Expelled: conspiracy or claptrap?

Also, I agree with your sentiments that you do not need Darwinian evolution to justify a genocide (just take a look at the recent African examples), but it certainly does provide a very nice platform of justification for one, especially in a climate of moral relativism.

Also, if you read Hitler’s own writings in relation to racial superiority, there are whole paragraphs that appear to have been lifted directly from the writings of Darwin.

It is also clear that Stalin was very fond of Darwin’s ideas as he saw them as a scientific justification for his oppressive regime.

I don’t really have too much of a problem with Stein’s film - I haven’t seen it yet, but I hope to.

I think you have been a bit harsh on Stein, who I think is doing science a favor by exposing the bias’, and resulting hypocrisy, that exists within academia when it comes to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

As far as I was aware this wasn’t meant to be a science film, instead it was meant to be an expose of the prejudice that is leveled against those who raise legitimate questions about evolutionary theory.

The simple fact is that pure evolutionary theory cannot account for the origins of life, only for certain aspects of development after life had already begun.

Yet despite this, many scientists are using evolutionary theory as an explanation for how life began - thus they have simply created a polar opposite to Intelligent Design philosophy, except their’s is simply Unintelligent Design.

The real issue that Stein’s movie exposes is the fact that the natural sciences have been separated from philosophy and theology, thus resulting in a situation where the natural sciences now view themselves as being superior to philosophy and theology - the result being the error of scientism and empiricism.

From what I have read, many scientists seem to be unaware of just how philosophically unsound, and therefore unreasonable, some of their ideas about evolution have become.

Hopefully this film, despite its foibles, will help to facilitate the important discussion about natural science and philosophy that desperately needs to be had.

For any serious thinker, particularly for people with a background in physics, chemistry and higher mathematics, the issues are neither as trivial nor as cut and dried as Mr. Belna suggests.

“As De Lacalle points out, there are scientists who come down squarely in favor of evolutionary biology AND squarely in favor of Christianity - and as demonstrated by Father Gearheart’s posts, there are priests who do as well. They likely credit themselves with a certain open-minded sophistication which permits them to simultaneously find a home in both camps, but it is ultimately a dodge. Darwinian evolution does not hold that there was a long sequence of events that were put in motion long ago, like so many dominoes falling onto each other - in fact, the theory of evolution (as taught in colleges today) explicitly rejects any preconceived structures, processes, or goals. Rather, all life as we know it is purely an artifact of random, undirected events.”

This strikes me as a rather brash statement.  Although it is certainly possible for a person to conceive a literalist interpretation of scripture which contradicts any credible scientific interpretation of the fossil record, together with any credible interpretation of the facts of geophysics, together with any credible interpretation of the data of cosmology, this is a rather extreme case that need not concern serious believers who are willing to grant that God is the source of both scripture and the laws of physics and chemistry.  As for the relationship between structure and randomness, it might be helpful to point out that the behavior of the universe at the quantum level is known to incorporate random effects of integral importance.  This does not, however, obviate the potential of matter to evolve from a simple plasma to a variety of complex forms, including what we call today, heavy elements like Uranium and Plutonium, and all without any additional input from God.  The laws of physics which God invented are quite sufficient to account for these transitions from simple structure to more complex structure.

I have to agree with Fr. Larry on this one.  This is really a discussion of “how” versus “why”.  For a discussion of “how” the universe works, we turn to science.  For a discussion of “why” things are the way they are, we go down the hall to the philosophy department.  By trying to limit the “how” based on the philosophy, you’re making the same mistake certain scientists make when they try to limit the “why” based on science.

To: Ron Henderson
I asked “Which “facts” does “Big Science” reject that would disprove evolution?”
You do not present facts. You only offer recriminations.
Par for the course!

I totally agree that evolution and Christianity are diametrically opposed to each other. The two can never harmonise. Evolution displays a total rejection of God’s creative acts as found in the Bible. Biblical creation does not accept any form of evolution that teaches that life progresses from nothing into complexity; neither does it accept that God started life and left it to evolve. Speciation is perfectly normal and very biblical; it is not evolution in any shape or form. There are hundreds of differrent dogs, but they are all dogs; so also for every kind of animals including humans. Because the Bible presents origins as done by God does not make scientific facts presented by biblical scientists as religion. Science is neither religious nor darwinian. Science is simply knowledge that we accumulate through reflection, observation, induction, deduction, experimentation, and silence, regardless of who the observer is, godly or ungodly. Because God exists does not mean that everything a Christian does must be labeled religious and unacceptable. I guess the real truth is that men do not know nor understand the love that God has for them; and his desire to save them from their sins.

There are many instances of ‘Big science’ refusing to give an ear to creationism. The educational media refuses to allow creationism a chance to teach the children an alternate theory of origins. They speak strongly against it because the scientists are against it. The evolution scientists resisted strongly the states that designated evolution as ‘one of the theories of origins.’ They present evolution as a fact and not as a theory; any other theory is fanciful they claim. Those evolution scientists (Behe, Denton,etc.) who propose a new look at evolution in light of ID are shunned. Schools have been teaching that the human foetus goes through various animal stages before becoming human, creationists have shown this to be nonsense; but the texts still carry the diagram and some educators refuse to remove it. Montreal and Europe wish to ban creation from schools. There is much more of the resistance of scientists who do not believe in God to viewing creation arguments in schools that can be demonstrated, but that is open for all to see so I need not say much more on this.

As De Lacalle points out, there are scientists who come down squarely in favor of evolutionary biology AND squarely in favor of Christianity - and as demonstrated by Father Gearheart’s posts, there are priests who do as well. They likely credit themselves with a certain open-minded sophistication which permits them to simultaneously find a home in both camps, but it is ultimately a dodge. Darwinian evolution does not hold that there was a long sequence of events that were put in motion long ago, like so many dominoes falling onto each other - in fact, the theory of evolution (as taught in colleges today) explicitly rejects any preconceived structures, processes, or goals. Rather, all life as we know it is purely an artifact of random, undirected events. By contrast, Christianity explicitly posits that God knew each of us as individuals before the beginning of the World. Anyone who wants to claim (as Father Gearheart did, and as the “Christian evolutionists” cited by De Lacalle presumably do) that evolution and Christianity can coexist because God “designed” the universe to “randomly” create the spectrum of life that He had in mind is in denial - not about science or Christianity, but about language itself. Randomness and Design have inconveniently opposite meanings which cannot be reconciled even by the most Christian scientists (or the most scientific Christians).

That God created life is a matter of theology.  How God created life is a matter open to scientific investigation.  Those who subscribe to natural selection as a complete explanation have a lot of work to do to explain the fossil record (which includes many “bursts” of change as well as long periods of relative stability).  The question of how life began is also of scientific interest, but requires more than natural selection to explain.

None of these scientific questions require hypothesizing independent acts of creation by God, although that remains a theoretical possibility.  In theological terms, we would term such acts “miracles.”

It is also possible, and I believe, more likely, that God’s original design of the universe, itself, included randomly driven mechanisms for the emergence of life and of subsequent successful mutations.  The fact that science is a long way from verifying that the laws of physics (and, therefore, of chemistry) entail such mechanisms is no reason to discount it.  If it turns out to be true, one would have to describe the laws of physics as miraculous, but, from a theological perspective, the “miracle” as such would be the creation of the universe.

Re: “Absolutely false to say that ‘Big Science’ makes room for facts that disprove evolution” (Ron Henderson)

Please substantiate.
Which “facts” does “Big Science” reject that would disprove evolution?

I’ve just finished reading an interview with Mark Mathis, associate producer of Expelled and founder of Mathis Media, by Carl Olson, and while I haven’t seen the film, Mathis makes some telling points regarding the hostility his documentary has generated.
He indicates that many of the scientists interviewed were given the questions about which they were asked to comment in advance and that there was no attempt to misrepresent them. On the contrary, Mathis states that “ these scientists say the same thing to Expelled that they say in articles, other films,on blogs and in their books. Nothing is out of context, there is no deceptive editing..”. He then goes on to contend that their objection is that these scientist “ do not want to defend their ideas in any forum that challenges them.”
I must say I found the example of Guillermo Gonzales, a distinguished astronomer, author of ‘The Priveleged Planet’ and of 68 peer reviewed scientific articles, being denied tenure at Iowa State, disturbing.

The purpose of Expelled as I understand it, is not to discuss science, but to show that those who hold views against darwinism are actually expelled from their posts or jobs. I know this. I am working on this right now in a doctoral dissertation. One may say what one likes, but if one disagrees with Darwin and shows why to students the whole educational establishment is against that person. The scientist who demonstrated chemical evolution, and whose books are foundation books for students has been attacked and belittled because he now subscribes to ID!! The entire educational establishment is against teaching an alternative view of evolution. Creation is religion they say, yet the teach children lies like nothing brought forth life; inorganic matter brought forth organic matter. So preposteous that one sounds foolish even repeating it. The real, truthful scientists would tell you that the reason why they teach evolution is that the alternative would be to accept that God created; but since they cannot accept God, they choose to accept naturalism. You an find this in some of their books.

Absolutely false to say that ‘Big Science’ makes room for facts that disprove evolution. ‘Big Science’ is the religion of atheists, it is not scientific. Science, (knowledge) means testing and evaluating knowledge; there are some facts of science that cannot be evaluated. The founders of sceince have almost all been good Christian scientists:Leonardo da Vinci-considered feal founder of modern science; Kepler-founder of physical astronomy;Bacon-responsible for the formulation and establishment of the so called “scientific method.” Pascal-father of hydrodstatics and one of founders of hydrodynamics;Boyle-father of modern chemistry; John Ray-father of English natural history; N Steno (Nils Stennsen)developed principles of stratigraphical interpretation; T. Burnet one of the first geologists; others like Kircher, Wilkins, Charleton, Petty, Barrow, Mather, Grew, Newton, and many more, were all religious men who opened the way for us to enjoy science today. There is no dicotomy between science and biblical religion; the dicotomy is in the heads of atheists! This is just a sampling of beginnings.

First, I have seen the documentary in a private screening and I’d say – as a biologist – that the movie DOES a disservice to Christian biologists.  I walked out of the movie with the strong impression that if I thought that Darwin was right, eventually I’d lose my faith.  As many scientists can testify this is not accurate as Dr. de Lacalle states.
Second, the movie portrays a serious claim: lack of freedom of speech in academia in the US. However, I think there is plenty here as quite a few academics with outrageous views have demonstrated (i.e. r Richard J. Herrnstein from the Bell curve and check the IgNobel prize shows every year) without being expelled...though I grant that there are some exceptions: Jim Watson got into such serious trouble, that it cost him his position (http://www.slate.com/id/2176709/).  Nobody defended him, because his position was scientifically indefensible!
Third, the movie deals with the controversy that purportedly cost these people their jobs (read: belief in God, which I disagree, will cost someone their job, at least in biology departments). It never deals with WHY or WHAT their fellow academicians thought about their science, which eventually lead them to vote against ID faculty.  Expelled does not explain the poor science behind intelligent design, but tries to make victims of them.
Fourth, more importantly is what they themselves tell you in their website.  If you go and download their guide (http://www.getexpelled.com/leaders.php) you will read a lot of material defending intelligent design, attacking Darwin, etc. So, is the movie about a controversial set of expulsions or about ID? As a consumer, I will say they are selling me ID, not freedom of speech!