was re: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
I’m so disappointed in Ben Stein for this.
The trailer is well-edited and the speech is meticulously crafted, so I’m sure the movie as a whole makes a compelling argument. Sadly, the whole premise is on a slippery slope.
The Jesus fish on the back of the school desk… “subversive iconography.” The appeal to the Bart Simpson chalkboard persecution complex as Ben stands there, writing, “DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY; DO NOT QUESTION DARWINISM.”
“Hi. I’m Ben Stein. I’m a smart guy.” (Proof: I was a speechwriter for presidents. In other words, a PR flack! Also, a game show host and a movie star.)
Ben poses an interesting question: Are we just here because of “pure dumb fate and chance?” Right off the bat, open with an attack. Put ‘em on the defensive.
For most of Ben’s life, he’s thought the answers to his questions were fairly straightforward: “Everything that exists was created by a loving God; rocks, trees, animals, people, everything.” Why would Ben believe this? Quite possibly because he was brought up (Jewish) from a very young age and told these things.
He’s “aware that other people — very smart people — believe otherwise.” But Ben goes on to frame this point of view in very improbable terms: We’re the product of particle collisions (what isn’t?) and “mud and lightning” (sure), and, “somehow, that mud found a way to grow, reproduce, swim, crawl, breathe, walk, and… eventually… think.”
I think most human beings, who have a very limited concept of space and time (myself included) simply boggle at the immense number of changes that we as a species have gone through since the beginning. At how many millenia (that’s a LONG time) it took, how many subtle random or selective changes to our biology must have happened to bring us here. They simply can’t wrap their heads around it, so they fall back on superstition and folklore.
He has no problem if people want to believe “that sort of thing.” (Science.) Ben states that we live in a free society…. but then immediately invokes Godwin’s Law - bringing up Nazi Germany and showing images of death camps. This is really a slimy thing to do. He may be saying that, but the imagery is clearly intended to associate proponents of evolution with the third reich.
Ben asserts that people are entitled to believe and say what they want to about god and the development of life… but wait, that’s what Ben used to think. (DA DA DUMMMMMM. Flash back to repressive chalkboard doodling.)
Introducing ‘mild-mannered’ Dr. Sternberg, who published^h^h^h er, ramrodded a “scientific” journal article by Dr. Meyer, into the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington which was later retracted, “because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.”
In other words, everything published in this journal for its entire history was done so in a very systematic way, where one assertion or discovery supported the next in as logical a way as it could, and Sternberg comes along and sticks in a bunch of material that really doesn’t jive.
Ben laments that Dr. Sternberg then became the object of a “massive campaign” that “smeared his reputation” and came close to destroying his career. To which I ask: Didn’t he bring that upon himself?
Dr. Sternberg is then shown saying, “What I’m asking for is the freedom to follow the evidence to wherever it leads.” Nobody is denying you this, sir. However, you’re attempting to stand on the shoulders of giants — 122 years worth of hard work founded on scientific principles — and use them as your soap-box. These people don’t agree with you; you used them. Of course they’re a bit peeved at you.
The dawn of the personal computer and the world-wide web have made it ridiculously cheap to put one’s opinions out there… I’m doing it right now. But if I wanted to be taken more seriously, I’d spend a lot more time researching past work or doing pure research — something I daresay you will have a slightly harder time doing, given the subject matter — and then submit my findings to a peer-reviewed journal. Nobody is stopping you from starting and editing your own journal; they merely got a bit miffed that you sullied the good name of someone else’s.
Ben asks, “What was so damning about this article?” (Emphasis his. And how deliciously ironic… the concept of ‘damnation’, built right in.) It was not the article, it was the manner in which it was shoehorned into a respectable scientific journal with no peer review (because there aren’t any positions supporting this position in peer-reviewed scientific journals) in what was already going to be his last issue as editor of the magazine. A parting shot, if you will. I repeat: he was already leaving as editor; he wasn’t kicked out over the article (though he probably would have been.)
Now, Ben says, NOTHING was wrong with the paper… it merely suggested that there are signs of intelligent design in nature (while we see a graphic blowing away da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man in a shower of sparks) and that DNA could not have been an accident, or a “cosmic mistake.” (Thanks, Ben. Put yourself in that Venn Diagram too, okay?)
Then, he concludes that the “evidence” in this paper seems to indicate that we the the product of a higher intelligence. I’ve read some arguments that suggest that the Bible (or whatever other religious text you favor) should be taken literally, but I have yet to see the hard scientific evidence that makes the case for me.
Ben alludes to those glorious bygone days of yesteryear, (the time of “Galileo, or Einstein”) when scientists could safely publish papers suggesting that… oh, wait a minute. How hypocritical is it to say that about Galileo? (I’m referring to 1610 here.)
Not to mention Einstein. J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI was collecting material on Einstein as soon as he set foot on American shores. They were trying to discredit him and connect him with Soviet spies. This campaign continued for 23 years.
Albert Einstein not only was a pacifist and an internationalist who fought against racism, but he also used his fame to urge witnesses not to testify against the House Un-American Activities Committee, headed up by Senator Joseph McCarthy. (You know, the guy who hated those, “Godless Communists?”)
So of course Einstein probably could have published a paper supporting intelligent design, if that’s what he believed. Sadly, he didn’t. Johanna Fantova (Albert’s last girlfriend) wrote in her journals of Einstein’s popularity, and how he would write back to strangers, some of whom tried to convert him to Christianity. He said, “All the maniacs in the world write to me,” she wrote.
Ben: “Unfortunately for Dr. Sternberg, we live in a very different era.” (Scene of leopard chasing down its prey. So… scientists are the dominant species here, the predators, Ben?) “This is an era of Darwin, and in such an era, those that challenge the Status Quo seldom go unpunished.”
Repeat: Dr. Sternberg published a non-peer reviewed article in a scholarly journal just before he left his post as editor. He selected himself as the editor for the piece. It was a lame thing to do. He deserved to be called out for this underhanded move.
As Ben “investigated” the situation, (hah!) he discovered that Dr. Sternberg is “far from alone; many other scientists face similar ‘persecutions’.” (Montage of Ben interviewing these poor souls, none of whom are named.) “They’re losing their jobs, they can’t get tenure, they’re denied publication in scientific journals. And they’re openly ridiculed and ostracized by their peers.” (Cut to Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” Very cute. More subliminal attacks.) “All for questioning Darwin.”
Of course they’re going to be passed over for tenure, Ben. They’re not doing scholarly research. They’re not doing their part to advance the sciences. There is no conspiracy against the “theory” of intelligent design, it’s right out in the open. The real scientists are more frustrated that you are wasting their time, and feeding the popular press conflicting reports to muddy the waters.
Some presumably bushel-basketed “scientist”: “It’s the kind of thing where you learn to keep your mouth shut.” You mean, so nobody will find out that you’re injecting your religious beliefs into your scientific studies?
Foreign guy: “I … have been told to shut up.” Good! I’m glad someone still has the guts to.
Guy in suit: “We were accused of.. of being diabolical, uh, theocratic conspirators who were trying to, uh, force religion into the classroom.”
Then you probably were. It doesn’t belong in public schools. Send your children to private religious schools, or home-school them. You have the right to do this. Welcome to America!
Ben: “It isn’t just scientists attacking these guys either; the media’s in on it, the courts, the educational system; everyone’s in it.”
(Throws up hands in mock disbelief.) Ben! You live in America! Just a minute ago you were thankful for the freedom of speech! What about the First Amendment? Thomas Jefferson’s idea of “building a wall of separation between church and state?”
I for one am very glad that I was able to go to school and learn the scientific method; it’s hard enough to teach actual science (untainted by religious beliefs) in schools, and as soon as you open the door to one religion’s textbook, you have to accept them all. I guess I wouldn’t have minded a few lessons on the Flying Spaghetti Monster — in my religion class. (Ramen.)
I’m also glad that if I were accused of a crime, I would be given the right to a fair and unbiased trial, supported by scientific evidence and not religious doctrine. (For some reason I’m thinking about 1693 here.)
And “the media” is a loose term for a bunch of different points of view being driven by a variety of political and religious belief systems. So depending on where you get your news, you’ll hear the same (or perhaps different) facts with a very different slant. There isn’t a media conspiracy against the “theory” of intelligent design, Ben; they just thrive on controversy, and you’re drumming some up… so they’re one of your allies.
Ben goes on, “I shouldn’t be surprised; after all, these guys are asking some pretty dangerous questions… suggesting that Darwinism isn’t just improbable, it might actually be dangerous.”
But he doesn’t give an example or say how! He just lets you mull it over. While we cut back to still more images from a Nazi death camp.
FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt): Conjuring up images that Darwinism is “dangerous.” You mean, ideas that the strong survive? Consider the scale of the argument. The case can easily be made that humanity is screwing up the planet and our actions are wiping out countless species of flora and fauna. So in a sense, we’re all the strong ones, with our overdeveloped brains and our tools and our desire to “multiply and be fruitful.” As Harry Tuttle said, “Remember, kid, we’re all in this together.”
Frankly, I’d consider the science of biology to be more responsible when it studies the carrying capacity of a habitat and suggests checks and balances on the population, instead of religion, which tells its followers that birth control and abortion and economic or political restrictions on how many children you can have (eg China) are sins NO MATTER WHAT because they want to be #1 and take over. Because they’re right. (They just know it; it’s what their flavor of invisible sky wizard has decreed. Their forefathers told them.) And they have to continue the revenue stream, to build more churches and spread God’s holy word.
Ben: “I should know better than to ask such questions; after all, I’ve been warned.” (Cut to Richard Dawkins, Philip Pettit, Daniel Dennett, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and back to Dawkins… getting cut off before he can explain what he means by a “rival doctrine.”)
Ben: “The more I thought about the situation, the more I wondered why we tolerate free speech in every other area of the society.” (Not true; try protesting against President Bush and you will be escorted to a small barbed-wire fence enclosure about six miles away from the route of the convoy. For your own safety, of course.)
Meanwhile we’re cutting to images of Dr. Martin Luther King giving a speech, protesters marching with signs, etc.
Now back to poor repressed Ben at his chalkboard, slaving away. “In my experience, people who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism.” (But they are apparently convinced that everyone is out to get them. Right? Conspiracy?) “So that tells me that Darwinists are afraid. They’re hiding something.” (Who’s afraid? Who’s making this propaganda fluff piece again? Conspiracy!!?!)
Canadian guy in shadow, obviously scared for his life at the hands of the ravenous avenging leopard scientists with a lust for blood: “We’re so schizophrenic…” (Agreed. Look it up.) “We talk aboot things being designed and optimized,” (yes, by man, often in a poor imitation of the elegance of millions of years of nature’s evolved patterns), “…but then when you ask us” (who? Real scientists? Venn diagram time again, chief…) “especially in public, we’re all aboot defending neo-Darwinism.”
Holy schnikes. Now it’s not just evolution, it’s not just Darwinism. It’s NEO- Darwinism. (Cue Keanu: Whoa.) Is that supposed to remind people of Neo-Naziism? Again, these attacks are pretty blatant, and pretty ridiculous.
Ben: “I now realize it’s my duty to get the word out, to warn others before it’s too late.” (Passing by a case with framed photographs of many respectable scientists, and a few ominous empty frames… presumably now empty of the portraits of once-respectable individuals — like Ben — who were exposed! As charlatans and frauds and sooth-sayers! Get the whips and flagellate them!)
Ben: “So I’m going to begin by warning you; feel free to watch this film, if you must,” (trust me, the preview is painful enough) “and I hope you do, but you’ve got to know that doing so could land you in a heap of trouble.”
Uh, no. Merely watching the film, which you probably consider subversive, might get you in trouble if you lived in an oppressive religious regime. But you really don’t, Ben. You are one lucky guy.
“Some of you are going to lose your friends for watching this film. Some of you may even lose your jobs.” (Egotistical sense of self-importance? Check! Give me break.) “In fact, if you’re a scientist with any hope of a future, I suggest you leave right now.”
“College or high school students, especially teachers, legislators, journalists…” (remember, all the people who are supposedly conspiring against the brave rebel forces of Intelligent Design, maybe we’ve got a few good men and women of the cloth tucked away amongst their ranks..)
“Anyone else with a stake in this debate should probably leave right now as well. But if you do leave, will anyone be left to fight this battle?”
“Anyone?”
(”Bueller?”)
I realize that this is supposed to echo the sentiment that if you know what’s best for you, you should keep your head down, lest you too are attacked by the slavering beast of pure science.
And it also calls to mind the poem, First they came… but you know what? That comparison falls apart. Thank your lucky stars that someone DID speak up for the Jews, Ben. It means that you’re here and that you have the right to voice whatever interesting idea comes into your head.
Meanwhile, the slightly sinister looking custodian is erasing poor Ben’s scribbling from the chalkboard. And no doubt he’s pissed about it too, because there’s a real professor coming to teach actual science in the morning and now he has to clear your scribbling off the board.
Real, actual Science uses a careful method to work things out and draw conclusions — at first, perhaps based on conjecture — but then those hypotheses are supported by hard data, which is gained by hard work.
Real Science struggles to solve problems like overpopulation (thanks in no small part to the church), famine and malnutrition, and disease. (Yes, it also helps us find more efficient ways to kill people, but you can vote on which science gets more funding with your tax dollars.)
One unfortunate side effect of Real Science is that is pushes back the veil of superstition that religion swaddles us in like a blanket. That’s uncomfortable; it’s like Douglas Adams, writing about the Total Perspective Vortex. It’s realizing that you are the tiniest, most insignificant speck of nothingness in the whole cosmos and that your lifespan is terribly, terribly short in comparison to the age of the universe.
People don’t like that, nor can they even comprehend or imagine what “not being” would be like. To comfort themselves against the dark and the cold and the fear, and of death, they create stories to tell themselves and their children. And it makes them feel better, and they can go on living their small and unimportant lives, knowing that somewhere, someone loves them and is looking out for them and actually cares about them.
I respect a person’s right to believe what they want to believe. I may feel that they’re wasting their time by building a club where they can all go feel less lonely together, but I have no problem with it.
I find it unfortunate that their club bickers with all of the other clubs, and it causes a lot of hurt feelings, wars and so forth. But I draw the line when anyone affiliated with any religion is trying to hurt other people.
I find it very unfortunate that their children are indoctrinated without truly being given a chance to make these sort of choices for themselves.
And in this case they are indirectly hurting other people’s children, by trying to force public schools to teach totally unscientific nonsense and pass it off as science. It fundamentally disagrees with the whole idea of the scientific method.
It is a waste of time when there is precious little time enough to teach a child everything they need to know in school, and there are already plenty of other factors there to distract them.
I do not agree with any “moral majority” that tries to impose its belief system upon others, and while I think that abortion is unfortunate, it is sometimes very necessary. People who withhold medical treatment from their loved ones — their children! — are committing crimes.
I’ll close with the words of the people they’re trying to sling mud at.”On the whole, They’re not scientists.”
“Intelligent design is not a research program.”
“It’s all propaganda.”
“They’re distracting you from what’s important.”
Yep!
and ask LocationServices to triangulate a rough position, then use EDGE to submit that to a server. From there, based on the (server side) user’s permissions or prefs, it could email, or do some kind of push updates. The end result is, someone is logged into a web page and sees a google map with that circle showing roughly where I am.