Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed will be released in theaters throughout the country Friday. Many of us have been anxiously awaiting this film, which is hosted and narrated by Ben Stein, humorist, authur, speaker and actor. We all remember him as the teacher in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” “Anyone? Anyone?”
This is a film that examines the wide-spread practice of discriminating against scholars and teachers who don’t subscribe to Darwinist doctrine completely. Any deviation by a teacher, professor or researcher often leads to loss of respect, loss of tenure, loss of job and loss of funding.
It is commonly asserted by evolutionsits that any evidence contrary to Darwin's theory can be dismissed because such research doesn’t pass through the usual peer review system and publication in “respected” science journals. Ben Stein presents a case of Dr. Richard Sternberg, a prestigious scientist with impeccable credentials and two PhDs in evolutionary science who found his career, his reputation and his employment threatened because he dared to cross that line that “scientists” have arbitrarily set. As editor of a scientific journal he decided to publish a review article by another researcher that raised questions about complexity, the genetic code and design.
I’ll let Mr. Stein tell the rest of the story, but please don’t be turned-off by all the “science talk,” reviews are very positive and the film is said to be fascinating, straigt-forward and even funny. You do not have to be a biologist to understand and enjoy “Expelled.” The fact that this film has liberal academia and anti-theist groups in a tizzy is reason enough for me to be one of the first in line for Friday's opening.
Featured Article
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
"EXPELLED" Opens Friday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
You should go to Expelled Exposed to read what actually happened (and didn't happen) to Sternberg.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg
1) He was never paid by the academic institutions in the first place.
2) He never lost access to the Smithsonian.
3) He blatantly ignored standard procedures that EVERY article goes through: peer-review.
4) He attempted to gain creditability for his ID friend's paper by having it published in peer-reviewed journal (without actually having it peer-reviewed), costing the paper creditability within its audience due to the poor scientific quality of the letter.
5) He also mishandled the Smithsonian property while residing there.
Apologies for the second post, but regarding your comment about the reviews:
The film procurers have decided to LIMIT the access of film critiques to the screening of this film, after a film critic wrote a negative review of this film.
These comments are examples of the hysteria that this film has caused in those who hold points of view that are different. I have read both sides of the controversy and find that the way Sternberg was railroaded by the Smithsonian and some of his colleagues is a disgrace. The only explanation is a visceral hatred for anything that challenges some people's deeply held religious beliefs (by which I mean evolution, which is every bit a religion as Christianity or Judaism.)
You can read Sternberg's account of the incident here: http://www.rsternberg.net/
Hysteria? Only thing hysterical is your accusations of the academia and of my postings. There are numerous proven examples of falsity in the film, yet you can only describe them as hateful.
In regards to Sternbergs' use of OSC to 'validate' his claims, he can only state that in their pre-eliminary investigation his accusations appeared founded. And they clearly based it on emails that Sternberg had provided him. Considering the OSC is intended to work for "whistle blowers" (such as Sternberg), the attorneys letter reads like one a defensive attorney would write to their client.
But as the attorney also disclosed,
he did not perform a full investigation on the matter. The statements of the attorney to the validity of Sternberg's claims can hardly be considered final.
Like it or not, evolution is a real science. ID and creationism are not.
"The only explanation is a visceral hatred for anything that challenges some people's deeply held religious beliefs (by which I mean evolution..."
Or maybe, just maybe we support the scientific method and want to keep it intact, as it's been very useful in a number of areas including Gravity, Nuclear Energy, Atomics, Biology, Geology, etc. I don't hate ID or Creationism or Tarot Cards or Palm Reading. Those things are just not science as they lack evidence. The best ammo I've seen for ID so far is irreducible complexity, and that doesn't pass muster by even my meager scientific yardstick.
"Or maybe, just maybe we support the scientific method and want to keep it intact, as it's been very useful in a number of areas including Gravity, Nuclear Energy, Atomics, Biology, Geology, etc."
Virtually all the great discoveries of science were made by religious men. In fact, most were "creationists!"
I am a scientist and professor of anatomy and physiology and my rejection of Darwin has in no way impeded my work. I was once of the same mind as you, Darron, when an undergraduate and impressionable. Later, in graduate school and working on my doctorate I realized that the explanations offered by Darwin and his disciples are wholly inadequate to explain the complexities of life, even in its simplist forms. Contrary to the claims of Dawkins, Dennet et al, evolution is NOT the foundation of biological science. There are very many of us who doubt Darwinism yet are quite successful in our scientific work. We just have to be careful not to cross the editors and deans or we might find ourselves out of a job.
Hey professor,
Evolution via Natural Selection does not explain how compexity arose. It simply explains how existing organisms evolve over time. Right?
I believe the study of life from non-life (or complexity from non-complexity) is referred to as abiogenesis and you can find a nice article here on wikipedia.
I agree that Darwinian evolution is "wholly inadequate to explain the complexities of life, even in its simplist forms." That's because biochemists working in the field of biomolecular chemistry, a major sub-field of organic chemistry, are the ones in the correct field to explain the complexities of life. I'm confident that we'll have "abiogenesis in a beaker" in a decade or two. I think your view of Evolutionary Theory is a bit too wide. =)
Cheers!
You must be counting the "Great Discoveries" prior to the 19th century. People like Francis Collins are not Creationists.
The current research has indeed said that Darwin's explanation "are wholly inadequate". However, the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory still gives us common descent without any appearance of an "intelligent designer". As a research scientists I would think that you already knew that.
Since you pit "Darwinism" directly with "Creationism", tell me:
1) What do you believe is the scientifically accepted age of the earth?
2) How does your science explain the appearance and disappearance of species that do not exists today, within the fossil strata?
As to the use of theory of evolution in biology? You can find that with a little help from PubMed.
"abiogenesis in a beaker" in a decade or two, Darron?! You clearly have no idea what you are suggesting. Miller and Urey thought the same in 1953 and we are no closer today. Cell biologists discover more and more intricate and amazing structures of even the simplist known cells. To assert that we are on the verge of creating life is simply absurd.
Regarding abiogenesis Wikipedia posits the following: "Scientific consensus is that abiogenesis occurred..." I didn't know science was done by consensus. Here I thought it was by testing the null hypothesis all this time. As with most of what Darwinists claim, this is simply a "just so" story made up for the uninformed. Wikipedia then goes on to discuss panspermia--now there's a bit of science for you!
It's OK to have your pet theory about how it all came about, but just don't call it science!
The fossil record has not produced a single example of the evolutionary progression of any known species, extinct or otherwise. For every finished successful creature there should be millions of transitional fossils. Arguably, none have been found as yet. In fact, as Gould has said, the fossil record is testament to the stability of species over great spans of time. Because of this observation he developed the theory of "punctuated equilibrium," which is essentially creation in increments.
I have a question for both of you. How did all the known phyla come to exist in the Cambrian period, supposedly at the very beginning of evolutionary history?
...even the trilobite coumpound eye, which is probably the most complex eye in nature, second perhaps to the cephalopods?
I’ll let Mr. Stein tell the rest of the story, but please don’t be turned-off by all the “science talk,” reviews are very positive and the film is said to be fascinating, straigt-forward and even funny. You do not have to be a biologist to understand and enjoy “Expelled.”
The "science talk"? There is not much, and it isn't the intention of the film was never to engage the actual science of evolution. Ben Stein doesn't even seem to know what evolution is; he equates it with a strawman. You don't have to be a biologist to understand Expelled, because there is hardly any biology in it to begin with.
Does removing the "liberal bias" mean you have to also expunge science? Does it necessitate what Chris Mooney calls "The Republican War on Science"?
Thank God that Genesis doesn't attempt to explain the supply and demand, or else the religious right would throw a tantrum everytime the Invisible Hand was mentioned without an allusion to God.
Post a Comment