Expelled: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - A Review

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/about/c-michael-patton on 21 Apr 2008
Creation/Evolution & Current Issues in Theology & Theology

Comments (151)

Related Posts

• Expelled: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - A Review
• A Letter to an Atheist
• Spectrum of Beliefs on Evolution, Creation and Literalism
• The Gospel of the Young Earth
• Women, Slaves, and Homosexuals

151 Responses to “Expelled: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - A Review”

1. Daniel Eaton on 21 Apr 2008 at 2:09 am #

   I really hope to see this. It is a topic that I have spent a lot of time on over the years. I rarely make it out to see a movie - I think I’ve seen two in the last three or four years. But I’m going to make an effort for this one. Thanks for the review. My fear was that it was going to come across like a failed Michael Moore movie.
   Daniel

2. Steve Martin on 21 Apr 2008 at 6:08 am #

   Michael,

   I’m disappointed that you highlight that this movie is effective – I agree that it will be (and is) effective in one area: completely alienating the scientific community, including many evangelicals in that community. Our prime objective as Christians is to present the gospel of Christ in an effective way. I believe this movie runs counter to that objective. I know you appreciate the ministry of Reasons to Believe – check out their note to all their chapter members at http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200804/0348.html where they specifically request that members do NOT endorse the movie because it will make their goal of presenting the gospel more difficult.

   On two of your points:
   “The ability of the movie to illustrate the importance of educational freedom and the valid place that the ID movement has within the university setting (or at least the market-place of ideas). “
   I agree that educational freedom is very important. I also agree that ID proponents should be allowed to make ID arguments in university settings and that those arguments should be judged on their merits alone.

   [The] ability to link the outcome of naturalistic evolution to the Holocaust. This is probably the most egregious implication made by the ID movement (and probably the movie). It is no more accurate to say this than to claim that the Holocaust is the direct result of Jesus Christ’s ministry. (Take some time to take a look at the most passionate anti-theists. They will use this argument (or similar arguments) to oppose Christianity. Their arguments are really bad but if you compare these arguments with the “evolution caused the Holocaust” argument, they share man similarities.

   For a quick overview of why I don not believe the acceptance of biological evolution has any moral implications, see my post: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/10/does-evolution-lead-to-moral-relativism.html and my response the Tony Campolo’s critique at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/et-tu-tony-critique-of-tony-campolos.html .

3. Stan G from Bayonne on 21 Apr 2008 at 7:32 am #

   Steve,

   While the movie is not perfect it was balanced and it did point out that the scientific community is in fact full of “folly” in their thinking and their various conjectures. I for one am not afraid of standing up and making a statement.

   No statement to the scientific community is going to be perfect or fill all the holes of the varied arguments out there. God will do His work and in His way and I believe this movie really point to the main issue of FREEDOM (or rather our lack thereof).

4. Jeremy on 21 Apr 2008 at 9:02 am #

   This film no matter what your views is going to stir healthy discussions in the mainstream circles. The docu opened this weekend in the top 10 grossing films with over $3.1 million in ticket sales, this is very rare for a documentary.

5. Mitch on 21 Apr 2008 at 9:32 am #

   No matter how one puts a spin on the “Big Bang,” it is clear that such a bang must have transcendent implications. And if I am right, anything with transcendent implications is equated with “religion” by the scientific community. It amazes me that the explanation of the beginning of the universe - the Big Bang - has not been banned from schools by virtue of its necessary religious implications. To me, the ID argument is interesting but not decisive; to draw out the necessary antecedents of whatever caused the Big Bang is far more profitable in terms of its apologetic value (since it can have no natural explanation). No scientist will ever be able to give a natural explanation for the ‘first’ Big Bang. That is where we should focus and stop beating around the bush, if you ask me.

6. Greg on 21 Apr 2008 at 10:16 am #

   While I may go see this film, I’ll probably approach it with the same amount of skepticism that I bring with me to Michael Moore films. I’m just not a big fan of the whole ID movement as it pertains to evolutionary origins, to be honest. I think the theory of evolution is sufficient as it is and that we do not need to invoke an un-named intelligence to explain life’s evolutionary development.

   The great weakness of ID is it is simply another “God of the gaps” argument. It would be better for its advocates to just out themselves as theistic evolutionists and spare the Christian faith the embarrassment of supporting another losing argument.

   I’m not holding my breath though.

7. Vance on 21 Apr 2008 at 11:31 am #

   I have not yet seen the movie, so I can not comment on that, but I do agree with the idea of academic freedom and the ability to let all substantially supportable ideas be heard. Although I find ID as a scientific proposition not very compelling (while, of course, recognizing that there was an intelligent designer), I have no problem with it being presented as an alternative concept that a very, very small percent of scientists propose (and almost all of them with religious biases in that direction as well). Right now, even the vast majority of even the scientists who are Christian reject the ID models. So, with those qualifications, I can see making sure the concept is presented.

   What bothers me is that at the same time the ID movement is crying out against an academic shut-down of their proposals, we have Christian universities forcefully shutting down the ideas of theistic evolution or evolutionary creation, or even readings of Genesis which would allow for such proposals, and disciplining the professors who dare to present such alternatives. These are devout Christians teaching Christian approaches to science and Scripture, but being given basically the same treatment that Stein so dramatically objects to in his movie (from what I know of it).

   If the motto is “teach the controversy”, then that motto should be equally shouted in Christian universities and even in the pulpit. If we are going to “teach the controversy”, maybe we should “preach the controversy” as well.

   We must all remember, of course, that one of the less proclaimed aspects of the ID movement is that the leading scientists in the ID world (Behe, Denton, etc) actually accept the concept of evolution over billions of years from earlier, common ancestors. All they object to is the concept that it could have happened entirely naturally, without an “intelligent designer”. They ALL reject the idea of a young earth and most reject the idea of special creation of species or are at least inconclusive on that point.

   It is atheistic naturalism, not evolutionary development, that is the focus of attack for ID. So, really Michael, your title should read “naturalistic evolution v. intelligent design”. Of course, you do seem to catch this in your article itself, which I noticed and appreciated.

8. Jeremy on 21 Apr 2008 at 11:58 am #

   on a funny side note I noticed that this week’s episode (which could have been a rerun) of The Simpsons was about the war between Darwinian teachings and ID in public schools, Lisa felt that science and not religion should be taught in schools..of course Flanders was put on trail and the fact that Homer looks and acts so much like an ape didn’t help his case. I thought the cartoon they showed the class of Darwin making out with the devil was pretty funny.

9. Alden on 21 Apr 2008 at 12:41 pm #

   Michael, I agree, I thought the movie was effective. I was afraid that they would go way over the top, but they didn’t. I don’t think the movie will further alienate “scientists;” those who are already are committed to a naturalistic worldview are already there. Besides, this is not a Christian movie, per se. Berlinski, who is prominently featured in the film, is an agnostic of Jewish heritage, although I don’t think that was mentioned.

   And Greg, ID is not a “god of the gaps” approach, any more than Darwinism is a “science of the gaps” approach; if anything, Darwinism is more presumptive. I think this comes through in the film, although that was not the main point that the film was trying to make.

   One of the strengths of the film is that it allows people on both sides to state their own positions; and, the film represents their positions fairly. I would encourage all to see it, and bring a pen and paper to take notes, and do follow up study.

10. Josh on 21 Apr 2008 at 12:41 pm #

    The issue I have with ID (which Vance has pointed out), is that it doesn’t really get you that far from theistic evolution, yet its presented as though it is competing against evolution from a theistic perspective. It really does nothing to relieve the “tension” found in the biblical account with modern science that theistic evolution doesn’t.

    This is why I think ID and theistic evolution (as well as naturalism/materialism) are more of philosophies than science, because science takes you to a limit (first cause, how life could have originated out of non-life, etc), but beyond that it cannot go and we enter into the realm of philosophy.

    So in reality, it seems many Christians just have a knee jerk reaction to anything with the word evolution in it, and reject it without even investigating its merits.

11. historic salve on 21 Apr 2008 at 1:14 pm #

    I can’t believe how many Christians are praising this movie. Talk about ACTUALLY shaming God by associating with Ben Stein’s distortions and lies.

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know

    I think the “humble” presentation at the end is a sham to try to trick people into agreeing with the movie. There is nothing humble about linking evolution with eugenics, or interviewing scientists before they changed the title of the movie to Expelled and more obviously made it a movie about creationism.

12. C Michael Patton on 21 Apr 2008 at 1:42 pm #

    Salve, what are the distortions and lies? I would be curious to know your take.

    I did not feel that the movie attempted too much. It seems that you have misunderstood their intentions. While they did suggest evolution has holes and the darwinistic theory of natural selection is a bad paradigm, they were not equating evolution with the Holocaust, only naturalistic evolution. They also said that it was not a sufficient condition, but a necessary one. I don’t see any problem with this.

    Their argument was that if there is no God and naturalistic evolution is indeed true, why would ethnic cleansing be wrong? What arguments could one possibly have against it?

    This is not only a good question, but paramount. While I am a proponent of methodological naturalism to a certain degree, there is no way to avoid the overlap with all other areas of knowledge. They all will effect each other. Methodological naturalism itself is a philosophical presupposition with produces a methodological bias. No problems, but we just need to recognize this and be able to defend it.

    There is a hermeneutical spiral in science that necessitates philosophy. Just because certain people fall on one side of the philosophical wall does not mean that they cannot take part in this community does it?

13. C Michael Patton on 21 Apr 2008 at 1:56 pm #

    One other thing. The article you posted seems to have completely missed the point. My assumption is that whoever wrote it went to the movie knowing he was going to hate it and then wrote accordingly.

    He said “But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film’s major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God.”

    Most of the theists they had were also advocates of evolution. This just does not make sense.

    Briefly, I did get the feel that they were questioning evolution in general, but that was only for a brief moment to suggest that it is not as solid a theory as many would suppose. I did not see an agenda to call into question the scientific option of evolution, but the philosophical presupposition that if you concluded that God is the best explanation to conclude with and to assume (conta aliens, crystal shotgunners, etc.), then you should not be given a scientific microphone.

    In the end, it was educational suppression that was the issue here.

    To be fair, I am not certain that they made this point. I think that their examples of being “expelled” were decent, but certainly not slam dunk.

14. Jeffrey on 21 Apr 2008 at 2:18 pm #

    I watched the movie and it failed to live up to my extremely low expectations. Just for fact-checking look at http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez

    “Their argument was that if there is no God and naturalistic evolution is indeed true, why would ethnic cleansing be wrong?”

    Science deals with questions like “would eugenics work?” Eugenics is microevolution. All parties agree on microevolution. If it’s a question “would it work” it doesn’t matter if you’re an atheist, theistic evolutionist, creationist, or geocentrist. The question is “Is it right,” which is not a scientific question.

    “If there is no God” is a red herring - we’re talking about evolution, not atheism. Come to think of it, if there is no God and naturalistic evolution isn’t true, why would ethnic cleansing be wrong?

    I do agree the movie was effective at convincing its target audience. Part of this was by making the debate all about philosophy, politics, religion, and rhetoric. Bringing up science would have hurt their case badly as it would have revealed sharp disagreement within ID among young-earth creation, old-earth creation, and common descent with intelligent design.

    True or false, evolution is a theory of science. To refute it requires a discussion of science.

15. Truth Unites... and Divides on 21 Apr 2008 at 2:33 pm #

    Gregory “True or false, evolution is a theory of science.”

    (1) True. Evolution is a theory of science.

    (2) Theory need not be factual.

    “To refute it requires a discussion of science.”

    To refute it requires pursuing the truth and evidence to wherever it might lead, a pursuit of truth and a freedom of inquiry that is unrestricted by the artificial limits of philosophical or methodological naturalism.

16. C Michael Patton on 21 Apr 2008 at 2:36 pm #

    Yes, but my point, at least, continues to be the same. We are dealing with implications. The atheistic scientific community illustrates this. The argument of the movie was that to question the Darwinian philosophy behind evolution is taboo in the current system. The current system needs to have more academic freedom.

    As I said above, while I think all the arguments are true, valid, and long-lasting, I am not sure that the representation of the current establishment is as bad as they make it out to be. I don’t know either way.

17. kyle on 21 Apr 2008 at 3:37 pm #

    I went to the movie last night. I could not agree more completely with C Michael Patton that everyone needs to see this movie. For those of us “idiots” who are Darwinian numbskulls and unable to appreciate the easily proven and indisputable theories of natural selection, it was a pleasure to see the scientific braniacs give us such theories as aliens planting life on earth! “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world.”

18. Vance on 21 Apr 2008 at 3:47 pm #

    Michael, I have dealt with a lot of scientists on this issue, both Christian and atheist and mostly agnostic, to tell the truth. Really, the only thing that is taboo in science is the attempt to bring in the supernatural in as a *scientific* explanation, since science can not make any determinations about the supernatural. Which is why science can not always provide the complete answers to every question, as most scientists will acknowledge. It can only provide the best *natural* explanation for events. Now, in almost every case this is also the correct answer, but there is always a sort of asterisk next to scientific inquiry in that it is a field of endeavor that necessarily and purposefully limits its inquiry to what its methodologies can work with: the natural.

    Now, when scientists begin to assert that the natural is the only possible explanation because there IS no supernatural, then we have philosophical naturalism, but while all philosophical naturalists are evolutionists, not all evolutionists are philosophical naturalists. Not by a long shot. And, the Darwinistic model of natural selection is not based on philosophical naturalism, either, when it comes right down to it. The only thing that is really based entirely on philosophical naturalism is, well, philosophical naturalism! The idea that it could NOT have been supernatural.

    The opponents of ID, both Christian and non-Christian, are not arguing that it HAD to be natural, only that there is no compelling evidence (yet) that it was not an entirely natural process (whether God was involved or not). Like photosynthesis or gravity, it is entirely possible for a process to be entirely natural, but still the product of God. We would not insist that the scientific proposition of photosynthesis needs to include some idea that God had to be involved in the design of the process. Further, the opponents to ID argue that the scientific ideas presented by the ID scientists are simply not substantial enough (yet) to warrant serious consideration. So far, I would have to agree. So far. The dialogue is useful, but not really compelling as a true alternative theory.

    But, on the issue of “ethnic cleansing”, that is really a non-starter of an argument. What would allow, I suppose, the idea of ethnic cleansing is the idea that there is no God. But the mistake that seems to be made is that the alternative to accepting intelligent design is atheism. This is ridiculous since it is entirely possible to accept that there is an intelligent designer and entirely reject intelligent design as a scientific proposition. It is creating a false dichotomy.

19. Jugulum on 21 Apr 2008 at 5:20 pm #

    Vance said,

    since science can not make any determinations about the supernatural.

    What a peculiar notion. Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you.

    You think that before we try to “do science”, we should first run ideas through a philosophical filter that classifies things as “natural” and “supernatural”? And if we decide that anything should be classified as “supernatural”, we should just stop there?

    You think the first step in science is pure philosophical classification?

    I would say no to that. Science–as in, modern science of experimentation–cannot make any determinations that do not make physical, testable predictions. It doesn’t matter if the theory involves faeries and goblins; as long as those entities are doing things in the physical world with physical results, science can study them just fine.

    sylas, an atheist over at TheologyWeb, explains it well in this thread.

    This doesn’t answer whether or not ID makes scientifically-meaningful predictions. But if ID isn’t good science, it’s not because it says something about the supernatural.

    If you have an argument against ID that has to use the word “supernatural” in it, then your argument is not science. It’s philosophy. (And a philosophical argument may or may not be valid–but it’s not experimental science.)

20. clearblue on 21 Apr 2008 at 5:24 pm #

    Hi Michael,

    I have found your blog to be very theologically stimulating (perhaps its just that I seem to agree with you on so many subjects!), but this was the first post that really prompted me to register and write something.

    I haven’t seen the film yet (its not released in the country where I live), but have been following the hubbub about it. Here are a few comments:

    1. The link between darwinism and the holocaust is not a logical one primarily (in real life at least, I don’t know about the film). The link is an historical one, and an undeniable one at that. Those protesting about this claim are historically
    ignorant - the historical evidence of a strong link between the two is clear and damning.

    Your logical link is also valid: ’survival of the fittest’, ‘nature red in tooth and claw’, ‘dog eat dog’ and ethnic cleansing are all cut from one cloth.

    Again, those who deny the link are just ignorant - Darwin wrote explicitly about the link in his second book ‘Descent of Man’ - it contains explicitly racist, eugenic langauge. For those who still don’t believe me, the subtitle of The Origin of Species was ‘The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’. Now do you get it?

    2. Methodological naturalism IS philosophical naturalism. How so? Because any statement that purports to tell scientists what sort of ‘evidence’ God might leave behind Him in nature (or that rules out the possibility a priori) is not a scientific statement at all, but a theological statement. What scientists have the right to tell anyone what ‘fingerprints’ God might leave in nature? MN goes
    far beyond a ’scientific’ statement and is really just Atheist (or Deist) philosophy in drag. Of course, MN is perfectly acceptable in most areas of science, but not in origins science where the whole question (for 70% of the world population) is, Did God create this? To rule out a priori the possibility of Divine Creation by MN fiat is simply viewpoint discrimination.

    3. There are a lot of Christians who are theistic evolutionists who basically do not understand Darwinism, and I don’t mean in its specifics, but in its central claim.

    The central claim of Theistic Evolution is that God did His creating using evolution. However, the central claim of evolutionary theory is that there was no Divine hand in the process: that is why Darwin called it NATURAL (not Divine) selection. The whole process was unguided, non-teleological
    and operated through blind NATURAL forces. Nor is this an atheistic spin on evolution - it is the very heart of the theory.

    Now, guidance of an unguided process is a contradiction in terms, and just as C.S. Lewis said that it is quite possible for mortal men to ask God unanswerable questions, because all nonsense questions are unanswerable, so it is impossible
    for God to guide an unguided process. Either God guided it (at which point it ceases to be natural selection), or God did not guide and supervise it (and there is the end of theistic evolution). The vague proposition that God guided
    evolution is not an option - it is a category mistake.

    4. To call ID ‘God of the gaps’ is again a flawed argument. Alister McGrath and Francis Collins (both of whom castigate ID with this argument) are quite happy to claim that cosmology and astrology prove God’s existence and design, but not the far more incredible world of biology. They argue that the universe is ‘fine-tuned’ for life, but not the bio-sphere!

    Atheistic scientists do not accept this argument at all - they say that science will find the natural fine-tuning mechanism that has made the universe the way it is, just as they discovered the biological fine-tuning mechanism called
    natural selection. In short, anti-ID Christians are perfectly happy to accept ‘God of the gaps’ arguments from cosmology that conveniently prove God must have done it, but they accuse ID theorists of using ‘God of the gaps’
    arguments.

    Actually, there are gaping holes everywhere in evolutionary theory: origin of life, speculative (not scientific) ideas for how adaptations and complex structures and organs arose, fossil saltations, the fact that natural selection is not a creative force, the fact that mutations are not a creative but a deleterious force, not to mention all the forgeries
    (embryonic recapitulation, vestigial organs, peppered moths), etc, etc.

    The house of cards is starting to collapse. Good on you, Ben Stein!

21. Greg on 21 Apr 2008 at 5:24 pm #

    TUAD, was that comment for me?

    Alden,
    I think, and Vance said it well, that we need to be very aware of the distinctions between the words we are using. I’m against Darwinism as much as the next Christian, but I fully support the theory of evolution. The two are not the same, and we need to be aware of that in a discussion like this. I wrote an entire post on this subject on my blog if you want to read further into it. It’s under the “Evolution” category and called “Christians and Intelligent Design”.

    Also, it is a God of the gaps position. The basic argument for ID is based on the premise that we cannot explain what we see in nature naturalistically. Assumming first that that statement is even true (many able Christian scientists, like Kenneth Miller, dispute that) it makes the huge, and right now, unprovable assumption that there is no further evidence to be discovered! It is essentially saying since we can’t explain it now, then God must have done it! Thats a classic “God of the gaps” if I ever saw one.

    Historically, religion has a terrible track record when it comes to opposing science. If someone wishes to believe in ID, thats their choice, but I’d advise them not to go around saying that a lack of available evidence is evidence for Intelligent Design.

    I don’t understand what you mean by “science of the gaps”. Could you explain further please?

22. pelathais on 21 Apr 2008 at 5:49 pm #

    It’s a shame that the producers lied to to Dawkins and Co. But I’m even more disappointed that they lied to me and other believers as well. They had “EXPELLEDTHEMOVIE.COM” registered through TUCOWS in March of 2007 - before they even sent out their emails requesting interviews for their bogus film “Crossroads…”

    Producer Mark Mathis told audiences all around the country that “Expelled” was the name given by the marketing guys when it was obviously the name all along. Lying to the atheists isn’t the best way to proclaim the Truth. You shouldn’t lie at all.

    I wonder how much involvement the Moonies had in this. Jonathan Wells from the Unification Theological Seminary was featured prominently as was the Moonie owned Washington Times.

23. Vance on 21 Apr 2008 at 6:02 pm #

    Jugulum, that becomes a matter of definition. Science is, by its own self-definition, is the use of methodological naturalistic means to determine the best explanations possible for events or processes. It is simply a single and limited tool for finding the possible truth, it is NOT the search for the ultimate truth, wherever that truth may be found. That is ascribing way too much authority and expecting way too much from science.

    If a cause or an process is within the boundaries of the physical and testable, then it is natural, also by definition, regardless of how we would have normally labeled such things otherwise. Thus thunder and rainbows turn from supernatural events to natural events as we go along. The supernatural is simply those things which are outside the natural order and processes God has established. And, I for one, believe that something ARE outside this order.

    What you can do, if you like, is create a field of study which does not use strictly methodological naturalism as its methodology and uses, instead, some broader scope of inquiry to arrive at the truth. And I think we should ALL have that broader standard when determining ultimate answers. But then it is not science, and should not be called science. That is bigger and more important than mere science.

24. Vance on 21 Apr 2008 at 6:15 pm #

    clearblue:

    would you say that photosynthesis or the rainbow were entirely natural processes?

    would you call them “guided” processes?

    theistic evolutionists believe that the process of evolution is as “natural” and as “guided” as these processes. No more, no less.

    But, regardless of guidance or not, design or not, it is important for everyone to make sure we are talking about two separate issues: whether evolution, as an event in history, happened on the one hand, and if so, then whether it was a “natural” or “guided” process.

    My gosh, if we as a Christian community all got to the point where the ID scientists are, accepting that evolution happened as an event in history, but just arguing over whether God left scientifically ascertainable evidence that He did it, I would be very happy.

25. C Michael Patton on 21 Apr 2008 at 6:16 pm #

    Vance, I agree, it is much like my field of exegesis. Once other issues become too prominent, then the study can become contaminated.

    At the same time, pure exegesis,—what I call “white coat exegesis”—is not possible. It is only once we recognize this that we can begin to have intellectually honesty. This is the same, I propose, with science. I don’t think that we can act as if there are no presuppositions or philosophical bents that influence our, or even produce, our method.

    As for the movie, the challenge was not to evolution, but the establishment of darwinistic evolution as a presumptive presupposition behind science.

    Comparing this to the Galileo incident is valid for both sides. What most people fail to realize is that the incident was not religion based, but institution based. Galileo did not challenge religion, but the institutional control over inquiry and knowledge that happened to be held by the Catholic church and has trickle effect upon Protestants.

    In the end, if an institution controls a paradigm that does not allow discovery, it does not matter whether this institution is religious or secular, the issues is the suppression of discovery based upon true freedom.

    This is what the movie was about.

    As I have said, I am not sure whether this is truly happening, but if it is, then we have the obligation to break down such walls.

26. Jugulum on 21 Apr 2008 at 6:29 pm #

    Vance,

    First, where did I say anything about searching for ultimate truth?

    Second, did you read the link? If not, please do. (Just the first post, not the follow-up discussion.) I’d be interested to see you respond to sylas’ presentation of this argument by talking to him about searching for ultimate truth.

    I agree (to some extent) that matters of definition are involved here. And I agree that science is a limited tool for finding truth, which cannot answer all questions. The problem, as I see it, is that the definitions you’re choosing are hiding purely philosophical distinctions that do not affect the methodology of science–and you seem to be using them to disallow things that science can test just fine.

    So, why do I say that? Let’s look at an example case: Young-earth creationism (YEC).

    YEC has lot of testable implications for what the physical evidence should look like. As long as there was no particular aim to make it appear old, there is no barrier to testing it. (Yes, an ardent YEC-er could always respond to evidence by saying, “Well maybe God worked a miracle so that things just look that way”—regardless of what the evidence points to. But if we don’t engage in things like the “maybe God just put the dinosaur bones there to test us” caricature, then YEC is falsifiable.) And most evolutionists do not simply say, “YEC can’t be true because it refers to the supernatural.” It’s not that they think we can’t test it—it’s that they think we have tested it, and disproved it.

    The point is that we’re not examining the supernatural mechanics of how God may have done it. We’re examining the physical evidence of what happened. Experiment won’t be able to tell us that Yahweh was involved; it could tell us that all life appeared abruptly on a new earth within the last 10,000 years, with a global flood a couple thousand years later.

    My contention: If ID makes testable predictions about physical evidence, there is absolutely nothing in the methods of science that prevents us from testing it—not to find ultimate meaning, just to find evidence about what happened.

27. Eric W on 21 Apr 2008 at 6:33 pm #

    #14

    Jeffrey on 21 Apr 2008 at 2:18 pm #

    I watched the movie and it failed to live up to my extremely low expectations. Just for fact-checking look at http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez

    I haven’t seen the movie, but if “Expelled Exposed” is correct in what it states - e.g., the way “Expelled” was very selective re: the non-granting of tenure to the ISU professor - then “Expelled” is a dishonest piece of filmmaking.

28. Josh on 21 Apr 2008 at 6:51 pm #

    The reason why the Theory of Evolution has been around for so long is because it has produced massive amounts of follow up research due to its disturbingly accurate predictive power in the field of biology.

    If ID could produce additional fields of research and a greater level of predictive power to that of the Theory of Evolution it would be adopted.

    But as it is being currently presented, ID functions only as seeking cracks and holes in the Theory of Evolution and as Vance has pointed out above, it adopts much of the theory it critiques. This is why I find it so odd that most people think it provides a solution to common “discrepancies” with the Biblical account and modern science.

29. Truth Unites... and Divides on 21 Apr 2008 at 7:08 pm #

    Greg: “Historically, religion has a terrible track record when it comes to opposing science.”

    Would you also say that biblical Christianity has a terrible track record when it comes to opposing science?

    P.S. FWIW, my comment above was for Jeffrey. Sorry for the confusion.

30. Alden on 21 Apr 2008 at 7:31 pm #

    Greg, By “science of the gaps” I mean that those holding to a worldview of philosophical materialism presume that the “gaps” and other anomalies will be explained “when we no more.” That excuse has been used by Dawkins and others to brush off challenges for which they don’t have answers.

    If “… gaps” means drawing philosophical conclusions from the evidence, then you are right; however, that’s not how I understand God of the gaps. The accusation by the naturalists is usually that God is inserted into the data, when ID really is drawing philosophical conclusions from the data; that’s my understanding of what differentiates ID from Creationism.

    The science establishment, as represented in the movie, presupposes that “when we know more” the data will fill in the gaps. “Naturalism of the gaps” may be a better phrase, but it’s not as catchy. Defining terms, as you say, is important - because so many aspects in this debate are not clearly defined. Evolution can mean many things; “science” has varying meanings, and there is still debate on what constitutes a species.

    I think it is the presumption of philosophical materialism and scientism (the belief that scientific knowledge supersedes any other type of knowledge) that is at issue, not the scientific method, which should be philosophically neutral. Or, to look at it from the other point of view, the issue is really God. Dawkins made that point in the movie.

    Now, if the method is neutral and objective, then “science” should be the same whether God is presupposed or not. In the movie, Will Provine expressed best what I would expect from a true scientist, that people should be allowed to examine all of the evidence and to draw their own conclusions, even if it leads them to God.

31. Alden on 21 Apr 2008 at 7:43 pm #

    Greg, to address your statement that “Historically, religion has a terrible track record when it comes to opposing science,” I wouldn’t necessarily agree. Copernicus delayed publication of “On the Revolution” due to opposition from fellow scientists, while the church supported his work. The same holds true for Galileo, in spite of what is commonly taught. You can check this out on the International Planetarium Society’s website and elsewhere.

    The problem, it seems, is often the status quo; precisely the point the film tries to make.

32. Saint and Sinner on 21 Apr 2008 at 7:47 pm #

    On a very related note:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/machine-video/

    This is hilarious!

33. Saint and Sinner on 21 Apr 2008 at 8:01 pm #

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/expelled_exposed_exposed.html

34. Saint and Sinner on 21 Apr 2008 at 8:15 pm #

    “I wouldn’t necessarily agree. Copernicus delayed publication of “On the Revolution” due to opposition from fellow scientists, while the church supported his work.”

    Indeed, it was a Lutheran minister who suppervised the printing and wrote the preface to Copernicus’ work.

35. Saint and Sinner on 21 Apr 2008 at 8:22 pm #

    “But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film’s major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God.”

    Miller actually holds to a form of open theism.

    If you’re going to bring up Dobzhansky…he was a theosophist.

    So, the two big names that Darwinists historically have brought up to argue that Darwinism is compatible with theism are both heterodox.

36. kyle on 21 Apr 2008 at 9:37 pm #

    Josh,

    Perhaps the reason the theory of evolution has been around so long is because the scientists that perpetuate the fraud would lose their jobs and grants without it. What would they research if the question was finally answered? Perhaps this is why scientists using “intelligent” and “design” in the same sentence are summarily fired — self preservation of the firing entity.

37. Steve Martin on 21 Apr 2008 at 10:04 pm #

    On RTB, note that they have now posted an official public response to EXPELLED at http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/expelled.shtml .

    Clearblue #20: Re: Ignorance & the connection between Darwinism & the holocaust.

    I must confess I am ignorant in many areas. Ignorance is neither a sin nor even a fault. But I suspect, ironically, that on the subject of Darwinism & the holocaust you are most likely unaware of some of the facts. You may want to check out my posts in #2 above, as well as the plethora of links they contain. One brief point here and a question: On the sub-title of Darwin’s book, “Races” does not refer to the different human “races” – but I can see how those of us in the 21st century could misunderstand this. However, I have no clue where you find “Eugenic language” references in Darwin’s book. Can you point me to this?

    Saint & Sinner #35:

    It is true that many of those that try to reconcile faith & evolution compromise the gospel. But there are many Evangelical biologists who are able to achieve reconciliation without compromise. Books by Evangelicals that support evolution include Collins (The Language of God), Falk (Coming to Peace with Science), Wilkins (Evolution: A Faith Based Understanding), Colling (Random Designer), Glover (Beyond the Firmament), and Lamoureux (Evolutionary Creation).

38. Jeffrey on 21 Apr 2008 at 10:08 pm #

    It’s worth noting the the “Expelled: Exposed” site I posted deals with the actual arguments. For instance, the particular page of the site to which I provided a link argues that Gonzalez’s denial of tenure was justified based on his poor performance alone.

    The “Expelled Exposed: Exposed” article posted by TUaD points out that the atheists are atheists. No kidding. It would be a bit more convincing if they tried to actually defend the actual arguments.

    It’s also worth noting that the reason this particular debate has so many atheists on the evolution side is that Ben Stein intentionally chose his opponents so that it would be mostly atheists on the evolution side. That’s what you call propaganda.

    Steve, that’s a great link to RTB you posted. My favorite paragraph:

    “In Reasons To Believe’s interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.”

    Note that the first name signed at the bottom is Hugh Ross - an old-earth creationist.

39. Greg on 21 Apr 2008 at 10:12 pm #

    Alden,

    I couldn’t find the information you suggest on the IPS’s website. Could you give me a link?

    From what is commonly taught, I do know that both Martin Luther and John Calvin, in addition to the Catholic Church, all opposed Copernicus’ ideas, based on a literal reading of scripture.

    “People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or ‘man’] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”
    - Martin Luther, Table Talk

    “Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’…[are] motivated by ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.’”
    - John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677

    “The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced — YEA, he hath established it.”
    - John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman’s, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

    “To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin.”
    - Cardinal Bellarmine 1615, during the trial of Galileo.

    And though you may find it hard to believe, there are still groups today that believe in geocentricism.

    Just on this one issue, the church, unfortunately, does not have a good record of being on the right side!

    Unfortunately, that hasn’t changed in regards to astronomy, geology, and biology either. It would be nice to see the church at least being consistent…opposing things like embryology and meteorology in addition to the other subjects.

40. Saint and Sinner on 21 Apr 2008 at 10:32 pm #

    “It’s also worth noting that the reason this particular debate has so many atheists on the evolution side is that Ben Stein intentionally chose his opponents so that it would be mostly atheists on the evolution side.”

    Or perhaps it’s because Darwinism is the creation-myth dogma of atheistic religion.

    Steve Martin,

    You are correct to say that not all TE are heterodox. In fact, you can add Tim Keller (who has gained my respect) to that list. However, it is usually the case that when one starts down the road of unguided TE, they usually start getting rid of major doctrines. First goes the historicity of Genesis 1-11 (which, by the way, utilizes the exact same wording to denote ACTUAL history as Genesis 12-50; dump 1-11 and 12-50 go with them). Then, since Adam never really existed, there goes Original Sin. Once original sin goes, the necessity of the atonement goes, and you end up in Pelagianism and whatever else.

    BTW, I don’t know if you’ve seen the movie or not, but they do play an actual Nazi propaganda piece arguing that the Germans must create selective pressure so that a “super-race” will emerge. Second, it was the German tour-guide at a former-Nazi Eugenics lab that specifically made the connection of Nazi principles with Darwinism.

    Don’t you think that there is a reason why Marx dedicated Das Kapital to Darwin (even though Darwin never accepted it)?

    This does not prove that Darwinism is false, but it is simply a matter of historical record and all the more reason for those who don’t believe in it to be more vocal.

41. Jeffrey on 21 Apr 2008 at 10:37 pm #

    Whoops. Saint and Sinner posted the link, not TUaD.

42. Truth Unites... and Divides on 21 Apr 2008 at 10:44 pm #

    Whoops. Saint and Sinner posted the link, not TUaD.

    That’s okay. I called you ‘Gregory’ by mistake earlier. Also, I consider it an honor to be confused with Saint and Sinner.

43. jwjoslin on 21 Apr 2008 at 11:23 pm #

    The Galileo incident is much more complex than modern revisionism leads people to believe - the Enlightment caricatured and oversimplified it for their own agenda. The truth is that there were a number of factors at play, such as Galileo’s antagonization of his fellow scientists (not for religious reasons) and his caricaturing of the Pope (who for awhile was a big supporter of Galileo) as “simpleton.”

44. Greg on 21 Apr 2008 at 11:50 pm #

    Alden,

    I too would object to inserting God into the data to “fix” the parts that science, guided by methodological naturalism, isn’t able to answer at the moment. That has the effect of stopping all forms of inquiry in it’s tracks. If God did it, why search for a further cause? It’s like continuing to look for your keys after you’ve found them.

    A “science of the gaps” perspective really isn’t a bad idea to place some weight behind. To believe that more information will come to light to explain what we can’t yet explain makes very good sense because there is a very strong record of it doing just that, in many causes at the expense of “God of the gap” theories. Science has proven itself to be a very powerful tool in helping us to understand God’s creation. Why should we stop using it now? Because it violates our traditional interpretations of scripture?

    After all, thats what all this is about anyways. Why is it so difficult to hold to the possibility that our understanding of scripture is misguided? It wouldn’t be the first time a doctrine is revised based on the knowledge science has provided us.

    Do you know anyone here or in church who still holds to geocentricism? I personally don’t, even though a plain reading of scripture requires it. Luther held to it, as did Calvin and the Catholic Church prior to Copernicus. My previous post mentions some of their reasons for dissent. We all know not to interpret scripture like Joshua 10:13 literally, but in an anthropocentric manner. How do we know that?

    Not by anything inherent in the text, but by what science has helped us to understand about creation! There is nothing wrong in using science to carefully correct faulty interpretations. Anyone who is an advocate for heliocentricism will use science to inform their interpretation of verses like Joshua 10:13, and a host of other ones that speak of the sun moving.

    Taking into account all the evidence for an old universe, an old earth, and common descent, I cannot imagine that God would have gone to such great lengths to misguide us in our search for truth.

45. Steve Martin on 22 Apr 2008 at 5:09 am #

    Stan (#2), Michael (#12): (disclaimer: no I haven’t seen the movie yet – am planning on it – but I have followed the story for about 6 months so I have a good idea of what is said – although I could be just plain ignorant :-)).

    On the movie being balanced, I highly doubt it. On there being distortions & lies – well, I won’t use that strong language until I see the movie but I bet you dollars to donuts the full truth wasn’t provided.

    One simple example on Gonzalez denial of tenure: As Jeffrey (#38) noted, “The other side” has a very good explanation on why Gonzalez was denied tenure. But they too only tell one side. My understanding from reading Christian scientists who have examined this closely (including Gonzalez publishing track record) is that A) the actions committed by some very outspoken atheists to discredit Gonzalez were absolutely appalling. That this was not addressed & dealt with by the administration was a terrible injustice. B) Gonzalez track record at ISU was such that he should not have been given tenure. The actual decision was fair.

    Bottom line though, is you don’t hear both A) and B) in the same place too often. That is because neither side has any interest in being balanced. I suspect that is true of a lot of the other claims in the movie too. Not necessarily wrong, but definitely not balanced.

    Saint & Sinner (#40): I do not agree with the connections you draw re: getting rid of major doctrines. But that, I think, is beyond the scope of this post.

    You are right that the Nazi’s used some ideas from Darwin’s theory for their own purposes. Actually, they twisted some of Darwin’s ideas for their own purposes. Hitler also invoked (twisted) Christian ideas for his own purposes. (Check out Richard Dawkins equally unbalanced letter at: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins )

    Should we blame Darwin for the Holocaust? Should we blame Jesus for the Holocaust? I submit that anyone who does either is horribly wrong.

    Henry Neufeld has a nice, simple post on this at: http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1289

    What is really ironic is that the producers of “Expelled” use Nazi propaganda to sell a point in their own very unbalanced piece of propaganda.

46. Vance on 22 Apr 2008 at 9:09 am #

    Jugulum, I did not mean “ultimate truth” in the sense of the big picture items, but actually the final and complete answer to a given question about something that has happened. Science can sometimes get us very close to this, but when the immediate cause of an event is a supernatural miracle, such as the feeding of the 5,000, then science would not be able to provide an explanation since the cause is simply outside of something that science can manage. Science can say that there were 5,000 there, that there were loaves and fishes, and then that there were MORE loaves and fishes, and that everyone ate, etc. But, when it comes to providing a theory about the actual mechanics of the event, scientific methodologies would be at a loss.

    And, no, science can not conclude “God did it”, or that any supernatural force did it, since it can’t test or analyze such a causative force. The closest it can get is to say that something happened which falls outside of any currently known natural explanation. And some will go further to say that science has the obligation to give the best *natural*explanation that it can, if there is something even in the realm of reasonableness, as long as they qualify it with the likelihood of that being correct (as they present String Theory as current VERY speculative, not claiming it is very supportable at the moment, for example).

    What many want to say is that science has the job of determining the answer to a given problem, even if the likely cause or elements of the process go beyond their ability to test. That is putting science in too much of a position of power in determining the explanations for things. The irony there is pretty obvious. Science is a limited tool, and should not be forced to do more than it is really qualified to do.

    You say that there are things which are testable and I agree, but all the testing can do is point to a current gap in our knowledge or our ability to explain things. If that gap can not be filled with something natural, science is not authorized or qualified to assert that the gap must be supernatural, much less what type of supernatural. All it can do is admit there is a gap. The philosophical naturalist would say that the gap MUST and WILL eventually be filled with something natural. Everyone else would acknowledge that would COULD be the gap-filler is something beyond the natural order of things. Too often, folks insist that their particular supernatural explanation MUST be the correct thing to fill that gap.

    My point is that there ARE supernatural forces at work on many occasions, I believe, and that these are things for which scientific inquiry can not provide adequate explanations and should not be forced to do so since they are not equipped to do so.

    And the ID movement, for the most part, has recognized the point I am making and agrees with it. But what they do is insist there is a gap and then insists that the only thing that can fill that gap MUST be a supernatural force of some kind, even if they don’t want to go on to identify it or describe it. The problem is that their science has been shown to fall short of actually establishing that a gap exists AND I think it is a very dangerous thing to insist ANYTHING about a gap, since for thousands of years our track record has been about filling all such gaps with natural explanations eventually.

    Personally, I believe that the God who can and HAS made processes like photosynthesis, human reproduction and the rainbow without any direct evidence of His immediate involvement and design can as likely do the same for the entire universe, including the development of life on this planet.

47. Jugulum on 22 Apr 2008 at 9:35 am #

    But what they do is insist there is a gap and then insists that the only thing that can fill that gap MUST be a supernatural force of some kind, even if they don’t want to go on to identify it or describe it.

    First, I think that’s a slight mischaracterization. The ID movement itself does not insist that the only thing that can fill that gap MUST be a supernatural force. It insists that the only thing that can fill that gap must be intelligent. The ID arguments–except for fine-tuning of the universe–work just as well with aliens.

    Now, an IDer might also insist what you say. But when they do so, they are not making ID arguments–they are drawing further conclusions from the ID conclusions.

    Second, to the extent that any ID argumentation does depend on “there’s a gap in the evolutionary explanation here”, I actually agree with you. It’s not experimental if it’s not making particular testable predictions about the physical world. It might or might not be good philosophy, but it’s not in the “science” category, by the modern definition. (But I doubt that arguments from gaps are even good philosophy.)

    On String Theory. This is what’s standing in its way: It works to explain what we know about the universe–but it doesn’t make any predictions that distinguish it from any other explanation.

    My point here has been that if ID does make particular testable predictions about the physical world–predictions that actually depend on intelligent involvement–then you have no methodological grounds on which to disqualify it. You can’t say, “The only candidate intelligence would be God, and that’s supernatural, and that violates methodological naturalism.” An IDer can stop at the point of “intelligence was involved”–if you insist on going beyond, that doesn’t reflect on the ID arguments.

    So, to summarize.
    A potentially good argument against ID: It depends on gaps.
    A bad argument against ID: It violates methodological naturalism.

    I suspect that you and I are talking past each other to some extent, and that we agree in large part about the relevant philosophy of science.

48. Saint and Sinner on 22 Apr 2008 at 10:15 am #

    Steve Martin,

    “Should we blame Darwin for the Holocaust? Should we blame Jesus for the Holocaust? I submit that anyone who does either is horribly wrong.”

    Of course Hitler used Jesus but only when he was politicking. His real feelings toward Christianity were either always said in private or in his earlier works such as Mein Kampf. For instance: “Christianity is the invention of the Jew.” (I assure you, he didn’t mean that in a positive sense.) Again, your comparison is bad. It’s apples and oranges. Darwinism was the basis for his belief in the “Master Race” idea. Again, he may have used Christianity but only to gain the trust of the German people. On the other hand, he never repudiated his Darwinian ideals, and in fact, they formed the basis for his Eugenic experiments.

49. Saint and Sinner on 22 Apr 2008 at 10:42 am #

    A couple more thoughts that came to my mind this morning:

    1. We have heard constantly from the TE’s here that we’re reinforcing scientists’ atheism by “not being honest” since we don’t just own up and admit that Darwinism is true. However:

    a.) Some of us have actually read Darwinist arguments and found them wanting. They usually:

    i. Commit straw-man arguments of modern creationism by attacking the Victorian-era natural theology creationism of Darwin’s day (i.e. they just repeat Darwin’s arguments as if they could just as well apply to us). Creationists do not believe in the fixity of species, and in fact, YEC’s and many OEC’s believe in quite a bit of evolution (though pre-programmed). Thus, Miller’s “God was sure busy creating all those species of elephants”-argument is a complete straw-man, and it turns me off quite frankly.

    ii. Commit circular reasoning by using the can-ought fallacy. Just because you can draw up lines between species that are similar does not of necessity mean that they came from a common ancestor. Those are just-so stories. Creationists can account for the same data as well since the modern Creationist does not deny the tree-of-life analogy but turns it into a forest of smaller trees.

    iii. Utilize just as much “gaps” argumentation (if not more) as Creationists. What is one of the biggest arguments for Darwinism? Junk-DNA. Why? Because scientists can’t possibly find a use for it, and since scientists cannot find a reason why God would put all that stuff there, it must have been evolutionary leftovers. First, that’s a “gaps” argument: we haven’t found a use for it *yet*, and in fact, the amount of *actual* junk-DNA in the genome decreases as time passes by with new discoveries. For scientists to argue that they can’t find a reason why God would put it there is another “gaps”: they haven’t figured a reason *yet*. [I would also note that to limit “gaps”-arguments-as-fallacies to the supernatural is quite arbitrary and philosophically inane. You’re insulting my intelligence.]

    iv. Darwinists’ logical skills are quite bad. It’s obvious that they’ve never taken a philosophy of science (or even a basic level logic course). It insults my intelligence.

    b.) What about those in the Old Testament departments who are trying to witness to unbelieving Bible scholars (like say, James Barr) who know full well that the contortions that OEC’s and TE’s try to do to the text of Genesis simply isn’t possible. The text won’t allow it. These people can’t be duped by these “new-readings” of Genesis. The “dishonesty” (you guys’ word) simply hurts our witness to them.

    2. Simply apply methodological naturalism and anti-gaps-arguments argumentation to the Resurrection of Christ. If you apply it as consistently as you do to the Origins debate, then you’d all be atheists.

50. Saint and Sinner on 22 Apr 2008 at 10:43 am #

    BTW:

    I don’t believe that gaps-arguments are always fallacies. In fact, they are the standard argument used to replace old theories whenever a paradigm-shift occurs.

51. Vance on 22 Apr 2008 at 11:11 am #

    Jugulum, I can agree with your post entirely (even if not with your ultimate conclusions on the subject). I think many take the ID arguments where they should not go (as is inevitable with such a broad range of supporters), and that the strictest ID proponents would not fall into those fallacies.

    There are some like Behe who are very careful NOT to fall into that fallacy, and the only problem I have with Behe is that I am just not persuaded by his argument that a gap exists in the first place. I really do think that he only sees the gap because he starts with a belief in the “gap-filler” to begin with.

    And that is an underlying weakness with ID that may or may not be legitimately raised. Everyone knows that ID is NOT theologically neutral, despite valiant efforts to maintain such a front. Almost every proponent of ID (with a handful of exceptions) had pre-existing theological bases for that conclusion before they reached any scientific bases. Things like the “wedge document” make the entire approach suspect in many peoples’ eyes. It is hard to trust the science when there exists such a uniform and powerful bias. Ask those creationists who suspect evolution because they believe all scientists who propose it are atheists, or at least start with a presumption of naturalism! :0)

52. britphil on 22 Apr 2008 at 11:26 am #

    Just thought I had best drop in to see what all the fuss was about!

    “No statement to the scientific community is going to be perfect or fill all the holes of the varied arguments out there. ”

    Stan..I have slight problems with the phrase “to the scientific community”.

    It implies that there are no Christians present in the scientific community which is simply not the case. I would be really interested to listen to the views of the scientists who are also Christians within the scientific community. From Steve Martin’s comments, I could not tell whether you are a Christian or not, please that is not meant to be a cheap insult, just an observation, so I could not tell whether you were arguing from the viewpoint of a Christian deeply annoyed by the approach of the film or a more agnostic or atheistic viewpoint. If you are a deeply committed Christian who is just angry at the way the film appears to have had a go at science then please accept my apologies. If you are an atheist or an agnostic who has posted this thread in resp0onse to Michael’s initial thread then I think your opinion is equally as valid as anyone elses and well worth listening to respectfully.

    However, there is one comment I would like to make Steve. Are you equally as critical of the arrogant stance Richard Dawkins and some other scientists take in treating many of us Christians as being almost brain dead people who do not seriously think through the implications of our faith? By all means have a go at the film makers but I do hope that you are as even handed in your criticism as there is a lot in Dawkins’ condescending and patronising attitude and approach to other human beings to be critical about which even the more reasonable and fairminded in the scientific communtiy appear afraid to point out.

    With regards to your views on what the films says about evolutionary science and the Holocaust I tend to be in agreement with you in that you can argue it both ways. You cannot deny that the there are certain aspects of evolutionary thought which were embraced by the Nazis and you have made that point well. However, it could also be argued that Hiltler held a few quasi-christian beliefs and it can not be denied that there were many, many Christians who were complicit in collaborating with the Nazis to ensure that the Holocaust took place, including the leadership of some entire Christian denominations!

    It also needs to be added that many in the Klu KLux Klan had deeply held “Christian” beliefs, so Christians are on dodgy ground if they take this argument too far.

    However I still feel that evolutionary scientists do have questions to answer on the sanctity of human life…and please, I am not just harping on about pre-birth/abortion issues, but at any stage of human life. If humans in essence can be reduced to being considered merely a random collection of atoms, what role is there for not merely consciousness, which scientists appear to have done a lot of study on, but conscience and how it has evolved, which scientist appear a little more reluctant to tackle.

53. Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 Apr 2008 at 11:30 am #

    “Some of us have actually read Darwinist arguments and found them wanting.”

    Me.

    Highly commend Saint & Sinner’s posts in #48-50.

    Genesis Chapter 1 is instructive.

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. …

    Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. …

    So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. …

    And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

54. Jugulum on 22 Apr 2008 at 11:33 am #

    Vance,

    Er, which ultimate conclusions are you referring to, with which you cannot agree?

    Re: Neutrality of ID
    If someone tries to say that ID proponents have no biases, I would say that they’re being silly. No one is. (And at that point, I would want to find statistics on how many ID-supporters were already theists when they accepted it, and how many became theists because they accepted ID arguments.)

    If someone says that ID argumentation–as in, irreducible complexity, complex specified information, etc.–is religiously neutral, then they’re right. And I suspect that’s what people primarily have in mind when they say it’s theologically neutral. (If you think otherwise, I would challenge you to prove it before saying what you did about “valiant efforts”.)

55. britphil on 22 Apr 2008 at 11:36 am #

    Steve Martin

    I have just re-read some of your earlier threads.

    Please forgive me for some of what I have just posted, as it would appear that you do hold Richard Dawkins to account for being unbalanced in some of his arguments.

    I know..read all of the thread before posting etc…but I did not quite make it to the end I’m afriad before jumping right in there and wading in!

    Sorry!

    Regards

    Phil

56. Vance on 22 Apr 2008 at 12:09 pm #

    Jugulum, I was referring to the conclusion that the ID arguments regarding fine-tuning or IR, etc, are valid and supportable. I presume you and I would disagree on that point.

    Yes, the individual ID arguments may be theologically neutral, but the entire force behind the argument and movement as a whole is not theologically neutral. What I mean by that is that, absent a *pre-existing* theological belief in the existence of an intelligent designer, there would be no development of scientific proposals arguing for such a designer. It is the theology which created the scientific arguments, rather than the scientific evidence compelling the concepts.

    In short, if you took 100 scientists who had no biases for or against the idea of an intelligent designer (impossible, I know), and presented them with the evidence we currently have regarding biological evolution, it is my belief that none of them would arrive at the ID conclusion that it could not happen naturally. Now I can not prove that, of course, but I think any study of the type you suggest would bear that out. If you look at the leading proponents of ID right now, the vast majority of them had such pre-existing biases.

    On the other hand, even among the scientists who DO have such a pre-existing bias in favor of an intelligent designer, only a very, very small percentage accept the ID arguments (based on the number of supporting ID scientists in the relevant fields compared to the number of total scientists in the relevant fields, with a conservative estimate of how many are theists). So, it is not convincing at all to those without such a bias, and barely convincing to those who share our theist bias.

    I think that if the ID arguments were objectively convincing, we would some very different things going on.

    Now, I must qualify all of that by pointing out that I am referring to the ID arguments against a naturalistic biological evolution from earlier common ancestors. The overall concepts of anthropic arguments, fine-tuning, etc, has a bit more acceptance.

57. Jugulum on 22 Apr 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    Jugulum, I was referring to the conclusion that the ID arguments regarding fine-tuning or IR, etc, are valid and supportable. I presume you and I would disagree on that point.

    Actually… I’m not persuaded that IR & CSI are valid arguments. I haven’t exhausted what I need to study about it, but I’m not there yet. I’ve seen enough good arguments against them—at least as applied to macroevolution, with natural selection acting. (I put fine-tuning and abiogenesis in another category.)

    I definitely believe that life is intelligently designed, mind you! But I’m not convinced that these arguments are valid diagnostics to detect design in life.

    What I mean by that is that, absent a *pre-existing* theological belief in the existence of an intelligent designer, there would be no development of scientific proposals arguing for such a designer. It is the theology which created the scientific arguments, rather than the scientific evidence compelling the concepts.

    Bah. You’re free to think that. It just doesn’t help evaluate the merits of the arguments. And it can very easily interfere with honest examination–making someone too prone to dismiss.

58. Vance on 22 Apr 2008 at 12:36 pm #

    Very true, it can (and does) interfere with an evaluation of the merits. And, very often, it is more detrimental that useful. But, in some cases, and I think this is one of them, I think it is telling and useful, even if not conclusive (of course).

    I would take the Mormon version of the history of South America, for example, very skeptically because I am aware of their bias, and added to that the fact that virtually the ONLY historians who accept their propositions are their fellow Mormons, and probably not even all of them, these facts do come into play in the analysis alongside the actual historical data points. I think there is some legitimacy to such considerations.

59. Saint and Sinner on 22 Apr 2008 at 1:10 pm #

    Vance,

    [Please don’t take this in a condescending or angry way:]

    Why don’t you examine the evidence for yourself instead of appealing ad populum? All theories start out as a minority position, and some are resurrected.

    Secondly, your idea that only religious biases should exclude someone from being taken seriously is contrived and would not pass philosophical muster. There is no such thing as an unbiased person. The myth of religious neutrality in scienctific theories has been busted:

    http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Religious-Neutrality-Theories-Revised/dp/0268023662/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208887401&sr=8-1

60. Vance on 22 Apr 2008 at 1:31 pm #

    S and S:

    Well, yes, of course we should review the evidence itself, and I have definitely done so, and have concluded that it is not convincing (as I mentioned above). My only point is these other factors are also legitimate. It is true that all theories start out as minority positions initially, but those with some substance and legitimacy usually gain momentum and support beyond their initial support base and end up convincing those even with contrary biases (as evolution has done).

    And I never said that a religious bias should cause us to refuse to take someone seriously. But it should be a factor we consider, as we do with anything else. “Consider the source”, as they say, which in this case means consider the nature of the support that the theory has gotten. This factor may be down on the list of importance, but it IS still a factor we should consider.

61. links for 2008-04-22 « MouseNaround on 22 Apr 2008 at 1:35 pm #

    […] Reclaiming the Mind Ministries » Expelled: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - A Review Good review of the movie/documentary, “No Intelligence Allowed”. ht, theologica.blogspot.com (Justin Taylor) (tags: movie review documentary Intelligent-Design evolution education) […]

62. Too many goodies: Blog-love for mid-April « FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH on 22 Apr 2008 at 2:08 pm #

    […] And lastly, related to my recent “Apologetics as Worship” series, I offer two excellent reviews of the recent movie release, EXPELLED!  Breaking Down the Wall; & Evolution vs. Intelligence. […]

63. Josh on 22 Apr 2008 at 2:48 pm #

    Has anyone had chance to read the reviews of “Expelled” from the AnswersInGenesis site?

    They baffled me because AIG has pages dedicated to how they AREN’T supportative of ID and how they see it as dangerous. Yet they have Ken Ham talking with Ben Stein in an interview and promoting the movie through the AIG website!

    This seems like it would do more damage than help to the ID movement because this simply falls right into the hands of those who say that ID is simply a new form of creationism.

    Curious your thoughts

64. patrick on 22 Apr 2008 at 3:04 pm #

    Just saw Expelled, i gather that, overall, Ben Stein designed his movie to promote dangerously-free thought, especially more thinking about motivations that drive American academia and a lot of other behind-the-scenes worldview that we tend to take for granted.

65. Vance on 22 Apr 2008 at 3:42 pm #

    Wow, Ham and Stein, I am not sure who gets hurt more by that.

    AiG has, indeed, a love-hate relationship with the ID movement, since the leading light of ID is, as AiG describes him a “goo to you” evolutionist, who just objects to the mechanics and insists God MUST have done it, which is a position that AiG completely opposes. Of course, that does not prevent them from promoting his book which challenges the naturalistic aspects of evolution.

    And, I think that ID, when it is properly absorbed and understood, will eventually undermine traditional creationism. I see it is a way the Church can object to most of the aspects of “evolution” they don’t like, while accepting the fact that it did actually happen. So, AiG as a funded ministry has more to fear from ID than anything else.

    But I think the damage to Stein may be even greater, since ID really has done everything it can to distance itself from creationism. Behe and Dembski and even Johnson have publicly and, in some cases pretty pointedly, rejected young earth creationism and the movement does try to present itself as a religiously neutral movement (although the “wedge document” somewhat gives the lie to this).

66. Jugulum on 22 Apr 2008 at 3:50 pm #

    “AiG as a funded ministry”

    Is that a dig at their motivations?

67. Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 Apr 2008 at 4:23 pm #

    Vance: “And, I think that ID, when it is properly absorbed and understood, will eventually undermine traditional creationism. ”

    I highly doubt that.

    But in any case, if you really do believe what you wrote, then the neo-Darwinists should team up with the ID’ers to undermine traditional creationism.

68. Steve Martin on 22 Apr 2008 at 4:40 pm #

    S&S (#48): I think it is clear to most historically informed Christians that Anti-Semitism is a dark stain on our name – and unfortunately it has stained the name of Christ as well. Hitler was not the first, nor unfortunately the last, but probably the worst. The fact that he was the furthest thing from a follower of Christ is irrelevant – those that want to taint Christ because of this will do it. Social Darwinism & Eugenics are a dark stain on “Darwinism”, but have nothing to do with the Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. Darwin himself was definitely much less racist than most of (Christian!)Victorian society. In fact, he almost got kicked off the Beagle early in his journey because he protested the treatment of the Brazilian slaves. Again, please check out my critique-of-Campolo post I linked to in #2 above – and particularly the references contained in it.

    The reason I bring this up because these types of (baseless) attacks on “Darwinism” are very, very dangerous – for Christianity. The sword cuts both ways.

    Britphil(#52 & 55) No problem. Re: your question about evolutionary scientists & the sanctity of life. I, and other Evolutionary Creationists (better term than TE), see no conflict between biological evolution & the fact that all of humanity is created in the image of God. (Just don’t ask me how the image was bestowed on us … I have no clue). See my post: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/made-in-gods-image-or-evolved-from-apes.html for details on my view of this.

69. C Michael Patton on 22 Apr 2008 at 4:48 pm #

    It is probably because the movie is more about academic freedom than anything else. AIG has something to gain there, even if they don’t like ID.

    Either way, I agree that it may not be the best move for Stein to associate with AIG.

70. Vance on 22 Apr 2008 at 6:54 pm #

    TUaD, the ID’ers probably do have more in common with theistic evolution than creationists. And, I think the ID’ers would have more success, I think, if they were not tied to creationism as they are now. However, the Discovery Institute does get a great deal of funds from creationists who see them as fighting the good fight (and most of whom have no idea what they really are saying beyond “evolution bad”). And the “wedge document” does indicate that part of their plan is to use the ID propositions to open the door to begin teaching creationism itself in the schools, etc, IIRC. So, they are kind of playing both sides, disavowing creationism on the one hand, but still playing to that crowd, which makes up a good amount of their support.

71. Greg on 22 Apr 2008 at 9:44 pm #

    TUaD,

    Re: #67 - “I highly doubt that.”

    Well, it’s kind of working actually. Christians in my area of influence are surprised and shocked to find that ID is a full supporter of the theory of common descent, albeit with a bit of help from God.

    Recently, several of my 6-day creationist friends were reading the book “The Case For a Creator” and thinking it was providing a slam dunk case against evolution, until I pointed out to them the book only opposes Darwinism, not evolution.

    I wrote a whole post about this subject on my blog, if you would like to read it. It’s called “Christians and Intelligent Design” and under the “Intelligent Design” category. I found it very telling that many Christians will support something that sounds “Christiany” without fully understanding it.

    I of course, being an evolutionary creationist (nice term, btw!) do hope that ID makes it’s way into the church and draws people further from 6-day creationism, whether they realize it or not. It will be much easier to convince someone of common descent if they make a large theological investment into an idea that has it’s foundation in biological evolution. Hopefully this will ease the system shock most Christians go into when I present an evidence and Biblical based case for evolutionary creationism!

    And with that, I’ll be happy to point you to this blog that happens to be discussing a very relevant topic related to this right now!

    http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/

    And I would highly recommend watching his short video series called “What’s So Great About Evolution?” here: http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/whats-so-great-about-evolution/

72. Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 Apr 2008 at 11:18 pm #

    Vance writes: “TUaD, the ID’ers probably do have more in common with theistic evolution than creationists.”

    Ludicrous.

    Vance, Greg, Steve Martin et al, theological evolutionists who are repackaging themselves as “evolutionary creationists”, please carefully note the following excerpt:

    “But evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and possibly the most famous atheist in the world, was not taking any chances. He gave a PowerPoint presentation driving home that religion does not meet any of the standards of basic scientific inquiry, before casually flicking away a few of His last crutches. Doesn’t God provide people some solace? asked an audience member. “Isn’t that a little childish?” Dawkins replied. “Just because something is comforting doesn’t mean it’s true.” Then someone asked about death, and Dawkins quoted Mark Twain: “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born.”

    The room erupted in loud applause. God had definitely left the building—if he were ever here at all. Dawkins and his colleagues had helped to produce a kind of atheist big bang, a new beginning. But what kind of new structures might evolve? …

    So some atheists are taking seriously the idea that atheism needs to stand for things, like evolution and ethics, not just against things, like God. …

    Additionally, many atheists see the challenge of tearing down the pillars of organized religion as far from over—just check the numbers of Americans who don’t believe in evolution, they say. …

    Even Richard Dawkins is not one to reject certain memes based on their churchly pedigree. He calls himself a “cultural Christian,” admitting that he likes to sing Christmas carols as much as the next guy. But there’s a limit to his tolerance of religion. He can see the tactical virtues of making temporary alliances with religion—to “hold hands with religious people” when it comes to making the case for important causes like teaching evolution in the classroom. But there are definite limits. “In the larger war against supernaturalism, frankly, it doesn’t help to fraternize with the enemy,” he says.”"

    From: If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

    “He can see the tactical virtues of making temporary alliances with religion—to “hold hands with religious people” when it comes to making the case for important causes like teaching evolution in the classroom.”

    As a matter of tactics, Dawkins is saying that atheistic neo-Darwinists should hold hands with theistic evolutionists (aka evolutionary creationists).

    Vance, Greg, Steve Martin, et al, go ahead and hold hands with neo-Darwinist atheist Richard Dawkins. And yoke yourselves with other neo-Darwinist atheists.

    But no thanks, I won’t.

73. Greg on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:57 am #

    TUaD,

    It has been pointed out before, but just because atheists embrace evolution says nothing about whether it is true or not.

    Please understand that. Evolution does not need atheism, but atheism does need evolution.

    After all, if you found yourself dangling off a cliff, would you not hold onto that small rope for dear life, even if it could not support you? That is what the atheists do with evolution. It’s all they have, so they simply must cling to it with everything in them.

    Atheists also use the love of God to support atheism by way of the argument from suffering/evil. By your reasoning, anything they use to support their cause must be discarded, yet I doubt you would do away with the doctrine of God’s love, would you?

    The enemy once used scripture to temp Jesus. Does that make scripture bad? Of course not.

    Regardless of all this, its not like the atheists are going to win anyways.

    But building off your post, I think 6-day creationism might be the best tool the atheists have in their arsenal. Because Christians are so adamant in making an either/or case out of all this, that either evolution is true or the Bible is true, all an atheist has to do is present the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the Christian’s entire world view crumbles. They are not aware that both can co-exist quite nicely, because they have been sheltered from such “dangerous” views their whole life.

    Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creationism, whatever you wish to call it, does not have this problem, to only speak of one of its advantages. You could even say a position such as this removes any advantage atheists might have in the arena of knowledge.

    Of course, that is not why I hold to this stance. I do so because I think it is true. True to God’s special revelation and His natural revelation. I have to follow truth where ever it leads. Sometimes that quest brings me to conclusions that I never could have imagined myself supporting, such as this one. Many times they are unpopular too.

    But truth has a knack for being that way. Wouldn’t you agree?

74. JoanieD on 23 Apr 2008 at 6:39 am #

    To Greg in #71: http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/ Thanks for that link. And the chart on the post titled “Science and Education #1″ is quite good. (I think Michael will like it!)

    Can you give maybe a sentence or two description of evolutionary creationism? Thanks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_creationism
    I read about evolutionary creationism there. I see it says Billy Graham is not opposed to it. I see it also talks about some things in the Bible being allegorical. I am willing to guess that even “fundamentalists” have SOMETHING they read in the Bible that they think is allegorical or metaphorical or hyperbole. Does anyone think that Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt? Probably there are some.

    Joanie D.

75. Truth Unites... and Divides on 23 Apr 2008 at 7:52 am #

    “It has been pointed out before, but just because atheists embrace evolution says nothing about whether it is true or not.”

    Obviously. I don’t believe in neo-Darwinism because it’s not true.

    “Because Christians are so adamant in making an either/or case out of all this, that either evolution is true or the Bible is true, all an atheist has to do is present the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the Christian’s entire world view crumbles.”

    (1) Broad brush. You’re a Christian I presume. You’re not making an either/or case.

    (2) There’s not overwhelming evidence for evolution. In fact, I and many others would say it’s quite underwhelming.

    (3) There are apostate neo-Darwinists. Dr. William Provine, interviewed in the movie “Expelled” is one. There are many others. It is a prime example of neo-Darwinism causing people to withdraw from God.

    “Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creationism, whatever you wish to call it, does not have this problem, to only speak of one of its advantages. You could even say a position such as this removes any advantage atheists might have in the arena of knowledge.”

    The atheistic neo-Darwinists will gladly hold hands with you.

    “I have to follow truth where ever it leads. … Many times they are unpopular too.

    But truth has a knack for being that way. Wouldn’t you agree?”

    I agree and I do the same. However, neo-Darwinism is false. The unpopular view in academia is to disagree with neo-Darwinism.

76. Vance on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:33 am #

    The obvious point here is that to say we should oppose something because atheists are in favor it makes little sense. Last I heard, atheists were entirely in favor of heliocentrism and photosynthesis. I am not about to argue against those ideas on the ground that, in accepting them I would be “holding hands” with an atheist. Even the most ardent YEC believes 99% of the same things any atheist about our planet and universe and how it works. So, that argument is a non-starter.

    Let’s say there was an historian who looked at the history of the Church and saw all the horrible things it has done in its past. This historian is a militant atheist, so he writes a book in which he not only points out all of these flaws, but then goes beyond that and presents a thesis that, because of all that, Christianity must be a false religion.

    Now, the fact that he draws the wrong conclusion does not make the facts about the history of the Church wrong. It would be a huge mistake for the Church to oppose the book by denying the facts. Instead, the best approach is to accept the facts and show that those facts do not require that conclusion.

    Similarly, we can have a scientist who points to the reality of evolution and then draws the incorrect conclusion tha