculated tiny organisms millions of years ago. Well... about 700 if you want to get technical. You can also easily see this as "God created this, so God made them similar, or it was his touch that made then similar" this is equally debatable. The only thing that isn't is the Bible Genesis. It is wrong. There is no doubt about it. Unless those 6 days were not days of 24 hours and closer to nearly a billion years, it is false. We can draw parallels but we can never truly concieve the truth.
-Dennis Michael Murphy.
I have to admit, I didn't walk away from Expelled with the same disdain you have for it, Mr. Ebert. Funny, because it's actually the first review I've read from you that I didn't agree with (and I've read a lot of 'em).
See, I do have a problem with evolution, not because I believe it upsets my own personal beliefs, but because I believe there is a fundamental issue with the theory. I've been back and forth on the subject for some time now, studied many different thoughts and theories, and so far been unsuccessful in answering my one fundamental question that Stein also posed to Richard Dawkins: at what point did non-life become life? I really would love a great answer here, because I can't find one. My understanding is that non-life, no matter how many eons you give it, can never produce life. In Stein's last interview, correct me if I'm wrong, Dawkins actually points out in so many words that not even he has an answer for that. He seems to suggest that maybe aliens seeded us here. Surely he doesn't really believe that that's anymore than some extremely unlikely possiblity, but either way he seemed to seriously pass the buck with that answer.
I know that there are aspects of evolutionary theory that are true. No on can deny that there are slight to significant modifications that occur among animals in nature. For instance, there are grizzly bears and polar bears. They are different because their environments are different. Perfectly understandable example of one form of evolution. My question is: at what point does the bear mutate into a completely different animal?
By the way, I know a lot of animosity has come from the ID camp and it's not right. I am a Christian, and I've been left wondering how it is that the guy on the street corner with the pamphlets and the bullhorn telling everyone they're going to hell has come to represent me and many other of the "excluded middle men" of the Evolution vs ID debate. I have a problem with evolution, but I'm not closed to the theory. Besides even if evolution is right, it doesn't disprove the existence of a Creator. It just defines how He did it.
Hopefully I can get some help though. It just seems that it takes a lot less faith to believe "In the beginning, God..." than "In the beginning, dirt (or ice crystals, or something or other)..."
Seth W.
Jonesboro, La
Ebert: My blog mentions the North Carolina and Oregon scientists who believe they have demonstrated how life might indeed have evolved on crystals, and this article in the Dec. 1 NYTimes [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/science/02eart.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=australia%20zirconium&st=cse] discovers another billion years for the process go take place. Neither of these discoveries would have been known to Dawkins, and as a good scientist he did not postulate them. The hardest thing to accept (and I find it hard, too) is that life might in fact simply have happened to happen. Life does not by definition require a god. The first specks of life would have had an incalculable advantage over the non-living specks around them. If you have enough time and enough specks to start with, life seems almost inevitable. That brings you to what Bernard Shaw called the Life Force, which by one definition involves the intense focus of all living things on remaining alive, and the complete indifference to life of all non-living things.
Way to go, Roger.
The real issue with Intelligent Design that Ben never acknowledges in his propaganda film is not that ID is being denied a fair hearing -- it's that it has been rejected after its fair hearing.
There's a huge difference between suppressing a concept before it is considered and rejecting an idea that has been thoroughly evaluated and dismissed.
ID is clearly the latter.
Thank you Roger. Been reading you since about the time Royko reviewed your first movie. As he said, what, 40 years ago?, one to watch.
For the birthday coincidence: if birthdays were evenly distributed through the year, we'd only need a group of 23 to have a better than even chance of a duplication. The first person could be born on 365 of 365 days. The second person, to avoid duplication, has to be born on one of the 364 days remaining, and so on. Then multiply out the 365/365 * 364/365 * 363/365 ... to see what the probability of not having a duplication is up to that point. The probability of having a duplication is 1 minus that number.
Two web sources of information on ID Creationism, including regarding the truth about the people changing their jobs, are expelledexposed.com (focused on the movie, run by the National Center for Science Education -- itself a good place to get more general information) and www.talkorigins.org (more general, and more contentious). I'm a member of both and we've wondered if you (Ebert that is) are a member or reader. Some comments have looked like you are.
I was surprised to see someone sympathetic to ID Creationism refer to Dover as a negative example of scientists' behavior. This is the trial where the ID Creationism supporters were documented at length as lying, cheating, perjuring, bullying, destructive (burning a students' mural), etc. -- and doing so at such length and frequency that the conservative judge hearing the case wound up putting comments in his final decision about the poor behavior of these people who said they were Christians (as the judge was) and in the name of Christianity. There are several books out on the trial. I like the one by a local person who discusses the case from the inside -- growing up in the area, knowing the people, responses to her from parties involved (some of whom she'd already known) during the trial, etc.: _The Devil in Dover_ by Lauri Lebo. The NCSE web site also has many of the court documents online.
ID Creationists also complain about ... well, a lot of things. More complaining than doing science. Even Philip Johnson, godfather of the movement, agrees about that. In any case, There have indeed been serious examinations and documentations of just why it is that ID Creationism is not science, and fails to bring anything of scientific merit to the table. See, for example, _Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design_ by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. More specific to schools, see _Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for our Schools_ ed. by Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch.
People in general wonder why a person of Mr. Stein's intelligence keep grasping at straws in order to maintain their beliefs. I was raised as a Christian, and I had my core beliefs ripped apart by the ingestion of science as life progressed. It was a soul rending experience. It's difficult to feel the importance of being God created with purpose transformed to a random, meaningless piece of junk.
Mr. Stein and others like him may be doing more harm than good. They often do. But he's simply trying to support the set of beliefs about his life and purpose in the face of a completely devastating and disastrous truth: Life is a random accident and without some intervention it always ends in death. No amount of written history can give a "kind" of immortality. The universe will either run down, or it will collapse upon itself and destroy every trace of the existance of everything.
So don't get so riled up if you've handled the truth better than Ben Stein. He is at an intellectual stopsign which if past relegates him to our status: that of completely wasted energy.
Please pardon my spelling mistakes. I'm at the age where I've started adding extra consonants and such to once memorized words. I could spell check, but again, what's the point?
Roger, I suspect that if you had a more enlightened or evolved view of God you would see that Creationism and evolution are one and the same. The mass of humanity still subscribes to the mythical religious framework of childhood -- you know, do good and you get to go to heaven and sit next to God for all eternity. These are immortality projects that stunt true spiritual growth. Sadly, through no fault of your own, you're stuck refuting a marvelously unsophisticated view of God. In my view, God is so radically different from what humanity at large perceives. Is it not true that all the major religions are steeped in mysticism? By "mysticism" don't we mean to say that meditation or looking inward played the most crucial role in the formation of these religions -- Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism? The standard belief is that God reached down to man, but didn't man actually reach in to God? And this enlightened space inside the human mind, which may be called God, wasn't it then interpreted by all the different cultures of the world? One God, by many different names and sliced into many different pieces due to cultural influences. What a beautiful "space" inside the mind it must be, don't you think, so much so that man was so moved by this ultimate reality that moral frameworks came about shortly thereafter.
Ebert: Well, to begin with, your notion of God would not he subscribed to by many Creationists. For another, your God is so abstract even Dawkins might accept it; you are defining God as a concept created within the human mind out of a hope for good things. It does not require a supernatural being. Evolutionary theory has a fascinating area of study about altruism, about creatures who sacrifice themselves for a greater good, or the general good. This apparently moral choice turns out to be a survival trait for a species benefiting from it. Let's move on two two classes of humans who do not reproduce: Homosexuals, and the sterile. A population with an incidence of sterility greater than its replacement rate would become extinct. Why, then, in contrast, does the occurrence of homosexuality remain steady through time and across population and racial groups? Darwinian theory suggests the possibility that homosexuals confer a benefit upon their fellow beings not limited to reproduction. I am not aware of this having been proved; it remains a hypothesis, one that seems testable by numerical analysis, if the right theoretical experiment can be agreed upon. Darwin's theory in its magnificent simplicity applies to a multitude of such questions.
You cannot reason somebody out of what they weren't reasoned into. Creationists base their view on faith not science. Faith cannot be defeated or staggered by a blow from science no matter how reasonable it is. Creationists lose their invincibility when they try to use science against scientists. It doesn't ever work. In the end, evolutionists appear to be bullies and creationists appear stupid. I wish creationists would stick to what they do best- faith. They should leave science to those who believe in reason.
This is an angry review. This film has clearly upset you. I believe you once said words to the effect, "A film is not judged by what it is about, but how it is about what it is about." You have critiqued this film's methodology and technique of course. If you think this is a poorly made film, then fine. However you are clearly angry at what this film "is about." The subject matter itself has set you off. In my opinion you have lost your objectivity because of it. Perhaps the mind of Roger Ebert and Ben Stein are not so far apart.
Ebert: I do not object to the subject. I object to how it was about it. For example, I gave a positive review to a film critical of Michael Moore.
"What's in a name?", asks Shakespeare rhetorically. If he didn't write such famous words, I'd say there's some b.s. in Ben Stein, as would a bunch of other name falsities like Obama's a terrorist because his name means he is sympathetic enough with arabs to let Isreal be bombed. So, lets not go there.
But if Ben Stein is so scientific in thinking, how could he vote for people that have so much contempt for science--because McCain is a war hero?.."I will always vote on the side of the war hero...everytime", I quote him on Larry King...well, by memory...you go look it up. But aside from that odd logic,--ideologues aren't perfect for anyone--although apparently the Rambo Truth Vote should not only be taught but debunk all political thinking at all if you think like Ben Stein--, let's go back to what I was saying: science. Sarah Palin and McCain in their political rallies were saying they would not allow genetics to be done on fruit flies or DNA to be studied with bears. Bears are going extinct and the only way to count them is to take a hair from the bear and look at it's DNA, and fruit flies were the very foundation of genetics and continue to be just as relevant in teh field today. So, lets see: vote for Rambo, and ignore all science--oh I can't wait to see "expelled". That's a little too much B.S. for me.
It may just be my liberal nature, but I do not see a double standard, intellectual hypocrisy, or critical dishonesty at place when Roger Ebert attacks Ben Stein and his film for manipulative tactics, yet ignores them when praising Moore's work.
This could just be splitting hairs, but in Moore's films, he is presenting his spin (and there is no question that spin is involved, sometimes to the detriment of making his point - yes, watching preening pictures of the men behind the Iraq war elicits a laugh, but how does that help in forming an argument why they should not be re-elected, one of Moore's self-proclaimed goals of "Fahrenheit 9/11") on issues where there doesn't exist an absolute factual answer.
Guns + Fear are the primary reason for violence in America, Bush has done more harm than good in the War on Terror, Socialist health care serves patients better than the free market: all of these are opinions on the political and social issues of the day. Each have their own studies, own experts to support their position and offer a counter to the arguments of the other side. And though some points are better than others and some positions hold more legitimacy than others, ultimately there isn't going to be a definitive solution at the end. The films are there to bring light to a position, much like an op-ed piece in a newspaper. It is expected that each side will only use the information that helps their case, and the side that brings more flair to it (in Moore's case this means humorous soundtrack and some "gotcha" moments) will get more attention.
Though I haven't seen "eXpelled", it sounds as if when it comes to tactics not a whole lot separates Moore from Stein (though Moore has yet to go to a concentration camp to prove his point, but I wouldn't put it past him for a future film). The problem with "eXpelled", and therefore the justification for Mr. Ebert's different treatments, is that there IS a definitive, specific answer as to where we came from and how life was formed. It may not be entirely knowable at this present date, but an answer does exist, and one can hope that as scientific techniques improve or at some point before the "end of days", the answer will be found.
Therefore, since an answer does exist, there is a responsibility when presenting the issues to be intellectually honest about it. Though one can still use some razzle/dazzle in the presentation, ultimately a film about this issue should not be treated as an op/ed piece but rather a factual article in the science section, and therefore be truthful about the arguments both pro and con. Now I am not saying the Evolution theory has been perfected. Debates are still ongoing as to whether some adaptations/mutations occurred rapidly or whether it was a gradual process, to name but one on-going question. But what is clear is that as the knowledge grows with regards to genetics and biology, Darwin's theory has been proven time and again more right than wrong, and the idea that humans came about in present form at the creation of the planet has lost nearly all credibility.
The problem with Stein's film and the Intelligent Design argument in general, is that its primary concern is not the ultimate discovery of the right answer, but rather proving Evolution wrong, using whatever tactics are at hand. This includes making false comparisons, twisting studies, and arguing issues that evolutionists are not concerned with. The majority of evolutionists do not want to kill/destroy/or disprove the existence of God or a higher being. Man being descended from apes and moths who can change colors surviving over those who do not does nothing to prove or disprove whether there is a higher power in the universe, so why spend time and money debating this issue? Furthermore, blaming the theorist for actions by those who use an illegitimate interpretation of the theory has no place in an intelligent argument. Darwin has about as much to do with the Holocaust as Adam Smith does for the current economic downturn and Karl Marx does for Stalin.
I realize I have gone off-track from my original point, but my point is this. A filmmaker, as with anyone, is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Therefore when a filmmaker begins to use their own facts, they should be called on it. Mr. Ebert has often said that a film should be judged based on it's own merits and on what it was attempting to achieve. Michael Moore attempts to bring light to his opinion on political and social issues, and he succeeds in doing that, even if he does manipulate presentation and only uses self-serving facts. "eXpelled" attempted to create a factual counter argument to evolution, and by manipulating facts and making fallacious arguments, it failed. And Ebert rightly pointed it out.
Enough has been written about the Moore "comparisons," but I find it interesting that there aren't more concrete examples of all the stuff Moore made up. I could name some of my own, but no bother: I think what you can get out of this is agreeing with a film's premise versus the point of view. Certainly Mr. Ebert has made no secret his political point of view. But comparing this to Moore's film on the Iraq war is stupefying. They aren't using the SAME tactics. Moore made a film whose premise is debunking the reasons we went to war; if he shuffles timelines and uses other tactics (like cutting Congressmen off or using a letter to the editor as a "major headline"), at least his basic idea has proven to be correct. And as Ebert discusses, you can almost disprove the Iraq war argument, as Moore did, the same way Mr. Ebert does in discussing Ben Stein's theories vs. Darwin.
Part of what annoys me in society is this notion that we HAVE to give equal time to EVERY argument. The **vast** majority of scientists, for example, believe in topics like global warming (or climate change) and evolution. No matter how many opposing points of view you see on FOX News, doctoring it up to be a "bigger minority," it's still a minority. So if one argument is not simply stupid (which is a point of view, not necessarily a fact) and is provably ludicrious using real science, do we really need to feel an obligation to ensure ALL arguments are heard?
OK, let me put it this way: everyone has the right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. And if you make an argument, like creationists do and say that people played tic-tac-toe with dinosaurs, then yes, you do have the right to that opinion and you have the right to speak and you might have the luxury of being heard.
And I, to counter, have the right to make fun of you for believing it without apology, or without having to be branded an "elitist" or something like that.
To respond to a few points from people above, do people really expect a film critic to not put his opinion into a movie review? Isn't that the point of film criticism? You did point out that it was technically proficient, but you did not like it because its facts were inaccurate.
As for the documentary tactics problem, it is true that filmmakers like Michael Moore use similar tactics, in fact he used the makeup one in "Fahrenheit 9/11". However, linkning Darwinism and the Holocaust is not simply far-fetched; it is absolutely despicable. Though I do not like a lot of Michael Moore's tactics, he has never made that kind of an outrageous connection.
I'm in high school and I had to make a documentary for a class two years ago. The topic I chose was the Iraq War. The whole point of it was going to be that kids are knowledgable about the war, but guess what, they're not. So, I had to use quick editing to get the little bit of information I needed to support my point. So, I get that filmmakers use tricks. But not connecting things to the Holocaust. That's just not right.
I think it simply comes down to, there's tangible evidence for evolution and little or no tangible evidence for Intelligent Design.
Said Brad:
//The standard belief is that God reached down to man, but didn't man actually reach in to God? And this enlightened space inside the human mind, which may be called God, wasn't it then interpreted by all the different cultures of the world? One God, by many different names and sliced into many different pieces due to cultural influences. What a beautiful "space" inside the mind it must be, don't you think, so much so that man was so moved by this ultimate reality that moral frameworks came about shortly thereafter.//
You attempt to hide your "God" behind a polymorphic palisade of lexicon, but it does nothing to prove your quasi-ignostic-cum-pantheistic contentions; you simply wish to entertain a "God" rendered logically immune due to its ambiguous, unverifiable nature.
I await your evidence supporting your contentions.
Look at ALL these entries! This is still a dismayingly hot topic, which shows how pathetically backward this country still is in a LOT of ways. I suppose Hindus and Buddhists, who are far more numerous on this earth than Christians (let alone Evangelicals), have hard-core Darwin-denying believers in their Creation myths as well--wouldn't it be great to get a few of them together with some IDers for a debate? Once upon a time in LA there was a character named Joe Pyne who had a late-night talk show that catered to all the lunatic fringes. He once pitted a wild-eyed Evolutionist against a cool rational Creationist--and the Creationist won. What it comes down to for me is simple--you can't create something from nothing, and all the Creationists have to go on are holes in evolution. That's the THEORY of evolution, you morons, not the FACT of it. Poor ol' Ben Stein--the downfall of a great mind.
When people (in this case, creationists) have such a weak and unfounded arguement or theory, they tend to resort to bullying the other side by calling them "elitists". I see this as a silly way of demonizing intelligent people who ask questions, conduct research and search for evidence, instead of relying on simplistic idealology and propaganda to support their theories.
Throughout the comments by fellow readers, there is the frequent challenge that true Christians can not believe in evolution. Let me share what my father shared with me.
I was raised in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Every dotted-I and every crossed-T was interpreted verbatim. When I went to college and earned an engineering degree, my faith was tested repeatedly. Looking at waveform on an oscilloscope, I would ask my instructor why a 2nd-order effect was present - what is that? I was made to study the circuit with him until I found it. We took nothing on faith. I submit it is the rare person who can attain a technical education and maintain a perfectly rigid faith where every word of the Bible must be literal.
My faith could not bend, so it broke. I no longer know if God exists. I fear for my afterlife because I simply don't know. I used to know.
Genesis describes the universe was made in six days. I was taught that the author of Genesis received these words that were written through divine inspiration. God told him what to write. This author was not a cosmologist. If God did create the universe in the time frame believed by 99.975% of people (a statistic I use recklessly as I have not confirmed it), how is He to convey this to the author of Genesis? First there was light, then the planet, then form to the planet, then plants, then animals, then us. That sounds just like evolution, except for the time between the events.
My father helped me by explaining this idea: that the billions of years required by evolution are not refuted by the Bible, unless you insist that every word be taken literally. That the universe and earth was created in six days was just God's way of explaining a massive concept to a simple man.
I regret I did not receive my father's insight until after my faith had broken. Had it been able to bend, I might still have it.
Well Roger, you say that you can show how the eye was created and then you do not back it up. If evolution is based on adaptation then how would the body know to adapt and create an eye if it does not know what sight is? You say you can prove it so do it. Prove how something just appears for no reason at all and it happen to fit perfectly into our lives. Man you really do not think when you talk about topics outside of film.
By the way I love your film reviews and agree a great deal of the time. I've never seen a review of "Knocked Up". I'm not the only one who would like to see it though.
Ebert: Here's my theory. After millions and millions and millions of years, there were eventually a lot of living specks. They needed energy to continue to live. The sun provided energy. Specks that over a very long time developed a random mutation that provided them with the most rudimentary ability to determine light from dark were better adapted to survive. Other living specks were an excellent source of energy. Those specks whose light-spots by random mutation developed an ability to sense (not "see") movement had an advantage over those that could not. Specks could be eaten. Specks that by random mutation became better at being the diner than the meal had an advantage. And then Bob's your uncle. A scientist could do this better, but you asked for my theory.
Questions for "Intelligent Design" believers:
What is the definition of scientific theory?
Was Darwin an atheist?
What tangible evidence do we have towards intelligent design?
Why are bananas curved? (See "an atheist's nightmare" on youtube)
"As a Jew" I find Ben Stein ignorant, offensive, and at least two sandwiches short of a full picnic basket.
Going to start with this one:
Mickey on December 3, 2008 1:46 PM
But just look up eugenics on wiki or google, or hell, even an encyclopedia, and you will find that eugenics was a pseudo-science based upon Darwinism
Well gosh! Isn't is amazing that if you google for, or look up a word that ***isn't used by any scientist***, but was instead invented by the ID people in the first place, all the definitions for it are going to claim it was somehow involved with eugenics... Point in fact, Darwinian (note the ian, not ism) Evolution states that there is no "end goal", that any living species is "by definition" the better species, and that fittest, even in his time, meant simply that it outlived others. In modern terms, it means, "what ever best fits the niche it lives in, even if that environment changes, such that the ones that cannot adapt to that change are 'no longer fit', even if they where before." What you are looking for is called "Lemarkian Evolution", which was an alternative theory, which stated that everything evolves towards some specific goal of being better. Under such a system it makes sense to kill off the apparently inferior, to help the superior, so fits real well with eugenics and Nazism. In fact, Hitler hated Darwin's version, since it pulled the rug out from under his basic presumption that any single race was "superior", or that you could breed one that was a "master race".
So.. moving on to the next comment:
Tobias Ragg on December 3, 2008 4:14 PM
There's a HUGE difference between Natural Selection, which says organisms with stronger survival traits tend to pass along their traits, and Evolution, which says "Fish magically grow wings". I've found that most so-called "Evolutionists" are really just anti-religious, and use "Evolution" as a cover for their own hatred and prejudice.
Sigh.. Anyone that claims this is what evolution says is an idiot, even if they are what ever the hell an evolutionist is. Yeah, there are such idiots. But, you also are making the same goofy argument that ID people do, which is that things "poof" into existence. Well, sorry, but a) sometimes they do, but only if the genes for them where already there some place, and b) the rest of the time they don't, but instead it takes thousands of minor changes, over many generations, to produce the result. Fish didn't magically grow anything. Flying fish just have big fins, and they "do not" fly, just glide, which isn't that hard when fracking fluid dynamics are nearly identical to aerodynamics (duh!). But, if you really thing taking a fish hundreds of billions of years ago, tweaking its fins in tiny, minor ways, for hundreds of millions, until they are more like legs, then tweaking those for a few hundred million more, to stand more upright, then a few hundred million more to "rediscover" the membrane that used to exist between the bones in the fins of the fish,then a few hundred million more to turn scales into some primitive feathers (there is a chicken in Asia that still has them today), then hundreds of millions more to get real feathers, etc... Well, your definition of "magically grows" is only makes sense if you also claim to live 5 billion years, sleep for 10-20 million years at a time, and just happen the "wake up" to find these things magically one animals.
Now, as I said, it is possible to "lose" things a lot easier and quicker. Why? For the same reason that its faster to steal someone's car stereo than to install one. The later takes a lot of time to wire things right, while the former just requires you rip the thing out of the dash board. Even today we see skinks, in environments that are getting more wet, and hard to navigate one legs, losing them, in favor of becoming snakes. There are also a few snakes converting back to lizards, in places where those traits are now better. Its happening fast enough for people to notice, since changing a few genes to hide the legs, which are "still there" in the genetic code, or making other changes that "wake up" those dormant genes, is *far* easier that inventing them out of no place. So, we see snakes regrowing limbs they had in the first place, and we see other animals losing them, where they are less helpful, but what we "don't" see is flying snakes, who inexplicably, and for not naturally selected reason, fashion their suppressed front legs into wings, never mind lizards growing an extra pair, and forming those into wings, or other absurd things.
No, you have it backwards my friend. If fish magically grew wings, it would be evidence "for" god, not for "evolution".
And finally:
Seth W on December 3, 2008 5:35 PM
See, I do have a problem with evolution, not because I believe it upsets my own personal beliefs, but because I believe there is a fundamental issue with the theory. I've been back and forth on the subject for some time now, studied many different thoughts and theories, and so far been unsuccessful in answering my one fundamental question that Stein also posed to Richard Dawkins: at what point did non-life become life?
This is like complaining that the entire history of man made vehicles is obvious, but that you have a major problem with the idea that it wasn't handed to man by a magic Djinni in the Middle East, because you can't find evidence of the first person to make a connection between a rolling rock, and the principle of putting wooden spokes on an axle, therefor all the automechinics you know are lying to you, because not one them can explain this "critical discovery". Or... Better yet, arguing that plate techtonics are wrong, because there isn't a clear explanation of what existed "prior" to the Big Bang. Its irrelevant. Evolution is about how things that are already alive change over time. A number of experiments have been done to try to get at "earlier", just as the people at places like the LHC are poking at the early universe, to try to figure out that, but, you don't refuse to fly in plane, refuse to put gas in your car, or jump off cliffs, secure in the idea that gravity is all wrong, based on the idea that its all fatally flawed, due to no one knowing what the first moments of the universe really where.
That said.. There are in fact a lot of chemicals that are "necessary" to form the building blocks of life. A while back an experiment was done using lighting and what was thought to be the early conditions on the earth, and they found a lot of them in the result. The recently recovered the original materials from the experiment, still sealed, still uncontaminated, and ran more tests, using technology that was 20 years newer, and could detect smaller amount of the chemicals, and found that the experiment produced something like 5 times as many as originally thought. This is still short of the total, but.. one can't say if a) you really need "all of them" to start out, or b) different conditions would produce more of them, especially given that those conditions are now thought to have been *wrong*. While people like you are busy arguing about the equivalent of whether or not Big Macs are divine, based on a lack of evidence of the first "accidental" formation of bread in 10,000,000 BC, or something.. Well, its an important question, but doesn't undermine anything else in the theory, at all. And, frankly, simply insisting that, in the mean time, any wacky idea someone wants to replace 100% of the entire theory with is a good idea... Tell me when you go back to using horse drawn chariots, like God, intended, instead of all these impossible "airplane" things, which obviously can't exist.. lol
No, Roger, you are defining God as a concept. A supernatural being is a concept, is it not? It exists against a backdrop of natural being. God is not part of that whole discussion. God is radically non-conceptual. God is radically outside all frameworks that seek to show how radically non-conceptual God is . . . And once again, you fall back on one of the familiar arguments that work so well in refuting the mythic framework -- God as a facilitator for hope, God as a comforting force in the bleak twilight, God as man's rebuttal to awareness of death, God as a crutch for human frailty . . .
Ebert: Rather, I am defining the posters' god as a concept. An entity that created and regards all that is, ever was and ever will be, and all that is beyond space and time, and all that is nothing, would be inconceivable. All of man's definitions of such an entity are conceivable, because we conceived them, and therefore are the product of man and cannot describe god.
For causing all this trouble Ben Stein, shame on you. What has Roger ever done to you? Things are changing in this country and it's time you learn; keep your right-wing opinions to yourself!
Ebert: Creationism is not a political issue. It is either a scientifically viable theory or not.
Here's an old joke that might allow the ID and Evolutionary theory folks to meet in the middle:
A man was having a conversation with God. He asked, "God, how long is a million years to you?"
And God answered, "Oh, about a minute."
The man considered this. Then he said, "Well, how much is a million dollars to you?"
And God answered, "Oh, about a penny."
The man thought for a minute, and then asked, "God, can I have one of your pennies?"
And God replied, "Sure. Wait a minute."
Robin Williams, in his HBO special a few years ago, asked if it were possible that the seven-day story told in Genesis told in the Bible might be just a metaphor for the Big Bang. Then he went into the "fundamentalist" voice and said, "No. God just went 'Click.'"
We're going through our own version of that ID nonsense down here in Texas. Our State Board of Education is trying to water down the "theory" of evolution by "teaching the controversy." You can do a Google search on it, but here's an editorial on it from the San Antonio Express-News: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/Dont_water_down_science_curriculum.html (Disclaimer: I work for the Express-News as a graphic artist)
I don't have a problem with Christianity and its various forms being taught in public schools, any more than I have a problem with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism or any other religious study, as long as it is taught in social studies class, not science class. ID has no place in science class, as it is not based on the scientific method. It is an article of faith.
I do not seek to denigrate those who believe in Creationism, or ID. If your faith in such helps you deal with the crazy world we live in, be my guest. But a science curriculum should be based on quantifiable scientific method, not a thinly veiled attempt to insert Creationism into the school curriculum.
Just because you believe that some higher power engineered the wonderous world around us does not make it so. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this one instance and say that it's not completely impossible. Several literary examples use that as their basic premise: two that come to mind are Douglas Adams ("The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy") and Star Trek: The Next Generation ("The Chase").
Show me an explanation that can be arrived at using the scientific method and I'll listen. But ID just shrugs off the inexplicable by saying "well, things are just too neat, so someone must have engineered it."
I found the secret prize! "In the film, Ben Stein ... exploits an unending capacity for counterfeit astonishment." I hope to find a use for that phrase in everyday conversation myself some day. (Aunt Susan is the way to go, I think--Z-Man has a lot of the best lines, but you can't repeat most of them.)
Seriously, terrific article. I read a few reviews for this when it first came out and desperately wanted more details--surely it couldn't really be like this. But, it seems, it is. I'm not wild about running out to give money directly to the filmmakers, but I think I'm going to have a memorable time when I catch this on cable. Thanks so much for taking the time to write this so long after its release, and for being so devastatingly thorough.
But...I do have to be the four thousandth person to wonder aloud why Michael Moore has been getting a free pass, if you can be so clear-headed when writing about something like this (not to mention several other documentaries you've reviewed whose internal evidence brings up red flags about how they were created). There's something really wrong with Moore's films. In short, a lot, if not all of what's suspect about his films can't have gotten that way by shoddy research or mistakes. Moore goes out of his way to strongly suggest things that he must know aren't true, by simple virtue of the fact that he's suggesting them the way he is. Isn't that, like, a scandalously huge problem? Especially with issues as weighty as the ones he discusses?
Ebert: I didn't think anyone would find that. Re Moore: I have my hands full without opening a second front.
You just made my day, Mr. Ebert. To see you post such a smackdown, and on my birthday even...
Thank you.
Ebert: Fifth (proclaimed) birthday in about 230 posts. What are the odds?
Matt From Morgantown,
Christians believe the bible is the word of God, which is why they take it literally. I have always had a problem with this idea. To suggest that God uses words to communicate with humans or simply has something to say, is to imply that he is like a human being. I have never believed that God was like a human being. I don't think he is some old man with a white beard sitting in a castle up in the clouds. God has to be different and more powerful than human beings. God has to have a more interesting way to communicate with life than by using words.
If you HAVE to watch this, watch it with the great lie exposing subtitles that the guy at 'bogosity tv' made! Just search for 'bogosity tv' or 'expelled lie subtitles'
Ebert: Here's my theory. After millions and millions and millions of years, there were eventually a lot of living specks. They needed energy to continue to live. The sun provided energy. Specks that over a very long time developed a random mutation that provided them with the most rudimentary ability to determine light from dark were better adapted to survive. Other living specks were an excellent source of energy. Those specks whose light-spots by random mutation developed an ability to sense (not "see") movement had an advantage over those that could not. Specks could be eaten. Specks that by random mutation became better at being the diner than the meal had an advantage. And then Bob's your uncle. A scientist could do this better, but you asked for my theory.
In fact, there was a studied of cave fish living in dark ares which provides yet more evidence for evolution.
The evidence for evolution comes from the fact that when two cavefish from *different caves* produced offspring, the offspring were not blind.
The explanation is that the cave fish evolved blindness cause there was a lack of selection pressure for vision as it is not beneficial in dark areas where there is no sunlight. Therefore, mutations which crept into the genes causing blindness, which are usually lost as they are harmful, where allowed to propagate in the population leading to blindness. However, such mutations came in *different* alleles in geographically different cave fish, and are recessive. So, when cave fish further away produce offspring, it's more likely that they can see. To quote the study, "The genetic deficiencies from each parent's lineage were easily overcome by the strengths of the other."
Here's the link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080108-cave-fish_2.html
This is why evolution is a scientific theory, while Intelligent design is unverifiable theology. It has absolutely no place in science classrooms and belongs in churches.
Reply to: Mr. Ebert, I respect you and have admired your writing for some time now, but I feel that you are way off base here. Judging by your review and the responses to some of the commenters here, I have concluded (and correct me if Im wrong) that you think anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution is in some way ignorant or "of lesser intelligence." Really? Am I just an ignorant American because I have a faith in something greater than a microscope?
I've had more experience with Creationists than anyone on this blog, and I'm pretty confident in saying Yes, if you disagree with the theory of evolution, you are in fact "of lesser intelligence." Maybe not in the ability to read a text and remember it, but in the more advanced form of intelligence where you have good judgment.
The conversation usually starts with the Creationist telling me some fact about evolution which is (a) wrong and (b) explained in most high school science classes. In other words, they heard the Correct Answer and it didn't penetrate. They ignored it because some inner voice said "that's not right."
One common statement is, "Prove to me that one species can change into another." And that simply doesn't happen.
During the Cambrian Explosion, microscopic forms of life increased vastly in number when a type of gene called a HOX gene entered the mix. A HOX gene can cause a limb to appear in different places in an animal, depending on where it's attacked to the DNA strand.
From the time of the Cambrian Explosion to today, life hasn't changed very much. We've gotten larger. We've gotten more complex. But the basic structure of the cell hasn't changed. We have the APPEARANCE of major changes, which are in fact thousands and thousands of microscopic changes (random mutation) in DNA over millions of years, a very few of which produce visible change, such as making us six feet tall instead of a foot tall.
Creationists... flunked science. That's the easiest way to put it. I've yet to have a Creationist talk about Evolution in terms that would earn him an B+ in tenth grade science class. Creationists have often heard various explanations for how long it took light to reach us from distant galaxies, but they don't seem to understand how scientists know that.
The solution is pretty simple. Creationists need to find some legitimate texts on Evolution and learn how it works. Then, if they want to attack the theory, they can do so without stumbling over the Straw Man arguments and wasting our time.
You didn't get to the crux of the matter-- that the studio would not screen the film for critics, deciding that the critics would be too biased against the film.
Ebert: Now I remember that. I was in the hospital at the time, having broken my hip a week earlier. I reviewed the DVD, which I purchased myself.
A lot of people say evolution is how we got from point A to point B. Evolution is a theory that could explain how we got from point B to point C. The fact is we will never truley know how and/or why we are here and I believe it is best humans do not know. Roger, be respectful to Ben Stein; he is smarter then you
It seems my comment didn't pass muster; perhaps it was expressed too vulgarly. I'll try again.
Whenever I get a coughing fit because food or drink has entered my windpipe, I think "This arrangement hardly seems like an Intelligent Design".
Roger:
I find your review interesting, and I agree with much of what you said, especially about Ben Stein's hardball "all or nothing, with us or against us" debate tactics. (I don't think he's a very good economist either.)
I'm not sure, however, that I agree with your notion, Roger, that 99.975% of all scientists accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution, while only .25% accept Intelligent Design. I'm willing to bet that if you asked 100 scientists to choose which theory they believe, maybe 25-30 would say Darwin, 1-5 would say Intelligent Design, and the rest would say, "Why do we have to choose between the two? I personally believe it's a combination of both theories."
(And they would probably add, in a hushed whisper, "But don't quote me on that.")
For me, a leaf on a tree is proof enough of the existence of both God and evolution. The anatomical shape and structure of the leaf, and the fact that it helps to provide the tree with nourishment is proof of a well-balanced, well-thought-out botanical system. Hence God. The fact that today's leaves don't resemble the leaves you find imprinted in fossils is proof that things change over time. Hence evolution.
But never mind what I believe. Let me refer you to the "anti Ben Stein." His name is Dr. Francis Collins, who until earlier this year was Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Dr. Collins is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. In 2007, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his work on the Human Genome Project, and for his research to discover the genetic causes of such diseases as cancer, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes.
In his book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," Dr. Collins, a Christian, rejects Creationism and Intelligent Design, choosing instead the theory of Theistic Evolution, which he prefers to call "BioLogus." (Greek for "Life-Word")
Dr. Collins's six principals of BioLogus are:
1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
Dr. Francis Collins has openly debated with Richard Dawkins's views on the Theory of Evolution being an instrument of athiesm. Because of his rejection of Intelligent Design, Dr. Collins was not asked to appear in "eXpelled." Producer Walt Ruloff accused Collins of "toeing the party line" by rejecting Intelligent Design.
I recommend, Roger, that you should read Dr. Collins's book "The Language of God" -- not because I hope to change your views or Darwin, which I know are strong, but (a) because Dr. Collins provides another opinion to think about in this never-ending debate, and (b) because Dr. Collins is a fine writer, and a pleasure to read for thinking minds.
For now, I leave a quote by Dr. Collins that sums up his view (and to a large extent, mine) on evolution:
(When asked, "What do you say to your fellow Christians who say, 'Evolution is just a theory, and I can't put that together with my idea of a creator God'?") "Well, evolution is a theory. It's a very compelling one. As somebody who studies DNA, the fact that we are 98.4 percent identical at the DNA level to a chimpanzee, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that when I am studying a particular gene, I can go to the mouse and find it's the similar gene, and it's 90 percent the same. It's certainly compatible with the theory of evolution, although it will always be a theory that we cannot actually prove. I'm a theistic evolutionist. I take the view that God, in His wisdom, used evolution as His creative scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad idea. That's pretty amazingly creative on His part. And what is wrong with that as a way of putting together in a synthetic way the view of God who is interested in creating a group of individuals that He can have fellowship with -- us? Why is evolution not an appropriate way to get to that goal? I don't see a problem with that."
Someone way up above mentioned the anthropic principle. I think the most succinct commentary on this observation was made by the late Douglas Adams.
I paraphrase, but it goes something like this: Upon coming to consciousness the puddle looked around and marveled at the perfection of the pothole - just right for the puddle's precise dimensions!
what a great post and its my birthday, too...on Tuesday.
Said Brad:
//No, Roger, you are defining God as a concept. A supernatural being is a concept, is it not? It exists against a backdrop of natural being. God is not part of that whole discussion. God is radically non-conceptual. God is radically outside all frameworks that seek to show how radically non-conceptual God is . . . And once again, you fall back on one of the familiar arguments that work so well in refuting the mythic framework -- God as a facilitator for hope, God as a comforting force in the bleak twilight, God as man's rebuttal to awareness of death, God as a crutch for human frailty . . .//
You claim that "God is not part of that whole discussion. God is radically non-conceptual. God is radically outside all frameworks that seek to show how radically non-conceptual God is . . ."
Existence is a concept. You attempt to refute Roger's alleged conceptualization of "God" as erroneous because of the aforesaid descriptor of "God"--you then provide your /own/ concept of "God". You, Brad, have fallen back on one of the familiar arguments: "Your concept is wrong because only MY concept is correct!"
An assertion without justification is merely empty pontification, Brad. I still await your evidence for your claims; I imagine Roger is equally eager to hear this evidence. But finding a black cat in a dark room is difficult--especially if the cat doesn't exist.
Hi Roger,
Sorry for going off topic. The more important question for me is what has the future in store for us.
The other day I saw a clip of your interview with bill o'reilly on RFID chips. Though this is not directly related to this article, I would like to like to see your thoughts and the thoughts from all your readers on A.I. I am sure you are familiar about this thought provoking article from Bill joy
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
Vijay
Since no one else has yet, I'll take a stab at defending Michael Moore while disapproving of Stein.
Notice neither Bowling for Columbine nor Farenheit 9/11 made Ebert’s top 10 of the year lists. Think of Ben Stein and Michael Moore like writing the cliff notes of true works of art. It won’t get either of them a full 4 stars, but if the original story was good, it’s still culturally valuable.
I have to disagree with Michael Zey on December 3, 2008 9:41 AM: “If I wag my finger at anybody, it's to the Michael Moore’s and Ben Stein's of the world. Here's something that the honest among us call all agree upon: they don't win hearts and minds.” Hearts and minds are won gradually over time (much like the way a species evolves.) And that’s the potential value in their work. I agree neither give definitive arguments, but they both do a good job of drawing people’s attention.
Both Moore and Stein are simply speaking in the language of the times, like an abridged version of Shakespeare. Yes, it cheapens the material, but that’s not the only factor to judge a work by.
By urging people to see Moore’s work, Ebert is saying “Yes go ahead and read that abridged version of Shakespeare.” And by speaking out against Expelled, he is saying “Don’t bother with this abridged version of (I don’t know, Karl Marx?) It was trash to begin with.” There is no double standard that I can see.
1. I admire Roger Ebert's writing even when I disagree with him.
2. This essay is so long, rambling and unstructured that it is, in practice, unreadable. Which suggests to me he is expressing hostility as opposed to expressing a reasoned opinion. Everybody has an off day--just too bad this subject can't be debated reasonably. If Stein's points are so silly, should be easy to dismiss them with cold reason, not thousands of words of sarcasm.
3. Looking forward to other reviews and fewer screeds.
stick to reviewing movies. You are world class at that and clearly not skilled or qualified for what you tried here. Plus, you just angered a sizable portion of your audience, why?
Roger, thank you for remembering all of us in the middle. It still baffles me how ultra-conservative evangelicals came to represent Christians in this country. Most of us are Catholic or Protestant and have very little problem with evolution.
Here's something about Intelligent Design that I've never understood: they want to teach it in schools, but what is there to teach? The entire extent of it can be explained in twenty seconds.
Ebert: I can't think of anything more boring than a semester of ID, which would consist mostly of refuting Darwin. Sort of like a class about atheists getting sidetracked onto the subject of God.
If the scientific community is so sure that science and science alone is the only way to truth, then why don't they just set up a series of experiments and prove it, be done with the whole thing. Hey wait, that would be impossible wouldn't it? Wait a second here, so the idea that science is the only path to truth is a bit a faith statement then, right? We tend to think that dogma doesn't exist on that side of the aisle, don't we?
Ebert: Science doesn't believe that. It is extremely reluctant to declare anything "truth." It believes the scientific method is the best way to test a theory. How do you test your theories on your side of the aisle?
Let's do the math:
U.S. Population: About 300 million.
U.S. Population that believe God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so: 44% (132 million)
U.S. Population that believe human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process: 36% (108 million)
U.S. Population that believe human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process: 14% (42 million)
(Source: Gallup poll)
For as windy as you people are, you apparently aren't very convincing. Only 14% of Americans agree with you. That must be very frustrating for you.
Pure brilliance, sir. Your demolition of Stein is compelling, logically watertight and laugh-out-loud funny; it is beautifully written, and will be a topic for my next year's critical thinking class, if you don't mind.
Christopher Zeidel,
I agree with you, the idea that God is remotely human I find to be a rather arrogant concept. What I meant about not taking specific dates and timelines in the bible too seriously is that you have to consider the fact that the bible has been through many translations to finally reach what we Americans see it as. Which is why we should focus on the major points and not argue about the details. Although I guess dates in the New Testament are a little more reliable considering the Roman influence during that period of time.
With regards to the movie, although I like Ben Stein, I didn't understand why he felt the need to attack the scientific community for not teaching ID. Evolution is a very strong scientific theory that is central to biology - you can't effectively teach biology and leave it out. Whereas ID and creationism have nothing to do with science by definition because they are faith based concepts and are not testable theories. Believe in them or not, how can you possibly expect someone to teach students that in a classroom?
Christopher Zeidel,
I agree with you, the idea that God is remotely human I find to be a rather arrogant concept. What I meant about not taking specific dates and timelines in the bible too seriously is that you have to consider the fact that the bible has been through many translations to finally reach what we Americans see it as. Which is why we should focus on the major points and not argue about the details. Although I guess dates in the New Testament are a little more reliable considering the Roman influence during that period of time.
With regards to the movie, although I like Ben Stein, I didn't understand why he felt the need to attack the scientific community for not teaching ID. Evolution is a very strong scientific theory that is central to biology - you can't effectively teach biology and leave it out. Whereas ID and creationism have nothing to do with science by definition because they are faith based concepts and are not testable theories. Believe in them or not, how can you possibly expect someone to teach students that in a classroom?
Ben Stein is an idiot. He would have us believe that all of science - or better yet, all learning - is merely a grand intellectual smorgasbord from which we are free to randomly graze. You don’t like some bit of knowledge which is a bedrock of science? No problem! Merely state that you don’t agree with that “theory,” find a couple of “scientists” who agree with you and move on until you find a dish of knowledge that better suits your tastes.
Stein might as well advocate selective choices for the periodic table. “You know, I never really trusted #85, Astatine. If you drop the last six letters and add an ‘s’ you get ‘ass.’ It is obviously a smutty, liberal, secularist element.”
Stein and those of his ilk have seized upon an accident of the English language to buttress the entire substance of their argument. Because we refer to the “Theory of Evolution,” Stein reasons that anyone may dispute evolution merely by positing an alternate “theory.” That their “theory” has no scientific basis whatsoever bothers Stein not in the least. Stein et al. are clueless as to the meaning of empiricism, and blithely ignore its precepts. Yet, he demands equal time for his moronic “scientific” delusions.
Stein- and a few posters in this thread - would have us believe that science is merely a belief system that is as subject to debate and differing opinions as are matters of religion and faith. He contends that all is needed is to shout “I disagree” and POOF!, you have rendered a pillar of scientific thought moot. The scientific method does not allow for mere disagreement: it demands actual proof. If you would find fault with any bit of scientific discovery you must either: 1.) find fault with the methodology of a study and in great detail document that supposed fault, or; 2.) provide new a competing study, replete with evidence that will allow for peer review and results that will be replicated by the work of others. Stein does neither. He is so uninformed that he simply seems unable or unwilling to understand what is and is not science.
Stein’s goofball notion is premised upon our fairly recent journalistic tradition of “fair and balanced” reporting of all issues. This means you have one person representing position “A” and one representing position “B.” When evolution is discussed this way in the media, it gives the impression that there is some sort of parity in the scientific community between the views of Darwin and Stein. To represent the true division among scientists, a panel for the discussion of evolution would require about 10,000 scientists on Darwin’s side of the set and 3.5 on Stein’s. They couldn’t even muster a whole fourth scientist. If a discussion regarding evolution were presented in that fashion, few reasonable people would mistake Stein’s position as legitimate. If you are going to treat evolution in Stein’s disingenuous manner, you might as well do so for pedophilia. “And in this corner, representing the pro-Child Molester position....” Maybe that is the subject of Stein’s next documentary.
Since the responses have already escalated into chapter length level let me put some comments in. First, as someone who has jousted with ID creationists before (e.g. postings at Talk Reason.org on Ann Coulter among others) I doff my cap to you for an utterly fabulous review Mr. Ebert, skewering the faulty underpinings of Clueless Stein as well as any I have read. For those ID-friendly posters who desire yet more evidence of evolution, they might dive back into the Thornton work you alluded to, and here's the tech ref for those who need it: Science (Aug 16, 2007) pp. 1544-1548, a work which has already spawned several followups on evolutionarily significant molecules and processes. As for why the ID movement cannot be seen as some peripheral "fair play for us" issue, the majority of ID grass roots advocates are quite ideologically driven wingnuts. For instance, Tom Willis (the fellow who actually wrote the 1999 Kansas antievolution science curriculum) not only doubts evolution and the Big Bang, but also happens to be very skeptical about that new fangled "earth revolves around the sun" theory. Yep, Willis is geocentrism friendly too. So fasten your seatbelt, its going to be a bumpy ride if ID friendly education ever comes to America. Anyhow, keep up the good fight Mr. Ebert, and applause for showing that love of film and love of science are not mutually exclusive.
Roger,
Well Done! As usual, leave it to you to reduce a simmering intellectual crisis to its essence. After reading several replies to your post (most positive), I can't help but notice a pattern among your harsher and more serious critics. They tend to accuse you - not simply of impartiality, but of violating your own maxima ("its not about what the film's about - its about how its about it", etc. - sorry for the poor paraphrase).
I would like to point out here, especially for the younger readers, that in this thoroughly postmodern age of the corporate leviathan, as more and more of our personal pleasures and freedoms slip away (not to mention our livelihoods - read Roger's last post - its not just factory workers!), as our personal space becomes more unrecognizable and our thoughts unoriginal, it becomes imperative that we hold on closest to that which we all share and makes us human. I'm speaking of our ability to share ideas, opinions, and feelings through the medium of language. This assumes of course that the thoughts, feelings, and ideas are original. Within this context, I'd like to suggest that Roger's harsher critics accuse him of violating this last human refuge, when in fact their views are the ones that grab the headlines and dominate the polls. Consider: "...By 58% to 26%, a majority of Americans express their belief in creationism..." -www.gallup.com (do a search on evolution - this changes and there are nuances, but the trend toward "God created as is, 10,0000 years ago" is unmistakable). If you search even further, you will find that no other developed nation on earth produces numbers like that! We just got through a presidential election in which not a single real political issue was mentioned (my definition of "real political issues" goes as follows: List three reasonable things that would improve your life or the life of loved ones - yes, I know health care WAS mentioned, but no detailed plan given) and the right-wing candidate suppressed his view on when life begins in deference to the views of his extreme running mate. I actually never heard (or bothered to look up) Ms. Palin's views on evolution, but would I be hasty in assuming she's a nonbeliever, in light her other extreme religious views? In short, Roger's detractors and Mr. Stein seem to represent the majority. I say "seem" because I am not convinced that they themselves actually believe this drivel. There is a sort of rebellious individualism in people that tends to resist "narratives". To the incurious and the bigoted entrenched, the Theory of Evolution (TOE) has somehow become a model for the views of wealthy, disconnected, elites. The fact is that most practitioners of the fields of evolutionary biology and genetics struggle (by most standards) to make a living. More than 150 years of their dedicated toil have produced a breathtaking theory which sheds light on who we are and where we come from that would make any thoughtful person pause and reflect. Consider: the next time you play with your dog or cat, when you look into its eyes and see a glimmer of recognition, when you rub their tummy and rejoice in their pleasure, this "gift" of nature may be more meaningful than a Creator's whim. Once you understand that 90 percent of the genes in your body have counterparts with your pet, and (surprising to some) you share a good deal of your behaviors, then it becomes almost natural to accept that you shared an ancestor - a long, long time ago. Once you make that leap, what epiphany it might be to many that indeed all life on earth might really and truly be one big family (about 50% of the genes in a banana perform the same function as in humans: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/questions/question/919/).
These are the hard-won results of overworked and largely ignored researchers. This is science - hard science, subjected to the harshest scrutiny. When the word "theory" is used in this context, it is not simply some clever person's opinion - it is used to mean "To the best of our ability to do so, this is what we know". Everything else is fantasy, delusion, conjecture, or dogma.
This is just spectacular!
I think the biggest problem surrounding a belief in evolution isn't religion, it is pure and utter ignorance combined with utter inability for some people to fathom the amount of time the Earth has existed. Similar to the whole "10,000 times 10,000" line was written into the Bible 1700 years ago, nobody COUNTS beyond 1000 or 10,000 even. Sure, we can use mathematics to get large numbers, and on paper the principles of math make them easy for most people to understand...on paper.
But put into a real world setting, count the number of water molecules on Earth. Now, count the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons contained in all of those molecules. Now count the quarks, and the 15 other sub-subatomic particles we have found and hypothesized contained in all of those protons, neutrons, and electrons. People have a hard time scaling down to think about things at a genetic level, let alone a molecular level. At the same time, they have an even harder time scaling up to incredibly large numbers. The Earth cannot have existed for 4 Billion years, that number is too large to actually exist for something other than a math problem or a computer! The universe can't be 13B years old, that's an even bigger number!
As a computer geek, i fall under the "bill gates syndrome" of being able to think in very large or very small scales easily (often getting lost when dealing with "normal" scales). I don't claim to be superior in any way, but I think that as a society and as a RACE we have a long way to go before we reach the mental maturity where a belief in $Deity is separated from a belief in something like the Bible, Creationism, etc.
I see ID/Creationism as what boils down to: a niche the Right is exploiting to inject Christian faith into American schools, claiming their morals are superior to everybody else's. They think if they can make it *sound* scientific, they will be able to prey on the weak minded and ignorant in the country, which sadly is getting easier everyday, and without a significant amount of resistance, they will succeed, and instead of a Democracy we'll be back in the Theocracy we were formed to escape.
"By Tom on December 3, 2008 10:44 PM
Since no one else has yet, I'll take a stab at defending Michael Moore while disapproving of Stein.
Notice neither Bowling for Columbine nor Farenheit 9/11 made Ebert’s top 10 of the year lists. Think of Ben Stein and Michael Moore like writing the cliff notes of true works of art. It won’t get either of them a full 4 stars, but if the original story was good, it’s still culturally valuable.
I have to disagree with Michael Zey on December 3, 2008 9:41 AM: “If I wag my finger at anybody, it's to the Michael Moore’s and Ben Stein's of the world. Here's something that the honest among us call all agree upon: they don't win hearts and minds.” Hearts and minds are won gradually over time (much like the way a species evolves.) And that’s the potential value in their work. I agree neither give definitive arguments, but they both do a good job of drawing people’s attention.
Both Moore and Stein are simply speaking in the language of the times, like an abridged version of Shakespeare. Yes, it cheapens the material, but that’s not the only factor to judge a work by.
By urging people to see Moore’s work, Ebert is saying “Yes go ahead and read that abridged version of Shakespeare.” And by speaking out against Expelled, he is saying “Don’t bother with this abridged version of (I don’t know, Karl Marx?) It was trash to begin with.” There is no double standard that I can see."
Tom,
What I see is the template for documentaries having been set by the enormous financial success of Moore's 911 film, the studios said "Oh that's why these documentaries haven’t made a cent, they were requiring people to actually think!" So now we have a glut of forced, dishonest films, driven by wide ranging agenda's (Super Size Me, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, The Kid Stays in the Picture), preconceived thesis statements that manhandle image and sound into "documentaries.” Instead of defending Moore and chastising Stein, a sort of black and white way of looking at things, I would rather assume that both could be equally valid if their he"art"s were in the right place. If as Godard says "Form tells us what is at the bottom of things," then the documentary genre has hit rock bottom.
And not to come off as a hater The Gleaners and I, Heart of Gold, Encounters at the End of the World etc... will always have me returning to this singularly special genre. I should also note that all three of those films have a sort of “Lets see where this takes us,” spirit not found in the majority of recent docs.
Reply to: Americans who believe God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so: 132 million (44%) (Source: Gallup poll) For as windy as you people are, you apparently aren't very convincing. Only 14% of Americans agree with you. That must be very frustrating for you.
I don't know if frustrating is the correct word. It's instructive. 44% of the people I meet, call it 4 out of every 10, don't have enough curiosity to look up the correct facts on the Internet.
PROOF #1: According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who survived the Great Flood. 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (assuming they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles). Today we have human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have over 700 different alleles. Somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED dramatically... in 4,400 years?
PROOF #2: Major Types of Diseases that can be transmitted sexually are:
Bacterial vaginosis
Chancroid
Chlamydial infections
Cytomegalovirus infections
Herpes
Genital mycoplasma infections
Genital (venereal) warts (Papillomavirus)
Gonorrhea
Granuloma inguinale (Donovanosis)
Group B streptococcal infections
Molluscum contagiosum
Pubic lice
Scabies
Syphilis
Trichomoniasis
How many of these diseases were present in the eight passengers aboard Noah's Ark? Where did the others come from?
PROOF #3: There are some 5,400 species of mammals alive today, spread across 153 families. The number of species must have increased from (however many fit on an Ark) to 5,400 in 4,400 years.
It takes less than half an hour to research these topics on the Internet, and come up with compelling reasons why Creationism can't be true. And yet, even on a message board like this one, you read posts from Americans who want to share their opinions about the credibility of.... well, something they know nothing about.
What I've learned, is simply to ignore people. On the average, only 14% have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation. And most of them tend to live within driving distance of colleges, where they talk to each other.
I've never understood the controversy or apprehension about evolutionary theory. Why does it necessarily have to be evolution vs anything? I'm a Christian. However I also subscribe to evolution. I suppose I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe the Bible (or whichever text you adhere to) tells us who did it. Darwinian theory offers us a glimpse into how. What I don't agree with is the notion that the concepts are exclusive to one another.
A born-again Christian perspective here ...
In response to Micah Pearson, who wrote, "[...] I have a hard time understanding why people of deep faith find it impossible to reconcile 'God' and Evolution.":
Make that "some people of deep faith", please. My faith is very important to me, and nigh unshakeable, being based on a personal relationship with God (and subjective experiences I know darned well can't be used as 'proof' of His existence to anyone outside my own skull, but that doesn't bother me), and I have no problem with either:
a) strict evolution as a scientific theory and sufficient explanation of the origins of and interrelationships between species[1], suitable for teaching as "the correct answer as far as we currently know and gosh there's an awful lot of evidence behind it" in science classes; or
b) a religious belief in 'directed evolution', the idea that God (or the FSM or whomever, though I think it's the God of Abraham and Moses) set evolution into motion with some 'plan' (a very vague one, I suspect) that He knew would result from using natural selection as His tool for creation ... which is not suitable for science class except maybe as a footnote for when a student asks, "but doesn't evolution contradict faith?" -- though it may be a topic for a philosophy class or Sunday school.
As a Person Of Science, I believe that all or nearly all[1] questions of science can be explained without requiring the existence of God. As a Christian, I do not feel I need science to require His existence in order for me to believe in Him. Conveniently, not having my faith be based on a 'God of the gaps' allows me to subscribe to the 'nonoverlapping magesteria' paradigm.
I am a person of deep and abiding (if occasionally irreverent) faith. And I, like many other believers, have no poblem with evolution.
[1] (Yes, I did mean for both footnote markers to point to the same footnote.) Note that Darwin's theory does not address abiogenesis, a favourite thing for IDers to conflate with evolution, though recent scientific developmemts (referred to in the essay/review) did address abiogenesis without naming it. Until recently, I would have included abiogenesis in the short list of scientific questions that I thought had completely natural answers but would admit might possibly turn out to be either beyond our means to prove (or actually depend on a Creator to explain). Recent developments make it seem even less likely that the origin of those very first protein seeds of life will remain grist for that mill much longer.
I actually watched this movie when it came to my theater, just for laughs. At least I laughed until the part with the Holocaust...it was just so blatantly pandering to fear mongering that I wasn't to hurl my popcorn at the screen. But the worst part for me was that there were about a dozen people in the theater who had obviously *not* come to see it for the laughs. And these people were nodding along and "mmm-hmmm"ing the movie right and left. Afterwards this older couple got up and the woman turns to the man and says, "That was great. Very convincing."
WTF?!?!
There is irrefutable evidence that Humans walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs one million years BC - and Ray Harryhausen was their creator.
Like many fellow posters above, I was going to ask Roger Ebert why he objects to the methods employed by Ben Stein while praising the same methods in Michael Moore's films ("Dawkins' make-up" vs. "Wolfowitz's comb"). However, there is one significant difference - Stein ties in evolutionary theory with the Holocaust, which is demeaning to the survivors and the memory of the victims as well as obfuscating the numerous reasons for the rise of Nazism.
I submit to you that ID is a political issue. Particularly in America, championed by that peculiar know-nothing-with-glee crowd on the right. They confuse intellectual curiosity with arrogance. I often visit this one political forum, and there are two anti-Darwin, anti-Gore characters there who refuse to allow reason to flow into themselves and will always counter with the variation of "that you try to make me seem like I'm stupid doesn't help your argument". To which I inevitably have to counter with "Well stupid is as stupid does". Willful ignorance isn't a good enough argument, and a proper divide there is reasonable, especially when you stand on the side of a proven theory. It's just that liberals in America don't grow any backbone until things get so ridiculous that they must step in and intervene. I think it's because people who use reason simply expect it to come into being on it's own or something. But on occasion, you need to take your reason and smack people down with it.
The good news in America is that the term "Intelligent Design" proves Darwin's theory since the term itself has evolved over the last century in America. Nearly 100 years ago it was some variation of "Creationism", and then "Creation Science", and then finally "Intelligent Design". Of course, those terms changed only after it was found that those teachings did not convene with the separation of powers. Hopefully we'll begin to see this evolution manifest itself to the point where the term for ID colludes with evolution pretty soon, but I'm not holding my breath since faith has caused so many to have such a deep-rooted sense of shame at the very idea of searching for the Wizard of Oz; the man behind the curtain. It's just a whole lot nicer and polite to "just believe" and stop right there. I wish our society could be more confident in their faith than that.
I've dug myself into learning the ideas behind "creationist science", and I've found it depends on the follower to introject all of the teachings without holding it up to analysis by comparison. I downloaded an entire 2-hour audio session that was captivating to listen to. The voice talked about the canyon that was formed (precisely 1/400th of the size of the Grand Canyon) after the massive eruption of Mount St.Helens nearly 30 years ago. The guy's account for that canyon being created in just a few days was compelling, and I began to doubt the science that believed that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by a river. In comparison, if that smaller canyon formed in just days, how do scientists arrive at "millions of years"?
In checking it out, most of my doubts were laid to rest, but you know what? The ID people peddle their wares in a much more gratifying and concise way. The Mt.St.Helens-ID-canyon-people practically relate their entire "science" in quick and easy-to-understand bullet-point form, while the scientific debunking of it goes on and on and on, and sometimes gets stuck in science-speak. Science needs those eggheads, but it also needs better PR peeps like Al Gore, who can break things down in a conversational way.
I like all this talk about specks. What came first, the crystals or the specks? Or was it the sun?
Why did the specks cross the universe?
""
By Paul on December 3, 2008 11:54 PM
Let's do the math:
U.S. Population: About 300 million.
U.S. Population that believe God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so: 44% (132 million)
U.S. Population that believe human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process: 36% (108 million)
U.S. Population that believe human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process: 14% (42 million)
(Source: Gallup poll)
For as windy as you people are, you apparently aren't very convincing. Only 14% of Americans agree with you. That must be very frustrating for you.""
But this is the Internet. The whole Anglosphere and probably many more people besides are able to read this. I suspect the vast majority of these people believe in evolution. The Internet is not America.
So, the film's supposed beef is that "scientists" have been blacklisted for suggesting ID be taught, right?
My question is - how is that not entirely reasonable? Evolution is scientifically sound. ID is not. If a math teacher insisted 2+2=5 and wanted to teach that in class alongside the more widely accepted 2+2=4, don't you think his or her firing would be justified? What if an English teacher wanted to teach that Animal Farm is a celebration of fascism? A history teacher telling students that Martin Luther King was a circus clown?
I could go on.
Said Brad:
//If the scientific community is so sure that science and science alone is the only way to truth, then why don't they just set up a series of experiments and prove it, be done with the whole thing. Hey wait, that would be impossible wouldn't it? Wait a second here, so the idea that science is the only path to truth is a bit a faith statement then, right? We tend to think that dogma doesn't exist on that side of the aisle, don't we?//
Science is the state of knowing, and truth is what is known. Scientists /have/ set up a series of methods by which science arrives at truth; it's called the "scientific method"--perhaps you've heard of it? But no! Brad, you reject that science is able to arrive at "truth"--and wisely so! One would have to be a fool to believe in something as controversial and unverifiable as "gravity".
Oh, and I still await evidence for your previous claims.
Good on you, Roger Ebert. I am so sick of listening to people who don't even understand the scientific method belittling knowledge hard won by it.
Mr. Ebert, I respectfully disagree with the tone of this blog as well as the tone of Stein's movie. I am a Catholic who supports Darwinian theory, but who also understands the Creationist argument. Yes all evidence points to Darwin's theory. No, there is no 100% proof of his theory or Creationist theory. Yes, it seems stupid to even consider that humans were created from anything other than mundane science. No it is not impossible that isn't what actually happened.
The reason I comment, though, is that I disagree with both ends is simply this: it spawns offensive debate that ultimately leads nowhere. No one on either side of the argument is going to be convinced by words from the other, its something we decide for ourselves. The same way someone tells us that a red ball is red, it is our choice to believe that person or to decide that our own eyes are playing with us in some sort of frantic illusion, making a pink ball appear to be red.
Both sides are offensive, and the act of arguing shows that neither side is right. I like to think that were Jesus alive today, magically creating bunnies into existence for his own amusement, he would still tell everyone to stop the senseless argument, that we are all brothers and sisters in one form or another, and that it matters not where we came from but where we go with this life.
A good review, although with ideological diversions, some relevant, some not so. (Notice I didn't use the word 'rambling' ;-)) I'll attempt to pare down the 3500 words to the relevant points.
Of particular interest is your 99.975 percent figure, which although you used in a parody of Stein rejecting help from that number of scientists in a spoof of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire", many of the commenters took it literally, and believe it or not, they did not appear to be Biblical literalists! It also smacks of Ivory Soap's dated 99 and 44/100ths percent pure banality. But people actually believed it!
And I predict that the 99.975 figure will take off, and may even eclipse Brian Alter's widely touted 99.9% claim for scientists accepting only evolution, which he based on a Newsweek poll of scientists where a mere 700 admitted embracing creation-science, and coinciding precisely with the Aguillard v Edwards decision which decided against same. Those figures have nothing to do with the current ID hypothesis, however. A present day survey of scientists, done anonymously, would yield far different results.
But although scientists publicly denounce ID, even conflating it with Creationism, as the NCSE and the popular press supports, in private you certainly would get a different take. ID in its current synthesis has validity, NOT to replace evolution, but to hypothesize 'intervention' at key points to add novelty and complexity, where natural processes would fail. This is not that far off from Dr. Francis Collins' theological position. It's just that it doesn’t require the designer(s) to 'leave the theater' after setting the stage by encoding first life and assigning it to evolutionary software to complete the process.
I'd like to jump back to Eric Ratzlaff's first comment,
This is plainly in evidence, and was the central point of the film. Your query of " ... what does fascism have to do with any of this?" leads me to request to that you view the film again, but please ignore the non-relevant points regarding religion, Nazism and eugenics. These are side issues, subject to debate, and even if true, do not rule out the validity of evolutionary theory in toto."
The challenge to evolution, is not that it exists as a functional process, but to the premise that it accounts for all biologic diversity. This remains to be shown valid by empirical means.
You mentioned Joe Thorton's recent work with hormonal evolutionary development, and implied that it was another nail in ID's coffin. Not really, although his work with tying receptor biodiversity to evolution at the genetic level will help us understand one of its processes. That's great, and I was quite pleased to learn that it will help to unify Monty Python's work as a molecular geneticist.
But that aside and addressing the film, yes, it probably focused too much on some negatives effects that Darwinian theory may have afforded tyrants. Negative societal anomalies are common throughout history, and are more a result of governments' need to control, and actually compromise and degrade their people by fascist means, theocratic societies having been some of the worst.
So while those kinds of arguments may be ones touted by those who want evolutionary theory destroyed, this will never happen. Rather, as science requires, it needs to be open to modification if deemed so by the evidence, and the evidence of intervention to add novelty is gaining ground. Not religion, not Creationism, but solid evidence of design inferences. Evolution itself appears to be a 'designed in' feature of embryology. But is it really fueled by 'chance and necessity'? I'd say more likely, 'necessity' followed by 'design'.
Does that let Ben off the hook? Well, not completely ...
In my view, both creationism and evolution must be rejected. The alternative is intervention theory. On this subject, see Lloyd Pye's website. The theory is extremely disturbing, but also compelling.
http://www.lloydpye.com/
Two things:
1.)
For those who have not yet seen the
Ben Stein documentary:
"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed"
visit:
http://www.ExpelledTheMovie.com/video.php
to view
3 movie trailers
and a Bill O'Reilly interview.
2.)
Q. Did dinosaurs live at the same time as human beings?
A. God, who was there, tells us yes,
dinosaurs co-existed with humans.
Two examples are found in the Bible's book of Job:
Job 40:15-24
15 "Look at the behemoth,
which I made along with you . . .
. . .
17 His tail sways like a cedar;
. . .
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job40:15-24;&version=31
And:
Job 41
1 "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook
or tie down his tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through his nose
or pierce his jaw with a hook?
. . .
8 If you lay a hand on him,
you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing him is false;
the mere sight of him is overpowering.
. . .
14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth,
ringed about with his fearsome teeth?
15 His back has rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
. . .
33 Nothing on earth is his equal—
a creature without fear.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job41;&version=31
Only 14% of Americans agree with you.
So the fact that ID either proposes that eyeballs are more complex than god or, if it doesn't, proposes a sort of scientific pagan pantheon, filled with an infinite number of increasingly complex dieties all of whom exist for the sole purpose of explaining the theogenesis paradox of ID, doesn't put off any of these "christians"? They're happy with paganism being taught as "scientific fact" in the classroom?
Christians should reject ID because it's bad theology, scientists should reject it because it's a disproven hypothesis from the early 17th century.
The only thing that can be said in Ben Stein's defense then is that, due to him being neither a christian nor a scientist, he's not actuaaly compelled to not bear false witness or supposed to follow any kind of ethical standard.
Hey Roger, looks like you've opened up a real can of worms there! One thing that impresses me positively is that the responses are mostly polite and measured on both sides of the aisle.
However, the comparisons of Moore and Stein seem inappropriate.
In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore rented an ice cream truck and rode around the Capitol reading the Patriot Act to a bunch of congresscritters who hadn't even read the damn thing before the vote. It was intelligent, funny, and pointed to one of those big bad elephants in the room.
The Stein movie with its premise of the immutability of life and a far-fetched link between Darwin and Hitler just sounds inflammatory and more than questionable in its very premise. It doesn't sound smart, and makes me question what the purpose of it is. Cui bono?
I guess 'll have to see it now.
Thanks a bunch.
Somebody close to me once said: "You cannot wish for both the Earth and the Moon. You have to be content with planting your feet on the ground."
If this sounds like a critical thinking cop-out, I assure you it is not.
In other words, despite our greatest triumphs and intentions as animals on this planet, I don't believe that human beings were really meant to understand anything beyond the confines of their own backyards or minds - For until we've learned to use at least more than half of those brain powers, or God forbid, walk on water or propel ourselves into space without the use of oxygen, what have we really accomplished with all our progressive aggression and free thinking? My guess is, if you think about it, not much more than our supposed ancestors. We still worry about dying don't we? We still worry about who is cheating on our wife or where our next meal comes from. Have we truly grown and evolved? Despite critical analysis and Stephen Hawking, I'm not so sure.
With all our knowledge, say we managed to bring ourselves to the outskirts of the far reaching galaxies, drawing dark lines into the crevasses of black holes -- Thus exploring the nether regions of the outer universe. In turn, what would that never ending quest for knowledge bring us? Would it transform us into Gods? Provide us answers to the meaning of everything? Or in other words, by our seemingly feeble attempts to extract every meaning from science and probable existence, are we simply bashing our own unique capability for greater understanding? Indeed, what is as meaningful in life as exploration? Exploration implies that there are still things out there for us to chew on, if we were to do away with that completely, we would simply be reduced to nothing meaningful in particular. That, my friends, would be a consummate hell on earth. Of which I would not want to be part of.
I always laugh out loud after I listen to a philosophy professor insist that he/she knows the elements and workings of dark matter and black holes; the fact that they can disprove or prove the existence of God. Should such an arrogant person be allowed to practice education in any form? Have they ever seen God or touched and analyzed a black hole with their own hands? People weren't really designed to have definite answers about anything; in fact, our very natures and personal histories defy such realities.
Despite all the talk from religious or spiritual zealots out there, I'd like to challenge anybody who says that anybody on this planet takes that religious stuff 100% literally. Despite what you may think or believe, however smart or devoted you think you are, you'd have to be a complete idiot not to believe that there's just a tad amount of doubt in people's minds when it comes to understanding what happens to our souls after we die. I happen to know beyond a reasonable doubt, what happens to our bodies. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
The fact of the matter is, not all religious or spiritual people actually believe in the existence of God; at least not completely, 100% beyond any doubt. If they did actually believe in God, they would undoubtedly have to prove his/her existence within their own minds; be it alien, man, god or whomever he may be. Religion is not about proving the existence of a creator, it is about the belief in the idea of what the stuff stands for: Qualities that people like Mohammed, Buddha or Christ embodied in traditional canon and stories and history: honesty, faith, compassion, forgiveness and love. These things are often used as tools for leading a better more meaningful life, they are however, not always meant to serve as a gateway for greater knowledge or proof. I'd be hard pressed not to meet any religious person on earth who just doesn't have a hint of doubt about God and faith in general; indeed, to deny any whatsoever as a human being, is purely an act of insanity or great arrogance.
Please understand me, I'm not trying to harp on or criticize anyone's personal or spiritual beliefs. In fact, I'm the first one to admit, that I do not personally know about the vast principles that constitute God, religion or spirituality. Although I am myself a raised Catholic, that is not the issue I am discussing here. As a person I try and respect everyone's beliefs, just as I do with my very own. Nor am I trying to disprove that God exists, how could I ever hope to do so? The point I'm trying to make is that it is a belief. For one thing, one of the greatest mistakes that so-called critical thinkers, scientists or philosophers often get wrong is the notion that beliefs for some reason, have to be proven to be considered legitimate. This is, with respect, completely ridiculous. That is the entire point of personal faith. Actually, a person's beliefs or faith do not have to be proven at all, which is what makes them so special. Once again, we are talking about spirituality here, not a debate about whether we really see an apple on a table, as perceived by our brains. Of course there's a bloody apple on the table, right in front of our noses! That's not what we're talking about.
Most people however, are not ignorant, nor were they born yesterday. We'd all like to believe that we had family members who were apes, or that apples fall to the ground from trees. That we may have started as simple amoebas or that groundhogs actually do come out once a year to see their own shadow. Many religious people, much like non-religious people or vise versa are just as scientifically versed, materialistic and paranoid as the next person, most of them, or at least many of them do not discredit the scientific community or atheistic-thinkers as many people would have you believe. Nor is an individual required to denounce the possibility of an all-powerful creator, in whatever form, simply because the human race has discovered things about DNA, atoms and monkeys. As a human being, you can either choose to believe or disbelieve in something; the whole point is you have faith. But does it make a person better or worse as a human being, for claiming that they know everything about anything, as opposed to simply clinging to a proposed set of beliefs? I for one don't think so. Religion itself will never be anything more or less than what humans on earth have already made it over the centuries. However, the intangible relationship or feeling between you and your god, whoever or whatever that may be, can never be understood, interpreted, molded, taken away, criticized or analyzed or argued by the establishment of human beings on earth. Existence is simply far too great and unique to be examined and unwound by petty platitudes, jargon and/or scientific discovery, institutions or intellectual groups. In the end, organized religion is NOT faith.
Lets make one thing clear though. I am not bashing tradition. Traditions in their many forms will always be there and there may always be a use for them. It helps people to share and interpret information, and it brings people together. Tradition is all we know, all we are, and moreover, for lack of better description; is what we are. It is neither all-knowing, nor all-encompassing or harmful in any proven way. However, I will say, what I believe to be far more detrimental is this silly idea that somehow human beings are more important than anything else we've come across. If we believe ourselves to be so stupid and arrogant, that by our popular science and quest for greater understanding that we can somehow convince ourselves to be proving something legitimate to the greater unknown universe; we are sadly, sadly mistaken.
As far as we know (so far), we haven't understood one tangible thing outside the mind's own ability to perceive what we believe to be true; that is, outside the confines of our own heads and deeper memories, what we've observed, cataloged and taken in. What is already there in front of us and moreover, the things that we don't see we've yet to lay our hands on. In the end, I'd like to believe that there is always something greater than oneself. There just has to be.
To come to the point, our personal image of knowledge and understanding is limited by our own perceptions. As people, we can only understand and interpret what we've seen and what we've taken in. In this case, our image of God or the creator or vise versa is limited by our own cognitive perceptions of the image of him/her/it. Indeed, what is memory and matter but the collection of all that has come forth during our very lives? Do we claim to know that those things are truly ALL that exists? Or are we simply kidding ourselves for thinking that what our minds and collective consciousness are soaking in, are all that is tangibly possible? What about before that? What was there before the existence of matter? Nothingness? Indeed, is nothingness even conceivable? Wouldn't there have to always have been something for anything to exist, heck, even the absence of matter and light, is still: "something". Moreover, can you actually bring yourself to imagine and picture infinity or a universe that doesn't stop expanding? My guess is human beings cannot tangibly consider infinity. It is beyond our very comprehension. There has to be an end (in our minds) to all things. My guess is, your philosophy teacher or priest will never know. After all, matter, religion, love, life are just "words". My guess is that God doesn't use words to communicate. His means of that are far too incomprehensible for our minds to ever understand. That is, if he does exist. Be certain of one thing if nothing else: What we don't know about ourselves and our world is far, far greater than what we do know.
If I've bored you to death, fine. If I've confirmed your belief that I am, in fact, an idiot, that's fine too. If I've, for some reason or another, said things that you might have already pondered at some time during your life; that's fine also. If I've wasted your time or offended you in some fashion, I apologize, nor should you take anything I've said seriously; they are simply my own thoughts. However, whatever you do learn in this short little life of yours, as a personal favor to me, please consider that famous line from "Harvey", spoken by the late great James Stewart:
-"In this life you can choose to be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant... Well, I'd think I'd prefer oh so pleasant."
Ebert: I'm smart and pleasant. And I don't see imaginary rabbits.
Said Paul:
//Let's do the math:
U.S. Population: About 300 million.
U.S. Population that believe God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so: 44% (132 million)
U.S. Population that believe human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process: 36% (108 million)
U.S. Population that believe human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process: 14% (42 million)
(Source: Gallup poll)
For as windy as you people are, you apparently aren't very convincing. Only 14% of Americans agree with you. That must be very frustrating for you.//
Truth isn't democratic.
Actually, Ben Stein did not attack 'scientists' at all in this film. What he attacked was the dogmatic approach to science which decides IN ADVANCE of investigation what the result must be. True science approaches each phenomenon with a completely open mind, going where the EVIDENCE leads. Dogmatic science approaches each phenomenon with the pre-requisit that the result most be a NATURALISTIC solution to the question.
A Creation scientist approaches each issue with this open mind set; the cause MAY be natural, or it MAY be supernatural; only the evidence can bring a decision.
An OEE (Old Earth Evolutionist) scientist approaches each issue with the paradigm that it MUST be natural. In this way, he limits himself and his inquiry, regardless of how tenuous his results may be. This is why we have such contradictory explanations for abiogenesis, C-14 in diamonds, coal and oil, evidences of a world wide flood, ocean salinity levels, moon recession rates, ages of moon rocks, out-of-place fossils, evidence of contemporaneous existance of humans and dinosaurs, etc. etc.
I see Romania has finally figured it out and DROPPED evolutionary teaching requirements in it's public educational system. Let us see if the predicted catastrophe comes to pass there -
Expelled was a true expose' of the closed mindedness of those who are supposed to seek truth, REGARDLESS of where the evidence leads.
Hear hear, Ben -
And boo to you, Roger. You allowed your paradigm to completely overwhelm your objectiveness on this film.
Ebert: That is precisely what science does not do. It tests a theory to disprove or improve it.
Mr. Ebert, to my knowledge, has never accused Michael Moore of being misleading, cheerfully ignorant, or slanted, although those descriptions could just as easily be applied to his films. I guess there is good propaganda and bad propaganda.
It appears that Mr. Stein has used much the same tactics in his documentary that Mr. Gore did in his. Opinion and Science are often far removed from the same origins.
Ebert: The ship has sailed on global warning. Even the Bush administration is on board. There is no valid argument in favor of more pollution and greenhouse gases.
So life started on crystals.
I've never been a creationist, but I liked the fact that there was still some mystery in this world, a question that was unanswerable.
Perhaps if the answer were more interesting it wouldn't bother me as much but... crystals?
I guess I'll try to stick to the philosophy that evolution is the answer to how, not to why.
Ebert: It had to start somewhere. Does there need to be a "why?" It just did. As I mentioned somewhere above, the hardest thing to accept is that life just happened to happen. Then what is its purpose? Its purpose is so that Shakespeare could write:
KING LEAR
No, no, no, no! Come, let's away to prison:
We two alone will sing like birds i' the cage:
When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down,
And ask of thee forgiveness: so we'll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we'll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who's in, who's out;
And take upon's the mystery of things,
As if we were God's spies: and we'll wear out,
In a wall'd prison, packs and sects of great ones,
That ebb and flow by the moon.
I happen to be one of those "middle" folk ben likes to eliminate;
I believe god created the light,I can see plain as day he did it with "the sun" as his tool
I believe he created life, he did it with "evolution" as his tool.
simple stuff here
Since none of use really know how life began, I declare this conversation futile.
Ebert: The theory of evolution is more about what happened then.
Mr. Ebert, thank you for this entertaining and well-written review. I had been maddeningly frustrated by the inanity of Expelled, and the close-minded, blind-faith-fueled mentality that causes supporters of ID to shut down in the wake of so much scientific evidence to the contrary. If utter denial is not the response of the moment, it's a litany of conspiracy theories that attempt to explain away the contradictions obvious in the claims of ID.
I'm not surprised at the attempts at misdirection in the comments, trying to align this review with your consideration of other documentaries. Even if you reviewed each film differently, that hardly changes the analysis of Expelled. Ad hominem tu quoque anyone?
Possibly more than your thoughtful essay, I'm impressed with the personal attention, and reasoned responses, you give to your comments. I'm not surprised you would read/reply, but it's obvious that you applied time and care and we're the better for it. I hope you're recovering/have recovered nicely.
Paul
Well, lets put it another way:
Evolution: Explains disease, animal breeds, the emergence of new species, how hybrids can have traits quite different to their parents, how hybrids are even possible, and how we have different races of humans adapted to different situations (For example, sickle cell anemia is more prevelant in people whose ancestors came from areas that were prone of malaria - because malaria has a tougher time dealing with sickle cells and hence what is otherwise a painful and debilitating condition is actually an advantage in those areas.)
Creationism: Has no explanaitions for anything really. Seriously, if things just were zapped into being by some mystical all knowing power with a dire fascination as to the workings of your private life - why do these things keep on changing?
Further, morally speaking evolution is superior to creationism. From an evolutionary point of view, we are part of nature, and thus if we want to survive we need to maintain nature in a manner which is advantageous to us.
Creationism however, has us as the masters of nature, given dominion and a promise that if we are really good and believe in it, after we have killed everything we will get transported to a much better place - which given the nature of the guys who believe in the rapture, isn't going to be much better for much longer.
Evolution makes no claims that one race is actually superior to another - indeed in terms of evolution all "Fittest" means is that they are more likely to survive the conditions they evolved in (Which considering for example, skin cancer statistics amongst whites and blacks in South Africa, is not unreasonable.)
Creationism however, is posited by people who believe in such things as "Chosen" peoples, who are inherently better because God picked them.
Now, Ebert's main criticism of this "documentary" is one I have seen of a lot of creationist propaganda, that it:
1: Quote mines. It takes quotes out of context, frequently perverting them in order to make them say the exact opposite to what the original passage indicated. Darwin is a favourite example of this.
2: Outright lies about its subject. In this case, claiming that several people were fired or "Blacklisted" for proposing creationism, when in fact the very worst that happened to them was they didn't get their contracts renewed - based on other considerations such as for example, not actually doing their jobs.
3: Employs the "Gotcha" shot in order to score cheap points, to distract from the poverty of its arguments.
Now, the difference with Michael Moore is, it hasn't been demonstrated that he outright lied about anything, thus the gotcha shots were, while tasteless, forgiveable in light of the complete work. Moore may be boorish, he may even be kind of nuts, but for the most part his work is at least not a total insult to our intelligence.
Expelled on the other hand is. It doesn't just take things out of context, it twists them to the point that one of the guys who got interviewed in it - PZ Myers, wasn't allowed in to watch the first screening. Richard Dawkins, oddly enough, was.
The fact is that Expelled wasn't some guy putting across some honest view, it was a guy who knowingly lied and hoped his audience wouldn't catch on. Moore wants to convince you, Stein just wants to con you.
By Paul:
"Let's do the math:
U.S. Population: About 300 million.
U.S. Population that believe God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so: 44% (132 million)
U.S. Population that believe human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process: 36% (108 million)
U.S. Population that believe human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process: 14% (42 million)
(Source: Gallup poll)"
Wow. As harsh a condemnation of the US public education than anything I've seen yet (and I've heard of polls where some outrageous percentage of people could not find the USA on an unlabelled world map).
Hopefully the new administration can do something about this. The ignorance of the younger generation is just as much a threat to the future of the nation, and the whole world, as global warming or the energy crisis.
I have a creationist friend and he has an argument that I have not yet found a way around. It goes something like this:
"I know that you are smarter than me, Nic, and that I cannot beat you in any argument. No matter what we argue about, you can always come up with a better point than me. So if you were the creationist and I was the evolutionist, you'd be make a better argument that creationism was true. So why should I listen to you at all? Since I know you could convince me of anything, if you wanted to and I let you, I can't listen to your logic, only to my own heart."
How do you argue with that? Creationists live in a faith-based world that operates on an entirely different value system and even vocabulary. What I have tried to do is live my life as morally and responsibly and successfully as possible as an example to theists that atheism as a world view works. But my friend is just as moral, responsible, and successful as I am. So I gave up trying to convince him long ago. His beliefs work for him, and ultimately, as a pragmatist first and foremost, that's what really matters on an individual level.
Let me get this straight, Mr Ebert,
First of all, there was some little speck of protoplasm, some little blob of something in a sea of nothing and that became an unsegmented worm, that became a fish,that became reptile, that became a bird, that became a mammal, that became the highest life form a man.
I had that fairy tale read to me as a child, The princess kissed the frog, and the frog became a handsome prince and they lived happily ever after.
And, it just sort of happened. Just by blind chance plus time.
Nothing times nobody equals everything.
Your theory is the next best guess of the man who refuses to accept " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. "
Your theory takes a whole lot more faith to believe in than the ID theory.
Even Darwin himself called his hypothesis the theory of evolution.
theory noun. speculation. In science the word theory is not a synonym of "fact".
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time,
" You can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
In theory, one theory is just as good as another theory.
Ebert: Are you aware that your final sentence requires two different meanings for the word theory? In science, one theory is not as good as another theory. You do not seem to understand how scientists use the word. A theory exists to be tested and challenged. Darwin's theory has been worked over for 150 years, and its central insights still hold. The theory of Intelligent Design does not even contain a means by which it can be tested or challenged. Nor do its advocate seem much interested in doing so. A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws.
Much of the misunderstand is created because many ID believers (not ID scientists) use the vernacular meaning in referring to the scientific.
[Scientific] theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē| noun ( pl. -ries)
1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.
[Vernacular] • 3. an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.
Thank you, Roger Ebert.
Ben Stein is on video saying, "Science leads to killing people" In one quick sentence he has revealed his extreme and disturbed views. Ben Stein is not worthy of much more consideration.
Ebert: Actually, it does. It also leads to saving, healing, and comforting people, feeding them, sheltering them, employing them, and giving Ben Stein something to misunderstand.
(Please forgive me if this ends up double-posting. A blank page was returned from the submission process. Feel free to remove such a double, and this comment, during moderation.)
Mr. Ebert, thank you for this entertaining and well-written review. I had been maddeningly frustrated by the inanity of Expelled, and the close-minded, blind-faith-fueled mentality that causes supporters of ID to shut down in the wake of so much scientific evidence to the contrary. If utter denial is not the response of the moment, it's a litany of conspiracy theories that attempt to explain away the contradictions obvious in the claims of ID.
I'm not surprised at the attempts at misdirection in the comments, trying to align this review with your consideration of other documentaries. Even if you reviewed each film differently, that hardly changes the analysis of Expelled. Ad hominem tu quoque anyone?
Possibly more than your thoughtful essay, I'm impressed with the personal attention, and reasoned responses, you give to your comments. I'm not surprised you would read/reply, but it's obvious that you applied time and care and we're the better for it. I hope you're recovering/have recovered nicely.
Ebert said, "It had to start somewhere. Does there need to be a "why?" It just did. As I mentioned somewhere above, the hardest thing to accept is that life just happened to happen."
Mr. Ebert, one cannot stand behind the scientific method & still hold the above view. That is precisely what the scientific (& science in general) is all about....finding out "why". Every great discovery started off with that question...it is irrational to stop asking the question when you don't have a good answer. Rather, one should keep pressing on until an answer reveals itself.
Ebert: In that case, the answer to "why" would be, "because matter can interact in that way." What is a more intriguing question, I think, is "Why did our brains undergo a sudden growth spurt that permitted self-awareness and abstract thought?" In other words, why do we ask "why?"
Mr. Ebert,
I have only one point to make and it is this: I am not a scientific man, but I believe I am more scientific at heart than most of these scientists you've been blabbering on about. My problem with evolution is not its theory that life evolves over time; my problem is that it cannot explain life itself. One might put forth the Big Bang theory as a possible beginning, but no one seems to agree on what was big and what was banged. The simple, scientific rule of Cause and Effect tells us that a Big Bang is an effect, not a cause. So where is the cause of the Big Bang? Where did the gunpowder come from? Who lit the fuse? It is true, as you say, that crazy things happen, but I say there must be things first.
As GK Chesterton said, "Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism."
To quote C.S. Lewis,
"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."
One does not look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and marvel at the result of mold over time. Nay, we praise the artist behind it. We admire his craft, the intricacies of his form, the completeness of his vision. It would be madness to assume a work of that scope was a mere accident.
Chesterton goes on,
"If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, 'I think; therefore I am' The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, 'I am not; therefore I cannot think.'"
My point is, I believe I am more scientific in my belief that an intelligent being created the world than the scientist who believes it happened by chance. In my humble opinion, his belief is the ultimate display of unintelligence in the universe.
Sincerely,
Ryan Smith
I want to say a few words about the tragedy of Guillermo Gonzalez. I knew him when he was a postdoctoral fellow in my department at the University of Texas. At the time, he was considered a promising young astrophysicist. He was working with one of our most distinguished faculty members, and was publishing good work. I was not aware at the time of his involvement with the intelligent design movement.
I believe that it is a tragedy that this promising young astrophysicist has essentially thrown away his career on this nonsense. He was denied tenure at the Iowa State University, because it appears that he pretty much stopped publishing, because of the time he was spending on intelligent design, and he seems to have received no research grants during his tenure there. These are expected of anyone who hopes to obtain tenure. I reviewed his book -- a link to my review, as well as some details about the tenure controversy, can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_(astronomer)
In my review, I pointed out the danger to his career if he wasted his time on this nonsense, and expressed the hope that he would not throw away his career by pursuing intelligent design. Tragically, Guillermo ignored me. He now blames his failure to get tenure on others, but the fact is, it is entirely his own responsibility. In the classic definition of tragedy, the bad outcomes are due to the failures the of individuals, and that's what happened here.
Mr. Ebert,
I'll be the first to say that Expelled strayed from and wandered about its stated purpose until its effect was blunted. You don't persuade scientists or the scientifically inclined with comedy or tugging-at-the-heartstrings music. The subjects of academic freedom and eugenics are so unrelated that they distract from each other.
There is not one documented or observed case of an organism developing such a new ability. Not one, ever. If there was just one, it would be in every science schoolbook. So how could that or anything like it be taken seriously as a scientific theory? Without evidence, to say that such things happen is only speculation, not science. And no, bacterial resistance doesn't count. That's like cutting the head off of everyone six feet or taller and saying that being short is a newly evolved feature.But I'll take issue with this:
I want to say a few words about the tragedy of Guillermo Gonzalez. I knew him when he was a postdoctoral fellow in my department at the University of Texas. At the time, he was considered a promising young astrophysicist. He was working with one of our most distinguished faculty members, and was publishing good work. I was not aware at the time of his involvement with the intelligent design movement.
I believe that it is a tragedy that this promising young astrophysicist has essentially thrown away his career on this nonsense. He was denied tenure at the Iowa State University, because it appears that he pretty much stopped publishing, because of the time he was spending on intelligent design, and he seems to have received no research grants during his tenure there. These are expected of anyone who hopes to obtain tenure. I reviewed his book -- a link to my review, as well as some details about the tenure controversy, can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_(astronomer)
In my review, I pointed out the danger to his career if he wasted his time on this nonsense, and expressed the hope that he would not throw away his career by pursuing intelligent design. Tragically, Guillermo ignored me. He now blames his failure to get tenure on others, but the fact is, it is entirely his own responsibility. In the classic definition of tragedy, the bad outcomes are due to the failures the of individuals, and that's what happened here.
Roger,
My humblest apologies. I forgot when it was that you were in the hospital, and that is of course why your review of "Expelled" didn't come out. Thank you, then, thank you, for writing about the movie - such a minor success the film ended up being, you certainly didn't have to.
"Let me get this straight, Mr Ebert,
First of all, there was some little speck of protoplasm, some little blob of something in a sea of nothing and that became an unsegmented worm, that became a fish,that became reptile, that became a bird, that became a mammal, that became the highest life form a man."
Wow, you're the most ignorant person I've seen in my life.
"Anyway, the slot machine conundrum is based on an ignorance of both math and gambling. From math we know that the odds of winning a coin toss are exactly the same every time. The coin doesn't remember the last try. Hey, sometimes you get lucky. That's why casinos stay in business.
The odds of winning on a single number at roulette are 37 to 1. The odds of winning a second time in a row are also 37 to 1, because the table doesn't know who you are. Every single winning roll beats the odds of 37-to-1. And on and on. The more times in a row you win, the more times you face 37-1 against you. If Russian Roulette were played with a gun containing 37 bullets and one empty chamber, it would quickly lose most of its allure--by a process explained, oddly enough, by Darwin."
No matter what any of you think about evolution - don't get all worked up about Ebert's brilliance. Case in point - the above quote.
While yes, this 37 to 1 each time is technically true, he's not telling the whole truth. If he were, he would tell you that the odds of winning two times in a row are 1,369 to one. The odds of winning three times is 50,653 to 1. Four is 1,874,161 to one. Can it happen that you won 23 times. Well, it was a big enough deal to make the news with the millions of gamblers gambling each and every day.
I find it quite funny that he is railing about an "ignorance of math and gambling" and then proceeds to misrepresent math and gambling. Don't take everything you read at face value.
Ebert: But it did happen that someone won 23 times, even in the short history of roulette. Give 133,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms billions of years and you might be surprised how much they would win.
Roger,
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!
One need to look no further than Blandings Castle, and inhabitants and environs, or Bertie Wooster and his life experience to see PROOF INCONTROVERTIBLE that P.G. Wodehouse was a master of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Not forgetting his alter ego, Jeeves.
For shame that you prattle on so.
Steve
Ebert: No, no, that was George Cyril Wellbeloved.
Ryan Smith,
When it comes to the theory of evolution, you shouldn't take what GK Chesterton or C.S. Lewis says too seriously. Neither of them were biologists or even scientists. I assure you that cosmologists do know "what was big and what was banged." As far as what caused it - quantum fluctuations don't have causes.
And for eveyone else,
If you think Ben Stein's and Ryan Smith's ideas are screwy, you should check out some real whackos, like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron from "Way of the Master":
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/dealing-with-abysmal-ignorance.html
Roger,
Thank you for an exceedingly excellent discussion of not just the movie itself but for an erudite dissection of the tactics employed, not just by Stein in the movie 'Expelled', but by the entire array of those who conflate progress and rational thought with 'liberal bias' and who elevate wishful thinking to the status of dogma.
Funny how people can't just be accepting that while it seems obvious that evolution occurs, there also might be some other force out there at play in ways we don't understand. Must the two be mutually exclusive?
I can't stand self-rightousness - it reeks of ignorance.
I went to a Catholic high school, and I took AP Biology in my senior year. We spent a good part of the first semester on genetics--DNA, RNA, protein synthesis, and the chemical machinery that underlies all cellular function. In the second semester we went into mutation and evolution, survival of the fittest and the origin of species. It was all very Darwinian.
Then one day, towards the end of the second semester, my teacher brought in a half-hour video presenting the premises of Intelligent Design. I don't know why he did it; he certainly didn't have to. It was a private school, and I believe a private decision on his part (though he likely discussed the move with the curriculum committee beforehand). And the thing is, he didn't believe in ID. He wasn't pushing it as his own agenda. He was just laying it out there as an alternative hypothesis.
Two things in that video stuck with me. One was the argument for irreducible complexity, which appears to undermine the usual Darwinian machinery of a single-gene mutation being responsible for a new, beneficial trait. There are certain structures which require some thirty proteins to construct. Remove any one of the thirty, and the structure doesn't work. Now instead of an advantageous structure, you have junk floating in your cytoplasm--a decided disadvantage. At the time it seemed compelling; on the other hand, surely those proteins have multiple functions in different contexts; if modern biochemistry has taught us anything it's that there are multiple pathways for most cellular processes.
The other was the argument from Mount Rushmore. The famous face of the mountain's front side is extremely unlikely to have occurred simply through the chance action of natural erosion processes. On the other hand, the back face of the mountain--though less famous--is equally unique, as are all mountains in the world. Like snowflakes, no two are alike. Imagine, though, that someone utterly unfamiliar with the sculpture (in some distant future, after all the gift shops had vanished into wilderness) were walking through South Dakota and happened to look up and see it. It's just as unique as any other mountain face; there is no one to interview, no history book to look into, no way to know for sure whether the mountain "just happened to happen" or whether it was carefully designed and sculpted by some intelligent artist. If it is a human observer, though, and he recognizes human faces very much like his own in the mountain, then I think he would be confident in assuming that the mountain was intellignetly designed.
Of course, to apply this same logic to the universe itself is an unjustified extension. The same logic doesn't hold up on so grand a scale. It's hugely anthropocentric--egotistical on a species-wide basis--to say that we are the pinnacle of the universe's development, that the universe exists for us and because of us. When we see evidence of ourselves and our own intellignet designs in "lower" forms of life--the video compared a bacterial flagellum to an electric motor, complete with armiture and drive shaft and all sorts of other complex parts--what we are seeing is actually the evolution of our own designs catching up with the desings that were arrived at by chance in these life forms through eons of evolution. There is no need to postulate by extension that there must be a "higher" form of intellgience which created us according to its own designs.
So why was that video shown in my high school science class? I'm still not entirely sure. I asked my teacher about it after class, and he told me that while he did not believe in it, he wanted us to be aware of it, because the premise of Intelligent Design is a fact. We were sure to encounter it at some point or another in our lives, and he wanted us to be prepared having seen its arguments. He never did discuss with the class the merits and pitfalls of the viedo's logic, except to say that we could make up our own minds on the subject--either believe in the months and months of science we had learned (and indeed performed, as it was a laboratory-based course and we had several labs on genetics), or believe what had been presented in the video. Or both, if we could reconcile them. It was up to us to choose. Maybe this was a better excercise for intellignet (AP, after all) highschool seniors rather than for middle schoolers. I will admit that for several months I found myself partially won over by ID's arguments (especially the two presented above). Having contended with them myself in the couple of years since then, I have ultimately found them to be wanting. I do believe that this was a rewarding experience for me, and I'm glad my teacher went out on a limb and showed the other side; the ultimate effect was to strengthen my belief in evolution and make me better prepared to defend that belief against ID-ers.
As a Christian, and an evolutionary biologist, Thank you for representing the excluded middle. There are many more of us than you think, indeed many more than we think, since we are so often unaware of one anothers secret true beliefs due to the stigma.
I have encountered the creationist (let's be honest about what ID really is) propaganda machine first hand, and was deeply disturbed by the anti-intellectualism it represents.
No scientist I have known has ever excluded or persecuted me for my religious beliefs, but I have often drawn scorn from fundamentalist Christians for my Scientific beliefs.
Ed Hamilton said
"Even a big bang requires a big banger,"
Perhaps another way to put this is that "Even a Creator requires a Creator". That is to say that if you postulate a requirement for a cause then that requirement can easilly be applied to god. Now we have the problem of an infinite regress. Creator creating creator creating creator.....
If however you postulate that a creator can just 'be' then there is no reason not to apply this theorum to the big bang -- it just was.
Great, but you still review every Michael Moore "documentary" that comes your way. Or Al Gores manipulative documentary that pretends that EVERY scientist on the planet believes that global warming is gonna destroy the world next week, when half the scientific world believes its b.s. Exhibit A. Al Gore flys in on a corporate private jet to tell me that my Honda Accord is dumping to many carbon toxins into the air. Exhibit B. Michael Crighton writes a scientifically backed book that just as convincingly disproves that theory. I love ya Roger, but show a little bipartisanship. If your gonna review Errol Morris or Michael Moore, at least review Ben Stein
Interesting post as always, Roger.
I'm not only a believer and a Christian, I'm a Calvinist at that. And yet, when I wrote my review for "eXpelled," I cited it as one of the worst films of the year (I gave a higher grade to "Religulous"). And I think it absolutely comes down to your creed of "a film is not about what it's about, it's about how it's about it." I also cited a favorite quote of Jim Emerson's, which was that there is nothing I hate more than a poor argument for a position I hold dear.
I believe God created the Heavens and the Earth. I don't, however, believe that dinosaurs and man lived together or that the Earth necessarilly was created in six literal days. I have doubts about evolution, but I also don't worry too much about it--at the end of the day, I believe in a Creator. How it was done doesn't really matter; even if evolution proved the method, it doesn't negate the meaning, right?
Ben Stein is a smart guy. And I'm curious to hear what he thought about Michael Moore's films--I would guess he's not a fan, yet he uses many of the same tactics (yet without the wit, passion or skill--although I know Stein didn't direct this). He doesn't so much prove or attempt to prove his view as he does try to tear down a view he doesn't like. And he doesn't do that with anything resembling philosophical, scientific or theological thought--he does it with an attack one step up from "neener, neener, neener." When he sat down to debate Dawkins I thought the film was finally going to have some tension and skill...but I was so disappointed at how heavily-edited it was and how Stein claimed to eek out a victory when, really, it was just clever editing that cut Dawkins answers apart. And the Nazi claims were just the final nail in the coffin.
I don't agree with Bill Maher's claims in "Religulous." And I was disappointed that he went to the kooks and nutballs instead of talking to true theologians, biblical scholars and devout, level-headed believers. But at least Maher's film was funny and, as much of a smartass as he was, he gave his interview subjects the opportunity to speak level-headedly.
Scott Andrews
Fail.
The example of cave fish developing eyesight when bred with cave fish from another area has already been mentioned on this blog.
Siddharth linked to a news article on it.
If intelligent design doesn't meet scientific standards at this point, and I'm not qualified to answer that question in any way, then I'm fine with it's rejection in scientific classrooms. However, I've long been disturbed by the fundamentalist dogmatism of evolutionary discourse. Even more disturbing is the complete failure to address the inherent racism from Darwin forward that evolutionary history and discourse is rife with. Most simply put, the idea that black people are closer to apes on the evolutionary chain is just there and until a massive amount of reworking of evolutionary history has taken place, I won't even give it serious consideration. The idea of evolution arose in one of the most toxically racist times in human history, Darwin's Origin of the Species includes the term "favored races" in the subtitle, and Darwinian evolution only became the only game in town after it was married to the likewise troublesome scientific discourse of genetics during the heyday of eugenics in the 1920s and 1930s. It's not surprising that Darwin's grandson was a major figure in the eugenics movement. I am a mennonite pastor who is progressive enough to be spending basically all of my working time with homeless people. I grew up in a fundamentalist background, but have not believe Genesis to be a literal historical account for at least the last ten years. However, even when I read impressive works like Guns, Germs, and Steel, which is one of the few major works that will even acknowledge the problem of racism that is shot through evolutionary theory, I come away even more convinced that I cannot even begin to give serious consideration to a discourse of human origins that has yet to come to grips with its own sordid academic history.
So the basic question, if the Darwinian understanding of human origins is right, why is racism wrong?
Oh, and other examples Andrew, include diseases that become resistent to treatment, bugs that become pesticide resistant, weeds that become herbicide resistant etc...
And these things are in biology textbooks everywhere. It is one of the reasons why if you get sick with a bacterial infection you need to finish your course of anti-biotics - because if any of the bacteria survive they will be the more resistant strains of bacteria and by not finishing the course you may lead to a disease the anti-biotics cannot handle.
This is why evolution is a pillar of medicine, because via evolution things do develop new abilities.
Here's the difference between Ben Stein and Michael Moore: There's about a 99.75% (by my estimate) chance that there will be a book in 2011: "Redemption: Why I was Drawn Into and have now Turned My Back on Intelligent Design".
To answer bob (December 4, 2008 7:13 AM),
Yes, I believe there is good propaganda and bad propaganda, as much as I believe there are good politicians and bad politicians.
I love how you make fun of his "ridiculous assumptions" yet you make so many of your own. As a Christian and believer of evolution, I find both yours and his arguments ridiculous, slanted, and totally non-believable. There's a reason why you're a movie critic and not anything else in the world.
That last comment from Ryan Smith is a perfect example of what is wrong with all creationists whether they call their belief ID or whatever. He admits it himself: "I am not a scientific man, but I believe I am more scientific at heart than most of these scientists you've been blabbering on about."
As every human being, I am ignorant of a lot of things, much more things that the ones I know. But I would ¨never pretend to pontificate (or even only form an opinion) on something I do not know anything about it. But here it is, a guy that admits he knows nothing at all about science but still believes he is more "scientific" in holding a belief that is rejected by more than 99% of the scientists. If the theme interests me, I will learn about it at the very least. And then, only then, I will maybe try to form an opinion about it.
But having an prejudged opinion about something you don't know a bit about is just incomprehensible to me. Really. I cannot understand these guys more than I can understand some alien. It's just so weird. So *alien*. For me at least...
I love how you make fun of his "ridiculous assumptions" yet you make so many of your own. As a Christian and believer of evolution, I find both yours and his arguments ridiculous, slanted, and totally non-believable. There's a reason why you're a movie critic and not anything else in the world.
Dear Alex Attella,
and dear posters who deny that global warming is happening,
There is not a single scientist on this planet, who disputes the fact, that the average temperature on this planet is rising significantly and at an increasing rate since the mid-1850ies. Temperatures have been measured and documented since then. There is no controvery, that this global warming will have severe impacts on life on this planet. This is also documented, for instance by measuring the ice shelfs of the Arctic.
There is also no controversy about the fact, that greenhouse gas emission contributes to global warming. There is only a discusssion on whether it constitutes the primary cause for global warming. However, opinion in the scientific community is not split 50 : 50; the vast majority of scientists at least deems it very likely, that industrialisation is a major cause for global warming.
I can explain, how the opposing view - human development not being responsible for global warming at all - gets so much publicity. You see, I used to work for a corporate law firm and one of our clients was a lobbying group for oil heatings. We have made a legal opinion on the German energy tax system which deliberately favours energy derived from alternative (renewable) energy sources and natural gas to oil. I have had a hard time finding some respectable scientific material to argue, that tax benefits for natural gas were discriminatory and did not have the desired eco-friendly effect. In the course of my research, I found that scientific opinion is about 100 : 1 regarding human causes for global warming. Nevertheless, the 1 % opinion was given a lot more room in our legal opinion, because we were arguing a case rather than looking for scientific truth.
Also, Michael Chrichton may be a superior novelist and very good medical doctor, but I would advise you not to base your opinions on science-fiction novels.
Best Regards
Oli
That is a fantastic commentary. I had no idea that Roger was such a clear thinker on matters other than acting and film making. Beautiful. I have a newfound respect for Roger beyond his well earned chops in reviewing films. Contempt for Ben Stein is right.
It isn't Stein's intelligrnce or lack thereof but, rather, his cognition that is (should be) in question here.
No Ryan , you are not more scientific in your beliefs . Had you quoted actual scientists ,who work in the field you're attempting to discredit, your point may have been valid.
as it is , you quoted philosphers and and authors , while intelligent they may be , thier forte was not evolutionary biology .
There are ample literary sources that address the concerns you have with evolution . Please try to read some of them . I'm not trying to be snide . I really want you to go out and read these books . And when you're done , come back and give us your position.
Regarding Derek L's comment:
"By Derek M. on December 3, 2008 8:15 AM
"It's not what a movie is about, but how it is about it." -R. Ebert
Your reviews of other documentaries generally tend not to discuss the truth or falsity of the claims made within, but the success or failure of the persuasiveness or dramatization of the director's vision . . . it seems that Stein is held to a different standard. While other documentaries are evaluated based on how they are about it, your review of "Expelled" is focused almost exclusively on what it is about, and why you disagree, and which facts are wrong, and how unfair or ludicrous or arbitrary it is.
Golden Rule, anyone?"
---
Derek's comment contains a logical fallacy, and is just the sort of nonsense one would expect from an apologist for the like's of creationism. Ebert generally doesn't concern himself with content, in this movie he does, therefor Ebert is a hypocrite.
Nonsense. What this movie is about is presenting presumptions and superstition as fact, and presenting reason and theory as presumptuous and hateful. It is about belief masquerading as thought, how it is about belief masquerading as thought is dishonest and potentially dangerous. The movie exists in a Orwellian Bizzaro World. War is Peace. Science is Genocidal.
Ebert is being consistent and honest, his critics, and creationism's champions, are inconsistent and dishonest - though, having disconnected themselves from rational thought, having placed conclusions ahead of analysis, they can't see this truth.
Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive, as the millions of Believers who accept natural selection as the best explanation available will attest. The Theory of Evolution answers many questions about life, but what it and science can never answer is where the building blocks of life originated. Something from nothing is infinitely more mysterious than the supernatural parlor games creationists indulge in. The source of life on earth is an answerable conundrum. The source of Existence is not. The mystery of existence alone should be enough to provide the mystic in us all sustenance for our religious impulses.
Great job Roger.
Reply to: One was the argument for irreducible complexity. There are certain structures which require some thirty proteins to construct. Remove any one of the thirty, and the structure doesn't work. At the time it seemed compelling; on the other hand, surely those proteins have multiple functions in different contexts; if modern biochemistry has taught us anything it's that there are multiple pathways for most cellular processes.
This could be the greatest good from the ID controversy.
Here's an important lesson. Some people lie. Even people who appear to be good, Christian sciensits working for the Discovery Institute.... LIE.
Yes, perhaps the structure doesn't produce the specific result you're testing for, but the building blocks are fairly simple, and the individual components may have forty or fifty OTHER uses. And the ID people know exactly what they are, and LIED in order to fool you.
I've experienced something that I call the "Christian Hokey-Pokey." A Christian tells you what he believes. You explain why it doesn't make sense, and he walks away and tells someone else the same belief. Christians don't learn. Their belief system comes from a book that can't change.
The people who wrote the Gospels lied. They lied for a purpose, to recruit new members from competing religions, like the Emperor cult of Rome. Augustus Caesar used the title "Son of theos" or "son of a god," and the Christians gave Jesus the same title.
Lies are lies. We can waste our lives trying to refute the same lies over and over, or we can get mad and say, "Enough is enough." Jesus was an ordinary human being, and not being able to figure that out on your own means you're NOT intelligent. Not being able to figure it out AFTER someone explains it to you... means a lower grade.
Creationism is a very small, narrow category of Christianity, but it gladly uses the larger reputation of the Church to find gullible people who do the Christian Hokey-Pokey, and spread the lies.
Reply to: 2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
Simply NOT true. The only habitable part of our earth is the surface. By far the vast majority of the universe is NOT habitable, and if anything, seems to have been designed to kill us. Every time I read this statement, I cringe. How can you NOT figure out that it's a LIE?
For as windy as you people are, you apparently aren't very convincing. Only 14% of Americans agree with you. That must be very frustrating for you.
Yes, because everyone knows that the number of people that "believe" something makes it more true, like ... owning slaves, the geocentric universe, the inability of man to fly (especially in heavier than air vehicles), etc. Try the same pole in Europe and you get a different result. Fact is, American schools teach three things ***very badly***: critical thinking, science in general, and biology specifically. Heck, I didn't even have to take it, which might be why I didn't need to worry about the Gym teacher teaching the class when the person with an actual science background got sick, or quit in despair, and not having a clue what they where talking about. American's are idiots when it comes to science. Not because they are dumb, not because Europeans are smarter, but **precisely** because they think that the "solution" to bad education is BS like "No Child not-Left Behind", where you teach the kids how to take multiple choice tests better, so they school looks good, but actually **further** neglect the real studies, not to mention extra curricular and health education. We have, in 50 years, gone from a nation that *used to* see scientists as the most valuable people in the universe, so much so that Walt Disney dedicated an entire fracking section of his park to their ideas, to a nation filled with dipshits like the one I saw at work yesterday, who when confronted with a news article stating, "Lake Havasu City is one of the dumbest places in Arizona, with only 11.3% of its residents having at least Bachelors degrees.", opted not to conclude, "Wow! We need to do something about that!", but instead, "Well, I guess I won't be buying that elitist magazine any more than reported that normal non-college educated people like me are somehow dumb."
Popularity isn't truth, it doesn't define fact, and frankly, of all the scientific theories we have, Evolution is the one most key to our very existence, and therefor the most researched, well known, and proven. By comparison, while we knew about DNA decades ago, the only people who even "have" a theory what gravity "is", not just what it does, are Star Trek geeks babbling about "Gravitons", and no one even has any proof that those are real. No, the problem here is that about 5-10% of the far right Christians are not just scared of, they absolutely despise the implications of it, and those people, who also believe silly things like Jesus wants us to follow "one" commandment from Leviticus about Gay people, but at the same time ignore a dozen more commandments in the same passage, have bamboozled a large number of people in the states that have no science education to speak of, can't get their VCRs to stop flashing 12:00, and also think that Horoscopes and Alien abductions are real (even if some of them insist those things are Satanic and demons). And, the truly stupidist thing about it is, if you ask different questions, you find a much *tinier* number of people that reject Evolution completely, even among people that don't actually understand it, which is most of the fracking country.
---
Oh, and for those who "can't" grasp this key issue. Evolution is "not" like slots, or roulette, or what ever. Its more like... Imagine 10,000 slot machines where every time a "winning" combination comes up it gets copied, so their is one *less* failing version. Eventually you get a slot machine in the batch that has nothing but winning combinations, or ones that return the same money as you put into it. That is Evolution. Mind, once in a while a non-win sneaks back in, but if the slot never hits it in the life time of the machine, it gets copied anyway, and maybe it combines with a new one the next time, which *is* a winning combination, which results in a new feature. But, no, its nothing like roulette, or slots, otherwise, since, as more than a few experiments have shown, once something starts evolving, its pretty damn hard to "halt" the process, even intentionally. Instead, as in one experiment, your artificial life "test subject" is likely to stumble over a way to make itself "look" dead, so you don't kill it, even as it continues to evolve (i.e., the experiment resulted in something that played possum, when it found that the "food" it was being given matched certain patterns, which where used "every time" to see if it had evolved or not.)
I think "The Gong Show" is a more suitable game show for Mr. Stein and his "theory." Sadly, he comes in third to a dancing guy in a diaper and a dude juggling flaming dildos.
Waa-waaaaaaa.....
Roger, you rock like no writer has rocked before.
Funny, how this started out as a critique of a film and soon (pardon the expression) evolved into a full-blooded war of words on Religion vs. Atheism - Hurry!Hurry!Hurry!Choose Up Sides! Only One Side Can Win!!! As my Irish forebears would say, oy. /*/*/ As a study of all the comments so far shows, this issue has more sides than a dodecahedron. Even the religious debaters can't agree with each other ("Our Father who art in Heaven can lick Your Father who art in Heaven." - old Johnny Carson joke). Add statistical surveys that show whatever the surveyor wants them to show (and until someone can figure out a way to knock on 300,000,000 doors there will never be a truly definitve one). Add "non-believers" who are as rigid in their atheism as any fundamentalists could ever hope to be in their faiths. Add a growing number who can't hear the arguments for the noisemaking (and I think this is where I am - and I don't think I'm by myself). /*/*/ All this ruckus has sent me back to INHERIT THE WIND, of all places. Particularly, I'm reminded of the final scene: Brady (the William Jennings Bryan character) has just died. Hornbeck (H. L. Mencken) is on the phone to his paper, reporting the passing and being as mean-spirited as possible. Meanwhile, Drummond (Clarence Darrow) is saddened by the death of a man who had once been a political ally and had always been a warm friend (as Bryan and Darrow had been in real life). Hornbeck picks up on the end of this and lights into Drummond for speaking well of his courtroom foe, accusing him of hypoccisy and worse. We in the audience, to whom Hornbeck has been directing his wisecracks through the whole play, have been brought up short - after all, Drummond and Hornbeck are supposed to be on the same side, aren't they? But Drummond lashes into Hornbeck for his cynicism ("You never pushed a noun against a verb except to blow something up!" - and how many times have I recalled that line while watching political trashtalk on cable news?) and then, to Hornbeck's rising outrage, eulogizes Brady thusly: "(He) looked for God too high up and too far away." And as the apoplectic Hornbeck storms off to "tell the world about the atheist who believes in God!" Drummond, the agnostic, is left on stage alone with the two books - the Bible and Darwin. He holds one book in each hand, balancing them with each other - and then claps them together and puts them both in his briefcase, and then exits. What was the maening of this act? I guess that only Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee (both now gone) really knew - and they wanted us to figure it out ourselves. The answer I got was that since nobody can truly be certain, it was best to know (and try to understand and appreciate)as many different ideas as we can - and not be so quick to condemn out of hand those ideas we don't agree with (lesson applicable to all sides). /*/*/ I originally intended to start this off by driving my APC through your game-show trope - you left a couple of holes big enough to do that - but I opted for "gravitas" instead. Since you'll likely top 500 replies, posssibly by the end of the business day, this seems as good a place to call time as any.
I have no real investment in this topic. I don't watch propaganda films and I certainly don't take stock in the partisan critique of propaganda films.
I'm struck though by the disdain in your blog, it was palpable. I would've thought a fan of film would have a greater sense of wonder than most. If 99.975 percent of the worlds scientist agreed that "Expelled" was a great film, would you change your mind? Doubtful.
Knowledge and faith are incomparable. Faith is the absence of proof.
Mr. Ebert: I've enjoyed your reviews in passing glance for years (often only taking the time to note whether a film received your up or down), but I have to admit I've neglected how gifted you are at writing hilarious reviews. You've earned yourself a new follower, Sir. Ben Stein, you have been utterly decimated.
I'm glad to see this conversation is still taking place. It strikes me as odd at how quickly people jump to one side or the other. The entire discussion is of course not the point. If you and I are talking about the origins of life, shouldn't there be some talk on the meaning of life? For example, if we all just evolved, we should just do whatever the heck we want with whoever we want and how we want it. Because there is really, in this case, no right or wrong: just plain existence. From the other side, if there is a God who created everything, then there is quite possibly a purpose for living. That you and I aren't just breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. In this case, there is right and there is wrong: it's wrong for you to walk up to my car, break the window, and steal my iPod. So, the way I see it, with Science it's just no holds-barred, live how you want, forget who you hurt as long as it makes you happy do it. With God, there is a purpose to this life and (so He says in the Bible) the life to come.
So for the overwhelming number of readers out there who vehemently repudiate anything that has to do with faith, please answer these few questions for me: 1- can science explain where our ideas of right and wrong come from? 2- how does science explain guilt for when we do something that is considered wrong? You can't use any terms like 'toxic guilt' or any other unquantifiable verbiage.
And I honestly am asking because I'd love to hear your opinion.
Roger,
I agree that the tactics of the film deserve criticism. However, you display a remarkable ignorance of what Intelligent Design actually is. It has nothing to do with creationism, although many creationists push it. Read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and "Edge of Evolution" to see real, thoughtful, scientific, devastating evidence against Darwin's theory of random mutation and natural selection as an explanation for all the variety of life we see. You didn't give a reference to Joe Thornton's article, but I found it and it only shows that there were 7 mutations different between an ancient and modern protein. That says absolutely nothing about ID's arguments. Most ID proponents believe in Darwin's theory as an explanation for much of life's variety, just not all of it. Many, including Michael Behe (and me), even believe in common descent but say only that random mutation & natural selection is not a sufficient explanation to explain every step along the way. Just like Newton's theory explains many things accurately but Einstein's theory explained more, Darwin's theory explains many things but we have recent knowledge he didn't have which shows it can't explain everything.
- Dave
The human pelvic girdle is clearly adapted from earlier four-legged mammalian structures, and not all that cleverly. That is why such a high percentage of humans suffer chronic lower back pain. If humans are the crowning acheivement of an ominpotent, loving god, how do you explain the slip-shod engineering?
Oh, I nearly got T-boned at an intersection a few weeks back thanks to that blind spot he left in the middle of the human field of vision. Squids don't have that blind spot. Does your god love squids more than people?
If we're designed by a god, (s)he's a hack when it comes to engineering.
A few comments have criticized you for not being "objective," and I've also seen replies along those lines to previous posts you have made. The day critiques stop writing subjective reviews will be the day I stop reading them.
Strange - Stein favors "scientifically proven" methods of discerning intelligence when those methods produce a result personally flattering to him; no man on Earth has bragged more about his high IQ, nor has anyone brayed more about how having a high IQ, all by itself, is an indicator of superb intelligence while having a low one is a sign of idiocy.
I think, given these facts, we can at least partially explain the manner in which Stein employed demographics in the marketing of his film. Irony.
May I, on your behalf, nominate Stein for this year's Darwin Awards? (Surely, being brain-dead qualifies as sufficiently "dead" for a person to be a recipient).
Thanks,
Daniel Lebovic
Thank you Mr. Ebert for your profound words!! My fear is that they fall on deaf, ignorant ears, whose owners simply refuse to exercise thought as a way to determine their own conclusions. They would rather close their minds and blindly accept as "faith". Such a shame. Well, there is another term for that: Survival of the Fittest. Eventually, that breed will die off, and a newer, better one will evolve. One that functions on reason. That breed is already here. I see it in my children.
Mr. Ebert, you claim that Stein "...tells bald-faced lies..." in this film. Please elaborate and list these lies. Otherwise this just seems like run of the mill libel.
Ebert: I'll start with: Darwinism led to the Holocaust.
Well, I'm pretty late to this particular game. This is attempt #4 to post this...
Believe it or not, I was at EXPELLED's world premiere.
I write for a denominational paper based in Dallas, Texas. I mostly cover movies, so I was a natural pick for the screening. My editor didn't tell me much, beyond the fact that Ben Stein and some of the producers would be there, so I figured: standard screening at the Angelika's smallest screen, with a little Q&A afterwards. Fine by me, even if I really didn't want to do this.
Well, I get there, and the whole place is done up to the nines. Literal red carpet, police everywhere, check-in tables staffed by men and women in finest black-tie clothing, every poster's been changed out to an EXPELLED poster.
Within half an hour the entire two-story building was filled to the brim with what felt like every rich conservative in America... and me. In my jeans and shirt. I am not, by the way, anything like a conservative.
At all.
We do the Q&A. Stein's just there for the popcorn (and I got the distinct vibe he was in this movie for the cash alone), and the producers are in full on slick-salesman mode, which, whatever. It's their night of triumph and they're welcome to it, but I don't get anything approaching a usable quote, beyond the oft-repeated factoid that their doc will open on the largest number of screens for a doc ever. Again, whatever.
After another half hour winding my way through hundreds of black-tied people making jokes about Hillary Clinton, I file into one of a few full theaters and end up sitting next to a very nice older couple who had invested in the movie. I make nice, we talk for awhile, and once they find out I'm a critic for a denominational paper they can't help me ENOUGH. Did I want to meet anyone? Did I need a drink, or some food? Did I want the nice backpack and gift bag? (I don't take swag as a rule.) The guy ends up giving me his business card, after we dish some on the appallingly liberal state of Baylor University, his alma mater.
Roger, you probably know what this is like, but it was new for me. There I was in a theatre of 500 people, all of whom were so very in love with a movie I absolutely could not stand. And yet, I had talked to these people, sussed them out as intelligent and thoughtful, but they were... led along... by a doc that was baldfaced in its contrivance and gleeful in its shameless manipulation. It was utterly surreal, and, spent, I beat feet out of that place ASAP once credits started rolling.
The review I wrote was... euphemistic, shall we say. I pointed out the flaws in its presentation and the shabbiness of its arguments, rather than the meat of the argument itself. I figured that was the only way I could write something up without turning it into a 50-inch screed.
No moral to the story. Just thought I'd share.
I guess I should not be surprised at Roger's absence of logic and evidence of his stupidity. It hurts my high IQ brain to read his rhetoric. Ben's movie is a wonderful eye-opening expose' on evolutionists and the MANY flaws in their teachings.
Good review. The only correction I would make is, in the 1930's, Hitler and Margaret Sanger (Liberal icon)were deeply involved in a Eugenics program that continues to this day against "lesser" races.
ie abortion, sterilization, vaccines ...
I am not as smart as all you guys. so I won't even try to post my opinion.
Perhaps it's a uniquely American phenomena, but I don't understand why people from both sides of the "debate" turn it into a debate at all. Fundamentalist Christians need to stop trying to convert the "nonbelievers", yes-- but why must scientists and non-Creationists apply the same fervor in preaching THEIR beliefs? Let beliefs be beliefs. I believe in God, and I believe in evolution. Do I possess such a unique frame of mind as to have room for both in my worldview? I do not, however, seek to change anyone's beliefs; only to try get them to adopt a less aggressive attitude about it. If you see Creationism as ridiculous, then why give some absurd beliefs life and attention by even responding in the first place?
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Actually, for his time, Darwin wasn't much of a racist. He opposed ranking people along racial lines, considered it dangerous to not help the weak (as he saw that as suppressing a survival trait in humans) and was against ranking races as higher or lower.
His book "The Descent of Man" is basically racist by our standards today, but by the standards of his time, he was one of the more progressive figures.
Now if you want to talk about racism, consider the Bible. Here is a jealous God who plays favourites (The whole point to the OT is that the Jews were God's favoured race) who urges the extermination of people based on their race, who permanently market the children of Ham (In fact, that played its part in the Rwandan genocide) and who made a big deal about no hybrids.
Now everyone knows why I decided to skip class.
I gotta say that I was really hoping this article would shed some light on Ebert's thoughts on the debate, but instead it's completely off course from the beginning. The argument for intelligent design DOES NOT ALWAYS exclude evolution. Many supporters of ID believe evolution could in fact fit in there somewhere. Ebert comes off as more naive than he does educated.
Sorry Ebert, you just lost it.
Ah, if only the same critical eye was gazed at the beloved Michael Moore 'documentaries'. "Propaganda" on the Right is courageous 'truthspeak' on the Left.
It must be nice to be that flexible.
To what end do we
proceed so boldly
if all we are is
chemical reactions
and what world have you
so deftly sold me
if you reduce me
if I have no soul to touch
no heart to love
no evil to rise up above
no angels and no ghosts
no real victories to toast
if you believe that this is true
then I must ask
to what end do you proceed?
No fire in our eyes
No steel in our hearts
No magic in our songs
Are we just empty vessels?
and you tell me
I have no soul to touch
no heart to love
no evil to rise up above
no angels and no ghosts
no real victories to toast
if you believe that this is true
then I must ask
to what end do you proceed?
Did I not feel your love?
Did I not feel your hate?
And did my heart not beat
and did my heart not break?
And are these tears for naught?
and are these worlds in vain?
if this is all we are then what
have we to gain?
What of all the art and books?
music and poetry?
What of all our memories
What of our hopes and dreams?
They hold no value then
We hold no faith but greed.
So I must ask you
to what end do we proceed?
- Dustin Kensrue
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Oh, and on "favoured races", in on the Origin of Species, Darwin wasn't dealing with humans. He barely mentioned our species, what he was talking about was closer to "Favoured race of cabbage."
It is archaic to use race that way nowadays, but back then race didn't just apply to humans.
Further, what you are basically saying is that because a proponent of an idea was racist way back when - well you just aren't going to accept the idea. This is the basis of ad-hominem, it is a fallacy and it is actually actively dishonest, just because the messenger is a bad person, doesn't make the message untrue.
Particularly when you consider that the religious you most likely adhere to, worships a God who plays favourites (The whole OT) between races, and has been used throughout history to justify slavery and genocide.
Indeed, the Christian God is particularly bad when it comes to that, as while no copy of the Origin of Species or Descent of Man was found in Hitler's personal artifacts, there was a Bible that Hitler had read and studied quite extensively.
Now the theory of evolution has moved on since Darwin, a lot of his ideas have been dismissed, it is the general over-arching idea that remains. Christianity, on the other hand, boasts about how its message is the same message as it always was.
Evolution has been corrected for its innate racism, Fundementalist religion denies it has ever been corrected for anything.
To say that Nature displays intelligence doesn't make you a Christian fundamentalist. Einstein said as much, and a fascinating theory called the anthropic principle has been seriously considered by Stephen Hawking, among others. The anthropic principle tries to understand how a random universe could evolve to produce DNA, and ultimately human intelligence. To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane.
-Deepak Chopra
In A Brief History of Time Stephen Hawking said that, like Einstein, we wanted to know the Mind of God. This means he does not believe there even are "laws of nature" in reality, and that what we are doing in science is just making up stuff that, as luck would have it, enables us to make predictions about the future.
Religious people usually miss the boat regarding questions of both "how" and "why" we're here. Science is used to determine the "how", and one's beliefs can address the "why". Using the Bible to find answers to how we got to this point biologically is like using a ball-peen hammer to turn a screw. I understand that this doesn't fit with a fundamentalist view of the Universe, in which all answers can be found in the word of God, which is why I no longer belong to the Southern Baptist church in which I was raised. I prefer to believe that some answers can be found by studying God's creation, and as such, scientists are witnesses to divine revelation whether they realize it or not.
I wrote a term paper on Galileo years ago, and something I learned back then will always remain with me. During his trial, he said that the Bible is a guide showing us how the lives of the righteous should be lived, but it's not a science textbook. It shows "the way to go to Heaven, not the way the heavens go."
Are we sure that Ben Stein is not pulling an Andy Kaufman? Taking an odd premise to a ridiculous extreme? The movie sounds like it would be a brilliant satire if this were the case.
I find that Intelligent Design is totally believable and a rational theory.
Once you get past that whole "there is an omnipotent being who lives beyond the boundaries of time and space."
After that, it's all downhill.
everything has a designer, take all the parts of a home and no matter how long it sits there, however many millions of years that it may be. It will never be a house...to believe that we came from nothing takes as much faith as someone who believes in God
I love you Roger!
Right after how much I love Dr. Dawkins.
To steal a phrase, "Let their be light!" (on all the ridiculous garbage that is foisted upon the minds of those who choose not to think, but instead to abdicate the very brain their 'god' gave them to use!).
Fail.
I asked for evidence of a new feature evolving, and you provide questionable evidence of one being taken away. If mutations are supposedly the raw material of natural selection, this is an awful example.
Someone reading your statement would get the impression that something new had been developed, when in fact someone bred two animals, and surprise, the offspring had characteristics one of its parents.
In addition, the article asserts that the fish are blind because of mutations, but is there any evidence of that? Isn't that a case of using one unproven assertion to support another? So I repeat, you have no evidence. No one has observed or documented the evolution of a new feature.
As for the antibiotics, they kill the bacteria that weren't resistant and leave those that were. It's a tautology - survival of the survivors. If you kill off every dog except beagles, you'll have a population of beagles. It doesn't explain how bacteria got to be bacteria. Again, there are plenty of evolutionary explanations, but no evidence for any of them.
Both the fish and the bacteria are cases of imagining what might have happened and passing it off as evidence of what did happen.
Remember, Ben Stein was a Nixon speechwriter and has attacked Mark Felt who came out as Deep Throat for failing to support his President (as opposed to, I guess, his Constitution).
What an utter and complete cretin.
I refuse to listen to anyone that gave "Garfield:A Tail of Two Kitties" 3 stars
Christian theism and theistic evolution are mutually exclusive. Evolution is by definition a random process. It's impossible to use a random process to produce a desired output (a human being), because then it's not random - it's design. And "Guided evolution" is not evolution.
There may be a number of religious people that believe in theistic evolution, but they are holding contradictory views.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Mr Ebert, both with your politics and your views on creation and evolution. But with regard to the Dawkins interview, I have to point out that Michael Moore resorted to similarly unfair tactics when, in the film FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (a film you loved), he showed clips of George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz prepping their game faces prior to interviews. Kind of cheap shots, if you ask me.
Mr Ebert-
You have elevated criticism to art. Scientists generally do not have the platform or rhetorical skills to articulate their arguments as eloquently as you have here. Your voice is essential to our public discourse. Thank you, sir.
Winston Delgado
Ebert: Happy birthday, Winston! You're #5.
"(ask) every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer"
at one time, that answer was "the world is flat"
guess what, the scientific method continually challenges itself because the ability of a mass of people to be wrong about a particular subject is inordinately high. it happens every day, every year, every generation.
peer theory (especially when $$ for your own projects is on the line) creates wholehearted "yes men" in the scientific community.
triple-trillion odds, and 99.975% probability of error based on common shared scientific belief.
scientific belief.
yes, proof provides scientific theory possibility of law. even then, we must continually apply the scientific method to even test that once again, every day.
if you are totally positive of evolution, then you have not truly embraced the scientific method; requiring you to truly test and prove the possibility of either outcome- or perhaps yet another conclusion..
Roger Ebert wrote:
I've been accused of refusing to review Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled," a defense of Creationism, because of my belief in the theory of evolution. Here is my response.
My reply:
Scientists don't "believe" in evolution - they accept evolution to be true because the evidence show it to be true.
Some Christians "believe" in evoltion because their world view is not based on evidence but based on dogma, thus they can "believe" in God AND "believe" in evolution.
Other Christians can't "believe" in evolution because it's not mentioned in their pre-scientific reference book. No amount of evidence will sway them.
Great commentary Mr. Ebert, one of the best I've read. I've reviewed all the arguments from both sides above, and it's clear that ID folks beliefs are all interpretations of a man-made construct (the Bible and other religious books written by man). Most interpret them peacefully, a few violently. I thank religion for providing humans with a guide book to living peacefully with each other (in most cases anyway), but it is still a man-made book. How can anyone argue that some intelligent creator exists based on a book written by man thousands of years ago? Let me guess, because that intelligent creator came down from the heavens and spoke to someone and said "you might want to write all this down right now, I'll come back later for one final revision"? Yeah right.
It's worth noting that the percentage of scientists who agree is irrelevant. All the scientists in the world could agree with ID, and it wouldn't make ID true - same with evolutionary theory.
Science is not performed by consensus. It is performed by experiment. That's a damned unforgiving statement, and that's why ID continues to shy away from it.
Will this argument NEVER end!
It is SO tedious having to listen to the "less intelligent", like Ben Stein, explain to the "more intelligent", like Richard Dawkins, how things work.
Ben, If you want to believe in unicorns, fairy god mothers, or creationism that's OK. But for GOD's sake don't push it as science, and don't get mad at thinking people for disagreeing.
Thanks Roger for backing the intelligent perspective on this topic once again.
It's funny that Nazism should be mentioned in this film (which I have not seen) because there is sort of a link present here. In a freshman year Historiography course, we spent the entire semester studying the Holocaust deniers as a way to show the correct and incorrect way to conduct historical studies. For a final paper, I wrote on the Discovery Institute, one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design. The similarities between the Holocaust deniers and the Intelligent Design proponents are numerous. They both cherry pick facts, misquote people, and fabricate outright lies. Both groups say their only interest is fact, truth, and enlightenment, but both groups have thinly-veiled agendas with varying degrees of nefariousness.
It's always sort of funny to me the patience with which large groups of people doggedly and repeatedly defend rational thought against increasingly egregious and preposterous attacks from all angles. May there always be such people in the world.
(If anyone is interested in the Holocaust deniers, the film Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A Leuchter discusses them in some depth, although they are not necessarily it's main focus. Mr. Ebert reviewed this film here: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000204/REVIEWS/2040302/1023 )
I remember the exact moment I stopped enjoying 'Win Ben Stein's Money' - it was a celebrity episode where the celebs donated their winnings to a favorite charity. When Ben announced his charity was National Right To Life, something in me died and I couldn't enjoy the show anymore.
It was his money, to do with as he wished...but then, it was my time, and I decided not to donate it to Stein.
I agree with Cam above -- the commentary track at bogosity TV is great. It refutes the statements using a text track at the bottom of the screen as you watch the movie. Too funny.
YouTube example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwhZqNgfRC0
Download page and more info :
http://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=27.msg216#msg216
In 1543 Martin Luther, the german protestant leader, wrote "On the jews and their lies," an essay where he endorses seizing Jewish people's homes, expelling them from the country, burning down their synagogues, and seizing their money. But they could keep some of their money if they converted to Christianity. This was written in Germany by a prominent religious leader 300 years before "The origin of species" was written, and 400 years before Germans actually started doing these things.
Ben Stein ignores the religious roots of antisemitism.
Well done, sir.
I truly despise when a film (or any media) for that matter takes me for an idiot, and this film does exactly that.
Unfortunately, there are many ignorant people out there without the capacity for rational thought that will be led down the path that this movie provides like so many sheep before them.
Thanks, Roger.
I think creationism makes sense, but no one
can prove it from the beginning about humans.
Could humans have been planted on earth
by others? Things have happened on earth
in the past and today, which no one can provide
answers to those mysteries.
thanks from tony
The real intent of ID (which has been proven in court, no less):
Acquire all of the positive branding of science without having to prove that ID is scientific so they can get directly at the children.
Not a single one of ID proponents care about getting papers published or starting a legitimate university department to investigate some key aspect of ID.
All of their efforts have beens spent in creating bogus "institutes" that publish "white papers" (marketting summaries with buzz words galore) use primarily in debunking the supposed "gaps" in evolution. The assumption (clearly absent basic logic) is that once they shoot down evolution, then ID is the only one left standing. They don't need to prove anything.
Notice that a lot of these bozo organizations hire more public relations experts than actual scientists?
Notice that the pro-ID folks politically installed in the Texas Board of Education are mostly public relations experts and not educators?
These people are trying to do an end run around the real scientific process. They don't want peer reviews. They don't want their theories subject to the same nasty survival of the fittest process that all other scientific theories have to go through.
Their primary objective is to get this stuff pushed into the minds of school children, when their brains can pretty much accept anything thrown at them if spoken with enough authority.
It is easy for know-nothing's to say that there is a grand conspiracy by hundreds of thousands of scientists world wide, until you think about the possibility of getting even a room full of them to agree on anything.
And let's face it, no real scientists sue school boards or lobby legislatures to force teachers to teach their pet theories. These political and legal maneuvors are all about their religion being offended rather than their "scientific" theories being censored.
ID does not get a fast pass to go to the head of the line for public school science classes. No theory does.
Hello there Mr. Ebert:
I have read your 'review' of Mr. Stein's 'movie' (not documentary) and it is incredible! You have promoted yourself from pseudo journalistic movie critic to nano scientist all by yourself! I am concerned though because I am not sure if it was via internet or mail order scam by which you managed to garner this award, but regardless I laud you and your new found field. I cannot wait to see you debunk the existence of Santa Claus or next year when you work yourself into a frenzy over the lack of substantive proof regarding the tooth fairy.
You have done something that you stated was distasteful when Stein did it. You have taken this medium and used it to propagate your personal vantage point. and 99.9975% of scientist agree with you? Show me the data gathered, date gathered, questions and the premise of the study. All people that believe in creationism are surely idiots that need to be suppressed to the fullest. Besides that why would we even need a creator when there are brilliant folks like you to lead all of us underlings around by our leashes and to keep us in line, right?
You may have managed to get your wish here, a ton of folks are posting here agreeing that Ben Stein is an evil man that sits on a throne of lies in his Jewish/Christian kingdom. Scientists have it all figured out and with that I can now rest in peace. I want to be first in line when you pass out the cups of 'specially' flavored kool-aid now that there is no ends to match our means.
Atheism has become its own religion, any prospect of doubt or even an agnostic flair will result in an argument that immediately attacks the questioners intellect. There is no result that will effectively satiate your hunger for denying people their own peace other than hearing the world in unison deny a 'designer'.
Christ was and IS real, it is factual and far more people follow his teachings than you have reported in your blog here. The best part is that he still loves you and would die for you again and again just to give you the freedom to sit at your little macintosh and spit in his face again. Kudos to you sir and rest well knowing that we will all know who is right in the end.
Ebert: I do not recall having mentioned Jesus, or describing myself as an atheist. Here's an idea for you: What if God just lets things happen? If you believe he gave us free will, why would he deny the universe?
Shortest Comment!
"...every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer..."
Has anyone here read Paul Feyerabend's Against Method? He was a philosopher of science.
I'm only a third of the way through it, but I recommend it to those who want an interesting argument in favor of sophism -- or "making the weaker argument the stronger."
Just to be a gnat in this conversation, truth is not determined by the number of people who believe something.
Who knows why species are the way they are? We should have a healthy disbelief about any scientific theory, if only to keep space for the germination of the next big theory which could replace it. Making the (supposedly) weaker argument the stronger keeps intellectual traditions alive even when they are not favored by the majority.
Unfortunately i don't have time to write a 3500 word response as you have, but my major beef: The very tricks you accuse Ben Stein of using are in your "review" as well. That's just sad. Everyone is getting heated and using arguments that aren't even valid or relevant.
The other quick note is i love how people say how stupid the movie is from Roger Ebert's post when they haven't seen it themselves. It's not a stellar movie, but don't comment on how wrong his arguments are if you haven't heard them yourself...
As a man of faith, I am utterly ashamed of what has been going on lately in the name of religion (or in it's defense). The fact that religion is now being equated with "anti-intellectualism" is a horror to me. Our history has been graced with many men of faith who were also men of intellect and thought. These thugs are tarnishing the memory of these people by their actions and thoughts (or lack thereof).
Well done, Mr. Ebert. I applaud your commentary and deft display of wit in heaping scorn on this travesty of a documentary.
I am a very religious person having grown up catholic and believe that there are creationism as well as evolution. So when you ask yourself which means more ,just remember, without god, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit there would be no life on our glorious Earth as well as the plants, animals, and water on this great planet.
"I love how you make fun of his "ridiculous assumptions" yet you make so many of your own. As a Christian and believer of evolution, I find both yours and his arguments ridiculous, slanted, and totally non-believable. There's a reason why you're a movie critic and not anything else in the world."
Would you like to point any of those ridiculous assumptions out, or are you just going to let us take your word for it?
And I'm going to have to disagree with your (rather tactless and stupid) assertion that Roger is only a movie critic "and not anything else in the world." After all, and at the very least, he's also a citizen of the United States. And, incidentally, one who is far more informed than the majority of citizens - and yet he is attacked, by people far more ignorant than he, for daring to state his views, while those other people proudly spew their ignorance in bars and in newspaper editorial sections and on blogs and anywhere else they possibly can.
In addition to being a citizen, he's also a Pulitzer Prize winner and a political commentator and a husband and a lot of other pleasant things. But I think you get the idea.
"If your gonna review Errol Morris or Michael Moore, at least review Ben Stein"
Errol Morris and Michael Moore are such radically different filmmakers that putting them together in the same sentence like this is almost insulting. Please don't do that again.
Thank you, Mr Ebert, for pointing out that this is not a simple true/false debate. There is a middle ground for people who realize that studying the mechanics of the universe does not inherently prove or disprove the existence of a mechanic who might have built it.
"However, I've long been disturbed by the fundamentalist dogmatism of evolutionary discourse. Even more disturbing is the complete failure to address the inherent racism from Darwin forward that evolutionary history and discourse is rife with. Most simply put, the idea that black people are closer to apes on the evolutionary chain is just there and until a massive amount of reworking of evolutionary history has taken place, I won't even give it serious consideration. The idea of evolution arose in one of the most toxically racist times in human history, Darwin's Origin of the Species includes the term "favored races" in the subtitle, and Darwinian evolution only became the only game in town after it was married to the likewise troublesome scientific discourse of genetics during the heyday of eugenics in the 1920s and 1930s. It's not surprising that Darwin's grandson was a major figure in the eugenics movement... I come away even more convinced that I cannot even begin to give serious consideration to a discourse of human origins that has yet to come to grips with its own sordid academic history. So the basic question, if the Darwinian understanding of human origins is right, why is racism wrong?"
Perhaps you should actually try to read something on the topic before proclaiming their "complete failure" to address something.
For example, a quick Google search brought me to a number of sites that address your concerns - most of which point out the fact that such claims of racism in the theory of evolution are completely false and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory.
Basically, anyone with an even basic understanding of the theory of evolution should realize that there are no such things are "more advanced" races. Yes, all humans have a common ancestor (not apes, incidentally.) And yes, it is believed that our earliest human ancestors were black - but that does not mean that modern blacks are any less developed, or any more "ape-like" than today's whites (or any other race.) All races are equally related to our early ancestors, and to apes. That is to say, blacks are at the exact same point of development as whites and every other race. Anyone who claims otherwise is horribly misinformed, and probably a creationist.
But rather than respond to each of your points, I'll just provide a link that addresses pretty much every point you raised and proves them all to be false:
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
I didn't even have to read the whole article to realize that you sir do not have any idea what you are talking about.
"...it compares academia's rejection of Creationism to the erection of the Berlin Wall."
It wasn't the rejection of Creationism. It was the rejection of Intelligent Design.
There were several other points I could point out...but it isn't worth my time.
"Do not have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments..." 2Timothy 2:23
I am all knowing and all powerful. A moment ago I created the world and everything in it. [So it is written.] This includes all the people, complete with their entire life's memories. Sorry Roger, you didn't even write that review.
Ok, now, everybody tell me how much you like my universe or I'll get pissed off and make some more traffic!
An addendum to my previous post:
I would like to clarify that I am not denying that Darwin was racist - he very likely was (though the whole "favoured races" thing is completely misunderstood, since "races", in this context, means "species.") However, the theory of evolution itself is not racist. The theory itself, in fact, is rather "anti-racist" - that is, it shows that we are all a part of the same species (contrary to some of the popular beliefs of the day.)
Ben Stein is incredible. What a ludicrous attempt to debunk evolution. They are some intelligent people on the creationism side of things, but they are not represented well here. I for one do think creationism should be taught in schools...in a world religion class, not science class.
I think we need Al Sharpton to fix Ben Stein for good: http://tinyurl.com/58e8y7
Thanks for noting the middle. We believers in God and Evolution theory.
I kinda wish it were my birthday too!
I find Ben Stein's eXpelled, and Bill Maher's Religulous both faintly silly.
Hitler is so convenient isn't he? He and the Nazis can be used by Athiests like Dawkins as an example of reasons why we'd all be better off without religious ideas of any kind. He can be used as an example, by Ben Stein, of the consequences of an evil theory (Evolution). He can also show us what happens when we don't keep taking our medications, and attending anger management classes. He's just so handy that way.
An interesting review. I get the idea that if he had managed to create a more scholarly argument for an alternative scientific theory of some kind, however out-there it seems, that you would not have been so harsh in your review. It is for the low tactics, tactics which are not exclusive to any single political or religious group, but which can be seen by many people, that you most correctly criticise him, and his film.
I appreciate that you stand for a consistent set of principles, which most human beings should be able to see at face value as good. Values like honesty and plain dealing, and the ability to enter a dialogue with others.
I rather hate the feeling of being intellectually shanghai'd.
Warren
Toronto Canada
Religion has been crumbling ever since the first universities were created (ironically enough by religion). Priests once ruled all thought an opinion for thousands of years because they were the only ones that had an explanation for all our questions. The professor has become the new priest, the new respected authority on all things that concern us. It has taken hundreds of years for this to happen, and in a few hundred years more, if not thousands religious belief may disappear entirely.
Roger,
I love your writing and follow it on a weekly basis. I often laugh out loud at the wit in your reviews, and more often than not agree with your assessment of the films reviewed.
But, as one of those close-minded, education-hating Evanglicals who are ignorant enough to believe in creationism, I'm so sorry to say I found this "review" rather pompous. It betrays what I believe is one of your few areas of ignorance: you don't really know or understand "Evangelicals" at all...in the least...within miles of...
Your statement, "If you were to stand up at an evangelical meeting to defend evolution, I doubt if you would be made to feel as welcome, or that your dissent would be quite as cheerfully tolerated." is one of the very few dumb things I've ever read from you, and I am saddened to here it from someone I so admire. And at the risk of painting myself as a victim here, it does sound just a bit prejudiced.
While it is true that I would not appreciate you standing up in the middle of my sermon and spouting off about evolution, I can promise you that most evangelicals are a great deal more tolerant than you would like to believe. You see, if you really knew us and found how reasoned, gracious, self-effacing, and tolerant we can be, then much of your arguments about us, painting usas a broad-brushed charicature of people, would be undercut.
I invite you to take a walk on the wild side...take a risk...and take an evangelical Christian out to eat. I'm in Naples, FL, it's nice and warm here, and we've got some lovely sunsets here whenever you're ready! I'll even pay.
With much love,
Dave
Ebert: Awww. Now I'm feeling bad. Actually, many of the people I love best are evangelicals. It was a careless statement. Maybe I should have said "a meeting of ID supporters." But then you'd get a version of this very thread. To tell you the truth, I watched "Expelled" agog but wasn't going to write about it at this late date until Stein took his walk through the Nazi death camps and "as a Jew" blamed them on Darwin. You sound like the polar opposite of the kind of person who would believe that.
I don't understand why its so hard to believe that the fact that we exist might be more than just mere luck.
Has anyone looked into all of the insane things that had to happen so that life, any kind of life, could come into existence? It's staggering.
I recently read an article in Discover magazine regarding the search for the multiverse. It alluded to the fact that if the multiverse doesn't exist, then it is more likely that some sort of "intelligent design" comes into play. The primary physicist interviewed went so far as to say that even if the multiverse does exist, it doesn't rule out the chance of "intelligent design".
I love how both sides go round and round and while it seems likely that all this is purely chance, there was once a time where it seemed likely that we were the center of the universe - I say likely because science was only beginning to prove otherwise. Maybe science will once again prove a few other things - it seems to have a habit of doing so:)
That said, I don't think science and religion are necessarily at war its just that science depends on fact and religion depends on faith. Fact and Faith. The problem with this is that facts have a habit of changing, whereas with faith, you either have it or don't. I know, it might seem simplistic, but why does it need to be complicated.
Ultimately we may never know if God exists, but to use the argument I have so often heard in regards to Global Warming - if we do everything we can to deter Global Warming and it turns out we never had anything to worry about in the first place, then no biggie but if we don't and it does turn out to be as bad as some have estimated, then we might have just saved ourselves or at least mitigated its effect.
Well, what if God does exist? Wouldn't it be safer to choose a religion and go for it than not? Because if you're wrong, eternity is a long time to suffer the consequences:)
As for me, well, I don't believe the kind of "luck" that had to occur to create life on this planet is simply luck. Whether its God, Aliens, simply a simulation or whatever - I'd rather not take any chances.
Bravo!
Now, if you're wondering "Why did our brains undergo a sudden growth spurt that permitted self-awareness and abstract thought?" The answer is: a life form that can understand its environment well enough such that it can predict its own future (be it 1 second, 1 minute, 1 day, 1 year, and more) can continually modify its actions in favor of its survival and procreation. For some enlightenment on the part of the brain that accomplishes this I suggest reading "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins.
-Marty
Somniferous --
Existence, or rather consciousness, cannot really be known as a concept in the normal sense of the word. All knowing is within the realm of duality - the subject and the object, the knower and the known. The moment you say what consciousness is you have falsified it, made it into something.
Roger --
Do you love your wife? Well, of course you do. How would you test and prove that?
I only have one brief argument for those who think you can take both creationism and evolution and mash them together into one "unified theory":
The Biblical account for Creation states that God created the heavens and the Earth, in 6 days, and on the 6th day is when he created mankind. And then it says God rested. And furthermore, it says that all things which are created were created at this time. In other words, "creation" is done.
Sometime marginally later, the Bible accounts that Adam and Eve, the first humans, sin for the first time. The Bible clearly states, in Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death". In this, and many other passages, the Bible makes it clear that sin = death. Therefore, when in Genesis it says that Adam and Eve sinned for the first time, this was the first occurence of death in all of God's creation.
Now, on the evolution side... evolution claims that it takes millions of years, and tens of thousands of generations, of slight beneficial accidental genetic mutations, selective survival, survival of the fitest. In other words, evolution requires a whole lot of death, over a really long period of time.
So, to try and mix these two together, we get an easy-to-see logical flaw... how could God have used death for millions of years to facilitate evolution, only to *then* turn around and say the height of the evolution, mankind, sinned and brought the first "death" into the world?
The only answer you can give is to discount some of what the Bible says as wrong, or merely allegorical. But that's just ignoring the purpose of the thought-experiment -- namely, can God's account for Creation and scientists account for abiogenesis/evolution be reconciled as is? The answer is plainly, no.
The truth is, God's Biblical account of Creation and Evolution are diametrically, inexorably, impossibly opposed. Which is a good thing, because it makes the disagreement much cleaner and clearer... once you admit that, of course.
If you believe these two can co-exist and both be true, you either don't understand creationism/God, or you don't understand evolution... probably both.
Roger, for once, let us clear the table of all the academic papers and all the religious nostrums; to think and reach further back into the very beginning, past all the terrible wars and lies committed in the name of religion, even past the time when Men began to desire power over others, and into that time when the idea of God was in its pure basic form.
Where did evolutionary Man get this incredible notion of God? How did he come by it? Was it bourne out of the fear of the night, or maybe from the need to explain away what he did not understand? Or was it a product of an overwhelmingly wondrous sense?
More importantly, was this first notion of God even stupid at all? Or unnatural?
Thinking about these questions has lead me to suspect that this incredible notion of God might have played a very important role in the evolution of Man. In fact, it could have harbingered higher thoughts in primitive man, eventually leading to questions about Morality and the Meaning of Existence. And as Man delved deeper into these questions, so did the notion of God get more entrenched into the psyche.
Roger, it is in our Nature to be rebellious; but at the same time, evolution has also imprinted in us the need for authority. Even with all our scientific improvements, you and I are very clear that we are always Just Beginning To. There is always something higher, another step to be taken. It's been this way eversince Man began to have intellect.
If there is an omnipotent God (and I'm not referring to higher alien beings), I believe even He senses that there is something higher than Him.
Mr Hamilton,
Besides Mr. Ebert's correction of your misconception of a 'theory', you didn't even get the basic elements of evolution correct:
"And, it just sort of happened. Just by blind chance plus time."
You folks always seem to leave out the 'natural selection' part when it suits you.
Live and believe as you want... (It's your choice)
Do not judge others...
Love one another...
Is it really that hard to comprehend. Both sides need to just drop it... it's getting old.
May the truth be revealed when I die and enter total blackness, ceasing to exist, or falling flat on my face in front of an Almighty Creator.
I saw the Stein movie (Absolutely horrifying parallel created out of nothing...)
Creationist, evolutionist, or whatever else you want to call yourself; live your life now, quit worrying about how you got here!
Examine everything with a critical eye and except that which is sound... (I'll let you figure out where that came from)
Peace out
Previous post was grossly negligent with the use of (except vs accept) ;p
Live and believe as you want... (It's your choice)
Do not judge others...
Love one another...
Is it really that hard to comprehend. Both sides need to just drop it... it's getting old.
May the truth be revealed when I die and enter total blackness, ceasing to exist, or falling flat on my face in front of an Almighty Creator.
I saw the Stein movie (Absolutely horrifying parallel created out of nothing...)
Creationist, evolutionist, or whatever else you want to call yourself; live your life now, quit worrying about how you got here!
Examine everything with a critical eye and accept that which is sound... (I'll let you figure out where that came from)
Peace out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=763vmCrRBDg
Too bad for Stein that Religulous made more money than Expelled which comes to show that more people went and saw a movie making fun of religion and in turn the existence of God than a movie promoting intelligent design.
What a load of hogwash.
What nonsensical non-reason.
Rog, you missed thoe point of the movie. Ben Stein did not set out to prove evolutionism, or to disprove creationism, or the reverse. The documentary was about HOW THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY RESISTS ANY CHALLENGE TO AN ENFORCED CONSENSUS. That's what the film is about, and that's what Ben Stein is going on about, and it's what he says it's about, and that's what he shows by showing the treatment of those who have stood in the way of that consensus.
It's not about proof of the argument either way, the documentary is a demand that the door be opened to discussion. And if anyone thinks the academic world is a place hospitable to open discussion of theories, especially politically charged ones, then you're living in a cave. (Or Berkeley.)
So, Rog, if you don't understand what the movie is about, how the hell can you possibly review it? I realize that anything that contradicts your Chicago Times worldview you find upsetting. But if you find the message of any movie so upsetting that it simply does not register on your stubby neurons, then, of course, it's going to seem uncomprehensible to you. All that this review does is reveal the lack of comprehension of the reviewer. (And his admirers.)
Regarding Michael Moore, Ebert has referred to his work as being "smug and disingenuous."
Most impressive, Rog! And long time no see.
Interestingly enough, I was just watching a video of a series of appearances Ben made on Cavuto over the past couple of years telling everyone what a great investment financials are. How he came to be considered an expert I do not know; I suppose it's similar to the process Schwarzenegger went through to qualify as governor of California. Ben, old friend, if you want to understand science or economics, unfortunately you gots to read dem books.
No wonder Ferris Bueller wanted to get a day off from school so badly! With a 'teacher' like that...
Great, amusing, important review. Best wishes.
Doug Johnson Hatlem says:
So the basic question, if the Darwinian understanding of human origins is right, why is racism wrong?
That's your socialogical read, and that is your attempt to impose "right" or "wrong" on a topic that has no "right" or "wrong". You are asking a morality question about a topic that has no relevance to morality.
Do you complain about your barber's taste in cars or do you go to him to get a hair cut?
You are asking way too much of a topic that could care less about morality.
Science deal with what actually happens, not what is morally better or worse.
If you are not an pro-ID nut, then you probably fall into the middle category of people who can't tell the crackpots from the real scientists.
Here is a hint: Stop trying to figure out THE ANSWER right at this moment. There is no urgency. Science has all the patience in the world. The current theories about evolution, about nuclear physics, about gravity have been around for centuries, slowing changing their form as portions of the theories are proven incorrect or inaccurate. The current state of these theories are the result of a long line of scientists vigorously challenging every aspect of them. That is why the theories get better over time.
"Darwin's Theories", for instance, are only vaguely correctly in some general sense. Many of the details are changed over time because they have been refined to reflect the better observation methods that have shown up over the subsequent years.
In the mean time, there are theories that pretty much all scientists agree upon at today: Evolution. Cosmology. Plate techtonics. Gravity.
Not that the explanations are 100% solid, as most theories have holes that are not yet properly accounted for, but that the current theories are the best at explaining all that we can observe.
If you can't be bothered to learn the science, then just poll some random sampling of scientists on what they believe are the most accurate theories.
But you have to ask real scientists.
When you have a morality question, you ask your moral counselor (such as your priest or rabbi).
When you need brain surgery, you go to your brain surgeon.
In short, you go to the expert.
If you ask your mechanic on what to do about treating lice in your children, you are stupid.
Sorry, but that's the blunt truth.
Roger,
Excellent review and dismemberment of this pseudo-documentary.
Too bad you can't be half as critical of the VERY SAME tactics used by Michael Moore in his work, which you never fail to lavish with uncritical praise. "... this film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions..." An honest review of Fahrenheit 911, or Bowling for Columbine would point out the same cheap tactics in those films.
There's an air conditioner in my room. It drips outside the window into my backyard. The landscape there is mulch, so nothing is growing-- except for one small weed. It's growing exactly under the drip from the AC.
Were the weed conscious, it would marvel at how improbable its own existence was. "Were I moved just a fraction left or right, I would not get the water I need to live. Of all the places in this vast universe of mulch beside me, what are the odds I'd randomly appear here. It's just too perfect to be coincidence. It proves a grand planter must have planted me".
Next year, I will move the AC to my other window.
Simply direct Mr. Stein to talkorigins.org. Perhaps he will be persuaded to rethink his position. Perhaps not.
I have thought many responses reading through the entirety of the comments, but realized after a few of them that I wasn't listening to the commenter... just looking at and processing the words they were typing.
In the end, my final statement is thus:
I believe it is a delusion of modern mankind (all sexes) to believe that it is possible to know enough about every subject to have informed and valuable opinions in any conversation. Many of these responses attempt to argue one way or another, yet in the end, none of us can prove right or wrong, truth or fiction.
At one point in my life I would have said (and often thought), "I'll believe in God or macro-evolution when they show me hard evidence!"
Now I know the truth is that I wouldn't know what to do if they did give me hard evidence. I feel that is the biggest problem with this sort of argument... essentially, that I don't know enough to say that my opinion should be regarded at all.
Think of this, if you will (whoever is reading this): If you are using another's evidence, then your evidence is anecdotal; being based off of the research or theorems of another person. The very basis to the scientific method is that any result, given the same environment, will be reproduced every time. The problem is, that I do not possess the mental capacity to understand if any given experiment was precisely the same environment.
Were the starting molecules the same down to whatever smallest piece we've defined thus far (the quark is the last made aware to me)? Were the surrounding materials the exact same as the original environment? Etc.
The problem is that as I cannot then say that they DID recreate the identical environment (and thus prove said theory right), I also cannot say they did NOT recreate the identical environment (and thus prove said theory wrong).
My challenge would be this:
For everyone involved in this sort of argument, identify before you speak your mind, whether you can verify any statement you have with provable self-verified evidence. If your answer is not entirely "100% Yes", please think again about clogging up more viewing space with another re-iteration of identical thoughts. If your answer IS 100% Yes, please show us all so we can stop finding every reason we can find to separate from each other.
"Ebert: Fifth (proclaimed) birthday in about 230 posts. What are the odds?"
Put it this way, for a group of 313 people, there's a 50% chance that 5 of them will share a birthday. This will fall significantly in this case (because we're specifying the day), but when you consider that people are probably more likely to post if it's their birthday (to catch your eye maybe?) I think this balances out pretty well.
The most famous example is to ask how many people are needed for a 50% chance of 2 of them to share a birthday. Most people think hundreds, but the answer is in fact 23.
Enjoyable, yet scary, post. Thank you very much.
Ebert: Try this one on: One poster sounded interesting and I just googled him and discovered Dec. 4 is his birthday. He didn't tell me. Cue music from "Twilight Zone."
Peter
on December 4, 2008 9:48 AM
wrote:
"I went to a Catholic high school,
and I took AP Biology in my senior year. We spent a good part of the first semester on genetics--DNA, RNA, protein synthesis, and the chemical machinery that underlies all cellular function. In the second semester we went into mutation and evolution, survival of the fittest and the origin of species.
It was all very Darwinian.
. . .
towards the end of the second semester, my teacher brought in a half-hour video presenting the premises of Intelligent Design."
It seems a lot of Catholic teachings and "Cutting-Edge science" findings
were omitted.
A few examples are:
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
- Genesis contains real history—
it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
. . .
- St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
- Evolution must not be taught as fact,
but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
. . .
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
- Chemicals do not react together randomly to form amino acids through natural processes.
- Amino acids do not randomly interact to form living cells through undirected natural processes.
- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.
Quoted from: What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
References:
Genesis 1-11
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;&version=31
Global Flood of Noah:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis6-9;&version=31
Ebert: No one I know believes "reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings." We do not turn into. We evolve from. It is often said that evolutionists "believe men came from monkeys." No evolutionist believes that. Monkeys should be so lucky. Evolutionists believe that if you follow the evolutionary tree backwards, you discover common ancestors. Present-day monkeys and men are recent leaves on their own diverging branches of this ancient tree. One species is said to diverge into two when the two resulting species can no longer mate. There is a fascinating study of a species of birds which over a long period spread around the world, and began to evolve subtly to adapt to local conditions. The members of this species could all successfully mate with birds in adjacent geographical areas, but after the species circled the globe it could no longer reproduce with the birds, which, so to speak, it had left behind. One bird species had become two. It helps to imagine tree branches, or the downstream tributaries of a river. The branches can never grow back into the tree, and the tributaries cannot rejoin the source. Dawkins has written a book titled The Ancestors' Tale that goes step by step back into the past and shows this process in reverse. It is written with clarity and elegance, and is one of the most beautiful books I have ever seen.
Roger Ebert, I have the highest respect for you. I may not agree with all of your movie reviews but your intelligence inspires me. I am curious if you would reveal who you voted for in the Presidential election. I would love to hear your justifications for either candidate. Thank you for your time and thoughts.
Ebert: I voted for Barack Obama. I had many positive reasons. I knew people who would have voted for McCain but feared the possibility of a President Palin. Her choice showed a major lapse in his competence.
As someone who works in the investment world, I once had a chance to meet and speak with Ben Stein, and he seemed like a smart, reasonable, down-to-earth guy.
However, I lost all respect for him with the release of this manipulative (and derivative) hit piece. Thanks for the reasoned and humorous debunking of what can only be described as self-serving tripe.
I believe in Evolution and I also believe in a master plan behind it. And I would like somebody just to connect the dots on how an amoeba in a primordial soup of an ocean grew up to become a dog. How did non living cells get life. Then how did they decide then needed an eyeball and a brain. How did they create dna strands. How is that species of dogs that all look identical evolve. I just can't imagine two cells talking and one says I'll be a part of the brain and you can become the rectum.
Ebert: Those dots have been connected for a loooong time. If you want to find out, you easily can.
At the risk of sounding pretentious, I'm reminded of something Max Planck said;
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
I don't worry so much about Ben Stein. I worry about our kids.
Roger,
First of all, this was not a movie review, it was a political defense of evolution. You didn't watch the movie with the intent of a review but watched it with the presupposition that creation is a myth and you were determined to undermine Ben's defense. I note that you made up numbers like 99.975% to make fun of his stance on why he made the movie. You are not a philosopher, politician, theologoen, or anything useful. Most of the comments are by people that are afraid of a world created by a God because of the condition of their fate. If you had watched it, there are great points.
Everything can't come from nothing.
People that want to look for other answers are being persecuted.
Creation has as much evidence as evolution.
Mr Ebert, you are an ignorant man who is offended by God because you know that like ALL MEN, you are a sinner and your conscience condemns you. I hope you don't think you aren't perfect. If you know you aren't, then you must know that there is a force that will settle the score for all the unpunished sin in the world.
Real talent does something...whether it be a quarterback, director, actor, plumber, programmer, or teacher. You sir serve no function in life. You approve and disapprove. We all judge everything all the time, so you are redundant and if evolution had its way, you would be eliminated through your inability to survive without the generosity of the rest of the human race. Your success is a testament against natural selection.
Have a good day sir.
Ebert: The number 99.975 is not made up. It actually turns out to be too generous. A Newsweek article states, "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."
That works out to only 0.00145833% percent of scientists in agreement. The article is cited on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_and_evolutionism#cite_note-7
If I remember correctly, Dawkins has stated on his website that he doesn't ever wear makeup for TV appearances (you may judge his honesty for yourself, though I have noticed he often looks like he hasn't slept in a few days when he's on TV) ~ as the commenter above noted, the director of the film ordered the makeup done, apparently over several objections by Dawkins.
Furthermore, Dawkins only realized he was being interviewed by creationists halfway through the scene, on-camera, and the awkward pause in which he finally decodes Ben Stein's strange questions and realizes what's going on is preserved in the film - and construed as evidence that he didn't know how to answer.
Evidently Dawkins was told he would be appearing in a pro-science movie.
I have one small quibble with your excellent post. There are no evolutionary scientists who subscribe to Intelligent Design. At least not as a part of their scientific work. Not even .025%. That's because there isn't a single shred of evidence to support it. If there were, what Mr. Stein and other proponents of ID practice would no longer be faith. That's what belief in a higher being is: faith. If there were actual testable evidence, it would no longer be so. And without testable evidence, a scientist wouldn't, by definition, be a scientist at all. And it is why Intelligent Design has no place in any science class anywhere ever.
Ebert: I have now found an even smaller number. The Wikipedia article on Creationism and Evolutionism cites in a footnote a Newsweek article which states:
"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."
That works out to 0.00145833%. I knew it couldn't be zero.
I didn't have a chance or the patience to read through every single comment on here, but I'm pretty sure that no matter what your beliefs are, if they're in a creator or nothing, no one can win the argument for either theory. Because they are just that... theories. The most common mistake one can make is to confuse the word theory in science with how it is used in music. In music, theory is, for lack of a better word, truth. And we often muddle the lines between areas of study and allow this idea that a theory is concrete and truth when it comes to the theory of evolution or intelligent design. In science a thoery is not true. A theory is not something that has been proven. The theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design are just that. They are two plausible scenarios for how the world came to be. Are either right? We don't know. Are either wrong? We don't know. Are both plausible? YES and we should be open to that plausibility.
Yes, a very well-thought-out review, as always. Even if a movie is just awful, Ebert's review of it is still entertaining, so we have that, at least, from this movie. Still, I am sorry Ebert didn't stick with his guns and simply pan this movie. The devoted religious element of the movie's audience can only be, as noted, a narrow group of people who have already accepted the premise of a magic creation story, and are closed to anything contradicting it. Other people will find its reasoning, methods and conclusions embarassing at worst and amusing at best. Speaking of premises, it is difficult, and becoming harder as the years go by, to move through a logical Cartesian proof from nothing, to accepting the existence of God(s) as the only credible method of accounting for the existence of life and species. New information seems to be arriving every week on the subject. The problem of writing a review of this movie lies in the viewers who buy into the premises of ID from the get-go, and their needfully close-minded exclusion and insecure mockery of all other explanations. Many, once religion is invoked, adopt a mindset such that they are closed to other possibilities of the origin of life and species; it's an exercise in futility to even address the issue as a scientific or logical one to a religious audience, once the premise has been caged in magical religious terms. They are coming from a whole different place that may not involve much logic or knowledge, but once that they have accepted since childhood: remember, their explanation to the existence of the universe, life and species is that God used "magic" to create everything. Magic is accessible, and fun, and a loving God is warm and fuzzy. And let's face it, the scientific explanations -- involving statistics, probability and organic chemistry -- are not as accessible as a loving God who (paradoxically) created us because he loves us.
I'm just grateful for any movie that gets Roger talking about his surgery again. I never get enough of that. For those taking Roger too seriously, read his review of "Half Past Dead" where he complains about Steven Seagal being........overweight. Life is good. Regardless of how you believe it began.
This is to Yancy Berns waaaaaaaay up there about 200 comments above this one. Stein does seem like an unabashed capitalist, but I think you're mistaken that he has no emotion or soul. I recall an interview with him about his years on the Nixon staff where he ultimately broke down in tears over his sorrow at how things turned out, at how Nixon was treated by the history books, at the now-lost moments of his youth. During the one episode of "Win Ben Stein's Money" I watched, he was thoughtful and emotional regarding the answers to many of the questions.
I don't say this to defend him, because I find his behavior as of late to be confusing and disheartening. However, there is no need to dehumanize someone simply because we disagree with them.
I find it fascinating that those same individuals that vehemently support the concept of ID can not grasp the difference between a “Hypothesis” and a “Theory”. There is a small peripheral influence between Darwinism and Nazism that is derived from a fundamental misinterpretation of Darwin. Ironically, it’s the same misinterpretation that the ID sect is currently making. BTW, you can make the same peripheral connection with Darwinism and the rise of Communism.
Stein is wrong, he was wrong in 2007 when he said that the economy was sound and he’s still wrong now. Why does anyone listen to these people? Simple they are a cult of personality.
The Emperor's New Clothes isn't just an amusing story. It's an observation of human behavior. People will believe things because everyone else does, and sometimes for no other reason. Religious people do it all the time. And scientists aren't immune. When scientists follow the process, they can send a man to the moon. Evolution is nothing but a belief, just a belief. There aren't mountains of evidence, only mountains of claims that there are mountains of evidence.
Roger you say that the dots to connect from primordial soup to a dog are easy to find. Please point me in the right direction I would like to see the dots
Ebert: The reader "retest" suggests: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html
Mr. Ebert, I would like to applaud your work here. This film was something I have consistently passed over as useless drivel, and it is good to know that my initial thoughts were correct without having to watch it for myself. I would also like to laud your understanding and interest in things beyond your professional field, i.e. film criticism.
Also, reading through many of the comments and your responses to them, you strike me as someone I would love to have a theological discussion with, and perhaps a more generalized philosophical discussion as well. Particularly, I feel this statement was a brilliant observation:
"Ebert: In that case, the answer to 'why' would be, 'because matter can interact in that way.' What is a more intriguing question, I think, is 'Why did our brains undergo a sudden growth spurt that permitted self-awareness and abstract thought?' In other words, why do we ask 'why?'"
Thanks again for the review!
Mr. Ebert, well done.
I agree on your assessment of the this thing that you have reviewed. I am both a scientist and an engineer, so I understand critical thinking and use it everyday. Many, however, that are criticizing your review do not.
The biggest problem is the fact that science, mathematics, engineering, technology, and medicine require the use of objectivity. Religion uses subjectivity. Religion requires faith for it to be true, and of course, faith is defined as not requiring proof. This is much of what underlies Expelled. It does not use critical thinking, because if it did, it would fail in making its point.
For those that confuse scientific evolution with how life began, they are two entirely different subjects. Darwin proposed how life evolves, not how it started. How it started is called abiogenesis.
For those that are interested in how life may have started, try this: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html
As far as mutations are concerned in a trillions-to-1 odds scenario, remember, that there is not just one of those little suckers running around there can millions, or even billions of them at any given time. Most of the single-celled animals and plants reproduce upwards of once every thirty minutes. Simple E. Coli bacteria can go through 40,000 generations in under 20 years. If you consider a human generation as 25 years, over a span of 10,000 years, this amounts to only 400 generations. This takes that 3 trillion-to-1 shot down to a very short period of time. As well, the mutations are held in 'memory' with that mutation carried onto its offspring.
As a simple example, lets say that to get a beneficial advancement of a species requires us to flip a coin such that it has to come up 'heads' 20 times in a row. If I was the only person doing this, the argument that Stein and others here are using, then yes it could take an outrageously long time for that advancement to occur. But, if there were 1 billion people each flipping their own coin, then those odds and the time span required becomes far, far less.
For the real thing, see: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary
Said Brad:
//Existence, or rather consciousness, cannot really be known as a concept in the normal sense of the word.//
So we're now dealing with imaginary words? Perhaps you could enlighten me, as I'm not very familiar with your quasi-philosophic lexicon. And existence /is/ a concept. You still haven't refuted this.
//All knowing is within the realm of duality - the subject and the object, the knower and the known.//
Vague, ambiguous pontifications don't prove anything--try again.
//The moment you say what consciousness is you have falsified it, made it into something.//
If something can be falsified, it is a concept. If you're going to prove my contentions for me, let me know; I'd hate to waste my time.
Oh, and I /still/ await your evidence for your previous claims.
Roger, great analysis of the science of evolution.
Now, I wonder if you will give man-made global warming the same rigorous test of "The Theory of Evolution is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply provable or not."
Will you employ the same dogged, nearly-hysterical approach to testing the "science" of man-made global warming?
Ebert: I cannot in all honesty understand the controversy over global warming. Yet it has been brought up again and again in this thread. Perhaps the flames were fanned by Rush Limbaugh. Who benefits from the debunking of global warming? Energy companies selling such fuels as coal and oil. Period.
We know global warming iitself s a fact. This is not in debate. What we don't know for sure is what causes it. Let's say for the sake of argument that it is not man-made. Then let's ask what would happen if we tried to limit emissions anyway. (1) Less air pollution. (2) Fewer carcinogens. (3) Less dependence on foreign oil. (4) Cheaper sources of energy, such as wild, solar and nuclear.
Where's the harm? Who loses? What does it have to do with politics? Isn't it ideology-neutral? Jim, do you have a horse in this race?
Science is all about HOW, the mechanics of the Universe. They don't seek the answer to WHO or WHY. Describing how a watch works is not denying someone built it. Tho if watches grew on trees and flowers, abounded in the rivers and seas,and if there was a huge amount of fossil evidence of watches evolving from, oh, say... sticks in the ground to sundials to water clocks to pendulum clock and so on, it would be stupid to deny the watches had evolved.
Yes, a very well-thought-out review, as always. Even if a movie is just awful, Ebert's review of it is still entertaining, so we have that, at least, from this movie. Still, I am sorry Ebert didn't stick with his guns and simply pan this movie. The devoted religious element of the movie's audience can only be, as noted, a narrow group of people who have already accepted the premise of a magic creation story, and are closed to anything contradicting it. Other people will find its reasoning, methods and conclusions embarassing at worst and amusing at best. Speaking of premises, it is difficult, and becoming harder as the years go by, to move through a logical Cartesian proof from nothing, to accepting the existence of God(s) as the only credible method of accounting for the existence of life and species. New information seems to be arriving every week on the subject. The problem of writing a review of this movie lies in the viewers who buy into the premises of ID from the get-go, and their needfully close-minded exclusion and insecure mockery of all other explanations. Many, once religion is invoked, adopt a mindset such that they are closed to other possibilities of the origin of life and species; it's an exercise in futility to even address the issue as a scientific or logical one to a religious audience, once the premise has been caged in magical religious terms. They are coming from a whole different place that may not involve much logic or knowledge, but once that they have accepted since childhood: remember, their explanation to the existence of the universe, life and species is that God used "magic" to create everything. Magic is accessible, and fun, and a loving God is warm and fuzzy. And let's face it, the scientific explanations -- involving statistics, probability and organic chemistry -- are not as accessible as a loving God who (paradoxically) created us because he loves us.
Reply to: If Global Warming turns out to be as bad as some have estimated, then we might have just saved ourselves. Well, what if God does exist? Wouldn't it be safer to choose a religion and go for it than not? Because if you're wrong, eternity is a long time to suffer the consequences:)
As I said, Skeptics need the courage to say the words "CON GAME" and not back down.
Yes, you can always destroy a child's ability to use Good Judgment. You can tell him lies and nonsense and punish him every time he comes up with the Correct Answer on his own.
That's how you get a belief in a God. By allowing the con artists to dictate the rules. You can tell a child "It's better to believe in Santa Claus, because that way you'll get more presents." Or, "It's better to believe in demonic possession, because that way you won't become a victim of Satan." Most children won't see the flaw in the logic.
A belief in God...is an product of manipulation and deceit. Let me explain.
Reply to: Where did evolutionary Man get this incredible notion of God? How did he come by it? Was it bourne out of the fear of the night, or maybe from the need to explain away what he did not understand? More importantly, was this first notion of God even stupid at all?
The answer is so simple, I'd prefer NOT to tell you. I'd rather let you work it out by yourself. However, I've lost my respect for these people, and I don't feel like waiting.
Your parents.
Every one of us starts as an infant. Our eyesight isn't perfect. How do infants "see" their parents? Infants learn how to please their parents in order to obtain love.
An infant understands what the word "Father" means, but in a very distorted way. They don't have adult brains. They acquire a sense of an all-powerful, all-loving, judgmental "other" that controls everything in their life.
That's where God comes from. You're remembering your own Father in a highly distorted way. During a revival meeting, it's common to start crying and not understand why.
Jesus said, "Call no man on earth father, for you have one father, in heaven." And yet, every Catholic priests uses the honorific "Father." Why? Because they're playing a con game based on subconscious memories from infancy, when you first began using the term "Father" to describe someone who was older, wiser, and more powerful than you are. NOne of which applies to any Catholic priest I know, except possibly the older part.
When I was in college, I was confused by Christians who would approach me and tell me how much they wanted me to become part of their group. Eventually, I got it. All they care about is the recruitment. And that's why the Gospel of Mark is so effective. It was written to fool people. It was written to create a Jesus who fits into your subconscious memories of "Father."
Mark 1:11 Then a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."
The voice - the voice of James Earl Jones, I suspect - comes from the sky, and the first affirmation is "You are my son" and the second is, "I am pleased with you." Exactly what men whose country has been conquered by Romans want to hear. "My father loves me, even though I failed him."
That's where God comes from. If you run down the list of Famous Atheists, many of them didn't have fathers in their households growing up. So, not as many submerged emotions for the Manipulators to use in their recruitment.
Roger,
It maybe a subject that you disagree with but I don't get all the animosity. Like this isn't the first documentary to pull some of these stunts. What about ohhhh everything that Michael Moore has ever made. Who can forget Michael Moore going to Charlton Heston's house. That wasn't over the top? And all his manipulating movies are well received. I'm also not so sure about this line; "If you were to stand up at an evangelical meeting to defend evolution, I doubt if you would be made to feel as welcome, or that your dissent would be quite as cheerfully tolerated." I think this is an unfair representation of evangelicals. I have seen congregations that have hosted many debates on evolution and other uncomfortable topics. One evangelical, Pastor Craig Gross traveled across the country debating Ron Jeremy about pornography. There weren't any pitchforks or angry mobs. I understand that the subject matter stirs our emotions, but please don't let it lead to a new form of bigotry. If we aren't careful when we paint "those" people with a broad brush we can become just as bad as they are.
What dishonest, disingenuous bunk, Ebert.
The fundamental questions posed by Stein are, a). how does life begin, and b). have the scientific and academic communities encouraged an honest path of inquiry to answer this question.
While we do not know the answer to the former question - sorry, Roger - we do know that evolution, for all of its contributions, does not even attempt to answer this question. Darwin said as much. Your ridiculous straw men and pseudo-science neither weaken the argument for ID nor buttress the arguments in favor of evolution.
In addition, the recent discovery of ancient molecular proteins do not prove nature's ability to create life where none previously existed ... in fact it may be argument on behalf of ID. I don't know, but neither do you nor the scientific community.
Furthermore, I'd love to see you explain the origin of the orderliness of the universe and the scientific laws governed therein - perhaps another example of a scientific happenstance, Roger??? ... but we'll leave that for another day.
Evolution is a worthwhile branch of science whose contributions to our understanding of nature are well established. What a shame that you had to weaken it with such a defensive, nonsensical diatribe that was guilty of all the flaws you leveled at Stein.
Is chemistry threatened by our understanding of physics? Is calculus threatened by our understanding of geometry? How sad that dogmatic evolutionists feel so threatened by those who care to discover how life began.
I hope my grandchildren inhabit a world with greater openness to scientific inquiry.
I have not seen Ben Stein's movie, but I beleive I have the right to comment for two reasons. First, many pundits of the religious right often comment - if only ignorantly - about the content of movies, books and art that they know nothing about. I may do the same. Secondly, I am familiar with the premises of ID and its break with scientific reality. And that, after all, is what this discussion is really about. The prinicpal problem with promoting ID as science is that, in fact, it lacks scientific grounding. It isn't provable and there is significant evidence in the world around us that contradicts its premises and principals. Intelligent Design is, in fact, a religious belief. Like any religious belief, it requires a leap of faith. This is the willingness to accept as true, that which can neither be experienced or proved. Belief is the opposite of science. The latter requires proof, discussion, debate and more proof. Belief only requires the single premise: "This is so, because I beleive it to be so. "The best way to demonstrate this dichotomy is to point out that there are many scientists that are deeply religious - a part of the 99.975% - who believe in God, but do not accept ID or that creationism should be taught in schools. I am sure this movie is simply propaganda of the ignorant. Disdain is the only way to respond to Mr. Stein. He is best left to teaching Modern American History to Ferris Beuhler's class. "Anybody? Anybody?"
Since no one has yet posted this, I am obliged to.
Credit to the original author Ian Johnston, whose full article may be found by Googling "The Short Proof of Evolution". I will paraphrase here.
It includes 3 points, which have all been proven true, and in being true together must prove that evolution is in fact the way life operates.
1. All living creatures alive today have or had a living parent.
2. Some living creatues alive today are VERY different from other living creatures alive today.
3. Simple plants and animals existed on Earth long before more complex ones.
Tracing these facts backwards through time and logic, one must come to the only possible conclusion one must come to.
By Chris Green on December 3, 2008 7:30 AM
I have not seen Ben Stein's movie and I never will. As for arguing with people like him, I have found that they enjoy playing the martyr so I'm not going to be the one to give them any fodder.
No the reasons why you won't argue is that you are scared like the rest. All I have read what a wonderful article Mr. Ebert wrote. Well not to me I thought he mainly cry at the fact that you guys get your butt kicked every time the truth slaps you in the face.
Oh and how come 99.95% of all scientist agree with evolution. They may have agree before but many in droves are leaving because they came to the conclusion that Evolution is a religion and a fairy tale for grown ups.
Darwins book "The origin of species and the separation of the races" Oh by the way that's the original title. The correlation between evolution and Hitler is there in a big way. Hitler had a chart where he identify the races in which if you were blond blue eye you were human, anything below that you were quarter ape, half ape, and full ape. Anybody that was a quarter ape and down they had to go or the blue eye blond man would of mix with the inferior races. Well Darwin concluded that in order for a good species to survive it must be separated from the others otherwise it would of mix and die. If that is the case the others had to go.
Science have been able to prove without a shadow of doubt that this planet is only thousands of years old. For starters we can't see the magnetic field but is there, we know because it protect us from the sun harmful rays well most of them. Now if life started according to you billions of years ago the magnetic field would've been too powerful to let that happen. Scientist have been able to determine the Magnetic field is weakening thus it was stronger before. They also have determine that because of that life must of start thousands of years ago and not billions of years according to Evolutionary Religion. By the way I agree religion must be thought in theology like evolution and creation.
Listen I know evolution makes you feel good and you hate when someones challenges your religion of death. We challenge it because we like to teach about life not death. It is inevitable we will all die some day but why make it without any hope.
Responding to Gary C's comments:
As Ebert stated, "A theory exists to be tested and challenged. Darwin's theory has been worked for over 150 years, and its central insights still hold."
I would add that while its been tested to a degree, random mutations as the source of novelty (revised body plans, complexity, synergy of systems, overtly aesthetic features) is still tentative. "150 years" is often cited in the same sense that 'billions of years' has, to infer adequate time to finalize the results. Time alone is insufficient establish proof of a theory, or to give random mutations time to produce miracles. Gary C continues,
That's a favorite response to criticisms of RM+NS, stated often by Dawkins and others, but it lacks rationality. True, natural selection is not random, but what it has to select from is, essentially 'junk'.
Mutations are mostly deleterious, and often fatal. This, my friend, is where the 'theory' breaks down.
Evolution does, however, work for adaptation, and to produce diversity within the species (ever notice that your kids don't all look the same?) Antibiotic resistance is the most commonly cited example of evolution, but is merely 'adaptation', by the selection of variants that exist in the population. I would also predict that those variants could be the result of mechanisms other than 'mutation', or of transcription and folding errors.
So don't just assume that 150 years and a "plethora" of data nails it, or cite "overwhelming" evidence as the basis for your total acceptance of Darwinian evolution as "proven fact".
Phylogenetic progression, along with homologies and genetic coding similarities is plainly in evidence. And true, there are reams of data, but much of the current data points more toward Intelligent Design, or simply 'intervention' if that sounds better, than it does toward a totally undirected process.
Could it be that we're not alone in the Cosmos? I know ... hard to imagine!
Scott Andrews:
Fail.
I asked for evidence of a new feature evolving, and you provide questionable evidence of one being taken away.
MAJOR FAIL!
Mr. Andrews, I'm not even a scientist, and I can tell you definitively right now that there is a bacteria that eats nylon. Nylon is a synthetic material that -does not exist in nature-. However, certain bacteria (I believe it was near the nylon processing plant?) have developed the COMPLETELY NEW ability to eat nylon, to process it into nutrition for their system.
Wikipedia is not a definitive resource, but I would direct you to the references on their webpage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
And this bacteria? Has been around for 25 or more years, it seems. You know. About...um. Forty years after Nylon started being manufactured?
How long is that in bacterial generations? I believe it is -millions- of generations. Enough time for the shift of a gene, the change in abilities....to allow this simple little thing to digest something that did not exist a hundred years ago.
This happens among bacteria and other microscopic, short-life-span creatures ALL THE TIME. Your failure to understand high school biology about the structure and function of bacteria, viruses and cells has led to your complete failure to understand the miracle of evolution and the beauty of organic shifts in composition to fit with a changing world.
The universe started small; you have to start looking small. Creationists and IDers look at the BIG and wonder why they don't see the answers, and can't understand the answers that others have researched.
Bacteria -evolve-. And once you understand how microscopic things can evolve so fluidly, you will begin to understand evolution, irrefutably.
ID is possible ONLY IF it does not deny evolution. To set ID against evolution can lead only to its derision as a scientific idea, as has been done.
I am content to believe that I evolved. I find that infinitely more beautiful, in all its dirt and millennia of genetic combat....
I'm sorry you can't see that either.
Roger wrote: Dawkins has written a book titled The Ancestors' Tale that goes step by step back into the past and shows this process in reverse.
You just made me hanker for Dawkins' book (the way you made me hanker for Alfred Wainwright's and P. G. Wodehouse's).
Roger, please consider starting a book club. I mean it. You are so well read and knowledgeable, you would have made a wonderful encyclopedia had you been born into that station in life!
Dear Roger,
You wrote,
"Your [Ben Stein's] suit argues that the "correct" answer was chosen because of a prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, despite the fact that .025 of one percent of all scientists support it."
The following should not have to be pointed out, as most of your readers seem to have gotten the gist of your terrific post, but as the Spencer Tracy character noted in the 1960 version of "Inherit the Wind," "Fanaticism and ignorance are forever busy and require feeding."
Thus, I note that a theory - a scientific theory - is in fact not a theory unless it is capable of being disproven. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it can neither be proven nor disproven. A George W. Bush-appointed federal judge in Pennsylvania, John E. Jones III, wrote a rip-snorting (as far as these things go) 139-page opinion explaining that this fact further compels the conclusion that to include the teaching of ID violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion....."). Perhaps you and/or some readers would like to sample some of this opinion. Here is the link: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Pages 80-81 are of particular knee-slapping interest. Judge Jones writes:
"Unlike biological systems, human artifacts (such as artwork) do not live and reproduce over time. They are non-replicable, they do not undergo genetic recombination, and they are not driven by natural selection. For human artifacts, we know the designer’s identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer’s
abilities, needs, and desires.
With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses
on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert (ID proponent) Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and
capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe (another ID proponent)agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of
biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference (the inference that because human designs - inanimate objects - feature purposeful arrangements of parts containing designs with purposeful arrangement of parts we can recognize, there can be biologically designed systems as well) still works in science fiction movies. (Yes, a professor actually said this, in open court).
Perhaps Stein's film should be considered such a movie.
I'm sure other commentators have mentioned these things (I haven't bothered reading the other comments), but I want to say that you are incorrect on many counts in this review.
First of all, Ben stein was approached by the film makers. At the time he was studying the links between Darwin and Nazi ideology (which are well documented and beyond dispute), and was also aware of the intelligent design controversy. In an interview he said that if he had his way, there would be less intelligent design and more darwin/nazi stuff in the movie.
And it wasn't a scientist who first mentioned the link, it was the curator of a holocaust museum where Nazis experimented on the handicapped.
As for intelligent design, there is a reasonable scientific doubt that natural forces acting alone are enough to explain the origins, complexity and diversity of life on earth. The reason why those who express those doubts are sidelined has more to do with dogma than science. And that system of silencing those who doubt darwin was what the movie explored.
The footprint you mentioned is utterly irrelevant to anything discussed, and you only trot it out to remind your readers that we should be discredited.
You also show a great misunderstanding of Gonzales work, no doubt to create a strawman. In his book, Gonzales, an astronomer who has discovered planets, written textbooks, worked for NASA, pioneered the concept of Galactic Habitable Zones, and who's papers have been among the most cited in recent years, asks some basic questions about the architecture of the universe (who's laws seem fine-tuned), and whether chance working alone can logically explain these things. You state the argument of this guy from NASA, then say anyone looking at the night sky will realize that he's wrong... surely your readers are smart enough to smell a rat in your telling of the tale. And speaking of rat, surely you should note that the reason he was denied tenure was because of bias against his conclusions, as their e-mails demonstrate. No matter how qualified a scientist you are, if you don't buy the naturalistic opinion, then you are a heretic to be burned.
The arguments against a naturalistic origin of life need no retelling, the point is that we don't know, and a naturalistic explanation fails. Yeah, sometimes people hit jackpots when there are three dials on the one armed bandit...but not when there are a thousand or more. If the jackpot gets hit, surely the least logical explanation is someone got lucky.
You also mention the poor reviews the film got. Well, color me shocked that the entertainment media doesn't like a movie that challenges the opinions held in newsrooms and hollywood. The mainstream press isn't noted for unbiased reporting on this issue, and if people think they were in the tank for Obama, they are totally in the water tower for Darwin, and despise anyone who challenges Darwin, no doubt seeing the issue through the lens of that awful piece of propaganda, Inherit The Wind. You should mention that the public's ratings in Rotten Tomatoes were 5 times higher than the response of movie reviewers, and most of those reviews were either very high or very low, and most who gave it low reviews do not seem to have actually seen the movie. And of course people voted with their time and their wallets, the movie was quite successful by all accounts.
You are also ignoring the damaging admission by Dawkins that intelligent design is fine by him, as long as it is space aliens doing the designing and not God.
And incidentally, it isn't just Christians who are convinced that life is not the result of random chance and chemical reactions. According to Dawkins, anyone who does not believe in the materialist point of view (that all reality is matter and energy), that anyone who believes that there is more to life than the physical, that anyone who believes that there may be a purpose to our lives...they are as much a bunch of creationists as any fundamentalist. (It is also worth noting that those who feel that there is something to intelligent design includes all types of christians, jews (I saw the movie with someone from B'Nai B'Rith), muslims, moonies, hindus, buddhists, and adherents from all major or minor religions with the exception of atheists...intelligent design, it ain't just for Christians any more).
I know you believe that Intelligent Design proponents have gotten a fair hearing and have had their arguments rejected for scientific reasons. But even as you say that, even you are participating in spreading misinformation about the qualifications and arguments of one scientist, and suggesting there is no reason to listen to him. It's almost like you are part of the problem that has led to scientists being forced into silence or out of academia because the evidence forces them to conclude things that are not scientific dogma.
I understand you not liking the film, it does challenge what you believe. But your review was filled with the problems that you claim discredits Expelled.
Great article! I'd strongly recommend checking out this interview with the film's producer Mark Mathis. His attempts to justify the film's dishonest intentions are jaw-dropping and hilarious.
http://www.realdetroitweekly.com/content/article_4101.shtml
(The interview appears at the bottom of the page.)
Firstly, Mr. Stein does not speak for all Christians, I hope that's apparent to everyone. Secondly, YES religious arguments tend to be extremely manipulated and it's pretty embarassing for the rest of us, but don't judge everyone just cause a few loudmouths can't express themselves logically. Thirdly, evolution is completely compatible with the Bible, I don't see why people have to pick one side or the other. Just a thought.
Brian Windsor:
I don't know if this is the way you meant it, with regard to ID or Creationism, but I totally agree with that quotation. I'm an ID advocate, and over time, it will flourish, or die, within the scientific realm.
Most of the opposition to it today, within academia and research domains, is by the older, established minds who have been schooled in the current theory of evolution, are in fact 'invested' in it, and are largely opposed to anything that challenges it. More than you would think, however, are open to ID, but know better than to admit to it.
I firmly believe that the upcoming crop of scientists, much less agenda based, will at least be agnostic to the possibility of some sort of 'first cause'. It could well be that earth, and probably other planets, are a biologic workshop of sorts. It's not so different from our own propensities. We make things, observe them, modify them, and have fun doing it.
If our true self is external to the body, we ourselves could have participated in the creation of these various bioforms. If we are here now on sabbatical from the cosmic realm, we are likely doing things on 'Theme Park Earth' that we couldn't do otherwise. That doesn't rule out an overseer, and more likely, a hierarchy of overseers (angels, spirit entities), with a 'supreme' overseer, chairperson or God.
But those tenets are one of my own philosophical projections, and have nothing to do with the scientific pursuit of ID. ID relies on evidences and their objective assessments. If anything, any theological position I may have is the result, rather than the cause of my leanings toward ID. I see design as evident, nothing more.
They will be fine. But unless we can effectively remove the shackles that science academia has imposed on classroom study (and careers), I would understand them choosing a different pursuit.
I'd appreciate this review a lot more if it was by someone who hadn't penned these words about Michael Moore: "one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser".
To borrow a phrase, Ebert "fills me with contempt".
Ebert: No, you wouldn't.
Regarding the birthday paradox, don't forget that as these posts drag on beyond a single day the odds of posters sharing birth dates increases. Poster Stephen O'Brien also alludes to the interesting concept of self-selection in these posters, which could conceivably also increase the likelihood of multiple posters sharing birthdays. Still, whether such self-selection is balanced out by the timidity of others to brag about a birthday is hard to gauge.
As for the ID debate, I just want to say that I'm fully in support of American citizens possessing some form of identification.
(Wait, what? …Oh, so that's not what that means, then?)
[Gilda Radner] Nevermind… [/Gilda Radner]
LOL. Nothing but vitriol here, and for no really good reason. This movie makes no attempt to endorse the Creationist view of the Bible and simply asks why can't there be another line of thinking regarding our origin? Can we not question Darwin's theory as they one questioned the world being flat? But everyone sounds like they are protecting gold at Fort Knox with nothing but bitter and hate for those with a different view. Stein would be proud of you all. If you actually see the movie, you will know what I mean.
That so many people here had the same birthday of December 3 indicates to me that people born on December 3 have evolved into humans who have too much free time on their hands. ;)
I agree with your review of this "documentary". I've been a geologist since I was 13 or 14 years old and evolution was easy for me to accept in those early years and remain with me for over 50 years. I am now retired after working as a geologist for over 40 years and I still feel that life is evolved as Darwin has so eloquently stated. The problem in my mind is that 80% of the people are not educated in any field of science at all and only 20% are educated in science. Anyone who has taken course work in the various sciences such as Biology, Botany, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, etc. find that those courses of study are very difficult. Thus, science takes a back seat in most fields of learning. That won't change. The majority take the easy way out when it comes to advanced course work. The same is true with people in the entertainment industry. You don't have to be intellegent, just have a gift for gab.
Firstly, I am a christian. I believe in intelligent design. I simply cannot comprehend that anyone could look at the universe and claimed it just happened out of nowhere. If a car appears in front of you out of thin air, you will try to rationalize what caused it, not accept that it just "happened". To me, the most reasonable choice to explain everything has to be something that we can't understand. However, I also believe in evolution. I've spent some time studying the Bible, and as far as I can tell, intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The Bible says God created everything and it was perfect. Who can say it didn't become imperfect? 10 pages into the Bible's creation myth things have already gone quite awry from God's plan. I think evolution fits in with the way things naturally change from what was originally created.
Roger,
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything in your NY Times article explaining HOW life can come fron non-life; only that life may have existed much earlier than thought, surviving in an unexpected way. I've also never seen it explained how, given that the universe is not eternal, that some-thing can come from no-thing. Nor how, in the big bang, we now have order from disorder. You may say, 'random chance' is the best we can do; but 'random chance' has no causal or explanatory power (only probabilities) and is really no different than defaulting to a 'god of the gaps' position. Besides, if life came from non-life, what reason do we have to assume that anyone's claim to reason is valid? For at that point, we have killed all meaningful reference points.
Nor does life coming from non-life give me a sufficient reason to obey my conscience when it tells me I ought to do some things and not others. I do not deny that I have a conscience. I do not deny that I ought to follow it. I do not deny that we all (or almost all - sorry Dahmer and Manson :) have this. I do not deny that it may have evolved. I only say there is no sufficient reason why I ought to listen to it. For if the physical world is all we have, well, as a great philosopher once said, "You can't get an ought from an is." I only have a destiny of death (non-life), so there is no sufficient reason why I should help an elderly woman, and not steal her purse when no one is looking and I can get away with it, if that is what brings me the most pleasure at that moment.
In other words, to hold the debate in such way that the physical sciences are the only realm of academia which have any authority (or at the very least, supreme and final authority) on these issues debating an intelligent cause or a non-intelligent cause, issues that have significant repurcussions across the entire spectrum of our being is, at best, unwise.
We can't hold the view that life came from non-life, and then make a claim that science and reason hold meaning. As the question goes, "If the physical world is all that we have, then what is the volume/weight of truth?" Nor can we then hold a moral position that demands people should respect life. For no one (including civil governments) holds a reference point for being able to authoritatively say what is then moral and what is immoral. No one can claim any kind of external, authoritative reference point AND more importantly, expect that others should live by it. For the moment that happens, we have all established our own tyranny over some other being. For at that point, who are you or who am I to tell anyone what they ought not do or what they ought to do in respect to even the smallest or largest matters?
I'm not saying who is right or wrong. Only that the conclusions drawn from physical science has ramifications in the philosphical, eithical, and other realms. And if science proves that life came from non-life, we would, in holding to our reason (which is now supreme and meaningful but would then be reduced to meaninglessness), have to stop any attempts to grant life meaning and value. And If, for a hypothetical example, we were to find find from pursuing the truth philosophically that the position of life originating from non-life is completely untenable and that 98% of scientists hold this position - because of what it says about morality, what it does to man's ability to trust his own Reason, etc.), we should have great pause before automatically granting the physical sciences the trump card.
By the way, the way Michael Moore and Ben Stein and Bill Maher and others are now constructing their 'documentaries' is BS. They are constructed in a way that tries to pursue the truth while at the same time being morbidly fearful of it, or anything that that might force them to revise their understanding of it, and this is apparent because of how they demean their adversaries. It is not constructive in the least, and I would be horrified to unleash any of them on the mind of a young person, entertaining and technically proficient though they may be.
If there is truth somewhere; that is if reality can be defined accurately enough to come up with a good simulation of the real world as filtered through our mind; ID and Creationism are full of s**t. If we cannot know reality, then what difference does it make whether ID or Creationism are full of s**t. I believe in fairies. They live in my bed. I can prove it. Am I crazy? In a word, yes.
Yes, it's a well made documentary, introducing in a mere 97 minutes with great clarity and eloquence the contours of what seems to be a raging controversy,and to my mind one of great importance to the way people are going to think. You have to credit Mr. Stein for presenting the full force of the opposing argument, even though it exposes it's fatal flaw namely the worship of science as a Goddess ,
when Man who is more than intellect is what is deserving of reverence. On the side which Mr. Ebert is presently advocating, I find science as a kind of fanaticism, and on the side of Mr. Stein also a clinging to science with somewhat less than heart. I suspect something more deep and fundamental underlies this controversy than science---if I may say, Mr. Ebert, your science is suspect, and your philosophical rib is nowhere in sight, you are more Lear than Hamlet. I speak as a person who has the kind of carnal enjoyment of mathematics and physics which you have for film.
Long live controversy....long live dialogue, the only hope!
This kind of makes me sick. I'm just glad you didn't put this in your film review section.
This is not a review. This is an essay, with markedly more slant and bias than the film you are "exposing".
I don't subscribe to ID either, but, seriously, maybe they're right about one thing: There is a double standard.
Moore did cut and choose and out-context his docs. No one cares. He's the great expositor of our decade.
I've loved so many of your reviews, but this one is clearly biased.
There were a myriad of theories of evolution that were widely accepted before Darwin. Darwin caused such a ruckus because of his insistence on human animality (not really a problem for Thomist Catholics) and also because he insisted that evolution occurs through a very rigid process (survival of the fittest.) I believe in evolution; I accept human animality, but I absolutely reject that competition is the absolute datum of biology. I guess a Christian could understand "survival of the fittest" as the profound cosmic impact of the fall, but I can't hold that red tooth and claw is some kind of divine program.
However one should not pin the holocaust or eugenics or the entire gilded age economic theory on Darwin. Darwin's theory of the fittest was derived in complicated ways from a kind of pessimistic Calvinism found in Thomas Malthus' Principles of Population.
"Earth is in a prime location for observing the universe." That is one of the funniest lines I have ever heard in my life. I must have giggled for 10 minutes straight after I heard this. That's old-school Woody Allen-caliber wit right there....
Ebert: We have to make do. It is the only location we have. Such a claim might carry some weight with Congress in a request for earmarks to fund a new telescope.
As a young'n who managed to be interested in both science and my Lutheran upbringing in a very strong way, I once had the interesting experience of a religious teacher ranting a bit about scientists and their rampant atheism. The comments pissed me off, and I never went back -- never before had my mind thought it a contradiction to have God and science in the same basket. Much of it I chalk up to literal-minded idiots (to state a broad example: people who read the Bible like every word of it is living flesh-and-blood truth; thank GOD my Pastor growing up often focused on the evolving nature of the Bible over history), also the rather boring notion many hold about a higher entity.
Religion and Science 101. Here goes. God made the Earth. The Earth, as a collection of elements, is subject to constant change (weather, earthquakes, etc.). In His infinite wisdom, He made the life on the planet similarly adaptable. Any questions?
Evolution is easily observable at a micro scale in almost any environment. Science is a bully, give it an inch and it won't stop taking. Religion should learn to be more flexible if it wants to survive.
I think Stein's reference to the holocast is justified at least insofar as it underlines the importance of the issue being debated, whereas you seem to be vitriolic and light hearted about it. The way people think and believe determines the things they do.
Ebert: Even so, I would rather think and believe the way I do than the way Ben Stein does. And I believe such hjis use of the Holocaust is even more offensive when employed merely "to underline the importance of the issue being debated." Most of the posters on this blog who try to find a Darwin-Nazi connection do not know that (1) In referring to "races" in On the Origin of Species, Darwin was not referring to humans but to lower primates, insects and vegetables, and (2) Hitler was specifically dismissive of Darwin.
You know... I watched this movie and I think people are taking things WAAAAAAAAAAYYY out of proportion. I am neither for or against Ben Stein. I think he was simply asking "Why can't people (In the USA of all places) be able to speak their mind and say that ID may be a reasonable way of explaining how it all came to this. I don't know WHAT he believes because he never conveyed it. I think he saw an area of science and society that was being hushed and ridiculed and tried to speak out for them.
In regards to the fact that most of the people leaving comments have not seen the film.
First off, I am a firm believer in evolution, and am a devout Atheist. But my point is, just because you do not agree with the subject matter, does not give you the right to criticize someones work without fully understanding what it is saying or is about. I saw the film, and most of you are right, it is completely stupid, ridiculous, and most of all insulting. But I still urge you to see the film, if only for the purpose of being able to criticize it and hate it to it's full potential. By disagreeing with this film, you are no different than the religious zealots who protest movies like Jesus Camp, Dogma, etc., without ever seeing them.
Also; if you are going to watch this, I implore you to download it off the internet so as not to put any more money into the pockets of the people who created this garbage.
Roger,
The photo in the Opinion section did remind me of one of the houses in "While You Were Sleeping." That was in Chicago. How right you are.
Hi Roger,
I just wanted to chime in briefly. This critique is excellent. I have watched your reviews and read your articles since I was 6. I have loved your passion for free speech, which you rallied for every time you went on the Howard Stern show.
I cannot commend you enough for the article you have written here. I watched "Expelled" just the other day because it was available for streaming via my XBOX. The entire time I watched it I was in fear. Fear that people will view this film and accept it as truth. Sure Ben Stein was preaching to the choir for the most part, but my fear is that this film will only add fire to the flame for the hatred people have against us who accept evolution as fact.
Far too many times have I had a discussion with a creationist who somehow links my acceptance of science to Joseph Stalin, Carl Marx and genocide. Sadly Ben Stein is not alone in his belief system and it scares me.
Again, excellent article. Thank you for taking the time to argue for reason.
PS. Care to retract your negative review for the original Friday the 13th film?
Shannon
San Dimas, CA
In reviewing a film, the reviewer must have a bias--otherwise, no review can occur. Those who accuse this reviewer of having a bias would do equally well to accuse the sky of being blue, or the ocean of being wet.
Well, dear sir, I get here today and discover over 450 comments. You hit a nerve- again.
This argument is way over my head. Many things have been said that I agree with ( mostly about your genius, but some other things as well). Some I strongly disagree with ( mostly that you are a hypocrite, but again...). But this is what I can gather- Ben Stein is not an unintelligent man, but he's clearly stupid. And Michael Moore is not a stupid man, but he's clearly not a supreme intellectual. Both men use their strengths to try and convince us of a certain point of view, but get struck down by their weaknesses. Their arguments are flawed because they aren't looking at them with a critical eye, and both ignore the opposite points of view or mock them. Am I even close?
I haven't seen Stein's film, and I won't, since the topic doesn't interest me. I have seen Moore's films ( yes, more than one), and as an unabashed Liberal, I can tell you he doesn't impress me much either.
Bill Maher, on the other hand, made a lot of wrong points in his film, but I at least laughed out loud while watching it, and it was at the very least entertaining at points.
I have not seen Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" but I would like to view it if, for no other reason, to see if I agree with Mr. Ebert's assesment of the film.
Aside from the criticism of the film itself, it is certainly no worse than the liberal films by Al Gore, "An Inconvenient Truth", or Michael Moore's Columbine or Farenheit 9/11 films.
However, the main problem that I see is that Ben Stein is correct: scientists tend to ignore evidence if it suggests Intelligent Design. True science follows the evidence to whatever conclusion it leads; however, so many scientist want to believe in evolution to the point, they refuse to accept any conclusion that includes God or an omnipotent power.
That attitude is the antithesis of of science - it is ignorance. Yet scientists who, through their own research and study have concluded an Intelligent Designer is the most logical conclusion are called ignorant.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Lee Strobel, a former Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and editor with the Chicago Tribune (and a former atheist) wrote a book "The Case for a Creator" where he interviewed scientists whose research led them to believe in ID.
John Clayton, raised by atheistic parents, worked with Madelyn Murray O'Hare's organization. Earning two master's degrees with concentrations in science, he decided to write a book "All the Stupidity of the Bible" but, during his research, found himself coming to believe in God. He now runs the organization "Does God Exist" and tours all over the globe talking about how his study of science and trying to refute the Bible led to his conversion.
These are just two examples. A growing number of scientists are starting to believe in ID separate and apart from any knowledge of or belief in the Bible. The fact that evolution is not only not a fact but that it runs counter to many other established and unassailable science laws (the two laws of thermodynamics for example) only shows that evolution is as much of a "religious" belief as many tout Creationism to be.
Scientists who feel that their belief in evolution is being threatened by scientists whose research points to ID do, in fact, try to intimidate and censor those who try to stay open to where the evidence points. That, from what I understand, is the basic premise of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
Ebert: I fail to see why Gore's documentary is "liberal." How is the debate about global warming a liberal vs. conservative one? I'm serious. Please explain your thinking.
Doug Johnson Hatlem: Your post can be filed under "not even wrong". Evolutionary theory does not posit that "that black people are closer to apes", it is the study of the method by which random mutations combine with environmental factors to determine changes in species over time. That some people have misapplied the theory to push their own racist agenda says NOTHING about whether the theory is true or not. Some people used chemistry to produce Zyklon B - perhaps we should reject chemistry too? If you have trouble accepting ideas that have "sordid histories" and attribute guilt by association in this way, how do you reconcile your Christian belief with the pogroms, witch-hunts and crusades that have been undertaken with Biblical sanction? Considering the numerous instructions for genocide in the Old Testament, should you also "not give serious consideration" to Christianity until that particular history is also addressed?
Mr. Ebert,
Thanks so much for your care to consistently reply to these posts! It really says a lot to your readers.
I read the article you directed me to. It was really interesting and made a lot of sense. However, there is still one issue I've yet to understand. Where did the first speck of life come from? Has some form of life always existed or did it just somehow spontaneously generate at some point in history? Or is there maybe a third possibility somewhere in the middle?
Consider this.
Let's say, hypothetically, we have a disassembled Chrysler. Every part that makes the Chrysler work is present and accounted for. We put all of these Chrysler parts in a larger pile of random car parts. Also we have a machine we load these parts onto that can shuffle them randomly in all directions. This machine never breaks down, and we let it run for, say, a million years. After this time has passed, scientists return to the machine to collect results. However, they find that nothing has changed. The parts are still a jumbled mess and after an extensive search, there is in fact no assembled Chrysler to be found.
The scientists aren't all that surprised, though, because they understand that things don't arrange themselves. No amount of time can convert randomness into order. If all you have is random Chrysler parts, then all you'll ever have is random Chrysler parts. It's not until someone comes along with the intelligence to put those parts together that you have a working Chrysler.
I understand that approximately 4 billion years ago earth had an atmosphere that was probably conducive to life. I also understand the principle of evolution that suggests life evolved from those relatively simple life forms that existed then. What I'm trying to understand is this- where did that earliest, simplest form of life originate? I guess it's that oldest ID argument, you know, the one that asks over and over, "and where did that come from?"
For me, thats the $64,000 question. If I understood this, everything else would fall into place. I understand the principle of evolutionary theory, and it's an acceptable answer for the origin of species of life forms. Indeed, it seems almost unquestionable. However, it doesn't provide an answer for the origin of life itself. Again, it seems to me that it comes to this:
1) Some form of life has always existed and we are just the life
forms that exist now in a long line of life forms that may be
forthcoming or,
2) Somehow, life did just happen to form from non-life. Somehow,
something that wasn't alive became self aware at some point
through some kind of catalyst.
3) An intelligent being has always existed and decided it was
prudent to create other life forms. His, or Its, reasons are
still up for debate.
No matter which one of these possibilities is the correct answer, all depend on one of two things:
1) Life spontaneously generated from non-life or,
2) Life has always existed and had no beginning.
Maybe this is a question evolution was never intended to answer. Maybe Darwin had a theory that accounts for what happened after life began, just not its origin. That's an interesting thought.
What do you think?
P.S.
I considered Robert Shaw after you referred me to him and found that I still have a lot of thinking to do. I also understand your comment above, when you suggested that maybe God just let things happen. I've wondered the same thing. In fact, you might be onto something. However He did it, why ever He did, may not matter. Maybe He just did it, and we can leave the argument at that.
Ebert: Perhaps. Scientists have made some recent discoveries that lead to the beginnings of a theory about how life might have risen spontaneously, but none I am aware of have said "this is how life began" except for Creation scientists. How do they believe it began? God did it.
That the universe exists is obvious, because here we are. How it came into existence may be a question without an answer, because the answer might require information from outside the universe. We can call that information God, or we can call it We-Don't-Know, or we can call it We-Can't-Know, but it would make no difference to that information what you called it, because that information must have acted at the beginning, which by our best guess was nearly 14 billion years ago.
Even then, you get into the recent speculation of physicists about whether time runs from the past into the future, or is circular, or all exists at once.
When I memorized the Baltimore Catechism, here is how it began:
Q. Who made me?
A. God made me.
Q. Why did God make me?
Q. To know him love him and serve him in this world, and be with him in the next.
For me in the third grade, this was Case Closed. I memorized it, and still remember it. The problem with that Q&A is that it presupposes a knowledge of God. The Catechism continues:
Q. Who made the world?
A. God made the world.
Q. Who is God?
A. God is the Creator of Heaven and earth, and of all things.
There is a large assumption in asking "Who is God?" instead of "What is God?" There is also circular reasoning (Who created the world? God. Who is God? The creator of the world). The next question might seem to be, "Who made God?" but the bishops at Baltimore in 1941 didn't go there.
The first hour of every school day was devoted to Religion class. It was my favorite subject, because it involved exciting abstract thought and spirited discussions. The nuns enjoyed it as much as we did. There was some laughter. It was not pounded in, but opened up. Never mind whether today I agree with the specific theology. It taught me ways of thinking, and introduced questions of morality into my everyday life.
I feel that that Newsweek survey is not accurate. First, let me repost my earlier comment,
-- First point. It was not an anonymous survey where a scientist could be protected from peer and employer repercussions.
-- Second, the question referred to 'creation-science', not ID.
-- Thirdly, It was done coincidently with the Aguillard v Edwards trial and decision, in which Justice Brennan declared,
It would have been suicidal for a credentialed scientist to have given any ascendancy at all to the question(s) regarding their position(s) on creationism or creation-science. I don't believe that ID was addressed in the survey.
The only way to get a true assessment would be to do a totally anonymous survey, with properly formulated question (not biased), and yet, to be able to ascertain with certainty that credentialed scientists were tallied. Not easy, if even possible.
Still, due to years of indoctrination and peer pressure, the only way to get one's true viewpoint, would be administering truth serum beforehand. Just kidding, of course!
Even though the Christians haven't actually started to think yet, we are making progress. Serious progress. The Christians have been brainwashed into thinking "life" is some magical process, and it just isn't.
Reply to: We can't hold the view that life came from non-life, and then make a claim that science and reason hold meaning.
This is a very confused statement. But it's a start. All of the premises he learned in Sunday school have just been invalidated, and he's struggling.
But at least he's struggling in the right area.
Reality check: Whether your Sunday School class admits it or not, life DID come from non-life, and our civilization values both science and reason very highly.
Reply to: The fundamental questions posed by Stein are, a). how does life begin, and b). have the scientific and academic communities encouraged an honest path of inquiry to answer this question. We know that evolution, for all of its contributions, does not even attempt to answer this question.
What? Here's another poster who is unable to pass a tenth-grade exam on Basic Evolutionary Theory. If you tear apart DNA, you get atoms and molecules that are NOT life. There is nothing magical or supernatural about life. Nothing.
Here's your answer:
http://www.cell-research.com/20034/Cover-final2.gif
Life exists at a microscopic level. All of the processes involved in cellular life are the result of molecules coming together. All of them. That's how life begins.
Every time a human is conceived, the process begins. DNA directs how material comes together.
How did life begin? All over the surface of the earth, random molecules sat in tidal pools and near undersea volcanoes, and interacted. And the most common methods of interaction produced cells.
That's it. There was NO Intelligent Designer. The reason science does not embrace Intelligent Design is "Intelligent Design is wrong." God is a con game used to recruit victims into an organization. Always has been. My god is more powerful than your god.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_01/mosesHeston2703_468x611.jpg
Commandment Numero Uno: Thou shall have no other gods before me.
Sounds a bit insecure, if you ask me.
The Intelligent Design folks are trying to fool you. The explanation for life from non-life is, molecules came together in a random fashion. That's how it happened. It's like the lottery. The odds against any particular combination coming up are enormous, but given enough tries, all of the possible combinations will eventually come up.
I don't want to be rude or be picky about statistics, but I am positive you did bad math again, Mr. E. You didn't move the decimal points when you listed the percentage of scientists who believe in ID. It is actually 0.145833%. I hope I did this right, I don't want to look like a doofus posting this wrong.
I haven't actually read much about creationism or ID (same things, right), but aren't those 'God-powered' evolution, which makes arguments for this subject somewhere between religious and philosophical, not scientific. Isn't this all an argument about apples and oranges?
Ebert: Duh! I stand corrected. But I think your more-correct decimal is not quite perfectly placed. I made it that .014, not .025, of one percent of earth-science scientists support ID. What we need is to get us a mathematician in here. Or a grade-school arithmetic teacher. I think how you begin is to divide 700 by 480,000.
The movie sounds awful. Stein's essentially involved himself with anti-semites who swipe and then reinterpret the Judaic creation mythology of the Torah and, in effect, denying Rabbinical interpretation.
But, having read this piece 3 times, I still don't understand the game show analogy. Isn't that part unresolved? The article changes POV halfway through. What's the connection bewteen Stein on Ebert's game show, is there some past reason that Stein got involved with this project?
Please tell me the method an inorganic crystalline molecule evolves into a life-sustaining protein? Evolution can't rationally be proposed because it never gets to the "primordial soup" stage. If your answer includes any "assumes", start over because I'm not shopping for a new set of beliefs - I already have a set of my own.
Here's a hint: this experiment has NEVER been performed in a lab, and it takes 18 distinct proteins to create the most minimal self-sustaining life form.
There is a solution to the paradox: we have life on Earth, you need a minimum of 18 proteins for life, yet you can't make the first protein out of life-less molecules.
Maybe you want me to buy into a set of beliefs that life-sustaining "star-dust" was depositing on Earth by a space travelling super-species?
Another hint: the answer is not logical, yet for some, obvious.
Hmm... I kinda notice how a huge chunk of the article is simply guilt by association, as opposed to being a review of the actual movie. Ebert then goes on to simply assume that workd done AT THE TIME THE MOVIE WAS BEING MADE (!) has magically and irrefutably answered the question posed. Um.... yeah.
I don't see why people are attacking Michael Moore about "Farenheit 9/11" because the problem with that movie was that the problem is actually much bigger than what Michael Moore showed us. Saudi money is not only in James Bakers law firm but in Washington law firms patton-boggs and democratic law firm akin-gump. So, the Baker-Hamilton reports were influenced by Saudi's obviously, who were sending troops into Iraq to kill our soldiers, but so was our secretary of state Colin Powell who was given a Jaguar a week after he retired from Saudi ambassidor Prince Bandar, and our secretary of energy Spencer Abraham got us in a hydrogen policy which will never happen is also taking Saudi money. They are buying up majority shares of key sectors of our economies with sovereign wealth funds. They are funding terrorism worldwide--15 or the 19 terrorists on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian. We can't stop Iran from making nuclear weapons because Iran--now--is peddling influence in Moscow with oil money as well. Saudi controls Washington, Iran controls Russia (superpowers), Iran and Saudi hate each other. We need to mandate all new cars be flex-fuel (run on any combination of gas/alcohols--plural) as is Obama's energy policy, which costs almost nothing --100$ per car, and switch to alcohol fuels worldwide because the world will switch over--they aren't going to lose a customer as big as the U.S.--and it will create jobs from teh third world to advanced sector, and we could use the jobs--1.5 million in a few years--and so could starving people all over the world in teh the tropical regions.
This review is biased. Ebert gives the movie a bad review just because he does not like it. Don't give us your opinion, just tell us whether you think a movie is good or not.
There is lots of evidence in the Bible that the world was created. The first part said the world was created in 6 days. A day is 24 hours, so that is how long God meant. If He meant a time longer than 24 hours he would have made up a new word for that length of time and then told Moses to use that word and to say somewhere how long that word meant, and hopefully each of the 6 times were the same length so he wouldn't have to make up 6 different words, because then the Bible wouldn't be so easy to understand.
Science should teach intelligent design, because ID explains things that science can't and kids should know about it. With ID we know that God made both people and dolphins smart, but He didn't give dolphins thumbs, because He didn't want dolphins to build things or to write anything down. That would confuse people. We know dolphins can't be saved or there would be more about them in the Bible. So you need both science and ID to understand it all.
Ebert: So you know what God meant and what he would have done. Please explain what God had against dolphins.
I understood your arguments and while I disagree with some of the conclusions I have no trouble believing the way you describe the documentary is accurate. I myself have not seen the film and do not plan to in the future. I do believe in intelligent design but I also believe the only way to convince people it's true is through the use of science not the condemnation of it. I can almost hear the snickering in response to what I just said but I only ask for the same respect you would ask for. I am not about to pretend you didn't convey thought through, well laid out points made with respect to those who might disagree with you. However, I felt the images you chose to represent your article were stereotypical, disrespectful and cheap, many of the same tactics you accused Stein of using in his film. Please don't think I am holding you to a higher standard, I don't support Stein or his film in this respect.
I believe the first step to coming to any kind of resolution in not only this but any disagreement is by respecting people and their beliefs even if you don't agree with them. If you were to replace the pictures, the ideas in the article might reach more people. Instead of preaching to the choir of people who already agree with you, you could reach out to those who might have agreed with the thoughts expressed in Expelled instead.
As one of those pesky 99.975% of evolutionary biologists, I am always amused at the persisting idea that some underlying conspiracy exists to promote evolutionary theory to the detriment of conflicting hypotheses. I must have missed that conference or something. Maybe I was not invited because of my religious convictions? (I'm a raging Pastafarian)
Science itself is an institution founded on principles of embracing and evaluating change in ideas, methodologies, and philosophies. As scientists it is our responsibility to be open minded about material, and present opposing viewpoints on issues that are grounded in empirical evidence and careful thought. The keywords being "empirical", and "evidence". I feel there is no greater crime in science than to fail in objectively evaluating and teaching conflicting hypotheses. Without these principles, most might still be afraid of sailing off the side of the Earth, and I for one have enough things to worry about than taking a nose dive into the cosmos.
So if its not a conspiracy then why are the principles of evolutionary theory so broadly accepted across every single biological field (e.g., genetics, ecology, systematics, microbiology, cellular biology)?
Well, it might have something to do with the plethora of scientific studies across multiple disciplines (e.g., biology, chemistry, geology) where the results support modern evolutionary theory. We are talking about millions of testable and repeatable studies. And best of all, the conclusions of these studies are based on empirical evidence.
So have all those studies proved that evolutionary mechanisms are shaping life on this Earth? Well as it turns out, "proved" is too strong of a word, and the best these studies do is support or reject the hypotheses of evolutionary principles being tested. The fact is, evolution is undeniably a strongly supported theory, and at this point in time there is no competing testable, evidence-based, alternative scientific hypothesis that even comes close to explaining the diversity and wonder of life on this planet.
Although, intelligent design does have all that truthiness (thanks to Stephen Colbert for delivering a term that is practically synonymous with ID) going for it...
Roger, I have really enjoyed the commentary you have offered on this subject in your journal (here and the previous satirical school entry), and the dialog it has created (definitely the best reason this is not a standard review). If you haven't read it already, I would recommend the book "Evolution: The History of an Idea" by Peter J. Bowler. After seeing "Expelled", I would have to give it two noodly appendages down.
Ebert: Let me guess. Those are opposable noodles, right?
This is to everyone who's crying foul at Ebert liking some of Michael Moore's documentaries while decrying Ben Stein's and using it as some kind of evidence of his political bias:
Okay, listen up, people. Seriously. This is important. Belief in evolution is not a politically partisan position. Believing in evolution does not make one a liberal. Disbelieving in evolution does not make one a conservative. While I'm fully aware that the political right has championed the teaching of so-called "alternative theories" to evolution, this does not mean that anyone who opposes doing so is necessarily a political liberal.
When Michael Moore makes a documentary, he is expressing an opinion. He is never claiming to do anything but. I'm not defending the man - I've never seen a movie of his that I've enjoyed; I think they're stupid and unjustifiably smug - but I can't deny that the opinions that he expresses are those that can be supported by intelligent, informed people. Such is the case of virtually any political opinion.
Ben Stein may wish to dupe his viewers into believing that that's all he's doing - I don't know - but what he's actually doing is something very radically different. Where Moore might present an opinion that, say, guns are bad, that Bush has been an horrific president, or that the health care system in the United States is crap, Stein is going up against 150 years of established science and declaring, with a wave of the hand, that Intelligent Design - a pseudoscientific idea that has not a single piece of evidence to support it is somehow on the same level of evolution, and thus it's somehow unfair to exclude it from the curricula of a High School science class. ID was not expelled: it flunked. There is nothing the least bit scientific about Intelligent Design. It presents no scientific hypotheses. It proposes no experiments to test its conclusions. It offers no means through which its ideas could be falsified. It's not even trying to play by the rules of the scientific method. It's not a scientific alternative to evolution: it's a metaphysical alternative to science.
It is one thing to present a political POV that one disagrees with. It's quite another to dismiss, belittle, and desperately attack an established scientific theory for the sole purpose of pushing a specific religious agenda. The cheap tactic of (pathetically) attempting to connect it to Hitler is tiresome, but predictable: like everything else in Stein's "documentary", it's nothing that Creationists haven't been saying for years, tirelessly repeating the same few misrepresentations and straw man arguments that have been intellectually gutted for decades on the off chance that the ignorant viewer will mistakenly grant then legitimacy.
The most amusing thing about "Expelled", and Stein's general message in promoting it, is that he apparently didn't get the memo from the "Intelligent Design" crowd and can't shut up about God and Christianity when discussing it. Of course it's blatantly obvious to anyone that ID is just Creationism in a cheap tuxedo, but that hasn't stopped its proponents from working very hard to divorce it from any particular religious POV (in turn a direct political response to the Edwards v. Aguillard SCOTUS decision).
Anybody who believes that scientific ignorance is or should be a legitimate political position should be ashamed of themselves.
It just occurred to me: this argument on ID vs. evolution seems to be exclusive to the US. I live in Mexico and cannot recall anyone arguing about such things... except maybe for my old classmates in elementary school being amused by the idea of having monkeys as cousins. Mmmm... why are we not arguing about such things in other countries? Did we evolve differently? Or maybe it is our design...
The real problem is people who fearfully, or for whatever reason, cling to a religious belief which is obviously false. Just like that cool older brother or father figure, no evangelical wants to say anything that could ever POSSIBLY offend God, and his son Jesus Christ, whose blood was shed for our sins, etc.... So people who may otherwise be rational and intelligent censor their own mind and ability to think clearly because God, the father of Jesus Christ who died for our sins, etc., created the Word and the Word says that Adam and Eve were the first people and, apparently, hung out with dinosaurs. The Bible says it, therefore true, literally. That's the basic logic of most fundamentalist, ID-supporting Christians. Try explaining to them that religious mythology often has symbolic meaning that, if not understood metaphorically, is nonsense, and you'll be met with a blank stare or otherwise hostile attitude.
The bottom line is that supporters of ID are not necessarily unintelligent, but that their entire life has revolved around worshiping a false idol: the God who created the Bible which is literally true. This God does not exist. But their livelihood depends on it, and it's kind of a sad and frustrating fact. Sad that such a mutation could occur in a religion which preaches redemption and the awesomeness of God. Sad that such transcendent truths and infinitely deep symbolism and mythology is reduced to mere fact, which it was never meant to be. I’m not saying that God doesn’t hear them… just that he must be slapping his transcendent, eternal head in frustration at their stupidity.
well presented and thought through. it's hard to believe that in today's day and age that there are still people that believe in fairy tails.
the reason science will always win is that things have to be proven, re-proven and published for argument. science requires evidence.
Love it! Honestly, the article was a bit hard to follow compared to your reviews. But it had some amazing points in there. Expelled is the most intellectually dishonest film to come out in years, to my knowledge.
Hi Mr. Ebert,
In your review you said, "'Expelled' is not a bad film from the technical point of view. It is well photographed and edited, sometimes amusing, has well-chosen talking heads, gives an airing to evolutionists however truncated and interrupted with belittling images, and incorporates entertainingly unfair historical footage, as when it compares academia's rejection of Creationism to the erection of the Berlin Wall."
Is that to say that even though you find the documentary to be abhorrent in its message you would at least give "Expelled" three stars because it was at least well made?
Mickey wrote:
...People perverting Darwin's theory should not debunk the theory, much like a deviant priest or the Crusades should discredit the whole of Christendom.
The so-called perversion of Darwin's theory is actually a move toward an old pre-Darwinian theory of selection.
I wrote about that a long time ago on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-darwinist.html
You don't need Darwin to have eugenics and in fact, Darwin cuts away at many eugenic concepts. Eugenics would have been better off if science had stopped before Darwin's theory became accepted because the creationist scientists before Darwin had a more eugenic-friendly idea of natural selection.
The creationist Edward Blyth had already in the 1830s, many years before Darwin, written about natural selection as a mechanism that weeded out the defective individuals, those who deviated from the species. He included a concept of God ordained perfection that Darwin eliminated. The aim of Darwin's evolutionary theory is to explain the origins of biological diversity. Edward Blyth and Hitler just credit "God" for that.
Blyth's version of natural selection was a mechanism to conserve the species, like most biologists believed in the generations before Darwin. Natural selection sustained what God created individually. What fell by time's decay, individuals who did not have the required strength, swiftness, hardiness, or attractiveness, fell without reproducing. They fell either to predators or disease or malnourishment. Their place taken by the more "perfect" of their own kind.
The idea of eliminating the sub-standard to keep the standard was there long before Darwin. Darwin's addition was that natural selection could even improve a species. The idea of species being created perfect in a creationist mind would not lead to Darwin's concept of evolution.
Natural selection ranked as a standard item in biological discourse, but with a crucial difference from Darwin’s version. For in Blyth's interpretation natural selection was part of an argument for created permanency. Natural selection, in this negative formulation, acted only to preserve the type, constant and inviolate, by eliminating extreme variants and unfit individuals who threatened to degrade the essence of created form. Natural selection had eliminated the less viable forms.
Darwin saw past that and realized that the variation could create new forms. Darwin changed natural selection around to mean evolutionary descent of all beings from a common ancestor, which was never Blyth's original contention at all. Another mental leap Darwin made was seeing humans not as specially created, but having evolved from animals and therefore subject to the same natural laws as animals.
It's Blyth's ideas that led to Eugenics, not Darwin's. And It's Blyth's ideas that modern creationists and Intelligent Design proponents still believe. They are projecting their own guilt on people who do not share it.
Forgive me if I'm repeating someone, but I have to debunk one assertion of the ID crowd.
The idea that Darwin's theory is dogmatically accepted by any scientist is nonsense. Scientists have challenged it incessantly since it was proposed, and many portions were found to be flawed. Some scientists -- for instance, Stephen Jay Gould -- deserve, if not equal billing with Darwin, then at least an "Associate Producer" credit or something like that when discussing the theory of evolution.
Some evolutionary theories have been debunked altogether, such as Lamarckian evolution, which once had quite a large following.
If someone debunks Darwin, Gould & Co. entirely, using scientific evidence, the 99+ percent of scientists who believe in evolution today will happily move on to the new theory that arises from the debunking process. But let me tell ya, a lot of people have tried to knock Darwin off his pedestal, and none have done better than to earn a place beside him.
An ID-proponent who complains about ID not being accepted on the same level as the theory of evolution is like a soccer player who complains that picking up the ball and walking into the goal with it doesn't count as a point. If you're going to advance a theory in the world of science, then you have to play by the rules.
As for the movie itself, I feel it is a complete waste of time.
Good Morning, Roger,
As CREATOR of this blog, aren't you proud that your creation has grown and evolved so quickly, not to mention smoothly, in just the space of two days? That beats the crap out of the tenet that evolution requires a very slow process.
This is so unbelievable, it's almost Biblical!
(^_^)
Hi, Roger. Hi, all.
I have posted a few words on my own blog tonight to briefly explain some of what I enjoy about Roger's writing. I've been meaning to do this for some time, but the comments above made me feel compelled to do so now rather than later. (Roger and/or other gentle readers, if you read my entry and spot any factual inaccuracies, please do let me know so that I can correct them.)
For the sake of my entry here, however, I'll cut out the "Why you should read Roger Ebert" stuff and get to the point that I felt compelled to make:
Understanding biological evolution has nothing to do with resolving philosophical or, for that matter, religious conundrums. Ebert's review did not take a position on religion (although, if I recall correctly, he has stated elsewhere in his writing that he believes we are more than just a bundle of chemical reactions). Religion wasn't the point. Intellectual dishonesty in a movie that claimed to be a documentary was the point.
But I feel compelled to address the little philosophical conundrum that those commenters posed, because I hate, hate, hate crimes against logic. The commenters in question assume that subscribing to the concept of biological evolution necessarily means believing that we are nothing more than a bundle of chemical impulses. Therefore, they further deduce from this faulty assumption, people who agree with evolution have no ends worthy of pursuing; "no heart to love / no evil to rise up above," etc. If we accept the theory of evolution as demonstrated, then our lives hold no value and we hold no faith but greed.
These responses completely missed the point of Ebert's take on the movie, they completely miss the point of scientific inquiry, and they insultingly miss the point of logic. They also assume that atheists (as if everyone who understands evolution must therefore be an atheist) don't feel emotions, engage in morality, or hold values. Which begs a question that's interesting to ponder:
If this single life is all there is -- if we get one shot at life, and there's nothing left of our consciousness once our brain stops working -- then isn't this life that much more precious than if we instead assumed that life is never ending? Isn't the atheist who dies for a cause more noble than the believer who expects that there will be rewards in the Great Beyond? Isn't triumphing over evil all the more urgent if we know that there are no second chances to get it right? And likewise, aren't we less likely to strap a bomb to our chest or commandeer an airplane on a murder/suicide mission if we are assured that what waits for us "on the other side" is not our own personal paradise, but instead... nothing?
It seems to me that life is precious, no matter which side of the philosophical or theological fences you find yourself standing. The notion of a believer proclaiming that the life of someone who believes differently has no meaning... well, it strikes me as rather un-Christian.
With warmest regards to everyone here, and thanks to Roger for providing such thought-provoking commentary,
--Allan
Redmond, WA
Roger,
That wasn't a review, it was a goddam public service.
Thanks for training us all on the Showbiz Forum on Compuserve in the early 1990s. Changed my life.
Michael Isbell
"Mr. Sheldrake", formerly NYC Film Critic for Ain't It Cool News
I liked your post on ID a month or so back, it was clever and funny. Then you folowed up with a cultural piece, that focused on the reaction to the post rather than the content. So it didn't look like you were just picking a fight.
Such a dissection of someone's work and performance is rare(which is why it's not linked where it should be, yeah? Because it's one part review, one part How Stuff Works, and one part outright teasing!)and seems personal.
But I enjoyed it, I suppose. What did you think of the end of The Shield?
Roger, well said. Now only if we could agree on the merits of some --not all-- videogames as works of art. =)
Thank you for the wonderful review. It certainly made my day. What a ridiculous movie, and I'm glad to see an analysis of it from so many different angles. Your tone, (which may seem a little angry to some) was exactly what I was hoping for. I've always been a fan of yours, but I think this gives me even more respect for you.
Humans are too enamored with their differences. When we consider our differences to be the right ones, it leads to racism, sexism and genocide. (I find the belief that my white skin makes me superior to a black person absurd, yet many people have built up a world view and way of life around this precept.) So what's the common ground between evolutionists and creationists?
Faith.
We all have it. Even staunch evolutionists call their beliefs a theory. And few Christians have shaken hands with Jesus, so they have faith as well.
We also have a desire to understand where we came from, what it means to us today and where we're going.
So instead of insulting each other and considering ourselves intellectually superior because of our beliefs, let's remember we have a few things in common.
I can understand how it would hard for evolutionists to believe in something they haven't seen, The next logical step would be to look for answers in the physical realm. A person shouldn't be ridiculed or looked down upon for doing so.
I can also understand how a person would look at themselves, the world around them and the broader universe, and come to the conclusion that life is too complex to have come into existence on its own. The next logical step would be to search for a supernatural creator. A person shouldn't be ridiculed or looked down upon for having this belief.
Many of you fall into the first camp and believe you should do everything you can to guide other people into enlightenment.
I fall into the second camp. And I believe in a God who's doing everything He can to bring salvation to every person reading this blog.
Proving once again that Liberal intolerance of all opposing thought has no limits.
It's going to be a long 4 years.
All Hail Lord Obama, Messiah Most Merciful!
Ebert: Political positions have nothing to do with this debate. The vast majority of conservatives agree with Darwin and oppose ID.
Roger, you are after my own heart. But, mushy stuff aside, I just want to know why ID proponents believe they can put themselves on equal academic and scientific ground as Evos when there exists no empirical evidence to the former? How can they claim it's science when there is no science there? It's the because I said so and if you don't believe, you get punished. For eternity. Oh, yeah, that makes perfect sense. A God who drops us in on a whim because, obviously the most powerful being in existence can't do the work on his own, so he brings us in to either succeed or fail epically. Consequences: eteranal boredom or eternal hellish boredom. Some creative thinker.
I do believe in God, but not in a conventional sense. Not a singular entity who whips up complex creations in his golden cauldron on the other side of the universe and spills it out (intentionally or accidentally. Who knows?) in hopes that it will, what? Elucidate things for him? Get rid of that pesky thing called evil? I believe that consciousness itself evolved out of existence. It didn't have to happen, it just did. And how we are, the way we think and experience is the result of--well there is no number for this--countless ages of that consciousness coming and going, and not completely in control of everything. Even Gods die.
You know, gravity was there, light was there, stars were there, cells were there, all of it was here on Earth before there was anyone there to know it was there. To see it, to study it, to dissect it. What, bacteria all of a sudden materialized on Leeuwenhoek's plate. God went, "Oh, so they've made one of those contraptions. Guess I should give them a reason for it." Guess God should give a reason for suddenly whipping up Ben Stein, because as far as I'm concerned, he's the worst kind of PR agent there is.
Roger or who ever filters the blog,
While you may delete my words as I respond to your attacks on God, you can not change to Word of God.
It is God who has told us that He made the earth and all in it. When you decieve yourself and say that eveolution is the truth, you also call God a lier.
Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
So I tell you now as Christ did then, repent of your disobedience and submit to the authority of God.
Ebert: I did not make an attack on God, and never have, as far as I am aware. Attacking ID is not attacking God, even if you interpret it that way. Nor is defending Darwin.
Galileo once said, "The scriptures tell us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." As a passionate Christian who takes his religion very, very seriously, let me say how heartbroken I am that so many believers have chosen to make science their enemy. It isn't, and science is never going to unearth anything that will change the Christian call to treat other people with love. Christians are called to love ALL PEOPLE, not just people they agree with. Besides, many Christians (myself included) agree with Darwin's Theory. I know I can't truly speak for anyone but myself, but I'd like to apologize for some Christians' mean-spirited behavior on this issue. I pray that we may all move forward in a spirit of love, peace, and cooperation.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have never read a more compelling put down of the nonsense that is creationism and its alter ego, ID.
It's also fascinating to see fundamentalists scream about intolerance, something they practically invented.
It should be noted that I am a devout Catholic who firmly believes in the theory of evolution and that there's no reason why evolution can not be seen as a tool of God. That being said you have spent your entire so-called review simply bashing on the ideas presented in the film. This is not a review and should not be referred to as such. This is a response to the ideas presented by the film. When reviewing a documentary one should free themselves of his or her own political bias and merely examine the capability with which the idea is presented.
Ebert: It's not a review but a blog entry. Apart from that, a review can certainly be "a response to the ideas presented by the film." And it is only honest to make my political opinions visible and not pretend impossible objectivity. All reviews should be subjective. I believe I did, in fact, "examine the capability with which the idea is presented."
Rog,
You are the man to which we all aspire to. I love the hat man. Where do you get your statistics? I love how you Hollywood types are all great about quoting numbers but thanks to your small minds you can't substantiate the claims.
Have fun in your undocumented movie review business you twerp.
Rog Izgod
I'll make note to only pirate the movie, in order to do so without forwarding money to the ignorant or blissfully stupid, so I can see your comments in action.
Well done Roger.
Well said. The fact that an otherwise intelligent and seemingly reasonable person like Ben Stein has come down on the side of charlatanism is disappointing and a bit scary.
Tony Auth's cartoon says it all.
Whether or not God created the universe (and I'm willing to agree that He did) is not a fit subject for scientific inquiry or science classroom discussion. I don't do biology experiments in synagogue, and I see no reason to try theology in science class.
A Childs,
Flunk, fail, whatever.
Wikipedia is not a definitive resource, but I would direct you to the references on their webpage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
I'll give you a pass because you admit that your own evolution is what you believe. But the Wikipedia article describes how scientists have speculated on the reason why the bacteria can digest certain byproducts of the manufacture of nylon 6. Guessing that something might be so is not the same as testing to determine that it is so.
This is not what real science is made of. Space shuttles don't get launched and protected from burning upon re-entry by speculation. Drugs that make people healthier aren't developed by speculation. The difference between science fiction and science is that one speculates and the other follows the scientific process to test and reach solid conclusions.
If I denied that rocket fuel could propel a vehicle into space, or that antibiotics killed bacteria, I'd be avalanched under years of verifiable research proving otherwise. When I claim that there is no scientific evidence that natural selection is the origin of species, I get bacteria and blind fish. And the occasional helpful person who tells me it's because I don't understand science.
What this demonstrates is that evolutionary science follows different rules. Other sciences must make predictions and test them. Evolutionary science can speculate wildly, and every guess is treated as evidence. Other theories are revised and improved. This one is completely reinvented every time the evidence contradicts it. (Gradual change didn't produce a fossil record? Must have been punctuated equilibrium! First the theory predicts fossil evidence. When none is found, the theory changes to predict no fossil evidence. How convenient!)
My point is that evolutionary theory is not in the same body of established science as thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. It's nowhere close. When people say that the case is closed, or that this has all been settled, that's emotion talking, not science. Wearing a white lab coat doesn't make a person immune to emotion and dogmatism.
Bruce Gorton, You have just demonstrated exactly the kind of dogmatic fundamentalism about evolution that makes me loathe to even seriously engage the issue, even though I am quite open to reasonable discussion of the matter. Your reading of texts, both biblical and my own short missive, shows a complete lack of attention both as to detail and the broader importance of questions. In your first reply you focus myopically on Darwin's level of racism, ignoring the what I said about black people being closer to apes in the standard evolutionary accounting, about the grand synthesis with genetics that put Darwinian evolution over the top vis a vis Lamarck and lesser competitors, and about Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. In your second reply, you discoed off of your own comment to suggest that since my problem was just with Darwin, I was making an ad hominem argument. In fact, the source of my discontent, as evidenced in my message, runs from Darwin and Lamarck through the early German receivers of Darwin who insured that evolutionary history ran through Africa before culminating in Europe to the 1920s and 1930s eugenic-evolutionary synthesis to a work published in this decade. Needless to say, your biblical prooftexting is even more egregious.
Ernest, I am perfectly willing to listen intently to experts, but I always take what they say with a grain of salt. I especially want to know what their particular biases are, and in this case, endemic racism still plagues the sciences, particularly the science of evolution. I am very willing to read and learn deeply from people I disagree with, and often end up changing my mind significantly. You've missed the thrust of my question. I'm going to insist on asking the ethical question whether science is capable or willing to do so or not. If we are to take evolution as a simple fact, a given datum, a thing we simply accept and move on from, then why is racism wrong and not just a natural part of the survival of the fittest? I am not asking a question like "what kind of car does your barber drive?". I am asking a question more like, 'given that my barber cuts hair, what should he do with the leftovers?'. Maybe you and Ebert and everyone else who compares alternative stories to the story of evolution to be fanciful, magical, alchemy will ultimately win the battle and there will be no more naive boobs flying around on unicorns looking for evidence that T-rex made it onto Noah's ark.
Then what?
Evolution is a story of human origins and stories tell us something about who we are and how we should be in the world. What does the story of evolution tell us about how we should think of people from the continent of Africa? People, who according to the story of evolution, arrived on the scene of progress before white people in the movement from lower forms of animality.
The debate between religion vs. science as the best way to know the world was summed up beautifully by Errol Morris in Vernon, Florida. A believer in God recounts a conversation he had with a non-believer:
I said, "What made them? How come I'm here?" He said, "That just happened." I said, "You saying 'just happened', let's call that God. Let's give it another name. And say, 'That just happened.' That's what God is: just happened.
Dawkins would believe in that God as defined too. (I'm glad this blog just happened.)
Stein's linking Darwinism to Nazi ideology is reflective of, and a result of, the infliction of neoconservative ideology upon this country over the last eight years.
Many Jews (who have never set foot in a synagogue) are neoconservatives. These Jews define themselves not by their Jewishness but rather the perception that they are victims of anti-Semitism (how would they know, given their lack of familiarity with Semitism?), and by comparing current events/world leaders to Holocause events, ideology and symbology.
Such comparisons are neoconservatives' stock in trade.Every time word is mentioned that we might engage in "talk" with a current enemy (such as Iran), these folks' Pavlovian response is, "The enemy is another Hitler," "genocide," "Munich," "1938," and "appeasement."
These Jews - many of whom had relatives who died in the Holocaust - trivialize that tragedy through such talk, and so does Ben Stein. If "everything" is another Holocaust, then the significance of the Holocaust as a singular atrocity in human history is lost. But then again, perhaps that is what people who wish to start World War III wish to happen-to start another Holocaust (the magnitude of which, in terms of lives lost, will dwarf that of Hitler's Holocaust), with (as they see it) as themselves as the "victors."
My father's grandparents, may they rest in peace, were Holocause survivors. My grandfather, in particular, spent five years in Auschwitz. Shortly after his death, my grandmother was gathering his personal effects and found a prayer shawl ("Talles"). She recognized the shawl, having seen it many times before, as the one that he managed to somehow hide during the Holocaust and to use in furtive prayer as time permitted.Sometimes he literally had to sleep with - and on (as his only article of clothing) - this shawl.One could see the stains that had accumulated. At his funeral, my father held the shawl, describing the above facts, and with tears in his eyes, told the mourners, "The Nazis failed." My grandfather only very late in his 91 year-old life began to speak of the Holocaust and his experience, of his his unfathomable contempt for Hitler and everything the Nazis stood for. By the way, he also believed in evolution. What would Stein make of that?
Mr. Ebert wrote: "This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion."
It's funny. Michael Moore and "documentarians" like him do the same thing in their films and they are championed by Mr. Ebert and other Democrats/Liberals/Media as a truth-teller and brilliant artist.
It's sad that when one dares question any of the doctrines the left hold dear, that person's attacked as everything from a "Holocaust denier" (those who dare question Al Gore and global warming) to ignorant, bigoted zealots (anyone who has a religious belief and is outspoken about it).
Ebert: First time I've ever seen Democrats = Liberals = Media. Certainly the first time I've ever seen a critic of global warming referred to as a Holocaust denier.
"At one time 99.75% of scientists believed the Earth was flat"
HAH! What a ridiculous statement. The belief that the Earth was flat predated the scientific method by at least 100 years. Furthermore, several ancient Greeks, the closest thing the world had to scientists before the Enlightenment period (which incidentally did away with the false belief that the Earth was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and many other things you accuse ancient 'scientists' of being ignorant of as a way of taking a stab at modern day scientists) DID in fact theorize that the Earth was round. It is because their theories were disregarded by ignorant (mostly religious) types that did NOT follow the scientific method that the world at large remained ignorant about the shape of the world and a great many other things. And yet still ID types have the gall to blame scientists for being wrong about a fact that when it fact it was the religious types who were wrong about it, and it was in fact disproved BY SCIENTISTS using the scientific method (and also by those helpful fellows Columbus and Magellan, who believed Copernicus and Gallileo and risked sailing off the edge of the Earth) in spite of facing scorn, condemnation, even possible excommunication and execution.
(DISCLAIMER: I am not a biologist or sociologist and I am making this up as I go along. I can't say I really understand modern evolutionary synthesis but I also can't see it has much bearing on my day-to-day life, so laziness wins. Sorry, academia!)
My real problem with Expelled as a documentary was that it failed, for me, to actually say what it was talking about. What is Intelligent Design exactly? Design is evident? Okay, but principles govern that design? What does it tell us about the intelligence behind the design? What does it offer us that we can test to find out more about the intelligence? How, basically, is it useful?
(Not to suggest that all science must be inherently useful, or even that evolution is (although it does seem that way to me, with all the stuff about genes and understanding germs and whatnot). I just don't want to pay you to research for research's sake. Or to teach my kids about it. Sure, you might stumble over something brilliant while doing so, but I'm afraid the social benefits of altruism don't really extend that far for me; your mileage may vary, as people apparently say now. Feel free to give your money to needy IDists!)
If we are to give equal (school?) time to all theories, shouldn't they have equal weight? Because, hey, I can totally tell you how things come about. Unicorns constantly breath us into existence, you know (my evidence is clouds). Or, no, the entire universe is actually static but being continuously replaced, like frames on a movie reel (where do you think those odd socks go?). Actually Eris did it by accident (damn that discord!) You are going to teach all the theories, right? We can just extend school hours a couple of times.
(Wait, can we do that anyway? I love my kids, honest, but I'd love them more if I only had them a few hours a week. I'M KIDDING! Put the Child Services Emergency Phone down, son!)
Moreover, if (as other comments suggest) evolutionary theory allows for an intelligence, and intelligent design allows for evolution, why is there a controversy, exactly? People not agreeing with you is not controversial, neither is it intrinsically oppression. Would there even be one, if people didn't keep saying "look, look, it's controversial!"? I don't see how you're not getting your voice out if you can make a documentary and put it in cinemas everywhere and not, you know, have people declare you abominations and blow you up.
(Sidebar: how does intelligent design explain virulent hatred? I presume there's an evolutionary advantage to wanting to kill everyone - sex and violence abounds - but I'm probably misrepresenting evolution again. I mentioned where I wasn't a biologist or a theologian or anything, right?)
I dunno. I don't understand why life being an improbability somehow makes it less miraculous than if created full formed. Does it really make that much difference whether we were put here or we came here? Either way, we are here, all of us, together.
If you were waiting for me to come to some kind of conclusion, I'm forced at this point to confess that I didn't have one. Sorry! But thanks for reading the rambling!
Ebert: Are you aware that your final sentence requires two different meanings for the word theory? In science, one theory is not as good as another theory. You do not seem to understand how scientists use the word. A theory exists to be tested and challenged. Darwin's theory has been worked over for 150 years, and its central insights still hold. The theory of Intelligent Design does not even contain a means by which it can be tested or challenged. Nor do its advocate seem much interested in doing so. A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws.
Roger, this comment from you sums everything regarding ID versus Evolution perfectly and succinctly. I try to explain to people that evolution is kinda like a car. We don't drive the same cars as we did in 1920 because things changed, and cars changed along with them. Evolution is the mechanics of how things change over time, and doesn't veer off into questions of "why", only questions of "how". "How" can be tested, measured and proven or disproven. "Why" has no such methods, yet.
Did you even watch the movie?
Do you not find it interesting that all reasonable arguments are on the table except Intelligent Design? No where in the movie did the documentary represent "GOD" as being the designer.
Sir Ebert, respectfully, your time is up. Go home and rest.
Ebert: Intelligent Design specifically excludes religion (i.e., God) in its formulations. It is an attempt to circumvent the laws separating church and state by reformulating the theory as secular.
To scotttampa:
Evolution may be an interesting topic for the general public to discuss, and important, frankly, where K-12 education is concerned.
But the opinions of non-biologists are irrelevant to biologists where their work is concerned. Laymen's opinions play no function whatsoever in their academic discourse. In short: where it counts, no one cares what you think.
I just wanted to make sure you had no illusions about the significance of your opinions.
David
Lance, you asked: If you have trouble accepting ideas that have "sordid histories" and attribute guilt by association in this way, how do you reconcile your Christian belief with the pogroms, witch-hunts and crusades that have been undertaken with Biblical sanction? Considering the numerous instructions for genocide in the Old Testament, should you also "not give serious consideration" to Christianity until that particular history is also addressed?
The simple answer to those questions is that I am a Mennonite. I therefore believe, as you suggest with respect to the story of human evolution, that a general theory has been wrongly applied. I fully understand and respect those who say they have trouble with even starting to consider Christianity because of pogroms, witch-hunts, crusades, and Old Testament genocides. I wouldn't expect them to begin taking things seriously if they were getting responses that said even asking those kind of questions was akin to having one's head all the way up one's ass. They are legitimate questions and should be dealt with as legitimate questions. My point all along is that I will listen (even when I disagree in some substantial way) and learn from people like Jared Diamond who will acknowledge serious problems in the history of evolutionary theory with respect to racism. Unfortunately, the Jared Diamond's in this discussion are extraordinarily rare. Far more dominant (in fact approaching something like the 99.75% number) are people like you who take any serious questioning of the regnant scientific orthodoxy as to 'be filed under "not even wrong".' Listen, if evolutionary theory gives us good reason to reject racism rather than embrace it, let's have it. Otherwise, embrace racism or begin the major overhaul that is necessary to deracialize the story of evolution.
And it does no good to say something like, 'evolution is just a theory of the way organism change and adapt over time.' Every creationist I knew in the fundamentalist circles I grew up in agreed with that. They merely suggested that changes that could actually be documented were minor, or microevolutionary changes, as opposed to macro evolutionary changes. Everyone knows that the differences are over macro level changes. And it is the way that the macro level story of evolution is told that I have serious reservations with respect to racism.
Ebert: Intelligent Design specifically excludes religion (i.e., God) in its formulations. It is an attempt to circumvent the laws separating church and state by reformulating the theory as secular.
The idea that God created everything was never a theory. It was a belief. Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. You can disagree with its proposition, but it is still a scientific theory. (Which has not been debunked over and over, as has been stated.) A scientific theory can't be the reformulation of something that was never a theory. Your statement is inaccurate.
Roger,
Thank you so much for writing this brilliant post. It infuriates me that anti-intellectualism seems to have become one of the cornerstones of the practices of the Christian Right. During the presidential election it became clear that "No! Don't trust the educated, articulate people!" was a rallying cry of those people terrified that their God-fearing puritanical hold on the modern world is slipping, and rather quickly. I've never understood it: what's wrong with being smart? Shouldn't people strive to be as educated as they can be? To know what the world around them is all about? How it works, how to make it better? What the hell is wrong with wanting the smartest, most educated person possible running the country?
And yet it seems to be too much to ask in so many cases.
I thought Ben Stein was smart. Hell, he is smart. He just fits this thing my dad always said: "Some people are book smart, some people are common sense smart, but finding someone with both is like finding a needle in a haystack."
Seems like Ben Stein's not common sense smart.
So many biased Evolutionists, so little time...
The link between Darwinism and Hitler was made by Hitler himself, which is obvious to anyone who has read two paragraphs of "Mein Kampf". Oh, I'm sorry...was that a bastartization of Darwinism on Hitler's part? Keep that in mind the next time you blame "religion" for all the ills that have been cause by people who have bastardized IT. But you won't of course, because you have some sort of emotional axe to grind against faith. In your view, Hitler's outrages were NOT the fault of Darwinism, but the Spanish Inquisition WAS the fault of Christianity. In the face of such a galactic logical inconsistency, you still tout yourselves as "objective" and "intellectual". You may be the latter, but are certainly NOT the former. Stop lying to yourselves.
Instead of blaming those who disagree with you for the bad press that Darwinism gets, consider the following quotes from your founding apostles:
"The more civilized so-called 'Caucasian' races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher, civilized races throughout the world." -- Charles Darwin
Gee, I thought Chucky was a detached, rational scientist. Evidently he wasn't all the objective, was he? Unless anyone here wants to concur that the Turkish can be scientifically proven to be inferior. I can't imagine why someone like Hitler would gravitate toward this sort of rhetoric, can you?
When asked by Merv Griffin why people gravitated so strongly to the
evolutionary model for origins, Sir Julian Huxley replied, "It's because the theory of a Creator God interferes with people's sexual mores...Thus, we rationalized God out of existence...to us, He became nothing more than the faint and disappearing smile of the cosmic Cheshire cat in "Alice In Wonderland. When we got rid of God, we were finally free to live by the dictates of our own wills."
I must admit, I appreciate his candor. The reasons the rest of you embrace Darwism are equally unscientific whether you realize it or not. To sum up the man; "I want a belief system that allows me to screw anyone within 3 feet of me without feeling guilty about it, and I'll call it "scientific" so I can convince myself that I care about anything more than the immediate gratification of my own libido." What a charade.
But here's an even better quote:
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. It is simply incredible to think that he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained, smaller-jawed rival in a contest which is carried out by thoughts and not by bites." -- Thomas Huxley
Good thing Darwinists are governed strictly by "science", eh? The impeachable aspects of your cherished movement come from within, not from angry religious people. There is plenty to impugn here, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Unless any of you want to agree that "science" teaches that black people are inferior...Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
You Darwinists zealots are always worth a chuckle.
Ebert: The Spanish Inquisition is no more the product of Christianity than Creationism is. Both employ it for their own ends. Thomas Huxley was a racist. Have there been no Christians that are racists? I would guess that, in America, almost all racists have considered themselves Christians.
From Wikipedia:
White Christian is a euphemism, used usually in a self-referential sense by extremist groups adhering to some form of white nationalist ideology overlaid with Christianity. Depending on the context, it could refer to:
* Christian Identity
* Christian Patriot movement
* Ku Klux Klan
* other movements of the far right. See also: White supremacy and White separatism.
Roger, if you're still reading:
A number of left-leaning entertainment writers like yourself, Neil Gabler, Tim Goodman, Tom Shales, and Frank Rich have the chops to write about the world at large and the synapses to not fall flat on your collective faces.
As a liberal I can't get over the idea that the right-wing's best argument in response is Michael Medved. Am I missing some principled conservative writing reviews somehwere? Or is the field of "the arts" so unattractive to conservatives that it will be forever unbalanced, the way commune residents don't get hired by BusinessWeek or The Wall Street Journal?
Roger, if you're still reading:
A number of left-leaning entertainment writers like yourself, Neil Gabler, Tim Goodman, Tom Shales, and Frank Rich have the chops to write about the world at large and the synapses to not fall flat on your collective faces.
As a liberal I can't get over the idea that the right-wing's best argument in response is Michael Medved. Am I missing some principled conservative writing reviews somehwere? Or is the field of "the arts" so unattractive to conservatives that it will be forever unbalanced, the way commune residents don't get hired by BusinessWeek or The Wall Street Journal?
RS Lindsay: about the 6 points of Dr Collins.
Point 1 (The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.) is not necessarily so, and, in fact, appears not to be correct in the majority of modern cosmologies. (The key point being that the word "nothingness" does not belong here, not the age of this particular universe).
Point 2 (Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.) is almost certainly wrong. To begin with, most of the Universe—in fact, overwhelmingly so—is not, in fact, suited for life, at least not life as we know it. And anthropic reasoning fails on several fronts (see Stenger for an in-depth discussion).
Points 3,4, and 5 are fine, but point 6 (But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.) is entirely wrong, since all of the qualities mentioned in it have valid evolutionary hypotheses as to their origins, and the whole existence of our "spiritual nature" is an empty assertion in any sense beyond trivial.
Of course, the number of scientists that "believe" (not quite a proper term, oh well) in evolution varies across disciplines. You will find that in the relevant fields (biology, paleontology, genetics etc) the number of 99.975% is rather close to the mark. I would also mention that in physics, cosmology, astronomy the number is certainly above 90%. That, by the way, has only a weak correlation with a person's religious beliefs (or lack of such).
Stein's movie reminds me of the explanation/justification of Palin's international experience i.e. she can see Russia from her house and her stopover and walk around the airport in Ireland. Both insult my intelligence.
You can disagree with its proposition, but it is still a scientific theory.
Yes, but what is it exactly? Species show evidence of a design? Okay, but design by who? By what?
I would argue the central theme is absolutely on target. Darwinism and the notion that we are all products of "the big bang" are absolutes in the classroom.....period. To argue otherwise is simply dishonest. And regardless what 99.9% of scientists believe....to stifle debate only solidifies the argument that "educators" are anything but. What are you so afraid of?
I wonder... will the proponents of the "fairness doctrine" allow for equal time on such shows as...Nova and the Science Channel....lol
This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions...segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion."
Qualities which probably stood him in good stead as a speechwriter for Richard Nixon.
Also, as far as atheism being a "liberal" belief, I have two liberal newsletters that constantly clog my inbox (Alternet and The Huffington Post), and you'd be amazed at how hostile the published articles can get towards Dawkins or any other atheist author when they publish a new book.
Mr. Andrews,
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory:
"According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features:
Unity: "A science should be unified…. Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems"
Fecundity: "A great scientific theory, like Newton's, opens up new areas of research…. Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry…. Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raised more questions than it can currently answer. But incompleteness is not vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity…. A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies"
Auxiliary hypotheses that are independently testable: "An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save" "
ID fails the unity test, because ID cannot be applied to a wide range of problems. In fact, ID has no actual application. There are no problems that it can actually solve, because the proposed "solution" in every case is "God did it" or "The Intelligent Designer, that we won't name in order to make this appear non-religiously motivated, did it."
It fails the fecundity test, because no new theories ever have or ever can be derived from it. It does not encourage us to ask new questions. It doesn't ask us to wonder how some newly discovered life form came to be, it provides the pre-packaged answer stated above.
And it fails the auxiliary hypotheses test, as of course, there are none to be tested.
ID is also not falsifiable, or testable in any way. ID posits the existence of a intelligent designer, but cannot provide any way to test and verify (or refute) the existence of this designer. The only thing ever offered as evidence is - surprise! - the Bible, which immediately exposes ID as "Creationism renamed."
Roger, great piece of writing. As a Jew, I too was offended at Stein's disgusting use of the Holocaust imagery to extend this 'ID' nonsense into our schools. This kind of stupidity is unfortunately spreading, just this week, Romania officially declared that they will stop teaching evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology to all students.
it is 2008, not 1608. How can we still be seriously considering that earth was around for less than 6,000 years and that Flintstones was actually a documentary, not fiction?
Religion and its weaker sisters like 'ID' have no place in science classrooms, and have no business trying to explain our natural world with the vocabulary and ideas of shamans, soothsayers and charlatans.
Hi Roger,
After reading your excerpt from King Lear, I was once again struck by your oddly multifarious and yet dead-on quotes and allusions. I'd like to second Robert of Taoyuan City's notion that you start an informal book club.
Or perhaps a reading list?
Or even a future post about the writers who've influenced you?
By the by, thanks for writing such a thoughtful critique about the tactics of Ben Stein and others who would propagate the lie that 'intelligent design' is a scientific theory. Stein clearly has a horse in this race.
Ebert: Title of next blog entry: "Hold a concert in words."
This is ridiculous. The attempt to paint ID as creationists is laughable - no actual sad. While ID is a step in the right direction it falls short with what creationists really believe. ID leaves the door wide open for anything with intelligence to be our creators and thus the flying spaghetti monster is born. Creationists hold true that the living God created everything and therefore identify the creator. So really this needs to be a 3-way argument between evolutionists, ID, and creationists.
This brings me to my next point. Lets not distort the underlying issue and bring political correctness to this argument. By classifying someone as evolutionists what we all mean is atheists, and by classifying someone as creationists what we really mean is Christian. There I just unlocked the truth. But now I've just angered and maybe even offended many people. Some will say that they are a Christian but also believe in evolution. NOT POSSIBLE! How can you believe in two entirely opposing views? The Bible is a one package deal and so are God's words inside it. You don't get to pick and choose! You can try but it won't be beneficial in the end and that's just not worth it!
My Last point, follows on the heels of my last, is that it WAS acceptable for Stein to mention liberalism. Liberalism is after all the opposition to conservatism - and where do you think conservatism originated from? (Uh oh, another question about origin - do you want to credit Darwin here too? - Ok that was a little unfair) Conservatism is rooted in Christianity and only recently has spread into other realms. Why do you think socially conservative republicans do so well against those that are not? (Huckabee vs Romney)
Well, I've written too much but now I am going to meet my atheist friend for lunch
who sent this to me and win another soul for the Lord!!!
Ebert: How do you explain the fact that 2/3 of all Protestants in the U.S. accept the theory of evolution? Are they not Christians?
Scott Andrews,
When you write:
This is simply your own ignorance speaking. I apologize if that comes off as rude but there is simply no nice way to put it. Evolutionary biology is held up to the exact same standards of any other field in the scientific community. Anyone who says differently obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is an important discrepancy to be made between the methods and tempos of evolution versus the fact of evolution. The first is the subject of constant and sometimes vigorous debate among scientists. The second is not. Not because scientists are emotional or dogmatic, but because in the 150 years since Darwin figured it out, not a single piece of evidence has been discovered that contradicts the basic tenets of evolution: that the alleles of living organisms change over time, that life on earth can be organized into a "tree" of ancestral species, and that by inference, all organisms on earth can be traced to an ancestral organism.
In comparison to other scientific theories, evolution has actually remained relatively static. I hesitate to put it that way - no doubt a "skeptic" will read that and say "hah! Dogmatism!" - and the fact is that scientists have come a long way in refining and improving the details - that is, the methods and tempos - of Darwin's theory - but the more scientists learn, the more scientists realize that when it comes to the big picture, Darwin appears to have pretty much hit the bulls-eye. This is all the more remarkable considering that Darwin had, for example, no knowledge of genetics to draw upon (Mendel came after Darwin).
It's funny that you accuse scientists of dogmatism while decrying the fact that scientists' understanding of evolution has undergone some changes over time. Of course every scientific theory undergoes revision: less than a century ago, the entire world of Physics had to undergo a complete revolution when a guy named Einstein produced evidence that conventional Newtonian physics did not explain how the speed of light was constant in all reference frames. The scientific community has come to accept that Einstein was right.
No doubt the Creationist community would like to do something similar. The problem is that, unlike Einstein, they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to present. It's a nice thought, but what they've found is that the scientific community functions as a well-oiled machine built to determine the good ideas from the bad. The problem with Creationist ideas are not that they challenge existing "dogma" but rather that they do so very badly, with a complete lack of evidence and only poorly-worded arguments that appeal to the ignorant but that don't fool anyone with any actual knowledge about the subject.
I'll tell you what. If evolutionary biology is as flawed and underdeveloped as you say it is, it shouldn't be much trouble for you to find some evidence that contradict it. I'm not talking about you regurgitating some Creationist talking point, mind you - I'm talking about hard, physical evidence that contradicts the 150 years of accumulated evidence that all points to Darwin being correct. A fossilized rabbit in precambrian strata would do nicely.
"Ebert: First time I've ever seen Democrats = Liberals = Media."
Evidence that the virulently anti-Intelligent Design have their heads buried in the sand just as deep as anyone that insists Darwin can't possibly be right.
Just in case Ron doesn't repost on why Gore's movie was liberal, here's the short answer - It was a set of lies designed to influence the public's perception so that liberal policies could be enacted.
For instance, a closer look at the historical graph of CO2 vs. temperature shows that 90% of the time temperature rises before CO2. On the top end of the graph, temperatures peak and start falling before CO2 drops; proving that rising CO2 does not cause rising temperatures (if anything temp has driven CO2 levels). There is a lot of money to be made by scientists and policies that can be pushed through if people believe global warming is caused by humans and action is required to stop it. Not nearly the profit potential in saying that we're just experiencing part of a natural cycle.
Man, no one gets any of my jokes. But I am sure God hates dolphins. He made them smart enough to know that they're cold but left them with no means of producing any pants.
Ebert: He also made flies swatable.
Robert, in response to Scott's balderdash:
You can disagree with its proposition, but it is still a scientific theory.
Yes, but what is it exactly? Species show evidence of a design? Okay, but design by who? By what?
And what's equally important, how is is falsifiable in any way? ID is a simple appeal to personal incredulity, not to mention ridiculously arrogant (I can't imagine how it happened, therefore neither can anyone else!)
I used to enjoy Ben Stein on his game show with Jimmy Kimmel. In retrospect, I would now say that I enjoyed Jimmy Kimmel on Ben Stein's game show.
I had heard about this movie, and frankly, I wasn't interested in its ridiculous premise to find out more. I assumed that some rich Bible belt nutjobs bankrolled a rah-rah God film for shiz'n'giggles, and that Stein just showed up to lend a modicum of credence to it. Your review (and my subsequent Internet searches) reveals him at minimum as a co-conspirator and likely the de facto ringleader of this tripe.
Anyway, to the point, why is a self-professed Jew backing Christian fringe theory?
I don't get it. Stein is educated, well spoken, and seemingly intelligent. What, then, could be his interest in this project? I submit that he is pandering to the blue-state masses to collect a pretty fat paycheck. After all, the elections of 2000 and 2004 have proven that half the nation doesn't allow critical thinking to muck up their lives. As Menken said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." I quote Menken appropriately and ironically, as he was in the thick of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Has anyone else noticed the similarity of Richard Dawkins and Emma Watson?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3133/2506334893_5085073577.jpg
Anonymous:
This is an interesting argument, that the evolution is a fact because the basic tenets of the theory have not changed in over 150 years.They still have are not backed up by conclusive evidence. You can arrange animals into trees for as long as you want, but that's not the same thing as proving that this animal descended from that animal. You can point out that one has features similar to another, but you can't cite that as evidence that it evolved without assuming that evolution is the creative mechanism in the first place. And there's no evidence for that. Just assumptions.
Scientists don't have ridiculous arguments like this about most theories. (And yet, scientists do have arguments about this one. Saying they don't doesn't make it so.) They follow the evidence and let that settle it. Arranging animals into a tree is not evidence. Breeding blind cave fish into seeing cave fish is not evidence. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not evidence.
From now on I won't even respond to any posts that don't at least purport to present evidence. Anyone who responds with anything less really has nothing to say. You're just clinging to the theory because of an emotional attachment to it. There's nothing scientific about it.
Phil: There is a lot of money to be made by scientists and policies that can be pushed through if people believe global warming is caused by humans and action is required to stop it. Not nearly the profit potential in saying that we're just experiencing part of a natural cycle.
I was unaware that energy business was operated as a charity.
Scott,
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. At the most, it would be a scientific hypothesis. In order for it to be a scientific *theory*, it would have to:
1. propose a mechanism (like the theory of evolution has the mechanisms heritability, genetic drift, mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, etc.)
2. verify some predictions (like the theory of evolution predicts the existence of DNA, endogenous retroviruses, vitamin C deficiency in all primates, etc. "Prediction" in this case means that it follows from the premises of the mechanisms ie. "it makes sense that we see xyz in nature given our mechanisms")
3. be FALSIFIABLE (like the theory of evolution would be proven "false" if we discover an organism or species that has *absolutely no genetic relationship* with any other known species, or witness dog giving birth to a cat)
4. Publish some experiments, findings, data, ANYTHING in a peer reviewed journal so that other experts in the field - this case biology - can reproduce these experiments and see if they get the same result.
These things are what make the theory of evolution a scientific theory. It explains why we see what we see in biology.
ID has no mechanism, ID has no verified predictions (because it has no mechanism), hasn't produced any research in a peer reviewed journal (publishing polemics for general public consumption isn't "peer review"), and ID IS NOT FALSIFIABLE. So far, ID has only proposed that some biological systems "look too durn complicated to me!" but hasn't done anything beyond that.
A theory in science is a body of knowledge logically connected and *already verified* experimentally and functions as a model of whatever "theory" it is a theory of. Kind of like a map. You use a map to plot your course because it's a model of the real world. The accuracy of the map helps you get to your destination successfully. The "Theory of Relativity" is the body of knowledge that explains gravity and helps us use gravity more accurately. GPS satellites wouldn't be as useful and accurate as they are right now without the theory of relativity. The same happens with the theory of evolution. All strides in modern biology, medicine, etc. are due to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is the "map" of biology. Intelligent Design is just a drawing of a circle on a piece of paper.
There is no doubt evolution has as is taking place, to speak against it would be foolish, look around you! To be open to the fact that an organizing force is at work is also difficult to argue against, when you look at the human body and the incredible number of things that had to be "just so" or else it wouldn't work. Guess I'm amazed that people can look at DNA and believe that it happened by accident in nature. Perhaps take some time to explore workings of the universe, at some point you may hear something that finally pushes you over the edge. Of course it takes willingness on your part to different, as most everyone says they believe in God, but.. no they don't. Of course the God of religion is more like a evil tyrant recording all your deeds for punishment when it is all over. How incredibly stupid, to think that an all powerful God would create a person and turn around waiting to judge it for the wrong it has done in an imaginary world that was just created.
Who's crazier, the one that believes in a sadistic God, one that killed that sadistic God, or one that sees that God is Love and anything else... well, we created everything else that isn't Love on our own, with our free will.
Oh, yeah, just because all the world's scientist agree with you... well just check how often the scientist end up eating their own words, and in a major way.
Ebert: How do you explain the fact that 2/3 of all Protestants in the U.S. accept the theory of evolution? Are they not Christians?
That's easy. An overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. say they are Christian (I think it's like 98%) but are they really? I think both of us would agree that they are not. Therefore your statistic has the same problem. With that said, I am not dicrediting your question. Many people around the world do not know the truth and this includes Christians. Does this mean they are not Christians? Well this question is much like the age old philosophical question "if old wood planks on a boat are replaced by new wood planks, at what point is it a new boat?" The only easy thing about this question is that it's not my call - but that doesn't mean the call won't be made in the end. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." (2 Corinthians 5:10)
Ebert: Between 76 and 78 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians.
Ben Stein should have said why could evolution also not be started by God. He should of addressed the fact that some people think believing in evolution makes you atheist and it does not.
It seems people are switching this debate over to consciousness itself, i.e. why am I here, other than the objectivity provided by Darwin, who yes, like me and you happened to posess consciousness--it does take that to ask a question. One of the scientists who discovered DNA, the late Francis Crick was just beginning to tackle that question when he died. It is a field of study still very much in its infantile stage of research. So, I don't see why the debate has gone to that route, but I will say Francis Crick is a Darwinian, and when we do get that answer, if we do, it will be from his enthusiastic beginnings that inspired others which will then inspire a whole new group of young scientists once a breakthrough is made. And the circle goes on.
I find it hard to believe there are racists scientists out there studying evolution en masse, particularly in America where african americans have been superior in many things: from sports, to creating rock music (which I dare say includes modern country music as well as alternative rock music,but not just rock music, which racists listen to--i believe they also invented drums), even in science (George WAshington Carver), and created Jazz, the most free form music invented, which is as modern as it gets in terms of form. Its just absurd to not think we are all just as capable as another.
Anonymous:
Didn't someone just tell me that I didn't understand science, because all evolution needs is a central tenet, but the specific methods can be unknown or change all the time? Let's go with that. The fact of ID never changes, just all the specifics and methods. It doesn't need to make any specific, falsifiable predictions. And why are you bringing evidence into this discussion? Are scientific theories now supposed to have evidence?And although I'm not going to step into the role of ID scientist, ID is not the argument that 'we can't imagine how it happened, so no one else can.' Why talk about what you haven't read? ID compares the unknown to the known. We don't know who made Stonehenge, or why, but we do know that rocks balanced on top of each other or arranged in a circle are usually arranged deliberately. Did anyone see Stonehenge for the first time and wonder what unusual geological conditions caused it to happen? You could come up with a story (there were rocks, there was an earthquake) but few people would take it seriously. But in the case of biology, people accept far wilder stories, again, without evidence.
Crap! I said no answers unless someone had evidence.
As anyone who follows Origin of Life research could describe, naturalists can't even begin to describe a realistic scenario for the start of life. That was the fascinating thing about the crystals. There is no detailed explanation. Just hand-waving and the hope that you ignore the man behind the curtain. For life to start you have to get around several chicken-and-egg problems. Problems which an appeal to mind or intelligence make sense.
As to the gambling analogy. You need so many things to happen at the same time or in sequence where it makes the odds incredibly low. 23 out of 30 is good for Charles Wells. But what if he needed 30 out of 30 and in order. Furthermore, natural processes are breaking down organic material. So it is not like organic material has the option of waiting around for the next roll before degradation happens.
But lastly, I found your comments about the eye most telling. You assume the eye is a product of blind processes and then just simply claim in evolved 26 separate times. That is not a sufficient Darwinian explanation that excludes intelligence. That is a faith commitment. If you start with the premise, it will affect your conclusions.
A fellow I know coined a phrase to describe such people, a classification in which he included himself:
CWACKs : Christians Who Aren't Creationist Kooks. (see reference)
I know very many of them.
"And I believe such hjis use of the Holocaust is even more offensive when employed merely "to underline the importance of the issue being debated." "(Ebert)
It's not to say that the "monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime" was Darwin inspired. Crime, even that one,is a child of the mind.
It's not Darwin vs ID which bothers me---it's that both of them are clamouring to be recognised as the legitimate children of Science.I'm sure Darwin's idea must be on firm ground.( I thought Dawkin's was quite spitting venom not courteous )
Science cannot prove or disprove many things like eternal life and ID may be another such. MAYBE there are Berlin Walls which only the heart and not the brain can cross (Pascal). Science is value free (WMDs). People for whom Science is The Religion are likely to under valuate life. To quote Nichiren , a Buddhist sage
"Life is the most precious of all treasures. Even one extra day of life is worth more than ten million ryo of gold. " and "A single life is worth more than the major world system "
The problem with Science is not it's correctness but it's inadequacy, the danger that the part will be mistaken for the whole,distortions of thinking leading to failure to regard human dignity which when enthroned in Society, could lead to most grievous results, as is arguable for the past. In it's narcisstic intellectual arrogance, one may witness Inquisitions and witch hunts. If war is the measles of the human race (Einstein] the previous century was a severe attack .
It seems unnecessary to quote Einstein
"One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values."
Pardon the second post, but that quiz business at the start of the blog is stuck in my craw, to wit: Let's begin with what I think is a safe assumption: that Ben Stein's polemic is based on his sincerely held beliefs, as yours is.(I don't cosider 'polemic ' to be a derogatory term; it's certainly a more accurate description of the content than 'documentary' or 'essay'.) Now, in your 'game show' I noticed that you didn't include the exact wording of your Big Question. IF the question is phrased thus: "In the world scientific community, what is the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of life on earth?" ... well, the obvious and correct answer is 'A'. Thus qualified, Ben Stein has no choice. However, your context seems to indicate that that the Big Question is a bit more limiting: i.e., "what is the explanation for the origin of life?" In this case, you're not posing a quiz question at all; you're offering Stein a million-dollar bribe to change his beliefs. /*/*/ Now reverse the positions: you are the contestant on Stein's quiz show. All other conditions apply as set forth in your original premise. If you give answer (B), the one Stein wants, you get the million bucks (which I'd guess you could use as much as or more than Stein could). But that would mean publicly renouncing your own oft-stated beliefs. So you hold your ground and say (A). Buzzer buzzes; you're wrong (by Stein's reckoning, anyway). Do you protest on grounds that you weren't treated fairly? I don't see how: you had to know going in what Stein was after, and that it would come down to principle vs. money. I'm guessing that in this situation, you would say the question was unfairly loaded in favor of Stein's agenda and walk off the show (that's what I'd do). /*/*/ Now flip back to the original premise: You're asking and Stein's answering. Are you claiming that Stein's beliefs are less firmly held than your own? That he would take the money rather than stand up for his beliefs? Are you that sure that he wouldn't do what I've got you doing in the reverse example above? For that matter, are you that sure that you wouldn't take the money in the reverse scenario and then brag to your pals about how you scammed Stein for a million? Naaah, you wouldn't do that... you've got principles. So is it really that unlikely that the man whose beliefs you and I consider erroneous might just have the same principles. /*/*/ And what's all this got do with the price of tomatoes? Nothing, really... we haven't reached the point of shooting each other over this - yet. /*/*/ "A wise man questions himself... a fool, others." - Charlie Chan.
A wise author once wrote: If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people; if you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you. It was on the basis of this adage that I had previously come to respect and admire Ben Stein. Although I voraciously disagree with the vast majority of his conservative viewpoints, I respected his intelligence and self-deprecation.
Unfortunately, he now seems to have gone off the deep end. To exploit the Holocaust to serve your agenda is, as has been noted, deplorable. Of course while every documentarian, from Flaherty to Morris to Moore, massages words and angles his films and, yes, their screenplays, to reflect his message, the ultimate goal of a documentary filmmaker should always be truth.
Having been reared with -- though finally rejecting -- fundamentalist Christian principles, I can feel a certain empathy with those who espouse intelligent design. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that systems left to their own devices tend toward chaos, rather than order. The intricacies and interrelationships among the systems of the human body, for example, lend itself to design, rather than happenstance.
However, to cling to the literal interpretation of Genesis and, by extension, to reject scientific discovery is to be stubbornly obtuse. Why when all but the most radical of Christians have agreed that many biblical decrees (e.g., the age of Methuselah, the Tower of Babel, the ten plagues) are simply stylistic interpretations of relatively commonplace -- and certainly natural -- events, do some tenaciously cling to the concept of a 6,000-year-old Earth (and, as an aside, homosexuality as an abomination)?
Even so, I can respect the viewpoint of those who hold that belief (and that's what it is -- a faith-based belief) and any other beliefs I personally perceive as radical, provided they respect mine and everyone else's. Foisting your beliefs on others and condemning those who reject them is why I left the church in the first place, and why the religious right stirs so much resentment and outright hatred (which, you would think, would be the opposite of its intent).
I cannot imagine Mr. Stein's intent. Did he make his film to convince those who disagree with him? If so, how would mockery and transparent exploitation accomplish that goal? Or is his film for those who already believe? In which case, what was the point?
I'm just here to join the 3 December birthday crowd.
I have thus far avoided seeing Expelled, largely due to reviews and criticisms like yours. The whole ID position is deplorable, and it leaves no room for research. Once you've declared that organisms were designed, where do you go from there?
Ebert: Sixth one.
It's all too easy to assume that Creationism has disappeared. They don't publish journals and they don't get a lot of press, but the Gallop people tells us over 40% of Americans believe humans were created in their current form. Creationism is based on several premises that are difficult to debate. First, that human beings are significantly different than other animals, in the complexity of our brains, thought processes, and morality. That was always my mother's position.
Are humans different? Tenth-grade science classes say they're NOT. If you look at the brains, there isn't a great deal of difference between humans and chimps and dolphins and... well, Republicans. (I decided to throw in a joke. It's free. Enjoy.)
Evolution has two mechanisms, Random Mutation and Natural Selection. Easy to say, but not accurate. Pieces of DNA break off, float around, and wind up getting attached to a different organism's genome or a different place in the same organism. Is that considered a mutation? I think that's a different mechanism. But the most important mechanism is "Things get bigger." If you start with one cell, throw a party, bring in some cheap champagne and some hookers, the next morning you have TWO cells. That's the fourth primary mechanism of evolution. Cells divide, and make an organism that's bigger and has more cells. If you're lazy, you could say that's the primary difference between humans and chimps. There are more cells in our brains. Not different cells, just more of them.
Reply to: In your first reply you focus myopically on Darwin's level of racism, ignoring the what I said about black people being closer to apes in the standard evolutionary accounting,
In order to determine if black people are closer to apes, you would have to count the number of cells. Even that wouldn't give you an accurate reading. Certainly there's NOTHING about being black that merits such a description. Skin color isn't related to intelligence, it's related to how your body defends itself against the sun.
CONSIDER: the genome of the unicellular Amoeba dubia has 670 billion base pairs of DNA, over 200 times larger than the human genome. (2) The pufferfish Takifugu rubripes genome is only about one tenth the size of the human genome, yet seems to have a comparable number of genes. Most of the difference appears to lie in what is now known only as junk DNA. (3) Junk DNA may be archaic material left over from an earlier stage of evolutionary development.
Because of the random nature of a genome, there may be a tremendous amount that isn't being used any more. Nobody goes in to clean and throw the old junk away. More evidence against Intelligent Design?
Reply to: people from the continent of Africa? People, who according to the story of evolution, arrived on the scene of progress before white people in the movement from lower forms of animality.
Not according to the story of evolution. Seriously, no. Our brains are human because they have three times as many cells as our relatives. That growth happened over a long period of time. A very, very long period of time. By comparison, the split between whites and blacks happened fairly recently, after all the important evolutionary work was finished. Think of the law of diminishing returns. The changes in the last fifty million years may have very, very little impact because the genome has gotten enormous. On a genetic level, the difference between black and white is literally "a glass of water poured into the ocean."
Reply to: I am perfectly willing to listen intently to experts, but I always take what they say with a grain of salt. I especially want to know what their particular biases are, and in this case, endemic racism still plagues the sciences, particularly the science of evolution. I am very willing to read and learn deeply from people I disagree with, and often end up changing my mind significantly. You've missed the thrust of my question. I'm going to insist on asking the ethical question whether science is capable or willing to do so or not. If we are to take evolution as a simple fact, a given datum, a thing we simply accept and move on from, then why is racism wrong and not just a natural part of the survival of the fittest?
Racism is wrong because human beings have decided it is wrong. Racism doesn't appear to be wrong according to evolutionary theory. On one level, women are programmed to find the best possible sperm donors, to ensure the survival of their offspring. Fifty million years ago, that might have been a major problem. Today, not so much, no matter what "Sex and the City" says.
The fact that evolutionary theory does NOT come out against racism... well, so what? Seems like a Straw Man argument to me. Should we reject Evolution as a scientific and historical fact because it doesn't come out against racism?
The reason why we don't teach ID in schools (from a scientific perspective) is that there's no evidence to support it. The time frame is wrong. If our evolution was guided, why do we have so much junk DNA? A random process is a better explanation of the known facts.
I rented it on Tuesday, viewed it and returned it on Thursday. I was kind of embarrassed to have it in my possession while taking it back to the store. What the hell was I thinking?
It is just as Mr. Ebert relates.
Any chance we can do a scene by scene "STOP" community viewing of Ben's film? I'd fly to Boulder from Nashville just to participate. It would be worth flying Dawkins in for the showing.
Anyone up for a trip to the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which has exhibits of humans living with dinosuars?
Eugenie Scott would agree with you. But ID adherents exist in essentially two camps. Those who are Creationists, and who have adopted (co-opted) the term in an attempt to legitimatize their position, and those who view ID as a scientific hypothesis, analyze it from its proper empirically formatted perspective, and may or may not have a separate religious perspective.
The 'church / state evaders', if that is their true intent, would be the first group only. Remember though, that Jefferson's intent in 'Wall of Separation" policy, was to prevent "religious readings" from being practiced in public schools, and to insulate society from government becoming theocratic. The fear of theocracy was of course a carry over from our English roots.
This threat, if it ever really was one, has been addressed in multiple court cases from Lemon v Kurtzman, to Aguillard v Edwards, to Kitzmiller v Dover, the latter resulting in a sham decision (2nd part only) conflating ID with 'church state' violations.
The Dover decision has been disseminated and debunked by the Montana Law Review and others regarding its ruling on ID as religion. An overview:
http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
Intelligent Design, as an adjunct hypothesis to evolutionary processes (rather than a theory at this time), is certainly not religion, a straw man attack that is fading fast. It is a secular, scientific and viable alternative to totally undirected processes defined in the current evolutionary synthesis.
As you probably guessed, I reside in the second camp.
Dear Roger,
I love the blog and thank you for all of your past movie reviews. Whether I agree or disagree on any topic you write about, I always learn from you...thanks!
On this particular topic, it hits me the way our 2-party political state does, as a bit too narrow-minded. 26 parties had candidates for president and we are only shown the same 2. Again, we have 2 options of Creationism and Darwinism, both of which carry nothing more compelling than theory. The Theory of Evolution is not compatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (things fall apart instead of buiding up as evolution suggests.)
Insufficient evidence exists to support either theory. The cartoon in your blog would probably be better suited showing choices of "Magic A" and "Magic B".
Have a spectacular day!
What so many fundamentalists don't seem to realize is that creationist theories are legion. Why don't they argue that ALL need to be taught, not just the one found in the Bible? I'm a Pastafarian, myself: www.flyingspaghettimonster.com
I've seen inferences of the above. Of course it's sophistry generalize in that way. I'm liberal in most areas, in agreement with global warming, an ID supporter (in its secular and scientific sense), and an engineer with an interest in cellular biology and genetics.
You and I can agree on most things, Roger, but I would suggest you broaden your perspective regarding ID. The so-called 'Big Tent' may be shrinking somewhat, or a least, it's becoming compartmentalized.
I was taken to task, about 200 comments above, for my claiming that Ben Stein has no soul. The thoughtful (honestly) response to my posting stated that Stein must have soul, because he broke down in tears over the way his racehorse Nixon was treated by history.
I'm not saying Stein doesn't have SOMETHING where a soul should be, but I wouldn't imagine you would want to hang it on your Christmas tree.
Plus, tears imply humanity. But humanity doesn't necessarily imply soul - one has to make the leap from one's own tears to the rest of the world's crying to start growing some s.o.u.l.
Incidentally, I've got a blog going now too - would love for anyone who's interested in some high-minded bird-walking to check it out at www.themilkywayblues.blogspot.com
Thanks!
Ben Stein equating those who side with Darwinism and the Nazi's is absurd and distasteful. However, we have been hearing for years now from Michael Moore and his ilk that Geroge Bush=Hiter, yet you reviewed his recent "documentaries" and received them well.
I can't help but feel it is the beliefs of the filmmaker that have formed your opinion, and not he content of the film(s).
Ebert: I have never heard from "Moore and his ilk" that Bush = Hitler.
I just wanted to give you a really heartfelt thank you. Did you read about the winter solstice placards that have been showing up next to nativity scenes? We seem to be seeing more atheist-activism lately and it warms my heart.
"But as every gambler knows, sometimes you do actually hit a number. You don't have to do it a trillion trillion trillion times to be a winner. You only have to do it once ["because the table doesn't know who you are."]. This is explained by Darwin. If you are playing at a table with other gamblers and you win $100 and none of them do, you are just that much better able to outlast them as competitors."
In gambling, as you correctly point out, odds of winning at coin-flips or roulette do not change based on previous winnings/losings. However, as far as "outlast"-ing others, that is contingent upon previous winnings/losings.
Evolution requires a constant account of previous winnings/losings. It is not a roulette spin or coin flip. Not a mere stroke of luck. If one is to outlast...
And Ben Stein makes a poor argument -- that is made unequivocally clear by Ebert's sound drubbing. But this math/gambling analysis' logic folds back on itself and makes an equally weak argument.
I am not much of an ID theorist; not much of an evolutionist either. I'm that middle.
I like good arguments.
Hiya Roger,
I think this review was the best thing you've written since "Beneath The Valley Of The Ultra-Vixens." Keep up the good work.
Ben Stein proves that you can look like a nerd, act like a nerd, and drone on and on like a nerd and still not be very bright.
Roger,
I agree with most of the context of your review. However, your outrage at Stein's tactics made me chuckle.
Cherry Picking Quotes? Posing Propaganda as fact? Showing people getting "made-up" before they go on screen or using clever editing to make outrageous associations? And most importantly, sucker punching reasonable interviewees with "Gotcha" moments....?
What do you expect in the world of the post Michael Moore doc?
In a meager attempt to keep up the caliber of the discussion on this, my favorite blog, I thought I'd mention that so far, I've abruptly abandoned reading any comment that cites Wikipedia to support its argument.
Mr. Ebert, I often agree with your assessment of films, and, while I sheepishly admit that I have not read your entire review here, I take away the message loud and clear that you weren't a fan (maybe a slight understatement :) ).
I saw this movie a while back and actually enjoyed it. I took a course in Evolution vs. Creationism in college, and this was just one viewpoint as far as I'm concerned. If Mr. Stein appears biased, he is no more biased than Michael Moore who often receives rave reviews of his very flawed, very biased, very manipulative documentaries. I saw this documentary as an interesting viewpoint--While I may not necessarily agree 100% with the viewpoint, I don't see why both ideas can't be taught in school or why various theories can't be explored. Why can't God and Creationism exist alongside Evolution? Why does God have to be completely disregarded in science...I read a book by Stephen Hawking recently that stated that some scientists feel that existence of God is not known to be a question that scientists can even begin to answer or should strive to answer in their studies (I agree--If we're looking at the physical world around us and studying it, we are not most likely looking at things not of the physical world/universe), but who says that one has to leave God out entirely? Dr. Hawking also makes some statements in this book, from what I remember, that it might be possible to come across a proof of a higher being in scientific studies or that not searching for proof of God in science does not mean that God does not exist...(I believe this was one thing that was brought up...though admittedly, it's been a while since reading--The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking--Good book either way). Also, I would agree that in any research area, there exists a bias against people who don't agree with mainstream ideas--Academia is rife with bias against others for various reasons, hierarchies exist among staff-sometimes for petty reasons--This happens more than one would imagine.
The thought that Darwinism was used by the Nazis for evil plans was a rather surprising idea, but I think that idea is valid--I feel strongly, however, that it is not proof that the ideas of evolution and Darwinism are bad, just that any group of people can use any media or information--scientific findings or The Bible, for example--as a means to their end.
It may not be the most riveting documentary I've ever seen, but, like all documentaries (or many movies or books), I did take away a new idea as a result of viewing it and that idea was the view of a differing perspective than mine, but something of interest.
I wonder if there are any creationists who have actually read a science book... Even a Time Life science book.
Scientific theory is not guesswork and random ideas, it's not blind faith. Look, all those half-monkey-half-man skeletons had to come from somewhere, right?
To my understanding, creationists don't believe in Cavemen.
Boy, it seems that it's quite easy to get a good or a bad review from Mr. Ebert these days. If you want a good review, you just make an anti-Republican / anti-Conservative / anti-Christian movie that bashes any of them. If you make a pro-movie for any of the above, you can expect a bad review and a ridiculously long rant like this one. That seems to be the difference in liberals and conservatives these days. Liberals can't stand it when a conservative makes a point about anything, and they have to argue and argue and cry/stomp their feet like a child if any opinions differ from theirs. Conservatives for the most part, don't care, and would rather liberals just leave them alone (hence the definition of the word).
Pretty sad, and this "seals the deal" for me. I will no longer be turning to Ebert for reviews or opinions (it's Rottentomatoes for me now). Everyone knows Ben Stein is an intelligent, reputable person who deserves an opinion just as liberals do. If you can't stand the idea of that, then maybe you were either raised incorrectly or you need to grow up a bit. Just my 2 cents..
Ebert: Why do you consider this film "conservative?"
Mr. Ebert,
Where are the rest of the voices of reason? Are they not entertaining enough? I believe in God and I always find it disconcerting that God, according to many, can't be the power behind the forces of the universe. Is that naive? Why can't God plunk an apple on Newton's head or be the wind that blew Darwin's ship to the Galapagos? I think it's a more beautiful story that way, the breath of life onto the Earth. I'm no poet. I used to think that the best friends you can have are the ones that tell you what you don't want to hear. I don't want to hear Ben Stein and I don't think he would ever be a friend to me.
"What tools did the scientists use? Supercomputer programs and, I quote, 'ultra-high energy X-rays from a stadium-sized Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago to chart the precise position of each of the 2,000 atoms in the ancient proteins'."
Oh - well then. That certainly proves that life began on the backs of crystals. Sounds so impressive. Point is Ebert has no idea what he's saying. It just sounds scientic - so therefore it must be true.
I noticed Ebert didn't address Dawkins' speculation of where life came from - space aliens. That's certainly much more rational and "scientific".
Ebert: That is not what Dawkins said. It is what Ben Stein said that he said. What he said was was that some hold the theory that life on earth arrived here in microscopic form within meteors--but that, even if it did, that would not affect the theory of evolution, because that life must have evolved somewhere. Then Ben Stein cut to his mocking footage of movie aliens, inspiring your misquotation.
I love the blog, but maybe you should give the Flying Spaghetti Monster a break for a short period and move on to other subjects. It's getting crazy.
Quinton:
That's a preposterous statement. So when doctors figure out how to perform surgery with lasers instead of cutting a person open, evolution gets credit for that? When they figure out that one combination of drugs kills a virus but another doesn't, evolution gets credit for that one, too?
The doctors solve the problem, then evolutionary biologists come along after the fact and make some meaningless observation linking the advance to evolution. Evolution's contribution to medicine is the observation that if you kill off most of the bacteria, the ones left over are the survivors, and they breed. Do you mean that if all doctors were ignorant tree-worshipers they wouldn't have figured that out?
It's like Elaine's co-worker on Seinfeld who does nothing and then pops in at the end to share credit for the work.
Of course, you'll say that you didn't really mean that evolution is responsible for all strides in medicine. But such ridiculous hyperbolic statements are so much easier to come up with than actual evidence.
Maybe I should stop for a second and list the evidence in favor of evolution as the origin of species, since no one else will.
- It's the cornerstone of biology and medicine.
- The debate was settled years ago.
- There are mountains of evidence.
- All scientists agree.
- The theory's basic idea hasn't changed in 150 years.
Am I missing any?BTW - I'm not promoting intelligent design. I'm just pointing out that the theory of evolution as the origin of species is woefully short on evidence, given that it's the Best Supported Most Well Proven Theory in the History of Science, etc.
After reading this article and most of the comments that were posted, I am equally impressed and dismayed at the thinking that takes place thanks to this blog.
I loved the article, and I agree with it for the most part. I am a Mormon. But what if, as Ebert pointed out, God simply lets things happen? We believe in free agency--why would that be a principle that God applies only to humans and not to all of his creations? At the end of the day Darwinism and a belief in God can be reconciled. It isn't even hard to reconcile them actually.
One poster here, and others in the past, requested that Ebert not share his opinion, but simply say whether the film was good or bad. The only thing that makes a critic worth reading is his personality and opinion, and that is why I read Ebert. If you want to know whether the film is good or bad, I have a suggestion: go watch it.
Intelligent Design is creationism. After the failure of creationism to be taught as science in the courts, this group of religious nuts came up with ID. In fact, the official ID document is EXACTLY the same document (word for word) as the official creationist document only with the words creationist and creationism replaced with Intelligent Design. This information can be found on the NCSE website and on youtube.
(Wiki the two cases below.
Beyond the LA Edward v. Aguillard case, there was another case in CA presented by Wendell Bird. He was the then special assistant AG for LA in Edwards v. Aguillard. Afterwords, Bird became the staff attorney for the Institute of Creation Science. (Isn't that amazing) This case was the Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al. 'The Association retained leading intelligent design proponent Michael Behe to testify in the case as an expert witness. Behe's expert witness report claimed that the Christian textbooks were excellent works for high school students and he defended that view in a deposition.'
'Yet, the two Christian biology texts at issue commit this "wrenching violation." For example, Biology for Christian Schools declares on the very first page that:
1. "'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,' is the only [position] a Christian can take. . . ."
2. "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
3. "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible." (Phillips Decl. Ex. B, at xi.)
Biologist PZ Myers wrote "the judge pointed out that the books which Behe approved flatly state that Christians must accept creationist conclusions—unlike our biology books, which don't demand any religious litmus test of their readers—and were therefore perfect examples of exactly the problem he was complaining about."
The August 2008 ruling concluded that various books offered by the school shouldn't be used for a college-preparatory history class because "it didn't encourage critical thinking skills and failed to cover 'major topics, themes and components' of U.S. history, Otero wrote. The judge said Calvary provided little admissible evidence to the contrary."'
Here's your bigshot ID backer testifying under oath stating creationism is perfectly acceptable to be taught as science.
As I've stated above, Michael Behe (as seen in the movie) believes that many systems are “irreducibly complex,” which is just a fancy new name for the very old argument that some systems in nature are made up of parts that are too well matched and work together too perfectly to be the work of evolution; instead, the argument goes, such systems must be the products of an intelligent designer (who sounds suspiciously like God). This is the definition of Intelligent Design.
In Expelled, remember Ben Stein walking around Seattle, and mentioning the Discovery Institute? The ID movement is orchestrated by the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), a subdivision of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle.
The CSC’s purpose consists of two points: 1.) challenge the validity of scientific evolution, and 2.) replace it with ID. The policies and action plan for carrying out the above, is known as “The Wedge Document” (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html). In this document, the Discovery Institute states that the center's long-term goals are nothing less than the "overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies," and the replacement of "materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." There is a 5-year and 20-year plan. The first as described, above, is to replace scientific evolution with theistic evolution (this time around, its ID). Once it has been ingrained into the heads of this countries’ children (and obviously already has with some of the people supporting it here) that science is anti-God, the 20-year plan is to replace ALL science (including medicine) and politics with Christian theistic teachings, and as a result, the creation of a Christian religious state.
As a hypothesis that a supernatural entity brought about something in the observable world never has had any explanatory value at all, because the term "supernatural" has no discernible reference, because no mechanism is given or can be described as to HOW such an entity would do something like that. Furthermore - we have all the reason there can be for arguing causal closure of the physical world, so for all we have reason, no "outside" interference is even potentially possible. Add to that the idea of a non-spatial/temporal entity, much less an AGENT, as in something with a mind and intentionality has never been explained and - it has been forcefully argued - actually contradictory... and you can see how the God hypothesis never has any explanatory value, not even potential explanatory value.
Lost amid all the recent discussions of intelligent design is one simple basic fact: The human species isn't intelligently designed.
When you get right down to it, from an engineering perspective, the design of the human mind (and for that matter the human body) is a mess.
Take, for instance, human memory, and the trouble we often have in remembering even the most basic facts -- where did we put our keys? Where did we park our car? Because our brains so often blur our memories together. Human eyewitness testimony is often no match for even a low-rent surveillance camera, and memory can fail even in life-or-death circumstances.
Imperfections riddle the body as well; put the human spine in the horizontal position and it can easily handle upwards of 400 pounds of weight upon it. However, put it in the vertical position and it wobbles about causing undue pressure to the discs. Obviously, it was designed for creatures walking on all fours. Any physiologist will tell you this. The human spine supports 70% of our body weight with a single column, where four might have distributed the load better (greatly reducing the incidence of debilitating back pain), and the human retina is installed backwards, with its array of outgoing neural fibers coming out of the front rather than the back, saddling us with an entirely needless blindspot and focusing problems that are not found in most of the other animals on this planet, with the exception of many primates.
Why do we have a tailbone, spleen, and appendix that serve no purpose?
The only theory that can really make sense of these needless imperfections is Darwin's theory of natural selection, which holds that humans (and all other life forms) evolve through a blind process known as descent-with-modification, in which new life forms represent random modifications of earlier life forms -- with no central overseer to guide the process. Such a random process can, over time, lead populations of creatures to become more adapted to their environment, but it is also vulnerable to getting stuck, in the sort of good-enough-but-not-perfect solutions that mathematicians call local maxima.
A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for government work" but far from perfect.
Darwin, and the objective evidence around us, gives a natural explanation that indicates poorly-designed features should be common in biology. The theory of intelligent design, in contrast, has a serious problem explaining such phenomena: an intelligent designer that could perceive the whole landscape could just pick us up and move us to higher ground. That this has never happened is a clear testament both to the wisdom of the theory of natural selection and the implausibility of intelligent design.
Interesting statement. By my count, it appears 11 times. And, it is used exactly in the context of how evolutionists tend to use it. The first time in chapter 7, where it says
I assume that you do not "believe in Evolution". But, do you truly believe that you "have a clue what" you are talking about?
In fact, it is simply the case that the theory of evolution, generically speaking, already existed as Darwin wrote. It is his own theory of evolution that he writes about -- the "theory of evolution through natural selection" (from Chapter 10).
QED.
The Theory of Evolution is not compatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Why not? Earth isn't a closed system. For one thing, it's pretty much powered by sunlight.
Since no one in recorded history has died and come back to talk about it, I really think these kind of movies are sort of pointless.
That's not to say that curiosity about our beginnings is pointless.
Ebert, what are the best movies that set out to discover, but do not have an agenda? I want to see those.
I just see too many debates and neither side really knows for sure, just so just keep your mouth closed really or try to work together and come up with a blended view.
Ebert: I was observing about 250 comments ago that none of Werner Herzog's many, many documentaries seem to have a political agenda, but are essentially inspired by curiosity. His latest one, "Encounters at the end of the World," was just released on DVD. There's also a new DVD of three of his less-known shorter docs.
Here's an interesting detail from the Panda's Thumb, an evolutionist web site:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/03/egnoring_the_da.html
So if evolution is the cornerstone of medicine, that means that only 78% of doctors accept the cornerstone of medicine, and 15% reject it.
If we were talking about a testable scientific theory with real applications, this would be impossible. Imagine if 15% of electricians rejected the idea of electricity, or 15% of aerospace engineers rejected the theory of gravity?
But if 15% of percent of the doctors you've visited in your life outright reject evolution and yet somehow go on treating patients, how can anyone say that evolution is the cornerstone of medicine?
Ebert: Evolution is not the cornerstone of medicine. Who said it was? I have had four surgeries by three surgeons in the last two years, and each was chosen because of experience and expertise. I don't have the faintest idea what they think about evolution.
vg: "Liberals can't stand it when a conservative makes a point about anything, and they have to argue and argue and cry/stomp their feet like a child if any opinions differ from theirs. Conservatives for the most part, don't care, and would rather liberals just leave them alone (hence the definition of the word)....Everyone knows Ben Stein is an intelligent, reputable person who deserves an opinion just as liberals do."
It has been my experience with the religious right (having grown up conservative and fundamentalist, my experience is deep) that quite the opposite is true. How often have I heard a fundamentalist rain down fire and brimstone at anyone who would dare question the literal interpretation of the Bible, suggest that homosexuals did not "choose" their orientation, or -- God forbid -- vote for a Democrat. When I escaped that sheltered world and found decent, honorable people where I was told I would find condemned, amoral heathens, I became drawn to a more inclusive ideology. What always struck me about the religious right is their belief that "right" is exactly what they are on every topic. "We're right and everybody else is going to hell." I just could no longer stomach the arrogance of those who would deign to speak for God.
Of course Mr. Stein is entitled to his opinion. He is entitled to make a film designed to persuade. But as any high-school debate club member knows, you must be prepared to support your opinion with facts. As a former world-class speechwriter, Mr. Stein should be embarrassed for making unsupported claims (e.g. the link between Darwinism and Nazism). I have the same problems when Michael Moore does the same things. Just because I may be more inclined to agree with a point of view, does not mean I do not want facts to support that view.
Also, I can't stand it when someone says "liberals do this" or "conservatives do that" as if all those in one group think with one mind. That only exposes your own narrow-minded thinking and reflects poorly on the group you represent.
Reply to: I saw this documentary as an interesting viewpoint--While I may not necessarily agree 100% with the viewpoint, I don't see why both ideas can't be taught in school or why various theories can't be explored. Why can't God and Creationism exist alongside Evolution? Why does God have to be completely disregarded in science...
Two reasons.
(1) God does not exist. If you explore the idea of "God" in a science class, you will always come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a God. That's why Christianity built churches, so the voice of science never speaks too clearly. Of course, if you take your science from comic books distributed by churches (as most Creationists do) you might not come to the Correct Answer.
(2) Our constitution places religion in a unique category:
Reply to: Jefferson's intent in 'Wall of Separation" policy, was to remove "religious readings" from public schools, and to insulate our government becoming theocratic. The fear of theocracy was a carry over from our English roots.
Let me say "con game" again. The con game is to PRETEND that Intelligent Design is NOT a religious belief.
The Intelligent Design crowd says, "We are so smart, we use the exact language of science, which means there's no way that you can prove it's not a religious belief." And the court is Kitzmiller said, "The law is smarter than you believe. We can tell the difference between a scientific theory and a con game, and Intelligent Design is a con being pulled by a small group within organized religion, for the purpose of brainwashing children..."
Organized religion pleads, "Can you please say there might be a God?" And Atheists simply refuse to give in to the con and teach a FALSE answer. If there was a God, there would be evidence. It's NOT there.
Reply to: Intelligent Design, as an adjunct hypothesis to evolutionary processes (rather than a theory at this time), is certainly not religion, a straw man attack that is fading fast. It is a secular, scientific and viable alternative to totally undirected processes defined in the current evolutionary synthesis.
Intelligent Design IS a religious belief. It's even more dishonest than Christianity.
If you notice, the Atheists on this blog are glad to discuss Intelligent Design. After a great deal of study, there is one Correct Answer. Our history, going back ~ 4 billion years, does not support the theory of an Intelligent Designer. We're also glad to talk about race. If you shave a chimp, you get... a white chimp. If anything, dark skin might be a mutation that came after chimps lost some hair... but if you take your science from a comic book, you say things like "black people are closer to our animal ancestors." Every time I read a comment like that, I lose even more respect for the Intelligent Design crowd. Consider the possibility that the earlier the break with the chimp line, the more time to grow as humans? So, an earlier break would argue for a more advanced... but even that is wrong. The process of mutation is random. Saying "an event happened earlier in time" has nothing to do anything. When I watch Asian people, I often try to imagine their ancestors, and how their ancestors were different than MY ancestors. Better behaved is about the only one I can come up with. Our DNA is similar enough that we can produce offspring.
If you go down the FALSE path of an Intelligent Designer, you have to allow for a God designing Asians, Africans, and Caucasians. That's when you wind up with Hitler's philosophy that "Providence" had chosen him to create the Aryan Nation. But if you go with Evolution, there were three large groups of chimps who didn't like each other, and they moved to different neighborhoods where their children wouldn't be tempted to interbreed.
Intelligent Design is a religious belief. Seriously, that's ALL it is. You have to spend some time with it, because it LOOKS and SOUNDS like science, but it isn't. It's a Con Game. If you take a serious look at the evidence for evolution, there's NOTHING that supports an actual design. Natural Selection is only the appearance of a design, but it's like pouring a glass of milk blindfolded. All the predictable mistakes happened.
I've read some of the comments but not seen the movie. I've not seen any of Michael Moore's films, either. I do read Roger's reviews often and love them.
Roger, the treatment of film content does seem glaringly inconsistant between Moore's and Stein's, correlating with your stance on the issues. It's sometimes hard as a reader to separate your views on the film from your views on the science or the politics. I feel betrayed when the latter pokes through when I think I am reading a film review. You could argue that it's your soapbox and rightly so, but I would argue for correct labeling of the product.
Leaving the contentious and baggage-laden word "God" behind, I sometimes use the acronym TWIG (That Which Is Greater than us) instead. It is a scientifically acceptable idea that the laws of the universe were not always as they are. That directly implies that they could be different and that life might not exist. Whatever is responsible for the way things are, I call TWIG. And that is absolutely all I can say about TWIG.
In discussions such as these, I usually observe that the ideas expressed by both sides about TWIG are not remotely large enough. If they were, there would be much less arguing about it.
"Ebert: Intelligent Design specifically excludes religion (i.e., God) in its formulations. It is an attempt to circumvent the laws separating church and state by reformulating the theory as secular."
Or ID proponents legitimately believe that second-order questions regarding the nature of the intelligence(s) is beyond the scientific scope of evidence and that other disciplines (philosophy and theology) should be brought to bear once you conclude intelligence was needed.
Stop believing everything you've heard and take ID proponents at their word.
The simple fact is, what happened between those two states, "non-life" and "life", is not biological evolution. I once had this same argument, and it was long, and drawn out, and there was an incredible amount of passion put into it, with a person at the time known only to me as deaddog. The difference between he and you was that he was very knowledgeable on the question of what happens between those two states, known as abiogenesis and biological evolution. And when he finally and reluctantly agreed to the premise that abiogenesis and biological evolution were two different things, he did so with great reluctance. I think he did not like me sidelining his specialty, but I made it clear that tentative abiogenesis did not equate to the nearly superb theory of biological evolution, and he, with protest registered, agreed. Little did I know that he was in fact a Great Expert on the subject, and is now a renowned professor of cellular and molecular biology at UT Austin. And he knows way more about both subjects than you and I put together.
The point is: answer your question however you wish. Clay crystals and lightning, thermal vents, panspermia, little green men, or the supernatural creator of your choice, or any combination thereof. No matter which one you choose, or what the ultimate truth turns out to be, biological evolution does not change, is not shaken, and exists and explains in exactly the same way. To put it simply, evolution assumes the existence of life (or at least, reasonably complex replicating organics), and goes from there. It does not explain, as so many people who know so little about it believe, the origin of the universe, matter from no-matter, galaxies, stars, the geology of earth, the age of rocks, or even the origin of life. Biological evolution does not explain nor even seek to explain any of them. You see, creationists tend to hate astrophysics and geology as well, but saying that sounds ignorant. So they call them evolution too. But they, along with abiogenesis, aren't.
As a great thinker once shouted, Eureka. In this case, you have it!Roger,
In case you're not aware, there are a countless number of political conservative/liberal blogs out there creating several armies of folks who view everything through a political lens. I know for a fact that many of the conservative ones view you as a "liberal who is just a movie reviewer" and dismisses anything you say outright. If you've read through all of your comments (i haven't! but i skimmed for your bold responses), then you've probably seen the conservative ones. They say things like "Hey Rahj, stick to thumbing your opinion on motion pictures and leave a certain topic alone."
You've rightfully ignored them. I have read through many, many of your reviews, essays, and interviews. You have opened up the art of film for me and enriched both my film watching experiences and by extention my life. I've tried to extend this gift to people I've known, and share (as non-obnoxiously-as-possible) your thoughts with my wife to help her grow.
The human condition is definately being extensively explored in the art of cinema, and I wonder how the above hypothetical person (i wish they were only hypothetical) could look down both on films and film reviewers. I suspect they enjoy mindless movies or ones that echo thier own thoughts. I doubt they've been challenged spiritually or mentally by a movie and maybe thier glossy expectations will prevent them from doing so. When people try to downplay your profession or your contribution to film, it only shows thier shallow ignorance. (there is way too much praise in this post)
Also, having read a lot of your work, I have a pretty good idea of your beliefs. I don't think you ever spell them out anywhere, but most of your negative responses above might be avoided if you did. However, i guess if someone was in the habit of judging who was and what constituted a "true christian" they'd have no problem dismissing you or anyone. ("a true christian is anyone who disagrees with my specific measurements, with the exception of me because those supressed doubts are mulligans").
If i had to wrap this up, I would say the tendancy of people to see the world only in black and white leads to the most closed and hostile discussions i have ever seen or heard. As you can see from a good amount of the posts above, when the discussion is about something blue (or lilac even) the people with black and white views approach it incorrectly, but are generous enough to supply you with thier idea of what your ideas are.
I appreciate your trying to help people see how shaky most of our foundations are, and to help us truly appreciate what we can rely on.
Well, it appears everyone has an opinion doesn't it?
Me, I am a christian and a conservative and very scientific minded and have some of my own...here is one:
Why do so many consider creationism and evolution to be separate....because they are...period. And, I think they are both correct.
One tracks the creation of life...period.
One tracks the evolution of life...period.
Where in evolution is the creation of life taken into account...nowhere, that's where! It only addresses where evolution takes an existing life-form.
So, what evolutionists really follow is the progression of life, but it had to start somewhere...life cannot evolve out of non life, that is outside the definition of evolution. It is like tracking the changes made to a model of automobile and starting with the year before the first model year..."the changes made between the 1954 Astro-Cruiser Diamond and the 1955 model are a lot", when the first model was the 1955. You cannot track the changes in a life-form until there is a life-form.
From the creationist side and the Bible, God is said to make man out of earth...why could that not have meant God gave the "spark of life" to some earth and that evolved into man. The Bible is not necessarily written in literal terms...most would agree very little is written in literal terms in it.
I conclude that creationism and evolution both exist and are as separate and analogous as starting a car and driving that car. They're both part of the bigger picture of getting from point A to point B and points beyond...perhaps.
I haven't seen the movie, but even though you don't give it a star rating your review trashes it. Your main complaint seems to be how biased it is. Now while I'm a firm believer in evolution, I find it funny how you trash this movie, but give Religulous (which I have seen) 3.5 stars. Religulous argues that organized religion is going to literally destroy the world.
Now while a critic is entitled to his or her opinion, your personal bias is showing quite blatently. Whatever happened to reviewing movies on a basis of who they are going to appeal too?
Ebert: I would expect it to be biased. My main complaint was that Stein enlisted the Holocaust to support his argument.
Roger,
I was watching some video not too long ago of people speaking out against evolutionary theory at a (now infamous) school board meeting in Cobb County, Georgia in 2003. The ignorance was fascinating as parent after parent stepped up to the podium and stated for the record that "evolution is just a theory" and that we should be open-minded, etc. as to the "true" origin of man (the Biblical interpretation, of course) As a mere 7th grader, I was taught the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and some of the methods by which to test and establish them; the embarassment I felt for these ignorant propagandists was quickly eclipsed by my anger at the equally ignorant school board members who, under the guise of equal time and fairness actually allowed this matter to proceed up to the federal level. Thank you for your well thought-out movie review along with the opportunity to vent.
Long live James Randi!!!
This is to vg (December 5, 2008 2:23 PM), who said, "Liberals can't stand it when a conservative makes a point about anything, and they have to argue and argue and cry/stomp their feet like a child if any opinions differ from theirs. Conservatives for the most part, don't care, and would rather liberals just leave them alone (hence the definition of the word)."
Seems to me like both sides (liberals and conservatives) want their voice to be heard, hence conservatives even "[making] a point about anything" in the first place. It is unfortunate that there exists such a thing as a disagreement, but unless conservatives truly "don't care, and would rather liberals just leave them alone," then there will always be a disagreement. Therefore, conservatives obviously DO care, and want the liberals to agree with them, otherwise conservatives such as yourself would never see it necessary to voice an opinion. Just as the liberals care and want conservatives to understand their views, conservatives would actually be really foolish to not care, and just expect the world to govern itself according to their views without serious effort on their part. Hence, the word "conservative" as distinct from "liberal," and hence the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of the world, whose mission is to CARE and use freedom of speech to demean and caricature liberals. I don't know who you think needs to grow up, but your idea that conservatives are so obviously right and that they don't care and just want liberals to leave them alone is really immature because it throws out any opportunity for civilized dialogue, which is how conflicts get resolved or, eventually, two sides just agree to disagree. Also, it's just plain wrong. Conservatives do care.
Secondly, Ebert's review was neither anti-Christian, anti-conservative, nor anti-republican. Ebert himself is agnostic, raised Catholic, he is a liberal, and I'm guessing a democrat. But that's his right and none of these were mentioned explicitly or implicitly in his blog/review. His entire review dissected the falsehoods and fallacies in Expelled, and of ID, of which there were many. If Expelled were to take an objective standpoint and show that ID does have scientific merit, I'm sure the world would have its socks knocked off. But as it is, Expelled used manipulative tactics, lies, fallacies, and just all around shady tactics, to make it look like evolutionists were evil and ID supporters were the noble rogues standing in the face of a big enemy. The reality is that ID is not a credible scientific theory of any value to science, and if you were a scientist you would understand this. This blog entry was not anti-religious in any way, and the fact that you took it to be not only that, but also anti-conservative and anti-republican shows that you are really just projecting your own fabricated ideas of what Ebert thinks onto this review rather than actually taking a good look at it and what it says. Do you have anything to say in defense of ID or any counter-arguments to Ebert's very logical, well-thought arguments against ID and Expelled? Or do you just want to whine about how liberals whine about conservative/religious/republican viewpoints?
One more thing: "Everyone knows Ben Stein is an intelligent, reputable person who deserves an opinion just as liberals do. If you can't stand the idea of that, then maybe you were either raised incorrectly or you need to grow up a bit."
Intelligent, reputable and manipulative. Are you just naive, or do you support his exploitative tactics in Expelled? Some of the smartest people (lawyers, like Ben Stein, documentary filmmakers, like Michael Moore) can spin an argument any way they like and make it look good to those who agree with them. As a matter of fact, it surprises me that Ben Stein, as intelligent as he is, chose to be a spokesperson for the cause of ID in the first place. I admit, I was waiting for him to come out and say, "Just kidding. Of course ID is stupid. But I really had you all going there, didn't I?" And then go on to point out each fallacy and clever sleight of hand used in his movie. But that hasn't happened, and so for whatever reason, Ben Stein remains a hero to the small minority of Americans who support ID, probably because ID has never had a spokesperson who can be regarded as intelligent by the rest of society.
I ask again: do you know more about science than Ebert, or at least enough to have a mature, reasonable dialogue with him based on point-counterpoint exchanges, or are you just mad that ID is obviously baloney and has been smashed to pieces again and again by people who take science seriously and know what they are talking about?
I have found the pro ID/Creationist posts to be simultaneously laughable, pathetic, and woefully bereft of fact. They seem to employ four basic strategies:
1. Claim that as a belief, ID/Creationism is just as valid as evolution;
2. Posit that since evolution is a “theory,” the “theory” of ID/Creationism is just as valid and should be taught alongside evolution;
3. Claim that the dismissive attitude of science toward ID/Creationism is evidence of a grand conspiracy to keep the truth of ID from the general public;
4. Á la Stein, link Darwin and Hitler, and by implication, anyone who believes in evolution and Hitler.
To answer the above, in order:
1.
As a belief, ID/Creationism is as valid as evolution. For that matter, so is the belief that we are all descended from the Great Radish In The Sky. However, beliefs should never be taught as valid alternatives to established scientific fact, even if the Great Radish instructs you do so.
2.
As Mr. Ebert so eloquently explained above, this particular bit of illogic conflates two entirely different definitions of the word “theory.” The vernacular usage of the word is not interchangeable with the precise scientific meaning. In this regard, their "theory" does not meet the most basic criteria needed to be regarded as scientific theory.
3.
This claim is rather like stating that because the press will not adequately investigate and report that Elvis is actually still alive, it is evidence of their involvement a nefarious coverup. "Since you didn't disprove a negative, it proves our position." This aspect hardly merits further discussion.
The assertion that science will not allow for even the discussion of ID/Creationism is absurd. It is an absolute certainty that anyone able to meet the burden of scientific proof needed for ID/Creationism to be regarded as a valid alternative to Darwin's work would be immortalized in both the realms of science and religion. Such a person would be regarded as one of the greatest intellects in the history of mankind. That sounds like sufficient motivation to overcome any intransigence on the part of the established scientific community, and yet, not a single piece of evidence has emerged. Why?
4.
In this stunning flourish of illogic, we are told that by supporting evolution, we unwittingly become foot soldiers in Hitler’s posthumous continuation of the Final Solution. This is somewhat akin to stating:
a. Hitler was a racist, murderous dictator;
b. Hitler had facial hair, therefore;
c. those with facial hair are racist, murderous dictators.
We could just as easily state that, “since Timothy McVeigh was a Baptist, all Baptists support murder and domestic terrorism.”
Aside from these tactics being intentionally misleading, bizarre, and representative of the highest order of intellectual sloth, none of them have been accompanied by even a single fact that would support a “scientific theory” of ID.
The basic tenets of Darwin’s work have withstood 150 years of rigorous intellectual challenge. It is up to the ID/Creationists to offer enough compelling evidence of their “theory” to convince the scientific community as to its validity. The ID/Creationist crowd would have that essential feature of empiricism reversed: they demand that science should disprove their “theory,” even though they offer no supporting evidence in the first place. They demand intellectual parity, but will not allow for questioning the premise of “God did it.”
ID/Creationism is a salve for tiny minds which find it necessary to cling to myths and superstitions. We can no longer afford to indulge these mental pygmies their frothy mouthed conceits. At a time when threats to our country come in the form of biological weapons, nuclear nasties of all kinds and attacks upon our electrical grid, chemical factories, and our food and water supplies, etc., do we really want an entire generation of doctors, nurses, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and researchers who were trained in the “facts optional” method of scientific inquiry? Is it any wonder why our high school students have fallen behind in math and science test scores in comparison to those of most other nations?
We live in the 21st Century, not the 17th. Isn’t time we consigned this moronic argument to the dustbin of history?
It's official. I've gone blind. Can we all now agree to just shut the hell up on this? Somehow I doubt it. Gods above, how I hate religious wackos.
Sean C., I'm glad you wrote back because I thought you were serious about the dolphins. Understandable confusion, considering some of the freaks (I'm talking to you, Paul) who posted here.
And curse you Vijay for linking me to that long "Wired" article. You'll be hearing from my optometrist.
Roger, you're still the greatest. I'm going to write a strongly worded letter to all the jackasses who were nasty to you. Where's Chaz's knee-breaking Chicago gangsters when you need them?
P.S. My girlfriend's birthday was Dec. 3--does that count?
Ebert: Why not? She's in the room, isn't she?"
Science is an element of the ultimate architecture/design.
Roger:
In recent years, I've heard people claim that you have been more forgiving of films than you were in the 1970's. I think that isn't the case. Let me state it in the converse... I think this blog has given you the literary freedom to thoroughly examine an issue without having to filter it down to 500 words or to a star or thumbs rating. I read your comments regarding the change in AP guidelines for entertainment writing Needless to say, having listened to Jim Lehrer speak last year in Austin about the decline of journalism, I am not amused by their decision.
To that end, you haven't lost your edge. I think your wit, your perceptiveness, are razor sharp as ever. I haven't seen the ID/Creationist movement receive so concise (yes, concise; consider Stephen Jay Gould's 1600-page Structure of Evolutionary Theory) and adept a drubbing as Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, or biologist Douglas Futuyma's Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution.
I hope you'll pardon me for saying this because I do not mean to presume, but reading your editorials as of late I get the impression that staring the down the barrel of the gun of cancer, and living to tell about it, has given you motivation to become more vocal on a number of intellectual matters outside of film... I find having struggled with Cerebral Palsy myself, enduring several surgeries, I have lived through too much to sit by and watch the planet get dumber by the minute.
I want to thank you for putting your hat in the ring, so to speak. There's a certain poetry that comes alive... Your writings are always enjoyable. Every one of them... even the reviews I don't agree with (I like The Usual Suspects but as I conceded when Kael tore apart my beloved 2001, so too must I concede you have well-founded arguments. But the two I have enjoyed most are this piece, and your public thrashing of Conrad Black.
After reading it, I told my wife, "The last thing on earth you want to do is start a war of words with someone who has spent the last thirty years mastering the art of verbal evisceration. Invariably, you will lose." And lose he did... So too did Ben Stein's "argument", if it can be called that, disintegrate before our eyes on this very page.
Thank you again, and do not ever stop writing... even if you have nothing to say. Then write, "I have nothing to say." My english professor suggested that in a free writing exercise... and, fortunately, I have never found the world in such a state of inactivity so as to have absolutely no opinion to write of it.
Sometimes I should have nothing to say, because my loquaciousness is a flaw, not a virtue. But when Roger Ebert has nothing left to say, it will mean there is nothing left to think about. That day will only come if people like Ben Stein succeed in their ultimate goal to rid the world of critical thought.
So don't ever put down the pen and pad.
Liberal Facism, a book by Jonah Goldberg, makes a compelling case that facism and liberalism are intertwined. Hitler simply added racism to liberal-facism. The root of modern evil is man centered ideas such as Hitlerism/Communism/Progressivism-Fascism. How many people in the 20'th century alone were killed in the name of these ism's?
Darwin did inspire the Progressive movement in both Europe and America. The notion that Science could perfect man is at the center of liberal progressive theology. It is also at the center of Eugenics movements. Those movements influenced and beget Facism and communism and the desire to break the older "god centered natural rights" view of the world.
Personally, I think that evolution is a pretty well estabilished mechanism for perfecting God's creatures. If you were a designer, wouldn't you like your creations to be able to evolve to a changing environment?
This is the quote from Ebert that I find wrong, and indicates to me that he is not thinking deeply on this subject:
Ebert: What in particular do you find wrong with that quote?
"...ID is a simple appeal to personal incredulity, not to mention ridiculously arrogant (I can't imagine how it happened, therefore neither can anyone else!)"
That's seems to be exactly the case. I had a conversation with a creationist, that I dramatized a bit, but went pretty much like this, in actuality.
Creationist: How could all this be possible unless god made it?
Me: well, I don't know. There are scientists...
Creationist: There are things that can never be explained. I
I win this argument.
Me: Argument?
Creationist: Well, if god didn't create the universe, what did--what came before the universe?
Me: Well, how can something come from nothing? Can't things
exist without some kind of nothingness--can't things
have existed forever?
Creationist: God.
Me: What?
Creationist: God, Shut up!
Me: Was that blasphemy or were you saying God exists forever?
Creationist: I'm saying God is unknowable, so, shut up!
Me: Then how do you know for certain that God created
everything?
Creationist: I don't believe in God...just that he created
the universe!
Me: So, basically, you know something I don't...being an
atheist that believes in God?
Creationist: I don't believe in God, but I do know he created
everything.
Me: I know everything, too!
and then I danced around like a retard going "la, la , la la"
I am not a scientist. I am an Engineer. I have, however, read a handful of science books over the years.
I believe in a higher power/supreme being/"God".
Shove it up your Black Hole Gilbert!
From Peter:
Thank you, Roger Ebert.
Ben Stein is on video saying, "Science leads to killing people" In one quick sentence he has revealed his extreme and disturbed views. Ben Stein is not worthy of much more consideration.
Ebert: Actually, it does. It also leads to saving, healing, and comforting people, feeding them, sheltering them, employing them, and giving Ben Stein something to misunderstand.
You could say the same thing about religions, by the way.
The Apologists can defend, justify, rationalize, pick and choose all they want.
But when your "documentary" includes the invoking of the worst horrors of the holocaust to direct hatred and anger and blame, not towards Adolf Hitler and the Nazis responsible, but towards a completely unrelated Naturalist who lived and died nearly fifty years before the Reich, for no other reason than that he founded a scientific belief you don't agree with . . . and you actually belong to a group of which the Holocaust was meant to eradicate . . . I daresay that's either indicative of mental sickness or complete moral corruption.
Oh, but I forget. ID-ists are calm, rational debaters who would never resort to such tennous and reactionist arguments.
Mr. Ebert,
I have not seen nor do I plan to see Ben Steins movie and I believe in Evolution but if the point of Steins film was to show that evolutionist arrogantly dismiss creationism this blog proves him right.
Talk about misusing a scientific finding Ebert...
Here is what you wrote:
"The assumption of "Expelled" is that no one could possibly explain how Prof. Monty Python's molecules and their joy-riding crystals could possibly produce life".
That is a lame, inaccurate synopsis. The assumption of "Expelled" is NOT that some evolutionary steps "can be observed", but rather that the amount of steps needed to produce life could not have occurred given the 18 billion year age of the universe.
And here is what the scientific article you allude to actually says:
"The structures allowed the scientists to identify exactly how the new function evolved. They found that just seven historical mutations, when introduced into the ancestral receptor gene in the lab, recapitulated the evolution of GR's present-day response to cortisol. They were even able to deduce the order in which these changes occurred, because some mutations caused the protein to lose its function entirely if other "permissive" changes, which otherwise had a negligible effect on the protein, were not in place first.
These permissive mutations are chance events. If they hadn't happened first, then the path to the new function could have become an evolutionary road not taken," Thornton said. "Imagine if evolution could be rewound and set in motion again: a very different set of genes, functions and processes might be the outcome."
Notice that 7 chance mutations had to occur, and beyond that more permissive mutations were needed. All these are merely a small step in humans being able to process a stress hormone. What are the odds of these and countless other mutations actually occurring in 18 billion years? THAT is the idea behind intelligent design, and that is what "Expelled" is referring to.
Thank you for this brilliant blog. Everything I wanted to say about the film but couldn't quite vocalize. This film saddened me, more than anything, because I've always really liked and respected Ben Stein.. saying this film was a mistake for him to make would be an understatement. The only thing I came away with as a central argument was "You can't prove it's NOT true." Weak weak weak. Spaghetti Monster anyone?
When I first heard of this movie, then subsequently saw its trailers and read various articles surrounding its release, as a Christian, I found it took a hard turn down a wrong path, regardless of its intentions.
The theory of Darwinism remains an interesting idea to me. That's my take on it. However, I had to
sit and be amazed that, not only did you respond to this documentary, you posted it in your
blog, full well knowing the bees nest of buzzing activity that would come from doing so.
I'm sure you're sad that you haven't gotten quite as enthusiastic a response over your fantastic
rice cooker blog post (which, btw, thanks to you, I've been taking serious looks at some, alongside some new
crock pots with clamps to keep the lids down for spill-proof travelling! (sigh) One day...).
Well, going through this thread, and reviewing most of its responses, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing
on a few points from both sides of the fence marked ID vs. Darwin. But two things trouble me:
1) Expelled did not invite an open discussion with the evolutionists in a way that was sensible and
respectful for both sides of the table. It was, in fact, rude. I seriously doubt God would've been please
with the outcome of this film on that point. Talking is fine. It very well should be encouraged between
both camps, but my goodness, presidential campaigns never had so awful a tack as Expelled did.
As a Christian, that was very discouraging to me. Such behavior closes doors of discussion,
not open them.
2) I find my expectations to be low that such a respectfully delivered and open discussion from
both sides will ever truly take place, as it is all too customary to have it treated like a media circus.
I've read, listened to and witnessed a few, and I shake my head how often they'll dance around each other
while never getting to the heart of things. I don't care for opinions with the attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong!"
written all over their faces. Speak plainly and make your case without accusatory tones. I don't care
about seeing a fight. If I want to see a fight, I'll watch HBO Boxing. It's not about being entertained,
it's about learning. If you're entertained along the way, fine. But the crux of it is the learning for me.
Oddly enough, a rare case in point of a respectful discussion was in a YouTube vid I saw with Dawkins
talking to a bishop in England. They treated each other with the utmost respect, and talked in a pleasant
matter-of-fact way that I found refreshing. Sadly, not too many know of it. Christians given to subjectivity
would prefer a knockdown, drag-out fight. I can understand that subjectivity, but I'm loathed to condone it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ0WinCWtLs
Thank you for posting this Roger. I don't agree with most evolutionary suppositions.
But at the very least, it keeps us talking. Otherwise, we'll never learn.
God bless you Mr. Ebert.
John
Covington, GA
Ebert:
I was responding to Quinton, who saidI would wager that there are quite a few great minds in medicine who have absolutely no idea that their discoveries and advances are due to the theory of evolution. And, as you stated, the doctors who treat us don't seem to depend on it either. Unusual, if everything they know and do stems from it.So my question is, if the theory is truly backed up by a mountain of evidence, why is that when you ask people to cite it, they respond with ridiculous claims like that one?
The main distinction between evolutionary theory and ID is that one is testable and based on empirical data (evidence), and one is not. There seems to be a number of people who feel that if they proclaim that no evidence exists to support evolutionary theory, that somehow makes it so. There are literally hundreds of thousands of studies across numerous biological disciplines that support principles and mechanisms of evolution through empirical data. Of course this does not make evolution "The Truth", scientists never proclaim to know "The Truth", but these studies support and corroborate hypotheses of evolutionary mechanisms.
If you would like to read some first hand evidence, I implore you to "google scholar" some interesting evolutionary topics, such as coalescence, homology, phylogenetics, endosymbiotic theory, biogeography, hox genes, developmental biology, and genetics, just to name a few. If reading actual scientific studies is too much trouble, there are also a ton of introductory biology textbooks that do a great job of summarizing evidence and studies that support evolutionary principles and mechanisms. If anyone knows any studies based on empirical evidence that supports ID which includes testable, repeatable procedures and methods, I would love to hear about them. If ID wants to be taken seriously by scientists, then it has to be evaluated under the scientific method, and currently ID belongs in theology, not science, classrooms.
By Anonymous on December 5, 2008 11:36 AM
That would be any entity capable of tweaking genomic coding, and possibly more than one, given the time periods. They could be spirit entities (which do exist), or others we know nothing about. Detecting design isn't the same as identifying designers.
Scientists often make the illogical claim that since the designer, if existent, is supernatural, it is outside of their purview. But they in making this assumption, are borrowing from the religious viewpoint the designer must be omni-(x3), and therefore supernatural. But there is no scientific evidence of supernaturality, a word with many nebulous definitions.
Design activities could just as well be carried out by entity(s) within the natural world, but of a construct different from a biologic form. You and I may be of a similar construct, inhabiting physical bodies as 'vehicles' to be able to partake in terrestrial life.
That raises another question (and answer). When did non-life become life?
Answer: Each time a spirit body enters a physical body, probably just prior to birth. So in essence, life itself is NOT the biologic body, by itself.
In any event, the question of 'who' is irrelevant, as is the 'infinite regression' arg from philosophers and skeptics dating to Plato's time. Accepting the fact that He (or they) prefer to remain anonymous, allows 'belief' to be a faith based issue, and avoids a form of intimidation that would likely ensue otherwise. It's a component of fee will (enterprise) as well.
Then why pursue ID at all, you might ask? I would say that confirmation would simply lower the bar to faith, but would still allow you the freedom of choice. Another point: A designer is not necessarily an overseeing and regulating entity, that requires allegiance. But the central reason to pursue ID is to better understand the mechanism(s) of phylogenetic change, as purely a matter of scientific inquiry. The question of 'who' should not be a question for science to answer.
Popper's requirement of falsification doesn't hold with all theories. How would you falsify the Big Bang theory?
Karl Popper's falsification requirement is not universally accepted by scientists, and for many logical reasons, so the argument that ID is not falsifiable is another straw man attack. The args are too numerous to mention, so go here for the details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Final point regarding gene tweaking, coding alterations, whatever, to alter create a new species. The new species will of course contain most of the same DNA as its progenitor, including chromosomal fusions, so Prof. Kenneth Miller's assertion that human chromosome #2 with displaced telemers is confirmation of biologic ancestry may be correct, but does not rule out a form of genetic engineering to alter species. In fact, it supports a hypothesis of gene tweaking, in that chromosonal anomalies would be passed along.
So I guess you might say that I can, in fact, imagine how it happened.
Thanks for the blog entry, and the debate that has followed. You have granted us a forum for a diverse expression of views here that would never be allowed in a classroom!
Mr. Ebert,
A scientist would tell you to be more careful with what you take to be fact vs. theory. Also, please avoid conflating theories, e.g. creationism and intelligent design, and criticize one for the tenets of the other. Lastly, Hitler was a man of the left. Any honest review of National Socialism shows that it only differed from communism in (small) degrees. It was less left wing than communism, but still way out there on the gauche side of political science. The Nazis, and fascists in general, had (have) a fetish for the priesthood of scientists.
Such carelessness and that from the echo chamber of many of your commentators should be a cause for embarrassment. The comfortable biases of your “well-educated” set cause you to ignore how your assumptions might be wrong and probably blind you to mistakes.
By the way, a growing number of scientists concede that the more you look at it (from the very big to the very small) the more the universe looks like there’s a plan for it somewhere. The question is where and by whom.
And yes, I saw the movie and I liked it.
God speaking. How ya'll doin'? Anyway, I just thought I'd clear up some of the confusion:
Nature progresses via evolution and the superior species' adaptation to an ever-evolving world. Y'see, I'm a curious God, and this quality of evolution found in nature is interesting. How boring would it be if I just zapped everything into existence? I thought you guys would appreciate a constantly evolving world--shows how much I know. Now quit fighting me and go worship me or something.
I saw the film.
There were two scenes I found striking - two men of great faith:
The first, a scientist who was absolutely certain, seemingly based on his study of evolution, that there is no afterlife.
Second was Richard Dawkins whose best explanation for life on earth is the 'seeding' by some intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Hmmm.
Ebert: Let me guess. You picked up that notion somewhere on the web and have not seen the movie, right? Dawkins offers no explanation at all for life on earth. He is too good a scientist to "explain" anything he does not understand. He makes no mention whatsoever of "intelligent life." Ben Stein edits in old sci-fi movie scenes of aliens to ridicule him. What Dawkins clearly says is: It has been suggested by some scientists that living spores arrived on earth via meteors from another world. IF that were to happen, the spores would be the product of evolution on THAT world. Stein does not challenge him on his, and maliciously edits in his aliens after the fact. Then your source for the misinformation deliberately distorts it. Somewhere along the line of transmission from Dawkins, someone deliberately made a decision to lie. You should so inform your source.
Up front I admit to having seen and enjoyed Expelled. While I think it's a flawed film, I've still been taken aback by the venom and ferocity with which it's been attacked by critics, most of whom I assume to be culturally liberal. To me that lends some credence to one of the main points of Expelled -- the intolerance of academics, who, wouldn't you know it, are also predominantly liberal.
Roger, I urge you to read Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism. He truly does make a compelling case for the shared intellectual heritage of liberalism and fascism. Adolf Hitler may not have been a liberal, but he harnessed the power of the state to exercise tyrannical control over its citizens. We’re on an entirely different road in this country today, but in its compassionate and meandering way that road is taking us inexorably closer to an endpoint where we will have surrendered all of our individual autonomy to the state as well. It will be an American tyranny -- the most compassionate, enlightened, and well-intentioned tyranny the world has ever seen -- and it will be run and overseen and refined primarily by liberals.
I understand the anger and contempt you feel towards Ben Stein for his linkage of Darwinism to Hitler and the Holocaust, but “Social Darwinism” is a real force in the world of ideas. Having not read “The Origin of Species” I can’t say this with any authority, but I’m sure Darwin himself would have been horrified by the Nazis’ evil application of his theory to the ordering of peoples and societies. But the connection is there. I personally think Ben may have hurt his own cause by using and illustrating with images so inflammatory an argument against evolution. Maybe he didn’t appreciate the powerful and reflexive resistance he would elicit from those in the audience who were not already on his side. Don’t get me wrong -- I think Ben had a valid point to make. But the manner in which he made it blew up in his face.
The other major mistake Expelled makes is its failure to offer even one example of how a scientific experiment might be designed to prove or disprove ID. I felt sympathy for the researchers Ben interviewed who’d lost their jobs. I think academia is rife with intellectual bigotry and needs to be shaken up. I wasn’t offended at all when Ben used images of the Berlin Wall to illustrate his point about academic parochialism. I think it was quite apt. Was it subtle? No. (Is Michael Moore?) Still, Expelled needed to address the objections of ID foes about falsifiability and it didn’t.
I find no inherent conflict between God and Darwin. To my way of thinking, evolution is God’s handiwork. Darwin was and remains the most successful observer and popularizer of its mechanics. Far too many religious people are emotionally invested in there being an insoluble conflict between the two. But you are too, Roger! :-) You baked it into that whole silly game show schtick of yours at the top of the essay.
Finally, Roger, you fault Ben for including footage of Richard Dawkins being patted with rouge makeup, and properly call attention to it as underhanded editorializing -- one of those illegit bows in the quiver of filmmaking ideologues. Very well. In your review of Fahrenheit 9/11 you praise Michael Moore for doing essentially the same thing. Remember Paul Wolfowitz’s wet comb? “Such scenes are typical of vintage Moore,” you write approvingly. Why is it bad when Ben Stein does it but okay when Michael Moore does it?
You have long been and will always be my favorite film reviewer. Ever since I first discovered you and Gene on PBS in the late 70s I’ve enjoyed your work, your passion, your knowledge, your love of film. Your reviews are a pleasure to read. As my political leanings have changed over the years I’ve learned to steer clear of you when you review certain films, lest my blood boil. But that still leaves me with plenty of opportunities to read and savor your thoughtful opinions. Maybe I should’ve steered clear of “Win Ben Stein’s Mind”. On the other hand, I read the whole article and found it very stimulating, and I notice you did find some good things to say about Expelled.
All the best,
Andy
Ebert: Michael Moore did not ask Paul Wolfowitz to lick his comb and run it through his hair. Stein's director insisted that Dawkins be made up.
I am that rarest of evolved mammals. My politics lean toward the conservative side (though I call myself a Libertarian I tend to support Conservative politicians), but I am unashamedly and unapologetically an Atheist. Thank you for deconstructing this blatant and misinformed propaganda vehicle by someone that, up until this film came about, was someone I had a great deal of respect for. How anyone who makes claims to be an intellectual can accept the ridiculousness of ID I will never be able to understand. Sincere thanks for this column.
Mr. Ebert,
You've asked "Who benefits from the debunking of global warming?" and suggest that it's mostly oil and gas companies, adding that you can think of no good reason for the controversy. As someone who teaches argumentative writing, and who uses global warming debates as fodder for lessons, I'd like to try giving this a fair answer.
Who benefits? The oil and gas companies benefit, as you note. Historically, they have funded a lot of the opposition on this topic, just as environmentally-interested foundations (Ford and Pew come to mind) have bankrolled the consensus side. (However, it should be noted that the oil companies have started backing off from this topic for the most part, distancing themselves lately from the scientists and bloggers who challenge the climate change consensus. The amount of funding they provide for contrarian research right now is pretty low. That said, they still benefit if the skeptics somehow "win.")
More than the oil and gas companies benefit, however: So, too, do their customers. You're probably one of them, at the moment. If clean, cheap, viable alternatives were readily available on the market, consumers could simply switch over without being hurt too terribly. But at the moment, most consumers would simply have to pay more for energy if we started to take seriously the calls for action.
And because energy costs factor into the costs of facilities we visit (like stores) and the goods we purchase (because they are trucked), we're probably looking at stiffer tags in multiple locations.
To the extent that government provides financial inducements (or imposes costs) in order to encourage global warming solutions, those moves also affect taxpayers.
Now, one might argue -- and many do -- that taking action is worth these extra costs. After all, it's the taxpayer and consumer who benefit from breathing clean air, living in temperate climes, and being able to go to the kitchen without swimming. But most of these benefits accrue only if the climate change theories are correct, just as the benefits of inaction only accrue if the theories are wrong. Whatever we decide to do, it's best to be right on the science. It might also be worth noting that most of the people who are aware of the possible costs and who say they're willing to pay them are relatively well off (say, upper-middle class urbanite Americans). Poorer citizens, informed of the costs, might be less happy about it, at least until the benefits of the change are felt and the costs have leveled out a bit. I do not pretend to know how long it would take for either of those outcomes to occur.
The question of who benefits is incompletely answered, however, if we stick simply with direct, economic motivations. There are scientific and philosophical considerations, too: If the skeptics or challengers of the consensus turn out to be right about *anything*, we benefit from improved understanding. On small issues, this has already happened a few times. Skeptic Steven McIntyre keeps catching data errors in charts and historical graphs used in climate change reports. The skeptics like to make a bigger deal out of these errors than is probably warranted (errors happen in any science), but the results each time have been refined, better figures. Some of the skeptics, like MIT's Richard Lindzen, aren't as easily dismissed as, say, Rush Limbaugh. He is a good thing, for two reasons: First, he might be right about water vapor or some other part of the puzzle. Second, to the extent that he challenges the consensus science, and it survives, we can be more confident in the consensus findings. As you yourself have noted (correctly) in this blog, science proceeds in Popperian fashion: We create hypotheses and test them, never completely believing the surviving theories, but tending to prefer the ones that best survive the stress tests. In this vein, intelligent opposition to global warming theories is useful, even when wrong.
Lastly, many of the more recent challenges have been related to quest for solutions, rather than to the factuality of man-made global warming. Instead of just hearing the anti-CO-2, anti-fossil-fuel solutions, for instance, we're starting to hear more from people with ideas for geoengineering, or for adapting to likely changes. Some of the ideas might be silly, but a few look interesting. (Frankly, since many of the most vocal skeptics are economists, rather than natural scientists, I think they're on stronger ground when they talk about the solutions, but one of the nasty side-effects of their earlier debating strategies on other aspects of this discussion is that they've harpooned their own credibility a bit.)
In short, I'm not terribly upset by the existence of these debates (and, to bring us back on topic, I'm not disgruntled by debate over evolution, either). I've seen a few posters here suggest -- whether they intended to do so or not -- that minority opinions aren't worth hearing. I humbly disagree. I think they deserve fair, serious attention. I also, however, think it's worth keeping in mind that they *are* minority opinions, and that there might be good reasons for that.
Thank you, sir, for providing this sounding board.
Sincerely,
GRS
I would like to address the issue of darwinism and the holocaust. It seems like Stein is making a leap in saying that a belief in evolution led to the theory of eugenics in that if there is a link between eugenics and darwinism it lies not in the scientific theory of 'evolution' but in the philosophical theory of 'atheism' most of the followers of which say that darwinism provides sufficient answers to all moral and philosophical questions. While I suppose evolution could lead someone to believe in atheism it is very possible to be an evolutionist and believe in god as many of the posters here have exemplified.
I certainly don't think that atheism will always lead someone to be immoral, or that theists have inherently greater moral character than atheists. However, I do think that are consequences to viewing humans from a purely material perspective. If you don't believe me just listen to Christopher Hitchens' soulless calculating approach when it comes to foreign affairs by comparison Dick Cheney sounds compassionate.
I don't wish to defend Expelled. I have not seen it, but from all I've read it does not appear to promote Creationism as I understand it (Intelligent Design is not a Christian term--you will not find it in the Bible). But since this blog has turned into yet another debate about creationism vs. evolution, I would like to point out both perspectives require faith (the "belief in the trustworthiness of an idea." --Wikipedia) for any one to hold them. None of the evolutionists posting to this blog saw the big bang or any other evolutionary event. They have to believe what others have said about it. The same holds for creationists--if they believe God created the world, all they have to go on is what they have been told. How does anyone know whether or not what they have been told is not just a big lie? The evolutionist will answer this question one way, per his beliefs (his faith), and the creationist another, per his beliefs (his faith). Since evolutionists are so passionate about their beliefs (faith), perhaps they should form their own church and stop proselytizing everyone else who doesn't want to hear them. If looked at that way, the teaching of evolution is an unconstitutional breach of church and state.
Ebert: In that case, let's prohibit the teaching of all subjects in school. Who has seen a molecule, for starters? Or King Lear? Or Abraham Lincoln? Or Jesus? Or Mount Everest? How does anyone know whether or not what they have been told is not just a big lie?
The sheer, overwhelming number of comments in this thread which mention Michael Moore as if it in any way refuted a single point that was made in the original post just proves that we're not doing a good enough job teaching logic and debate in this country.
Ebert: Out of curiosity, I did a search-and-replace operation on this entire thread. The word evolution is mentioned 129 times. The name Michael Moore, 49.
Hi Roger,
Even though it wasn't a typical movie review, I enjoyed your take on "Expelled". I doubt that I will take the time to watch this film, even though I generally respect Ben Stein as being an intelligent man. Usually his opinions are worth a listen, but apparently this time not so much. Aside from your unequalled expertise on film, I also have a high respect for your intellect and your opinions on matters outside the movie theatre.
I feel somewhat discouraged, unfortunately, when I see how these differences in opinion play themselves out. As it has gotten easier to exchange opinions, it seems people are becoming more polarized into different "camps": liberal versus conservative; religion versus science; Democrat versus Republican. We're so willing to pidgeon-hole ourselves based on race, gender, age or any other reason we can justify. Nothing personal, and I'm not singling you out by any means, but you've become predictable. Name the topic, and the general public can predict what you will have to say about it, with more accuracy than a meteorologist with the weather. That's the case with almost everyone today who are lucky to have a public forum. I believe this accurately reflects public opinion in general.
We've become a world of one-dimensional thinkers, particularly with respect to the science/religion wars. My personal view of intelligent 'thought' is that it can be described as existing on a three-dimensional axis representing faith, logic and imagination.
Those who define themselves as 'logical' thinkers rely on observation to direct their thoughts. While it is easier to find concrete examples to support their views, they tend to forget that our scope of observation is so insignificant with respect to the universe that what is taken as proven fact today may turn out to be ridiculously off base in the future.
With so many things yet undiscovered, 'faith'-based thinkers have the convenience of being able to fill in all the holes left by science with quick explanations. The pitfall that they tend to fall into is to think that faith is static, often causing them to defend questionable assumptions.
'Imaginative' thinkers are fortunate to be free of any apparent limitations and are more likely to discover new truths. There's a built-in level of detachment that allows ideas to drift away from being realistic or practical.
Somewhere, these three axis intersect, and finding this point is what I believe to be the purpose of the development of man.
Whatever the reason, we each seem to be clinging to one axis or the other, unwilling to open our minds to other lines of thinking. Changing from 'creationism' to 'intelligent design' is not the product of open thinking; nor is it open thinking to make the assumption that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. The only thing that becomes apparent is that opinions are more apt to line up with a tightly defined ideology than to be examined on their own merits.
Cheers,
Rick Caron,
Ottawa Ontario
P.S.: I couldn't agree with you more when it comes to using the Holocaust to demonize Darwinism. Even if you hypothetically revise history to make Hitler a staunch supporter of evolution, it would not reflect in any way back on Darwin. You don't have to look too hard at history to find cases where something--a concept, a religion, one's race, wealth or whatever--is used to justify unrelated acts.
And finally...bless you and may you continue on the path towards health and recovery, Roger!
The point of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was not so much to prove or promote Intelligent Design (not necessarily Creationism...) as it was to promote balanced thinking in science.
The problem, as Stein points out, is that I.D. is being shut out simply because of what it is.
For example, if I tell you that there is a planet eight galaxies away that is made of foam and you say "No. It's not possible. And you will not pursue this scientifically.", you are effectively cutting off a part of science's fundamental workings.
If you are not allowed to ask questions any more, then what is the point of science?
If we can only ask questions and explore certain avenues of science, then why do we bother with it at all?
Micro-evolution has been observed (that is, change within a species) but Macro-evolution has not (change of one species to another). Evolution has not been proved. However, neither has the theory of Intelligent Design. Many people, worldwide, are working on both of these issues but since Evolution is the prevailing fact, all contenders are being shoved aside.
Ebert: Nobody believes that one species changes into another. Nobody. Where did you get that idea? And who taught you to apply the term macro-evolution incorrectly?
In simplest term, let us assume two groups from the same species, which for geographical reasons are separated over a long period of time. If there is climate change in one those areas, the members of the species best able to survive it will be more successful at reproducing. The logic of evolution favors those individuals and not those who are less successful. Over a long period of time the members of the two groups may gradually take divergent evolutionary paths, very small steps at a time (micro-evolution) to such an extent that members of each group can no longer successfully mate with those of the other (macro-evolution). At the point when that takes place, they are members of two closely related species in the same family, but no longer members of the same species.
I have no desire to cut off the fundamental workings of science. If I support your research into the existence of a planet eight galaxies away that is made of foam, will you explain the methods you use to locate and observe this planet and measure its no doubt peculiar behavior? Are you prepared to defend your findings against challenges from your peers? Will you expect to be granted tenure and allowed to teach your finding in a respected university? Would you produce an ancient Hebrew text asserting the existence of foam planets? Would you expect that to be the authoritative word?
If you are interested, Dawkins has written a brief, elegant, crystal-clear (non-atheist) introduction to the subject, River Out of Eden. It is the best book for the general reader I have found.
http://www.amazon.com/River-Out-Eden-Darwinian-Science/dp/0465069908/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228536010&sr=8-1
Okay, three posts.
AGAIN, FOR CLARIFICATION: As many have written here (including Yours Truly), Intelligent Design has no scientific merit whatsoever. There is no evidence at all for ID. Intelligent Design is the result of the Discovery Institute's "wedge" strategy to get creationism taught in public school classrooms. There is not a vast conspiracy among the scientific community to keep ID from the classrooms of America. Michael Moore has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat. It is taught because of the overwhelming evidence in support of its existence in the past and present.
That being said....
Someone rightfully wrote that I should not criticize the film until I saw it. I had avoided viewing "Expelled" because I read that the makers insinuated that Natural Selection had something to do The Holocaust. I've heard the arguments for this in the past, and just didn't want to hear it again.
But the person who wrote that was right.
So I rented "Expelled" tonight. Never once did Stein actually explain what ID is, or provide any evidence in support of ID. I'm guessing the reason for this is because there isn't any evidence. However, "Expelled" goes beyond the baseless arguments made by creationists. Stein makes the completely and utterly false argument that the science of evolution led to the Holocaust, Communism, Eugenics and (did I hear it right?) abortion.
As I've written before, I am a believer in the teachings of Jesus and I fully accept evolution. I'm also the father of a special-needs, critically-ill child who (I believe) would have been killed by the Nazis. Having seen it, I feel I can now write that "Expelled" is a morally reprehensible, contemptible film.
Ebert: I am also a believer in the teachings of Jesus, as they apply to this world. So, I wager, is Professor Dawkins. Someone once asked Gene Siskel what the Jews believe about Jesus. He said, "We believe he was a wise man who gave us a great deal of good advice."
Although I am certain "Expelled" is a load of garbage, I do have some problems with this entry. Yes, evolution is real, and it is a scientific fact. However, you make it sound like Stein is in the vast minority in his beliefs, whether that was your intention or not I'm uncertain. But I think the majority of people in this country believe in God, and that even if he didn't create humans in their present form at the beginning, he created what we evolved from.
You said that the vast majority of conservatives oppose Intelligent Design. There is absolutely no way that's right. You may have to explain where you are getting that from. I do not disagree with your post as a whole, but this particular point isn't supported at all with evidence. I guess perhaps your definition of what constitutes "intelligent design" is different from mine? Are you saying "intelligent design" directly contradicts evolution? I don't agree with that. I think intelligent design and evolution can co-exist.
I agree with most of your points. Stein is an idiot for thinking creationism should be taught in schools. Only things that can be backed up by fact and proven should be taught in schools. Religion and science, in my view, really can't prove or disprove one another. The very concept of God can't be proven or disproved, it wasn't meant to be. "Faith" by its definition is something that can't and shouldn't be able to be proved, it's something you believe in without needing fact to support it. So how can you teach something that is a belief, and not a proven fact, in schools? You can't. So, end of discussion, Mr. Stein. So yes, I agree with you disputing Stein's logic. But I don't agree with your idea that intelligent design and evolution are completely separate entities. Unless I am misinterpreting you, and if that is the case, please clear it up for me. I do not mean to accuse you of anything if I am just misunderstanding your argument.
Ebert:
You missed the significance of what Dawkins said. He said that perhaps one day scientists could find the signature of design in living things (I don't remember word-for-word) and that if so, aliens could be an explanation.The point is that intelligent design, the theory that design could be detected in things living or otherwise, is dismissed and ridiculed, including by Dawkins. It's one thing to dispute that a cell appears to be designed, but it's another to dismiss the mere notion that design could be detectable as unscientific. And yet Dawkins doesn't flinch from stating that such evidence could exist and might be found one day. How can someone ridicule the notion of science detecting design and then suggest that it might? It's beyond hypocritical. That was the point, right before the flying saucers came in. Yes, the movie sucked. But Dawkins did say it, and within the framework of the debate, it was huge.
"I have no desire to cut off the fundamental workings of science. If I support your research into the existence of a planet eight galaxies away that is made of foam, will you explain the methods you use to locate and observe this planet and measure its no doubt peculiar behavior? Are you prepared to defend your findings against challenges from your peers? Will you expect to be granted tenure and allowed to teach your finding in a respected university? Would you produce an ancient Hebrew text asserting the existence of foam planets? Would you expect that to be the authoritative word? " - Ebert
I'm simply asking for the freedom to explore the possibility that such a planet exists.
I'll admit I've not heard the definition of macro-evolution that you have presented. My understanding has always been that macro-evolution represents the "all things come from one cell" line of thought... Which would seem to be the idea from both of our definitions of macro-evolution either way... *shrugs*
I may check out that book, if only to further my knowledge on the subject.
Thank you for willingness to discuss!
Ebert: Reading it, you may want to employ the words Gene Siskel once used when he was mistaken for me and asked to autograph one of my books: "I disagree with every word in this beautifully-written volume."
Great Gravy you get a LOT of comments. Once you wrote that you read them all, so here goes....
You wrote a terrific opinion, "On the streets where we live" that was posted today at the SunTimes website. I took a peek at the MJ and Gregg blog where you found the Chicago neighborhood photo. I contacted them to tell them about the mention by you and it turns out that MJ and Gregg don't live in Chicago, but were only here visiting last winter and live about 150 miles away in Michigan.
They note after reading your article, "Morning show interviews, late night show spots here we come; 5 minutes of fame. Pretty funny and gave us quite a laugh tonight."
Here's the link to their blog response to your reference: http://mjgreggourworld.blogspot.com/2008/12/roger-and-me.html
What surprises me most is that I think I was the only person who wrote to tell them about this!
Ebert: They live 150 miles from Chicago. I'm guessing St. Joseph / Benton Harbor? I wrote them, thanked them.
Scott Andrews:
I know that plenty of well-qualified people have tried to explain to you why you're wrong, and failed. I want to ask you if you've ever studied any science, especially life science, especially evolutionary life science, at the college level.
I have. I was a physics major at Harvard in the 70's and from 1998-2002 I went back there as a Special Student affiliated with the Graduate Psych Department and took 20 bio, chem, anthro, neuroscience and psych classes (mostly because I loved the field).
You are going to have to take this on faith (haha): the explanatory power of current evolutionary theory is thrilling, jaw-dropping, and mind-boggling. And this is a reaction now shared by virtually every student. It has not earned its reputation as the Best Theory in the History of Science because of bias or whatever mechanism exists in your imagination. You have probably heard Dobzhansky's quote "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I know you don't agree with it. I am telling you that everybody who actually studies biology today does. I know, I've been there.
And it's not just an appreciation for the evolutionary science as taught. Novel evolutionary thinking goes on continually in every biologically related science class and it seldom fails to explain. You're studying some neural mechanism, some organization of circuitry in the processing of some emotion, and it doesn't seem to make sense, and someone says "what would the evolutionary rationale for that be?" And this works with thrilling regularity. (Thrilling only in the big, long view -- it happens so regularly that it's actually not all that memorable. It's just the way you do the life sciences.)
And yes, these are just "just so stories" that we make up and they are not science in the usual manner in that no experiment can confirm them. But scientific theories are not just about making testable predictions, they are also about explaining and making sense of the natural world we have already observed and characterized. Evolution by natural selection does an amazing job of that.
Virtually everyone who encounters evolutionary theory in a serious way has this experience. You are going to have to factor that into your assessment of the theory, because it's a fact. It's awfully hard to assert that evolutionary theory in fact has no great explanatory power when almost everyone else thinks otherwise. It's like trying to assert that Woody Allen actually was never funny. At some point you just have to look at yourself and ask where the problem actually is.
You want a scientific theory with problems, try the theory of gravity.
(BTW, I love the way you criticize evolutionary theory for not changing, and then criticize it for changing to fit new facts. You might be interested to learn that a beautiful genetic mechanism for punctuated equilibrium was discovered recently. Mutations actually accumulate in the genome but remain unexpressed because they are policed by proteins (or RNAs, forget which) whose job that is. But the police molecules stop working under certain high-stress environmental conditions, causing all the accumulated mutations to be expressed at once. Which itself is an evolutionary successful strategy which would have absolutely been selected for! This is the sort of way our understandings of the details of Darwinian theory keep moving forward continually.)
Roger: yes, I'm the Philip K. Dick expert (and huge fan of yours) you once cited in reference to Man Facing Southeast.
Hey Roger (Is this too colloquial?),
I applaud you for not ranking your favorite films of the year, or limiting yourself to ten. Films are art, and how does one rank art?
Ranking Films: how bourgeois
Also, I find it amusing that you mention Wall-e as one of the year's best. I remember during the film's release this past summer, a friend asked me, "Do you know what Ebert said about Wall-e?" I responded that you gave the film 3 1/2 stars but wrote a four star review.
Star Rankings: how arbitrary
To Try_again
If life could not have happened in 18 billion years, how is it you and I are talking? Cue "crackhead zone" music.
Ebert: I am also a believer in the teachings of Jesus, as they apply to this world. So, I wager, is Professor Dawkins. Someone once asked Gene Siskel what the Jews believe about Jesus. He said, "We believe he was a wise man who gave us a great deal of good advice."
Mr. Ebert - There is no reason to believe or apply Jesus' teachings about this world at all, if there is no higher being (intelligence). After all, all of his premises are based on the notion that there is a higher being and for that matter, a next world established in accordance with our actions in this one.
If life came fron non-life and soon returns to non-life when we die, it is therefore entirely meaningless and we have no reason to assume anything we think we understand about this world is valid (reason and truth no longer are valid). It is so fascinating to me that people can scoff at the notion of a higher being, Creator, Intelligent Designer, etc.; yet, mere moments later they are cherishing certain moral principles and live as though there is in fact a higher Intelligence. If you really believe there is no evidence for an Intelligent Designer, then live that way.
I'm perfectly fine with someone who rejects I.D. But as you demonstrated just now, I've yet to meet someone who truly goes all the way and lives with the consequences of that position, especially the moral and philosophical conclusions. And that is humorous. If life came from non-life and you are so sure of what the scientists tell you (and maybe they are right), live that way all the way. Take it to its logical conclusions. The fact that you don't reveals you are, at least as of today, in no position to have such strong criticism of Ben Stein.
Ebert: Then nothing Jesus taught us has intrinsic worth?
Roger, if I may, I'd like to step away from Stein's baby, for a moment, and address those posters who, covertly though it may be, are brave enough to attempt to defend that poor little Creator of the universe and his honor.
Comments such as: "how do we know science is the only true path..." and the like, and the entire "science vs. religion" debate, would be humorous were these not from such confused, sad sources.
If you (not you, Roger. The poor children just referenced. Out of respect, you get a lie on this one. I hope you've been feeling well), are one claiming some "religious" affiliation, up to and including a belief in a Creator, consider this:
1. God is not a religious entity. Religion is simply an institution. The Bible repeatedly draws comparison of our relationship to God as to a husband and wife, and to a father and his children. God, first and foremost, is a person. He is not an issue to be defended, but a partner in a relationship.
2. Most discussions regarding Creationism Vs. Darwinism are disturbingly lacking in other scientific principals that have a much bigger everyday impact on what I’ll refer to as “real life", such as the theory of relativity, which has proven that crazy science fiction stuff, like time travel, is not only possible, but that time itself can, and actually does, distort as influenced by speed and gravity... kind of puts a whole different spin on "how old is the world, anyway...". Time itself is a constant. The way the universe experiences time is not.
3. God is not at war with science. If you believe in him, and in the biblical account, you should also have faith that, while our understanding is limited, there is nothing whatsoever about God himself, or the Creation, that can be contradicted by actual true science.
Roger, I must have printed and distributed a dozen copies of "The Pot and How To Use It." I quote lines randomly from your reviews of everything from "Eve's Bayou" to "Lone Wolf McQuade" to your entries about "La Dolce Vita"...a thousand other things between and ten thousand outside. You have astonished me for years, and (admitting my great affection, if not latent homosexuality) reciting your work aloud as I believe it may have sounded in your head to my friends and family has been one of my great joys. Thank you for everything you have given me.
A critic? You’re an artist. What a guy!!!
P.S. I usually don't use triple exclamation marks, either, but let's face it: you're a triple exclamation marks kind of guy, too.
Ebert: You like to read aloud to friends and family? You are going to love my next blog entry.
To Try_again...
The article you were talking about was not precluding evolution, it was affirming it. It wasn't saying "all this for just for stress! We have some serious doubts about this whole evolution thing, if all this is done for stress--imagine apes to humans...that evolution is so self-contained our research has nothing to do with this, at all." It was examined with evolution in mind, not to prove how mind-blowing evolution is that their research is futile in the face of its vast expanse, and that they might as well quit now.
Brilliant. This is the first piece of yours I've read.
Since scientists have been able to successfully replicate the origin of life I find no problem believing we evolved impossibly complex bodies that heal themselves, and we evolved of course from an undetermined primordial soup. Yes, that is certainly more plausible than believing we exist from a superior being. I know that whenever I walk down the street and see an automobile, I logically assume that it was not created but a product of evolution. It could not have been created, it must have evolved.
Scientists have not and can not solve the origin of the eye issue because they do not have the 1st organism. They can not run it through the scientific method because they do not have any of the necessary information.
The foundation of evolution is inherently wobbly.
I do not believe in evolution but I also hated this movie. It was not funny, incredibly boring (think The Aviator), it was not persuasive, clearly bias etc.
The whole nazi-darwin thing was a desperate attempt. Goodwin's Law.
The point, in my opinion, is not that Nazi's were inspired by Darwin they just wanted to speed up the evolutionary process. They had to believe in evolution to want to do that but of course I'm sure there are creationists who want to do horrible things to humans as well.
I value the why much more than I do the how.
Ebert: The automobile is not a product of evolution but of intelligent design. So is the wrist watch. So are the heads on Mount Rushmore. The theory of evolution does not have an explanation for the origin of life. It is concerned with what has happened since. The fact that it has no explanation does not invalidate it. It demonstrates that it does not claim that which cannot be tested using the scientific method. ID is by definition founded on an untestable assumption. I can understand it s a faith. It is not a science.
People really need to see this movie to understand the degree to which logic is tortured for a particular purpose.
The reason why intelligent design is not science is simple:
1) science is evidence based, ID isn't.
2) science uses rules of logic and reasoning, ID doesn't.
3) science involves the development and testing of hypotheses, ID doesn't.
4) If there is no evidence, logic, reasoning and no development or testing of hypotheses, its not science.
What Stein really represents is the inability of some believers to recognize that ID needs to obey these rules or ID is something other than science. It is the commitment to reason and evidence that binds not just science, but the rule of law and medicine, if not the very foundation of Western Civilization. ID, if it had more widespread popularity, would undermine that foundation. And for that reason, the ID advocates need to be reminded as much as possible that they don't have a place in the science classroom.
Well done, Mr Ebert. Keep fighting the good fight.
Bill
"Here is the difference betwixt the poet and the mystic, that the last nails a symbol to one sense, which was a true sense for a moment, but soon becomes old and false. "
Ralph Waldo Emerson
And so I see that there are still a few people espousing the idea that there is simply no evidence for evolution. It staggers the imagination. Some people will work so hard to keep their head firmly entrenched in the sand.
I suggest that anyone who can type these words with a straight face head to Talk Origins and browse but a tiny portion of the staggering degree of physical evidence that has been unearthed and that points to Darwin being correct. One might start with 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the scientific case for common descent, a fabulously written article that should be accessible to a reasonably intelligent layman.
The primary thing that a doubter should understand is that every evolutionary relationship is determined in the phylogenetic "tree of life" only when it is backed up by multiple data points from independent observations that all point to the same conclusion.
In simpler terms, a scientist observes a set of fossils and notes that they are all very similar. Suspecting they may be related, he observes the physical characteristics of the different organisms that created the fossils and arranges them into a phylogenetic tree that describes their suspected evolutionary relationships. This tree, determined from physical characteristics of the organisms, is referred to as the morphological tree.
Another scientist looks at that same set of fossils and decides to try and take a stab at their relationships based on genetic data acquired from the fossils. This is an entirely independent means of testing and if evolution were false, would be expected to produce a different tree. This tree is referred to as the genetic tree.
What's astounding, once you think about it, is that the two trees will always match (while there may be some minor discrepancies, the match is always going to be accurate to a staggering degree of statistical significance).
Think about it. If evolution were false, and different species were not related - meaning, when scientists are putting together their fancy little phylogenetic trees, they're just guessing - how could you possible get multiple independent means of constructing these trees all pointing to the same results? Even if you're only dealing with 12 organisms, there are over 14 trillion trees one could construct. How then can one explain how the morphological tree and the genetic tree, both constructed with independent means, are virtually identical?
If one wanted to disprove evolution, a fantastic way of doing so would be to construct, from the same set of organisms, a morphological tree and a genetic tree that were radically different. No one has ever been able to, and given the amount of antievolutionary energy spent in the world today, it certainly can't be for lack of trying.
That is just one of literally dozens of ways to show that there is in fact a great deal of physical evidence for the fact of evolution. I would encourage any doubter to look up more: talkorigins is a wonderful place to start.
(Another good one: if humans and chimpanzees aren't really related, why is it that we both unable to synthesize our own Vitamin C, something essentially every other mammal is capable of?)
Hooo boy! Okay where to begin?
I have not seen Mr. Stein's movie yet... but! having read your review I can safely say that you've got it all wrong for the following reasons:
1) The Bible says, "judge not, lest ye be judged." So until you go out and make a movie that proves Intelligent Design better than Ben Stein's movie, I don't think you're qualified to say that his movie is wrong Mr. Ebert.
2) Just because 99.975 scientists think that something is true doesn't make it so. My friend went to his doctor when he was sick and he told him too take some prescriptions but then when my friend went to the Walmart to get his pills they were to expensive and the prescription card did not work and so I told him dont worry because its in God's hands. And my friend got better! So this doctor with his fancy degrees and training says you need this and that from the pharmecutical companies and I said I believe in what I believe and which one of us turned out to be right? IF YOU GUESSED ME THEN YOU ARE RIGHT and I guessed me and I was right and I do not belive in monkeys and evolution and all that nonsense.
3) It is not even about which side is right (hint: not evolution) but about teaching our kids through fair and balanced learning programs. Fox News is fair and balanced because they always report both sides of the issue, like when they sometimes say Obama is a terrorist and other times they do not say he is a terrorist but instead he is probably a socialist and maybe he wasn't born in the USA. We are only asking the same balance for our kids in the classroom here.
Please print a retraction and I am sure Mr. Stein and God will forgive you but I bet you do not because you clearly have Liberal Bias.
Ebert: This is deeply fascinating.
As more than one commenter has proposed already, the conversation is beginning to wane. Nevertheless I feel compelled to write since you are still approving comments, Mr. Ebert, and are misinformed about the history of racism and eugenics in the U.S. and in the English speaking world more broadly. You have suggested that people who have been in favor of eugenics in the form of forced sterilization are mostly backwoods Christian Nation types who primarily target black folks.
Eugenics and racism have not by any means been the sole propriety of right wingers and people who identify as Christians in recent history (though it certainly was a calling card of theirs for a long time, and reared its ugly head again in places such as Sarah Palin's crowds in the recent election). Not only was Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's half-cousin and fellow traveller with respect to evolution, the first president of the British Eugenics society, he in fact invented the term eugenics. And the membership list of the American Eugenics Society was for a long time a who's who list of American progressives. It included the likes of Margaret Sanger, the mother of birth control who once spoke to a Klu Klux Klan meeting on the virtues of birth control and who threatened that if Americans didn't promote birth control internationally the population of Asia would explode and invade the U.S. looking for food. The Supreme Court decision allowing forced sterilization was not the work of some wacko right wing Christian, but of one our most progressive and pragmatic justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who famously wrote in Buck v. Bell that "three generations of idiots are enough."
In contemporary times, prominent people working on the genome project, including most infamously Francis Watson, are attempting to rehabilitate the term eugenics. And it's not just nutty old men doing so either. My wife was in a class at Duke University with one of the ethicists for the genome project, a member of Duke's science faculty, who spoke of needing to distinguish between "good eugenics and bad eugenics."
You have stated that your main objection to the movie is the link between evolution and the holocaust and many of your commenters have been downright astonished that any Jew would make such a claim. In fact, Mein Kampf reads a great deal like Charles Darwin's other book, The Descent of Man, where Darwin engaged in such felicities as:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time
the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be
exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene
between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as
low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (from Chapter
Six).
The refusal to face this kind of truth squarely is maddening. As stated earlier, I consider myself rather progressive. I don't read the first few chapters of Genesis as literal, God given history. I voted for Obama. I work for the Mennonite Central Committee with homeless people in Toronto, where I moved incidentally, not long after the 2004 election (I'm not just one of those liberals who threaten to move to Canada;). I also happen to live in an interracial urban commune where we have a common purse. I wrote my masters thesis at Duke on Jewish-Christian relations as a way of facing squarely the fact that Christianity, while no more solely responsible for the Holocaust than Darwinism, played a significant role in creating the atmosphere that made Nazism possible and acceptable in Lutheran Germany.
Where evolutionary loyalist are willing to face the facts of racism and eugenics squarely and work to overcome that heritage within their midst, I am willing to listen. Where they bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the ethics concomitant with evolution has nothing to do with racism, warmongering, and unfettered capitalism ... well, that's where I just have to group people together with the fundamentalists of my youth.
Ebert: Yes, and quite informative, but what does this information have to do with the Theory of Evolution, which does not call for anything? There was an overlap between early evolutionists and early advocates of eugenics. There is an overlap between VISA card holders and child molesters. Do you see the logical error? Because all of group B belong to group A does not mean all from group A belong to group B.
Hi Roger,
Wow! Over 600 comments and growing!!
Time for my summary!
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious belief and imprevious to argument. It does not belong in the life science classroom, any more than the Inuit origin stories. (of couse these stories can be in other classes, and be loads of fun!)
Intelligent design is a theory that proposes that life cannot be created as it is too complex, and that it cannot have evolved because the earth is not old enough.
Intelligent design is not favored by most scientists because it does not explain many facts. It does not add to understanding of life. It denies the geological record, which is one of the strongest pieces of modern science. It also limits the scope of scientific investigation, which is boring for scientists. Intelligent design is a sterile idea, that is why it has so few supporters.
Evolution is a competing theory, that proposes that through a process or random changes, the survival of organisms better suited to their environnement is favored. In this theory, life evolved from an inital simple state of non life to a wide array of simple and complex organisms, over a long period of time.
Evolution is favored by most scientists because it explains a large amount of facts, ranging from fossils of organisms that no longer exist, variations in similar species, the similarity of DNA in species of very different exterior appearances, the adaptation of life to the huge changes that have happened in the earth's climate over time. The exact ways in which evolution takes place are still being investigated and our undestanding is hampered by the fact that evolution is fairly slow, and our investgations are very recent. It is a fun and powerfull investigation tool into the nature of life.
Evolution is a fecund idea, that is why scientists like it.
It seems to me that intelligent design is already disproved by the geological record, but for those that want more, here are two possibilities: If a scientist ever manages to create life in the lab from non living material, the theory is wrong. If it is possible to calculate the number of possible combinations happening spontaneously over billions oy years in billions of cubic meters of water and that this number is larger that the one mentionned in the movie, then the theory is wrong.
Moving to the movie itself, I have given up on documentaries as sources of objective information. However, they do have artistic merit and qualities of structure, writing and rhetoric. And Moore seems way, way ahead of Stein on those fronts.
For those that feel that evolution does not require god and is therefore evil, because without god, life has no meaning. Take cheer; you can always give meaning to your life through action and reflexion. After all, you can choose to do good, and isn't that better than having god impose it on you?
Roger, thank you a million times for giving me (all all those other interesting posters) this opportunity for discussion and thought.
Best regards,
Michel Lamontagne
" Ebert: I can't think of anything more boring than a semester of ID, which would consist mostly of refuting Darwin."
In modern parlance, say what?
I don't know how life began - nor for that matter does anyone else. What I do know is that ID and evolutionary theory have nothing to do with one another. The former does not preclude the latter, nor vice versa.
Darwin explained how species evolve, or more specifically, how the inherited traits of a population change over time. Fine. But he and his intellectual descendants offer no proof of how life began. ID attempts to answer the question of what transpired before evolution. Ebert argues that ID fails in this attempt. He doesn't know, but suppose he's right. So what? It doesn't change the fundamental fact that one theory has nothing to do with the other.
Reply to: Ebert: I am also a believer in the teachings of Jesus, as they apply to this world. So, I wager, is Professor Dawkins. Someone once asked Gene Siskel what the Jews believe about Jesus. He said, "We believe he was a wise man who gave us a great deal of good advice."
Are you including ALL the teachings attrubuted to Jesus? 30% of them? How about letting ME pick the ones to look at?
I'll just open the Bible at random. Let's start with:
Gospel of John 6:47 He who believes in me has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. 53 Jesus said, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
Good to know, Jesus. Just for the record, I'm not a Christian, and yet, I have life in me. Yes, I do.
6:54 Jesus said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day... He who eats this bread will live forever."
what is the "last day"?
The last day... is the End of the World.
Did the Christians who died at the hands of Nero live forever? Any way to PROVE that?
It's very easy to pretend the words attributed to Jesus say something other than the literal meaning. But if you limit yourself to the literal meaning, you learn a lot. You learn where the words came from and what they actually mean. Imagine that you've been invited to a meeting in 85 Ad, and you're worried that the End of the World might occur soon. what do the words of Jesus tell you?
Joining the cult of Jesus is the ONLY way to guarantee a passing grade on the Day of Judgment.
The deadline for the last day passed over 1,800 years ago. That's why we can say it's nonsense, and the people in 85 AD couldn't. That should make us smarter.
I doubt that Professor Dawkins finds this nonsense any more credible than I do.
To Try_again...
Besides, as Ebert pointed out, at the time the film was being made these discoveries were just being found, so how could Ben Stein have based his film on something that hadn't been discovered yet (the 7 mutations)? And let's say he did, because I haven't seen the film, what science is there to back it up besides, "oh, thats not possible"? And besides that, you say "that is the idea behind Intelligent Design!?" It is a brand new discovery! How can that be the idea behind intelligent design, when it was just barely discovered!? It is amazing how these creationists or intelligent designers (do you sell those in my size...uh 34 waist?) just pick things out of a hat. If all this were proven in math equations you would start the "you didn't carry the 1" society....oh, I mean "carry the 2" society.
Lee: Popper's requirement of falsification doesn't hold with all theories. How would you falsify the Big Bang theory?
Well, that was an easy one. If Hubble's Law is conclusively proven to be wrong, Big Bang theory would be falsified. If we observe a preponderance of very old objects at large cosmological distances, ditto. If CMB radiation turns out to be a local phenomenon, ditto.
As far as your other references, I am well familiar with the criteria of falsification, being no stranger to philosophy of science, and I agree that it is not the only criterion for measuring the robustness of scientific theories. There are others, including Bayesian considerations, fecundity and consilience of theoretical frameworks, none of which are present in ID. I have, despite what anyone may think, read most of ID literature (I am an astrobiologist/astrophysicist by training, and attacks on evolutionary theory--which, along with GR and QM, no matter what ignoramuses like to claim, is one of the best-supported by empirical evidence theories in our toolkit--affect me in several ways, so I make a point of keeping a close eye on the developments). I stand by my words: ID is nothing but a rehashed natural theology, a warmed-up and not-so-cleverly disguised appeal to ignorance and personal incredulity. Dembski's pseudo-mathematics crumble under most elementary analysis; Behe's claims have been debunked both in general theoretical terms, and specifically, by empirical observations. there are many fascinating, interesting and productive debates in science in general and biology in particular; ID just doesn't happen to be one of them.
dto1984: None of the evolutionists posting to this blog saw the big bang or any other evolutionary event. They have to believe what others have said about it.
Really? I observe CMBR directly. I observe the expansion of the Universe directly. In fact, I work with such concepts on a daily basis. Your point?
JJM: If life came from non-life and soon returns to non-life when we die, it is therefore entirely meaningless
This is not only preposterous, it's precisely backwards. It's right up there with "the central guiding principle of Buddhism is 'every man for himself.'
According to you, if I figure out how to bring about everlasting world peace and therefore make the life of every human being who ever lives after me utterly blissful . . but just die and have no afterlife, my life was meaningless. Whereas if you sit alone in a hut your entire life and die and go to Heaven, that was a meaningful life.
There is no possible way to get meaning into life other than in the living. You can't get meaning into life from before life or after life.
And it's not like the view you express is part of a fundamental religious impulse. Judaism has always taught exactly what I just said, Buddhism ditto. This obsession with life as an inherently meaningless sliver of something bigger and eternal is a distinctly Christian invention and it's real darn hard to see where and how any good has ever come of it.
In terms of the general issue, there's a very good case that the evidence of Intelligent Design is all around us. However, the evidence is at the level of the most basic laws of physics (not that we understand them yet). You can certainly make an argument that Someone had to pick the speed of light and the mass of the electron and the other parameters of the world that ultimately and uniquely gave rise to intelligent life.
However, every time you move the point of design to anything less fundamental, you denigrate God: you make him less clever, less competent, and more cruel. A God who created us simply by creating a soup of elementary particles in the Big Bang, and created a world in which there has to be some evil because there is no possible better world (this, according to Rabbi Harold Kushner, is the argument of the Book of Job), and is actually powerless to intervene directly and remove that evil (perhaps because he invested all his free will into us, as his children, and by "us" I would include the hypothesized intelligent aliens of Beta Arcturis 4, and a million other worlds, each producing their own equivalent of Beethoven's 7th) -- that's an incredibly impressive God.
A God who created the world 6000 years ago, and laboriously designed the DNA of every species on the planet, and did a really terrible job, resulting in everything from bad backs to cancer, and then for amusement's sake (or "to test our faith") implanted a wealth of phony evidence in favor of evolution and a universe billions of years old, and finally, to top it all off, stood back and let the Holocaust happen even though he had the power to intervene -- that's not a God any rational person would want to pray to. That's a hideous mockery of God.
The horrible irony of this all is that the mainstream interpretation of the people who wrote the Bible has always been much closer to the first view than the second (as evidenced by the fact that the editors of that Bible included two absolutely contradictory creation myths). Bible literalism (including Orthodox Judaism) is a 19th-century invention in response to the perceived intellectual threat of modern science. There's no way any rational person could believe in the Bible's literal truth unless they were taught as children that they would go to hell if they even entertained the contrary thought.
News for you all: you won't. (Hint: why would God give you the power of rational thought and then send you to Hell for using it? Even Alanis Morisette can see that's ironic.)
My point was not about the movie, its merits or its arguments but the idea that Michael Moore is championed for his film making methods, yet Mr. Ebert attacks Ben Stein for using the same techniques.
And it comes down to political beliefs: it's okay to twist, lie and misrepresent to make a left-leaning point; it's vile when one does it to make a right-leaning argument.
Further, the responses to this point is not to argue against them with reason, but to attack those who make the point (calling me and others "ditto heads" and attacking our intelligence). Again, challenge liberal "religious" doctrine and you are attacked and marginalized.
What happened to the left's love of "speaking truth to power," questioning authority, disdain for absolutes and those who claim to have right and God and their side?
I thought the left were the champions of tolerance, diversity and freedof speech and thought?
Ebert: Why is Intelligent Design a right-leaning argument? What does politics have to do with it? Can a liberal not subscribe to ID?
The lack of gratuitous attacks, showboating, snobbery, self-aggrandizing etc. was truly refreshing and what the religion plus science debate needs. If only they were always so mature.
To look at the matter a differently I think that a little speculative theology would spice things up. The idea of intelligent design suggests that the "creator" was intelligent. As for the fundamentalists who hold this to be true, what do they imagine God to be like? As very intelligent? Intelligence is loosely defined, vaguely imagined and usually empirically measured using a scale that resembles an upturned bell - a normal distribution curve. To ask "Where would God fit on this curve?" seems to be missing the point... by anthropomorphizing God. God is everything, isn't that true? (Or at least, Love let's hope). Perhaps most people cannot fathom that God does not need to "think", and that both problem and answer are of and within God. Unless you demean God by imagining God as a human inventor, than God and science seem to have an unrealized eerie affinity.
Through the ages so little has been agreed upon as to what God is (and religion by association) that it surely must be a more parsimonious explanation that God has not been completely revealed to limited humans and we are still searching. Some of us look at how God has been interpreted differently and to focus on the overlapping area of this Venn diagram (the sweet spot). Others on the non-overlapping fringes make universal statements of hubris. To make claims while invoking the depths of human horrors as a scare tactic alienates people - and is, in my opinion - a vision of God that is accessible to few. Theologically we are evolving away from the jealous God of the Old Testament and the immaturity of the Greek gods. So to use one's energies only to the service of pitted fight without considering compromise or the other side at all, and all in God's name - while history provides us with countless cases where man has used "God" as an excuse to not love - could be called blasphemy.
But at the same time, reason aside, there is a cold comfort believing there is even a brutal God around and that there is some sort of meaning or justice behind it all. I think that liberals would do well to realize that a large segment of the population (perhaps even genetically) are going to need certainty in life and will equate atheism with what it is - acknowledging that right and wrong have no cosmic consequences. You can only expect enmity and both sides need to temper their sides with realistic moderation.
I really have to wonder what Ben Stein was thinking. Does he not understand what he's done, not only to his cause, but to himself? I'll never respect the man again; he's shown himself for what he is -- a propagandist, a cheap huckster, a vaguely sinister buffoon. Dare I even say Hitler-before-he-was-Hitler-esque? And the film destroys any hope ID had of claiming legitimacy. You put your finger on it -- savvy people of any political bent will shrink from this movie. It's like the clump of hair in the drain of public discourse.
With due respect however, I think you fail to understand the flaw in creationists' claims that evolution is vanishingly unlikely. Putting aside the fact that the odds they cite against even a single protein coming together by chance are basically pulled steaming from their asses, they're still completely misrepresenting the nature of the evolutionary process.
Imagine flipping a coin over and over. For each toss, the odds are fifty-fifty that it will come up heads (a one-in-two chance). The odds of getting two heads in a row is a one-in-two-to-the-power-of-two chance, or one-in-four. Five heads in a row is 1:2^5, or one-in-thirty-two. A hundred heads? 1:2^100, or roughly one in 1.3 trillion trillion trillion (thank Gates for the little calculator program on my computer). A creationist would claim that all the lucky chances that evolution requires is like getting not one, not five, but millions upon millions of heads in a row.
But the creationists are forgetting something. Evolution ISN'T random, as they often claim. It's selected. You can't really blame creationists for missing this fact...Darwin cleverly concealed it from view by calling his theory 'natural selection.' Let's return to our coin-tossing example, this time including the principle of selection. What if, after every toss, we had the option of not counting it? What if we were allowed to simply discard every toss that came up tails? Now, given the ability to select, how long would it take to rack up a hundred heads in a row? About two hundred throws.
Once you understand the concept of selection, and how it applies to evolution, you realize that what was thought to be vanishingly unlikely actually becomes virtually inevitable.
Thank you for the opportunity to get that off my chest. I hope you found it edifying.
Ebert: A post like this is the reason I am still here reading after more than 600 earlier posts. Of course you are right. This is sort of what I was getting at when I wrote:
Evolution involves holding onto your winnings and investing them wisely. You don't even have to know to how to hold onto your winnings. Evolution does it for you; it is the bank in which useful genetic mutations deposit themselves.
But then I got sidetracked by the man at Monte Carlo. You have explained this so much more clearly and simply. This takes the film's image of the infinitely receding slot machine and demolishes it. Since the makers of the film must have been familiar with the obvious mathematical error they were making, one wonders if they employed it simply because it seemed logical.
I always enjoy reading the esoteric ramblings regarding “Darwin’s Theory”. That is exactly what it is a theory or less than one. To date there is not one piece of evidence in the fossil record of ANY transitional forms. IF man did evolve from a monkey there would be a transition of that evolution over the millions of years claimed, also if a reptile became a bird the same. But there is not one fossil record of this rubbish. Darwin himself stated that this would be the sinker for his theory and it has been. It takes more faith to believe what Richard Dawkins does than to believe in God Almighty. He even (Dawkins) has postulated that agents from other planets started life here (however he still can’t answer how "they" got started). Man has been running from God since the beginning. For some good night time reading get Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”. His review of DNA puts the wammie on all of this arrogance.
Ebert: I wonder what the source is for the error that Dawkins said "agents from other planets started life here (however he still can’t answer how "they" got started)." Obviously not anyone who has seen the film. He said no such things. I have corrected this three times above. The persistence of this misinformation is, ironically, evidence of Dawkins' theory of memes at work.
From so many of the comments posted here, I conclude that our educational system has failed.
Jay Faulconer on December 3, 2008 7:58 AM
"The moon passes between the sun and Earth, and for the briefest of moments covers the sun perfectly, leaving only the outer glow of the sun peaking around the edges. When one realizes that the sun is 400 times the size of the moon, we have to accept that they are positioned at the precise distance apart to make this effect pThe simplest thing that convinces me of a greater being is an eclipse. Think of how stirring it is to see, and the wonder that must have inspired in the peoples of long ago. The moon passes between the sun and Earth, and for the briefest of moments covers the sun perfectly, leaving only the outer glow of the sun peaking around the edges. When one realizes that the sun is 400 times the size of the moon, we have to accept that they are positioned at the precise distance apart to make this effect possible. In all of the vastness of space, they are perfectly placed."
AMAZING !! (I'm not asking for ir giving an explanation but Herzog will love this factoid.)
Isn't natural selection itself a very intelligent process?
"Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"
Stein may have made a mere shoddily argued and less than honest propoganda piece, and evolution must be a fact (which doesn't move me to tears,as it seems to many on this thread) , but speaking purely in the capacity of a moderately intelligent layperson, and a "believer" ,at least in Man and the Great Universe,in which all things live and die and live again, ad infinitum, it's just a little hard to swallow that the universe just happens to be.....more things in heaven and earth, Mr Ebert, than bare knuckled science can explain .....I wonder what gentle Herzog, the man who gave us the green river not once but twice (and poor Wyzeck which is what we are) have to say about the "belief" (that's all it is) that stones have "no life?".
I must say that what outrages me the most is the thought that movie is a part of a trend of poiticizing science. Isn't it enough to have politicized politics, education, genre films (Twilight comes to mind)?
It is also troubling that being wrong about science is seen as discrimination against willful ignorance. An equitable look at the facts would show that evolution is a valid theory and that intelligent design is a hunch. As a recent documentary film about creationism in public schools (the name of which escapes me) proves, intelligent design is not a testable theory and no such tests are cited by the ID community. Most of ID is simply suggesting flaws in evolutionary theory with evidence that most evolutionary biologists would be able to respond to.
If the ID community could produce a decent test of what they believe, I would take them more seriously.
The comments by readers USED TO BE about the best you will see on a blog.
Do you get the feeling that a year from now you'll either have to respond to yet another nonsensical comment or be forced to let it stand uncorrected, thus giving it credibility?
Looking forward to the next one.......
A typical liberal response to a subject they dont believe in. Thats one of the longest movie reviews I have ever seen and look at the subject matter. There are some pretty itelligent people posting here so I'm certainly in no position to argue with them. But please, Mr, Ebert, if you are so fair in your reviews, where was this epic review of Farenheit 9/11 or Al Gores film? Both movies have been thoroughly gone over and have been PROVEN, not a theory, to contain material taken so far out of context and outright falsehoods (lies) that make them both seem laughable, yet they recieved nothing even approaching the scorn you heaped upon Mr. Stein film. Why? The truth is the truth isnt it? If you are so objective, as you are supposed to be, where is your column denouncing these films? The makers had to have known at the time they were making them that what they were presenting would no doubt cause controversy and sell tickets but wasnt the truth. That the films were simply their views on a subject they were passionate about and that pasion clouded their perspective? If I found some wealthy Conservative investers and they agreed to give me money to make a film about Barack Obama's sketchy past and questionable aqquaintances, and I made this film with the personal opinion that he is the wrong person for the job and I disagree with everything he stands for, what kind of movie do you think is going to be made? Cant you just review the film and leave it at that? When did movie REVIEWS become so personal?
Re: the supposed "lack of transitional fossils". It must be very interesting to think as a Creationist does: every time a scientist finds a "transitional fossil", it only creates two more gaps!
Never mind that the statement is a lie, or at the very least shows a non-existent understanding of how evolution works. In the literal sense, all fossils are transitional. But if what you're talking about are fossils that belonged to species that blur the (essentially arbitrary) taxonomic lines, a good long look at Tiktaalik - a species that evolutionary theory predicted must have existed long before an actual fossil was found, and even predicted where a fossil was most likely to be found, and turned up being correct on both accounts, by the way - is a wonderful place to start.
That's an interesting question for the evolutionary doubters, by the way: if evolution isn't all it's cracked up to be, how is it that scientists have been able to use it to predict that certain organisms (that have not been found) must have existed, predict where those fossils are likely to be find, and then go out and actually find one?
Eric M Van:
Forgive me, but that sounds an awful lot like, "We couldn't figure out how something happened, but then we made up a hypothetical story explaining why it might have evolved, and it made sense." You could substitute evolution with anything else - "What would the alien intelligence rationale for that be?" Evolution will have that same clarifying effect for me - after someone produces evidence that is is the mechanism for developing 'organization of circuitry in the processing of some emotion.'Ancient Greek mythology explained and made sense of the natural world. Theories do have to make testable predictions, even if that means predicting what the evidence will show if the theory is true. Something can explain the world, but without the scientific process, how would we know whether or not the explanation was accurate?
Evolution predicts that giraffes and bugs and fish and bacteria exist. It predicts variation between living things, something that Greek mythology also predicts. When junk DNA was discovered, it was hailed as fulfilling predictions of evolutionary biology. When it was discovered that it might not be junk, the theory changed to predict that. Peacocks grew big tails because males with big tails were selected. When it was revealed that big-tailed peacocks mated less, evolution explained that too.
I get that theories change, and are improved. But the theory that explains everything proves nothing. It's like a theory that predicts that a coin toss will come up heads. But when it comes up tails, the theory is changed so that it really predicted that, too.
The theory predicts that cheetahs will run fast and that giraffes will have long necks and that humans will have greater intellect than apes, and it predicts everything else it sees, so surprise, it explains everything. And when it doesn't, it's changed to predict that too. It can do that, because it has no specifics, only a central tenet. How convenient.
Any practical science that accepted a theory at face value and interpreted all evidence from the assumption that the theory is already proven would accomplish nothing. There would be no space shuttles, light bulbs, computers, or drugs.
As I said before, it's a mistake to think that scientists are immune to emotion and dogmatism and group-think.
I'll say it again, maybe for the last time. If this theory is so well-supported by evidence, why do people with Harvard degrees explain how the theory makes them feel instead of citing evidence? It sounds more like religion than science to me.
Ebert: It is not true that "evolution predicts that giraffes and bugs and fish and bacteria exist." It observes that they exist, and asks if they were always "giraffes and bugs and fish and bacteria," and, if not, how did they become giraffes and bugs and fish and bacteria.
You write, "why do people with Harvard degrees explain how the theory makes them feel instead of citing evidence?" Are you using "Harvard degrees" as a a shout-out to the Pointy-Headed Elite trope? As you surely know, although a Harvard graduate might have said the Theory of Evolution (known as the best theory in the history of science) made him feel good, he or she and countless others could cite you all the evidence you could possibly desire. The Theory of Evolution makes me feel good, too. It is a beautiful, visionary idea that explains countless things about the world we live in. If you are seriously curious about it, I recommend the Dawkins book River Out of Eden. It is pretty clear from your post that you are working with an imperfect idea of what a theory is.
I am perhaps ignorant of scientific method, but when I read that scientists ("theorists" would be more appropriate) have demonstrated that life can spring from non-life, or have charted a way in which proteins or acids or what-have-you could have come together to form a living thing, and then they publish these findings to great applause, and materialists the world over turn and sneer at their intelligent design counterparts ("There! You see?--"), I wonder what these practitioners of naturalistic religion think they have really proven. After all, to prove anything, you have to re-create/simulate the conditions under which the event toh place; and supposedly they took place without intelligence present (perhaps the theorists are disproving their own intelligence--one point I might concede). Perhpas they believe the original conditions included their hi-tech toys. Perhaps they think they can simulate time and chance. Perhaps they do not think.
Another thing: you say that 99% of scientists do not believe in intelligent design. This is the same as saying nothing, since in the game you're playing only those who believe as you do are graced with the title of scientist. If those who do not hold the same unbeliefs are barred from teaching, from being colleagues, how do I place my confidence in such a poll. Sounds like a rigged voting system; more to the point, the polling conditions are not very scientific (which is humorous).
No sir, I am not a creationist in the same sense as the "literal genesis" folks, who actually comprise the majority of my circle of friends and family. I do believe in a Creator God, but place no timelines on the act of creation. The literary structure of Genesis chapter one is more about demonstrating that God created everything ("heaven and earth and all that in them is"), and that he alone created it, than it is about proving a six-day creation. Creationists have actually hijacked a very important and mythically potent text for their own purposes. So be it. The naturalists have hijacked the scientific method for theirs.
And no one, and I mean no one, has yet demonstrated that non-inelligence can give rise to intelligence (Stanley Kubrick's
poetic representation in "2001" notwithstanding--oh wait, aliens planted that black monolith which--by virtue of its intelligent design in a world without intelligence--provided the spark that pushed proto-humans to manhood). Like begets like. Truth and beauty and love are non-material and cannot be "made."
Whereas Darwin sought to explain the great variance within the biological world, and propounded his theory of natural selection (which we see at work everywhere in all things, the economy being a prominent example), these new guys want to use his work as the jumping-off point for promoting a cosmos without a God: the ultimate hijacking.
Remember, from a believers viewpoint, it follows perfectly that man would try to shuck off the authority of a God he feared. Science, that which deals with the supposedly irrefutable, would be the ideal vehicle for such an enterprise. Not only can one sleep at night knowing he has placed his faith in something so secure, he can justify his own arrogance toward those who place their own faith in something less secure. If we know anything about human nature, it's that we all want a reason to feel superior to the next guy. In short, the theistic worldview includes and explains the existence of the atheistic worldview. The atheistic worldview cannot explain the origin of intelligence itself, much less the search for meaning on "this most weary unbright cinder." To my way of thinking, it is the "scientists" who are the real teenagers--so confident, so confident. Trust me when I say that a believer in God does not hold his belief in God as a protection against the harsher realities; we stare into the same abyss that the atheist does; our vision is perhaps more frightening. For me, atheism would be a protection; atheism would be a crutch.
I like you so much better when you write about film and don't spread out into all this other stuff. You have taught me to love this art form, and you stand tall in a world of critics who love the sound of their own voice more than the movies they hypocritically praise or snub. I wish you had retained your power of speech and lost the power to vent this nonsense I have just read above. In your better writing you extol truth and fairness and beauty and capably direct others to do the same; in this matter, though, you trample on your higher endeavors. Well, enough from me anyway. Thank you for work.
"Along similar lines, John Dewey, in A Common Faith, asserts that it is "the religious," rather than specific religions, that is of vital importance. In contrast to religions, which fall all too quickly into dogmatism and fanaticism, "that which is religious" has the power to "unify interests and energies" and to "direct action and generate the heat of emotion and the light of intelligence." Likewise, "the religious" enables the realization of those goods which Dewey identifies as "the values of art in all its forms, of knowledge, of effort and of rest after striving, of education and fellowship, of friendship and love, of growth in mind and body. " 14 While Dewey does not identify a specific external power, for him "the religious" is a generalized term for that which supports and encourages people in active aspiration toward the good and the valuable. "The religious," as Dewey defines it, helps those who help themselves."
Daisaku Ikeda, Harvard University,1993
http://www.daisakuikeda.org/index.php?mid=resources&sub=works&sub2=lect&quid=7
Steve Vanden-Eykel:
I really have to wonder what Ben Stein was thinking. Does he not understand what he's done, not only to his cause, but to himself? I'll never respect the man again; he's shown himself for what he is -- a propagandist, a cheap huckster, a vaguely sinister buffoon. Dare I even say Hitler-before-he-was-Hitler-esque? And the film destroys any hope ID had of claiming legitimacy.
That is something I have thought about a lot as the comments from ID supporters on Expelled have appeared online. For people supposedly so interested in the scientific legitimacy of their argument, it is surprising how hard it is to find someone who finds fault with the tactics of the film. The desperate efforts to define the issue as one of free speech; all the b/w footage of tanks, goose-stepping soldiers and the Berlin Wall; the demonizing of Darwin; and the ploy to pidgeonhole current evolutionary theory as purely atheistic do nothing to support their case.
"If we paint in the broadest strokes the movement from the medieval to the modern in Europe, we observe a steady progress away from a God-centered determinism, toward an ever greater emphasis on free will and human responsibility. The powers of the human being have increasingly been stressed, while those external to us have been steadily de-emphasized. And while none would deny the great achievements of science and technology in the modern era, a misplaced faith in the omnipotence of reason has led humanity to believe that there is nothing beyond our power, thus bringing civilization to its present, apparently inextricable impasse. If past reliance on an external force led humanity to underestimate the full dimensions of our possibility and responsibility, excessive faith in our own powers has produced a dangerous overinflation of the human ego."
Daisaku Ikeda, Harvard University,1993
I've avoided injecting this into the discussion, obvious though it might be.
I do believe that God created the earth and all life on it, including man, and that no species evolved from any more primitive form.
- It makes me feel good.
- It explains everything.
- It's not contradicted by any known evidence.
- A lot of people have believed it for a long time.
- There's tons and tons of evidence. I'm just not going to share any with you.
Based on that and everything I've read in this column, evolutionary theory has nothing on it. Nothing.Thanks for all the great film reviews. Except Mission Impossible 2. It sucked so hard my eyes bled.
Ebert:
No, nothing against Harvard. But the point is that no one ever does cite the evidence.I find it astounding that so many people get so worked up about this, and they are so certain that one theory is established fact and if someone else disagrees they either feel sorry for them or tell them how uneducated they are. But none of those opinionated people are prepared to state any evidence for what they believe. They're not too busy. They have time to explain how it makes them feel and state over and over that there is evidence. Why doesn't it just roll off their tongues, so to speak, instead of taking the time to tell me that I don't understand science?
Take a hard look at your so-called evidence. Most of it is speculation and hypothesis. If you take away the underlying assumption that evolution has already been proven and can be used as a starting point, none of it holds up. Did you really think I would ask for your evidence if I hadn't already looked at it?
I never had any delusion that this was a winnable debate. You can't argue against dogma. Some guys play on their XBox. I do this. But neither is fun forever.
Ebert: No one ever cites the evidence? Please read The Beak of the Finch Please have a look at www.talkorigins.org or any of these sites: www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html
Looking at the amount of smoke, heat and fire your essay has provoked, it looks as your country is going to be a spiritual and philosophical laboratory in the future
Reply to: To date there is not one piece of evidence in the fossil record of ANY transitional forms. IF man did evolve from a monkey there would be a transition of that evolution over the millions of years claimed,
Thanks for the example. I'll leave it anonymous... because it's the kind of nonsense you get from Creationists. This person may NOT be a Creationist. But he wouldn't be able to pass a tenth grade final exam in science class.
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/04/18/is_australopithecus_afarensis/
LINK: Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of approximately 410 cc. Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both.
Let's see what a fossil looks like. Lucy (3.5 million years ago, bipedal but small brain, an Australopithicus aferensis) is more complete than most:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Anthro/Anth101/australopithecus_afarensis_lucy.jpg
You should NOT base your science on comic books distributed by church groups. Seriously. They get it wrong.
The major fossils of earliest human ancestors are limited to a few teeth and parts of a skull. How do you tell whether it's a transitional form or not from such meager evidence? You can't.
There is no reason, none at all, to think that our ancestors between 20 and 50 million years ago would still be around in the form of fossil evidence. Our ancestors were delicious. Think about it. When one of our ancestors died, it was eaten. The bones were picked clean, but it you pull the skeleton apart, the individual pieces aren't enough to leave decent fossils.
Reply to: I am perhaps ignorant of scientific method, but when I read that scientists have demonstrated that life can spring from non-life, I wonder what these practitioners of naturalistic religion think they have really proven.
Cliff Notes are available in the lobby.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/mother_of_man1.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4322687.stm
The remains include a complete tibia from the lower part of the leg, parts of the thighbone or femur, ribs, vertebrae, a collarbone, pelvis and a complete shoulder blade.
"The discovery of 12 early hominid fossil specimens estimated to be between 3.8 and 4 million years old will be important in terms of understanding the early phases of human evolution before Lucy," Yohannes Haile Selassie told a news conference.
Reading Scott Andrew's multiple comments to this blog entry only reinforces the belief that no creationist has an even elementary understanding as to what it is evolution actually says. Frankly it is a crime that even a fifth grader could have such a misguided view as to biology. These are not, after all, difficult concepts at the general level.
To Scott: I reiterate my challenge. If there is no evidence for evolution, if scientists are just reading it through a biased lens, as you suggest, then please answer the following.
In 2006, scientists discovered the Tiktaalak fossil, a colloquial "missing link" between fish and reptiles. Because of evolutionary theory they were able to predict that such an organism existed and give very accurate predictions as to what era in which it existed and a general geographical location where it was found.
If evolution is false, how do you explain how they were able to make these predictions long before the fossil was actually found? How is their ability to predict Tiktaalak, and then find a fossil which matched their predictions exactly, not hard evidence for the theory of evolution's explanatory power.
Would anyone have been willing to make this prediction without the theory of evolution?
Ebert: Yes, and quite informative, but what does this information have to do with the Theory of Evolution, which does not call for anything? ... Do you see the logical error? Because all of group B belong to group A does not mean all from group A belong to group B.
No, I don't see the logical error. What you are saying would hold if Darwin and evolutionary thinkers for decades beyond wrote their lengthy tomes on evolution with little or no reference to their racist views and then happened to be racist in other works or personal acts that had nothing to do with their scientific views. Then we'd have an A and B problem. We don't, however, because racism is shot through the entirety of the Descent of Man and continued to plague further developments of human evolutionary genealogy until about the late 1970s. The relevant disciplines are still heavily dominated by white males. Black folks, well-educated ones included, are far less likely to accept evolution.
If, after the 1970s, the field of human evolutionary history had been overhauled with a critical agenda of reworking everything that had come before without racial bias, then we could also have a group A and a group B situation. Sure, all scientist working on human evolution today are not anything like overtly racist, and may even despise the possibility of science being used in a racist manner. They've still inherited a tradition of inquiry laden with problems. It is incumbent upon scholars of Jewish-Christian relations to seek out where anti-judaism has infused Christian doctrine, practice, and preaching and completely rework those things. So to scholars of evolution are working within a tradition that builds on itself. One can't simply get to the 75th floor of a building, change course slightly, and pretend as if the way the structure has been built thus far makes no difference.
Me: "I noticed Ebert didn't address Dawkins' speculation of where life came from - space aliens. That's certainly much more rational and "scientific"."
Ebert: "That is not what Dawkins said. It is what Ben Stein said that he said. What he said was was that some hold the theory that life on earth arrived here in microscopic form within meteors--but that, even if it did, that would not affect the theory of evolution, because that life must have evolved somewhere. Then Ben Stein cut to his mocking footage of movie aliens, inspiring your misquotation."
Now I have to wonder if you even saw the movie. If you did indeed see the movie then you saw at the end - these scientics - Dawkins included - speculating on where life began.
The laugh I had with this was from the mouth of Dawkins himself. And the other few speculating scientists. That's what made it so funny. Ben Stein didn't even need to comment on this. He just let them speak and they looked like fools. This was about the ACTUAL WORDS that came out of Dawkin's mouth. Not some Leni style propoganda shot to a space alien movie...
To date there is not one piece of evidence in the fossil record of ANY transitional forms. - Marshall Warren
Just last week I read in the newspaper of the discovery of a fossil turtle that has a shell on just the stomach side, answering the long-standing question of whether the top or bottom half of the shell evolved first:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7748280.stm
I mean, that picture's in the dictionary under "transitional form in the fossil record"--it's as perfect an example as you could possibly ask for.
And there are similar fossil finds all the time. In fact, almost every fossil can immediately be seen as transitional between two other forms; this one just happens to do a breathtakingly beautiful job of it.
So, of all the stupid and obviously incorrect assertions that can be heard regularly in debates of controversial issues, this one may take the cake as the stupidest and most patently, blatantly false. It's like a Holocaust denier asserting that there were never any Jews in Europe or a global warming opponent asserting that we have no actual way to measure temperature. That it is regularly parroted by creationists--and Odontochelys is not going to change their game--tells us a lot about how their minds work (or fail to). It's really pretty scary.
Good grief - Ebert listen again for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ
What kinds of "designer" does Dawkins mean if he doesn't believe in God? Start about minute 4:30. The obvious answer is aliens. Not sure how you are getting around this.
He's said it before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNu8F01BD9k&NR=1
Scott is correct that this blog is not going to convince anyone to change there mind, but please get the facts straight. Dawkins made his statement about life may have come
from another planet in a debate regarding his book "The God Delusion", when trapped about the big bang misstatements he had made.
In regard to transitional forms read: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwinists_obsession_with_tikt.html
Scott Andrews -- I don't know if there's any point in continuing the debate with someone who knows no biology and has no firm grasp of what a theory is. But I do want to point out to you one thing you're missing or avoiding. Evolutionary theory explains myriad biological facts which are otherwise not only inexplicable, but downright baffling.
For instance, our DNA is littered with inactive, primitive copies of many key genes. Evolutionary theory explains this in precise detail, while ID would appear to be falsified by it, because that is a totally Unintelligent Design.
To co-opt a metaphor, if every modern fuel-injected car also had two inactive and unconnected distributors (one with and one without solid-state electronics), you would think again about whether automobiles had in fact been designed, because there is no conceivable rationale for designing them that way.
The life sciences are composed almost entirely of facts like these, facts inexplicable as design elements whose evolutionary origin can be precisely mapped out. Yes, it is all speculation and hypothesis. So is every theory. No, if we take away the assumption that it is already true and can be used as a starting point, it does not fail to hold up. Of course it doesn't. It still explains the inexplicable. And that's why it's regarded as the best of all scientific theories.
(Whereas belief in ID requires the a priori assumption that the design of the human body is perfect, and the denial of its imperfection in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's often the case that people on the wrong side of an argument accuse the people on the right side of precisely the error of logic that they themselves are committing. I've always found that curious.)
But you claim to have read the science, which means you knew all this already. Which indicates that you're pretty clearly not capable of rational thought on this subject. No shame there--it appears to be a large club.
"Why is it so hard to believe that God created all things AND that they have the ability to evolve?!"
What you call evolution in this case is not evolution, but natural selection. Natural selection results in a decrease of genetic information. No increase in genetic information has ever been observed to occur from mutation and natural selection.
Another liberal athiest attack at the Truth. We know that God, and only God, created this earth and there is no such thing as evolution. Mr. Ebert shows his true liberal, Hollywood, colors.
Ebert: Being a subscriber to the theory of evolution does not mean one is an atheist. The great majority of the planet's Christians and followers of other faiths agree with the theory. The theory is nonpartisan. Among earth scientists, who study the theory, there is no difference in the degree of support for the theory of evolution between those who are liberal and those who are conservative. The figure in both cases is vanishingly close to 100%. Period. That's it.
If Michel Lamontagne is doing a summary, I'm doing a summary of my posts...plus one, of course
1st post---If Ben Stein is so scientific in his theories how could he vote for people that have such contempt for science, Sarah Palin and McCain, who said in their political rallies that they would be against studying genetics in fruit flies and DNA in grizzly bears, when the fruit fly is the very foundation of genetics and the grizzly bear is going extinct and the only way to tell if you observing the same grizzly bear or not is to take a hair from its DNA.
My contention was hinting that Ben Stein is a republican cheerleader. "I will always vote for the war hero...everytime", he said on Larry King. I doubt he voted for John Kerry...I'm just saying, which one was more of the war hero, there? Obama has never said anything bad about science. But I'll get back to Ben Stein cheerleading.
2nd post---My second post was defending Michael Moore who brought us to the attention of the Saudis. The problem with that movie was that the problem of the Saudis is actually bigger and worse than the movie showed us. Saudi's are not only in James-bakers lawfirm(and behind the baker-hamilton reports) under retainer for 4.1 million dollars, but other washington law firms patton-boggs, and democratic washington lawfirms akin-gump, and also washington think tanks to affect our policies, and also our secretary of energy Spencer Abraham who gave us a hydrogen policy that will never work who now takes Saudi money or how about Colin Powell who took a Jaguar from Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar a week after he retired which would have been illegal in office. The Saudis (head of OPEC)raised the price of oil at will this year to 150 dollars a barrel, Bin Laden wanted it to go to 144--it surpassed it, we can't stop Iran, the petroterrorists from making nuclear weapons because they control Russia who won't drop sanctions for us to stop it--Iran hates saudis, Saudi hate Iran both have great control of superpowers although not being one, we could stop Darfur genocide but Saudis have Saudi influence in Washington--once again--and what do we do? Go to China knowing they will not drop sanctions allowing us to do stop it, because they are buying Sudanese oil from the middle east--the administration just goes through the motions and takes the Saudi money who are buying up key sectors of our and other world economies with sovereign wealth funds (Prince bin talel), with oil revenues but to go further in affecting our energy policies they own 5 % of newscorp and time warner/aol, which includes not only foxnews but CNN along with the wall street journal, and time magazine who printed up a cover story against ethanol recently--Chavez and Saudis were saying ethanol is the reason for high food prices, of course they would say bad things about alternative fuels, which aren't true--agriculture is up, not down, but that won't stop the republicans...like cheerleader Ben Stein from believing it and also saying we are safer now because of George Bush, something typical like that...
My contention again is that Ben Stein is a republican cheerleader who said on "Glenn Beck" "Ethanol subsidies are the dumbest policy I've ever heard of!" despite that every dollar subsidized takes away 3 dollars away in foreign oil. Let's remember where terrorism is funded...oil revenue. What did George Bush do about giving us an energy policy that takes away money from funding terrorism, mainly the Saudis? Nothing, and even worse, Spencer Abraham gave us a backward policy and then took Saudi money...that's not a dumb administration, that's a malicious administration. Mandating all new cars sold in U.S., as is Obama's energy policy, is the solution...a bi-partisan, minimal intervening (only 100$ per car) policy.
3rd post--"Why do we ask why?". Roger posed as an intriguing question. Well, I thought I would add that Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, tackled the idea of consciousness itself, i.e. how we are aware.
Next few posts---reponse to Try_again... about how he was claiming that Intelligent Designers (sounds like a fashion label,nice pants) and Ben Stein refutations on 7 seven mutations could not have happened (with no explanation) despite the fact that at the time the movie was made, these discoveries were well, just discovered(oh, that explains the no explanation), showing another pulling out of the hat ( with others like the Earth is only 10,000 years old, missing chromosomes, and if were proven in math equations would lead to "you didn't carry the 1.org").
New Post
Notice how in America we have scary little voodoo names for our hospitals...the cancer center, instead of the healing cancer center for example? It's like our doctors are voodoo priest "welcome to the cancer center. Have you been naughty or nice? Here is some prescription drugs with crazy side-effects..hahaha!"
Now, notice Intelligent Design. Notice how intelligent designers (love those pants) say things like "there was a new scientific development about evolution, but I wasn't afraid...". You don't ever hear darwinians say "There was a development of Intelligent Design science, all is lost". That's because we don't even know what Intelligent Design is for other than "your schools are not being open-minded about letting teach a class called how to trash evolution". We already have problems with our hospitals given odd names, let's not have our classrooms be infected with this kind perverse language....I can't think of one class called "anti-genetics" or "anti-math" or "anti-history". Just look at all the posts here that believe in Intelligent Design...what do they bring to the table, that has not already been brung, which is then destroyed by someone wearing their monacles at their keyboards typing "well, done. I applaud you for whatever it is you think. Go, hate. We're here to teach a class on questioning it, bitches". That's just called education, last I checked. One of my teachers in high school was laughing about how someone spray painted "question everything" as graffiti on his college campus, and somebody spray painted a response to it "why?". Think of it what you will. Others seem to not even realize what the definition of a conversation is, an exchange of ideas. That's what we are doing here, and I've yet to see what ideas intelligent designers bring to the table other than a nice new name for a fashion label (Are those Intelligen Designs you are wearing, you sexy little nerd?)
People need to read Friedrich Hayeks "The Road to Serfdom" to see how Hitler got everyone to follow him into killing people. A reading of his biography couldn't hurt either--abused, scared of girls, failed artist. It was totalitarianism, not Darwinism that lead people to commit such horrific acts.
I think there was more I wanted to say, but I'll end by saying that people took Roger's quote out of context I think a bit. When he said "a movie is about how it is about it, not what it's about", he meant that no subject is too taboo for a movie, although, yes, the sentence stands on its own, and if you read the blog more carefully, he tells you how it went wrong.
Wow.
Mr. Ebert, this. article. is. endless.
It's like a rambling screed! How very deconstructionist of you, mirroring Ben Stein's style!
NS
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/
Scott Andrews:
Do you realize how simplistic and smug your answers seem? You believe in a creator god because of the following reasons:
1. "It makes [you]feel good."
2. "It explains everything."
3. "It's not contradicted by any known evidence."
4. "A lot of people have believed it for a long time."
5. "There's tons and tons of evidence. I'm just not going to share any with you."
You might want to consider my reactions to your assertions:
1. It doesn't make everyone feel good. Personally, I felt like I was perjuring myself to recite creeds that I didn't believe, so I had to stop as a matter of personal integrity. Like Roger, I do believe that Jesus said many things that were intrinsically good; however, most of them did not originate with him; nor are all good instrinsically good things limited to the richness of Judeo-Christian ethics, for example, consider the Jains, whose ethics are morally superior in many ways.
2. It might explain everything to your satisfaction; it doesn't even begin to explain everything to my satisfaction. I cannot/will not worship a god who would permit the kind of undeserved suffering that goes on in this world. It's an old conundrum: such a god is not good, or he is not God. That's why many Europeans said and continue to say that God died in Auschwitz.
3. Many thoughtful/educated persons (persons who are good, decent, and smart, not the foolish infidels portrayed in the Psalms) disagree with you, so you can only speak for yourself when you say that no evidence against a creator god exists.
4. A lot of people have believed many things, and for a lot longer than people have believed in the god of Abraham and Jesus, yet I assume that you wouldn't cite that as a reason to believe what they believe.
5. I wasn't going to dignify this comment with one of my own, but on second thought I will: many believers tell me that they have a personal relationship with their deity, and that this god works miracles on their behalf that range from finding them parking spaces to making something possible for them to do, usually something that thousands of others do on a daily basis without divine aid. It is either narcissistic, ignorant, or at least unthinking to say that a deity works miracles in your life while he permits tens of thousands of innocent children to die of war, disease and starvation every day.
I rarely try to disabuse someone of his or her beliefs because I know the initial pain that comes with a loss of belief, but there's a world of thoughtful, unbelieving individuals out there, and you might be surprised to find out how much integrity and goodness is prevalent among them. It's not easy to give up pat answers, but I can tell you from personal experience that it's the cost of intellectual honesty and integrity.
@MC:
Except bacteria evolving and getting immune to certain medicine.
There goes your belief. Too bad.
Mr. Ebert: again, you didnt respond to the point regarding film criticism and political political point of view.
Of course a liberals can believe what ever they want. I don't believe them evil, bigoted or attack their character or attempt to marginalize them as the left does to conservative or right-of-center views.
I have faith in God. I don't know about the mysteries of life and our world. Please raise your hand if anyone knows for sure the truth of why we're here, how we got here and what it all means.
No one knows. Left or right. Liberal or conservative.
My problem is the left allegedly hates those that live in a black and white, no gray area world. Yet it adheres to black and white toward doctrines it holds dear and attacks anyone who dares question global warming, Darwinism or the 2000 election.
My other point was about your attacking Ben Stein while championing Michael Moore, Al Gore and others practicing the same tactics and tools of selective editing, outright lies and distortions.
Another point: any time I read your reviews and see you describe a politically-tinged movie as "non-partisan," one that favors neither "left or right," I know it's essentially a liberal/Democrat good, conservative/Republican/Evangelical bad. No, correct that, evil.
Ebert: Are you sure that all Evangelicals are conservative? Obama got 24% of their vote, and Jimmy Carter is one. Apart from the fact that my blog was written by a liberal, what specifically did you disagree with? Remember, the Theory of Evolution is not a liberal or conservative issue.
Reply to: Scott Andrews: I would wager that there are quite a few great minds in medicine who have absolutely no idea that their discoveries and advances are due to the theory of evolution... So my question is, if the theory is truly backed up by a mountain of evidence, why...
I'll admit I'm deeply disturbed by the results of this study, even though when I went to Law School, there was a Christian Law Society, and thus I know that all lawyers aren't smart enough to figure out the Correct Answer.
The survey asked 1,472 physicians. The AMA says there are 918,000 physicians in the United States.
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/3157/2345/400/16477/evochart.jpg
http://www.jtsa.edu/Scholars_and_Research/Louis_Finkelstein_Institute_for_Religious_and_Social_Studies/Public_Interest_Surveys/Evolution_vs_Intelligent_Design.xml
The study was conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute at The Jewish Theological Seminary in Flemington, New Jersey, from May 13 to May 15, 2007. The study was conducted as part of a continuing investigation of issues in the healthcare system.
The responses were analyzed based on the respondent's religious affiliation. Among the findings:
When asked whether they agree more with intelligent design or evolution,
an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (88%) and
60% of Catholic doctors
said they agree more with evolution, while
slightly more than half of Protestants (54%) agree more with intelligent design.
A majority of Catholic doctors (67%) agree with the statement that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings,
while
11% of Catholic doctors believe that "God created humans exactly as they appear now."
(I think that's a disturbing figure. Eleven percent of Catholic doctors marked the response for Creationism?)
35% of Protestant doctors believe that God created humans as they appear now.
65% of Jewish doctors agree more with the statement that "humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement."
The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution and, of those,
Jews are most positive (94%), and
Catholics are next (86%), followed by
Protestants (59%).
When asked whether intelligent design has legitimacy as science, an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and
half of Catholic doctors (51%)
believe that intelligent design is simply
"a religiously inspired pseudo-science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation,"
while more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific speculation."
http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-do-so-many-doctors-accept.html
Doctors are far less likely to believe in the explicitly creationist position than are the general public. They are also far more likely to believe that evolution occurred without divine guidance.
Overall, the acceptance of evolution among doctors is around 78% whereas it's only around 45% for the general public.
________
My analysis: Christianity and various religions teach a view of God that is interfering with the American educational system. After going to medical school and joining the AMA, 11% of Catholic physicians marked the space for "humans were created in their present form".
I'd like to drub Scott for his comment, but in all fairness, the Defense Mechanisms of Christianity are so powerful, it's NOT his fault.
Even people who have an honest curiosity and seek the Truth may be unable to find it. It's all too easy to run into one of those 11% of Catholic physicians, or be unable to tell legitimate websites from dishonest Creationist ones.
One day, as two beautiful girls were watching, I tried like hell to push open a door that clearly said pull. It was then that I first believed in natural selection.
I sometimes wish that we shared a collective consciousness like the Strangers in Dark City; we would either be collectively intelligent or collectively stupid.
Ebert: Great for everyone else, but don't you sometimes feel like John Murdoch?
To be such a non-treat, Intelligent Design sure has a lot of people's panties in a bunch. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear the Darwinists bravado was nothing more than a case of whistling past the graveyard.
"This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions"
Sounds exactly like all the Michael Moore films you love so much.
Ebert: Let's see...that's mention #51 of Michael Moore.
Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, nothing good comes of such a contemptuous treatment of the opposition. It causes people to dig in their heels. If you wished to change someone's views it would help if you didn't spend large parts of this review acting like a dick. It reinforces the belief that this is really a treatise for those who already agree with you, making this whole review seem like an exercise in self-indulgence.
Ebert: You know, it wasn't until Stein went on the guided tour of the ovens that I decided to take off my mitts. I have a blog entry all prepped to go on a related subject, but when I saw that grotesque scene, all I thought about was Stein. He sold his soul.
OK, Roger, stop reading these things. Go see a movie or something.
Ebert: Hey, SNL is on!
I'm sorry but I don't agree with your words, Roger. They contradict everything I believe. I don't understand why every single comment on this blog praises you as if you are some kind of bringer of profound revelation. I guess all these people have nothing better to do than repeat how great they think you are-- well I'm not one of 'em. Maybe next time you'll get it right Mr. Rogers
PS- (post script)- I'm only 15
Ebert: What I don't agree with is that every single comment agrees with me. Just use your Search to look for the name "Michael Moore," which appears 51 times, and you may find a negative opinion. Anyway, welcome to the blog.
I'm glad Ben Stein created this film. Most people in the mainstream still thought he was credible and highly intelligent. Now I won't have to have the argument anymore about how he isn't either of those things.
Too bad Mystery Science Theater 3000 was cancelled. I would love to see them riff on Expelled.
The best part about your "review" is that it is typical of many "Joe's" opinion on the street. I suppose you made your money by going to the movies and telling everyone why your opinion mattered more than the average "Joe" on the street, although it never did. It has always been about you and never a higher being. You wanted others to watch and read you because you had something to say to which others should listen.
The worst part is that your opinions do matter to some very fine people out there. They actually agree with you. Notice I said "fine" and not "smart". These people do not know how to think for themselves and, therefore, will believe anything they themselves cannot explain or see. Now that I think about it, maybe you are a part of the latter.
I will pray for you that you will "see the light" and come around.
This review is totally ridiculous. You have totally missed the point of the movie, which shows repeatedly throughout your review. I think Ben Stein's message got clouded because of his style and methods throughout a lot of the movie, including how he was belittling to the opposing side of the argument. However, the whole point was that neither evolution nor intelligent design are proven or disproven as the origin of life. It is not a religious matter at all. Anyone who wants to investigate the possibility of intelligent design is getting ostracized, and there is no excuse for that. That is the violation of freedom that is presented in the movie, and he makes a totally valid point.
Jared Jammer: "To be such a non-treat, Intelligent Design sure has a lot of people's panties in a bunch. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear the Darwinists bravado was nothing more than a case of whistling past the graveyard."
On an intellectual level Creationism/ID is no threat. It is on par with astrology, or the Stork Theory of Reproduction.
The problem is that it remains a viable threat, not to science, but to science education, where political forces that champion scientific ignorance have sustained a tremendous level of energy (and money) in attempting to get their particular brand of silliness taught in public schools alongside actual science. They've been at it for decades. Nobody is trying to do this with astrology or the Stork Theory of Reproduction. This difference is why it is Creationism (in its various forms, including ID) that gets the scientific community's collective panties in a bunch, so to speak.
If proponents of Alchemy proposed in any seriousness that it should be taught alongside Chemistry, and they were able to garner the level of political support from the scientifically ignorant that Creationism has been able to, you would see just as many scientists' panties worked into a bunch defending the seminal champions of modern Chemistry as today they defend Darwin.
I came to the party early with a small comment, and nearly 700 comments later, I've come late. But I just finished watching "Expelled", and thought I should add a comment or two.
Earlier I mentioned that I'm not very confident in the idea of the film as political (or scientific) essay. An hour and a half isn't nearly enough time to really explore any issue as complex as the debate between these two camps. I still hold to that opinion. Any documentary attempting to delve into issues meant for academia is bound to fail. Stein's film does generally fail. At least to the extent that it doesn't offer any great points of interest in the debate itself. I didn't come away with any great revelations into either sides stances.
But maybe Stein is hinting at something that should be considered. I'm not a scientist, and am in no way involved with the scientific community, and so I have no way of validating (or invalidating) Steins picture of the intellectual climate surrounding the issue. If Stein is right, however, and scientists are working in an environment where they are strongly discouraged from thinking outside of the evolutionary box, then it is a cause for concern. It would seem to me that the best science would take place when scientists feel free to go down every dark alley and dead end street to see what might be there. If men and women really are being cast out of the scientific community because they've dared to toy with ID and write something about it, then we are holding our academic institutions to a low standard. We can quote statistics about the low number of scientists that support ID, but those numbers don't mean much if there are actually members of the community afraid to show their faces on camera for fear of being found out.
I also find it a little insulting when religion is talked about as if it's just some refuge for the weak minded. For some it may be, but not for all. And I've no doubt that any pursuit of man can be a refuge for a weak mind. Science included.
If nothing else, maybe it would do some good for everyone really involved with these issues on a ground level to take a breather. Step back and reexamine what they are doing. Remind themselves that the issue has become so loaded that it might be hard for either side to think clearly about what evidence there is. To remember that the pursuit of science, theology, philosophy, sociology, literature, film, carpentry, etc etc etc, is all ultimately a pursuit to know more of ourselves and the world that we live in. If we take that view, then we do not need to be afraid to be wrong, or proud in being right.
This review is totally ridiculous. You have totally missed the point of the movie, which shows repeatedly throughout your review. I think Ben Stein's message got clouded because of his style and methods throughout a lot of the movie, including how he was belittling to the opposing side of the argument. However, the whole point was that neither evolution nor intelligent design are proven or disproven as the origin of life. It is not a religious matter at all. Anyone who wants to investigate the possibility of intelligent design is getting ostracized, and there is no excuse for that. That is the violation of freedom that is presented in the movie, and he makes a totally valid point.
WHY DOES RELIGION HAVE TO MESS UP REALITY??? Why are people so stupid that they actually believe the world was made in seven days and Adam and Eve were actual people??? Why are people who know better tolerant of people who believe these things??? A simple understanding could clear it up! GENESIS IS A MYTHOLOGY, RELYING ON SYMBOLISM, METAPHOR, ETC. SO IS MOST OF THE BIBLE.
Idiots, listen! Pound this into your head! Eat these words like you do your weekly communion! My words are nourishment for the mind and sweet wine for the intellect: The Bible is a religious scripture, and just like other religious scriptures, and other secular literary works as well, its words are often SYMBOLIC! Mythology relies on ANALOGIES and NON-LITERAL SYMBOLISM to express a SPIRITUAL TRUTH. I know it's hard to understand such things when your mind is not accustomed to such thinking. It is far easier to read Genesis 1:3 and let the words bypass your undeveloped critical analytical mind and straight to the "Fact" section of your brain. God said "Let there be light!" It says it right here!
Such thinking is a grave error! Listen to my words, you foolish, silly men with all your fear and superstition: GOD is beyond Words. GOD is beyond your comprehension. GOD is beyond The Bible. Such an indispensable book, but how harmful it has become to some men! Heed my writing. It will be a light unto your mind and an uplifting energy unto your soul: The Bible is NOT the be-all end-all Word of God! If you believe that it is, then I weep for your soul! For you have cut off the branch from which you receive Life, by limiting GOD to mere WORDS. Words written by distant men in distant lands in distant times, no less!
Listen, fools! The Bible has great words in it, but also outdated and misunderstood ones! GOD exists for each to discover on his own. If you ever want to truly know GOD and yourself, throw your Bible away! Better to discover him without any help than to risk losing him forever due to your foolishness.
Foolish men! Science is the study of GOD'S world, using Logic, the God-given REASON that the mind even exists. How infinitely stupid and sinful to dismiss its findings because of your absent-minded attachment to a book that IS NOT EVEN MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Idiots! I weep for your souls! You let your mind rot, thinking it is GOD'S will! HOW STUPID!
Fools! Laymen! I command you now, with the strongest and utmost urgency: FREE YOUR MIND FROM ITS SELF-INFLICTED PRISON. You are a capable human being with the ability to look at facts and understand logical forms! EVOLUTION IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY FALSE BECAUSE OF THE BIBLE! This is not an argument for evolution, although it would be wise of you to see its truth. No, this is an argument AGAINST your narrow-minded views of GOD! Your ONLY reservation with evolution is that it contradicts a literal interpretation of The Bible! BUT THIS IS GRAVELY FOOLISH OF YOU! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN, AND AGAIN: THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND!? NOW REPENT FOR YOUR SIN OF STUPIDITY AND OPEN YOUR MIND TO GOD! HE'S BEEN WAITING FOR YOU.
"Ebert: Yes, and quite informative, but what does this information have to do with the Theory of Evolution, which does not call for anything? There was an overlap between early evolutionists and early advocates of eugenics. There is an overlap between VISA card holders and child molesters. Do you see the logical error? Because all of group B belong to group A does not mean all from group A belong to group B."
You have written responses that lack integrity. The comparison you tried to make between supporters of eugenics and VISA card holders...typical left wing radical tactics...and has really caused me to lose respect for you. And just for the record...you did catch richard dawkins stating his belief that aliens may have put design in our DNA...that was hilarious.
It was also interesting that dawkins referred to the wisdom of bertrand russell...a man who had four marriages and a menagerie of affairs during and in between his marriages. But of course, he has no basis for morality, so he might as well act like an ape. The common thread when you study philosophers like russell is the level of unhappiness they experienced in their lives.
Ebert: When you write...
"The comparison you tried to make between supporters of eugenics and VISA card holders...typical left wing radical tactics...and has really caused me to lose respect for you."
...I do not believe there is a single reader of this thread, whether pro-ID or pro-evolution, while reading that, who would not spit his or her Diet Coke all over the screen. But let me hold you off at the pass: No, I am not making a comparison between supporters of eugenics,VISA card holders and Diet Coke drinkers.
Is peace on earth possible? Can peace be achieved when opposing but similiar religions dominate a majority of earths population? Is peace really even our goal? And if so, must all enemies of peace be destroyed?
//Ebert: Great for everyone else, but don't you sometimes feel like John Murdoch?//
I suppose we each have a Shell Beach.
On a related note: I should inform you (assuming you don't already know) that the [new?]director's cut of Dark City is now being sold at Wal-Mart; say what you will about the company [depending on your opinion, read as: capitalistic enterprise or Evil Killer Death Factory], but their film selection doesn't seem to be driven /entirely/ by profit, as I've noticed several superb--yet unfortunately, relatively unprofitable--films in their movie displays--perhaps there is hope for humanity?
Bravo Roger! Hopeully Mr. Obama will step in and forward a firm federal position on ID/Creationism, though one would have thougnt that the Dover Trial should have been enough. State school boards are being bombarded by the fundamentalist to water down their biology programs. Their latest ploy "strengths and weaknesses". Every time this happens, countless hours and millions of dollars are being pissed away debating these morons. Money that could be better spent on actually educating their kids. One hopes that a firm statement from the White House saying "Science is science, deal with it!" can let these local boards concentrate on real issues.
One of the best pieces I've seen written about Stein and his ridiculous documentary. I would discuss some of the uneducated and ignorant comments made by people here, but it's futile. For those who can't seem to figure out why their beliefs are at the complete opposite spectrum of just about every major scientist in the world, I recommend picking up some of Daniel Dennett's books. It'll give you a nice primer on psychology behind religion and why you are so passionately defending a stance that is on the other side of reality.
I also agree that the sickest part of the movie and even interviews Stein has given promoting the movie is the connection to the holocaust. It's absurd to blame a scientific finding on an event that was carried out by a crazed sociopath. It's amusing that Stein conveniently left out the fact that Hitler used the tactics of Christians over centuries of just blaming the Jews. He stated in Mein Kampf that warding off the Jews is doing "the Lord's work". Pope Pius wasn't exactly putting much effort into condemning his actions.
Nonetheless, this argument is akin to blaming Tao Monks for discovering gunpowder, thus making them responsible for every shooting in the world. Science is about the discovery of truth, nothing more. What people choose to do with science is the fault of themselves and the society that lets them do it.
Wow, 51 people? I have to admit though...they have a point. After the first person brought up Michael Moore, I couldn't help asking myself if there really was a difference between Moore and Stein, and if so, what it was.
Eventually I decided that while the techniques used by both may be the same, or similar, the difference can be found in the morality of the intent.
Is it a mere 'gotcha' for Moore to show Charlton Heston a picture of a girl killed by guns and film his reaction? No, for the simplest of reasons: Heston deserves it. It's all well and good to stand in front of a crowd and fiercely snarl "From my cold dead hands!", but it was extraordinary to see his inability to look at the picture of a girl who died for his beliefs. His deflation when confronted was an amazing cinematic moment.
Richard Dawkins simply doesn't deserve that sort of treatment in the way that Heston did. He's a genuinely great man, the kind of man who ennobles the rest of us just by existing; and has the added benefit of being right. To attempt to tear him down for the sheer mean joy of it cheapens us all in turn.
There's simply no nobility in the creationist's quest to tilt at evolution. No nobility, no decency, no truth. There's just such indignity in being wrong, isn't there? Who doesn't laugh at the five-year-old boy who loudly insists that he's NEVER going to like girls? (I often wonder if the reason why Christians rarely laugh at atheists for not believing 'the truth' is because, deep down, they're afraid the atheist is right). Indignity is one thing. Creationists are welcome to be wrong, but to try to tear down what others have worked so hard to painstakingly build, to try to deny others the pleasures of a challenging and mind-expanding idea, simply because you hate and fear the ramifications of that idea, is more than merely undignified...it's despicable.
And that is the difference between Stein and Moore.
Ebert: I personally felt sorry for Heston, who was a nice man. I think Moore's defense might be that, at the time of the filming,Heston was actually the president and spokesman for the NRA, a position he resigned not long after when the tragic onset of Alheimer's became clear.
Hi Roger,
After reading all of your review and most of the hundreds of posts above, I'd like to add a few comments. Most of these thoughts stem from a real sense of conflict within myself between my faith and my reason. As this tension reflects much of what comprises the previous posts I'll share some observations. But, I think the Stein movie's content is relevant and I will explain.
As a Christian, I can say that I have a deep longing for and a sense of eternity and reality beyond that defined by the laws of nature as I experience them. Also, I am a Christian which means that I find the life of Jesus so compelling that I believe that he said he was God's Son and said that He IS before Abraham was and that this is true.
This is where life gets wonderfully tricky.
Jesus also said a lot of other things.
For instance, He said there is a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth - and he intimately and repeatedly describes a personal, eternal hell.
He also said that "the scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Okay, please understand that Jesus' statement is the ultimate wellspring for Biblical literalism in the Christian world. Although there certainly are several ways to interpret this, it lends itself irresistibly (and sensibly) to the belief that God (the I AM) brought the Jewish and (by extension) the Christian scriptures into being in order to communicate something(s) to people.
Equally reasonably, most people conclude that if the God of the Universe wanted to create a book it would be a pretty good book, with few typos and lots of accurate detail. In fact, some people insist that God could even pull off a 0 typo/0 error text.
Although the first Christian council at Jerusalem concluded that the old Law had been superseded by Jesus' life and teachings, they still considered it the words of God and Paul elaborates on this theme (of the LAW as a 'schoolmaster'").
And there is a lot of stuff in the Bible that does not square with modern science and an absolute reliance on the scientific method. Namely, miracles.
As an example, take the crossing of the Red Sea. In this event, God caused a strong wind to blow all night which parted the waters and dried the path across the water for the people to walk on. But this is not really a satisfactory explanation, because such a wind would also be of enormous force (and, no, I'm not going into the "they crossed a giant puddle" interpretation) and blow God's people into the water that had been parted. But, the bible also mentioned that the water on each side stood straight up like a wall. Wind cannot have this effect "on either side." So, the Bible describes an example where God intervened to change nature by speeding up an airmass relative to a certain body of water to create an effect and then on top of that imposed a complete break with the laws of nature to make the water stand straight up and down.
And then there is the pillars of cloud (by day) and fire (by night).
And I believe all this literally, because Jesus endorsed the Jewish scriptures explicitly and by quoting them often and variedly. And because it is perfectly sensible that a God who made the universe controls it. Hang with me here.
Meaning,
That nature happens the way it does because God wanted it that way and for His own reasons.
Meaning that 5 + 2 = 7 because that's what God wants - what the Bible calls "for his glory." God can change the rules and then 5 + 2 can equal enough fish and bread units to feed five thousand men + women and children. It's for God's glory and (in this specific example, for our good too).
That's why the implications of the existence of "a creator God" matter. Logically, we must assume that the Creator of a billion, billion galaxies could move some water and air around on our little blue world. The bible says He wanted to, and did.
Miracles threaten a purely scientific understanding of Nature. If the Christian revelation of God is true, then science cannot explain everything in Nature and is undermined as a completely reliable source of knowledge. Thus, a literal interpretation of the miraculous in the Bible does challenge science. The sense is that something has to give.
This has tremendous implications. If you believe, as I do, in the immortality of the soul, then trying to perpetually propagate and preserve the self-awareness of humanity is much less important than to the atheist. If human self-awareness is the highest form of evolution and the path to ever-greater heights of understanding and reason, then, yes, we must propagate and spread humanity throughout the universe.
Do you fell my tension? I love science and technology and colonizing Mars fascinates me and I think it a noble and worthy endeavor, if the Lord should tarry. But my "Iron Age religion" fulfills the longings inside of my self-awareness that are not explained by naturalism, even if the contradiction of self-awareness and doubt could be solved. But, enough.
Good night.
First of all, despite what the biased media would lead you to believe, Intelligent Design is not Biblical creationism. I.D. says nothing about the age or the Earth, nothing about whether or not evolution is true, and no argument for I.D. is taken from the Bible or any other religious text. Intelligent Design is based entirely on modern science, particularly molecular biology, but also extending into cosmology and physics. The whole I.D. = Biblical creationism strawman was created by Darwinists as an attempt to discredit I.D. in the public's eye and to use legal chicanery as a means of keeping any mentioning of I.D. out of the classroom.
The real problem isn't with evolution. I cannot stress this enough as this is absolutely crucial to any I.D. debate. Evolution is change in species over time. This is as proven as gravity and has been known for millennia now. The problem is with the 19th century idea called 'Darwinism'. You see, Darwinism was an idea based on ignorance. It was an idea which sounded good back when we knew little to nothing about how biology actually works. It sounded so good at the time that many people accepted it as a naturalistic explanation for life (later including chemical evolution and the origin of life). Thus it became more than just a scientific idea but also an atheist world-view. As Richard Dawkins said, "Evolution (referring to Darwin's idea) made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".
There's the problem. People have an investment in Darwinism that goes well beyond science. That's the only reason it hasn't joined astrology at the Pseudoscience Cemetery.
Despite the claims to the contrary, Darwinism hasn't held up as a scientific idea. As we've learned more and more about biology (the cell, DNA, mutations, etc.) it's became painfully obvious that all of Darwin's ideas were not only wrong, they were spectacularly wrong (which explains why the fossil record so strongly contradicts it). Yet because Darwinism has been turned into a religion by its followers, they refuse to let it go. Instead they twist facts, manipulate evidence, create their own fake evidence, suppress and bully dissenters, etc. in an attempt to keep it alive. That's not science, that's the antithesis of science. Evolution happened, probably at the macro-level, it just didn't happen anywhere close to the way that Darwin or his followers thought it did.
I really believe Darwinists realize their time is coming to an end, and that's why the hostility has reached a fever pitch. This is their last hurrah, their last desperate attempt at saving their religion. They're going down in a blaze of glory and I feel sorry for the younger people (under 30) who have been brainwashed and are going down with them.
For those that would like to truly understand the modern science of Intelligent Design, from it's proponents and not the flimsy strawmen it's opponents create, check out the website in my username.
As for as the Holocaust footage used in the film, I have no problems with it. It was emotional, but that was the entire point. Some may say it crossed the line, but in my view there is no line to cross when it comes to reality. The truth, no matter how tough a pill it is to swallow, must always be spoken. The truth is the Holocaust was strongly influenced by the ideas of Darwin's theory. Anyone who denies this fact is simply lying to themselves. The whole purpose of the Holocaust was for the Aryans to take the process of natural selection into their own hands and speed up the evolutionary process via wiping out the "inferior" Jews, as well as invalids and others they deemed undesirable. We have both photographic and written evidence, as well as the citation of many historians that back up the Darwin/Holocaust connection. You can't reject historical facts because you don't like them.
Roger, I do hope you had a chance to see the Darwin exhibit at the Field Museum last year (it's now in London). Apparently it had trouble finding corporate sponsors in every city it visited, but upon hearing this The United Church Observer magazine decided to sponsor its Toronto run. Clearly they don't see a theory of evolution as incompatible with a belief in God.
BTW, hundreds of comments ago, Matt Brown had his math right: divide 700 by 480,000 then multiply by 100 to get 0.145833%. (Or look at it this way: 0.1% is one in a thousand, or 480 out of 480,000, so 700 of 480,000 has to be a bit larger than 0.1%. 0.0146% of 480,000 would be only 70. But it's very small, regardless.)
While there are certainly some valid comparisons to be made with Moore, I think the majority that are doing it are falling for the 'equal time for equal arguments' fallacy that Stein, himself, is trying to convince us of.
Stein is using flawed math and assumes that any argument is as worthy of an argument as any other regardless of the amount of factual research to back up either. This isn't a religious argument as much as it is a Rovian GOP argument.
Examples:
Argument 1: Universal health care has been practiced by many, many governments throughout the world for many, many decades with plenty of actual research and numbers to back up the validity of the various methods of providing health care to the masses in a fair, equitable, society-benefiting way.
Argument 2: I heard from a friend that they had an uncle who lived in Canada and he had to way 5 days to get an operation! Ergo, universal health care sucks.
In the eyes of pundits (and their enablers, network news), those arguments are equally strong and deserving of equal air time.
So, yea, dislike Moore if you insist for his creative editing techniques, but please don't ignore the simple fact that Moore also uses a lot of facts. Facts much stronger than 'evolutionists caused the holocaust'. Sorry, but those simply *aren't* equal arguments.
As for David's "How dare you insult the opposition", that's another clear political tactic polished by the GOP. It's akin to the anti-gay argument of "You can't hate me because I'm a homophobe because that means you are discriminating against my hate!" backwards logic.
*sigh*
Ebert, to comment on one of your replies: "Can a liberal not subscribe to ID?"
You know this, but, typically, no, a liberal wouldn't subscribe to ID in the sense that ID is very much a political construct.
Creationism is a religious construct. Anyone can subscribe to it. Most folks allow it to exist along side their understanding of science without conflict. I'm a flaming communist pinko atheist heathen, yet I still enjoy reading the Noah's Ark story to the kids and such.
But ID is very much a political construct. It is designed for one purpose and one purpose only: rally the Conservative Christian Republicans.
So, in that sense, anyone that is politically liberal wouldn't really be politically liberal if they were subscribing to the ID doctrine.
Part of me wants to believe that Stein isn't just dumb. Perhaps this was a clever step in the direction of becoming more involved with the GOP. Alas, he may have had poor timing giving the current state of things.
678,er 679 responses and counting , New record? I don't know how you keep up on all the responses all your increasingly numerous articles are generating. You realize you will soon be overwhelmed. I can see evolution in action. Environmental challenges has caused your brain to evolve in new ways.
Roger,
I've been away from your blog for a few days, and ... yikes.
You guys go on without me; I'll be over at "Reader Mail" commenting on Roger's 20 great films of 2008 article.
Dodds Corollary-
"When debating a particular subject, if a comparison or implied connection is drawn between the opponent's argument and Hitler and the Nazi Party, the maker of that statement is automatically discredited and the debate is automatically lost by the person or group who referenced the connection to Hitler or the Nazis."
I believe this means Ben Stein discredited himself.
I just commented on, well, not commenting, then read Sean T.'s comment: "Science is about the discovery of truth, nothing more. What people choose to do with science is the fault of themselves and the society that lets them do it."
The implication of your comment, Sean, is that "science" is somehow separate from "people," something simply "out there," a natural resource like water. "Science," though, is not "nature," but a human activity that keenly observes--and thus, inevitably, changes--nature. I wouldn't blame crude oil for global warming; but what about the scientists who refined it? Aren't they "people"?
I'm reminded of Robert Oppenheimer's quoting from the Bhagavad Gita after the fist successful atomic test: "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." And then there's Ken Bainbridge, the test director, who recognized, "Now we're all sons of bitches."
One would be hard-pressed to find a scientist who believes that there should be boundaries to research. But to stick one's hands into the muddy waters of life and pretend they come up clean is disingenuous, to say the least.
In terms of the present debate, the evolutionists I admire are the ones who acknowledge the social implications of their discoveries and remain sensitive to those for whom their research has caused dismay. One can be both objective and empathetic.
I can't believe you printed that response from the person who repeated the Bible is not supposed to be interpreted literally over and over and IN CAPS. You have now allowed this forum to be dragged down to the level of a video game chat room.
Just kidding. I suppose the big mistake Ben Stein makes is that he's trying to compare science and religion on science's turf, and religion is bound to lose there. Religion is based on faith. You can't apply the same standards to it that you do with, say, mathematics, where it's fairly easy to prove that two plus two equals four.
I haven't read everything posted here, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else's comment, but the only thing about the origin of the universe I'm really stumped about is, where did that first speck of dust come from?
Ebert: Oh, I can answer that one. Nobody knows. People can tell you what they believe, but you can tell them what you believe, and who's right? All possible answers have been formed on this side of the speck, but none of them can obtain information from the other side, even assuming there is one.
I'm not going to address Jared Jammer directly again, because I recognize the tone of someone off the deep end of religious fanaticism. Reasoning with such a human is impossible. They will believe what they believe, all evidence be damned.
That being said, anyone who is on the fence should take note of his tactics, as they are very representative of his ilk:
1) Draw arbitrary distinctions between "evolution" and "Darwinism", even though the second is a completely made-up word, used most often by creationists as a synonym for "atheism." Ignore the fact that the majority of religious people, including Christians, accept evolutionary theory. Capitalize on the general public's fear and distrust of atheists. Bring up the Dawkins quote "evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Pretend that evolution is the only scientific theory to which this applies. Pretend that the obvious fact that an atheist had no explanation for the diversity of life prior to the development of evolutionary theory makes evolution inherently atheistic. Hope nobody realizes that the quote could just as easily apply to, say, the Germ Theory of Disease, prior to the development of which an atheist could not have explained sickness.
2) Hint at vast problems with the science of evolution and an enormous conspiracy to cover up dissent. Ignore the fact that there is no evidence for such a conspiracy whatsoever. Hint at a motive for such a conspiracy: the emotional attachment to the theory. Ignore the fact that every scientist in the world understands that discovering any actual evidence that contradicted evolution would be an instant ticket to fame and fortune (indeed, many who have challenged evolution without any actual evidence have become famous anyway). Confidently assert that Darwinism (whatever that is) is in its death throes. Hope nobody points out the fact that Creationists have been making this claim since the 1800's. (Really, how long can a "death throe" last?) Spew out an impressive sequence of lies regarding evolution's scientific state, including such howlers as that the fossil record somehow contradicts Darwin's theory. Conveniently fail to give any examples. Utilize the principle that it takes only seconds to utter a lie, and can take minutes if not hours to refute it.
3) Capitalize on the invention of the arbitrary distinction between "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design." Creationism was religion, see, but Intelligent Design? Oh, that's science! It's only the Creationists who talk about God. ID supporters use high-fallotin'-soundin' phrases like "irreducible complexity". How could that not be science? Ignore the fact that the one "textbook" that supports ID -- "Of Pandas and People", of the Dover Trial fame -- began its life as a Creationist textbook and that (around the time of the Edwards v. Aguillard SCOTUS decision that declared the teaching of Creationism in public schools unconstitutional) its authors literally did a search-and-replace on the text, replacing "God" with "The Designer" and "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design". Ignore the Wedge Document, written by Phillip E. Johnson, considered the founder of the ID strategy, which illustrates in detail the ultimately religious aims of ID: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Ignore the fact that no scientific research has ever been done in the name of ID, that no scientific hypothesis has ever even been proposed regarding ID by its proponents, that no scientific experiments have ever been proposed with the goal of verifying ID, and that ID's primary claims are in no way made with the scientific method in mind. Hope (pray?) that because you use scientific-sounding language, people will buy into the lie that you are doing actual science. Ignore that the Discovery Institute, the primary cheerleaders of ID, constitute little more than a glossy public relations firm.
4) Confidently assert that Hitler's policies were the direct result of Darwin. Ignore that Hitler rejected Darwin's theories. Pretend that genocide is a new idea. Ignore that the rank and file cleansing of differing ethnic groups has been a time-honored tradition of human beings that dates at least as far back as the Assyrian Empire (20th to 15th century BC). Ignore the fact that it has never taken a scientific theory to encourage humans to slaughter one another. Tie whatever evil you can to whatever theories you don't like. Hope nobody sees through it.
5) Link to William Dembski's website. Ignore that every idea that crank has ever proposed vis a vie evolution has been gutted, thrown out, and left in the sun to rot. Pretend that one person's failure of imagination equates to actual knowledge ("I can't imagine how this could have occurred" becomes "It could not have possibly occurred"). Take solace in the fact that he sure knows a lot of scientific-soundin' words! Ignore that ever since Dover, he and all the other ID supporters have pretty much dropped the "ID is science" line and have returned to merely attacking their own misguided perceptions of what evolution represents.
"Despite the claims to the contrary, Darwinism hasn't held up as a scientific idea. As we've learned more and more about biology (the cell, DNA, mutations, etc.) it's became painfully obvious that all of Darwin's ideas were not only wrong, they were spectacularly wrong (which explains why the fossil record so strongly contradicts it)."
Well, first of all, the theory of evolution as currently understood by scientists does not contradict the fossil record - in fact, the theory has enabled scientists to make some astonishingly accurate predictions about what the record would hold.
Second of all, despite the claims to the contrary, the theory of evolution has changed a lot since the days of Darwin. Anyone who claims otherwise is horribly misinformed. Darwin got an astonishing amount right (contrary to what you may claim,) but he also got a lot wrong, and pretty much every scientist is willing to admit that. With the aid of modern technology and research techniques, scientists have altered and modified (sometimes radically) Darwin's original theory. Yes, modern biology supports the theory of evolution spectacularly well.
"For those that would like to truly understand the modern science of Intelligent Design, from it's proponents and not the flimsy strawmen it's opponents create, check out the website in my username."
Yes, people should check that website out. And then afterwards they should visit Talk Origins - a website that's actually, you know, honest, and which actually examines the science of intelligent design, and the theory of evolution, clearly showing why the former is pseudoscience and the latter a theory that is supported by enormous amounts of evidence and research. Amazingly, the site manages to avoid the flimsy strawmen, manipulations, and distortions of its opponents.
But hey - it's all just an atheistic conspiracy to suppress "real science!"
I feel compelled to repeat a comment I made on another thread. This post has generated reactions from all sorts of extremists on the right, on the left, fundamentalist Christians and radical atheists. And they all have the same theme: "Anyone who disagrees with my worldview is either evil or irrational."
Ironically, it is the evil and irrational who typically make this type of argument.
Ebert: The Theory of Evolution offers, of course, no opinion on any possible political or religious belief, so the lot of them really have no relevance to this discussion.
Reply to: I find it a little insulting when religion is talked about as if it's just some refuge for the weak minded.
Good. You got that.
Reply to: For some it may be, but not for all... Maybe it would do some good to take a breather. Step back and reexamine what they are doing. The issue has become so loaded that it might be hard for either side to think clearly about what evidence there is.
OK, let's talk about Defense Mechanisms. Christianity has a lot of them. You can't take a break when you're about to make a breakthrough. In order to find the Correct Answer, Christians have to change a lot of their previous thinking. Do it now, while you've got a support group encouraging you to change.
Reply to: Jesse: I'm sorry but I don't agree with your words, Roger. They contradict everything I believe. Maybe next time you'll get it right Mr. Rogers PS I'm only 15
Ever hear of a "Coming of Age" movie? At 15, much of your personality is about to undergo a major change. Instead of a powerless member of society, you are about to grow up. You no longer have to believe what your parents and church groups tell you. You're ready to make some progress.
Some examples to show how the brainwashing works:
First, if you're a Christian, your belief in miracles ranks higher than the nonsense you learn in science class:
Reply to: As a Christian, I can say that I have a deep longing for and a sense of eternity and reality beyond that defined by the laws of nature as I experience them.... Nature happens the way it does because God wanted it that way and for His own reasons. Meaning that 5 + 2 = (two hundred) because that's what God wants - what the Bible calls "for his glory....Miracles threaten a purely scientific understanding of Nature. If the Christian revelation of God is true, then science is undermined as a completely reliable source of knowledge. Thus, a literal interpretation of the miraculous in the Bible does challenge science. The sense is that something has to give.
I call that brainwashing. The Christian goal of undermining science as a reliable source of knowledge. It hurts children, and it's going on all the time.
Reply to: Despite the claims to the contrary, Darwinism hasn't held up as a scientific idea. As we've learned more and more about biology (the cell, DNA, mutations, etc.) it's became painfully obvious that all of Darwin's ideas were not only wrong, they were spectacularly wrong (which explains why the fossil record so strongly contradicts it).
First, the fossil record does NOT contradict modern Evolutionary Theory. Darwin wrote in 1859, and using the term "Darwinism" could refer to ideas that have been modified after the human genome was published. Again, a Straw Man argument, and those inside the "refuge for weak minded" don't understand why that's not important. The fossil record simply don't have enough examples to chart the changes in any species.
Some of our most successful movies feature what I call "Christian porn." A scientist, an atheist, or a Skeptic is confronted by "the power of God" and changes into a Christian.
At the beginning of "The Exorcist," Jason Miller plays a priest with a medical degree and some impressive credentials in psychology, who has lost his faith and wants to quit. What does "lost his faith" mean? It simply means that the literal meaning of the Bible has gotten to him. He's no longer able to pretend the words mean something credible or logical. He's begun to realize that "Everybody lies" and the stories in the Bible are not actually miracles, but merely lies to recruit the gullible and weak-minded into a cult or organization.
Then, Jason Miller's character encounters demonic possession. He performs tests. The hospital performs tests. Finally, a doctor tells Regan's mother, "You should consider finding an Exorcist." And Father Merrin appears. There are two Exorcists, but Miller is the one in the title, because he undergoes the change from skeptic to believer. That's the reason the story is so powerful. A scientist changes and admits the supernatural is real.
I call that porn. Christian porn. A fictional story that creates an emotional response in the audience and "gets them off."
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" starts with Indy as a Skeptic, and winds up with him knowing the power inside the Ark is supernatural and miraculous.
I like the title "Childhood's End." At some point, you want to grow up and stop thinking like a child. Religion holds you back. Religion hits you with believable lies in order to derail your progress to adult thinking. Some of the lies are so wonderful, you don't want to give them up. You cling to them. You go home and re-watch your collection of Christian porn. I understand the process. I just don't know how to break through.
"The Case for Christ" and "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" also fall into the category of Christian porn. I've had Christians offer to buy me a copy of "The Case for Christ" and they never understand why I laugh. Lee Strobel doesn't examine the evidence. He's only giving "the case for". Go listen to OJ's explanation of his armed robbery (I only wanted to confront them, give them a chance to give me back my stuff, before I called the police) and then realize he was sentenced to nine years in prison. Just because there's "a case for" doesn't mean the case is credible.
Hi Roger,
Thanks for the Magnolia re-review. I love that movie but can never put my finger on why I love it and have so much admiration for it. Your Great Movie review helped me clarify it. By the way, the song all the characters sing is called "Wise Up" by Aimee Mann, not "It's Not Going to Stop."
Thanks again and I hope you're feeling well.
-Jordan
To gbj on December 7, 2008 11:42 AM:
I see that you NOTICED my assertion that THE BIBLE IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. Do you know how hard it is to get a creationist to even acknowledge this belief, let alone respond to it with more than few murmurs and mumbles?
Of course religion and science are different in that the former requires faith, the latter empirical Truth. No one knows the exact nature of God, nor what He looks like, sounds like, or IS like. You can't put God under a microscope and pin him down by logical, scientific means. God is beyond that. What a great thing! Our life is more than just what our minds can conquer.
The mistake comes when religious people (or anyone) assume that THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE IS DOING. It is a DISSERVICE to faith to believe that God is really, literally, the somewhat strange mythological forms represented in the Bible. It's almost like fundamentalists see the Bible as their science book. Putting God in a box of what The Bible says, rather than using it as a reference to the ABSTRACT, TRANSCENDENT and ultimately UNKNOWABLE. God can be experienced, not comprehended by the intellect. This is what Fundamentalists DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Sometimes it takes CAPS to get through to them.
And to answer your question, "the only thing about the origin of the universe I'm really stumped about is, where did that first speck of dust come from?"
Um, what first speck? There was darkness and the earth was formless and void. Then there was light, then land and sky, then plant and animal life. Finally, humans. It's all outlined in a very clear, logical format in The Bible.
Marshall: To date there is not one piece of evidence in the fossil record of ANY transitional forms. IF man did evolve from a monkey there would be a transition of that evolution over the millions of years claimed, also if a reptile became a bird the same. But there is not one fossil record of this rubbish.
I am always fascinated by human capacity to hide from and ignore facts that contradict their cherished views. There are literally *tons* of transitional forms in the fossil record. The evolution of many specific lineages (amphibians to reptiles, the early mammalian evolution and the return of some of the mammals to the sea, using just two of the examples) have been documented thoroughly.
This is not an exaggeration; the fossils are out there for anyone to see. But if you are interested, take a look at Donald Prothero's latest book which details many of those lineages.
We might as well stop arguing, since the ID and/or creationist crowd will just use our opposition to their mindset as grist for their feelings of persecution.
You see the same thing in social settings. Person A says something ridiculous. Person B says "that's not true." Person A gets defensive, says "mind your own business." It escalates until Person C arrives to back up Person B.
Then Person A screams, "Why is everyone picking on me!!!"
Persons B and C (those who have reason on their side) can never convince Person A of the error, and will walk away feeling vaguely guilty even though they know, intellectually, that they were right. Person A will feel vindicated and repeat the behavior.
Having read about 250 of the comments, I would like to address a few:
By Tony G on December 3, 2008 9:25 AM
Suggesting that an intelligent being influenced evolution is a perfectly valid scientific hypotheses.
No, I'm afraid it isn't. Science is a process to discover objective, testable truths about the world. It is practiced by human beings, who are fallible, egotistical, etc., etc., and so progress sometimes seems haphazard. But, to be scientific, a theory must be 1) based on the observed facts as known at the time and contradicted by none; b) falsifiable, by which is meant that it must be possible to set up an experiment to disprove it; c) reproducible, by which is meant that if you do the experiment and I do the same experiment in the same way, we should get the same results, and d) predictive, by which is meant it should be possible to predict new truths if the theory is correct.
Positing a supernatural being whose existence is not scientifically testable is not scientific.
By Wayne Hollyoak on December 3, 2008 12:00 PM
You are very wrong about the way ID proponents are treated in academia. This is so clear in the Dover case. There are even some petitions currently in circulation on several university campus' trying to coerce their faculties into signing solidarity agreements for the unquestioned endorsement of evolution as the only existing theory for the origin of life. Their excuse is "protecting science".
I think Arran made this point above...any evolutionary biologist, or geologist, who teaches ID is not teaching science. ID does not belong in the science class (see the 4 points above), and if a peer-reviewed journal refused to publish an IDers paper, they would be within their rights and obligations to their science audience; if a university failed to renew the contract of such a teacher, they would be within their rights and obligation to their science students.
By Yancy Berns on December 3, 2008 1:03 PM
It's a measure of how mucked up things are, in terms of the clash between religion and politics around here, that I simply can't believe for one moment that Ben Stein believes in God. How could such a harsh, harsh capitalist, with such a smug outlook, possibly believe in something that requires so much soul? He's a negative guy, gives off negative vibes, wrote speeches for Dick Nixon, etc.
Looking at the credits on imdb.com, Ben Stein is listed as a writer, but given some of the other comments made on this entry about Stein having been hired for the job, I suspect he wrote his own dialogue and was otherwise a hired gun. If so, I'm sure he sits at home sometimes, surfs the net, sees all the vitriol aimed at him for this film, and wonders, "Why are they mad at me? I was just the mouthpiece." He and George W. Bush can cry in their beers together.
By Tony G on December 3, 2008 3:06 PM
And just to be clear, I agree that this was not an appropriate subject for the documentary. Even mentioning Nazis, Hitler, or eugenics in this documentary was a huge mistake becuase it leads people to immedately make the kinds of inaccurate conclusions that several posters on this blog have made, namely that Stein is blaming Darwin for the Holocaust.
Someone else commented that Stein did not equate "Darwinism" with the Holocaust. I can't say...haven't seen the movie, don't plan to. But I'm reminded of a column on www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint by Larry Zolf, a Canadian political observer. One of his columns recalls that at one point in his career, he was an election campaign manager for someone running for county (I think) office in Pennsylvania, and he stumbled across the fact that the opponent hadn't paid property tax on his house in 4 years or something like that. Instantly they had an attack ad prepared. Mr. Zolf reviewed it and changed the wording from "This is Candidate X's house in City Y..." to "This is the City Y house of Candidate X...". When asked why he made the change, Mr. Zolf explained that the second wording implies that Candidate X has more than one house! It's still factually accurate, and Candidate X only owns one house, but it creates the impression in the listener's mind that Candidate X is a rich guy who owns multiple houses and is cheating on his taxes. It's not only what you say, it's how you say it.
By Michael on December 3, 2008 11:33 PM
Roger, thank you for remembering all of us in the middle. It still baffles me how ultra-conservative evangelicals came to represent Christians in this country. Most of us are Catholic or Protestant and have very little problem with evolution.
I think the problem is that the declining participation in churches across Western culture means that the majority of churchgoers, who are moderate and willing to embrace live-and-let-live, have walked out on going to church, and an increasing percentage of those who go to church on a regular basis are fire-breathing wingnuts.
And finally, Roger (saving best for last)...I don't wish to wade into the debate about whether you've fallen from the standard of "a movie isn't what it is about, but about how it is about it" (or however you said that). But...your reviews of "The King and I" and "Anna and the King" are deeply critical of the fact that the story on which they are based has been completely falsified. I haven't seen the older of the two with Yul Brynner and Debora Kerr, but I did see the newer with Chow Yun Fat and Jodie Foster. That treatment seemed to dispense with many of the "White Man's Burden" silliness that people justifiably criticize Ms Leonowens' story for. I never saw any indication that the king in Anna and the King was considered barbaric until "civilized" by the British woman; the King's brother shows horror at the slaughter of a village of civilians - hardly the act of a member of a despotic tyrannical ruling class (all of which is still false...but then we are watching a work of fiction...). Is it possible that your review of "Anna and the King" may have been tainted by your dislike for the source material?
I don't intend that as a criticism. You are after all human, and are in the business of selling your opinions. There's nothing wrong (in my humble opinion) with saying, "I don't like the source material, and so I have a problem with this movie," as long as you are honest and upfront about it.
Thanks in advance if you choose to reply.
Ebert: You make a good point. I should have written, "It should be possible to make a better movie from this material, and then, if I am consistent, I would like it more." Or I could have sighed and said, "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Roger, I'm really curious if you are familiar with Ken Wilber's AQAL model? -- all quadrants, all levels. Not sure if you know who Wilber is. Wilber is an American philosopher. Interestingly, he provided a commentary for the Wachowski brothers and their Matrix films, which are sort of an exploration of consciousness don't you think? This dovetails nicely into another question that's relevant to this thread. When you recently caught a private screening of 2001 A Space Odyssey with the Wachowski's and Larry recounted telling his Dad that the monolith was God's consciousness, what did you think about that?
Ebert: I thought it was an interesting metaphor. I'm inclined to agree with what Arthur C. Clarke suggested in his original short story, "The Sentinel," that it was left behind by an alien race to inspire and detect the emergence of life on this planet. Because its perfect geometry made it obviously not a product of natural forces, it was evidence of Intelligent Design, and thus, of life beyond our solar system.
Mr. Ebert, this column has only further proven your ignorance, your bias, and your stubborness. It is because of people like you that the traditionalist views that this country was founded on are being ridiculed and forced away. You write an entire article bashing Ben Stein because you do not agree with what he says in the film. You say that the historical evidence he uses is unfair? Really? You who believes Oliver Stone made a masterpiece using complete lies in "W."? This is just another feather in your hat. You are nothing more than a grumpy old man who wants to push his liberal agenda on everyone else (along with your terrible taste in movies). I am glad that your face will never have to grace my television screen again. It's about time the intellectuals, like Mr. Stein, made a stand for their beliefs and not let mean liberal thugs like yourself silence them.
Ebert: Thank you for your tolerance, your good manners, and most of all your warmth. All qualities that speak so highly for your opinions.
Thanks, Mr. Ebert. What an epic post! This page is now much longer than most books, at about 150,000 words to date. My brief contribution ...
Scientists certainly are persecuting ID advocates, but they are doing it because they are fed up an argument that was over several decades ago. They have better things to do. ID isn’t a brave new idea that is poised to upset the mainstream: it’s a cowardly old delusion kept alive by shrill ideologues. Debating the ID crowd is like arguing with illiterates about how to use a semicolon.
Okay, feel free not to post this. Or post it. I don't care.
Not only am I offended by Stein and his ludicrous assertion that the atrocities enacted by the Nazis somehow has something to do Natural Selection, I'm starting to get offended at a lot of these comments.
The issue that Roger Ebert takes with Ben Stein's movie is that Stein shows himself walking through an extermination center for undesirables. He then shows a scene in which a creationist makes the ridiculous connection between the Holocaust and Darwinian evolution. My suspicion is that Stein is smart enough to know exactly what he was doing, how wrong and damaging it was, and did it anyway.
The people who are faulting Roger Ebert for rightly condemning this despicable film should be ashamed of themselves. Somebody here wrote that the review was written for people who already agreed with Roger about, what....movies? Politics? Global warming? This is nonsense. I fully accept Darwinian evolution. I respect Roger Ebert's opinion, but I don't always agree with it.
How about if I list ten movies off the top of my head about which Roger Ebert and I totally disagree? Natural Born Killers, Biloxi Blues, Drop Dead Gorgeous, Rocky 4, The Others, The Doors, Blow, Titanic, Speed 2: Cruise Control...or even An Inconvienent Truth? I fully accept the reality of global warming but I thought the movie was boring.
Speaking of An Inconvienent Truth,
If Al Gore had made the equally ridiculous connection that, for example, the people who denied global warming led to abortion (or illiteracy, or blindness, or AIDS, or homelessness, whatever), I would fully expect Roger Ebert to lambast him for doing so.
Its sad for me to realize that the narrow-minded people who post this kind of tripe are so large in number. Since when did the definition of the word "Christian" include creationism and neo-conservative poltics?
Your patience is inspiring. It's a virtue long expired in myself, particularly in dealing with Flat Earthers.
I've reduced this "debate" to an essence:
1. Science: I will someday die.
2. Religion: I will never die.
Observable reality indicates only #1; fear of #1 inspires #2.
In my 32 years, I've remained mostly healthy and accident free. You have been heroicaly candid about your ongoing health issues, and have skated closer to the eventuality of #1 than I, so I ask: Have your beliefs via afterlife, God, etc, been challenged during these ordeals? Perhaps strenghtened?
Thank you.
H.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
What a great review! and very interesting comments. I can't think of any other issue that generates so many angry comments. Do you get discouraged, dissapointed when you read some of those comments? I noticed that some people here wrote that they believe in evolution. There is no need to believe in evolution, Evolution is a fact, regardless of whether the theory of evolution by Darwin is correct. Most people seem to ignore that distinction.
I have been reading your reviews for almost ten years now and this is one of the best. However, there is one review you wrote that I have personal connection with. In the 2001 or 2002, me and my girlfriend went to see movie "Adaptation". I was dying to see this movie cause I absolutely loved "Being John Malcovich", I think Kaufman is a genius! So we went to see it on the opening night in Century City. I loved it, my girlfriend hated it. She just couldn't follow the plot, wasn't interested, didn't laugh, then started to talk loud, said she wants to leave. It was just terrible. But I did enjoy the movie! On the way home we were arguing the whole time. I told her I don't know if I want to be with her anymore (we dated for about a year at that point). After I dropped her off I went home and got online. I wanted to see what Ebert thought of the movie. There was a review by you but it's not the same one we see now on the website. I think you reviewed it during Toronto festival but not sure. Anyway, what you said there shocked me. You said something along this line: if there is a couple that went to see Adaptation and one loved it and the other hated it, I can tell you one thing - this relationship isn't going anywhere. I started to laugh when I read it. It was almost like you were in the movies with us that night. I called my girlfriend and told her what you wrote and she started laughing too. We made up and are still together. She's a great person and I love her, just doesn't get Adaptation. To her credit, she got me a dvd version for my birthday the next year. I thought it was nice. :)
re: "An Angry Reader"
AR - So there I was, minding my own business, reading a book, it's Sunday evening, you know, the weekend is about over, when all of a sudden what should materialize out of the ether but a liberal agenda?
It just showed up without warning, as if dropped from the sky. No one is safe anymore!
Somehow I was drawn to the computer. My mouse clicked me to your angry readership. And now I see - it was Roger Ebert who did it.
He has pushed his liberal agenda on everyone else, and that means me.
Thanks, AR, for clearing that up. I have no idea why Mr. Ebert would use his blog to express views you might not like, but I for one will hereafter try to be a bit more careful. You can never predict these things, and someone's agenda could be hurtling through cyberspace right now.
Roger, pretty much everything I wanted to say in response to this blog entry has already been said and probably far more eloquently than I would have been able. It's blog entries like this that make me keep coming back to read more and more of your writing. More often than not, I seem to agree with what you have to say (and this instance is definitely one of those cases) but even when I may disagree, I continue to respect you immensely. Keep it up and know that we appreciate the hell out of you.
Ebert Said: "Once you understand the concept of selection, and how it applies to evolution, you realize that what was thought to be vanishingly unlikely actually becomes virtually inevitable."
Pure unscientific baloney Roger! Selection does nothing but act on characteristics that already exist. So selection CANNOT create something new. The question is how did these new characteristics get there?
Mutations (as a mechanism) will provide characteristics which explain basic adaptation and variation within and at the species level. However, there is no mechanism ever observered to result in characteristics that may be selected for above the species level.
That's why the term Theological liberal fits here. Because Macroevolution can't be proven and thus does not pass scientific muster. Hence...it is religious in nature.
Ebert: You write, Selection does nothing but act on characteristics that already exist. True. And in doing so, by definition, it creates something new.
Mr. Ebert, you make fun of the fact that so many people mention Michael Moore but I do not think you really understand what they are saying. The fact is that the tactics used by Stein are equally as dangerous as those used by Moore. The danger is that people who do not critically think about what they are being told are too easily persuaded into believing it, and their new beliefs are based on lies. They cannot form informed opinions. You fail to see that what Moore does is horrible as well, because you agree with his general views.
Precipitous loss of social relevance and effectiveness of a group's ideologies
+ the group pushing ever harder to maintain just the same level of importance as it formerly possessed
+ the steady loss of acolytes disenchanted by the ineffectiveness of their efforts
+ the concentration of contempt for the invaders of the inviolable tabernacle of said ideologies
+ now unrestrained by moderation and discourse, the spilling over of unilateral ideological warfare, the weapons of which are demagogy and unbridled and insatiable incredulity
= bias, terror, vengeance, one-sidedness, hate, intellectual bondage, the chaining of thought and knowledge, insult-hurling, and finally, the destruction of peace and discourse (or otherwise stated: the inability to learn, and to evolve).
All this name calling toward Ben Stein. Roger probably chalks that up to another victory for his argument. He did point out that "(Expelled) recieves an 8% rating on the TomatoMeter." Laughter, the only response to Roger I can muster. He's not Groucho Marx (my hero), but he is funny. What, no report on what the film was rated on IMDB? You missed a slam-dunk!
Ebert: My hero, too. IMDb is 3.7/10. Metacritic is 20/100.
Since you have been talking about religion and films I wonder if you or anyone else knows whether Kubrick made "2001" as a counterpoint to Stevens "The Greatest Story Ever Told"?
Ebert: I rather doubt it.
Dear Roger Ebert,
I owe you a great intellectual debt and a passion for film; you are one of my contemporary cultural heroes, and all-around favorite "cheerful chaps". This is why I, an experienced online slum-dweller, write you an urgent warning - don't let yourself get entangled in these debates, especially not in blog-comment form. For an evolutionist, a debate with a creationist is an exercise requiring almost ninja-like skills: one must have infinite patience and good humor, the ability to stay on message and in the same general field despite the wild leaps of your opponent, and an exhaustive, encyclopaedic knowledge of everything from geology to molecular biology to astronomy, from basic field methods to the latest discoveries. Also, one must be proficient and quick in the use of online databases and reference sources.
Like another poster said, it takes a second to tell a lie, but minutes to hours to debunk it. Your review spoke for itself, save yourself the trouble and pain of getting sucked further into the rancid ocean of similar and fruitless online arguments.
All the best.
Rod: The visa card analogy was initially directed at me. There's diet coke all over my screen (and I absolutely hate diet drinks).
My wife and I get a big kick out of the 'consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds' bit about two or three times a month. By far and away our favorite Ebertism. Now the absolute inability to read a paragraph properly and blithely attacking it anyway, that's worthy of outright scorn. I would point out that I'm embarassed to be, broadly speaking, on the same side with people who have such trouble making sense of basic English. But then, if I were on the other side, I'd be with people like Bruce Gorton who absolutely mangled what I said in my first comment and who seems to think that the Descent of Man, which as noted above considers the negro as little better than an anthropomorphous ape, was progressive in an era of Wilberforce, the Grimke sisters, William Lloyd Garrison, and the Emancipation Proclamation.
Whats not appreciated enough is the extent to which the fossil records demonstrate evolution. Over time, more complex features and more evolved species appear in the record; from bacteria to invertebrates up to primates. But, I admit, having a PhD in Biomedical Engineering and doing research for Harvard Medical School, I'm entrenched with the liberal elitist secularist who actually "read books" and "do this for a living", so don't listen to me, Ben Stein must know all about it, after all, he made a movie!!!
There were a couple comments that got my attention...
Ebert: The Spanish Inquisition is no more the product of Christianity than Creationism is. Both employ it for their own ends. Thomas Huxley was a racist. Have there been no Christians that are racists? I would guess that, in America, almost all racists have considered themselves Christians.
I think that generalization is a bit unfair. There certainly are Christian racists, however racism has no preferred religious belief. There are many Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, to name a few other examples, that are racist in (North) America. I've also known a few Atheists who have strong racist beliefs.
The second one, I almost hesitate to bring up, will add me to the running count of those who mention Michael Moore. I'm far from being a gun rights supporter, and am glad that Canada has tighter controls. Personally, I have no use for guns. When Steve Vanden-Eykel said the Heston "deserved" to be put on the spot because the girl "died for his beliefs", I strongly disagree that he had that coming to him. If I recall, the girl was shot by a young boy who found his drug-dealing uncle's gun laying around the house. I doubt that the uncle was an NRA member in good standing, nor that Heston believed that gun owners should keep their guns within a child's reach. It is a bit of a stretch to lay so much of the blame at Heston's feet. I felt that it was far worse when he point the finger of blame in Dick Clark's direction for dramatic effect. Moore failed to address the core issue: why did the child think that shooting a classmate was appropriate?
However, the issue here is Ben Stein, and how he chose to link evolution to nazism. As a man, he should be ashamed. As a Jewish man, he should be disgusted with himself. I wonder how comfortable he would feel standing in a room of Holocaust survivors and attempting to make that connection.
Finally, I find it ironic that Mr. Vanden-Eykel follows his comments by placing Dawkins above question, that creationists are welcome to be wrong, and that by tearing down what others have built, they are undignified and despicable. That same statement could equally be applied to evolutionists who try to tear down the spiritual beliefs of others...most of whom agree with them on evolution.
There's little difference between someone who believes that ancient scriptures are meant to be taken literally and someone who believes scientific understanding is absolute truth. It's ridiculous to believe that faith and religion should not be reexamined continually in a modern day context. It is also ridiculous to think that, for the limited amount of time that human science and logic have been on this earth, that our discoveries are concrete truths. This discussion is about evolution, and both faith and science need to evolve, let alone be willing to evolve, or they lose credibility.
Believing that man and dinosaur walked on the earth at the same time is as naive as it is ignorant to mock the possibility of a spiritually aware creator by inventing 'the spaghetti monster'.
Ebert: The Theory of Evolution offers, of course, no opinion on any possible political or religious belief, so the lot of them really have no relevance to this discussion.
You're bang on with that statement. It is too bad that some have taken the discussion as an opportunity for dragging politics and religion into this.
As for 'angry reader' I am glad that your face will never have to grace my television screen again., if you are making the point that I think you are making...you sicken me. For the sake of my Christian beliefs, please do not lump yourself in with me. I only wish I could be like Alvy in Annie Hall, and instead of producing Marshall MacLuhan from behind a sign, present Jesus to you to tell you face to face "you know nothing about my work".
Ebert: Fair enough. But I want to clarify something. I said that in America, almost all racists have considered themselves Christians. That is far, far different than saying that almost all Christians have considered themselves racists. Nor, for that matter, do I consider racists Christians.
I went over to check out the 20 best films of 2008 after it was mentioned above and was quite happy to see both Wall-E and Che. I saw Che here in Toronto and have been disappointed by the early tepid to negative reviews. As for films that won't make it to local screens, but that should, would you include The Burning Plain? As with Che, I've been bummed by the early medium to nasty to reviews. Only in this case as opposed to Che, it seems to mean that stellar performances by three women will never make it into American theaters. The way Arriaga answered my question at TIFF as to how he has come to write such powerful female characters has absolutely cemented his place as my most cherished contemporary screen writer.
I recently had my appendix removed. I am now a proponent of Unintelligent Design.
If we apply Darwin's theory to the concept of ID ( I know I am making no sense...but only after reading 700 posts...?? ), ID will survive if it is fit enough. Looks like people like Ben Stein are in the process of making sure that they identify the favorable traits of ID that will allow it to survive in this world. They make are using the very concept of natural selection to explain ID.
But I can't seem to explain natural selection in terms of ID ?
On a more serious note, I watched the PBS documentary regarding the ID trails after watching "Inherit the wind". Both sides made some good points in that. That was my first insight into this whole debate. Did you watch it or by any chance follow those trails ?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
@Patrick:
"Pure unscientific baloney Roger! Selection does nothing but act on characteristics that already exist. So selection CANNOT create something new. The question is how did these new characteristics get there?"
If you're really curious about understanding evolution, you should read Richard Dawkins' book, "The Blind Watchmaker." A lot of people who claim to find fault with Darwinian evolution frankly don't understand it to begin with, and this book is a good way to get informed on the nuts-and-bolts of evolutionary theory.
A common misunderstanding is that evolution is directed towards some outcome. This isn't the case at all, it has to do with which traits enable an organism to reproduce and pass on its genetic material. If the earth's atmosphere were to suddenly change its composition, different life forms would be dominant on this planet.
In the movie, a biology teacher named Caroline Crocker supposedly lost her job for teaching Intelligent Design in a college classroom. Here's the other side of the story. Since Dr. Crocker may not be a public figure, I'm going to tread lightly...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822.html
WP: at Northern Virginia Community College... Biology 101 class
... The lecture she was to deliver had caused her to lose a job at a previous university, and she knew was taking a risk by delivering it again. But this highly trained biologist wanted students to know what she herself deeply believed: that the scientific establishment was perpetrating fraud,
.... Nazi Germany had taken Darwin's ideas about natural selection, the credo that only the fittest survive, and followed it to its extreme conclusions -- anti-Semitism, eugenics and death camps. "What happened in Germany in World War II was based on science, that some genes and some people should be killed," Crocker said quietly. "My grandfather had a genetic problem and was put in the hospital and killed... In our society, we have an underlying philosophy of naturalism, that there is a material explanation for everything," Crocker replied. "Evolution came with that philosophy."
Afterward, I asked her whether she was going to discuss the evidence for evolution in another class. She said no.
"There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution," Crocker said. Besides, she added, she saw her role as trying to balance the "ad nauseum" pro-evolution accounts that students had long been force-fed.
____________
The community college's position is that Dr. Crocker was hired to teach a single class. Despite student protests, she finished the term without interference, and was never hired to teach another class. They deny they ever fired her.
Dr. Crocker's position is wrong. By comparing the human and chimp genomes, there's a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution. Lying about evolution... should have gotten her fired.
In January, 2008, Dr. Crocker took a new job as Executive Director of IDEA, an organization that promotes Intelligent Design in college and high school. In the summer of 2008, she left that job. Not a very long stay for a new Executive Director.
LINK: Currently, Caroline Crocker is self-employed in the Washington DC area as an author, speaker, and private tutor. Dr. Crocker did her post-doctoral studies in analysis of fluorescence resonance energy transfer interactions between proteins of the T-cell receptor/NF-κB signal transduction pathway at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD. Her a Ph.D. in immunopharmacology as an external student at Southampton University, U.K., She has a B.Sc. in microbiology and virology from Warwick University, U.K., and an A.A. from Des Moines Area Community College, IA, having graduated from high school at the age of 16.
http://intellectualhonesty.info/pricing.htm
My question is, why was this woman teaching Biology 101 at a Community College?
Was she doing it for the publicity? Did she WANT to be fired, to get some publicity for her new career as an author and public speaker?
The proponents of Intelligent Design LIE. Never assume anything they say is the absolute truth. Adolf Hitler was a Catholic. His mother was a devout Catholic, and after she died, he said he would always remain a member of the Catholic Church as a tribute to her memory.
*Archaeopteryx sits down at his computer to read his favorite blog. He is shocked at what he finds and prepares a comment*
Dear humans:
So I went through all that evolution for nothing?
*sigh*
I sometimes wonder how you guys got to be the apex species. I mean, I--
*enter Morganucodon*
Morganucodon: "Hey, are you talking to those humans, Archy?"
Archaeopteryx: "Well, yeah, I was just writing a comment on this blog letting them know that it bothers me that they don't all give credit to evolution. They think we were zapped into existence. I just want to politely offer my opinion that--"
Morganucodon: "Oh! Do I have something to say about THAT! Gimme the keyboard."
*Morganucodon grabs the keyboard*
Morganucodon: "This is your EARLIEST KNOWN ANCESTOR speaking. What the hell is all this talk about us /not/ evolving? You guys owe me BIG time. I mean, seriously, I deserve to have a monument built in my honor! You guys should be naming your kids after me! I at least deserve my own flavor of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream... I mean, c'mon! I had to freakin' deal with dinosaurs--DINOSAURS, and now you guys are saying that dinosaur were just walking around with /you/ guys? I have half a mind to take this keyboard and shove it up--"
*Archaeopteryx takes back the keyboard*
Archaeopteryx: "Okay, there will be none of /that/, Morgan! Anyway, as I was saying: I respectfully disagree with you humans that--"
*enter Pelycosaur, Megazostrodon, and Anaspid*
Anaspid: "Hey, what's this we hear about those human not believing in us?"
Archaeopteryx: "Well, it seems that some of them--well, don't believe in evolution."
P, M, and A: "WHAT!? GUYS, GET IN HERE!"
*enter everyone else who led to us*
I'm so pleased that you included Mormons in your list of people with religious beliefs who agree with Darwin. All of my biology professors at Brigham Young University were firm evolutionists, as well as devout Mormons. When a student actually asked my botany professor if he believed in evolution, he said the question reminded him of the story of a Mormon missionary interviewing a potential convert. The missionary asked her "do you believe in infant baptism?" to which she replied "Believe in it? Why, elder, I've seen it with my own eyes!" My professor then emphatically told the entire class "I've seen evolution with my own eyes."
Off topic - simply related to comment #720 above:
"...Laughter, the only response to Roger I can muster. He's not Groucho Marx (my hero), but he is funny. What, no report on what the film was rated on IMDB? You missed a slam-dunk!
Ebert: My hero, too. IMDb is 3.7/10. Metacritic is 20/100."
And my hero, too. I remember the day he died when I was sixteen. Elvis had died three days earlier and everybody went around weeping with my thinking what's the big deal. When Groucho died on the 19th of August, that's when I wept.
Excellent review! BTW - Moore used images of administration members getting hair and makeup in Fahrenheit 911 in the opening act. Stein had to be doing it as a device to attach Moore.
As he runs around the world, consulting dubious sources in search of his defense of creationism, Ben Stein reminds me of Monty Python's King Arthur when he asks Sir Bedevere (The Wise): "Can you explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes?"
Does Ben Stein have so much money that he can afford to scour the intellectual desert in search of cracked pots?
In reading the marathon of comments on this post, I have some observations about how Roger (Mr. Ebert? Calling him Roger seems awfully cheeky) might have written his post so that the brawl in the comments might have been less vitriolic. I'm not claiming any strong claims here, just tossing out some observations that they might be tested, considered and possibly stored by other commenters, or even Mr. Ebert, for future writing use.
A quick self-identification here, to remove bias claims: I am an agnostic who favors Evolution as a principle, but who thinks(I need to look this stuff up, it's on the to-do list) that evolutionary theory today likely inserts all sorts of caveats to the straightforward natural selection concept.
1. The casino analogy got messy, particularly when it was coupled with the bank metaphor. When trying to explain the concepts of natural selection(even the simplified original Darwinian theory, which is all most of us non-biologists really know), metaphor and analogy can hurt more than help, as I think they did in this case. Folks have missed out on the selection part of the process, I think in part because they don't make the narrative transition to the bank/savings metaphors. Steve Vanden-Eykel pointed this out in his comment, too, I think.
2. Richard Dawkins. I have nothing insightful to say about makeup or camera practice, but I think it would be useful to disconnect debate over ID/Evolution from Dawkins and his views.
While I have some admiration for what Dawkins is attempting to achieve, I find that in his writing, Dawkins frequently uses some pretty unfair moves in setting up his own views. Dawkins likes to describe his own viewpoints with words like "reason" and "logic" in his own arguments, which I think can be fairly characterized as anti-theistic. Additionally, folks coming from the creationist side of things often confabulate Dawkins with Hitchens, who is even more virulent in his distaste for religion.
I agree with Roger- atheism is not a necessary condition of Evolution. The difficulty is that by bringing in Richard Dawkins, Ben Stein(and Roger, by simply mentioning Dawkins' unfair treatment) polarizes the debate by bringing in folks from the theism-atheism debate. People who hold out against Dawkins' atheistic points of view are effectively recruited by Stein against evolution by this means. I think this polarizing recruitment strategy is likely the cause of people associating these arguments with eugenics, liberalism and, yes, the Holocaust.
The best way to have defused this sort of attack, I suppose,would have been to immediately separate Dawkins' views from evolution as a whole- otherwise, he, and everything people choose to associate him with, becomes a target on evolutionary theory's back.
Ebert: I've added a footnote of that comment explaining the math of the selection process with great clarity.
Seems that the US is the only place on Earth where creationism vs evolution is still an issue! I was born in Uruguay, and grew up on a very traditional Catholic household on three different latin american countries. I went to three different catholic schools, a franciscan high school and got my college degrees from a jesuit university. I was taught evolution at school, and at college, anthropological theories about religious phenomenology, most of the time by priests who never saw a contradiction between their faith and scientific knowledge, even if it went against their basic notions of God's existence. In fact, the first time I ever heard about the supposed religion vs science dichotomy(at least, as a contemporary issue) was when at 27, I had dinner with two coworkers from the US who were scandalized by the fact that because of my contry's secular state, religion is not taught on public schools and everybody has at least a very basic understanding of evolution. People from the US love to point out how backwards we latin americans are, but at least down here, nobody takes christian fundamentalists seriously.
"The proponents of Intelligent Design LIE. Never assume anything they say is the absolute truth. Adolf Hitler was a Catholic. His mother was a devout Catholic, and after she died, he said he would always remain a member of the Catholic Church as a tribute to her memory."
Guilt by association and incorrect at that, not bad for a single post.
Hitler was a documented pagan, one just needs to read his biographies about what he did, not what he claimed. anyone can claim to be any religion, but practice is what matters.
That said, the footnote about the mathematical principles involved in chance is incorrect. The problem with the explanation is that, in order for proteins to line up correctly at the same time to form life, there is only random chance. to say that one can discard an incorrect "coin flip" before there is life is an incorrect understanding of natural selection. Natural selection requires two things: nature and chance. Without life there is no nature, and thus the footnote above does not hold.
"The proponents of Intelligent Design LIE. Never assume anything they say is the absolute truth. Adolf Hitler was a Catholic. His mother was a devout Catholic, and after she died, he said he would always remain a member of the Catholic Church as a tribute to her memory."
Guilt by association and incorrect at that, not bad for a single post.
Hitler was a documented pagan, one just needs to read his biographies about what he did, not what he claimed. anyone can claim to be any religion, but practice is what matters.
That said, the footnote about the mathematical principles involved in chance is incorrect. The problem with the explanation is that, in order for proteins to line up correctly at the same time to form life, there is only random chance. to say that one can discard an incorrect "coin flip" before there is life is an incorrect understanding of natural selection. Natural selection requires two things: nature and chance. Without life there is no nature, and thus the footnote above does not hold.
Ebert: The footnote is quite correct. No one discards anything. A tiny few changes work, while almost all do not. The ones that don't work discard themselves, so to speak. Given trillions of chances and billions of years, the ones that work demonstrate survival of the fittest. An elegant theory, and waterproof.
Sorry to butt in again, but three days after my first post, I see we are still arguing Creationism vs Evolution when they are not competing with each other. They are separate pieces of a puzzle. Creationism deals only with the actual creation of life and evolution deals with where it goes from there...their boundaries do not cross and they are not competing theories, so drop it!
ID is the only theory to take both sides of the puzzle and put them together, so attack it if you must.
Creationism has never been proving nor disproving through empirical science and most likely never will be. Even if a scientist were to create life from lifelessness in a lab it would only prove Creationism (the theory that life was created by a higher power, which is what the scientist would be to whatever he/she created), and wouldn't that just be the biggest irony of all time?
Evolution is evolution and I think few would disagree with it if they looked at its definition. Darwin takes it further than the definition into the realm of his 'On the Origin of Species'. I don't believe anyone has found the "missing link' between man and lower primates, but they may one day.
The two are exclusive of the other: Mr. Ebert even recognized that scientists do not claim the creation of life as part of Evolution in one of his earlier responses, above.
ID is the religious answer for both the creation of life and what happens to that life after creation.
I ask what science offers for the creation of life? Please don't say Evolution, that has been established as coming after the creation.
I think it is hilarious how Roger and his fellow geniuses (the Second L A W of Thermodynamics?) just feel like it has been teed up for them to bash people of faith, while at the same time affirming a STARGATE theory for our planet. Why don't we just send James Spader and Kurt Russell back through the gate so they can bring back that Crying Game dude...and then the alien pharaoh guy can just explain exactly how he did it.
Ebert: I have never bashed people of faith. Most people of faith, as you must be aware, subscribe to the theory of evolution. Nor have I ever affirmed a "Stargate" theory of any kind. Please do not confuse proponents of Intelligent Design with people of faith. Isn't the whole defense of ID based on the claim that it is notreligious?
Dude.
I knew Ben Stein was a partisan Republican, but I always thought he was one of the smart economic conservative types.
Now that he has revealed himself a silly-minded Intelligent Design supporter, I have lost all grudging respect I've ever had for the man.
My only contribution to this fascinating discussion on the merits of creationism, narrative structure in a mainstream documentary and the liberties a documentarian can or should take is...
please do something about the comments appearing in italics. It's making them hard to read!
I find it interesting that the ID "supporters" never actually do anything to SUPPORT intelligent design. Their theory--indeed, their entire approach--seems to consist of attacking evolution.
If asked to present evidence of ID, they instead attack evolution. If asked to defend the claims of ID, they change the subject again to attacking evolution, or all of biology, or even all of science itself (and its presumed "atheist agenda").
Likewise, when asked to defend the outrageous (and pathetic) dishonest tactics in "Expelled"--well, you get the point. They don't. Instead, they attack Michael Moore, who made films on POLITICAL issues rather than factually wrong propaganda about SCIENCE.
The question of whether Bush is the worst president in history is subject to debate and intelligent people may differ and disagree. On evolution, however, this is not an option. Evolution has to do with scientific fact, and the facts to date have all lined up very clearly--100% favoring evolution by natural selection, and 0) for ID.
For ID to compete with evolution, it would have to produce something more substantial than "Evolution sucks!," and it has consistently failed to do so.
Regarding....."Let me get this straight, Mr Ebert,
First of all, there was some little speck of protoplasm, some little blob of something in a sea of nothing and that became an unsegmented worm, that became a fish,that became reptile, that became a bird, that became a mammal, that became the highest life form a man."...
I doubt while standing naked, face to face with a lion on the Savannah, you would feel like the highest life form.
Thanks, Mr. Ebert, for touching this discussion off. I'm reminded of a comment I came across regarding Stanley Kubrick's work which basically stated the most frightening thing is not a malevolent universe, but an indifferent one.
Hitler was Catholic.
Reply to: Guilt by association and incorrect at that. Hitler was a documented pagan, one just needs to read his biographies about what he did, not what he claimed. Anyone can claim to be any religion, but practice is what matters.
Hilarious. Now we can argue whether anti-Semitism was a practice of the Catholic Church during the place and time when Hitler grew up.
When I claim to be an atheist, are you going to dispute MY statement? Because you know more about atheism than I do?
___________________
http://www.skeptically.org/againstreligion/id13.html
LINK: Raised in the Catholic church, Adolf... repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work." In Mein Kampf.- "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."
Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."
In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work. "
Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.(end)
_________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs
In public statements, especially at the beginning of his rule, Hitler frequently spoke about his belief in the "Aryan" Christ. Joachim Fest wrote, "Hitler knew, through the constant invocation of the God the Lord (German: Herrgott) or of providence (German: Vorsehung)... On March 23, 1933, he addressed the Reichstag: "The National Government... hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people." Hitler described his religious status: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
_______________________
Which brings us to a larger problem - the atrophy of the "making good decisions" part of the human brain.
Very simply, "Use it or lose it." If you don't exercise your ability to draw conclusions from a set of facts, that ability atrophies. I've experienced it myself. You try to think of a word, and your brain goes "Wait. I'm not ready yet." When I show Christians the statements of Hitler about his own religious beliefs, some will argue "Well, he wasn't really a Catholic."
Yes, he was. He considered Jesus Aryan instead of Jewish, but part of the NT story documents the reason:
Gospel of John 19:38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews...
19:6 When the chief priests saw Jesus, they cried out, "Crucify, crucify." Pilate said, "You take him and crucify, for I find no fault in him."
Revisionist history? Absolutely. About 55 AD, Peter visited a Church in Rome, and in order to recruit new victims to his cult, he described how the Romans had considered Jesus innocent and the Jews demanded his death. Did it happen that way? Of course not. Peter wanted Romans to join his cult and give him money. So, Peter LIED. Or, someone changed the story after Christians were banned from synagogues. Either way, we know what Hitler read in his version of the Bible.
Reply to:. It is too bad that some have taken the discussion as an opportunity for dragging politics and religion into this...you sicken me. For the sake of my Christian beliefs, please do not lump yourself in with me.
Christian beliefs are under attack. Or, a counter-attack, if you consider the ID movement's attempt to win seats on local school boards in order to have ridiculous religious beliefs taught in high school science classes as an attack. By picking on the supporters of evolution theory, the "wedge theory advocates" have given us a reason to explain why Christianity is wrong. And not just their story about a global Flood, either.
Reply to: by tearing down what others have built, they are undignified and despicable. That same statement could equally be applied to evolutionists who try to tear down the spiritual beliefs of others...most of whom agree with them on evolution... It is also ridiculous to think that, for the limited amount of time that human science and logic have been on this earth, that our discoveries are concrete truths.
Yes, we do know concrete truths.
We know what an End of the World cult is.
A single man, or a group, announces that he has special knowledge about how life on earth will end. Applewhite said there was an alien craft traveling behind a comet. Paul said the dead would be raised up in new bodies. Jesus said, in the resurrection, she would not marry, but live as angels without marriage.
Yes, there's a war going on. The war is to prevent wrong statements from being presented in high school and college classrooms.
When the Gospel of John says the chief priests at the Temple in Jerusalem demanded the crucifixion of Jesus, I think that's a lie. But I can't PROVE it. And yes, I support the denial of tenure to any ID advocate. Tenure means, "our college has decided to keep you on the payroll, even when you make statements we don't agree with." Giving a faculty member tenure is a big step, and no ID proponent should ever be given tenure by a state university. Why? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It's real. The fact that the evidence for evolution exists inside the human and chimp genomes is concrete truth. There may be opinions about how to interpret it, but anyone who says the evidence for evolution isn't there... is lying.
If you know so much why did you give Chinatown a bad review in the 70's.
Ebert: If you know so much, why do you think that I did?
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19740601/REVIEWS/40817002/1023
Instead of a discussion of the odds of flipping a coin, I like the calculation given in a lecture by Richard Feynman:
'You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of possible license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight?
Amazing!'
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
You could calculate the odds as 36^6 (26 letters + 10 numbers to the power of 6 potential places in a license plate), but, of course, the odds were actually 100%.
This could fall under the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (shoot the barn, then circle the hole) as well:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Texas_Sharpshooter_Fallacy
You know Groucho Marx had a classic one liner that truly defines the spirit of living on this planet. "I would never wanna belong to any group, that would have me as a member." I have not seen the film, nor do I plan to. I also don't plan on seeing Religious either. However, both of these films seem to challenge the same truth. God or no god. This is where Groucho's quote gains power. If you have one smartass on one end and another on the other end who do you choose? You can pick the lesser of two evils, however, neither are completely right. This does not mean that I am saying evolution did not occur. I believe in evolution and think it is a compliment saying I ascended from apes. Yet it is a constant state of tug of war. Why can't you believe in God and also evolution? What if the unexplainable can be explained with a little help from a higher being? If you believe the story of Adam and Eve, aren't we just all bunking cousins? I think I will stick with some more of Groucho's advice and just wait in the lobby until this whole thing blows over.
Ebert: Q. Why can't you believe in God and also evolution?
A. You can.
Groucho not only played God in "Skiddoo," he had insights:
"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then God said, "Let there be light". And there was still nothing but you could see it."
I don't know all that much about Ben Stein, since I've never watched any of his shows, but if looks are anything.....well. I DO understand that he's a Harvard graduate, though, and I do remember reading once (and I totally agree) "Ben Stein is the world's dumbest smart person." Finally!! An oxymoron that begins to make sense.......wait......Oh!, I forgot about George Bush. I guess Harvard isn't idiot-proof after all.
As Gilda Radner used to regularly admonish us...."Never mind".
The Tribune just filed for bankruptcy. This is the company that owns the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Cubs, and the main newspaper of Southern California, the Los Angeles Times.
When I was a grad student, it was the newspaper we all aspired to write for, even if we had dreams of going on somewhere else.
Now, just where is somewhere else? Cyberspace doesn't pay the bills.
Chicago may be the home of political hope with Obama, but it's also the center of despair for many journalists.
Ebert: Yes, but the Trib will still come out tomorrow morning. Chapter 11 is not going out of business.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081208/OPINION/812089997
I saw "Swing Time" on TCM this saturday and I just finished reading your Great Movie review of the movie. It was so good, I want to see the movie again. And that part where Fred Astaire has the perfectly timed 3 back projections behind him...wow! Fred Astaire was a special effect: that probably would have been done with computers today...::scoffs::.
A great illustration of the probability of "improbable" events can be found at:
http://www.gisburne.com/pgdice.php
The odds of throwing twelve dice and having them all come up as sixes? On first throw 1:2,000,000 BUT....
if one employs selection (i.e. keeping the ones that randomly come up as a six, you know as in Darwinian natural selection) and then rerolling the remaining dice? You have a 95% chance of getting twelve sixes with fewer than 200 rolls. Try the simulator. Most of the time you can get twelve sixes with fewer than 50 attempts.
2,000,000 vs. 50 I like those odds.
My bad. I calculated the odds incorrectly. It is not 2 million to 50, it is 2 BILLION to 50.
I like those odds even better.
Sean, Stein is noted as being one of the endless line of morons currently employed by various news agencies, for his supposed "economic expertise", who insisted that there was nothing wrong with the economy, that the credit system wasn't broken, that the housing industry wasn't sub-prime, and that a recession would never happen. In point of fact, he is an idiot, even in the field he specializes in.
Now, on to a "different" issue, since people keep, laughably, bringing up how ID isn't about God, but then turn around in the next sentence and proclaim, "But obviously God did it". Yes, there where "several" ideas that might be called ID that existed "prior" to what we know as ID today. Some advocated their god starting the process, some advocated the idea that some things looked too well designed that some aliens or something didn't "design" it, but argued that those aliens had to have evolved, even if we didn't, and would thus be a lot genetically sloppier, etc. Absolutely no one, except for a tiny number of religious nuts, where advocating the idea that there was something called Macro and Micro evolution, than god personally intervened in every change and that evolution was somehow wrong. Fact is, 99.9% of the ID proponents *prior* to the Discovery Institute saw the abiogenesis gap, concluded that "on this planet at least", they didn't see enough evidence for it, so slapped in a "designer" to get things started, but otherwise they also, in 99.9% of all cases, agreed that evolution "after" that point happened pretty much the way science said it does.
Along comes a Christian think tank, called the Discovery Institute, which among its other idiocies, tried once to come up with a plausible scientific explanation for the "literal" biblical flood story, where they could manage to cover the entire earth in water without turning the planet into a damn crock pot, which would have rotted Noah's boat in a few days, and killed everything on board from the 300 degree plus planetary temperatures. They failed completely, but it should have been, and was, to anyone paying fracking attention, a sign of things to come. What followed was the Wedge Document, proclaiming that the entire purpose of DI was to replace all of science with Biblical literalism. Soon after they wrote a book, Of Panda's and People, which talked about literal creation, by "god". The courts didn't find this funny, so they rewrote it, replacing every instance of "creation" with "design", and every case of "God" with "creator". They couldn't even do that right, leaving in on sentence the now common word on some blogs used to describe ID believers: "cdesign proponentsists".
A few people with less brains than they seemed to think they had, and I include Behe and the like in this, either saw the book and failed to grasp what the organization that wrote it intended, or actually believed it. What followed was a long series of badly written complaints about a non-existent theory of "darwinism", an incredible amount of unbelievably bad math, and a lot of the older 99.9% of ID proponents discovering real quickly that what they had latched onto wasn't a hanging vine, which would save their ideas, but the tale of the same talking snake that the Bible some of them believed in had warned them about. As a result, you have a situation like with some acronyms. For example, picking one at random from here:
http://www.all-acronyms.com/ATM
Shows 88 versions of ATM, including Air Traffic Management, At The Moment, Adobe Type Management and Association of Teachers of Mathematics. But I am betting that the first one you came up with was "Automatic Teller Machine".
The most common definition of ID now: "God made it all, intervenes the whole time, some stuff just can't be made without this, and you can't transition from micro to macro." The fact that cdesign proponentsists haven't yet been able to "find" anything that is actually irreducibly complex (all examples have been gutted, often by papers they just didn't bother to look for), and they have no plausible explanation for why a lot of small changes can't collectively create a bigger one (and a general failure to grasp that is it precisely a lot of small changes we see in development, which produce "apparently" huge changes), hasn't done a damn thing to stop them from still claiming that the first idea has merit, or that the second is actually impossible, and those are the corner stones of their entirely argument... That this is, by comparison to prior concepts of ID, both a ***purely*** religious idea, promoted by people who are all believers, and created by a Christian think tank, which likes to "science up" Biblical stories, and just factually and scientifically bankrupt, somehow fails to keep people with trying to argue that it is science, hasn't been contradicted by facts 5,000 times, and worse, insisting that its "not religiously motivated". Hell, if modern ID isn't 100% religion, then Da Vinci used ancient Chinese porn scrolls for his inspiration of the Sistine Chapel. The argument that he did is about as factually correct, accurate and/or supported by evidence, so it "must be true", right?
To Joe way above claiming that Hawking's use of the anthropic principle is somehow a claim of intelligence of the universe (an idea of pantheism, not of either Christianity or most ID proponents) you're simply wrong.
The anthropic principle states rather that we perceive the universe to exist as the way it is because if it was otherwise we ourselves would not be the same to observe it. That's the strong form, a tautology (if I were a different person I would view the world differently, as my worldview is part of the definition of me as a person). However even a weak form in physics is true - if gravity was too weak to form planets you would not have humans. This does NOT mean that gravity was chosen to create humans, but rather that the fact humans exist to measure gravity means that gravity is within a certain range. A hypothetical intelligent being made of clouds of plasma in another universe could make a similar argument that the fact that planets did not form is proof god exists and created plasma beings in his image.
Einstein's 'mind of god' is similarly taken out of context here - Einstein's use of God was well explained by him, as the order of the universe constrained by its physical laws. It was a notation of this, rather than a reference to an intelligence or entity such as the Biblical god.
Oops...my last comment was attributed to "Anonymous" ( December 7, 2008 10:53 PM)--I intended to put my name to it, but I have an impatient mouse finger I guess...
Ebert: Fair enough. But I want to clarify something. I said that in America, almost all racists have considered themselves Christians. That is far, far different than saying that almost all Christians have considered themselves racists. Nor, for that matter, do I consider racists Christians.
I want to clarify something as well...I didn't mean that you thought almost all Christians considered themselves racist. What I meant was that the 'almost all racists' statement implied a much higher rate of racism among Christians than other groups. If only three-quarters or less of the general population consider themselves Christian, I would expect a similar proportion amongst the ranks of racists.
It might not be a popular thing to say, but among the various religions in America, the institutionalized beliefs of the Christian faith are less 'hard-line' than most others.
"Marshall: To date there is not one piece of evidence in the fossil record of ANY transitional forms. IF man did evolve from a monkey there would be a transition of that evolution over the millions of years claimed, also if a reptile became a bird the same. But there is not one fossil record of this rubbish."
Yeah, sadly, saying something a lot doesn't make it become true. Creationists use this whole "there are no transitional fossils" claim quite often - even though it's simply a load of rubbish.
Quite simply, anyone who understands evolution realizes that every fossil is a transitional fossil - every species, including humans, is still evolving, are still "in transition." That is because evolution has no "end point."
Another important thing to remember:
Microevolution (another term that represents a completely misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, but whatever) will inevitably lead to macroevolution (ditto) - that is, the small changes that are very easily observable in species living today will eventually accumulate, over a long enough period of time, to create two separate species. It's an inevitable, completely logical process.
And, more importantly, even by your definition of a transitional fossil (that is, one that clearly shows the adaptation into a new species) many, many have been found. (Please see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html for a complete and utter demolishing of your assertion that "there is not one piece of evidence in the fossil record for transitional forms.)
And, though this was already posted by another user, it deserves another mention:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7748280.stm
"the Second L A W of Thermodynamics?"
Yeah - you might want to do just a tiny bit of research before using this completely demolished creationist meme.
(But it was a nice try.)
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/11/entropy-and-evo.html
"My words are nourishment for the mind and sweet wine for the intellect: The Bible is a religious scripture,... its words are often SYMBOLIC!"
"GOD is beyond The Bible. Such an indispensable book, but how harmful it has become to some men!"
For Dan on December 7, 2008 2:20 AM,
Thank you Howard Beale, I mean, Dan!
God is the personification of the source of our inspiration. As evolution can be seen as the summation of millions and millions of reproductive choices of our ancestors, I believe that same "spark" is the driving force behind all evolution.
The debate of "evolution=random chance" vs. God, is really the same thing as determinism vs. free will. More interesting to ask, "Do animals make choices about their future the same way that we do?" "Is it possible for plants to 'choose', in any sense of the word?" Must there be a black-and-white line, or is it possible that choice (aka freewill) exists along a spectrum?
Oliverio, not only is this debate US-specific, it echoes in so many ways the public debate that was held in Britain in the 1860's; the same points are made, the same fears expressed, and so on. I wish I understood why the U.S, of all countries, is the one where an argument that was over 140 years ago everywhere else still survives in the public arena. I wonder if it just propagates through the education system; evolution is controversial, so it doesn't get taught, so misinformation about it survives, so it remains controversial, etc... What the U.S seems to need is a modern-day T.H.Huxley.
To JWD
What is "eXpelled" about other than trying to teach an "alternative" to evolution?....as others like him say. The problem is there is no competition, so, it's all an exercise in trashing evolution. They want a class that is the uneducating of evolution. Our schools don't need that kind of perverse language. We don't have classes called "doubting math" or "doubting history" or "doubting biology", or as I was saying "anti-math" or "anti-history", although those classes sound cool, or unorthodox, the other definition of anti--no, I mean that definition of anti as in
"against, hostile, opposed to"...I have would have no problem--who wouldn't actually really like the sound of "anti-math" etc.? --if it were teaching math, in an unorthodox way, as opposed to the other definition--against, hostile, opposed to math. And that's what an "alternative" to evolution class would be...against, hostile, opposed to evolution. I would have no problem with a class being called "anti-evolution" that would teach it, in an unorthodox way, but not if that definition meant it was opposed to it, against it or hostile to it. Classes are supposed to teach things, not be based on unteaching things. Thats perverse language not needed in our schools, which is very propagandistic. Who could be against something that is intelligent and designed that way? Nobody, except when you realize that it's sole purpose is to oppose evolution with no underlying scientific theory of its own--just to trash every new development of evolution. So, it is an "alternative" to evolution, which as you said does not claim to know what created life, but is a history of life. So, whats the history of life that intelligent design is proposing, besides being "alternative" to evolution, and, since you brought it up, how is it that intelligent design--on its own--in one fell swoop, also brings multiple branches of science together in one theory that also explains how life started? Do, we need a whole school now dedicated to trashing evolution too? Evolution brings branches of science together and intelligent design can't come up with one theory worthy of one single class, let alone a whole institution, which could aptly be named "Palin Negating Science Institution".
Ebert: "I have never bashed people of faith. Most people of faith, as you must be aware, subscribe to the theory of evolution. "
Most don't, since it points toward an unplanned, accidental existence. The there's the YECs, essentially Biblical literalists (~50 % of Americans), who don't subscribe to evo, or just in the last 10k. Since the Catholic Church has gone in the evo direction of late, some Catholics will go along with that. Also, there's the United Church of Christ and few other liberal churches that have signed the 'church clergy letter', some without reading it, I've been told. But 'most'? Not really.
I accept evolution, but with intervention at unknown junctures. Just like I believe in the software that does the complex layout of microprocessors (5 layers, millions of transistors and diodes, with nanometer spacing), but with humans to tweak and adjust that software.
Are the two analogous? Why not? Intelligence here, intelligence out there, what's the problem. The president of GM sits at the top of his hierarchy, oversees, but does nothing productive. Design engineers, procurement depts, production planners work in the middle of the triangle, with workers at the bottom. The cosmic realm that supports the planet could have a similar hierarchal layout.
God, or a council of same would be at the top, and do essentially none of the design or maintenance work, with intermediates mid, and surrogates at the bottom. There is evidence for that kind of an arrangement, and we are likely a part of it. Why predator/ prey, and parasite/ host? To make earthly existence competitive perhaps. Don't humans show similar propensities? We do.
But even if only one omniX3 God, or none at all, the evidences of design are still there. A mosquito is more complex than a B-1B bomber, has complex vision, olfactory and heat sensors, has a retractable probiscus (syringe) and sheath, with adjoining anticoagulant glands, nourishes and reproduces itself.
Anyone who believes that accidental mutations can produce that complexity, and there are hundreds of thousands of more examples, is deluded. ~26 separate vertebrate eyes, many in separate unrelated phyla, all evolving similar complex eyes? Then there are insect eyes, some even more complex.
Sexual reproduction, and not just from the genetic recombination of haploids to form the zygote, but the organs themselves, how they fit together and function synergistically. This arose accidentally from monocelluar organisms? Not on your life.
Ebert: "Nor have I ever affirmed a "Stargate" theory of any kind. Please do not confuse proponents of Intelligent Design with people of faith. Isn't the whole defense of ID based on the claim that it is notreligious?"
The defense of ID is 'design inferences' based on scientific inquiry. It is itself nonreligious, since religious input or bias would add subjectivism and faulty data to its hypotheses. Its proponents could have a personal faith (or not), but that does not (or should not) influence its approach to its research. That hasn't been true with Creationist endeavors, which are today, somewhat separated from ID. One has as its goals to substantiate its beliefs via science. The other makes no a priori assumptions.
Interesting thread you got going (to say the least. :D).
On a completely unrelated note, what's your opinion on the demise of the Tribune? What would Gene have thought?
Ebert: I suspect Gene might have thought something like this:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081208/OPINION/812089997
Ebert: "The theory of Intelligent Design does not even contain a means by which it can be tested or challenged."
Ebert: "I said that in America, almost all racists have considered themselves Christians."
Really? Like to see you develop a means to test and challenge that theory, Roger.
Ebert: Here's an interesting article by the executive director of the Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t52866.html
Thank you Mr. Ebert for such an intelligent deconstruction of this "documentary". I just wanted to point out the silliness of words such as "evolutionists" or "Darwinism" that are being thrown about in these comments, even by those who are against Intelligent Design. Stop using these terms! They are labels for non-existent quantities. They are terms that have been invented by the proponents of ID to describe (in a derogatory manner) their percieved opposition. If you agree that the theory of evolution best describes what has occurred with life on this planet, then you are not an "evolutionist" or a "Darwinist". You are merely someone who agrees that the theory of evolution best describes what has occurred with life on this planet.
Additionally, I take issue with the way the word "scientist" is thrown about. Perhaps instead of just saying "scientists say blank", maybe we should use more specific terms such as "biologists" and "archeologists". Just using the generic term "scientist" provides a convenient label for those who are wary of "science" to react negatively toward.
Well, here is a lovely coincidence. I was just researching the Intelligent Design controversy for a report I'm doing (in Japanese, no less), and here is my favorite blogger inciting a controversy on just that very subject.
Before I started reading up on Evolution, I was a bit of an agnostic on the subject. I accepted microevolution (stuff like bacteria evolving immunity to antibiotics, the very observable fruit fly experiments) but not macroevolution, because it seemed inconceivable to me that slight changes, no matter how logically "selected," could never account for things that required such complicated and interacting parts as wings, hands, eyes, etc, not to mention complex blood proteins.
Once I actually started doing research, though, I learned how sensible the theory is. Simple things evolve complex parts through a series of stages, wherein those parts serve other functions until they acquire new ones. Yes, it's inconceivable to "evolve" a functional flight wing in a single generation. It's not so inconceivable to evolve a flap of skin, which then becomes useful for insulation (as penguin 'wings' do) or making yourself appear larger to ward off predators. It makes sense that the larger this flap becomes, the more useful it is for the above "simple" purposes, until it becomes so large that it can take on a secondary purpose-- the ability to glide. From there, natural selection fine-tunes and upgrades the gliding function into true long-term flight.
That this happened is not merely a hypothesis, but also bears out evidence in the fossil record and also in the behavior of modern species (see penguins, other flightless birds). Is it airtight proof? No, but it's a compelling bit of conjecture for those (like me) who just can't wrap their minds around how macroevolution could possibly work.
What people don't understand is that a theory is not only not a fact, it's not supposed to be a fact. A theory is merely an explanation that strings facts together; as a result, it must always be held up to scrutiny and doubt. But so far, the number of advances predicted by Darwin's theory is stunning-- the revelations brought from the sequencing of the chimp DNA, the discovery of transitional sea-land mammal fossils (which are more than just "whales with legs" but evidence important transitional changes in the inner ear as well). A theory does not collapse merely under "doubt", it stands until something concrete comes up to disprove it-- so far, a hundred years' worth of technological advances and a dozen brand new sciences, and none of them have disproved it.
It's also worth noting that many of the most significant advances have happened only in the last fifteen years or so. Unfortunately, those opposed to Darwin's theory are to a great degree still running on old information, that claims gaps in the fossil record and genetic code that have long been filled in.
The trouble with Intelligent Design, though, is that even its proponents don't take it seriously as a science. There is practically no actual research being done for it. The entirety of the ID movement's activities is based around politics and propaganda, and undermining Darwin's theory. And for good reason, perhaps: why spend thirty years researching and fighting to have your theory taken seriously in scientific circles to filter down to the schools, when you can make movies and file lawsuits and take it directly to the kids' impressionable young minds?
And that's the funny thing: For all the anti-evolutionary argument that Evolution is polluting our kids' minds, many, many kids (myself included) are not learning the full Theory in the classroom, if they learn it at all. In reality, many teachers feel unofficial pressure by local communities not to teach the theory, or to teach a bare-bones version of it, simply because they don't want to incite controversy. As a result, school boards try to pick textbooks with as little information about evolution as possible so as not to offend community sensibilities; hence, textbook publishers try more and more to avoid the subject so that their books will actually get bought.
In other words, it's no surprise that there are so many people out there who believe in the "gaps" in evolution: the schools willfully avoid educating them about it! Talk about "No Intelligence Allowed"!
I've talked long enough here now, but I wanted to address a comment way back above that bugged me. Greg Shaffer: "Darwinism" isn't a "made-up word" (at least, not anymore so than any other word. We make up words when we need new ones; that's how language works), and it isn't a recent one. Its original purpose in the late 19th century was to differentiate Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection from the Lamarckian and Mendelian theories of evolution. Merely calling it "evolution" back then wouldn't have meant anything. Most scientists felt that some kind of evolution was going on, they just didn't know how it was happening.
I will agree that nowadays the word has indeed been co-opted by those who wish to portray subscribers to the theory as cultish atheists, but that wasn't the word's original intent.
Also, to those who believe only Athiests can accept Evolution (or those who are just interested in more information about the debate), I hope you'll check out this lecture with Ken Miller on YouTube. I also recommend Michael Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design", which, among other things, dissects the 10 most compelling cases that ID Proponents/Creationists make against the theory of evolution.
Roger, I'm sorry to write an essay on my first comment to your site, but I've often held back on commenting because by the time I got around to it I had nothing new and useful to add. I didn't read all the comments but I hope at least some of this is new and useful information!
Ebert: No apology required. There are many visitors here who would find this information useful, and I hope several of them consult it.
Re: An angry reader, As Gore Vidal observed, "Over 50% of American collegiates have failed to/are unable to identify the difference between an assertion and an argument." I will not speculate as to the political (or any other) persuasion of the group that cannot make the identification, but rather will (and can) only note that it is the "failures" who seem to have racked up the Michael Moore count you started earlier. These folks might want to consider respecting themselves (by, for example, viewing the films and theories they glibly criticize and dismiss) before enlightening us as to how much they disrespect you.
By the way, respecting your reply to AngryReader, may we take it that you are now more inclined to suffer fools gladly than you used to be, less inclined, or that you believe that fools cannot even respect or tolerate themselves (and thus it would be pointless to even consider whether the rest of us should suffer them)?
Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, by the way. I have a potential blog topic for you that might be apropos for this time of year: "The War on Christmas: Which Side Has No Generals, and Which Side Has Too Many?"
Ebert: Should a fool visit this blog, he cannot help but go away less foolish.
Roger,
It suddenly occurred to me that while everything may be a product of Evolution, it could be that there is also the force of Devolution working against it. Come to think of it, without Devolution, the theory of Evolution would not make any sense at all. Life and Nature seem to "know" this, and appropriately "put up a fight" against stagnating and/or devolving.
Btw, sorry for the "inebriated" remark I made to Solomon "American Express" Wakeling. It was actually done in good humour. He was one of your posters that I used to pay attention to (he writes very well); but that lately, has not been gracing the halls of your Blog.
Ebert: As I understand it, a species neither advances nor retreats, but adapts. If a species of fish finds itself living in darkness for many generations, it can lose its eyes. This is not devolution but still evolution.
I think Solomon's post was too well written to be composed while not sober.
Even in Physics there is a rule which says to the effect:for an aeroplane in uniform level flight you can't tell whether or not it's moving (except looking out ). It' as though there is a "conspiracy of nature " to prevent this discovery. A conspiracy of nature is by definition a law of nature.Hence Einstein said "Laws of nature are the same in all inertial systems. (Please correct me if this physics ic wrong or superceded.)
Just speculatizin' there could be other such benign conspiracies like death and Intellignce.....if everything got answered what would we live on....
Great review Roger. I appreciate the shout-out for the "middle," those like myself who love God and also understand Darwinism.
Have you read Chris Hedges' "I Don't Believe in Atheists"? Never mind the silly title; it's a fascinating case against the fundamentalist mindset, at the religious AND secular extremes.
I've been invited to an early screening of "Valkyrie" and it should be interesting. A famous Scientologist playing a German officer who, as a matter of conscience, decides to assassinate der Fuehrer. I wonder if the script will show that Hitler has credentials as a theater critic. (OK, OK, it's a joke.)
In 1633, an outbreak of bubonic plague threatened Oberammergau, a small village in southern Germany. The village promised to present a play about the life and death of Jesus Christ every 10 years if God preserved them from the disease. The plague receded... Oberammergau became a pilgrimage site every decade for thousands of Christians, but the nature of its Passion play brought controversy.
Pontius Pilate and the Romans are represented as being innocent of Jesus' death, and the Jewish temple traders were shown as the masterminds. The script included a verse from the Gospel of Matthew about a Jewish mob shouting for Jesus' execution: "His blood be upon us and also upon our children's children."
Adolph Hitler, who first attended the Oberammergau Passion play in 1930, returned on August 13, 1934. Six weeks earlier, during what came to known as the "Night of the Long Knives," Hitler had violently purged the Nazi ranks of any possible challengers to his authority. He had also just proposed a new law that would name him Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.
After watching the play, Hitler praised it: "...never has the menace of Jewry been so convincingly portrayed as in this presentation ..." and "The whole world over should see... this Passion play, then they will understand why I despise the Jews and why they deserve to die."
Of the blood curse on the Jews, Hitler said "...maybe I'm the one who must execute this curse.... Maybe I render Christianity the best service ever!".
Did Hitler learn his anti-Semitic views from his mother's Catholic friends? Hard to say. There's another possibility.
Hitler lived in Vienna from 1907 to 1913, trying to become an Architect. He was twice rejected from the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. He later called the second rejection one of the most traumatic experiences of his life. He learned that four out of seven professors that rejected him were Jewish...
In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote:
For a few hellers I bought the first anti-Semitic pamphlets of my life. Unfortunately, they all proceed from the supposition that in principle the reader knew or even understood the Jewish question to a certain degree.
The winter of 1909 was especially severe. Hitler was at the end of his resources, his hands covered with chilblains, his stomach empty; he had been begging in the streets, but no one paid any attention to him. He had no overcoat, his feet were in bad shape, and he walked painfully and slowly... Hitler earned a meager living by peddling his painted postcards, living in a flophouse. In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote:
"To me Vienna... represents, I am sorry to say, merely the living memory of the saddest period of my life. ... Five years in which I was forced to earn a living, first as a day laborer, then as a small painter; a truly meager living which never sufficed to appease even my daily hunger. Hunger was then my faithful bodyguard. .....The uncertainty of earning my dally bread soon seemed to me one of the darkest sides of my new life.
Was Hitler's anti-Semitism the result of five years in Vienna, blaming the Jews who rejected his application to their Academy of Fine Arts?
Hitler often described himself as a successor to an Aryan Jesus... divinely protected from numerous assassination attempts by the Hand of Providence... and the enemy of Jews who deserved to die as part of a blood curse documented in the Holy Bible. Who knows how much the explicit language and curses in the Passion plays influenced him?
My point? If you start by getting the facts right, you can save a whole lot of debate time. Hitler's Catholicism is only part of the explanation for the Holocaust, but it's a vital piece of the puzzle.
Roger:
If you would only apply the same standards to "An Inconvenient Truth" and other polemical films. You never slammed "Triumph of the Will" this way.
Ebert: I guess you didn't read either my review and blog on "Triumph of the Will." Would have been prudent. "An Inconvenient Truth" cites such generally-accepted science that even George Bush now accepts the problem of global warming.
I can't help but think of an old proverb when reading through some of these comments: "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." I wish I had all the answers, or even explain them if I did have them.
I still can't help but be amused when people use the argument that "lots of people believe this" to defend their beliefs. A number of years ago, the best minds on earth thought the earth was flat. Lots of people believed that then, but that didn't make it true. Sure, we know more now than we did then. There may be "evidence" that points to species evolution, but what would happen if, in 100 years (or 1 or 10,000), evidence was found to completely disprove evolution? I guess scientists rely on science being truth. I suppose it's easy to get a big head when every time you disprove something you believed in the past, you can just change your beliefs to include that as well.
Anyways, I guess this is unrelated (at least to an extent), but I watched "La Dolce Vita" tonight for the first time. Is there something about a truly great movie that makes you want to watch it again even before you have finished it the first time? I don't get that feeling often, but I certainly did during this one. Of the Fellini films I have seen thus far, that's certainly at the top of my list. It also brought back some great memories of our short stay in Rome this past year. They say that if you throw a coin in the "Fontana di Trevi" it means you will return some day. I threw my coin in, but if I don't get the chance to make it back to Italy someday, I'll take this film as a near-suitable replacement.
Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Now everyone shut up!
I want to ask, if intelligent design is taught in schools, what will it do for scientific progress? What does it have to offer future research into things like the behavior and evolu- I mean, the, uh, intelligent design of viruses over time? Will intelligent design help us to understand and eliminate AIDS or cancer? Will it help us develop new and more powerful medicine? What does it offer to the scientific community that we can then apply to further research and experimentation?
Furthermore, literally millions of big and small experiments have been done regarding evolution as a scientific law. For example, removing predators from a guppy tank resulted in guppies with longer tails, since their visibility made them more attractive to mates (rather than more attractive to predators). Are there any experiments that have been done using intelligent design as a scientific law?
A single one?
To Keith Carrizosa,
I think I need to explain myself a little better:
I was not jumping in the debate about what the film suggests we should do in school...I was jumping in about the debate this blog has turned into concerning ID, Evolution and Creationism.
I was simply trying to get people to understand that Evolution and Creationism are not opposing theories at their root. And ID is the only theory being discussed that addresses both the creation of life and the evolution of life in one theory. Creationism really does not address evolution, just how life was created. Evolution does not address how life was created, just its progress afterwords.
Theology is always going to be just as valid a class as Theoretic Physics, because they both address the unknown and unproven. Some would decree Theology as being mumbo-jumbo in the same breath that they proclaim String Theory and vice-versa.
If I were to weigh in on whether Creationism should be taught in school:
In private schools, let them teach whatever curriculum they wish, including Creationism. For those who don't agree, choose another school and get over yourself.
In public schools, let them teach whatever the school board deems appropriate, based on the majority of the people that elected the board into its positions. For those that don't agree, get active in politics, because that is what drives these decisions.
Personally, I subscribe to the theory that God created the universe and everything in it, including man (which he could have allowed to evolve from earth, which is generally what the theory of Evolution posits also).
I will not weigh in on the film, as I have not seen it and generally laugh at many who have weighed in here about the film and admit to having not seen it.
I pretty much land in the middle of the argument and refuse to sling names to belittle them for the sake of building myself up. I am just trying to point out the differences in the three theories being discusses.
This whole blog is propaganda and everyone is trying to get their part of their agenda heard. It starts with Mr. Ebert, who openly admits he has an agenda. I have no problem with people having and agenda and it corresponding propaganda. Differing agendas is what leads us to debate and evolves us as humans, the only animals that debate.
Ebert: It's not only a matter of opinion. The theory of evolution has survived decades of testing under the scientific method. No one in these tens of thousands of words has cited even one one scientific study supporting creationism. The claims that have been made on ts behalf have been demolished countless times, and go simply repeated, not defended. It can be an opinion that creationism is valid. Should public schools to teach subjects based on people's opinions? Should they teach clearly faith-based beliefs? It was perfectly valid to teach that the sun revolves around the earth, until tests proved otherwise.
You are massively hypocritical, Roger. Not because you didn't like the film, not because you believe in evolution, not for anything having to do with religion.
The degree to which you ridicule and condescend the film because you find that it is "manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, [and] makes outrageous juxtapositions" is astounding, considering that you completelely give Bill Maher and Michael Moore a free pass for much the same thing.
Now, instead of responding with a bemused chuckle and a "you're now the 73rd person to reference Michael Moore", why don't you address this?
Ebert: Moore is obvious about what he does, and his smarminess is part of his act. The Maher film is completely up-front. Stein intends to deceive. There is a difference between a film declaring "I am an opinion" and one declring "I am true and can be believed." Especially so when Stein, a smart man, must know when he is deceiving. Interesting that he has not defended the film, which he did for hire, with script not written by him.
I'm not a creationist, but I do take issue with anything scientifically agreed upon as being a basis for anything but more questions. In response to the cartoon about letting the kids choose, couldn't science in history have produced its own cartoon along the same lines?
Let the children choose:
Spontaneous generation.....vs....Birth and death
World is flat....vs....world is round
Heliocentric....vs....geocentric
Newton....vs....Einstein
The point is, nothing is certain, nothing. Darwin was probably correct in most ways, but if we are honest with ourselves and our limited view of future history, we must realize that we are so restrained by our lack of forward vision that we can make no definite, or 99% assumptions about much, let alone about origin of species. At the University of Chicago they drummed into us on a daily basis to question everything. That is probably why I'm not a creationist, but it is also why I can't find it to be arrogant enough to believe in any one theory for something so complex.
Roger, though we are separated by a distance on this issue, it would seem, there is always middle ground. That ground, for me, is to admit that I know nothing....(that is also from the U of C...damn their core curriculum...damn it to hell)
Ebert: I was a graduate student at the U of C, too. My answer would be: Scientists do not "believe" in a theory. They use it as a hypothesis on which to found experiments. From their results, they may suggest alterations to the theory, which make it more useful to apply in future experiments. This is actually Darwinian. One must, however, believe in Creationism, which involves religion and not science. There is no research date supporting it. Its claim do not pass such basic tests of scientific theory as being reproductive and predictive. Most of its "science" consists of cherry-picking exceptions to the theory of evolution, all of which have been disproved.
I don't disagree at all with your characterization of Creationism. By comment isn't meant as a defense of a position, instead, a defense of the idea that we are too restricted in our breadth of knowledge to make determinations that are anything but purely transitory, or evolving as it were. In discussions like these I find it interesting to think from a future position. What will the educated of 3008 think of the educated of 2008? Will this blog be saved in some digital museum to be perused by grad students of historical anthropology? Will they laugh at our arguments over two opposed ideas that they now know to both be false?
Of course, the important thing to remember is that the line between 2008 and 3008 won't be a straight line, and science must continually adapt and modify itself to further the discussion. It will, the scientific method and the testing of theory will provide the path, as it always has.
By the way, I was an undergrad at U of C, and a Phi Delt. I had to memorize your college and graduation year or else do push ups. Good times.
It's starting to look like you're going to top 1000 comments on this post, so permit me to sneak in just one more pleasant irrelevancy. /*/*/ Back in the late '60s, I remember seeing Ed Begley Sr. on the Mike Douglas Show. The talk turned to INHERIT THE WIND, and to how Begley had, at different times, played both of the lead roles - Brady and Drummond. After discussing the play for a while, Begley took the playscript to a podium at centerstage, and preformed the cross-examination scene, playing both parts. It was virtuoso work; Begley smoothly going back and forth between Brady's rigid certainty and Drummond's sly skepticism, truly memorable. I wonder if anyone held on to the tape of this: Westinghouse broadcasting, the Douglas estate, anybody... because I'd really love to see it again. Seeing one man deliver both arguments with such conviction... would it be too pretentious to call it a metaphor for the way humankind has always been split on this issue? Or maybe it would just make people ask why Ed Begley Jr. doesn't look anything like his dad (no, he wasn't adopted; I checked). Hmmm, profundity and silliness in one post... now, on to 1000!
Faith Restored, Roger.
In stumbling upon your Journal entry on "Expelled", I became both confused (initially) and then very, very pleased.
You see, Roger, I have been a huge fan of yours for decades (in the old, pre-VCR days, I would sit in front of the TV and watch you and Gene on PBS) and have always turned to your reviews for both information and entertainment. I don't always agree with you, but I love your writing and insights.
Not long ago, I dug a little more deeply into your site and came across an essay entitled "On Creation" or something similar. I read through it with some amusement and then, later, shock. Something hit me like a sledgehammer. How could Roger Ebert, the man that I had always trusted to light up my brain with his brilliant analysis and skilled disection of the art of film, possibly be a Creationist.
Was it sarcasm? Satire? You seemed sincere, and I was heartbroken. Then, something else occured. You made me think.
My politics have always skewed a bit to the right (at least, economically), which is rare for a Canadian. In the discussions and debates leading up to your recent Presidential election, some mention had been made of Gov. Palin's religious convictions, namely her belief in Creation.
I had generally been rooting for the McCain/Palin side, and had been content to give the religious right component a pass on the whole Creation issue. But wait...If I could no longer trust Roger Ebert to provide me with stimulating insight into the world of cinema, how in God's name could I trust a confessed Creationist to ride shotgun on the free world?
If your (assumed) belief in Creation was enough for me to discount your ability to intelligently advise and inform me on matters cinematic (I switched to the sterile crowd-think of RottenTomatoes), how could I support the ascention to power of another like-minded fact-denier.
Simply, I couldn't reationalize it and began to see Matt Damon's point. If she thinks that Fred Flintstone really could have operated a brachiosaurus excavator, should she be next in line for the nuclear launch codes? Not in my newly-rationalized opinion.
So now, with your brilliant, logical and affirming unmasking of the ignorance and outright contempt for reason behind Expelled, you have simultaneously renewed my faith in your capacity for rational thought and taught me to consider my own choices and opinions a little more carefully. Ben Stein, however, is now right down there with other science heavyweights like Kent Hovind and Gov. Palin.
Thank you, Roger, and all the best.
Ebert: That piece was intended as satire, but fell afoul of Poe's Law. Here was the follow-up: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/this_is_the_dawning_of_the_age.html
It is incredible that people actually find justification for believing that dinosaurs existed with the past thousand years...
http://trailerhound.blogspot.com
Just dropping in a little more info while I fight insomnia...
I was simply trying to get people to understand that Evolution and Creationism are not opposing theories at their root. And ID is the only theory being discussed that addresses both the creation of life and the evolution of life in one theory. Creationism really does not address evolution, just how life was created. Evolution does not address how life was created, just its progress afterwords.
While you are technically correct in that "Creationism" can refer also to a non-literal, progressionist view of Genesis wherein God is only the starting point for the process of Evolution, the form of Creationism most people are referring to in this argument is the Fundamentalist view known as Young Earth Creationism.
YEC theory adheres strictly to a literal reading of Genesis, and states that the Earth was created no more than 6000some years ago, with all creatures on Earth created wholesale in their present-day forms. I don't think I need to explain why this theory leaves no room for the Origin of Species as described by Darwin.
Incidentally, Intelligent Design derives explicitly from YEC theory. There was a rather famous (infamous?) incident during the 2004 Intelligent Design trial in Dover, PA, wherein the Prosecution was able to sequester numerous drafts of the Intelligent Design textbook "Of Pandas and People". All early drafts of the book contained the word "Creationism" until a 1987 revision where all instances of the word "Creationism" were mysteriously changed to "Intelligent Design" using a universal search-and-replace.
1987 was the year that the Supreme Court ruled that teaching Creationism in schools was unconstitutional.
Another famous incident was when Intelligent Design's premier scientific proponent, a biochemist named Michael Behe, took the stand. Behe stated that he supported ID because the definition of "science" -- the study of natural explanations for phenomena -- was inadequate, and should be expanded to allow for supernatural possibilities.
Expanding the definition in this manner, he said, would leave room for Intelligent Design to be counted as science. When asked if he would also consider Astrology a science under this definition, Behe answered in the affirmative.
That's right. On the stand, under oath, ID's #1 scientific witness stated that his theory was every bit as scientific as Astrology.
Everything seems a digression since the topic under debate becomes obscurer as the string lengthens.
Unimportant is the man, the film, the blog-host, whether Creationism is science, obviousness of evolution as gravity, important is that it elicited such heated interest....
What is that something that so bothers people....
It's that vacuum of the soul that is hungering, more than ever, it seems........
The UN charter says that wars ,and other holocasts are born in the human heart......
Ofcourse anyone suggesting putting Creationism in a biology textbook is guilty of perverting or obscuring the boundaries between science and faith.....
A buddhist text says, be the master of your mind rather than it your master.....
Science should be the handmaiden, not mistress...
Science cannot console the prostitute on the brink of suicide...
Our "souls" need solid fare...
What about irreducible complexity? Like the eye!
Like...Clear Eyes! Oh Ben Stein, your speeches for Nixon were just as clever as you.
What Ben Stein is saying it is just as plausible to contemplate life beginning by ID billions of years ago as it is for life to begin by lightening striking a mud puddle billions of years ago. The fact stressed in the film is no scientist from either persuasion has a clue how life began. Not a one.
Much aloha,
Bill
I just finished my Introductory Biology lectures here at the University of Kansas. Here is how I explain it to my students. Every since Thales (ca 600BC) invented science (and in spite of Plato), science has been about replacing the Mythos with the Logos. Translation: replacing supernatural explanations with natural explanations. If an explanation contains supernatural parts, it isn't science: Period. Darwin's theory, as a major component (but not the only component) of modern evolutionary theory is scientific because it attempts to provide natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Whether Darwin’s theory of natural selection is correct or incorrect is no more relevant than whether Thales cosmology turned out to be correct or incorrect. Science is not about being correct; it is about how humans attempt to answer questions about the world. (I happen to think that natural selection is a well corroborated theory.) ID cannot possibly be scientific, it clings to the Mythos. I tell my students that science isn't everything. For example, movie critiques and moral choices are not science. But I also tell them that we use scientific thinking in our everyday lives. We do not pose the alterative hypotheses that the devil make the brakes fail versus the brake pads are worn out. We seek the natural explanation and take the car to the mechanic rather than to the preacher. Each time we make this choice we opt for applying scientific thinking to our everyday lives. If Ben wants to be consistent, he should take his car to his rabbi next time. Oh yes, and he should eschew all those things that evolutionary biologist has provided, like identifying emergent disease organisms using genomes and the Tree of Life.
We now have the benefit of hindsight. Moore's "smarminess" is obvious now, but when he did "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," it was not so obvious, and Moore presented and advertised those as documentaries to demonstrate his "facts." Some of the tactics he used in "Bowling" were particularly reprehensible. By the time Fahrenheit 9/11 came out (which you loved), some people were becoming wise to his tricks, and now most see him for what he is.
Your (apparent) unwillingness to consider that you may be giving Moore a free pass is unsettling, and that is why so many have taken issue with you on this point. Do you think Moore would agree with how you depict his films? Moore himself takes his "documentaries" very seriously and does not state that his films are an opinion or smarmy. So, even if the general public recognizes they are obvious, that does not make Moore's films any better than "Expelled."
All that said, I saw "Expelled" (I'm guessing that well over 50% of your sycophants on this blog have not) and I thought it was shoddy work. And deceptive. But no more shoddy/deceptive than Moore's films.
I used to get all bent out of shape when talking to creationist. I love logic and religion is devoid of it, so naturally...
But I don't get so upset now-a-days. I like Dawkins idea of a "Meme". It says that the rules of evolution can be applied to ideas as well as biology. That religion was born, and survived, shows that it serves some useful function, but it must change, adapt, and evolve or it will whither and disappear like our former tailed and hairy bodies (though traces of even these long gone feature are still visible when we're in the womb apparently). Yes, evolution allows 'garbage' to lay around for a long time, but eventually it's removed and replaced completely. And that's what must happen to religion. The forces of nature are attacking the garbage of this Meme and it must adapt or die. There is no other way, and it's already chosen to adapt. Women can be spiritual leaders, gays can marry, there are priests that believe in science, etc..
Evolution is powerful, and creationist ideas will not be able to survive.
So this idea placates me, but one thing about the ID people still bugs me...
If you believe that the beauty and complexity of the universe can only be explained by an intelligent designer, then you must also acknowledge the flaws. If god designed the beautiful eye, he must also take responsibility for the blind. I saw a program the other day, which described a horrifying disease, where the muscles of the body slowly turn to a bonelike density, creating these statue people. I'm sure everyone can think of a dozen such examples. Was this the intent of the "intelligent" designer? Or was it a mistake in his design? If god's design is 'perfect' wouldn't it be sacrilegious to cure these diseases? If god is an imperfect designer, what's the point of worship?
Of course these aren’t the questions that reasonable people have to deal with. We've already come to the logical conclusions. But it is interesting to watch the religious twist themselves into knots trying to fit there own theory of god into the realities they observe every day.
Roger,
I feel very sorry for you. Not for your beliefs, in which you and I have a great deal in common. Rather for your promise to us readers when starting this journal to read every single comment posted.
Here are some words of wisdom on this topic from The Onion to lighten the discussion a little:
"Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory"
Regards,
Chris
I loved the review, but like many other commenters, I'm really bothered by the footage of Dawkins putting on makeup while you approved Michael Moore doing the same thing. I also found your responses, involving whether Michael Moore "asked" that Paul Wolfowitz be made up before going on television, somewhat irrelevant- would a Deputy Defense Secretary EVER go on television without being made up? Like Expelled, Fahrenheit 9/11 assumes viewers would either not know that or ignore it for a shallow laugh.
I too find Michael Moore very funny, and Ben Stein an intellectually irresponsible buffoon. But I think your review of Expelled pretty well shows why "gotcha" techniques have no place in political discourse.
Ebert: Wolfowitz wasn't asked if he wanted to be made up. He put spit on his pocket comb and used it to comb his hair. I doubt if Moore would have asked him to do that. I imagine he wishes he had heeded his mother's advice: "Paul! Don't ever let anyone see you doing that!"
Thanks for this wonderful review.
When talking with ID proponents, I try and follow Michael Shermer's advice and pose about 10 positive, testable reasons why I accept the theory of Natural Selection - Descent with Modification - as being the best at explaining the diversity of present life forms as well as those clearly seen in the the fossil record. Positive (and testable) reasons. Then I suggest they do the same as to why they accept ID. "Discussion" usually ends here when they start presenting untestable statements - belief based - and ultimately cannot resist putting my statements down. They want to argue/put down/accuse. They generally want to embrace and espouse all the unchristian ideals they profess to adhere to.
I was raised an Catholic and am ever grateful to have been taught to use reason and education - formal and informal - as a way of knowing the world. That may be why I became a poet and a paleontologist.
Why must we in the US (who I, a 1st generation American, served during the Vietnam War) go out of our way to remain ignorant?
The rest of the world is watching and, in this instance, laughing.
Thanks.
Kou:
"I've talked long enough here now, but I wanted to address a comment way back above that bugged me. Greg Shaffer: "Darwinism" isn't a "made-up word" (at least, not anymore so than any other word. We make up words when we need new ones; that's how language works), and it isn't a recent one. Its original purpose in the late 19th century was to differentiate Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection from the Lamarckian and Mendelian theories of evolution. Merely calling it "evolution" back then wouldn't have meant anything. Most scientists felt that some kind of evolution was going on, they just didn't know how it was happening."
I misspoke somewhat, although I think the spirit of what I was trying to say came through. "Darwinian" is certainly a valid adjective to apply to evolution for the reason you suggest: distancing itself from the other forms of evolution that have been proposed over the years, such as Lamarckian evolution (which I would nitpick and say was not a theory but rather a hypothesis).
My point was (and I think you went on to agree with it somewhat) that that distinction no longer has any meaning, and the continual usage of the term by creationists in particular has an alternate purpose. We don't call people who accept Relativistic Physics "Einsteinists", why should we call people who accept evolution "Darwinists"?
I think we are all missing the point of this movie, and it' to ask questions, and bring about a valid debate on Creationism and Intelligent Design. As Mr. Ebert has given his opinion now, we see a debate is still ongoing, which is what I believe Ben Stein was trying to do in the first place. So in turn, Mr. Ebert simply is validating that effort as well.
Personally, I believe that reality is formed from a dimension of information, existing outside of space time as we experience it. Which, would court both ideas of Evolution and INTELLIGENT design. Most evolutionists are really biologists who see the entire globe as a petrie dish, trying to observe species development objectively, when they are truly subjective. I believe that it may be possible for both Evolution and Intelligent Design to exist on the same playing field, like hot and cold, two parts of a thermodynamics: Heat and Lack thereof.
It all seems to be about INFORMATION. Intelligence seems to be solely dependent on INFORMATION. Designs utilizing INFORMATION might be designed INTELLIGENTLY. No one said that intelligence must be SENTIENT, only that it may exist within the constructs of INFORMATION DESIGN. Where does INFORMATION come from, and how do you qualify and quantify it's evolutionary process?
But this is why Roger Ebert discusses movies, and isn't doing scientific research like Michio Kaku. How many of your friends Mr. Ebert are Nobel Prize winners? I trust Mr. Ebert on an old man's view of movies. A paradigm shift doesn't seem to come from what he may think of Jordowsky's "The Holy Mountain".
Why, by God, was this issue of documentarians not having the right to a solid opinion birthed? A documentary is not, nor does it have any duty to be, the news. It not have to be "fair and balanced" (whatever that means)... I can only assume that, with the greater success that Michael Moore achieved with his excellent HIGHLY OPINIONATED documentaries, more people were exposed to filmed op-ed pieces... and more people became very confused.
In essence, Michael Moore's films are very well-made, VERY FUNNY (that's the key) liberal op-ed pieces. The fact that they don't express the views of the right-wing is akin to a documentary about John Cassavetes not taking time to talk about Stanley Kramer. It's simply not the topic at hand.
I would argue that it is Moore's very powers of persuasion that so anger the right... and when you add to that the general lack of charismatic, witty pundits on their side, all anger is compounded.
But let's shoot this idea down right now: A film is not the news, a documentary film is not "the truth" any more than a fiction film is. And it has no duty to be.
Roger's point that Stein was a smug-face for hire on EXPELLED is really the heart of the issue here.
And no, just like I can't prove that The Beatles are better than Britney Spears, I can neither prove that evolution is the real deal. But, as with the Beatles, I've got a pretty strong feeling.
Hey Roger, that was fantastic! I've had Christian influence around me all my life and came to my personal faith in Christ when I was 15. I appreciated your blog very much and wanted to thank you for posting about the middle ground. I believe that Evolution happened because the Bible talks about how 1 year to us as humans is 1,000 years to God. I don't know your faith, that's your business. I also wanted to come to your defense a bit when somebody refered to you as a Christian basher. If you were a Christian basher I would think you would not have given the glowing review of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ that you did give. I also don't think you would not sing the praises of Pasolini's Gospel According to St. Matthew that you do sing. There are idiots everywhere, no matter what they believe. Thanks, Roger! I've been, and will continue to be praying for your speech issues.
Roger,
In your response to Eric Miller you said, "[Creationism's] claim do not pass such basic tests of scientific theory as being reproductive and predictive."
I'm not a biologist, gentisist, etc., but I doubt that there has been a succesful experiment in which, under controlled conditions, an existing species has been observed to evolve into a different species. That doesn't shake my belief in evolution, but it also begs the question of how you prove the theory of evolution when you can't create an experiment that demonstrates the expected outcome. My understanding is that the evidence for evolution is based mostly on the fossil record and on experiments done at a micro level (viruses and bacteria). I'd like to see some information on what kinds of experiments have been done that verify evolution at a species level.
Ebert: It seems to me that, by definition, no experiment of evolution could take place under controlled conditions, because then no evolution would seem necessary. You could change the conditions, however, by taking a species of fish with eyes, and putting them in a cave without light. Such fish have been found to lose their eyes. Of course, the time frame would be a little extended for your average research funding.
Reply to: JWD: I think I need to explain myself a little better: I was simply trying to get people to understand that Evolution and Creationism are not opposing theories at their root. Creationism really does not address evolution, just how life was created.
JWD,
We could make this go a lot faster if I can convince you that you are wrong.
Do you hold some position in a Creationist organization where your "opinion" holds some weight?
Because your opinion does NOT agree with the published definition of Creationism. Personally, I think you are a victim of the religious mindset, where a "belief" or "faith" is supposed to outrank facts and science. However, it may be that you are simply too lazy to look up the Correct Answer. (Or, you could be too indoctrinated to give up your beliefs without a struggle. That applies to a lot of Homo Sapiens. Your next post should tell me which one.)
Reply to: JWD Personally, I subscribe to the theory that God created the universe and everything in it, including man (which he could have allowed to evolve from earth, which is generally what the theory of Evolution posits also)...This whole blog is propaganda and everyone is trying to get their part of their agenda heard.
Let me say this again. You are starting from a False Statement, because you haven't done the necessary research. Let me quote from Creationist literature:
STUPIDITY: The model states that life on Earth originated as the result of one or more "creation events". A creation event is
*** the instantaneous appearance of new matter out of nothing ***
including but not limited to, fully functional, completely developed organisms. Creation events did not transform existing organisms, but produced entirely new creatures. These creation events included for example:
- Creations of the first cells, those without a nucleus.
- Creations of cells with a nucleus, the dominant kind today.
- Creations of the first kinds of Multi-celled animals and plants
- Creations of the first kinds of Vertebrates
- Creations of the first kinds of Mammals
- Creation of the unique kind: Homo Sapiens.
These creation events are no longer occurring. As such, they are not observable or repeatable. This may sound unusual for a scientific model, but it has all of the corresponding weaknesses (from a scientific standpoint) that evolution has. Essentially, the heart of the controversy comes down to the origin and condition of first life. (END of Stupidity quote because I can't stand the possibility that this nonsense could be attributed to me.)
In the survey I quoted, physicians were asked if they believed humans were created in their present form. Do you understand WHY that option was in the survey?
"Humans were created in their present form" is the Creationist position. It OPPOSES the Theory of Evolution.
Humans being created in their current form is a Creation Event. It's on THEIR LIST, even if it isn't on yours.
Creation events do not transform existing organisms. Evolution says humans can trace their ancestry back to existing organisms. See the difference?
I doubt this will convince you. I suspect you may live in a Delusional World where the only thing matters is what you "believe." I'm talking about something that exists outside your imagination and beliefs, a pseudo-science called "Creationism." It has rules. It has definitions. You need to do some homework and find out what they are. There's nothing wrong with posting a false statement, as long as you admit it and move on.
i have been reading the comments for this thread since your posted your article about the movie. it has been quite interesting to say the least.
though, i do have to wonder why for some people there is a leap.
supporting the theory of evolution = atheist?
huh? how is that an automatic conclusion?
i wanted to say "thank you" for having this conversation with so many interesting people. i have learned quite a bit.
it has also been a fascinating sociological study.
To add to the very fine post about probability and Darwinism from Steve Vanden-Eykel.
The creationists note that you would required a coin flip of heads a hundred times in a row, and he pointed out that if you can remove all of the tails, then you get there in about 200 throws.
Excellent point, but I would add that in the primordial soup before life there were billions of coins that lead to the generation of life. Life may have started a hundred thousand times or more before it took hold and survived. And after the individual protein turns into an individual cell, the species that evolve into hundreds of thousands of units (for want of a better term), which opens the door to many more mutation possibilities for selection (it's no accident our eyes see the radiation wavelengths that are emitted at the temperature of the sun).
To put it simply, if I were able to buy a million lottery tickets, my odds of winning that jackpot are about 1 in 100. And that Lotto is worth playing.
P.S. As someone else mentioned, I loved your Great Movie review of Magnolia.
'Beyond the Valley of the Dolls' is an "extinction event" that no one should have survived. As much as I Hated 'eXpelled' it doesn't reach the level of -- all those responsible for this work need to politely remove themselves from further involvement of any kind with film -- Mr E, think on that one irreducible fact.
Although I have not yet seen this film,still looking for an inexpensive copy, I must say that all the talk has generated interest. It sounds like Stein has chosen the wrong argument or, at least, made his argument using a poor example (Intelligent Design).
Modern science is rife with post-modern humanistic thought. A prime example is this quote from Carl Sagen, "The Cosmos is all that there is or ever was or ever will be." Mr. Sagen's conclusion that nothing outside of what the scientific model can show us is real, reflects a personal philosophy that he overlaid on his understanding of the scientifically known universe. Stein would have done well to challenge this practice within the scientific community.
The reality is that science and philosophy cross paths constantly. Scientists should be careful to stay within the bounds of the empirical data whenever possible and to welcome all philosophical discussions when the two areas inevitably overlap in life application. The exclusion of philosophies that look beyond man for reason is a bigoted approach that makes humanistic philosophy into science.
"Ebert: It seems to me that, by definition, no experiment of evolution could take place under controlled conditions, because then no evolution would seem necessary. You could change the conditions, however, by taking a species of fish with eyes, and putting them in a cave without light. Such fish have been found to lose their eyes. Of course, the time frame would be a little extended for your average research funding. "
It's a reasonable idea for an experiment, but as you say its time frame makes it impractical.
As someone who works in the field of experimental evolution in academia, I would instead recommend using bacteria, which divide much faster (they have a shorter doubling time). Many scientists in the field do just that- Dr. Richard Lenski, at Michigan State University, has grown a population of asexual E. coli since 1988, and has been tracking evolutionary change by freezing samples of the population at regular intervals.
His findings are nothing short of fascinating, such as a recent paper entitled "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" that takes on the question of whether novel functions can arise through evolution (Spoiler alert: they can and do). His work, and the work of hundreds of other scientists, help crush the claim of ID proponents that evolution "has never been observed."
I just hope to get the last word in here: in spite of occasional disagreements about film, and frequent disagreements about politics (I'll be honest: 100%), I'm glad that Ebert and I can find complete agreement on issues of science. In addition to the absurd notion that believing in evolution automatically makes one an atheist, there is the equally absurd notion that it must make one left-of-center in their politics. I belong to a group blog (linked above) consisting of pro-evolution conservatives, and although it's been sleeping for some time, we laid it hard and thick on EXPELLED when it was released.
(not sure if this went through the first time; I got a blank screen a few seconds after pressing submit. The webmasters can disregard this if it went through the first time)
Fascinated by the blog and the discussion.
Although I do not agree with the murky "science" of most Intelligent Design supporters, I can't say I'm terribly fond of Dawkins and the rest of the staunchly atheist writers. Their "science" is a form of religion as well; a very rigid set-in-stone type of belief system. The best science writing is full of imagination and wonder, which is not the feeling I get after reading Dawkins or Harris. Was Dawkins's God Delusion really trying to lay all the evils of the world on the doorstep of religion? I can't stomach that sort of blind, holier-than-thou (if you and he will pardon the expression) brand of insensitivity. Dawkins invites us to place our faith on his fervent, unwavering variation on Darwinism for our salvation. Which is a cheery prospect, if his scheme could so simplify the overwhelming complexity of life. But the best science comes from blessed individuals full of open-mindedness, imagination, and at least a touch of genius --none of which Dawkins has. I'm thinking of people like Newton, Galileo, Einstein, even Darwin himself. All willing to allow for any explanation and letting their observations and experimentation of the natural world provide the scientific payoff. If Dawkins and the rest simply want to blame the ills of the world on religion, fine --but the burden of proof is on them, and The God Delusion is less than convincing. My opinion, of course.
What I really don't understand is the intended audience. Any writing is done with the writer in mind first: to express is to comprehend. But to publish a book, there has to be an audience in mind. Why preach to the choir? "Yep, mmhm, that's pretty much what I think", so a book as an atheist indulgence seems like a preposterous waste of time (excepting, of course, the potential book sales). The atheist tone tends to be argumentative, so are they trying to convince someone? Who? Again, you've already got the atheists on your side, even the "closet" atheists, a creature I do not believe really exists. (I know in some fundamentalist households, certain social topics are divisive: abortion, yes, homosexuality, yes. Darwinism? In one or two families nationwide, maybe, but I don't think there's something to be overly concerned about here.) Dawkins's declared intention of writing for the atheist who hides his/her knowledge (don't call it a belief) for fear of disapproval or censure rings hollow for me. So who is the audience? Is it to convince people like me who could care less one way or the other, just as long as it is good and imaginative science-writing grounded in realism yet blessed with insight and originality? If so, Dawkins is failing miserably. Is it to convince narrow-minded religious fundamentalists that their rigid views are intolerant? If so, by insisting all religions are responsible for evil and can be likened to Hitler's belief in the pseudoscience of eugenics, he could not have chosen a worse debate tactic. Or is his target audience the mother of a young son who has been shipped off to Iraq and blown up with a roadside bomb; a mother who now sits and home and grieves and knows through her "intolerant" belief system that she will one day be reunited with her son in heaven? What sick-minded individual would try to persuade her otherwise?
All in all, I am not convinced by these new atheists, although admittedly I have not read much of them. The aforementioned God Delusion and A Letter To A Christian Nation by Sam Harris (a book that is misleadingly titled in that although it is certainly a response to Christian arguments, it was most probably not written with the assumption that the addressees would actually read it --again, for reasons listed above) is about all. But when Hitchens (another member of the New Atheism club) releases an article in defense of humanitarian intervention (aka killing in the name of), I think it's time to tune these people out.
first off i am not fan of intelligent design but i enjoyed the movie. it was well done and exposed the bias, hatred and attitudes of the evolutionary side.
today i came across a review done by Roger Ebert (of television fame) and i am not impressed even though i used to like him as a reviewer. in the following review, we see where he really stands and how deceived he is about the theory of evolution.
i will go through a couple weak points to illustrate the above:
Quote:
You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer (A).
1. it doesn't matter ho wmany scientists agree with evolution, if they disagree with God then they are wrong. the majority doesn't rule when it comes to the Bible.
2. the figure is far lower than the one used in the quote. this shows how evolutionists always fudge the statistics to fit their theory. this is minor but we see it all the time in other lectures and papers that it is epidmic and misleading and distorts the realityof evolutionary support. the movie wasquite right when it said scientists will say they accept evolution in fear of there jobs. such bullying is not right and proves that the theory is wrong.
Quote:
You could not agree more. Darwin's theory has been around for 150 years, and is stubbornly entrenched.
evolutionists always point to this piece of trivia as if the 150 years actually means something. they forget that the idea of creation has been around for over 6,000 years and that ALL ANCIENT societies have a creation story NOT an evolutionary one. in fact, the earliest known recorded evolutionary thought was about the 6th century b.c. in china (bill cooper's After the Flood).
LONG after creation and long after most ancient societies declined or disappeared. 150 years is nothing and doesn't make the idea of evolution true but proves the biblical passage that said God would send a delusion for people to believe, and He has-- the evolutionarytheory.
Quote:
But the creationists are forgetting something. Evolution ISN'T random, as they often claim. It's selected
so say the evolutionists but who does the selecting? they believe that the process is is non-thinking, non-feeling, sans emotion, character, morals, life, and so on so how can the 'process' make any selection. it has no brain, no idea what is good or what is bad, who is favored or better than the other.
you will notice that ebert ignores this reality about evolution but then so do so many evolutionists. they like to skip the difficulties and focus n what they think they can prove--problem is even those areas disprove evolution.
this review of ebert's is out of touch with reality and creation and does a very bad job in presenting the creationist side. both I.D. and evolution need to be tossed aside for creationism.
Michael Moore is a benevolent genius. Ben Stein is a dangerous idiot. Anyone who mentions Moore in this blog is also an idiot, according to Ebert, despite the painfully obvious contradictions. So let's see..
Stein films a guy putting on make-up and Ebert nearly has a heart attack his rage is so great. Moore ambushes an old man by deliberately re-editing and changing the very meaning of his words, and for this he is a hero.
The guy put on some make-up, Roger. Big deal. Of course if you dare mention Moore, Ebert avoids addressing this simply by smugly chuckling, "Ho ho, there's another Moore reference."
Long live Ebert the Bold, Tolerant and Open-Minded. Just don't disagree with him or point out his contradictions- he is ever so much smarter than you.
ebert asked and answered the question, why can't someone believe n both God and evolution? then he provided a positive answer. THE REAL answer is 'you can't'. one reason is that you woul dbe calling God a liar as in Gen. and throughout the Bible He clearly stated how He created all things and it was not as secular scientists said, it was by His word and power.
then in another response to a poster, ebert states that no one has quoted a scientific study to prove creation true and that secula rscience has demolished creation. the latter is just untrue as secular studies are based, not upon any real evidence, but upon conjecture, theory and guess work. the recent discovery of the 'walking fish' was based upon half a fossil, and not enough to determine that the fish actually could walk.
the former cannot fit in to a secular scientific model, for it does not follow secular science. it was a 1 time supernatural act which will not be repeated. everything was designed to function in a certain way and biology, physics and other sciences, if done honestly, prove that design (i am not an I.D. adherent but a creationist). people, animals, plants all reproduce as stated in Gen. and we do not need science to tell us what we can see with our own eyes.
there is no proof for evolution but there is easily accessible proof for creation and it takes place everyday not over millions of years.
Your 2005 review of Taxi Driver is on par with this haunting "indigo" film....it added considerably to my retrospective assimilation and enhancement of this aesthrtic experience worthy of retaining in the hard discs of one's spirit....what a riot of "stygian" (!!) colour and sound...."is it ME you were talking to".....the cathedral like vertical camera revolving high above the "bloodbath",surveying the Tragic.....Scorcese is an artist with encompassing compassion at the centre....of tears and anger alchemised...all his films i have seen even Last Temptation and the Monte Cristo like Cape Fear are in sequence.....
Shifting, life is not a part of the universe, the universe is life,because neon lights as in quoted film ,can sing and see....the dessigner and the design are one,man is identifed with the Whole, I'm sure not just in the oriental but aldo the Judaic overview
This dude thinks he's a critic? I saw more attack on the subject than honest critique of the movie. At least the readers can see the bias. Hate to see Ebert go down in this manner. Disingenuous is the reviewer at least the viewer of the movie knows what the producer/author thinks before they view it. Very long winded review/argument without citing many facts about the theory the Ebert's pushing.
As an adherent of Soka, I have never felt a contradiction between science and faith.....in fact this is what attracted me as the firm Scientian that I was, I not required to make for me impoossible leaps in credulousness....whether it is the content or methodology of science, it is but another branch of the Mystic Law , with its own austere aesthetics......and yes ,stones do have life....
Dr. David Tee:
I suspect you're just kidding, because that whole post isn't based on logic. "If they disagree with the Bible, they're wrong". So we should stone our children to death for disagreeing with us, too? Women shouldn't talk in church?
Furthermore, religion has no place in science, whatsoever, so you invalidate your argument simply by the fact that you use the Bible as evidence, which is like if I used the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or Marvel Comic Books as evidence for a scientific debate. Also, intelligent design is the same thing as creationism, but it was renamed to push it past the ban on "Creation-science".
As for natural selection: The evolvers make the selection. What is it that attracts you to the opposite sex? What allows a breeder to live long enough to breed? Would a deer with no legs be able to make it to sexual maturity and pass its genes on? If a deer could run faster than any predator, do you think it would live to have more offspring or less offspring than a deer whose genes predispose it towards being overweight and slow? A fish can lose its eyes in the dark, but how long do you think blind fish would last in a well lit tank with predator fish in it? Long enough to have children? Imagine that, but over millions and millions of years.
To JWD,
the thing about evolution is that it is compatible with theories about life. We've named one here: that meteors (the aliens) have the ingredients to create life and maybe the basis of life..and I like it. The thing about creationism or ID is that they automatically start by tearing down evolution and then stop there and wait to tear down some more evolution. I don't have a problem with them teaching it. They already do, but as soon as I see that we start teaching a whole class on it, I definitely will be getting involved to stop this "doubting evolution" class from being taught--tell it like it is. And that kind of perverse languarge doesn't need to be there as its own class. Be honest....don't you know anything about propaganda....support troops....war terror....Intelligent Design....its all on the same list or Dennis Miller.
I remember when they first told me about evolution in school and lights went on "ah, ha!" and I thought yes, this must be how it happened....the giraffe, the moth, the giant horses...all the stuff they tell everybody...this can be taught along with other theories about why we are here...this is one giant step that will also help other new theories be formed that wouldn't have been.
JWD, I'm still waiting on that theory. For being a messenger, or moderator (a really bad one--not very impartial) in the middle ground of the debate, you haven't contributed anything to be debated. You've been a moderator that says "welcome, everyone to the debate of evolution vs. creationism and ID....wow, packed stadium seating, let me define what they are---1 makes sense, and two of them are threatened by its logic--this will be a tag team debate" and the crowd has the silence that's watching you grab your notes and is now waiting for you to segue into "okay, I hoped you all dressed casual....Real casual. Why aren't you in your pajama's?." and then a bed props up for you in grand fashion: everyone has just been invited to watch you sleep. Way to go, Jim Lehrer.
Your new blog entry has no room for comments!? I have liked to read the comments as much as the blog. I hope that this is a glitch.
Ebert: A glitch. The web gos are fixing it.
Dr Tee, barnard, and others- Wow. You are scary. I thought this kind of rhetoric was extinct. You cannot possibly believe the drivel that you just spewed. I wonder if your blindness will in the long term allow you to survive over more intelligent and sentient beings? I hope not. Stay tuned.
Religion is Blasphemous - it replaces God's great gift of thought.
As further proof that belief in evolution is politically blind, one of the best takedowns of Expelled, from National Review's Jim Manzi.
I found this review interesting, though not surprising. I enjoyed the film when I watched it (I mean, come on, how many Intelligent Design documentaries do you see?), but it's annoying that it obscures facts and isn't really all that fair-minded. Ah well. I thought your review was definitely well-written. It would be nice if a documentary that explained both Intelligent Design and Evolution came along, but that seems like a pipe dream (especially since apparently 99.975% of scientists believe in Evolution).
Speaking of which, I didn't know that 99.975% of scientists believed Evolution as fact. Is this an actual statistic, or just common sense?
Also, I noticed this line in your review:
"Quite a joy ride. ID's argument against the crystal theory seems like a new version of its classic argument, 'How could an eye evolve without knowing there was anything to see?' Very easily, apparently, because various forms of eyes have evolved 26 different times that scientists know about, and they can explain how it happened. So can I. So can you if you understand Darwinian principles."
You said you can explain how various forms of eyes have evolved 26 different times, so... how did they? I don't want to sound like I'm doubting you (which this probably does sound like), I just want to hear your explanation.
Ebert: I offer my home-made explanation somewhere above. Search for the word "speck." Scientific theories are considered to be more or less successful hypotheses, based on observation, testing, repeatability and experimentation. Darwin's theory is "agreed with" by that high percentage of scientists as the most persuasive and successful hypothesis explaining the process. Intelligent Design fails the criteria for a theory, as officially defined by the National Academy of Sciences:
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
I'm sorry if these have already been posted, but I finally ran out of time reading this thread, but I wanted to post this site and its very useful and interesting FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
I would also like to point out that PZ Meyers and Richard Dawkins have themselves posted on their respective sites about their involvement with and opinion of the movie. (I'm not affiliated with any of these.)
As a child, the idea of Pangaea seemed incredibly reasonable by simply consulting a globe. It was undeniable that the continents just "fit", particularly the east coast of South America with the west coast of Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea
Digesting this idea of Pangaea -- which included understanding the concept of an eon -- later made the concept of biological evolution much more compelling.
Ebert: "If you are interested, Dawkins has written a brief, elegant, crystal-clear (non-atheist) introduction to the subject, River Out of Eden. It is the best book for the general reader I have found."
Ebert, if you believe Dawkins isn't a radical atheist and an unbiased scientist, you are delusional.
ID is only the societal reaction to the Dawkins' of the world, only on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both have one thing in common: miscasting philosophy as scientific fact -- in that respect Dawkins is as much a "scientist" as those who propose ID (none).
"Gods Utility Functiton" isn't science, it is philosophy. The idea that you (or he) conflate the two is repugnant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_utility_function
Ebert: The book is not atheist. Atheism is not mentioned. Dawkins himself is an atheist. Lots of people are. It's permitted. You do not have to be an atheist to subscribe to Darwin, however. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with religious faith. Neither, according to its advocates, does Intelligent Design. But you do have to believe in God to believe ID. Are you at all interested in evolution? Dawkins wrote an excellent book. If you're not interested, how do you know you're correct about it?
Ebert: "The book is not atheist. Atheism is not mentioned. Dawkins himself is an atheist. Lots of people are. It's permitted. You do not have to be an atheist to subscribe to Darwin, however. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with religious faith. Neither, according to its advocates, does Intelligent Design. But you do have to believe in God to believe ID. Are you at all interested in evolution? Dawkins wrote an excellent book. If you're not interested, how do you know you're correct about it?"
How? I've read it -- you seemed to have skipped the chapter I cited. You also seem to be unable to separate pure science from science mixed with philosophy.
And you side-step the point: philosophy whether spouted by Dawkins or ID proponents isn't science. When you trot him out as an example of unbiased science in a book that contains a number of philosophical elements it is folly -- as is making the assumption that I know nothing of evolution or somehow oppose the scientific theory (which I don't), or that Dawkins' writings on such are the only ones that exist (they aren't).
Mr. Ebert,
I must say that I agreed with your review of the FILM itself. It was not well made and I disagreed with his blaming the Holocaust on the principles of evolution. If anyone is to be blamed for the monster that was Adolf Hitler it should be Fredric Nietchzi (whose name I have just horribly mispelled). I do belive in intelligent design and, by saying stating that fact, I realize that 90% of people will quit reading this post. Before I am written off as some crazed religious let me just say that I am an undergraduate student in my second year of the UAB Respiratory Therapy program and am planning on attending Medical School within the next two years. With that said, I'm not an idiot and I know a great deal about the human body. Also, my belief in intelligent design was actually strengthened during my freshman biology class. This being said, Ben Stein's assumption that all professors who teach both views are fired is incorrect. My professor gave me a copy of the book "Of Pandas and People" and I found it to be very interesting. I have three basic problems with the theory of evolution: the first being development of the reproductive system. Let us say that the molecules did come together after the big bang to form molecules to become a living microorganism, now what? At what point did two of these lifeforms evolve differing genitalia? Evolution works on the premise that the next generation has a genetic mutation to make the problems of the parent less difficult. How did the offspring know to be born a male or female, to develop the specific chromosomal factors in order to be able to reproduce? Evolution has yet to explain this highly complex process. My second problem with the evolutionary theory is the "big bang" theory. If we look within our solar system it is common knowledge that all object do not spin in a common direction. If an explosion were to happen resulting in the rotation of objects they should all spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise, there cannot be differing rotations. This is a common physical principle. Another problem of the big bang is the positioning of the sun. The sun is shrinking at a rate of five feet per year and if it has been in the center of the solar system for over a billion years it would have burned half of the planets away by now. Finally, a basic principle of science states that no matter can ever be created or destroyed. If this is true where did the matter come from to cause the big bang. It has to come from something. My final problem with evolution is the lack of fossilized evidence. Yes, I understand that this just caused anger and a general feeling of resentment towards this post. However, let's look at the facts. There are no fossils that show a "missing link". One of the main models to show the phases of man came from one tooth that was later found to be from a wild boar. Scientists long said the discovery of a specific type of petrified trees proved evolution because of the "amount of time" it would take for the forest to occur. However, after the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens a petrified forest was formed in a little less than a week. I understand that many readers will fully disagree with this post but why does it enrage so many people when evolution is questioned? Evolution and Intelligent Design are both theories and they both take some amount of faith to believe in them. Hear out both sides of the argument and then make an intelligent decision but, when your decision is made, do not think the other party uneducated or dense.
I have long admired your writing Mr. Ebert and I will continue to read your excellent reviews for as long as you provide them.
Respectfully,
Wes Johnson, SRT
A mind is a terrible thing to waste and Ben Stein seems to be profligate with his. What is wrong with these people? Why can't folks just accept that the Bible is not a science textbook and nobody sings hymns out of "The Molecular Biology of the Gene."
Reply to Bill Hayes:
Bill, why do so many people on this blog and others feel the need to try to belittle someone (or a set group) by using demeaning language to enlarge their own argument. You deemed it necessary several times in your previous post. You will not find me doing such things.
To answer some of your post:
The "Creationist Organization" that I, and several million others belong to is called a church. I hold a position called a 'christian', and, no, my opinion matters not to any of the others of said organization that hold that same title.
In most ways you are correct about how you go about defining the definition of Creationism, but you go too far in your assumptions of what I stated in previous posts. Just as there are many differing theories in sciences concerning the same issues (gravity, relativity, string theory, etc...), there are different theories of Creationism, but they all are the same at the root, and only the root, by stating that God (insert 'higher being' if you want) created life. From that point you have Creationists going in differing directions: one being the path of evolution, and others being that the chicken came first, others still that the egg came first. As I have stated I support that which says God created man out of earth (clay), with the assumption that he molded him to his shape (so to speak), not just "poof", there he was. Not that I deny God the power to do it the other way.
I do not make any of my statements based on the 100% certainty that that is exactly the way it happened. I hold to that based on my own faith, which I do not try to impose even on my children. It is my faith, period, and only mine. I choose to believe it. That is my world, whether it be delusional or not. Your world is your world, whether delusional or not. Wow, how profound.
I do not believe Creationism is a pseudo-science or any science at all, it is a category in and of itself.
Scientists also have to have faith, whether they admit it or not. They have to have faith that what they think is true is true, but that will only last until what they think is true is proven false, but it is as true to them, until proven false, as my faith is to me. So far, no one has proven my faith false. Think about how many scientific facts stand to be overturned if some of the theoretic physics turn out to be proven. Gravity vs Relativity: choose a side based on where you are in time (literally).
I have stated that I am very scientific minded (in my first post here). Science has never answered the biggest question: how did life start? For those saying it came from a meteor or alien life form: I am not asking how life on Earth started. I am asking about life period!
I will also ask about matter, which you brought up. Where did the matter of this universe come from? Even if you subscribe to the Big Bang Theory, which has competing scientific theories, and states that all matter was once together until the explosion...how did that matter originate. Some say it was left over from the implosion of a previous universe...fine...how did that universe's matter originate?
And since the Bible says we should not blindly follow and that we should question things: how did God originate? Yes, I ask that question quite a bit, both because I have a scientific need to know and because the Bible says to question all.
I have not argued for ID, either. As I have said, I believe God created things and let them evolve freely.
I have not argued with evolution, just Darwin's specific take on it.
You find me all the answers and prove them, and I will believe you. Until then, I will continue in my own delusional world and you can continue in yours. I don't think it is condescending if I include myself. If so, then I apologize for the insult...it wasn't meant.
As I have said. I am on the middle ground here because I am willing to admit that I do not know all the answers to all the questions that are posed just in this post (not to mention all of the additional questions that could easily be asked).
Bill, I am asking if you have all of those answers. If so, please let us all know. I don't begrudge you your arguments, please don't begrudge me mine. And don't try to belittle me in your next post: I am a grown man and can have an adult conversation without slinging insults.
Thank you for the in depth critique of Expelled. I don't mean to be nit-picky but just below the poster of "the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo" you say "99.875%" of scientists.... Don't you mean 99.975%?
I wouldn't normally bring this up, but creationists will often find one typo/error in an article and just focus on that to prove you don't know anything. It's completely absurd, but let's not give them any ammunition.
Mr. Ebert,
I’m a long admirer of your work. Your review shows more eloquence than I could muster on the ID “debate”. It also brought to mind these words, also written by those far more articulate than I.
"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see --
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency.
-Emily Dickenson
and
“I believe that only scientists can understand the universe. It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong.”
-Isaac Asimov
Thank you for fighting the good fight against the Age of Credulity.
Ebert: So much Emily Dickenson is quoted here!
Some keep the Sabbath going to church;
I keep it staying at home,
With a bobolink for a chorister,
And an orchard for a dome.
Some keep the Sabbath in surplice;
I just wear my wings,
And instead of tolling the bell for church,
Our little sexton sings.
God preaches,—a noted clergyman,—
And the sermon is never long;
So instead of getting to heaven at last,
I ’m going all along!
I acknowledge the possiblity that God created the universe and all its creatures just a few thousand years ago (including fossils of dinosaurs and anything else that wasn't really alive at the time of creation).
I also acknowledge the possibilty that God created the universe at the time of my birth, or at any time before or since. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing then we have to allow for any possiblity, however strange or unlikely.
But the choice we have to make, as very un-God-like creatures, is to pick out of the infinite possiblities, the ones that enable us to live our lives in the most God-like ways. I believe that knowledge of our universe is a good thing and that the more knowledge we obtain, the closer to God we become.
Could it all be a crock, an almighty joke on us poor, dumb creatures? Absolutely, we have to admit that. But I'm betting that God won't let us in on the joke until we are much closer to knowing everything and that's a long, long way from here.
Mr. Ebert: I have to say that I was surprised by your blog entry. Not surprised that you wrote long, or in depth. Not surprised that you appear to intend a polemic. Not surprised that you dislike the film, or that you decry tactics here that you might accept in other circumstances. Instead:
1) As a critic of "art", I'm not certain why you are most concerned in this post with "facts." As a genre or technique (or other apt category descriptor), "documentary" itself stands at a bridge point between episteme ("knowledge") and poeisis ("creating"). You indict the film for a violation of the former, yet allow no room for this particular "documentary" to participate in the latter. It seems from your interactions in the comments, or at least in reading the "eXpelled" review in comparison to other of your documentary reviews, that you appreciate the creating capacity of documentary in many circumstances, for the very ability it has to function artfully. Why not take apart this film for its art (or lack), not its science?
2) You seem quite willing here to engage in some interesting mathematics, and happily to reference scientific theory. I kept wondering, "where is the aesthetic theory"? There are lots of folks quite qualified, as several of the articulate comments have demonstrated, to work through the science of what is wrong with "eXpelled". Why not show us how to work through its art? That's a type of argument not often enough demonstrated for the film-watching public. Most surprising to me was that in my past experience with your work, that has been what you do much better than most journalist critics. If I want the critic who will translate aesthetics with understandable sophistication for a general audience, I go to Roger Ebert. Not so in this post, unfortunately. It is in those moments I learn from you. I wish I could have in this instance.
3) As a writer, and an expert in film as a discursive text, I found it absolutely astonishing that you seem to exempt "science" from participating in a rhetorical construction. Calling something a "fact" is a terribly important part of making it "become" one. While the responders in this thread have little reason to have considered the rhetoricity of naming, I would expect that you have. And, indeed, I think you sort of do...afterall, what is your objection to "eXpelled"'s tactics if not that they "misname" or the "facts" of evolution theory? But, that you seem to leave out all possibility that science itself might operate discursively? It was a bit of a disappointment that a right/wrong argument was where a critic of your talent and incisive eye would end up.
The one place where we might legitimately say that deism (the philosophy behind intelligent design) and positivism (the philosophy behind scientific method) might co-exist is at the level of metaphysics - both posit a "being" for the world, a comprehensive system that makes it tick. Creationists center that division around an omniscient being with a grand plan that is only partially knowable by humans. Evolution theory centers that division around a discoverable set of artifacts positively identifiable, quantifiable, and measurable through the human senses (obviously enhanced by tools like numbers, microscopes, computers, etc.). Films are an interesting case. Sometimes we see them nearly deific - an artist has a vision that we only partially understand through their creations. Sometimes we seem them as nearly postivistic, especially documentaries - as "real" as we can get without having "been there."
As many comments have intimated, it may be possible that more people will see your review than will see the movie itself. Perhaps that was why you chose to write this entry as you did, for fear that this film would "get away with" something. The very very troubling thing about the responses, and in several spots the original post, is equating an acceptance of a positivist metaphysics with "intelligence," and lack thereof with "idiocy," "stupidity," and "ignorance." Scientists rarely make such a claim. They know their craft better than that.
"Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"
--Stephen Hawking
Hawking butts up against the smallness of science and religion in this one simple statement . . . Human beings need science. Science and it's laws require exterior location so that it can measure and study. Human beings need spirituality. Spirituality and it's laws require an interior dimension without location. Science and spirituality must separated and then integrated. Transcend and include, transcend and include, transcend and include . . . and that's evolution.
Reply to: So far, no one has proven my faith false.
Faith is a tool used by con men. Once you study the rules of Con Games, it because OBVIOUS that your faith is false.
ie, the ONLY way to obtain eternal life is to accept Jesus as your Savior..." is a con. A scam. A promise that can't be tested until after you're dead. Duh.
Or, simply read the NT. Jesus says, "The son of man will appear in the clouds with angels... while some of you listening to me are still alive." That deadline has passed. Your faith has been PROVEN wrong by facts. That's what you're missing.
Reply to: I have not argued with evolution, just Darwin's specific take on it.
Darwin published his tome in 1859. You can argue with it all you want, but why? Why argue against a theory no longer in use? It just makes you.... appear dishonest.
Reply to: You find me all the answers and prove them, and I will believe you. Until then, I will continue in my own delusional world and you can continue in yours. I don't think it is condescending if I include myself. If so, then I apologize for the insult...it wasn't meant...Bill, I am asking if you have all of those answers. If so, please let us all know.
I have the answers, and I've posted them, within the limits of this blog. Before there was life, there were tiny chemical factories. The same components that compose your body were used as food and fuel and building materials for tens of thousands of years before, by random chance and the rules of known chemical reactions, a workable molecule of RNA came out of the loading dock. That's the answer. There's never going to be any other answer.
"Faith in God" is a tool used by con men. People want the hope of a resurrection after they die. There's always a new con man ready to sell it to them.
Reply to: I don't begrudge you your arguments, please don't begrudge me mine. And don't try to belittle me in your next post: I am a grown man and can have an adult conversation without slinging insults.
Do you understand how a Con Game works? As long as you think people respect you for being a Christian, you have no reason to find a new Answer. I don't respect Christians. Why? Because giving them the illusion of respect HURTS them.
Christianity is the closest thing we have to a generic IQ test.
In law school, we had to buy new books every term. The Bible is one book. Figure it out. Read the words and figure out what they mean. The Pharisees wanted to add (a) resurrection (b) demonic spirits and exorcism and (c) angels as messengers.... to Judism. While the Temple of Jerusalem existed, the leaders of the Temple refused. The New Testament is the post- 70 AD "revised text" where they tried to add resurrection to Judaism, and wound up starting a new religion instead.
Nothing in the New Testament is credible. If you ignore 70% of the words, you might say "I respect the teachings of Jesus." But if you read ALL the words, the Correct Answer is obvious. If you pass the IQ test, you're not a Christian any more.
I apologize if this has been brought up before (the list of comments was too intimidating for me to read them all!) but I noticed Mr. Ebert commenting that evolution is hard to replicate in controlled lab settings. In response to that, I just wanted to mention this story from June '08: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 (sorry about the sloppy link!)
Funny thing is though JWD, no modern scientist takes Darwin as 100% true either. That is kind of the point. The argument being made by people like Stein's backers is that modern biology adheres to some 150 year old theory, when every single biologist (with the small exception of 1-2 of them that seem to have never published papers on biology at all, just one sidelines) will tell you that, "Darwin got some things absolutely right, but a lot of things dead wrong." One can say the same about Copernicus, Newton, etc. They where correct, up to a point.
The problem isn't with biology or Darwin, its with people that really truly think that you are as wrong as biologists, because you would allow that evolution works, and think that the solution to the worlds problems is "replace it all with our brand of Christian faith."
Good example: When ID people talk about Epigenetics, they mean that some God made like a super mega blueprint, which guides everything to some predermined goal, and that thus "genes" are only part of the picture. When "real" scientists say, "Epigenetics" they mean, "Diet, environment, behavior, birth order, how much sunlight you get, etc., can all have small impacts on what you turn out like in the "short term", and that the next generation can be effected more, possibly even triggering genetic DNA changes in the next generation, as a result of external effects." They figure they can shoehorn "God" in as the answer to why this happens, and throw out the baby with all the other bits they don't like, all or which say only that external things "can" have an effect, but do not imply God as one of them. The only people that are not only adding him to the list, but worse, trying to claim that "all" such effects are part of some convoluted plan, are ID proponents. Which is real odd, given that these same people tend to despise gays, and one "Epigenetic" influence that has been uncovered is the change in key hormone levels in women when they give birth, such that each child they have has a "cumulative" change. The result, based on numerous studies on large families? That the more kids you have, the more "likely" that this hormonal shift will cause males, that show none of the "genetic" markers that have also been identified as effective sexual attraction, to have an increased odds of being gay anyway. So... The Epigenetic influence of one hormone "produces" the very behavior they hate so much. Now... why the heck would a God that "scripted" such Epigenetic events, according to them, script for something that makes the 8th child in a family, if male, like 10% more likely to be gay? I mean, it makes sense in non-humans as "population control", to prevent males reproducing, and it might as "social support" in social species, like humans, but those both make sense in evolution. They make no sense to some Biblical Literalist, fundamentalist, God, who planned everything so that everyone would be in heterosexual, monogamous, Christian marriages.
Someone has to be wrong, and... Well, the facts don't support one sides interpretation.
Oh, as for faith... Yeah.. We **all** have to have faith that the world is what it looks like, but that's a dead end for any other sort of faith, since, we can all agree collectively that if you conduct an experiment, and the result is the same as the last time, then either a) we are all delusional, in we all see the world wrong, b) only I am delusional, in that I insist on seeing a world in which scientific experiments always turn up the same result, when in reality they don't, and that everyone else is agreeing with me, and claiming they see those results (i.e., I have to be so insane that even people saying they "don't" see the same result look, to me, like they do), or c) there really is some sort of reality, in which doing the same thing every time produces the same result. (A) makes your argument even more absurd, since you would be claiming to have faith in something that can't exist, since none of your perceptions **are** true, including that they exists anything to have faith in. (B) is even worse, since it implies you wouldn't know the difference, even if you where actually locked in a room, and where a purple tentacled blob, instead of a human. A delusion that deep, you can't escape, since part of the delusion would be that you are not delusion, and even your own "perception" that there are people in some place called a church, which agree with you, must be wrong.
(C) is pretty much all **anyone** has to work with. We must assume the universe makes sense, that cause and effect are "connected" even if some scientist can play some odd games with them under very "specific" conditions, and that, thus, doing X will always produce Y, unless you intentionally create conditions in which that law "can" be violated, and then maybe Y produces X, or Q produces Z, but again, only when you "change the rules", while, in fact, using the rules to change them. In other words, you can't just dissolve reality and make Z happen, by doing X. You "must" use the rules to create conditions, situations, etc., where an apparent violation is first "possible", and 99.9999999% of the time, is just.. not possible.
So, what is your point exactly, that science is the same as religious faith? Well, not really. One **must** have the core faith that the universe makes sense, to even believe in and have faith in religion in the first place. So, the question isn't, "Is science like faith because its based on the "core" principle that all humans must have faith in?", the question is, "Is science, which attempts to use the rules found, based on the presumption of a tangible, and testable, universe, the same as religion, which undeniably exists in the same "tangible" universe, but presumes there to also be an intangible and untestable, parallel universe, which violates the original premise that the "visible" universe is real, exists, and we can examine it?" Well, in that case, no they are not the same. One is playing by the rules even "you" have to agree underly the "perceivable" universe. Religion very specifically, directly, and unapologetically, demands faith in that which "violates" the faith held by "both" groups, in the tangible.
One might as well compare believe in the "existence" of Harry Potter, with the "belief" held by some kooks that Harry Potter is a road to real witchcraft and satanism. The one is undeniably true to everyone. The later requires "faith" in the real existence of magic, which doesn't seem to work in the same "tangible" world that the books and movies do, as well as "faith" that Satan is real, and the "faith" that people watching and reading it can "fall into" either one, which are also **not** part of the "tangible" world of the books and movies. The only thing undeniable about such assertions is that some people hold them, that tests for them tend to continually fail, and that those that do hold such opinions insist that their "faith" in the premises is the only "evidence" they need to prove them. Oddly... The rest of us think they are batshit insane, since we want to "see" the evidence, much as you, via the same argument, think some of us are nuts, because we demand, at least as a start, some "real" evidence to suggest that parts of the Bible, including the NT, where not cobbled together from other people's mythologies, to "invent" a new faith, for valid, but never the less, entirely political reasons.
Holy crap!
I'd say more, but I'm too worried about the strain on Mr. Ebert's poor, tired eyes.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I've been a fan for a long time.
I would like to propose a little logical exercise for those readers who side with creationism. Let's assume that god exists and that he created the universe. Now, it's a simple logical fact that the creator of anything must exist before his creation comes to exist. Therefore, god must have existed prior to his creation of our universe, which then implies that he existed *outside* of our universe. Well, then, where did god exist? Clearly, he must have existed in some sort of meta-universe. Perhaps he was the only occupant of that meta-universe, perhaps not, but that's an irrelevant point.
So, now, an obvious question comes up, namely, who created that meta-universe? Surely not god, since no one, not even god, can create the space where he already exists in. That's tricky for religious people and creationists to understand, because the typical argument at this point is that god is all-powerful. Well, perhaps he is, but that won't change the fact that one's existence necessitates the existence of something prior, namely, the space where that someone exists in. That comes from the meaning of of the word existence.
Oh, but god isn't material, the believer will say. Still, whatever god is or is made of, our assumption is that he exists and, therefore, it follows that he exists *somewhere*. What that somewhere is, what it's made of, and whether it's physical or not, are all irrelevant. The point remains that if god exists, he must exist somewhere.
So, assuming that god exists and that he created our universe, we've concluded that god must exist in some other kind of universe, which I called the meta-universe. Moreover, we also concluded that he did not create that meta-universe. So... who did?
Clearly, if our universe must have been created, then it must be the case that the universe where god exists in must also have been created, since - being the universe where god exists in - it must be even more complex than our universe. If we accept that our universe was created by god then the meta-universe must have been created by a meta-god, a more powerful god than the god who created our universe. That the meta-god is more powerful than the god who created our universe is clear. After all, he created the universe where our god exists. Perhaps he even created our god, too.
Ok, so, now we have a meta-god who created the meta-universe where our god exists in and our god created our universe. But, wait... the meta-god must have existed prior to his creation of the meta-universe. Wherever it is that the meta-god exists in, call it a super-universe, it cannot have been created by the meta-god, by the same argument that led us to conclude that our god did not create the meta-universe.
So, who created the super-universe? Clearly a being more powerful than the meta-god, for he created the super-universe where the meta-god lives, who created the universe where our god lives, who created our universe.
I think it's clear that this argument leads to an infinite line of gods and universes, each god more powerful than the previous one, each universe encompassing the universe below. And all of this is predicated on the use of logic and two assumptions: (a) god exists and (b) he created our universe.
The inescapable conclusion is that if god does indeed exist and if he did in fact create our universe, then he is not alone and there must exist an infinite number of gods. Moreover, our god is the least powerful one of the bunch, since he merely created our universe whereas every god above him created a more complicated universe, capable of sustaining the existence of a less powerful god.
It's interesting to look at the flip-side of this conclusion. If there does not exist an infinite number of gods, then it must necessarily be the case that either (a) god does not exist or (b) he does, but he did not create our universe.
This argument should make religious people scratch their heads for a while. For them, there can only be one god. Well, then, this unique god cannot have created our universe. But that's not acceptable for them either, because it just seems so illogical that the universe would spontaneously pop into existence (never mind modern quantum theory, which gives us hints on how the universe could in fact have spontaneously popped into existence). Ok, well, then they have to accept that our god is not unique and not even all that powerful.
Thus, no matter what they choose to believe, that belief contradicts religious doctrine. It's a no-win scenario for religion.
Wait, not so fast, shouts the believer. Faith does not have to follow the rules of logic, they'll say. Hmm, ok, well, then why are we arguing to begin with? Why try to convince people that intelligent design is scientifically valid? In case they don't know, any and every *scientifically* valid proposition is predicated on logic (and experimental verification as well). Besides, surely any design that is supposed to be intelligent should also be logical, no? If belief does not need to be logical, then all bets are off and creationists should simply stop pretending that creationism is a scientifically valid theory, on equal footing with evolution.
Another point I would like to make: many religious people, and creationists in particular, criticize science without really knowing much about it. But consider this: ALL technical advances the human civilization has achieved came from the pursuit of science. If we have computers, automobiles, airplanes, cellular phones, ipods, vaccines, medical devices to detect diseases, medical treatments to treat those diseases, and so much more, it's because of science.
I would like to ask anyone who seriously doubts science and the scientific method to stop being so hypocritical. If you really doubt the scientific method, then stop benefitting from science. In particular, next time you get seriously ill, don't go see a doctor and don't take any medication. Instead, go to church and pray. Ironically and tragically, that will only vindicate evolutionists, because a significant number of those people will simply die. It is, once again, survival of the fittest under the auspices of natural selection. You can't have it both ways. If you really doubt science, then you should not be allowed to partake from its benefits, and if you do partake from its benefits then you are not allowed to criticize the scientific method. Now, here's the shocker: the theory of evolution is as predicated on logic and the scientific method as any other scientific theory.
My final point is that deeply religious people suffer from a logical fallacy they don't recognize. If someone gets sick, for instance, he might in fact decide to pray for a cure. If he does not get cured, well, then it's god's way or perhaps god's punishment for the sick person's lack of faith (never mind that god is supposed to be all-loving), which then reinforces the person's belief in an attempt to be more faithful and perhaps be deserving of the cure that is sought. On the other hand, if he does get cured, that's clearly (in his mind) an act of god, an answer to his prayers, and - once again - the person's faith is reinforced. Never mind that, statistically, prayer does not significantly help people to get cured. The point is that religious is self-reinforcing and that's why it's so insidious. The only way out is to realize how illogical it is. Oh, but wait, faith does not have to follow the rules of logic. Right. Ok, well, then I guess I should stop here.
Finally! We get a straightforward, non-evasive, honest response from a creationist that addresses the issue from their point of view without beating around the bush. And from a doctor, no less!
By dr. david tee on December 9, 2008 9:00 PM:
"ebert asked and answered the question, why can't someone believe n both God and evolution? then he provided a positive answer. THE REAL answer is 'you can't'. one reason is that you woul dbe calling God a liar as in Gen. and throughout the Bible He clearly stated how He created all things and it was not as secular scientists said, it was by His word and power. .... there is no proof for evolution but there is easily accessible proof for creation and it takes place everyday not over millions of years."
-- dr. david tee, voice of his people.
To all of Dr. David Tee's people.....
Your level of understanding of the history of The Bible and of religious mythology in general is not sophisticated enough to comprehend the following truth, which I will get to in a minute. This truth, which you are about to be introduced to, will be a foreign idea to you because your entire life has been spent in ignorant adherence to a belief which could only ever come about from a misunderstanding of something written in the English language. Things written in the English language (or any language) are often silly because they were based on mythology, which usually requires a great deal of education in order to understand. Now, Creationists and ID supporters, I know you are a fearful, superstitious bunch and that normal reason and logic go in one ear and out the other with you when it comes to more intellectual debates. You often see things as very black and white and don't like to look at nuances and complexity within arguments. If you were to be told a certain truth about The Bible, you may ignore it or call it blasphemous. I will run that risk in just a second here. Before I tell you this truth, I must make it clear that this truth does not apply to all of The Bible, but I am hoping that you have read this disclaimer and will therefore know that the nature of this truth is that it is not entirely true, kind of like The Bible itself. This truth is one that has been ignored by you and your ilk, you fearful, superstitious lot, and I would very much like to see it addressed directly by one of you so that we can have a proper debate. No more beating around the bush, talking about the merits of evolution or ID. Let's get to the real heart of the matter. I want you ID advocates and creationists to read this truth which I am about to say with the utmost care, and to please respond to it with a well thought out and developed argument. I am going to say it here in just a second..... Right now:
GENESIS IS MYTHOLOGY! MYTHOLOGY IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THEREFORE, GENESIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!
One more time....
GENESIS IS MYTHOLOGY! MYTHOLOGY IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! THEREFORE, GENESIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!
Did you get that, creationists and ID advocates? Genesis is mythology. As we all know, mythology is not meant to be taken literally. Therefore, Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. That means that the Biblical account of creation, which is found in Genesis, is not meant to be taken literally. That means that there is no reason to believe that it ever happened. That means that the possibility that it did happen is zero, since scientists have discovered that this particular mythological account of creation could not have ever happened. That means that the findings of science are all we have to go on and that means that the world is most likely older than 6,000 years.
If you disagree with me that GENESIS IS MYTHOLOGY, please do some independent research on Genesis and its origins. You will find that Genesis contains a lot of symbolism and other poetic devices and has its roots in the pagan mythology of the time.
Stein's claim to fame (aside from the visine commercials) is as a speech writer to the now, second worse president ever (Bush definitely trumps Nixon). As long as Stein has been speaking talking points for the right he has as they have been, wrong.
It is amazing to read Ebert, it is exhausting to even get through a short segment of Stein. I suppose what Stein is saying is that we must teach the dumb GOP way of everything and anything along side of well everything and anything correct.
Thanks Ebert.
It's a tad obvious a number of posters haven't bothered to view the film. I own the DVD, and watched it 3 times. I am also reading the novel recommended by Ben Stein, 'Fossil Hunter'. Ben is an entertaining and amiable personality no doubt. If you are reading this blog Mr. Stein, Bravo!
The subject of ID fascinates me for some reason I cannot clearly explain.
Just consider this. What could be more exciting for a scientist, to discover that original life forms were designed by a super power, maybe even God. Why not? When we consider parallel universes etc., how can we be so arrogant to shout out loud, ID... never!
Darwin faced a similar hostile resistance as ID is experiencing today. Maybe some good people are repelled by the possibility of ID for the same reason I and others, are attracted to it. Way over my humble head btw.
Anyway my favorite quote: The best I know is I don't know.
Much aloha,
Bill
More diatribe from the FAT ONE. Since I didn't bother to read this "review" I will still ask, EXPLAIN THE PLATYPUS you shiesse. Of course the odds of everything coming together perfectly to form life without outside influence is way more than that fat ass Ebert could ever comprehend - PLEASE. Darwin's theory is a THEORY, conjured up because one day he woke up in a stupor and realized apes look like humans. But no matter, when Christ comes back to gather his faithful flock, of whom I am a firm believer and even comes together the Jews, all you non-believers waiting to throw stones at Him, denying Him his right as God will be wailing in hell BEGGING forgiveness of which you will receive NONE. Then you and all your homos in San Fran can serve satan and feel comfortable knowing all along you were wrong. And FUCKED up.
Ebert: Love thy neighbor as thyself.
The bill of the platypus is one of the most successful of evolutionary outcomes, able to sense both motion and electromagnetic currents in shrimp buried in mud, which the bill is also designed to scoop up. The platypus developed its perfection as a survival trait. Apes do not look like humans, nor does Darwinian science believe humans descended from apes.
Reply to Bill Hays,
I concede to your argument, as you have clearly answered the question of how life started with the help of "tiny chemical factories", which for a lack of a better term (since you offered none) I will call thingamajigs, or perhaps we should call them whatchmabogs. It was well explained how these thingamajigs provided food to, uh, wait a minute...there was no life to eat this food! And, of course, RNA came into being, oops...sorry, developed over an extensive period of time. There you have it: RNA, a catalyst, was created (sorry, evolved or whatever the heck a catalyst does)! And then...let me check my notes...still checking...I'm sorry, I cannot find the part where life started in your answer. RNA isn't life.
And I appreciate your answer on how matter came to exist, the way it...wait a minute, let me check my notes again...hmm, I can't seem to find that one in here. Oh well, clearly you win because you said you answered all of the questions, whether we can find those answers is beside the point.
And yes, I was obviously lying about arguing with a dead, not yet dead, theory of evolution posited by Charles Darwin, of which no scientists gives any credence to anyway, given that this is the basis for most of the debate going on in this post and....wait, now I'm confused about what I was supposed to be being dishonest about. Darn!
And, gosh, I am just gonna have to go and read that whole Bible again (for about the 15th time) and see if I can pass that IQ test by finding out that those Pharisees getting their way was much more important to the New Testament than Jesus being born. I'm so glad for law students like yourself showing me the way. Way back when I went to law school, they made us buy books too. I'm pretty sure they do that at most universities and for most courses. I just didn't want you to think they were just picking on you.
This post is fortified with 5 different sarcasms, so it is good for you. It has been written in this fashion, so as to be understood, perhaps, by its intended audience: namely Bill, as I assume he only comprehends as he communicates.
Apes do not look like humans???? Bartender, another pint please!
Ebert: And humans don't look like apes, either. That's why they're called humans.
The Bible says the fool says in his heart there is no God. 1 John says they speak as one of the world, therefore the world listens to them. Yet God's Word is true though every man be a liar. I tremble when I think about the evolutionist, who spent his life denying and suppressing the truth of the Great Creator, when they bow before Him on that day. Oh how I pray that they come to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Bible says that God's hand print is evident in creation so that no one has an excuse before Almighty God. In fact for anyone to come to the opposite conclusion, the Bible says they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. How can God's attributes be seen in what is created?? 1 Corinthians 14 says that God is not a God of disorder but of peace. So with that said we should see order in creation since it is created by the God of order Himself. WE DO!!! Creation whether on the astronomical scale or the biological scale is unfathomably ordered. We get our word cosmos (another name for the universe) from the Greek word kosmos. This word literally means order. There is order, in fact the evolutionist say that the scale of order that we see in creation is due to dumb luck and chance. Let me ask you when is the last time you ever saw a puzzle come together when left by itself? No it takes intelligence to put something as small as a puzzle together, how much more the complexity of the universe or a cell??
The point is that Intelligent Design is not a scientific concept. How does one prove this alternate "theory"? I ask anyone to devise an experiment that would tend to prove the theory. There is none except a self referential solipcism: Look at all this splendor--How can there not be an intelligent creator behind it all?
This is not a proof, but simply a belief. I believe there must be intelligent design, therefore when I see nature, it proves to me that there is intelligent design. This is circular arguing. Pure and simple.
And yes, the "point" of Mr. Stein's "documentary" is to show how prejudiced the scientific community is regarding "intelligent design". The reason Mr. Ebert spends time talking about intelligent design, is that scientists themselves reject the concept since it cannot be properly place in a curricula that is based on using the scientific method.
I may have a religious belief that tells me rain is the crying of angels, but to insist that that belief be taught as an alternative to modern meteorological theories is ridiculous.
Roger, Roger, Roger. You just couldn't resist allowing someone like "Ironcross" to post, could you?
Ebert: It was such a pure example of the type
Reply to Kagehi:
I really like the points you make and how you go about making them.
I want to point out a couple of things you talk about concerning my posts:
I don't mean to assert that you need faith to believe that the keyboard you are typing on is indeed a keyboard. That is tangible. Some philosophers would have us ask whether we all see the keyboard as a keyboard. I don't subscribe to that way of thinking.
I think 'epigenetics' by its very definition would play a major part in evolution. Being that there are many parts of evolution, I only question whether it effects physical evolution. And, to clear a point in some of my posts, when I say "I question" something, I am not saying I disagree with it...I am saying I don't know the answer and therefore question it.
I, in no way, tie science and religious faith together. Although they both seek answers to many of the same questions, they take a significantly differing route. I am very scientific and logical by nature, but I am grounded by my faith to accept that I do not know all the answers, will not know all the answers, and can be at peace not knowing all of the answers. Many a scientist have driven themselves to find that elusive last part of their puzzle and when it is not found they publish their theories anyway...short of the goal. At other times, other scientists have taken on faith that the theory is correct (because the data of the day implies that it is) and branch off of it with their own theories that are based on the original, incomplete theory.
Also, I do not consider anyone "nuts" that is looking for answers and demanding empirical results. That is part of our nature. There are a few people I consider batshit insane, but that is because they are, in my opinion. I don't hold it against anyone who considers me as such, because it is only their opinion and I think they are just as entitled to one as I am.
All yer reedurz uze such big werdz. I is reely imprussd. U uze big werdz two Eeburt u iz reely intellecshual i figyour u prolly like to heer youself talk dont chu?
Ebert: Chu rite! I wld reely reely like 2 heer meself talk.
Explain the platypus? LOL I hesitate to ask what kind of books you read, what possible institution could grant you a passing grade, let alone what job you hold, because your post speaks for itself. I can already picture you so vividly, and am convinced that the God you believe in, cannot possibly be in your image (nor you in his), nor in fact could he have created you, unless sof course he was having a particularly bad bowel movement taht day. Keep waiting on the corner for the shephard, with your platypus under you arm, and watch out for all those satanical,nerdy naysayers throwing rocks. The end is near! The end is near!
An additional response to Tim Liggett,
Hi Tim,
The 99.975 figure was not an actual citation, but part of a story line. From an earlier comment:
Want my take on vertebrate eyes evolving multiple times, and many in an almost identical configuration? Common designer(s). We see the same thing in computers and cars. An eye has been portrayed as evolving from a light sensitive patch, to a deepening cup shape, later acquiring a pinhole lense, and later still, an iris, and an actual variable focal length and variable refractive index lense. Meanwhile, the retina has formed into a multi-layer grid, with photon detectors (rods, and in some mammals cones as well), with a rhodopsin complex to convert photons to synaptic impulses, referred to as the phototransduction cascade. The system performs multiple functions, including repairin of damage to a degree. This is not the place to detail it, so go here for more info.
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/sretina.html
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/photo1.html#pigments
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/photo2.html
There is absolutely no way a system of this complexity, along with the visual cortex processing center of the brain, could evolve based on chance mutations. And multiple times, many involving nearly the exact same morphologic result? Believe it if you like, you'll aligned with consensus opinion.
Predictions have been made regarding eye evolution, but not confirmed by empirical means. Eyes show evidence of evolutionary progression, but not by random, purely natural processes. Many studies out there, none confirming an unguided (expcept for the 'proposed' action of natural selection choosing what improves vision) progression. Science needs to be open to ID, since in cases of multi-system complexity (the vertebrate eye has over 40 parallel operating processes going on while you watch the ballgame), it fits the paradigm. Sorry if that upsets some, but reality is reality.
Roger, when I commented on your dislike for movies based on the works of Anna Leonowens, you wrote:
Ebert: You make a good point. I should have written, "It should be possible to make a better movie from this material, and then, if I am consistent, I would like it more." Or I could have sighed and said, "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
I don't think you're under a requirement to be 100% consistent all of the time...it isn't realistic to expect this of you or any other film critic (or book or drama or TV critic) when no one else is. So...quoting Emerson (Ralph Waldo, not Jim) is a valid response.
I'm reminded of a quote by Alfred Adler - it is easier to fight for our principles than it is to live up to them.
(Hmm...that sentiment could sum up George W. Bush's tragic flaw - well, one of his tragic flaws anyway)
There are few people in the world who have the courage to be able to fight in any way for their principles. If I respect you, it is in part for your willingness to fight for those principles as much as you can.
As regards explaining the platypus: In his wonderful book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", Robert Pirsig points out that at the time of its discovery, the platypus did not fit into any taxonomic classification, and those who received stuffed copies from their native Australia initally looked for evidence of tampering. Even though the evidence was right in front of them, they deemed it "illegal" because the system of classification was not prepared to deal with an animal that laid eggs like a reptile but suckled their young like a mammal. Acknowledging the weakness of their system (and their reasoning), the taxonomists created a new order called monotremata, which consisted of two animals: "the platypus, the spiny anteater, and that’s it. This is like a nation consisting of two people." (Quote from ZAMM)
The ID people cannot face the platypus of evolution staring it in the face, and so feebly attempt to put forth a band-aid solution which conforms to their own narrow but flawed view of the real world.
As I read your reference of an image of slot machines stretching out into infinity, as employed by this documentary, it provided to me yet again an illustration of that favourite pasttime of certain christians - namely the faulty use of mathematics in general and probability in particular.
In my youth I have heard it argued many times that life on Earth proved the existence of God. Consider the mind-boggling odds, I was lectured, of the earth being the right size, the right distance from the sun, and the sun being the right size, the right age etc...in order for life to be possible. It would be one in a hundred billion! How can you explain that?
Well, we are not around in the other ninety nine billion, nine hundred and ninety nine million, nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine cases to be able to look around and say "hey, we don't exist before life never evolved here!"
Reply to: JMW: And, gosh, I am just gonna have to go and read that whole Bible again (for about the 15th time) and see if I can pass that IQ test by finding out that those Pharisees getting their way was much more important to the New Testament than Jesus being born.
Let me help.
Paul was a Pharisee, raised as a Pharisee. Paul says Jesus was born of the seed of David, and declared "son of god" by his resurrection from the dead. How many times did Paul, a Pharisee, describe the details of Jesus' birth? How many times did Paul give a physical description of Jesus?
Your sarcasm, more or less by accident, has hit on something important.
If you read the Gospel of Mark "without direction" - without knowing what it is, the words convey one meaning. However, if you know that the Gospel of Mark was written as pure propoganda, so the early End of the World cult would have something to read aloud at their weekly meetings, in the same way that Jews read aloud from their Holy books... then it starts to make sense.
What are the three essential beliefs of the Pharisees? Paul said there was one. "For my belief in resurrection I am on trial." In a different place, he says there were others. (1) Resurrection. (2) demons and exorcisms. (3) angels and angelic messengers.
When they women go to the tomb, they don't find Jesus. They find an Empty Tomb and one (or two) angels. This was a stage play written and performed by early churches, to explain the concept of resurrection. The body of Jesus wasn't there, but it would return along with all the other dead, at The End of the World.
You've also got to know the difference between pre-70 AD and post-70 AD. After the Temple was destroyed, the Gospel of Mark was re-written. Miracles were added to the story. Jesus was asked, "In the resurrection, whose wife will she be?" It was a primer for anyone unfamiliar with the belief of the Pharisees.
Reply to: I'm so glad for law students like yourself showing me the way. Way back when I went to law school, they made us buy books too.
And you assumed that the books were credible. That's how you start Law School. However, the Bible isn't one of those books. It is not a credible book, except possibly in the narrow sense that Peter was asked if he came to Jerusalem from Galilee with Jesus and lied about it. If I had to guess, I'd say Jesus had an alcohol problem. Many Galileans visited the Passover festival without being arrested and executed. In Galilee, it was considered "good sport" to rant about the Roman occupation. However, Jesus didn't leave it in Galilee. He went right into the Temple and overturned the tables of the moneychangers. That's such a noble act of protest, I doubt it happened that way.
The Gospel of Mark exists for a reason, and this is RECRUITMENT. To lure new victims into a cult based (after Paul joined up) on a belief in "we are living in the last days" and "the son of man is about to appear in the clouds with angels."
Reply to: The Bible says the fool says in his heart there is no God. 1 John says they speak as one of the world, therefore the world listens to them. Yet God's Word is true though every man be a liar. I tremble when I think about the evolutionist, who spent his life denying and suppressing the truth of the Great Creator, when they bow before Him on that day. Oh how I pray that they come to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Reply to: Ironcross: Darwin's theory... But no matter, when Christ comes back to gather his faithful flock, of whom I am a firm believer and even comes together the Jews, all you non-believers waiting to throw stones at Him, denying Him his right as God will be wailing in hell BEGGING forgiveness of which you will receive NONE. Then you and all your homos in San Fran can serve satan and feel comfortable knowing all along you were wrong.
I call this the Paradox of Christianity.
If these people are secure in their beliefs, why do they think so much about non-Christians burning in hell?
Because Christianity is about RECRUITMENT. They want you to join, Martin Luther wanted the Jews to convert... because without belief, Christianity doesn't exist.
Thank you Roger! You've saved me the trouble of writing my own blog on Stein's Expelled. I can't imagine a more perfect critique could be written.
I'll just add that my favorite scene was the look of utter dismay and contempt on Dawkins's face when Stein kept asking whether he believed in any God. There could have been no dumber or more pointless questions. You could tell that at that moment Dawkins realized he was not engaged in a serious interview with a thinking human being.
Three things:
1) If I HAD to pick a belief, it would be darwinism/evolution because i'm too agnostic/atheistic to believe in "intelligent design"
2) my teacher in a college science class about lewis & clark was always talking about Richard Dawkins and I see references here - appropriate?
3) now that it's reviewed in this form, what would you give as a star rating for this film, Roger? - Realizing full well that the stars are "arbitrary" and "relative"... :)
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! :)
Bravo, Roger! I have been a fan of yours for decades, and I never see a movie without seeing what you have to say about it first. Thank you for writing this blog. It is a glimpse into a deep mind, and many of your readers very much appreciate it.
PS - I am one of the few who work in the video game industry who has forgiven you for your oft quoted lambasting of games. We haven't had our Citizen Kane yet, but we're getting closer every day. Wish us luck!
Anyway, on to the topic at hand...
To Lee Bowman:
There is absolutely no way a system of this complexity, along with the visual cortex processing center of the brain, could evolve based on chance mutations.
You are committing a logical fallacy here - namely, the "argument from ignorance". This is not to say that you are "ignorant", so please do not misunderstand me. This is simply what the call the fallacy that could be worded as "I don't understand it, therefore it is not possible." If we all thought that way, we would still be living in caves and bashing things with sharp rocks. Curiousity may kill cats, Mr. Bowman, but it has catapulted our species to stratospheric heights (quite literally if you consider space travel). If you truly have disdain for things you don't fully understand that are thrust upon our society by eggheaded elitist scientists, I suggest you cease using your computer, cell phone, microwave oven, and any medications you take. None of these things are endorsed by the bible, after all, and I don't imagine either of us fully comprehends the science behind it.
I am also concerned about your use of the word "chance" here. It is very misleading. Chance alone does not evolution make. Natural Selection is key. These changes occured in miniscule increments over the course of billions of years. We humans have trouble grasping such large numbers, but billions of years is a long time for these tiny incremental changes to accumulate into something useful.
And multiple times, many involving nearly the exact same morphologic result? Believe it if you like, you'll aligned with consensus opinion.
The beauty of science is that I don't have to "believe" it. I can examine the evidence for myself. This is the big difference between science and religion, you see. You can hold science in your hand, examine it close up, and record data.
Predictions have been made regarding eye evolution, but not confirmed by empirical means.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
I see what you're trying to do with "empirical" here. You are insinuating that, until scientists can actually cause an eye to evolve in a laboratory, it has not been confirmed. Clever ruse, but I will not fall for it. Examples of "early eyes" can be found all around us. The dots exist. We can connect them with hypotheses. Keep in mind, of course, that science is not dogmatic. When we find new evidence, we can change our ideas about certain phenomena. This is another major difference between science and religion. Flexibility versus dogma.
Eyes show evidence of evolutionary progression, but not by random, purely natural processes.
Again with the "random". Natural selection is your friend, Mr. Bowman. You would not exist without it. I suggest showing it a little more respect rather than trying to sweep it under the rug.
Science needs to be open to ID
It most certainly does not. Saying that science needs to be open to ID is like saying that baseball needs to be open to pizza. One is a sport and one is food. In our case, one is an established method of understanding the universe through naturalistic means, bolstered by and inferred from evidence, testing, replication, and observation. The other is a thinly veiled religious movement that uses misinformation and outright lies to systematically threaten our educational system. Apples and oranges.
Sorry if that upsets some, but reality is reality.
You took the words right out of my mouth, friend!
Dave, who you calling a 'fundy'? You're at least implying as much. My background is biomedical engineering, and I'm presently pursuing several biological fields.
I had stated:
David responded:
"You are committing a logical fallacy here - namely, the "argument from ignorance"."
I disagree. That's just a summary statement, not a hypothesis. My statement is based on careful examination of the homologies, and mechanisms involved, along with the published research done to this point.
"This is simply what the call the fallacy that could be worded as "I don't understand it, therefore it is not possible."
But I do understand it, along with the limitations of random mutations as the primary source of novelty and complexity.
"If you truly have disdain for things you don't fully understand that are thrust upon our society by eggheaded elitist scientists, I suggest you cease using your computer, cell phone, microwave oven, and any medications you take."
Where did you get the notion that I have a disdain for science? Google my name in quotes, along with the word 'evolution' and you'll see differently. I support evolution, but with a modification of its current synthesis.
"None of these things are endorsed by the bible, after all, and I don't imagine either of us fully comprehends the science behind it."
Did I mention the Bible as authoritive in any of this? I think you're extrapolating that I'm a Creationist. I analyze biological issues purely from a scientific, and mechanistic perspective.
"I am also concerned about your use of the word "chance" here. It is very misleading. Chance alone does not evolution make. Natural Selection is key."
You're not telling me anything I don't know. The point isn't that 'selection' isn't guided in a sense (selection of traits that confer a reproductive or survival advantage become fixed in a population), it's simply that it only has random copying errors to select 'from'. Ever hear of 'junk in, junk out?' Selection sure, but of what?!
"These changes occurred in miniscule increments over the course of billions of years. We humans have trouble grasping such large numbers, but billions of years is a long time for these tiny incremental changes to accumulate into something useful."
In a given phylum, the opportunity for evolved changes is less than that, but let's say that billions of years are available for an eye to evolve. There are no statistical models to show how an organ of that complexity could evolve stepwise.
First consideration. Random mutations are mostly deleterious, many fatal. To become 'fixed', it would need to offer not only an immediate repro advantage, but it would have to be passed on, and if passed on, not become recessive. Random mutations occasionally confer an advantage, i.e. the sickle cell gene in African populations, but seldom offer a stepwise morphological improvement as would be necessary in eye evolution.
Second consideration. An overemphasis has been placed on the flat light sensitive patch becoming curved, a pinhole forming, then a lense, an iris etc. More complex than its external homologous structure is the retinal complex, with its cGMP enzyme cascade in which sequential activation of rhodopsin, transducin, and the cGMP phosphodiesterase occurs, along with synaptic transconduction to the processing center (cerebral cortex). Have you done your research? Check out the links I provided.
Regarding your video link, I've seen the Dan-Erik Nillson's video before, and it's just hype, based on Nillson-Pelger's supposed computer modeling of same, which has been widely debunked. Here's a link to the original paper:
http://www.jodkowski.pl/kk/DENilsson001.html
Here's just one link regarding its debunking. There are many more.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1509
and my and others' comments on uncommondescent:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dodgen-daily/
"I see what you're trying to do with "empirical" here. You are insinuating that, until scientists can actually cause an eye to evolve in a laboratory, it has not been confirmed."
Problem is Dave, they haven't even come close.
"Clever ruse, but I will not fall for it. Examples of "early eyes" can be found all around us."
Lesser eyes do not validate an evolutionary process between them as the mechanism of upward complexity. I do feel, however that evolution, acting as an adjunct to embryogenesis, the actual repro process, plays a part. NOT, however, with a sole reliance on random mutations to produce the upward complexities. Rather, genetic coding information would have to be added by an intelligent agency.
In conclusion, let me define intelligent. "Any agent capable of altering an outcome by intervention (coding alterations)." It could well be a savant idiot, celestial worker, surrogate, or simply, a cognizant device of some sort (artificial intelligence). Accidental mutations simply don't cut it.
Ebert: Not accidental mutations. Random mutations. No mutation lacks a cause.
There is a test a person can use to see if the Bible is true or not: By prayerfully attempting to live according to the commandments of God. See if you're blessed. This is your proof and does require action and commitment. It also requires study and the individual has to be willing to analyze the Bible with the same fervor a literature lover would analyze a Shakespeare sonnet.
Anyone can conjecture and hypothesize. Just because a doctrine is expressed and millions adopt it as the truth is not proof in and of itself. This is true both with science and with religion. We know that a multitude of scientific theories over time have been dismissed as new information became available. Evolutionists as a whole have not truly "tested" God because it would require action. We also see the "fruit" of religion in how people either have a good understanding of it or misunderstand it and twist it, using it to abuse others.
I am no Republican, but read this story regarding the coverage of the 2008 election. Both sides distort, manipulate and cajole. http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0626238/ We see that the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times had a particular bias. These are the facts.
I encourage everyone to look at the facts and to test both sides of this specific argument.
Ebert: That experiment would prove nothing at all about the truth of the bible, nor is it designed to. It might test the efficacy of the Commandments. Then you could do a control by removing some of the commandments (maybe the one about keeping holy the Sabbath, or the one about not taking the name of the Lord in vain, which are both widely violated) and see if the remaining ones worked as well. Or you could substitute or add commandments (Thou shalt not live in such a way as to mistreat thy planet) and see what happened.
Reply to: Lee Bowman. My background is biomedical engineering, and I'm presently pursuing several biological fields. There is absolutely no way a system of this complexity, along with the visual cortex processing center of the brain, could evolve based on chance mutations. My statement is based on careful examination of the homologies, and mechanisms involved, along with the published research done to this point.
Actually, Lee, your statement contradicts the published research. I noticed you posted a link to Discovery.org and another to Uncommon Descent. Fundie sites? I'll have to check,... but the bigger problem is, you've got the WRONG answer
If you were to examine "eyes" without the processing unit, you might not be able to track the evolution. However, it's a system. A system that relies primarily on an increase in size rather than mutation. You've got the mechanism wrong. The processing unit got larger. And that didn't require a mutation. It only required a few more divisions before growth stopped. If our eyes had increased in size the same way, they would be on staks outside of our skulls.
The main reason we can see... is that a large percentage of our brain is devoted to processing visual information. More than dogs, for example. It's part of the unique path that makes us "human," and is the result of our ancestors being small animals who had to swing through trees. If you can't see the branch, you can't do Tarzan.
Lee, you are simply a person who can't figure out how to program a VCR. You look at an engineering problem and you think, "That's absolutely impossible." I fear that you will never get a job outside the recruitment-oriented nonsense of the Intelligent Design community.
Reply to: Lesser eyes do not validate an evolutionary process between them as the mechanism of upward complexity. I do feel, however that evolution, acting as an adjunct to embryogenesis, the actual repro process, plays a part. NOT, however, with a sole reliance on random mutations to produce the upward complexities. Rather, genetic coding information would have to be added by an intelligent agency.
This is how Christianity works. They actively recruit stupid people. They hold weekly services where everyone sits and listens, and one stupid person talks. He gives a testimony, which is the reason he believes God exists. And everyone else assumes the stupid person is credible... not realizing that Christianity depends on only recruiting dummies.
Let me repeat. Engineering problem. Solve engineering problem. Find the Correct Answer. Those are the tools you lack. We call it intelligence, or maybe Problem Solving. That's what I've been talking about with the New Testament. After you read it, do you understand what it is? I've never read a Christian book, including Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell, who got it right. I confronted Lee Strobel several times, and said, "This is the explanation for the New Testament." Lee said, "You might be right, but I'm not going to put your explanation in my book because my book is titled The Case FOR Christ. All I'm giving is the case for his Deity, and I never advertised myself as an expert. Read the back cover of my book. I clearly state that I'm only a journalist reporting what I was told." What Lee Strobel left out is that he was on the payroll of a church in Chicago as an associate pastor, and was NOT a journalist at the time.
Lee, you're doing the same thing. You've got the WRONG answer, and you have just been told the Correct Answer, and you're ignoring it. I know people like you. When I'm in a good mood (and this is Christmas, after all) I call you dishonest and Recruiters for an End of the World cult. That's all you're doing. You're presenting a simple theory that makes sense to you, because you want to fool people. You know there's a better explanation, and so do I.
I was asked for my explanation of how life began. The dishonest part was the Christian who said, "I'm not going to look up anything on the Internet, I only want to hear it in your words." Another appeal to Stupidity. There are dozens of Internet sites with photos and data to back up the statements. Dishonest Christians say, "I will only listen to YOUR words." That's how they reinforce their "recruitment" - by not checking the better sources.
Christianity wants people to be stupid. Christianity wants people to read the New Testament and skip over the parts that don't make sense. They want a suspension of disbelief. And Lee, the Correct Answer is, the survival factor of better eyes is so powerful, every improvement spread through the population. And the random nature of the process, NOT directed by an outside source, is evident in the data. Read. Learn. Stop trying to tell us you're an authority, because you're not.
I can walk into a library in the Department of Religion at a major university, or the religion section of Amazon, and not find a single book that has the correct explanation for the Gospel of Mark. Why is that? People who claim to be authorities... but lack the Problem Solving ability that would justify such a claim.
In my life, no moment was more complete in my religious experience than when a college professor, an ordained minister whose beliefs were unquestioned, whose knowledge of the Bible was unsurpassed, said in my Rel 1 class that "Most of these stories in the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally but as a way to answer unanswerable questions for an unsophisticated people."
In other words, the powers that be didn't know the answers and were making it up as they went along.
Had Christianity come along now, there is no doubt that its Bible would tell specifically about an earth that was 6 billion years old and would mention how the dinosaurs ruled the earth but died off millions of years ago and probably would also talk about evolution. To say any different would be to lose credibility with the masses.
All of this would be presented as part of God's plan. And until we learned enough about these things to perhaps refute them, no one would be any the wiser, just as they weren't when the Bible was first (selectively) compiled and edited centuries ago.
Roger,
The link will take you to some pages from Steven Pinker's great (and Pulitzer prize finalist) book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.
He has some interesting things to say about Hitler and Darwinsm.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0670031518/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=Hitler
I'm probably reiterating what others have already said, but it's a long thread!!
#1: ID can't be reasonably taught in a science classroom because it doesn't make predictions which are testable. Same goes for string theory, in fact. I teach physics and I stress that superstrings ought to be called 'string hypothesis' and not 'string theory.'
#2: Based on #1, you could argue that macroevolution can't be taught, because for speciation to occur requires millions of years. But it does make predictions which have been observed (e.g. Darwin's prediction that intermediate fossil species would be found.)
#3: Microevolution is the basis for macroevolution. I myself once caused microevolution in a bacterial strain: our lab group inserted a gene into its DNA and it became resistant to ampicillin where it had not been before.
#4: Ben Stein is a very intelligent, well-read and (IMHO) reasonable man. I think his main point is that pure cold science has led to a lot of criminal behavior, and that technology without morality is evil. I would agree with that. Pope Benedict recently made a speech to that effect.
Ebert: I also agree. You could argue that the economic collapse came about because the technology of money-making (computer-driven investment manipulation) was complete separate from morality. A CEO who thinks he deserves a multi-million-dollar bonus for driving a company bankrupt is simply a Rod Blogojevich who has discovered how to make us into the unwitting bribers.
Ebert,
You completely seem to miss the point of the film..there is a point where Darwinian Evolutionists move from "Science" and into the realm of "Philosophy" with their views. To quote Eugenie Scott,President of the National Academy of Sciences, from her 1987 debate on "Firing Line", "There are Scientists who make somewhat of a philosophical statement about Darwinism, you and I both agree about that". This is her response to Phillip E Johnson, the Author of Darwin on Trial. The Philosophical and "Unproveable" Argument is what is causing the "Organization of Matter" and even "Deeper", where does "Matter" come from? Darwinian Biologists believe its organized by "Nothing"...(Sure they have a fancy way to explain what "Nothing" is...but when their done...they mean "Nothing") and secondly they believe it comes from "Nothing". Nothing is code for "No Intelligence in the Universie". There is no First Cause. Interestingly enough before there was the "Big Bang" there was no time, no matter, no "RANDOMNESS EVEN". THAT was NOTHING. This scares the crap out of militant materialists because they cannot conceive of a universe that is not "Eternal". Because this would denote that "material" and the "time" they use to define it, had an origin. This should not be so.....yet thats what "The Big Bang" says.
Get a life Ebert I used to respect you, now I think your a bitter, biased predictable political shill. Whats wrong? Life unfair or something?
Ebert: I refuse to grow weary of repeating this: Darwinians have no "belief" about the universe coming from nothing, and no theory about why there is something and not nothing. Scientists require a theory to be testable. After nearly 900 comments, not a single example has been given of an ID scientist ever experimenting with anything. Can you provide us with one? Only one? Is that too much to ask? You are free to believe anything you choose. Just don't call your beliefs science. The point is that the Theory of Evolution seems to work wherever it is applied in this physical universe, and ID explains nothing except that the universe was all supernaturally created. Therefore, don't you have to logically agree that it is ID, not Darwinism, that believes matter comes from nothing? This is so very simple that I am curious why ID believers never address it. If it is wrong, then tell me why it is wrong.
Lee Bowman, since you are in biomedical engineering, here's a couple explanation of how the eye evolved.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp
You can turn up plenty more if you bother to google it.
Every time I have come across an argument from a creationist that "X is so complex it couldn't possibly have evolved and science doesn't have an explanation how it could." It's about something science hadn't really bothered to look at and once it does, they find explanations. They find intermediate steps and intermediate examples which convey a useful evolutionary advantage.
Not that they ever stop using the argument, even after it's been debunked as your eye example shows.
I used to work with a creationist and a lot of our arguments eventually came down to "I don't have the time or the inclination to give you a science education."
RE: The "intolerance" of ID
I've noticed that with conservatives and particularly religious conservatives in this country, that they feel they are subject to "intolerance" or "persecution" any time someone doesn't agree with their point of view 100%.
RE: Liberals and Fascism
There's a marvelous book by another former Nixon associate John Dean about conservatives and authoritarianism "Conservatives without Conscience".
http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/0670037745
FWIW, Mr. Ebert I thought it was a brilliantly written post and extremely funny.
Hi Roger,
Another great posting. Thank you.
I challenge my students to prove to me that God does or does not exist. Following 60-90 minutes of heated debating, I proceed to quickly refute *all* the proofs against God's existence. Then, I proceed to quickly refute *all* the proofs for God's existence.
Then, I illustrate that most of our "proofs" against God's existence are actually criticisms of the nature of our belief in God, rather than proofs against the Divine's existence itself. For example, students raise the question of evil: the presence of evil does not disprove or prove the existence of God. Rather, it compels us to beg "why?"
Likewise, I then illustrate that most of our "proofs" for God's existence are actually expressions of appreciation. For example, students commonly mention the apparent beauty of the world. Beauty does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Rather, it makes us smile. If I tell you (in all sincerity) that certain moments in film like Vittorio Storaro's camerawork in "The Conformist," or the opening seconds of "Raging Bull" are for me a proof of God's existence, in reality, I'm telling you that those works add exhilaration to my simple life.
Thus, regarding evolution, and the way this argument has played out in our society, I would humbly suggest that we're often missing the core issue: evolution does not disprove God's existence. Why not believe that God formed everything, step-by-step, by way of evolution? That is also an *intelligent* design. This outlook does, however, challenge the nature of some of our beliefs in the Divine, as well as other theologies constructed from there.
That the odds of the perfect sequence of selections or mutations happening are less than 1 out of 1 zillion, makes it all the more wonderful.
Very respectfully,
Omer M
Ebert: Exactly. ID believers not only tell you God did it, but are very firm about how he did not do it. He could not possibly have used the process of evolution. Since that process is not only elegant and beautiful, but seems to apply and explain wherever it is used, God must have built in evidence for the theory even if he didn't use it, don't you suppose?
Dave, who you calling a 'fundy'? You're at least implying as much.
I don't believe I did call you a fundy, though I'll admit you could read implications into my statement. Of course, going by the available evidence, I was able to infer that you might be from your statements. I made a prediction based upon evidence. In your next post, you link to fundy sites like Uncommon Descent and the ultraconservative discovery.org. This has gone a long way toward proving my hypothesis. I'm almost ready to coin what I call the "Theory of Lee Bowman's Fundamentalism", but I want a bit more evidence before I take that leap. If, however, new evidence emerges that seems to indicate that this is not the case, I will happily alter my theory to suit this info. Science at work!
My background is biomedical engineering, and I'm presently pursuing several biological fields.
No offense, but shouldn't you have a better grasp of Biology (the unarguable cornerstone of which is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) to work in that field? At the very least, it seems that you should have a greater understanding of what comprises a scientific theory (hint: ID does not fit the definition).
When I mentioned that you were falling back on the argument from ignorance, you stated:
I disagree. That's just a summary statement, not a hypothesis. My statement is based on careful examination of the homologies, and mechanisms involved, along with the published research done to this point.
You are certainly free to disagree, but the core of your statement (that the eye is simply too complex to have evolved) is a very good example of this logical fallacy. Even if (BIG if) our current notions of ocular evolution were proven to be headed in the wrong direction, we would simply use the tool of science to devise a new set of hypotheses to test and create a new theory. We certainly wouldn't just give up, shrug, and point to the supernatural as a cause. This is not the way science works.
Where did you get the notion that I have a disdain for science?
It is quite clear from your statements that you do not respect the field.
Did I mention the Bible as authoritive in any of this? I think you're extrapolating that I'm a Creationist.
ID is Creationism. Your support of the idea would indicate a Creationist slant.
In a given phylum, the opportunity for evolved changes is less than that, but let's say that billions of years are available for an eye to evolve. There are no statistical models to show how an organ of that complexity could evolve stepwise.
But there are very compelling hypotheses. The fact that we can see cup eyes on flatworms and pinhole eyes on squid goes a long way toward lending them credence.
First consideration. Random mutations are mostly deleterious, many fatal. To become 'fixed', it would need to offer not only an immediate repro advantage, but it would have to be passed on, and if passed on, not become recessive. Random mutations occasionally confer an advantage, i.e. the sickle cell gene in African populations, but seldom offer a stepwise morphological improvement as would be necessary in eye evolution.
And yet, the eye evolved. Amazing.
Second consideration. An overemphasis has been placed on the flat light sensitive patch becoming curved, a pinhole forming, then a lense, an iris etc. More complex than its external homologous structure is the retinal complex, with its cGMP enzyme cascade in which sequential activation of rhodopsin, transducin, and the cGMP phosphodiesterase occurs, along with synaptic transconduction to the processing center (cerebral cortex).
The fact remains that we have a very good idea of how the retina evolved.
Check out the links I provided.
I did. If it's not too much trouble, I'd be obliged if you could provide links to science sites next time.
"I see what you're trying to do with "empirical" here. You are insinuating that, until scientists can actually cause an eye to evolve in a laboratory, it has not been confirmed."
Problem is Dave, they haven't even come close.
So you do think the actual creation of a lab eye is the only way to prove this!? By what mechanism would that even be possible? Do you propose that humans have a life span sufficient to make such observations directly? Surely, I am misreading you here.
Long story short, there are obviously myriad mysteries that have yet to be explained thoroughly by science. No one is arguing that. What ID does, however, is shrug its shoulders and say "We don't know RIGHT NOW, therefore god did it". Why the impatience? Science will continue to push forward, chipping away at our ignorance. It's perfectly OK if we don't have all the answers today. That is no reason to give up looking. Because our "gut" tells us the eye is too complex, we give up searching for answers? Not in my world, we don't!
To those arguing that much of evolutionary thought is philosophical, evolution explained on a molecular level has recently emerged that not surprisingly, confirms the Theory of Evolution. Sean Carroll has written two fascinating books. One it titled 'The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution'. The other is 'Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo'. Dr. Carroll is a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin. These books are highly recommended.
To Wes Johnson,
First, some people are born with both reproductive organs today--hermaphrodites. Life is part unconscious and part unconscious. When we are in the womb, and a little while after that (babies are still fetuses out of the womb), life is an unconscious thing, then we grow conscious but with unconsciousness still playing a big role. All living things have pheromones for sexual attraction.
Second, there is a thing called the coriolis effect that says that where something is first touched determines what direction it rotates. It is not a strong phenomena like gravity (we can just easily jump up in the air to resist it), and it all depends what direction the atoms were first touched and other factors. In respect to force, since an explosion is a strong phenomema, at least in its first stages of velocity, the coriolis effect will have a neglible effect of what direction things spin in.
Third, the sun is not shrinking like Brad Pitt in "Benjamin Button".
Fourth, the missing link thing seems to be looking at a room full of people with gun shot deaths and isn't convinced its a murder because there is no person caught red-handed although there are fingerprints. This could have been an intelligently designed suicide by some Jack Kavorkian, and must be, until we find that gunmen: let's only look at the lack of evidence for murder and forget what I just said about suicide. Actually, let's teach an "alternative" class based on my book "How I Doubt It's Murder" subtitled "What Suicide? I Didn't Say Anything About No Suicide". ....Finger prints? Only the fingerprints, of an intelligent Jack Kavorkian, that must remain at large forever because I believe thats the way he works...I don't care if you found a dead crack head that got his crack stolen with the same fingerprints on a gun nearby....you don't understand the complexities of the phenomenon of assisted suicide. Now I got to get to that class I teach, which as a result, now in many cities replaces homocide investigation altogether: Jim Jonesian Fingerprint Fairies.
A simple test of problem-solving ability.
Reply to: Ebert: After nearly 900 comments, not a single example has been given of an ID scientist ever experimenting with anything. Can you provide us with one? Only one? Is that too much to ask? You are free to believe anything you choose. Just don't call your beliefs science.
Earlier, I mentioned the ability to solve problems. I forgot to give an example.
This example is commonly called "the miracle of the fishes and loaves." Only it's not a miracle. There's a simple explanation that doesn't involve a miracle.
Please don't rely on MY statement of facts. You're free to check the Bible and make sure I'm setting this up right.
On a day when Jesus was supposed to preach, people came and sat on the side of a hill. After Jesus had preached for a while, people started to leave, saying they had not brought "a lunch."
Jesus said, "Gather the baskets." The disciples placed several empty baskets in front of Jesus. Jesus told the crowd, "My disciples and I will put all the food that we have brought with us into the baskets. Five fishes and two loaves of bread."
The baskets were then passed through the crowd, and when the baskets came back to Jesus and the disciples, the baskets were full of broken pieces of bread.
Solve the problem.
Ebert: You don't say what the problem is. But...
Assuming that you want me to explain where the bread came from, I will hypothesize:
The bread was not in the baskets when they left Jesus in the hands of the disciples, and none of the evangelists report that anyone saw bread materialize in them, which they surely would have, if anyone had.
Therefore: the crowd, seeing that Jesus had given all of the food he had in his hands for the common good, pitched in the bread they had brought along with them, for such a multitude would not have traveled so far from home without bringing what food they had for the journey. They did not say , "We have no food," but that they did not bring "a lunch."
No fish came back in the baskets. The two fish were eaten. Jesus did not cause the fish to multiply. The people were poor and had only brought bread.
The lesson: Give, and you shall receive.
In any event, whatever the answer, this is not a scientific test but a riddle. A scientist would repeat the same action with one crowd which had brought bread with it, and one crowd that had not. Both crowds would be searched to be sure this was the case. If the baskets of the second crowd came back filled with pieces of bread, then mankind need never be hungry again. If the baskets of the first crowd came back filled, they would be asked if they put scraps of bread in the baskets. If the baskets of the second crowd came back filled, Jesus performed a miracle. It is a wonder no ID scientist has ever tried this obvious experiment. If it is not repeatable, it belongs in the sphere of religion, not science.
First consideration. Random mutations are mostly deleterious, many fatal.
No they are not "period"!!!! Most mutations are neutral. Early on, they might not have been, but, there is a lot of redundancy now too. Basically, these are all mutations:
1. Copy errors that make an extra "functional" copy.
2. Copy errors that make an extra "non-functional" copy.
3. Additions, which may or may not produce an error large enough to be a problem.
4. Deletions, which may or may not produce an error large enough to be a problem.
5. Transpositions, where one "code" is replaced with another, which, depending on where it happens, may either have no effect, a minor effect, or a major one.
6. Lateral gene transfers, where either function or incomplete code gets inserted into the cell, which only sometimes inserts in places that break existing genes.
Oh, and 7. Any one of 1-6, which happen to things that already suffered from 1-6.
1 and 2 are "not" lethal, except very rarely. (5) can, since we are discussing the eye, but also with enzymes, and other proteins, cause small changes in the construct of those, which much of the time produce only "minor" effects, sometimes making them better, other times worse, but rarely killing them. Hell, there a dozens of known genetic disorders that ***do not kill*** the victims immediately, at least not before they reproduce, and some of which won't kill you, unless your diet includes/excludes something that counters the result. In the case of the eye, as I stated in a prior comment, it can actually improve, alter, or slightly degrade, color vision, without killing the person that suffered them.
6 - we use all the time to introduce genes into plants, or even animals. As long as its functional code, it won't "kill" the animal, unless it poisons it, or something.
Even deletions may, in some cases, either reactivate old copies, which still work, having no, or little effect, or cause minor changes. The point being, any evolving system has to, as part of the system, evolve the capacity to survive errors, reduce how bad they are, or provide alternate paths, so that reproduction remains possible, even if the short term result is shorter life spans for a species, while some of the flaws make them vulnerable to death. One existing species has actually developed cancers, which kill them in 1/4 the time other species like them live, and the have "evolved", as a result, a rate of development that makes them sexual mature in 1/4 the time it would have normally taken. And, while I don't remember the source or species, so can't give a cite, this has happened in a few human generations. Even "fatal" errors can be routed around, as long as its not 100% fatal to every member of the species at once.
Point being, we have 7 methods of chance, of which none are 100% lethal, several are only lethal to the individual, but if instead successful, will always produce functional offspring, and several which may only produce a 10-20% fail rate, not even 50-50, never mind your silly "most are fatal" BS. And that isn't even without taking into account of the fact, as I said, that any evolved system cannot function without also "evolving" the capacity to reduce the effect of errors, survive, at least to reproduce, if not completely healthy, and otherwise "surviving" even when "near fatal" genes get introduced.
No one has numbers, since its kind of hard to make statistical analysis on, "We don't know what most of it does yet.", but even so, I would say that not only is the assertion of most mutations being lethal wrong, is not even 50-50 right, its probably far closer to 1 fatal mutation in every 1,000 neutral/or beneficial ones, and the beneficial ones are probably like 2 in every 1,000. Which is why it takes hundreds of millions of years to produce two close hominids, like humans and Neanderthal, but there where simpler shelled animals showing up like fireworks going off during the Pre-Cambrian. They would have had far fewer redundancies, require larger numbers of offspring, to make up for the higher fatal error rate, and much shorter transitions to breeding age, meaning "far more chance" to undergo species diversion too.
Ebert: I refuse to grow weary of repeating this: Darwinians have no "belief" about the universe coming from nothing, and no theory about why there is something and not nothing. Scientists require a theory to be testable. After nearly 900 comments, not a single example has been given of an ID scientist ever experimenting with anything. Can you provide us with one? Only one? Is that too much to ask? You are free to believe anything you choose. Just don't call your beliefs science. The point is that the Theory of Evolution seems to work wherever it is applied in this physical universe, and ID explains nothing except that the universe was all supernaturally created. Therefore, don't you have to logically agree that it is ID, not Darwinism, that believes matter comes from nothing? This is so very simple that I am curious why ID believers never address it. If it is wrong, then tell me why it is wrong.
1. You will notice that nowhere did I defend Intelligent Design as "Science" but I will defend it possibly as good "Philosophy". So ID postulates that there is design in the Universe that may come from an intelligent designer. Notice it did NOT say anything about a Judeo-Christian God, or Genesis, Adam and Eve and their Pet Dinosaurs or the literal biblical beliefs of Pentecostals and Baptists. In regards to your thought that ID actually works better with the “Matter comes from Nothing” paradigm, I don’t follow, by my reckoning it would logically come from the designer. How the designer built matter, I don’t know that answer, but if the designer did build it, he also built the rules and framework for how it forms and organizes. (Evolution plausibly being one of those) If a designer built the entire Universe doesn’t it logically follow that the way “WE” measure and understand the natural world would not apply to him as one who logically stands outside of it? Is the author allowed to stand outside of his work or not? So why must he also be subject to the laws of the natural world as we, the protagonists, “Sense” and understand them? Are you not familiar with Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” argument about the limitations of the human senses and experiences in relation to perceived “Reality”?
2. You will also note that I did not say I do not believe in Evolution.
3. If you had read my comment more closely you would note that my position is that many "Scientists" are masquerading "Materialist Philosophy" as "Scientific Evidence". Many teach or imply evolution this way, that Evolution is a system which employs only “Material Causes” without to produce all living things up to and including human beings. Statements like this are misleading and do not provide clear distinction about what is provable, what is not and what is philosophy. Don't believe me? Let’s get actual quotes from the famous Respected Leading Biologists in the film or otherwise known as agenda-driven hardened militant atheist materialists.
Quote Dr. Richard Dawkins..."It was when I finally understood Darwinism that it killed of my religious faith, I believe God is about unlikely as Fairies, Angels, uhh Hobgoblins etc ". Okay Dawkins, how did you come to this conclusion exactly through Darwinism? Did you use the Scientific Method to disprove the existence of God? Ebert, do you know how the "Esteemed Biologist" "scientifically" accomplished this?
Dr. PZ Meyers: "We aren't going to take away Religion, it’s like "Knitting" it can provide comfort but we need to get it to a point that it’s something people do for fun on the weekends, so it really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far, Greater Science Literacy which will lead to the erosion of Religion and eventually make it the side dish rather than Main Course...eventually separating out the Ethical elements fully...leaving a bunch of Fairy Tales" So he is saying that we should or are using our public institutions and the Science classrooms to push an agenda to get rid of and marginalize religion? Okay Ebert show me the "Science" here. Show me the exhaustive “testable theories” you mentioned in action. All I see is a profoundly hostile statement by a responsible member of the Scientific Community and a Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota.
Dr. Peter Atkins: "Religion..I mean..It’s just, it’s just Fantasy..It’s empty of explanatory content and its EVIL as well". Look everyone the "Hardened Materialist" believes in "EVIL". Ebert once again I ask you, where is the "Science" in this statement? Can you quantify “Evil” in a Laboratory test? I see an agenda here by supposedly highly respected Biologists who should be more responsible than this. I don't see any Science going on here with these statements. What I do see are Scientists linking Darwinism with Atheism and some openly admitting to using the classroom and Science to do this and marginalize religion.
Ebert do you honestly believe with outrageous comments like this, with books like “The God Delusion” that there would be no legitimate response from intelligent members of the religious community? Do you think Science is wholly above criticism from any parties outside of Science? Do you honestly think “Scientists” like Dawkins are doing science good? Using Evolution for an agenda to disprove God and marginalize religion? Do you believe Science is Incorruptible? That there is no “Group Think” in Science. That “Grant Money” could not be a poisoning force? That “Science” is so pure that its’ practitioners are their own self-regulators and all third parties should be ignored, shouted down, or discredited. And why? Because I should believe the inmates are fully in control of their asylum? Are we not talking about Fallible Human Beings here? Come on…
Don’t get me wrong, of course Scientific Materialists are also allowed to “Believe” their own “Faith Myths”. I don’t understand what their strong metaphysical statements have to do with Science but apparently they strongly believe them to be “Linked” to it. To quote William F Buckley Jr, “For Scientific Materialists the Materialism comes first..The Science thereafter”.
Again, I use to think quite a bit about you but you have noticeably become more political lately. When it comes to film review insight there was no one closer who I trusted, but after this review I’m not so sure. What does Evolution have to do with "Atheism" why does Dawkins totally unite and equate the two, why is Meyers talking about using Science to get rid of Religion? Why did you skip over the decidedly Anti-Science rhetoric of the "Esteemed Biologists" in your "Movie Review"? Why were you not picking up the “Religious Hatred” coming from these individuals? Why not criticize them? Why the silence?
Ebert: Their personal opinions have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which offers no opinion on the existence of God or the validity of religion. None. Natural science has nothing to do with the supernatural. It is quite possible to subscribe to the theory and believe in God and follow a religion, which indeed many people do. There are some ID proponents whose opinion is that the earth and all on it were created about 10,000 years ago, and that dinosaurs walked the earth with men within the last 10,000 years. There is even an exhibit showing this at the ID museum. Since you believe the earth is 4.55 billion years old, would you feel unhappy with me if I cited these people in my argument against you? See what I mean?
I feel like I know everything about your stances, where they come from, the compassion behind them, but I cant figure out why you waited so long to dedicate a column to general interest subjects. Im sure you know you have a popular writing style. Dedicated readers dont even care anymore how many stars you give your movies- they just want to hear your insights. The only time I remember you flying on autopilot was when you reviewed Hidalgo. You just listed stuff that occurred in the movie. Here are some of the unique lines I remember from previous movie reviews (these are not stored anywhere except my memory- I promise)
"It made me want to vomit and cry at the same time"- review for Wolf Creek
"some people do what they want to do. Some people do what they need to do"- review for Synecdoche, New York
"Your movie sucks"- review for Duece Bigalow: European Gigolo
I got stuck thinking of stuff, but my point is anyone who understands the depth of your dissertations is already on the boat. I knew you were screwing around when you posted the creationist stuff on your website. I believe anyone who raised hell about it is just- as they say in internet speak- trolling. Trying to raise doubt for the sake of raising doubt. I believe there are alot of people out there who do that for their own peace of mind. But these are not your dedicated readers.
Your piece about creationism was unneccesary. I dont know anyone who believes in that bullshit. I know one person who MIGHT be an ID enthusiast, and they have no idea who you are (I asked her). By the way I really like this girl who believes in creationism. Shes a sweetie.
Roger,
Just ran accross your story. Just for record, nearly all, maybe all, of Darwin's key postulates have been proved to be false by mainstream science. For example..
Infinite age of earth - Wrong - The earth is roughly 4.55 billion years old. Too young for natural selection to work even if natural selection was in continous operation over this time frame.
Simplicity of the cell - Wrong - Not a blob of protoplasm but the cell contains a huge factory of complex (irreducibly complex) biochemical machines of a sophistication which far exceeds anything man can intentionally create and millions of times smaller that even simple machines man can create.
There MUST BE numerous Pre-Cambrian multicelluar fossils yet undiscovered - Wrong - There are none, and done will ever be found.
Gradualism. Hopping on Charles Lyell's coat tails, everything on the earth, Geology and Biology, changed gradually over the near infinite time the earth has been in existance - Wrong - Until 28 years ago geological gradualism (Uniformatarianism)was the theory of Geology which had been "proven" over the previous 180 years. ALL (100%) of Geologists believed in this theory. Today, thanks largely to a Physicist, only those who can't forgive themselves for their stupidity still cling to that theory. (Read, Night Comes to the Cretaceous, by Powell). In biology, as all biologists know (although many assert various rediculous unproven theories to minimize its importance), numerous species of multi-cellular complex life exploded into existence in a geological instant rougly 550 million years ago. IT WAS NOT GRADUAL. It was too quick to have occurred through natural selection.
Extinction is even slower than natural selection - Wrong - What we have learned over the last 28 years is that the great majority of extinctions occur quickly, during catastrophic events. There have been 5 major extinctions in which the earth has been more or less cleared of life, and some other important but less dramatic extinctions. What scientists are now just beginning to understand, is that NEW FULLY FORMED species explode into existance after each of these extinctions, within that same geologic instant evident in the Cambrian explosion. So now even punctuated equilibria is not quick enough to explain the evidence. Some scientists now speak of "accelerated evolution", an oxymoron of course. Roger, for those in the know, gradualism is passe'. You can forget about it. It did not happen. The fossill evidence is clear and unequivocal.
There is more, much more, but that is enough for now. The evidence discovered since Darwin introduced his theory has been the exact opposite of that predicted by his theory. So why is it, do you think, that scientists cling to a theory that explains nothing?
Many statements you made are totally false. It you wish, I will go through them one by one with you. But, as with others who have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate, it's doubtful that any evedence will ever change your mind. Read the 2007 book, Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) by Tarvis and Aronson. You will see yourself there. By the way, these social scientists believe in the evidence for evolution too... because like you, they know little about the subject, and seek out only informmation which confirms their existing beliefs.
Since 1985 when an Australian athiest, Michael Denton wrote, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the evidence has been consistently accumulating in opposition to Darwinism. Darwinism is a failed theory. It's like a cartoon character which has run off the cliff, it's legs are turning and it's hovering in mid-air, soon to crash.
verle sutton
Ebert: Not a single scientist of any description believes the age of the earth is infinite. Where did you get the idea evolutionists do? Can you cite your source?
Yes, the earth is about 4.55 billion years old. Plenty of time for natural selection to work. What is my proof? It has.
Reply to: Ebert: You don't say what the problem is. But.. In any event, whatever the answer, this is not a scientific test but a riddle.
Congratulations to Roger for getting the Correct Answer, almost immediately.
Being able to figure out what the question was asking.... was part of solving the problem. At least, that's the way I framed it.
Some people are good at Problem Solving, and some people aren't. I think it's a matter of exercise and practice rather than natural ability. There's a TV show called "House" where a doctor sits at his desk and struggles with a medical problem for days, before a random comment gives him the inspiration to solve the puzzle.
Lee Bowman needs to invest some quality chair time. He doesn't "see" how eyes could have evolved, and he makes the mistake of saying the Correct Answer must involve.... the supernatural. Or something.
Reply to: Lee Bowman: There is absolutely no way a system of this complexity, along with the visual cortex processing center of the brain, could evolve based on chance mutations. And multiple times, many involving nearly the exact same morphologic result? Believe it if you like,
In my experience with Intelligent Design advocates, I've noticed this same mistake. OK, that may not be fair. In my experience with human beings, I've noticed this same mistake.
Creating a movie (or writing a movie script) is an exercise in problem solving. The Hero is supposed to have an Inner Dilemma and a need. He's supposed to learn something during his journey, without which he couldn't have triumphed in the climactic battle. ("Close your eyes, Marion. Don't look." - Actually, George Lucas and Larry Kasdan left out the line where Indy heard the "don't look at the Ark when it's open" warning)
"It's A Wonderful Life" is a story where the Hero's Inner Dilemma is so urgent, so life-threatening, we tear up when it's solved. In "Iron Man" we learn that Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark) has messed up so many times, we understand why he needs the armored suit. He sees it as his Redemption.
We love movies where the writer solves the puzzle, and we get pissed off when the Inner Dilemma is lame, or missing.
Reply to: I believe in Creationsim, because I find it impossible to think otherwise. Too much exists to assume it is the simple outcome of natural events strung out over time. I cannot explain God, but it makes more sense...
A lot of Creationists say "I find it impossible to think otherwise" and they're almost right. It's not impossible, but it's a place where your brain doesn't want to go. Or, maybe it's just not used to going there. Maybe it's forgotten how.
Just wondering how you came up with the figure that over 99% of scientists believe in Darwinism. Is there some poll out there that no one told me about? Unless only biologists were allowed to participate (science is actually much larger than biology). Either way, no one told me, a molecular biologist.
No one told me where to sign up for my opinion on climate change either. Darn. I'm out of the loop.
Ebert: Earth scientists, not only biologists. Search this tread for "Newsweek."
To begin, I respect and admire almost every Ebert movie review, yet respectively maintain derision for Ebert politics. For example, 'An Inconvenient Truth', was for me, terrible by way of its sanctimoniousness. I feel Al Gore is too smart to be ignorant of the fact that the Earth's climate (driven my solar activity) Drives CO2; not the other way around. To purposely leave a crucial bit of science out of a scientific documentary is a travesty for all who believed his rhetoric.
But in Ebert's review of 'Expelled', science prevailed. To which I am most delighted. The comments are however, as religious debates always are, fabulously astonishing.
Upward complexity(macroevolution) seems(here) to be one of the problems that the 'intelligent creationist' cannot get his/her head around. Yet, commenters have no problem with the random mutations that cause minor 'changes'(microevolution). And that’s a good thing because that’s essentially all it takes to go from the light 'sensor' to 20/20 color binocular vision. And about a billion years.
Let's say hypothetically in the far future a single human is born with super night vision like those army goggles. ID people say that can't happen (seemingly) overnight so God did it. But there's another way using science.
This type of eyeball surely will require many more parts and resistors and capacitors and whatnot. But as you are reading this, your DNA already probably has maybe half of those components just hanging out not knowing what to do with themselves all day. So they lay dormant for millennia as new pieces for the (un)planned camera upgrade are being randomly assembled by accident and placed in the evolutionary 'to-do' bin.
Until one day a lucky future man walks into a bar and meets his wife just as he’s bombarded by some extra cosmic rays maybe produced from a star that exploded in the Jurassic era. His DNA makes just one mutation that happens to turn on this new gene sequence, thus evolution bears his child with 3 eyeballs.
To be honest, this is a gross simplification but the theory is sound.
We already have the coding for much more stuff than we use because we evolved from fish and other mammals. We have 5 fingers because the Devonian fish we evolved from had 5 appendages on its fins. Children are sometimes born with 2 thumbs like a chicken, a 6th digit like a Panda, or a webbed fingers like Michael Phelps. Maybe just a single mutation activates this new (or old) 'complexity'.
Now, you're probably thinking that 1 mutation is still not enough for all of that. And you’re right. Scientists think tetraploidization takes place here; where 2 genomes double with one normal and one mutating into a similar protein but with completely different function. This explains how you don’t lose any DNA but add a new component (upward complexity)
This phenomena is a fact, not a theory, and has been held responsible for everything from how cancer can come out of nowhere to how that ancient fish could have 'crawled out' of the water and took a breath. The latter being a mutant fish with a primitive lung with gene coding that had been mutating for ages unbeknownst to its ancestors.
Now, I've been trying to use 'evolution' here as 1st person so if all else failed, I could say I believe in the God of The Laws of Nature. In which case we could say no one could possibly be an Atheist. Not even Ebert. And I'm not being cynical. As soon as a Creationist defines God, we can begin a rational argument of the matter.
Many posters implied they believe God created evolution and then kind of retired to Florida and watched from the bingo room TV. So does that make them Deists or just heretics of whatever religion they practice? Especially since there are more combinations of religious alternatives than there are religions. They cannot all be right. But they can certainly all be wrong.
I agree with Dave. While some apparently scientific intellectuals wait for science to show hard evidence of eye evolution (which they have), for now they'll be happy just chalking it up to magic?
Most conjecture here is the 'God of Gaps' syndrome: Whatever we cannot explain, God did it. Then science advances and its no longer God's handy work. Be wise, this is a losing proposition for theologians.
It’s only a matter of time. I end with that irony.
Thank you for your time
S.VanPala
Seth W. you asked how life came from no life. I didn’t see any response.
You first have to define life. Is it a 1 cell organism? Or is that already too big and complex for you? It's not an easy question, State Supreme Courts can't even agree. But for many, life is simply a tiny molecule that can reproduceon its own.
So you understand evolution, just not how life came from not-life. Or, how there is a chicken without an egg.
Earth 1.0 had weather that was quite intense. Lightning and UV light were constantly breaking apart molecules full of hydrogen. Those pieces would spontaneously combine back into molecules again but each time with randomly added complexity. Until you get an earth filled with oceans rich with 'organic' molecules. These aren't alive molecules, but they are the building blocks of life. You have rubber, metal, plastic, and glass in a bin, but it’s not a car just yet.
Then, there was a special day on earth when one of those complex molecules combined purely by accident into a molecule so complex that it could make a crude copy of itself by grabbing those other molecules around it. (A car's parts (per your example) cannot do this because car parts aren’t made from organic molecules.)
There are billions of different types of these organic molecules but only a few dozen of them can make copies of themselves. All living things on earth are made of these select few. On a molecular level, you are 99.9% identical to a Woodpecker, or an Arborvitae, or a blade of grass.
By the way, this molecule has a name: DNA. You cannot have life without it. In this early Earth, there were no predators yet, only DNA reproducing on its own, guided by random mutations and fueled by an organic soup. A very real Garden of Eden. If Mars had kept its liquid water, there might very well be Martians there right now. And maybe, they would know if God existed.
Another poster said 'two laws of thermodynamics' render Evolution moot. This is incorrect on two levels. The first of which may be a typo since it's the 2nd L.O.T. that is thought to pose an issue. Except, it probably doesn't. It states basically, that the Universe must always be 'going' from the direction of 'order' to 'chaos'. This would be the opposite of what this Evolution business is all about.
As it turns out, many scientists postulate that this Law applies to the Universe as a whole with Earth and its 'orderly' modern civilized society and evolutionary heritage offsetting galaxy's centers' constantly exploding and bringing down property values for light years around.
If anything, the 2nd L.O.T. really reduces any thought of an omnipotent, benevolent, and all-knowing GOD, into a GOD in some sort of management-training program where Boss God just stepped out for a cigarette and rookie God, in one fell swoop, obliterates entire civilizations or any chance thereof.
I've over-simplified this all this because it’s easier to understand in laymen's terms. Yet it's 100% accurate in logic. You can get technical with Google should you wish but most explanations that I've found could give Ambien a run for its money. I am by no means an expert. But I read allot.
A number of comments focus on logical fallacies. I would like to add to them. Near the beginning of the review you appear to commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy. It does not matter if 99.975% of all scientists, or people in general, support a theory. Sheer weight of support does not guarantee the truth of a theory, nor does it make a theory false. The number of people who support a theory is irrelevant. Prior to Einstein, 99.975% of all scientists believed that space was filled with an elastic medium called "ether" through which light and radio signals traveled as waves. They had observational evidence to support this theory. But along came Einstein and, well, we know what happened to the ether. I am not claiming that Darwinism will suffer the same fate. All I am saying is that the support of it by 99.975% of all scientists does not make that theory true or false.
PS: Einstein had a good sense of humor. When a pamphlet titled "100 Authors Against Einstein" was published, his response was "If I were wrong, one would be enough".
Ebert: All quite true. Would you therefore be prepared to risk the $1 million?
Ebert: After nearly 900 comments, not a single example has been given of an ID scientist ever experimenting with anything. Can you provide us with one? Only one? Is that too much to ask?
How about five?
1. Dr. Hugh Ross, PHD in Astrophysics from the University of Toronto, conducted research at CalTech on quasars. His work required experimentation.
2. Dr. Fazale Rana, PHD in Chemistry from Ohio University, post-doctoral work at the universities of Virginia and Georgia, recipient of the Donald Clippinger Research Award. He probably performed a few experiments in his life.
3. Dr. Jeff Zweerink, PHD in Astrophysics from Iowa State. His research focuses on gamma-ray studies.
4. Dr. Dave Rogstad, PHD in Physics from CalTech, works at JPL, and was on the team that, among other things, was responsible for landing Mars explorer vehicles. Some experimentation required...
5. Dr. Michael Behe, PHD in Biochemistry from UPenn. You probably know about him, and he has certainly performed experiments.
There are more. You might even find that the number of experimental scientists who reject Darwinist origin of life models is greater than .025% of all scientists. ;-)
Ebert: What evidence did they discover that tended to support ID?
Ebert: I refuse to grow weary of repeating this: Darwinians have no "belief" about the universe coming from nothing, and no theory about why there is something and not nothing. Scientists require a theory to be testable. After nearly 900 comments, not a single example has been given of an ID scientist ever experimenting with anything. Can you provide us with one? Only one? Is that too much to ask? You are free to believe anything you choose. Just don't call your beliefs science. The point is that the Theory of Evolution seems to work wherever it is applied in this physical universe, and ID explains nothing except that the universe was all supernaturally created. Therefore, don't you have to logically agree that it is ID, not Darwinism, that believes matter comes from nothing? This is so very simple that I am curious why ID believers never address it. If it is wrong, then tell me why it is wrong.
1. You will notice I did not defend Intelligent Design as "Science" but I will defend it possibly as good "Philosophy". So ID postulates that there is design in the Universe and thus an intelligent designer. Notice it did NOT say anything about a Judeo-Christian God, or Genesis, Adam and Eve and their Pet Dinosaurs or the literal biblical beliefs of Pentecostals and Baptists. In regards to your thought that ID actually works better with the “Matter comes from Nothing” paradigm, I don’t follow, by my reckoning it would logically come from the designer. How did the designer build matter? I don’t know that answer, but if the designer did build it, he also built the rules and framework for how it forms and organizes. (Evolution plausibly being one of those) If a designer built the entire Universe doesn’t it logically follow that the way “WE” measure and understand the natural world would not apply to him as one who logically stands outside of it? Is the author allowed to stand outside of his work or not? So why must he also be subject to the laws of the natural world as we, the protagonists, “Sense” and understand them? Are you not familiar with Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” argument about the limitations of the human senses and experiences in relation to perceived “Reality”?
2. You will also note that I did not say I do not believe in Evolution.
3. If you had read my comment more closely you would note that my position is that many "Scientists" are masquerading "Materialist Philosophy" as "Scientific Evidence". Many teach or imply evolution this way, that Evolution is a system which employs ONLY “Material Causes” without to produce all living things up to and including human beings. Statements like this are misleading and do not provide clear distinction about what is provable, what is not and what is philosophy. Don't believe me? Let’s get actual quotes from the famous Respected Leading Biologists in the film or otherwise known as agenda-driven hardened militant atheist materialists.
4. Quote Dr. Richard Dawkins..."It was when I finally understood Darwinism that it killed of my religious faith, I believe God is about unlikely as Fairies, Angels, uhh Hobgoblins etc ". Okay how did Dawkins come to this conclusion exactly through Darwinism? Did he use the Scientific Method to disprove the existence of God? Ebert, do you know how he scientifically accomplished this?
5. Dr. PZ Meyers: "We aren't going to take away Religion, it’s like "Knitting" it can provide comfort but we need to get it to a point that it’s something people do for fun on the weekends, so it really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far, Greater Science Literacy which will lead to the erosion of Religion and eventually make it the side dish rather than Main Course...eventually separating out the Ethical elements fully...leaving a bunch of Fairy Tales" So he is saying that Scientists are using our public institutions and the Science classrooms to push an agenda to get rid of and marginalize religion? Okay Ebert show me the "Science" here. Show me the exhaustive “testable theories” you mentioned in action. These are factual statements taken directly from the film. All I see is a profoundly hostile statement by a supposed responsible member of the Scientific Community and a Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota.
6. Dr. Peter Atkins: "Religion..I mean..It’s just, it’s just Fantasy..It’s empty of explanatory content and its EVIL as well". Look everyone the "Hardened Materialist" believes in "EVIL". Ebert once again I ask you, where is the "Science" in this statement? Can you quantify “Evil” in a Laboratory test? I don't see any Science going on here with these statements. What I do see are Scientists linking Darwinism with Atheism and openly admitting to using the Science classroom to do this and marginalize religion.
7. Ebert do you honestly believe with outrageous comments like this, with books like “The God Delusion” that there would be no legitimate response from intelligent members of the religious community? Do you think Science is wholly above criticism from any parties outside of Science? Do you honestly think “Scientists” like Dawkins are doing science good? Using Evolution for an agenda to disprove God and marginalize religion? Do you believe Science is Incorruptible? That there is no “Group Think” in Science. That “Grant Money” doesn't motivate shoddy science? That “Science” is so pure that its’ practitioners are their own self-regulators and all third parties should be ignored, shouted down, or discredited. And why? Because in the field of "Science" I really should believe the inmates are fully in control of their asylum? Are we not talking about Fallible Human Beings here? Come on…
8. Don’t get me wrong, of course Scientific Materialists are also allowed to “Believe” their own “Faith Myths”. I don’t understand what their strong metaphysical statements have to do with Evolution and Science but apparently they strongly believe them to be “Linked” to it. To quote William F Buckley Jr, “For Scientific Materialists the Materialism comes first..The Science thereafter”.
9. Again, I use to think quite a bit about you but you have noticeably become more political lately. When it comes to film review insight there was no one closer who I trusted, but after this review I’m not so sure. So why did you skip over the very shocking Anti-Science rhetoric by Scientists in your "Movie Review"? Why were you not picking up the “Religious Hatred” coming from these individuals? Why not criticize them? Why the silence?
Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/.
I'll pray for everyone of you angry people. Stop acting like sheep, and have an open mind. Your belief in evolution is so passionate, its cute.
Question from Ebert: Ebert: What evidence did they discover that tended to support ID?
Answer: Um...you hate America!
(cue fox news music)
In America, this really has nothing to do with science, religion, the origins of life, or even God. It's all about theocracy and political power. It's about the far right in this nation suckering what Orwell called the "Dumb Proles," using fear and loathing as avenues to power. It's always about pain, it's always about punishment, it's always about violence. Stein's rediculous stretching to include the Holocaust, of all things. This is the same sect that follows apocalyptic visions of life, whether it be George Bush's War on Terror, or Jesus slaughtering all of mankind in the Left Behind books.
We don't refer to these monsters as the American Taliban for nothing. Leper Messiahs and War Pigs, all of 'em.
Ebert: Their personal opinions have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which offers no opinion on the existence of God or the validity of religion. None. Natural science has nothing to do with the supernatural. It is quite possible to subscribe to the theory and believe in God and follow a religion, which indeed many people do. There are some ID proponents whose opinion is that the earth and all on it were created about 10,000 years ago, and that dinosaurs walked the earth with men within the last 10,000 years. There is even an exhibit showing this at the ID museum. Since you believe the earth is 4.55 billion years old, would you feel unhappy with me if I cited these people in my argument against you? See what I mean?
I agree totally, but Ebert the film wasn't about a defense of Intelligent Design. In fact, Intelligent Design was barely explained. It was an expose about the abuse of Science and the Theory of Evolution by Atheist demagogues. It was about Scientists who inject their personal opinions INTO science. You can certainly argue that ID does this as well. But the point of the film was to expose the people doing it in the name of "Evolution". This was not a film about how the finer points of Intelligent Design or how Intelligent Design trumps Evolution. It was about Scientific Corruption. Didn't you pick this up?
Ebert: No, I surely didn't.
Roger,
I did not say that scientists today believe that the earth and universe is infinitely old. But Darwin, and scientists that followed, him did believe this. You may believe that naural selection could work in 4.55 billion years but Darwin did not. My point was that you defend Darwinism as proven when in fact Darwin was wrong about nearly all key assumptions and future predictions.
Besides that, scientists know that natural selection did not work over 4.55 billion years. New species come into existence fuly formed - generally in rapid fashion after an extinction. That is the evidence. That is why new theories explaining rapid "evolution" are necessary. Ignore this fact in you want to, and all the other massive evidence contrary to evolutionary theory, but don't claim to be scientific.
The only point you addressed is one that you apparently misread - what about the others.
As with other naturalists, your "evidence" for evolution is that organisms exist. Since organisms exist, then they had to evolve. That is a religous belief, based on unsubstantiated faith, not a valid scientific theory.
I am dissappointed. I thought you would at least try to address the evidence.
verle sutton
Ebert: No scientist believes anything is infinite, except (probably) a sequence of numbers.
Mr. Ebert,
I have not seen "Expelled", though I plan to out of curosity. I am Catholic and have no problems with the theory of evolution. Neither does Francis S. Collins the scientist who was the head of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Protestant. In his book "The Language of God: A Scientist Explains Evidence for Belief" he argues for Darwinian Evolution and against Intellegent Design. John F. Haught a Catholic theologian from Georgetown has written much on God and Darwinian Evolution and thinks they are compatible and thinks Intellegent Design has many problems. He is the author of "God After Darwin" and "Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution."
--James Watrous
We know global warming iitself s a fact. This is not in debate. What we don't know for sure is what causes it. Let's say for the sake of argument that it is not man-made. Then let's ask what would happen if we tried to limit emissions anyway. (1) Less air pollution. (2) Fewer carcinogens. (3) Less dependence on foreign oil. (4) Cheaper sources of energy, such as wild, solar and nuclear.
Where's the harm? Who loses? What does it have to do with politics? Isn't it ideology-neutral? Jim, do you have a horse in this race?
Jim asks a very fair question. Having read your review of Al Gore's movie, you seem to have accepted everything presented in it as absolute fact, without questioning one single "fact". Asking Jim if he has "a horse in this race" is a cheap shot for a man of your obvious intelligence. Accusing someone of being an industry stooge is a tactic used by activists to dodge unconfortable questions.
If it is all about environmentalism, why do we need the "global warming" scare tactics? Likely because the best way to get the rabble to pay for with their ideology is to frighten them. An example of that would be Al Gore's movie inciting you to turn your lights off.
Jimmy Carter told us to turn our lights off and turn the thermostat down. Why didn't you do it then?
Regarding environmentalism as apolitical is shockingly naive.
Political environmentalism has been around for many years, and has never been ideologically neutral. The Greens themselves are split into Darks, Lights, and Brights. Environmental alarmism is now a huge industry. Millions are spent each year to influence govermental policies. How is that not political?
Who loses, you ask? Ordinary people who get caught in the crossfire while the industries duke it out. By passing useless and ineffective laws, like banning incandescent light bulbs, politicians score some quick brownie points with the mob of frightened villagers. The villagers break into a happy-dance, but have received nothing but $5 light bulbs.
I am leery of the government "protecting" me, as it always seems to have the effect of making my paycheck smaller and smaller. I congratulate you for the solar panels on your roof, (I assume they are there, or your haughtiness is unwarranted.) but they are not yet cost-effective more most people.
Wind farms have been on the rise since the 80s, as have emissions regulations. People were scared away from nuclear power in the 70s ("The China Syndrome" was particularly effective), but now are being frightened back toward it.
I, for one, am weary of scaremongering. There's a new one every day. The ideas you suggest would be wonderful, though very expensive. Who loses? We both know who pays, in the end. Perhaps if my income wasn't a scant notch above the poverty line, I would be less cynical.
"An Inconvenient Truth" cites such generally-accepted science that even George Bush now accepts the problem of global warming.
Hardly a ringing endorsement. That aside, a brief Google search with the terms "An Inconvenient Truth" and "inaccuracies" may serve as an eye-opener. Question everything.
You know, this documentary aside, plenty of evidence supports what would be called Intelligent Design theory. Atheist Antony Flew, still not a believer in God, converted from atheist to agnostic entirely because of expanded knowledge of fossils and DNA, etc. believing that the evidence now points more towards an intelligence behind the universe than to purely random processes of evolution.
Assume for the sake of argument that there is a God, and he does not favor the more highly educated/wealthy/developed, but rather reveals himself spiritually for the most part. Scientific observation does not explain exactly who he his, but many of the most impartial scientists like Flew occasionally upgrade from atheist to agnostic/theist purely based on the study of his universe. That happens. Scientists don't need to be converting to Biblical Christianity left and right in order for Christianity to be validated. Christianity is explained as a spiritual relationship with God above all. That may be why those who are, philosophically as well as scientifically, evolutionists, irrationally despise Biblical Christians the way Hitler did. It allows the poor and uneducated to be just as spiritual as the most educate, perhaps more so. This is not a rejection or "bashing" of science, but it can be seen that way by many in acadamia who are quite proud of their status and what they represent.
And religion aside, I wish even one review of the film had an opinion on the fascinating interview with Richard Dawkins in which he explained that aliens likely could have created all life on earth, provided that they themselves evolved somehow.
Creationism isn't science only because much of religion is concerned with what must be outside of the physical universe, where science isn't applicable. To validate religion, God need not be available for scientific observation (a greek god such as Zeus might be, being little more than a giant, superpowered human living on a distant mountain, but the Judeo-Christian God is outside of time and space.) If a logical person wants to attribute the teleology in nature to God, even is science is unable to peek into extra dimensions and verify that belief scientifically, he or she is not being illogical. In fact I can apply Occham's razor to the entire history of the universe and come out with Biblical Christianity as the most logical personal belief possible, all things being equal.
(You may have to use your imagination to see a proponent of Evolution turning cartwheels of joy.)
Reply to: Just for record, nearly all, maybe all, of Darwin's key postulates have been proved to be false. For example..Infinite age of earth - Wrong - ... The evidence discovered since Darwin introduced his theory has been the exact opposite of that predicted by his theory. verle sutton
This statement is wrong.
An hour with a search engine can provide the correct answer.
Let's divide this into time periods.
(TIME PERIOD #1 - Western Civilization holds earth created less than 10,000 years ago)
TIME PERIOD #2:
Charles Lyell (1779-1875) wrote Principles of Geology (1830), Lyell insisted that rock formations and other geological features took shape, eroded and re-formed at a constant rate throughout time.... his theory rejected the idea of a rapidly forming, young earth. Evidence from stones and bones suggested that each geological period lasted for many years, perhaps even hundreds of millions of years, and the age of the earth had to be several times that.
Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism was a powerful influence on the young Charles Darwin. (Robert FitzRoy, captain of HMS Beagle, loaned Darwin a copy of Volume 1 of the first edition just before they set out on the 'Voyage of the Beagle'.)
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) shook the foundations of Victorian England by contradicting the biblical version of creation in his epic work: On the Origin of Species. Darwin favored the very old Earth idea because he believed that evolutionary processes required large spans of time.
Charles Darwin decided in the first edition of Origin of Species that he needed 'far longer' than 300,000,000 years of earth history in the Cenozoic era alone for his theory of evolution to work
_____________
Let's look at the real FACTS.
Charles Darwin lived in a time when the age of the earth was estimated at 100 million years, or less. Darwin said his theory would require more than 300 million years.
Was Darwin wrong? I don't think so.
More background on the Victorian science that Darwin fought against:
Both the American astronomer Simon Newcomb and the German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz calculated the time needed for a nebular cloud to condense gravitationally to the present size of the sun. Their independent results of 100 million years established an upper limit for the age of the earth (presuming that the earth did not exist before the sun).
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) provided a 'definitive' estimate of the age of the Earth in 1862.
He gave a number of 20-400 million years, later revised to 20-40 million years. His calculation assumed that the Earth is cooling over time from some initial temperature that was close to or at the melting temperature of rock.
Allied calculations such as Peter Tait's came down as low as several million years, thus creating what has sometimes been called Darwin's greatest crisis.
http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_761599211/the_age-of-the-earth_debate.html
________________
Reply to: Many statements you made are totally false. It you wish, I will go through them one by one with you. Darwinism is a failed theory. It's like a cartoon character which has run off the cliff, it's legs are turning and it's hovering in mid-air, soon to crash.
In the 1800's, there were several plausible scientific "proofs" for the earth being less than 400 million years old. Darwin worked hard to fit his theory around them, and failed. He came to the conclusion that for evolution to work, the earth had to be much older than 400 million years.
How... did Darwin get it wrong? Of course, if you sleep through the class, you MIGHT think Darwin was arguing for an infinite age of the earth... no, that's ridiculous. Darwin never said that.
Get the facts right, please.
Ebert: What evidence did they discover that tended to support ID?
Precisely...What evidence? I am looking forward to the reply. I am a scientist, an Immunologist, and I was surprised by number 5 (Behe)'s misunderstanding and misuse of Immunology theory to support ID. Like all 'evidence' for ID, his views are based on the problem that he doesn't understand how some systems evolved naturally, and therefore argues that it must have been done by an intelligent being.
Response to Scott,
Getting in the middle of your conversation.
DNA is, in its essence, information - information in a biological medium. The DNA information necessary for directing the activities of even the simplest single-celled organisms is vastly more complex than any computer program man has devised. Imagine the preciseness required to program the most complicated computer application you can think of and then multiply it by a factor of thousands - at least. Minor errors quickly render the program (cell) inoperable. Such precision is not possible with blind monkeys - not trillions of them typing billions of years. (The monkeys have to type the full program at one time, no erasures)
"Those pieces would spontaneously combine back into molecules again but each time with randomly added complexity" ------ Where does that theory come from? How is complexity added? How is complexity selected? Why would it be selected? Do the molecules know what they will be when they grow up so the lead molecular segment selects accordingly?
DNA does not replicate itself independent of its cellular environment. There is no reason for anything to be selected. Evolution, or in this case pre-evolution, is by definition, random and directionless. Natural selection, when it does occur in micro-evolution, is not a thoughful process. It simply means that certain genetic traits enable more offspring to live and mulitply. This requires that multiplication is taking place.
And where was that organic soup? If it had existed, its remnants would be able to be identified. No such remnants have been found.
I won't go on much farther, but in summary, telling a story does not make it true - or likely to have happened. This isn't new age, "if you belive it then it must be true." Your story of life's beginnings has no support in scientific evidence. Logically, the very idea that complexity unimaginably greater than anything man can produce, having occured accidentaly - is just silly. There is no know mechanism that can begin to explain the precise information content in DNA, and the cell's factory of complex, interrelated, (irreducably complex) machines.
verle sutton
verle sutton: Besides that, scientists know that natural selection did not work over 4.55 billion years. New species come into existence fuly formed - generally in rapid fashion after an extinction. That is the evidence. That is why new theories explaining rapid "evolution" are necessary. Ignore this fact in you want to, and all the other massive evidence contrary to evolutionary theory, but don't claim to be scientific.
What scientists? Please present sources for your information. Preferably from peer reviewed journals. That new species came into existence fully formed is most certainly not the evidence. You have chosen to ignore the vast majority of scientific findings on the study of evolution. I'll be waiting for your sources, but I'm not holding my breath.
Reply to: I believe in Creationsim, because I find it impossible to think otherwise. Too much exists to assume it is the simple outcome of natural events strung out over time. I cannot explain God, but it makes more sense...
I think this has to be the most astounding element of the ID thinkers thoughts. Because its the exact same reason why I think Evolution makes more sense.
This logic assumes God is omniscient. Some type of Master God and not a neophyte. But many more species have become extinct than are alive today. Is this God's idea of a foul practical joke by killing off his children or just experiments that he/she/it couldnt get right the first time? How could he not have foreseen a natural and relatively common Asteroid impact killing off all of his unadaptable large mammmals? To me, it sounds more like a tinkering God rather than one of infinite insight.
I always find the Intelligent Design theories eventually break down into paradoxes. I cite the 2nd L.O.T. again as this is ironically also cited by the ID group as proof of ID. In which case, God would be subject to the Law as well. And as such, could not be everlasting.
Evolution isnt bothered with intelligence. It simply prolificates, abundantly and randomly. Given enough time, exploding supernovae can produce the most terrible mutant virus or the most beautiful delicate human being. If they can make offspring, they survive.
I thought about watching this film just to see what they had to say but after reading this and the comments I think I'll pass. I did see a show on discovery (I beleive) called Judgement day Intelligent design on trial that was really good. If you have time you should watch it. It's about the court case a few years back. I think you can still watch it on the website.
Reply to: I did not say that scientists today believe that the earth and universe is infinitely old. But Darwin, and scientists that followed him, did believe this. You may believe that naural selection could work in 4.55 billion years but Darwin did not. My point was that you defend Darwinism as proven when in fact Darwin was wrong about nearly all key assumptions and future predictions... am dissappointed. I thought you would at least try to address the evidence. verle sutton
I think the problem is that you didn't provide a link or a quote for "what Darwin believed."
Reply to: Despite the claims to the contrary, Darwinism hasn't held up as a scientific idea... Evolution happened, probably at the macro-level, it just didn't happen anywhere close to the way that Darwin or his followers thought it did. I really believe Darwinists realize their time is coming to an end, and that's why the hostility has reached a fever pitch. This is their last hurrah, their last desperate attempt at saving their religion. Jared
My first rule for debating Creationists is "never take any statement at face value." Why? Creationism is built on lies. Many times, a Creationist book will start in the middle of the argument, and if you go back a couple of steps, you find a lie or a false statement.
Let's try a more reliable source:
...geology had made tremendous strides during the first half of the nineteenth century. There was no longer any doubt the earth was millions of years old...
Lyell, following Hutton, had postulated an earth of unlimited age. Darwin thought in terms of several thousand million years... Darwin tried to prove his point with geological evidence ... Darwin's actual figures were on the large side but of the right order of magnitude. Darwin calculated that it might have taken 300 million years for the denudation of the Weald in Britain, while the best present estimate is 70 to 140 million years. While Darwin was wrong by at most a factor of two to four, the contemporary physicists were wrong by several orders of magnitude. (Page 427)
... Darwin has sometimes been accused of having accepted, like Hutton and Lyell, an infinite age of the earth. This he did not do. He postulated several thousand million years, which turns out to be just about right. (Page 428)
- by Ernst Mayr, published by Harvard University Press
The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance
Sorry if there are typos... but I thought this was important.
Yes, there was a geologist named Lyell... and Darwin had an early copy of his book, but... according to this source, Darwin did NOT postulate an infinite age for the earth.
Let's see YOUR source. I'm betting it's a Creationist site... IF you have one.
One of your sychophants above, one named 'Jay', calls Hitler a Catholic. Well, if Hitler was a Catholic, then Obama is a Muslim. Each was born into their faith, had exposure to the religion as a youngster and each apparently eschewed it as they grew. Hitler was, if anything, an atheist (and a Darwinian without doubt) in his WWII years.
As for your brilliant blog on Ben Stein's documentary, I would love to see you dissect anything by Michael Moore with the same elan. Or, more to the point, do the same for "Religulous". You could not help but end up with the same disbelief and descriptions of utter manipulation, if you entered those reviews with a similar bias which you admittedly held before reviewing Ben's work.
Next, your genius contributor and fellow hater of all things religious, Steve Vanden-Eykel, himself over-simplifies the situation by saying nature simply ignores the mutations that lead nowhere. As his metaphor states: "What if, after every toss, we had the option of not counting it? What if we were allowed to simply discard every toss that came up tails?" Well, sorry to burst your bubbles but you can't discard them, nor can nature. Mathematically they MUST occur. If you get a 'heads' followed by a tails - you're out. Thus making the chances of the prodigious missing-link mutation astronomical just as described in "Expelled". It would be so convenient if natural selection worked this way, but it doesn't. Neither does Las Vegas, or Steve would be a rich man instead of a bloviating miscreant.
And I dont recall Ben saying anything about 10,000 years. Get off the Alley-Oop thing that you folks always bring up if anyone dares mention the Bible. ID does not mention a time frame. It merely hypothesizes a control outside of our understanding. Kind of like evolution, only more inventive.
Finally, I wish I could believe that my writng will make it onto your comment section. But I think your comment section works by unnatural selection, similar to political news these days. So I guess I should say "I dare ya to post this."
Ebert: Obama was not born into the Muslim faith, of course, but has always been a Christian.
Here is an objective page concluding that Hitler in adult life was neither a Christian nor an atheist: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
To Anonymous,
If the film was about scientific corruption, why did it exhibit that symptom of pulling out of the hat, nit-picking or cherry-picking etc. that intelligent designers notoriously display (Earth age 10,000years old, missing chromosomes, "what else you got?") when choosing one subject as it's archnemesis, so to speak: evolution? Meaning, couldn't they, the film makers, if they really had a strong case for this, show a whole array of scientific subjects being studied that have such corruption--broken it down into a contemporary historical context, even from its archaic origins in scientific history--showing its dangers on society, education, politics then and now--instead of obviously singling out evolution studies with no broader context of science in general? I mean, it is called "Expelled"--come on--falsely claiming that Guillermo Gonzalez, the poster boy, couldn't teach because of his trying to teach "Intelligent Design".
Evolution happened.
I used to sometimes skip school in high school to go to the library and read astronomy books, or if we had a class trip to the library I would sneak over to the astronomy section and read those books.
People, we are floating in space on a rotating ball. We are essentially star dust. That thing we call the sun that is real hot: we came from that. We came from fiery origins. Okay, then we had to start from someplace. So, the very PREMISE (sorry, I don't know how to do italics) that God made everything just as it is, would have to mean that God made us from fire sculptures, sprayed us with his mighty fire-extinguisher and then let's us go on our way right after he made us from the sun.
Astronomy alone should be enough evidence that evolution must take place. Charles Darwin helped us see how. This has nothing to do with belief...so, I think you are spitting in the face of all astronomers by saying evolution didn't happen--not just evolutionists--, or anyone or stargazers that knows that we came from stardust. Do we look like fire? Why don't we? Evolution the Darwin way.
Back to Obama's policy to mandate all cars sold here be flex-fueled by 2012 (only 100$ per car). This is the policy that could save our nation and the world from the plot of world domination by the oil cartel OPEC headed by Saudi Arabia. But what I was getting to was that it is the best policy for countering or mitigating global warming. Plants are cooling agents. Flex-fuel cars will be the international standard after we put that into law and the market will open up competition for agriculture worldwide (1.5 million jobs here), including third world countries' tropical regions. We'll sell them teh tractors. You want to promote stopping global warming, promote agriculture by promoting flex-fueled cars. There's a bill in congress now, the Open Fuel Standard Act. The energy crisis is why we are in a recesion--on our way to depression--, not all the stuff in the mainstream media, like Barney Franke or whoever because it is happening all over the world in Germany, Spain, Japan, etc. We are goin to pay 900 billion for oil this year, that's nearly 40% of what we're going to pay the IRS, so it's like a 40% tax increase. 900 billion divided by 300 million americans is 3, 000 dollars a head--12,000 for family of four. That's about 35% of average (35,000$) take home pay--only 3% in 1999 of disposable income--now 1/3 of disposable income. We went from paying 80 billion a year in 1999 to nearly a trillion in this year. From 2003 to now 160 billion went out of the housing market to collapse it, while 5 times that --800 billion-- went into our oil bill to collapse it. It collapses not only construction, but securites based on those house values: the mortages based on those securites setting off a financial collapse.
People shouldn't be deluded into thinking otherwise. They, Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC, are also using that money to buy majority shares of our top companies and other western companies with sovereign wealth funds--they'll have all the power. They don't look so hot growing plants in the desert, while our friends and allies do have tropical potential. We also are the Saudi Arabia of coal, as is our friends and allies, which can make methanol that flex-fuel cars use. Mainly, though, we are going to go into a depression if we don't mandate all cars be flex-fueled with a methanol standard, only 30 extra dollars, although flex-fuel cars already can use it but will corrode the fule injectors without them eventually. Agriculture will cool the planet as well.
John Q Vaxy:
Evolution is not outside of understanding. If it were, we wouldn't study it in science class.
Like to point out a couple of things on the Hitler angle.
#1: You remain a Catholic ***until*** the church says otherwise, even if you are also calling yourself something else. It is Catholic doctrine that only they get to say if you are or not.
#2 As far as I know, the Catholic church never excommunicated Hitler, so officially he remained a Catholic. He also, as this supposed not-Catholic, instituted a state income tax, which went direct to the the Catholic church. That law is still on the books, but has merely been extended so that "all" religions receive tax money.
#3 Its undeniable that some of those close to him where pagans, who believed in magic, alchemy and a load of other BS.
#4 All of them, collectively, confused an early work of science fiction, called "The Coming Man", as a fact based book, describing real events. Remember, this was very nearly the "first" ever sci-fi story ever published, and they fell for it even harder than the US did to the War of the Worlds broadcast.
#5 You can, even today, find people so investing in magical thinking that they are both Catholic/Christian, and also believers in new age crystal gazing, altie medicine, horoscopes, gibberish like The Secret, UFOs, and a whole list of other crazy BS. Now, all of these people might make St. Thomas Aquinus roll over in his grave, as well as any other religious leader that ever managed to get his head out of his ass long enough to recognize that what we observe *must* trump what someone wrote in an old book (and even they have points where they go, "Oh, now wait, that is going just too far!", and immediately start rejecting facts after, but, they are all undeniably Christian's of some sort, they are not being excommunicated for believing in total BS either, and more than a few of them believe things that are just as insane as anything the Vril society came up with. This is not, after all, about what *you* think constitutes a Christian or Catholic, or whatever, but what the churches do, or in this case, what the Catholic church, which doesn't exactly have a long track record of honesty, sane members, or a willingness to rid itself of dangerous people, instead of just denying involvement with the ones they can, and hiding the ones they can't.
So, its not up to any of us to say if Hitler "was" still Catholic, or at least some sort of distorted Christian, but the church, and the church doesn't get to pronounce after the fact, that they decide he really wasn't one after all, any more than they can unburn people accused of witchcraft, free Galileo, centuries after his death, unfight the crusades, or unrape alter boys (though, that is still within a time frame they "can" fix it, if they had the will or honesty to do so, which it becomes increasingly apparent they don't).
The only people that can claim if Hitler was or wasn't is Hitler, who wrote way to much indicating he still, more or less, believed in it, and who ever he confessed to (in between donating money to the church), both dead. Everything else is the usual hand waving BS about how, "Well, that person is nothing like a good Christian should be, so can't be one!" Problem being, by my count, there are some 100,000+ groups of Christians who are just as convinced that anything from 10% to 90% of all the other people who call themselves Christian are also "not Christians".
By John Q Vaxy on December 13, 2008 11:04 PM
"Next, your genius contributor and fellow hater of all things religious, Steve Vanden-Eykel, himself over-simplifies the situation by saying nature simply ignores the mutations that lead nowhere. As his metaphor states: "What if, after every toss, we had the option of not counting it? What if we were allowed to simply discard every toss that came up tails?" Well, sorry to burst your bubbles but you can't discard them, nor can nature. Mathematically they MUST occur. If you get a 'heads' followed by a tails - you're out. Thus making the chances of the prodigious missing-link mutation astronomical just as described in "Expelled". It would be so convenient if natural selection worked this way, but it doesn't. Neither does Las Vegas, or Steve would be a rich man instead of a bloviating miscreant."
John, you completely misunderstand evolution. Your assertion that getting a heads followed by a tails means the organism dies is correct... for that organism. A species, on the other hand, is a different story. A species can have many organisms which mutate unsuccessfully, but the species can still continue to exist because it also contains organisms which mutate successfully or otherwise keep up with the demands of nature. A species is defined as any group that cannot or does not successfully breed with another group. Species are not fixed, nor does nature alter itself so that its behavior can be easier to classify. Every animal in a certain species does not just magically go "pop" and mutate into the next thing. No, a species is constantly changing, little by little, and the organisms which mutate poorly or are otherwise unfit die, and the organisms which mutate successfully or are otherwise fit continue to live, procreating, within their group, which we then call a "species." Here is an excellent web page which dispels the myth that species evolve in "links": (http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/11/01/evolution-and-the-missing-link-why-is-it-missing.htm) I know it's an atheist site, but there is nothing anti-God or otherwise offensive to anyone's religious sensibilities on this page. I believe that the issue is discussed here because it is relevant to the issue of religion, just as atheism is. If I had more time I would try to find this info on another page to link to, but alas, this will have to do. Read it or don't. And for the record I am not an atheist.
To continue the debate and clarify further...
When Ben Stein did the casino analogy, Ben Stein was illustrating how ridiculously implausible and unlikely it was for humans to come about through a "random" process such as evolution. However, Ben Stein was really just playing on people's misconception that species just go "pop" and become the next "link." Individual organisms mutate, and they don't all mutate the same. So some can mutate poorly, and die, and others can still exist, carrying on the species. After all, "species" is just a word we use to classify any group that interbreeds. There are no "species" in nature.
So really, the coin toss analogy was accurate, where the Ben Stein casino one was inaccurate and completely misleading. I am sorry you fell prey to its mistruth. This is why your argument dies and is discarded by society. Because it is unfit to survive logic.
"And I dont recall Ben saying anything about 10,000 years. Get off the Alley-Oop thing that you folks always bring up if anyone dares mention the Bible. ID does not mention a time frame. It merely hypothesizes a control outside of our understanding. Kind of like evolution, only more inventive."
ID hypothesizes the control of an outside intelligence... Great, there's a start. Now let's test this hypothesis with.... um..... our intelligence-ometer. Yeah.
Look, no one is saying that there is no "outside intelligence" or whatever. As a matter of fact, many evolutionists believe there is, and they, unlike ID advocates, are not shy when they say that it is God. But there is no way to test or prove that nature is controlled by an outside intelligence, and really, the entire ID argument just consists of poking holes in the theory of evolution, all of which are based on misconceptions of the theory. ID is really saying "nothing evolved." That is it. This has been proven wrong again and again, but the argument still persists.
ID says nothing else that could not also be compatible with evolution. God guided evolution, providing the correct mutations, for instance, is a perfectly acceptable, and equally un-testable, belief.
Reply to Bill Hays on December 12, 2008 1:24 PM:
Ad hominem
Isaac Newton would disagree with you. And question your problem solving skills with such a fallacious comment as this.
Adolf Hitler was Catholic.
So were the men who tried to kill him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/20/newsid_3505000/3505014.stm
BBC NEWS: The deputy head of the press, Helmut Suendermann, stated: "The German people must consider the failure of the attempt on Hitler's life as a sign that Hitler will complete his tasks under the protection of a divine power."
On learning of the bombing Hitler said: “I am immortal."
Von Stauffenberg was arrested the same day and shot. The rest of the conspirators were tried and hanged or offered the chance to commit suicide. Eight of those executed were hanged with piano wire from meat-hooks and their executions filmed...
Do atheists talk about a divine power protecting them?
Reply to: One of your sychophants above, one named 'Jay', calls Hitler a Catholic. Well, if Hitler was a Catholic... Each was born into their faith, had exposure to the religion as a youngster and each apparently eschewed it as they grew. Hitler was, if anything,
I called Hitler a Catholic. That's because Hitler described himself as Catholic. Apparently there's some confusion over the definition of "Catholic."
The test for Hitler being "Catholic" does not involve Americans who live in Chicago.
In Hitler's case, we're asking whether a boy born in 1889 in an Austrian town called Braunau, near the German border, who fought in World War I on the side of Germany... was he Catholic? And the answer is Yes.
Because we're talking about a time period that pre-dates many reforms and apologies in the Church. We're talking about an institution that is based on Recruitment, and Conversion, and their historical conflict with Jews who refused to convert to Christianity. Because the leaders of Judaism were preventing a large group of people from accepting Christ as their Savior.
From the link Roger posted:
Hitler gave a speech in 1922: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
Hitler survived 40 assassination attempts. Many of his ideas about God were based on his belief that he had been chosen as the new Jesus, and the belief that supernatural forces were keeping him alive. Absolutely NOT an atheist's belief system.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/71537/The-thugs-who-saved-Hitler
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3908431.stm
Hitler might not have been considered a Catholic in modern-day Chicago, but in the time and place he was raised... he was clearly a man who believed in a God who wanted to create a Kingdom on earth, and that Jesus had started the job but failed to complete God's work. By believing God had chosen him as the replacement for Jesus... well, it's hard to get more Catholic than that, without actually living in the Vatican.
Roger - Thanks for allowing free speech and publishing my rant. But WHY do people continue to deny that obama was born and actually practiced as a muslim til age 6 or 7??? It is FACT. His father AND stepfather were muslims. He attended mosque. He registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim. Why won't "you people" admit these facts? Most certainly, saying "he has always been a Christian" is an absolute falsehood. PULEASE, if u want to be taken seriously, facts are one way to start.
As to Gilbert Smith - Evolution is definitely taught in school. And the THEORY is certainly not outside of understanding. But, it IS just a theory.
I remember a cartoon from years ago. A few panels showing an astrophysicist, an astronomer and an evolutionist climbing a mountain labled "meaning of life" or something. Can't remember where I saw it - I was working for NASA at the time(definitely not in a religious publication, as I am not, surprisingly, particularly religious - I just don't like to see people whose thoughts are outside the mainstream being denigrated), nor the exact details. But I do remember when the scientists reached the top in the last panel, there sat a man labeled "Theologian" waiting for them.
Oh, to Keith Carrizosa - you really would rather burn our food than eat it? Check out what the overfarming of corn that's now occuring is doing to the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Mississippi. Oil is the natural fuel to burn. ICEs are extremely clean these days and oil is still plentiful. Ethanol is extremely inefficient in comparison.
BTW, I saw TDTESS yesterday and it is pathetic. Truly horrible. As you implied, Roger, they should have called it "Al Gore from Space" And Keannu is the perfect mannequin to play the stiff Gore.
Ebert: What are sources for your information about Obama?
The point of the film, despite what Ebert says, is NOT to particularly advocate for “Intelligent Design” or “Evolution” but to reveal an organized effort by what appears to be a great many Scientists and their institutions to advance “Atheistic Belief System” especially in the field of Biology and especially in the field of “Darwinism”. (Darwinism being related but different than the Theory of Evolution) The film also attacks the philosophy of “Materialism” or “Naturalism” as the only philosophic mechanism to explain the world. (Materialism and Naturalism are philosophies that power the field of Science). Ebert stubbornly, probably because of his own admitted bias, (anti-religious possibly?) refuses to acknowledge that this is the intent of the film but instead sets out to defend “Evolution” and ignore everything else that was said in the film. I maintain that ID was touched in about the first ¼ of the film and then done away with. Indeed, the film is not about Evolution or ID being a better explanation than Evolution despite how much Ebert wants to keep the conversation on that point. It is totally and utterly about the corruption of pure Science and the exclusion of all philosophies that could aid in explaining our world EXCEPT materialism.
Ebert also has remained silent on the idea that “Science” could be used to attack religion or be corrupted which the premise is clearly laid out in the film. He instead wants to concentrate on “Pure Science” which I and many others have no problem with, neither does the film. The problem is he refuses to acknowledge “Pure Science” can be abused by its practitioners. The film exposes this effectively and Ebert and others in this forum refuse to acknowledge this point. So let’s investigate the possibility of scientists who use “Science” for an “Agenda”. I have cited numerous examples below. Ebert will point out that these are “Opinions” because he dogmatically believes that even though man is corruptible, “Science” is not. So therefore it must be reasoned that those who teach and practice “Science” can be nothing but “Objective” thus “Pure”. He appears to mistakenly believe that the framework of Science alone has the pure power to “Force Objectivity” in the laboratory, the classroom and the textbook. This of course is VERY wishful thinking and pure nonsense. Let’s consult what the experts say shall we?
1.Harvard Biologist Professor Richard Lewontin on the philosophy of Materialism ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons” The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
2. Harvard Biologist E.O Wilson, "We have come to the crucial stage in the history of biology when religion itself is subject to the explanations of the natural sciences...someday soon the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come from its capacity to explain traditional religion, ITS’ CHEIF COMPETITOR, as a wholly material phenomenon." E.O Wilson, ON HUMAN NATURE (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), P 192.
3. Oxford Biologist Richard Dawkins confesses that, “Religion poses a major puzzle to anyone who thinks in a DARWINIAN way.” Richard Dawkins, “What use is Religion?” Free Inquiry, Vol 24, No 5.
4. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg writes, “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilizations.” Cited by George Johnson, “A-Free-For-All On Science and Religion”. New York Times, November 21st 2006
5. Oxford Biologist Richard Dawkins, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W.Norton, 1996). 6.
6. Biologist Francisco Ayala University of California Irvine, “Life is the result of a nautral process without any need to resort to a Creator”. Francisco Ayla, “Darwins Revolution,” in John Campbell and J.W. Schoff eds. Creative Evolution (New York: James and Bartlett Publishers 1994) 4-5
7. Cornell science Historian William B Provine, “Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society.” Cited by Kenneth R Miller, “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist search for Common Ground between God and Evolution” (New York: Harper Perennial 1999 )Pg 171
8. Biologist and DNA Structure Pioneer Francis Crick, “Consciousness is no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules”. Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Scribner 1995)3
9. Harvard Biologist E.O Wilson, “The Hidden operations of our mental activity give us the illusion of free will” Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (New York: Knopf 1998) 119-12
10. Harvard Experimental Psychologist Steven Pinker, “Religion has taught men that the immortal soul that inhabits our body is the Ghost in the Machine but through modern science the mind is purely the physiological activity of the brain and the brain, like other organs, is shaped by the genes and genes have been shaped by natural selection and other evolutionary processes, therefore the mind is nothing more than an entity in the physical world, part of a causal chain of physical events, therefore the soul or ghost in the machine has been exoricized”. Steven Pinker, “Is Science Killing the Soul” A Dialogue between Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins, London February 10th 1999.
Mid- Point: Scientists and Non-Believers scream out loud when alternatives to teaching just Darwinian Evolution only are brought up (Like ID) OR criticism of the theory makes its way into schools. They say that parents and school boards are retarding the advancement of science and knowledge. The Economist editorialized that, “Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis”. Question, if these critics are so concerned about the advancement of knowledge and Science as well as the integrity of Science, why is it then that survey after survey shows the VAST majority of young people in America today are scientifically illiterate, WIDELY ignorant of ALL aspects of science? If they don’t understand the Krebs cycle or Boyles law, why isn’t there political movements to fight for the proper teaching of these theories? Why isn’t the ACLU filing lawsuits on behalf of the “Krebs Cycle”.
Answer: For defenders of Darwinism, no less than its critics, RELIGION IS THE ISSUE. Just as some oppose the theory of evolution because they believe it to be anti-religious, MANY others support if for the very same reason. You will notice no one defines themselves as a “Newtonian”, or an “Einsteinian”. But many Scientists will define themselves as “Darwinists”. DARWINISM HAS BECOME AN IDEOLOGY. (I paraphrased all this from author Dinesh D’Souza)
Now that I have identified it is plausible that Scientists use and see Science and Darwinism as a means to marginalize and destroy religion. Let me provide some quotes from people who intend or suggest to do just that to by indoctrination through our tax-payer funded public schools.
1.Oxford Biologist Richard Dawkins, “Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the small pox virus but harder to eradicate, Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness”. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press 1989) Pgs330-31, Richard Dawkins, “Is Science a Religion?” The Humanist Jan/Feb 1997: The Improbability of God, Free Inquiry Vol 18 No 3
2.Polemicist and Committed Darwinist Christopher Hitchens, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?....Religion always hoped to practice upon the unformed and undefended minds of the young….if religious instruction were not allowed until the child attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite a different world. “ Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great:How religion poisons everything (New York: Twelve Books 2007) 217, 220.
3.Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief and I’m all for that, if Scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make”. Remarks by Steven Weinberg at the Freedom from Religion Foundation, San Antonio, November 1999
4.Harvard Biologist E.O Wilson, “If religion…can be systematically analyzed and explained as a product of the brain’s evolution, its power as an external source of morality will be gone forever.” E.O Wilson, “On Human Nature” (Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1978) 201
5.Harvard Biologist Richard Lewontin, ”Science education is not to provide the public with knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of but rather the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, SCIENCE as the ONLY begetter of truth.” Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons” New York Review of Books, January 9th 1997.
6.Tufts Philosopher Daniel Dennet suggests, “Schools should teach religion as only a purely natural phenomenon” by this meaning taught as if it were untrue. By studying religion on the premise that there is no supernatural truth underlying it, he argues that young people will come to accept religion as a social creation pointing to nothing higher that human hopes and aspirations. Daniel Dennet, “Darwins Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the meaning of Life” (New York: Simon and Schuster 1995) Pg 519
7.Neuroscientist and Author Sam Harris argues that Atheism should be taught as a mere extension of science and logic, “Atheism is not a philosophy, it is not even a view of the world, It is simply an admission of the obvious…Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.” Sam Harris Interview
8.Deceased Scientist and Public Advocate Carl Sagan opened his show Cosmos with the following metaphysical trademark slogan teaching the public , “The cosmos is all there is or ever was, or ever will be”. (I.E The natural world is all that exists) …This is not delivered or identified as a metaphysical claim but as an authoritative finding of Science by a revered public figure. Cosmos Series, PBS
9.The mass affect of this indoctrination is not the eradication of Religion but what writer Jonathan Rauch calls “Apatheism” defined as a “disinclination to care all that much about one’s own religion and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people’s,” Indeed many Christians are unaware “Apatheists”, according to Rauch, “This is not a lapse but an Achievement.” Jonathan Rauch, “Let it Be,” Atlantic Monthly, May 2003
10.Planetary Scientist Carolyn Porco from University of Colorado, Boulder, “We should let the success of the religious formula Guide Us…lets teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome and even comforting that anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know. Cited by George Johnson, “A Free-for-All on Science and Religion,” New York Times November 21, 2006
11.Oxford Biologist Richard Dawkins, “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? Its one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their believes on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods? Isn’t it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought out? Cited by Gary Wolf, “The Church of the Non-Believers,” Wired, November 2006; Dawkins, The God Delusion 315.
12.Tufts University Philosopher Daniel Dennet, “Parents don’t literally own their children the way slave owners once owned slaves, but are, rather their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere. “ Dennett, Breaking the Spell 324, 326
13.Psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, London School of Economics, ”Parents, correspondingly, have no God-Given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. “Nicholas Humprhey, “What Shall We Tell the Children?” Oxford Amnesty Lecture, 1997.
14.Deceased Princeton Philosopher Richard Rorty, “Secular Professors in universities ought to arrange things so that students who ever as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with view more like our own, students are fortunate to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft of people like me and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents. Parents who send their children to college should recognize that as professors we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.” Cited by Jason Boffetti, “How Richard Rorty Found Religion,” First Things, May 2004
15.Harvard Biologist Kenneth Miller, a committed catholic AND anti-ID advocate, who testified in court in favor of evolution, admits, “A presumption of atheism or agnosticism is universal in academic life, the conventions of academic life, almost universally, revolve around the assumption that religious belief is something that people grow out of as they become educated”. Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (New York: Harper Perennial, 1999) pg 19, 184.
16.93% of Scientists affiliated with the National Academy of Scientists are committed Atheists or Agnostics. Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, “ Leading Scientists still reject God.” Nature 394 (1998), 313.
17.According to Polmecist Dinesh D’Souza, “The strategy is not to argue with Religious views or prove them wrong. Rather it is to subject them to such scorn that they are pushed outside the bounds of acceptable debate. This strategy is effective because young people who go to good colleges are extremely eager to learn what it means to be an educated Harvard Man or Stanford Woman. Similarly, teachers can pressure students to abandon what their parents taught them simply by labeling those positions simplistic and unsophisticated. A Second Strategy, commonly used to promote atheism on Campus utilizes the vehicle of adolescent sexuality. “Against the power of religion,” one champion of agnosticism told me, “we use the power of the hormones.” Atheism is promoted as a means for young people to liberate themselves from moral constraint and indulge their appetites. Religion, in this framework, is portrayed as a form of sexual repression.” Dinesh D’Souza: Whats so Great about Christianity, (Regenry Publishing: 2007) pg 36
So Ebert and others, children spend the majority of their waking hours in school. Parents invest a good portion of their life savings in college education to entrust their offspring to people who are supposed to educate them. I find it fascinating that educators have figured out a way to make parents the instruments of their own undoing. Isn’t it brilliant that they have persuaded Christian moms and dads to finance the destruction of their own beliefs and values? Who said atheists weren’t clever? What say you Ebert? Is that right? Or is all of this the product of a mass paranoia of the highly emotive, highly irrational minds of religious peoples? The vast majority of people above practice Science and believed their opinions to be superiorly informed by their lifelong practice of "Science".
Question: Why should my tax dollars go to people who want to abuse Science to indoctrinate my children against me? I'm not even going to get into the validity of "Art" if the people above were allowed to explain with their "Atheist Materialist" Framework. I'm sure Ebert would defend their opinions of that subject even and I wonder why?
Ebert: Now that your education has been completed, this will be on the final:
Define as a working scientist uses them, the following terms:
In preparing your answer, you may use any general interest dictionary or encyclopedia.
Reply to: Fred: The point of the film, despite what Ebert says, is to reveal an organized effort.. to advance “Atheistic Belief System”.. Question: Why should my tax dollars go to people who want to abuse Science to indoctrinate my children against me?
Because they're doing it in the Name of Good.
Deceased Princeton Philosopher Richard Rorty, “Secular Professors in universities... are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.”
OK, Fred, you've right. Some college professors think fundamentalist religious beliefs are silly. However, such beliefs ARE silly, so that's not a Bad Thing.
Christianity is nonsense. Total, complete nonsense. You can quote about five or six humanistic doctrines such as "Love your enemies" and "Turn the other cheek..." which don't always work in the real world.
... but the vast majority of Christianity is such complete nonsense, children need therapy after being indoctrinated.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. The heavens will pass away with a great noise. The elements will melt with a fervent heat. Both the earth and the works in it will be burned up....
That's the End of the World... and it didn't happen. I checked. It's not on the BBC site, anywhere.
Try reading the New Testament and you might understand. ALL the words.
Resurrection... the dead coming back to life... is a Ghost Story.
Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened, and the bodies of the dead were made to stand up, and coming out of the graves after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
I've mentioned Recruitment. Let me explain how the Recruitment Factor works.
Gospel of Luke 10:10 Jesus told his 70 disciples, "If you enter a city and they do not receive you, go out into its streets... But I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city. Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! And you, Capernaum, at the judgment you will be thrust down to Hades!" Then the 70 returned with joy, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name."
I edited this a bit for clarity... but Jesus makes a prediction about the Day of Judgment. Any city where his disciples are not given food and housing will be "thrust down to Hades". The entire city. And his disciples are filled with joy because they can command demonic spirits in the name of Jesus.
This... is... nonsense.
These verses are nothing but propoganda written as a tool to recruit new victims to an End of the World cult. Jesus had no way to "know" that all the inhabitants of a city named Capernaum would be punished at the End of the World. Somebody just made this stuff up. It's fiction. It's not anything that children should ever believe is real.
So, sending your kids to college is still a good thing. Now all you have to do is pay for it.
Roger
Why not review this like any other movie? Is there something so objectionable that it warrants a novella? In your fulminations you reveal more about yourself than about this movie. Stick to movies and leave the other stuff to the Op-ed page. Dan
Ebert: This is a blog entry, Dan. I can fulminate all I want.
Bill,
I didn't say I was a Biblical Literalist, if you want to talk to Biblical Literalists, and question them, please do. Also please note that the Bible contains and combines all forms of literature into a single package. The Bible is not just "Non-Fiction". Also note that extremely intelligent people have spent their entire lifetime studying and trying to understand what you dismiss out of hand with some kind of Post-Modernist wave of your hand and with extra added emphasis in rude reactionary contempt for classical knowledge.
Roger,
I'm confident I can answer your final question with a passing grade from you but I'm tired of writing now so you win. I'm probably going to finish my comments up now on this blog. Thank you for your responses. So I will put you three final questions.
1. Do you believe it is possible for the "Opinions of Scientists" to find their way into "Science" an push an agenda that is contrary to "Pure Science" and may even be used in an agenda, for example, such as one that may employ subtle but deliberate means to attack religion, in the lab, in the periodicals, in scientific organizations, in the classroom and in the textbook?
2. Do you generally agree with all or a majority of the statements I quoted previously by many famous Scientists and Biologists, many of whom were actually interviewed in "Expelled".
3. Do you believe the philosophy of "Materialism" is the most all encompassing, logical, meaningful and really the best and one true way to explain the world and the Universe for that matter and that all others philosophies are really just constructs whose origins, whether advocates know it or not, lie in "Material Causes". (I.E We just haven't found the "God" Gene or "God" Module yet but we will...and that will explain that house of cards, etc, etc.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo (Funny John Cleese)
For those interested in a good critical read on this topic seek David Berlinski's: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266
P.S I find Physics to be a more interesting search for design. This is a good clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUWqXbdjvgU&feature=related
Finally do you think "Watchmen" is going to be a good film? I'm excited and isn't "A Man for All Seasons" a fantastic film?
To John Q Vaxley
Corn exports are at the largest in U.S. history. There is no shortage.
Here are the figures from our own governments U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Newsletter/nf761103.pdf
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/May07SpecialIssue/Features/Ethanol.htm You don't have to read those, I'll be putting a different USDA link up.
As the second article states, cellulosic ethanol is on its way, as the last paragraph states,sugar cane from brazil is a way to go. But hey, if you mandate Obama's policy for flex-fuel cars, we can stop subsidizing corn, and drop trade barriers because right now we are taxing brazilian ethanol to protect our farmers. We could drop them, and so could the world, and stop being unfair to thrid world countries as Chavez unfortunately points out against us, and has some truth on his side. We could show the world we are fair, and shut him up--he and the Saudi started this false campaign against ethanol. Prince Bin Talel owns 5% of newscorp (foxnews, wall street journal) and aol/time warner (CNN, time magazine, which printed a cover story recently against ethanol). They don't have very good potential in their desert climate for agricultrure, but our friends do, and we could drop the trade barriers that have been in the Doha talks since world war 2, shifting hundreds of billions of dollars to third world tropcial agricultural secotrs instead of our enemies, who we fund more than our own side...this year we will pay more for oil than our secretary of defense.
in 2003 10 billion of bushels of corn were made in america
1 billion bushels went to ethanol
in 2007 14 billion bushels of corn grown in America.
They used 3 billion for ethanol, they had 11 billion leftover for food and feed.
Production grew 33%, even while ethanol production tripled. It stimulated corn growth.
As this article from USDA says, 3 billion bushels were used for ethanol, as everything else increased, not decreased.http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1898/corn_use_facts.pdf It was high energy prices that affected it, and everything else, making us in this recession we are in.
It did not rise the food prices, the price of fuel did...and also a little bit of china and india's rather rapid economic growth, which is what should be expected and other goods, but it was mainly high oil prices arbitrarily raised at will by OPEC. And as I said, it doesnt have to be just ethanol, it can be methanol from coal, which the republicans are advocating to use for gasoline not realizing the first step to making it is turning it to methanol, then dimethyl ether, then propylene, then to gasoline--a very expensive process, when methanol is the first step in that.
Then you mentioned nitrogen pollution in the Gulf of Mexico from fertilizers from growing corn. Yes, I just read an article stating that it has been happening since 1985, long before the corn boom (also from soil erosion, sewage, and industrial pollution). But yes, the corn ethanol, I suppose from that article was saying that corn ethanol could be pushing it over the cliff for the "Dead Zone" in that area. It said that there were going to maybe put laws in place to put buffer zones to prevent runoff from going into the oceans. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22301669/page/2/ .
From dimethyl ether from methanol bio-diesel can be made, for truck drivers and airplanes.
There are only 16 billion barrels of oil in Anwar. That is a desperation play that we may have to play one day, but once we do, its done--we played it. We're importing 5 billion barrels this year. How long do you think that oil will last us? That's the holy grail right there: we only have 4 % of the world's oil reserves, and in 20 years it will be 1 %, while the middle east will have 80%--we will be getting our one percent back that we put in the global market, while they will be 80 % of the revenue back that they put in. We are about 70% dependent on foreign oil, and the oil is a global commodity, which means that countries like the middle east that don't like us, or the world, and fund terrorism, will be getting 80% of the revenue.
ICEs? Hydrogen cars? Spencer Abraham started this bunk policy and is now taking Saudi money as a lobbyist being paid through the United Emirates. First page, last paragraph http://english.washingtonprism.org/showarticle.cfm?id=147 .
Colin Powell also took a Jaguar from Prince Bandar a week after he retired, which would have been illegal while in office, and he could have stopped Saudi Arabia from sending terrorists into Iraq killing our soldiers..but hey, its a Jag. Google it.
So, Obama's policy will start the way for worldwide agricultrual growth, which will cool the planet.
To Fred,
Well, first let me say that you can drop a college class in 14 days. So, I guess I'll say that you mean to tell me that all of these teachers are so patient as to wait til after those first 14 days,when you can drop their class, to start their undoing? And speaking of undoing, if kids were really raised well, a mere science teacher will be their undoing as adults? Those patient (at least for the first 14 days), free-will and free thinking interfering bastards. I came to science class to praise Jesus, and now I can't. Why does the teacher have total command of my soul? Aw, sigh.
I must say, if that's true, then "Expelled" is the lamest movie of all time...and I thought kids had it bad with their "Barney and Friends" and such.
And claiming that teachers have control of adults souls...Should we gather our pitchforks and burn them at the stake for being witches?
I don't understand why some IDists insist that ID MUST contradict evolution. They concede that the "designer(s)" can be any number; the "designer(s)" can be anthropormophic or not...but when asked any method of bringing about said "design" could've been employed, the answer is---specifically---"not evolution".
There is no reason why ID can't accept evolution. If ID was not being tainted by those biased against evolution, would it not be something worth looking into?
Reply to John Q Vaxy "Thus making the chances of the prodigious missing-link mutation astronomical just as described in "Expelled"."
There is no such thing as a "missing link" beyond the grossly generalized adage used to over-simplify the evolutionary tree branch of humans.
Imagine that famous 'evolution of man' picture but stretched out to include every generation way back to one you'd recognize as an ape. Evolutionarily speaking, there would be no single generation where you could determine a transition or so-called 'link'. Evolution happens so slowly, one bit at a time that even large blocks of generations would look almost identical.
Creationists claim this is bad theory since some of those fossils don't exist and so no doubt divine intervention was needed to create Neanderthal man, a.k.a. Adam. They claim NM coincidently walked very ape-like (and I'm not joking) because of a huge Vitamin D deficiency back then.(don’t forget the big flood caused an ice-age and probably inciting a rash of beach closings too.)
Geologist Donald Prothero claims the 'missing link' is a lie invented by Creationists. It seems to me, when I look at creationistontheweb.com and other outposts; their corpus is simply finding holes in Evolution to stick Bible passages in. Hilarious
Because why then, if God had set evolution in place, and it worked beautifully for 4 billion years finally creating a sophisticated ape, would it completely break down and refuse to evolve a virtually identical Human? It reminds me of planning an extensive vacation. You think you've remembered everything until you get on the plane where you suddenly realize you've forgotten your cell phone charger.
And if he's going have to boot up the creation machine one more time, why take a billion lines of DNA code and only change handful of them? And if he's giving us bigger brains, why not remove the war chromosome while your there? I mean think of how many unanswered prayers in foxholes he could avoid.
So I've said above he's clearly not all that omnipotent and omniscient and now he seems by no means insightful. He really should be fired for incompetence. Or at least not get a bonus this epoch.
Obviously, a proper documentary should address both sides and let the viewer decide, unless it’s plainly clear that it's one man's opinion. But Ebert's blog didn’t convey that to me. I would love to see this movie if there was an antidote to it in the same way that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was the diametrical opposition to "An Inconvenient Truth". So maybe I'll rent this and Religulous over the Festivus break.
so you believe in aliens and crystals. whats a cell? whats a species. big bang no? the complexity of a single cell still baffles us not to mention atoms. if religion is proven you have to live with your choices. say it created for control but your looking at it upside down
Let me get this straight. You mock Stein for accepting an "intelligent designer", but embrace the whole alien and molecules riding piggy back on crystal theory? Insane!
Ebert: I never mentioned aliens. I cited the crystal possibility as a hypothesis, which the scientific studies I mentioned seem to have advanced. Stein uses the "piggy back" language which you credit to me. Nobody that I know of believes an alien race came here and somehow deposited life. There is a hypothesis that life spores may have arrived here buried within meteorites. I do not embrace either. How did you get the idea I do?
Holy Crap! You people are still debating this? You can debate until the verse caves in, it doesn't change how things work. Existence does not require our recognition or belief, nor our participation. But here we are, debating. Ah, existence. Where would we be without it?
Ebert: All quite true. Would you therefore be prepared to risk the $1 million?
May clarify something first? A million is a big chunk of change. The original question is framed as an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. If I may be so bold, this is a loaded question; it presupposes evolution. The real question appears to be whether life arose through Darwinian evolutionary processes (methodological naturalism) or supernatural creation. Is that correct?
Ebert: Question "involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet." Does Darwin or ID better explain it? Asks nothing about how life arose. It either evolved as Darwin suggests, or evolved from an intelligent design.
Roger, in one of your earlier entries - I think it was the one about the "Third most important news story of the year" - I noted that religions often maintain people in a state of intellectual childhood. ALthough I thought at the time that this was an insight that came from my own thoughts, I have stumbled across a quote from Eric Hoffer, which led me to look him up. Wikipedia discusses his work, particularly his most influential book "The True Believer", which wikipedia describes as follows:
Hoffer was among the first to recognize the central importance of self-esteem to psychological well-being...Hoffer focused on the consequences of a lack of self-esteem. Concerned about the rise of totalitarian governments, especially those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, he tried to find the roots of these "madhouses" in human psychology. He postulated that fanaticism and self-righteousness are rooted in self-hatred, self-doubt, and insecurity. As he describes in "The True Believer", he believed a passionate obsession with the outside world or with the private lives of other people is merely a craven attempt to compensate for a lack of meaning in one's own life.
The mass movements discussed in "The True Believer" include religious mass movements as well as political, including extensive discussions of Islam and Christianity. They also include seemingly benign mass movements which are neither political nor religious. A core principle in the book is Hoffer's insight that mass movements are interchangeable...For the true believer the substance of the mass movement isn't so important as that he or she is part of that movement.
In the section of his other writings, Wikipedia writes:
He...notes that mass movements and juvenile mindsets tend to go together to the point that anyone, no matter what age, who joins a mass movement immediately begins to exhibit juvenile behavior.
I should have known that this wasn't an idea that originated with me. However, it would go a long way to explaining some of the petulance and rudeness that some of the posters seem to display.
But it does beg the question...is the juvenile mindset something intrinsic in the state of being part of a mass movement? Or is it something that mass movements instinctively inculcate in their members, to avoid too critical examination of the movement's a priori arguments?
Of course, now I'm going to have to find a copy of "The True Believer" and read it...one more book to go on the stack.
O durn it! Surry Rodgur I fogot yu had da throte problum a ways bak en now yous cant speek so gud. I opologize fo dat. Dont werry yous culd wach sum uf yer old talkin picshur clips two hears yosef speeking reel purty. cause yous sho did talk purty befo da cansur or watnot. mabee yous get an evul sprirut in yous throte since yous been speekin da Obamanations of evolushun. i culd have a preechur i know lay hands on yous throte and command da fowl demons to COME OUT!! Mabee den yous culd speek reel purty like yous did befo dat evul spirut got in der.
oh weerd did yous notice dat da word Obamanation is spelt like our presidunts furst name? hope he doznt get da evil spirut like yous did, cuz he speeks reel purty two!
Reply to: Bill, I didn't say I was a Biblical Literalist, if you want to talk to Biblical Literalists,
No, what I said was, you need to read the Bible LITERALLY before you can understand what it is. You can't skip over chapters or ignore them. Every word was written in, by hand, for a reason. Anyone who isn't willing to be a "Biblical Literalist" for a few moments is wasting my time.
Reply to: The Bible is not just "Non-Fiction".
Actually, the Bible may be 100% fiction. I've found one small description of Peter denying that he knew Jesus that sounds authentic.
Reply to: Also note that extremely intelligent people have spent their entire lifetime studying and trying to understand what you dismiss out of hand with some kind of Post-Modernist wave of your hand and with extra added emphasis in rude reactionary contempt for classical knowledge.
I have found little evidence of "extremely intelligent people" writing modern books... OK, Sam Harris. Certainly NOT Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell. Before 1859, Creationism was a "pretty good" explanation for how humans appeared, but today, no "moderately intelligent person" does anything but laugh at Creationists. Classical knowledge started from the wrong assumption. They didn't realize that the people who wrote the New Testament were con men running an End of the World cult. Today, it's more obvious.
What you missed is... I've spent far too many years studying this area. I don't dismiss anything without a reason and justification. I become frustrated when I walk into a library at Biola or Notre Dame or a Department of Religion at a legitimate university... and realize every single book in the library is wrong.
We've looked at surveys where 45% or 70% or 85% of Americans think the Bible is literally true. What I'm saying is, No one has the correct answer. The New Testament is a Sales Pitch. Peter ran a cult where victims sold their property and gave Peter the money. After Peter died, the NT was edited and re-written to attact new victims. Every word makes sense... as a way to FOOL gullible people. You can date them very precisely. Before 70 AD, when the Temple was destroyed by Titus, or post-70 AD.
Creationism is a fraud. Many of the people involved in the fraud start from the premise that the First Creation Myth in Genesis is a more reliable source of knowledge than modern science, because a supernatural God was actually present at the Creation. So, the fraud came from the people who WROTE the Creation Myth. In the Myth, there were trees bearing fruit on earth before any of the stars existed. Third-graders should be able to figure out that the story is wrong, although they might say "I don't take that part literally." The problem of Creationism is people who do take it literally. We're attacking THAT problem. And I'm doing my best to give you the Correct Answer. Once you know what the Gospel of Mark is, then it all makes sense. If you don't know what it is, you wind up with Hitler announcing that he's doing Christianity a service by killing the people who refused to acknowledge Jesus as the world's Savior.
Reply to: Parents invest a good portion of their life savings in college education to entrust their offspring to people who are supposed to educate them... they have persuaded Christian moms and dads to finance the destruction of their own beliefs and values?
I left this out earlier: it's extremely doubtful that your offspring are intelligent enough to figure out what Christianity really is. Too many Defense Mechanisms. Look at how many IDEA groups exist on college campuses. A college education is a good start, but for the most part, a child can't get rid of the garbage inflicted on him before the age of ten. Some call them nightmares. Others go into therapy.
This is a very simple Truth. A book where the Hero confronts an unclean spirit (pneuma, provide your own definition) and the demon begs the Hero not to send him back to the Abyss, so the hero sends the demon into a herd of swine instead.... that story is Fiction. It shouldn't fool anyone. Yet, it does. Millions of Americans honestly believe it happened exactly that way. Four years at college won't change that.
"Looking at the credits on imdb.com, Ben Stein is listed as a writer, but given some of the other comments made on this entry about Stein having been hired for the job, I suspect he wrote his own dialogue and was otherwise a hired gun. If so, I'm sure he sits at home sometimes, surfs the net, sees all the vitriol aimed at him for this film, and wonders, 'Why are they mad at me? I was just the mouthpiece.'"
Wrong, wrong, wrong. He admits that he was approached with the idea of this movie and he wanted to call it "From Darwin to Hitler". My opinion is that he actually believed that "new ideas are being suppressed" and "people are being fired for holding certain opinions". Even after the movie was released, he went around promoting it and made the "science leads to killing people" remark. Perhaps he didn't know how mad people were going to be when he signed his contract, but he started his blog in August, 2007 and it was pretty clear very quickly after that that a lot of people were going to be angry with him. But he didn't back down even after the film was released. So he knew he was the star and he knew he was a lot more than a mere mouthpiece.
Thanks for another extremely well-written and insightful piece of writing. I'm something of a theistic evolutionist myself. God oversaw/used the evolutionary process to develop life. I'm a huge fan of your work and appreciate to no end your massive body of writing on movies.
I would like to join the chorus of voices that raised an eyebrow your objection to Expelled being "cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions" when these tactics are indeed the modus operandi of the Michael Moore, et al. Even as a "conservative" in a few respects, I'm a huge fan of Moore for these very reasons. This is the prerogative of the biased filmmaker - Michael Moore, Ben Stein or otherwise -- and part of the joy of watching polarized films. Instead of debating endlessly about the definitions of "theory", "opinion", "belief", etc, let's just be honest that both sets of movies are seeking to persuade and are using mean-spirited cinematic shortcuts to do it, either during production or in editing. It seems pretty clear, Mr. Ebert, that you don't like these shortcuts as they are used in Expelled.
Rather than being "cheerfully ignorant" of the obvious similarities between the tactics used in Expelled and other similarly biased material, nitpicking on who asked who to use a comb or apply make-up, and decrying these manipulations as categorically as you seem to in your blog, just explain why you didn't like them here and did like them in other cases. If it's because you didn't like the conclusions, great. If it's because they were poorly used, great. But blaming the tactics themselves is way too tenuous an argument for a logical mind of your caliber.
Thanks again for years of great work!
Dear Roger,
Even Stephen Jay Gould himself couldn't have eviscerated Stein as well, though he certainly would have taken the trouble to try.
Incidentally, Gould and yourself are possibly both convincing evidence for and ample reason to hope for the validity of reincarnation.
Ebert: You would hope for the reincarnation of the author of my review of "Last House on the Left?"
Mr. Ebert,
First off, let me just say, I’ve been a fan of your writing for some time. While I don’t always agree with your point of view, I thoroughly respect your intellect and facility with words. This essay/review/blog is a wonderful example of both. However, there is something about it that bothers me a bit. Why the overriding tone of disdain and anger? Having not seen the film, I will take you at your word that it’s crap. But you, and many of the folks posting here (Bill Hays – Dude, take a toke and chill), seem to be taking great glee in tearing down people of faith. I don’t really understand why that is. If you think I’m a silly, intellectual buffoon for being a Christian, then that’s totally cool. I have no problem with that. I can see where believing that a carpenter who lived 2,000 years ago is the Messiah might seem a little loopy. To each his own. But, that’s the point. Why not just let me wallow in my silliness? I’m not hurting you, and you, most certainly, don’t have to adopt my viewpoint. I don’t think any less of you for not believing. To be honest, I don’t happen to subscribe to the notion of “Intelligent Design.” I’ve personally never found the concepts of Evolution and God to be mutually exclusive, but that’s probably due to some fundamental lack of sophistication on my part. However, if someone wants to believe in ID, then fine. It’s all good. That’s why they make 31 flavors of ice cream. So, we all get one we like.
Now, I know one of your main points (aside from the review of the film itself) is that ID should not be taught as science, and I don’t disagree with you. But why take it so personally if someone else does disagree? Make your point, let them make theirs, and let the chips fall where they may. There’s no need to be overly snarky or mean (despite what Bill Maher may think).
Finally, as with most other things in this life, if you want your kids to disregard something, then it’s up to you to raise them so that they will. Don’t worry about the folks living next door. Anyway, I will end my goofy ramblings now and leave you with these words of wisdom: “Can’t we all just get along?”
Ebert: Nothing at all in my entry tears down Christians or dismisses people of faith. I am opposed to ID because I think it is demonstrably not science and does not belong in our classrooms. That virtually every ID subscriber is a Christian is a fact, just as it's a fact that most Christians have no problem with the Theory of Evolution. I think the tone of the entry, whatever it is, is more than justified by Stein's shameful use of the Holocaust in support of his cause.
Bill
1. I wish you well.
2. No offense, but ahh you seem to have a kind of angry incoherent rambling to your writing.
3. There is an element of conspiratorial themes (Or should I say "Schemes") about the motivations of early Christians that you, and maybe some other fringe group appear to have uncovered. Perhaps you can get "Peter" on the record like Expelled did with some of the "Scientists" it interviewed.
4. Your comment about "100% Fiction" and the "Peter Denying Jesus being truth" is welll...I don't know.
5. I'm not a "Creationist" if you mean the literal interpretation of the Genesis Account. However I find it more plausible that the universe and everything in it was created by an intelligence.
6. Regarding "Writing Modern Books" I don't recall mentioning that...what I recall saying is that very intelligent people have studied the Bible throughout the ages and that you appear to dismiss classical knowledge (I.E Wisdom) very quickly and disdainfully.
7. So you walk into "Libraries" at Religious Universities and apparently all the scholarly work represented is quote "Wrong" and to be dismissed. Hmmm, Okay.
8. I'm glad you and the Superfriends are out to save the world from the evil Biblical Literalists. May the Materialist/Reductionist God grant you success on your quest.
9. I'm glad you wish my offspring well and thank you for the kind note. He is only 2 and doing fine. I'm curious where your really wanted to go with the last paragraph in your rant. If this was a private conversation, it would be interesting to hear what you would "Do" about these evil brainwashing parents and their destruction of these young fragile pups minds, who have been kept from "The Truth" as it were? Right Napoleon, Oink Oink?
Mr. Hayes, you continually make ad hominem fallacies. You also state “I've spent far too many years studying this area”. I’m sure your hoping everyone takes your word for it Bill. I walked into Biola’s library too once, so does that make me an expert too? The fact is, if people really want well reasoned arguments, they know where to find Augustine.
When Jesus cast the demons into the swine, since it doesn’t line up with what your idea of a symmetrical clean cut religion should be, you dismiss it. In fact, these parts that seem like detours are actually part of the reason I believe it. It does not seem like what someone would make up to attract people. It is difficult at many times. It takes reading many times, and it constant reveals. It’s not some clear cut easy set of rules and platitudes. The Bible isn’t for the masses, it’s written for the individual. That’s what’s amazing about it.
And a cult to make money? Christianity started in a backwater Roman province. Emporers threw Christians into the coliseum to watch them be eaten by wild animals. That’s not great for the marketing image. Jesus says narrow is the way. That’s bad marketing too.
Peter was an ordinary everyday fisherman, not some diabolical cult mastermind. He was crucified upside down. All the disciples except for one died brutal executions. Why would all these people die for lies?
There is also more reason to believe the gospels are historically accurate than there is to believe Homer wrote the Illiad. Read F.F. Bryce. You know what happens when some very intelligent people set out to disprove to authenticity of the gospels? They ended up believing them to be authentic.
When I read a lot of what you write, it just sounds like propaganda meant to make people feel dumb if they don’t agree with you. I believe it’s like this: I’m comfortable if you disagree with me. God gives you the free will to make that decision. Christ didn’t die for humanity, He died for the individual human being. He would have done no less than what He did if there were only one person to do it for. And God appeals to the individual. The primary way anyone understands anything is through experience. I saw this video where Christopher Hitchens was saying how ridiculous it was for one of the lead scientists on the human genome project to believe in God because one day that scientist was walking in the woods and saw a waterfall frozen in three branching streams. Hitchens acted as though that were ridiculous, as if that experience should be appealing to him, or as if that scientist should first convince everyone else that the frozen waterfall meant that God existed, or as if human beings should only be logical rational creatures, and not the mix of logical rational/mythopoeic creatures that we truly are. That scientist had a moment of revelation were he made the leap of faith towards God. It was meant only for him. We may or may not understand it, but we will never experience that specific moment that he had. If people need assurance that other very intelligent, rational human beings were also Christians, well they’re out there in spades, from the present day into the remote past. Many times they were great scientists as well. There’s your pat on the back. Now if you’re really searching out Christ, He says seek and you will find. Don’t let Mr. Hayes frighten you with his straw men.
I agree totally with your takedown of this bag o' wind, but there's a point being lost that I think is rather important: criticizing Evolutionary theory on the basis of it's supposed "results" is ridiculous. Even if it were true that knowledge of our origins caused the holocaust and other atrocities, that has no bearing on the fundamental truth or fiction of the idea. Truth doesn't depend on pleasant outcomes - what's true is true, regardless of where that knowledge leads the stupid.
(SPOILERS for "The Day The Earth Stood Still.")
Reply to: When Jesus cast the demons into the swine... you dismiss it. In fact, these parts that seem like detours are actually part of the reason I believe it.
Yes, it does seem like a detour, doesn't it?
Any idea why?
The original text was circulated for twenty years or so, and then a later copy was made by hand, where the editor ADDED the little detours. Like the women visiting an Empty Tomb.
I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but a detour where a demon calls Jesus "the Holy One of God"... means the story is FICTION. That's a