I’m Ben Stein – many of you know me from the classic film, “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” or from my Comedy Central show “Win Ben Stein’s Money”. Still others of you may know me as a speechwriter, for presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. You may even have read my books, attended one of my lectures at The American University, Washington DC, or seen me on the talk shows.
I’m glad you found this site, because I want to share with you my thoughts from time to time here about a subject that is very near and dear to me: freedom. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, and that is doing irreparable harm to some of the world’s top scientists, educators, and thinkers.
America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom. Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.
A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry.
Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.
This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.
Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.
Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.
Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.
Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.
In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.
They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters near you in February 2008. To learn more, check out my blog here often … and explore the rest of our site for new developments, or to volunteer to help spread the word.
Sincerely,
Ben Stein
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Actually, Einstein did not believe in a personal God and would abhor this sort of political strongarming of religion into the classroom. Take note:
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]
I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. [Albert Einstein, in a letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein]
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. [Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]
People like the opportunistic Ben Stein would do well as to understand the scientific method. Evolutionary biology has been under the microscope and studied rigorously for 130 years. ID, and its precursor creationism, has not even bothered to produce anything in terms of research.
Perhaps Mr. Stein would benefit to ask some serious questions of his ID proponents. Here are some suggestions:
1) Give a comprehensive statement about what ID is. What does it mean?
2) What predictions does ID theory make?
3) What principles and standards are used to evaluate evidence?
4) What recent discoveries have ID researchers made?
5) What features of ID theory are subject to modification? What kind of observation, if it were seen, would change ID theory? What criteria is there for accepting a change?
6) How does ID explain the evidence produced by conventional science?
I highly doubt any of this will be addressed. This is going to be one of those fawning, self-congratulatory “documentaries.” by the right to reassure how great they are….
“Aren’t you smart! All those smarmy professors think they’re so great, but you figured it out and they’re wrong!”
“Christianity is under assault! Everyone is against you but you’re so strong for believing still! It must be so hard when you have hundreds of millions of friends!”
“You’re a martyr! Every one of your problems can be blamed on a single group of non-believers/scientists who are making ‘Merika awful! Oooooh! They’re so mean and arrogant!”
Pathetic.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 am
Ben,
I am very impressed with your willingness to take up such a contentious issue. As you note, and the links on your site establish, this issue of Design in nature is heavily persecuted within the academic institution. But the persecution and ridicule transcends the so-called bastions of intellectual inquiry into the media and even the arts. Your starring in this documentary will not only get you expelled by the academics but the good’ol regular folk who recieve their indoctrination further down the line. You are going to go from, “Yeah Ben Stein, that hilarious guy from Ferris Bueller and comedy central…” to, “that Ben Stein is just a religious fundamentalist bigot who hates science and the establishment clause…guy” But to others like myself, you are taking on the role of public-intellectual-freedom-fighter.
Thanks Ben.
T. Russ
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 am
So, lemme get this straight. You equate two of the greatest scientists ever and their need to get backing ( money ) so they had to pander to the church. Never mind that they were one step in the “god of the gaps” philosophy. If it can’t be explained, “god did it”. Thus a gap in knowledge is filled by god. And every scientist that has come along after them has improved upon their ideas and succeeded where they failed. Can you imagine Dr Saulk saying that god created polio and therefore, we don’t need a vacination against it? If creationists want to be accepted as “real” sceintists, they should pony up real and I mean REAL scientific proof that there is a creator. So far they haven’t and they can’t. To quote Prof. Richard Dawkins “If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can’t do it. You are a fake.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Ben, Ben, Ben. I’m truly disappointed to see you involved in this misguided project.
I always liked you; I used to love to watch Win Ben Stein’s Money. That’s why it truly saddens me to see you lend your name to such intellectually bankrupt and vacuous twaddle. And, yes, Ben, it is idiocy. You parrot every creationist talking point, from science supposedly “suppressing” intelligent design to that jaw-droppingly dumb thing you said in one of the trailers about scientists “not even being allowed to think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”
Come on; give me a break.
Stick to politics and economics, Ben; you clearly have little understanding of science.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Hey Ben, the Pope called. He said, “Ben Stein is an absurdity.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Hey, Ben, why’d your webmaster delete the comment I posted about 20 minutes ago? It showed up right away; now I come back to see if anyone else has commented and it’s gone.
For someone complaining about scientists “censoring” intelligent design, that seems rather hypocritical, don’t you think.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.
Everyone has that ability. They just don’t have the ability to force other people to believe them, and that’s a very good thing since we see quite clearly what happened when the theists you support had that kind of power to abuse.
Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.
This is an assertion rather shot to pieces by Einstein’s own statements regarding the place of a creator-deity in his cosmogeny:
“To assume the existence of an unperceivable being … does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world.” - Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
“I don’t try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.” - Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
One hopes that the film will be more accurate than this screed is.
Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.
No, I didn’t, and I find such an assertion highly suspect. Being an intelligent design advocate is not, per se, something that unfits one from being employed in any capacity. I’m sure that an ID supporter can run an autoclave, for example, as well as any non-ID supporter. I would probably look at this person askance when looking for a research assistant, however, because anyone who couldn’t torpedo the ID arguments below the waterline is frankly not that knowledgable in biology. Furthermore, since the ID advocates have shown an inclination to try to shore up a conclusion they’ve already reached with evidence, rather than the other way around, anyone who believed that this backwards approach has any utility would be someone who could also come to his unshakeable conclusions on other matters and manipulate the evidence to reach the desired outcome.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Dear Brother Ben Stein,
I have prayed for many years for the rehabilitation of your Soul, and now I awake this morning from my night of Visions to find that He has answered our prayers!!!
Praise Him!!
May I be the first to welcome you and give you praise Under the Glory of God, for using the obvious talents He has given you to proselytize for His Good Deeds in this Universe that He has given man to oversee as His Dominion.
And speaking of Dominion, I will pray to God that you seek His Glory in the representation of Rep Tom Tancredo as our next President of the United States Under God, and NOT Sen. Sam Brownback, who is like the demon in an angels clothing, but not exactly.
You see, in addition to many other policies Rep. Tom will enact a 100 Day Policy that will include not only planting land mines on our borders to Stop Illegal Immigration and roaming packs of mexican rape squads, but also, on day 62 if I am not mistaken, as President, Rep. Tom Tancredo will put an end to Political Correctness.
So I am really looking forward to your new movie, as I am certain it will energize the Tancredo for President campaign, maybe even more than the recent slaughter of Negro American Citizens in Newark by a pack of illegal mexican death banditos!!!
Yours in the Glory of His Name and Country
RPTH
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
..and Ben Stein joins “Liars for Jesus.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Oh golly, I am sure looking forward to seeing your film! I know you will really skewer those fundamentalist evilutionists with the proof of intelligent design. Thank you for making this film, I know the FSM supports you in this noble cause.I plan on wearing my pirate finery to the opening night.
Ramen!
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Sorry Ben, but you’re completely and utterly wrong. The recent legal case in Dover, for example, did NOT deny the teaching of creationism in the schools. It said that there was no evidence for intelligent design and that ID does not meet the criteria to be considered science and therefore should not be taught in school SCIENCE classes.
The judge ruled (correctly) that the only arguments that the ID folks were able to put forth were either “Straw man” fallacies where they misquoted what evolution was in order to shoot it down, or they were “false dichotomy” fallacies. i.e. “If Science can’t explain this (or more likely if the ID proponent’s knowledge of science is not sufficient to explain it) then the alternative must be ‘God did it’”. That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not science.
The judge in the case specifically left open the possibility of ID being taught in a class on religion as a cultural influence or in a class which surveys various religious beliefs. Also, the judge was not a liberal activist judge but a conservative judge appointed by GW Bush himself.
Sorry, but your facts and premise are completely wrong.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
There is no controversy. ID has no theory, no predictions, no data. It is not science, therefore the scientific community does not address it. This trite film is an example of the desperation of the ID movement. ID will can never be taken seriously because they believe that they may claim the authority of science while refusing to submit to the very rules that allow that authority to exist.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
ps
I forgot to mention, that Rep Tom Tancredo, on Day 33 of his 100 day plan, will put in their place once and for all those evilutionists who just a go about persecuting Good Christian Scientists and Philosophers as if they have a Soul so darkened by the Demon, that no light ever will escape.
So your movie clearly will have certain economies of scale and synergies with the Tancredo for President campagin and I strongly urge you to contact their representatives. By all means, DO NOT answer the phone if someone from the Sam Brownback for President campaign calls you–they cannot be trusted any more than you would trust an elite secular progressive college professor.
-rpth
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.
Where do I get this thought-detection device that you are referring to? Where do I get the ban stick? Where are these people being banned from? May I have a list? Are they not allowed to do experiments? To gather data?
My dear man, science is not done by press release. It is done by gathering data. The reason intelligent design is mocked is not because there is anything inherently stupid about the idea. It is because there is simply no data to support it. And yet its supporters continue to howl “But we wanna be scientists!”. Go ahead. Be a scientist. Gather data. Prove that you’re right. Until then, good luck.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
What a disappointment. Freedom is God given? Why doesn’t God give freedom to all the people of the world? Are we going to discount the blood spilled and lives sacrificed by so many over the years to win that freedom?
Ben, scientific discoveries and innovations can’t be squelched forever by the establishment. If there is indeed some conspiracy of thought control on the part of “big science” (and I can’t imagine why there would be) then merely through plodding along, doing good science, Intelligent design backers will be shown to be right all along. Dr. Behe has a successful career, writing books, doing science, etc. If his science is good, then it will speak for itself.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Wah? What an IDiotic premise!
Ben, you should feel ashamed - pandering to the IDiots. Freedom is NOT being suppressed by the scientific community! ID has nothing to show. ID is all smoke and mirrors for the credulous, it is not science, because it is not testable. ID and it’s lying backers may not admit it, but ID is all about getting the Bible and Creationism back into American schools. It’s a pipe dream backed by theocrats, and BTW - it’s illegal too, thanks to the Constitution.
I suggest you and your religious morons that back ID move to Iran if you want to live in a theocracy. Have a good time there.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
This movie will be a travesty. It will not make money. It will be ridiculed everywhere. This will go down as Ben Stein’s folly. Why don’t you read a biology book instead of pandering to the right-wing nutjobs?
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Not falsifiable. Not science. See ‘Sober, Elliott. “What is Wrong with Intelligent Design,” The Quarterly Review of Biology: March 2007.’
Can anti-ID types be shrill and strident on the issue? Sure. So can pro-ID types. Doesn’t have any bearing on the truth or worth of their statements.
The issue is: can the potential involvement of a designing force be proven or disproven in the scientific arena? The answer is no.
Further, any approach that says “Can’t understand; God must’ve done it,” hinders scientific inquiry, feeds anti-intellectual sentiment and further erode’s America’s admirable advancements in science and technology. Also see ‘Charles P. Pierce, “Greetings from Idiot America,” Esquire Magazine: November 2005.’
Ben, think of your country. I mean it: think. Being great with trivia is one thing, but come-on, THINK.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Come on, Ben. You’re a smart guy, let’s stop pretending that there is anything scientific, rational, or even honest about intelligent design.
Do you seriously want our children to be taught the myopic tautology that “god did it?” Do you not realize that science is a meritocracy? Do you not realize that science is also about open inquiry, and that it is intelligent design and religion that are doctrinally opposed to open inquiry?
We’re talking about the difference between empirical validation (science) and authoritarian validation (religion). It’s that simple.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Of course universities and scientific institutions discriminate, that’s why science does. If a person makes a claim and can’t back it up with research then it is rejected. Creationists can’t present any science to support their myth so they aren’t published. Universities have the old saying, “publish or perish” and that’s what happens to creationists.
Why should the rules be any different for creationists? We give special treatment to retarded people so the creationists are just demanding that we treat them like retards. Well, that sounds fair enough.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Those who claim the universe was created by an “intelligent designer” need to 1) prove the existence of such a designer using the scientific method and 2) explain who created the designer. If they fail, their “hypothesis” should be discarded and they should indeed be expelled. This mockumentary surely must be a joke!
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Ben,
The problem with your ‘arguements’ here is, quite simply, that they are fallacious. The only ’suppression’ occurring is that scientists are asking the pseudo-scientists to actually have some demonstrable proof, or even experiments that can be conducted, to validate their points of view. This ineivatably leads to the “they’re picking on me arguement!!” by those individuals (namely, *ALL* intelligent designers.
Science is tough. You must always, always, always be ready to prove what you’re saying and why you’re saying it - merely stating that *you* don’t believe it doesn’t mean a thing. Prove it. Demonstrate it. Put something behind your words other than nefarious intentions, snake oil, and misplaced ad hominem arguements. Become the teacher that you played in Ferris Bueller.
But I doubt that you will. And neither will so many others that only listen, think and do what their priests, bosses and leaders tell them and never think for themselves. You’re incorrect in so many ways but one is particularly striking - your comment, “Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement”. Do you know one thing that’s even more basic? The ability to think for one’s self - otherwise, Gallileo would have blindly accepted the church’s statements and continued on (odd how even back then, it’s the religious ‘thinkers’ of the time supressing thought, eh?)
Donald Wheeler
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Question: Kenneth Miller is a prominent biologist who wrote a whole book about God. He has not, to my knowledge, been fired or disciplined in any way. In fact, he’s one of the most prominent and well respected biologists in the field. There are numerous other examples of openly religious biologists and scientists working today, many of whom have written extensively about their faith. The worst most of them have endured is criticism, to which they responded in kind. That doesn’t seem to square very well with the thesis that scientists are routinely banned from working just because they are openly religious.
Couldn’t it be that the particular scientists you highlight in the film have something more in common about their work or their conduct than merely that they were religious?
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
You know Ben, if the intellegent design community would quit whining and do some, you know, science they just might get a little more respect. BTW, loved the way you kicked the crap out of that strawman. I hope that the move is better than your arguements.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I can not wait to see this movie. Finally someone will stand up to those crazy proponents of ID “theory.” Even if it takes unintentional satire to do it. Thank you Mr. Stein.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
What nonsense!
Anyone can say whatever they want; but if you’re going to propose a scientific theory, or publish a paper in a scientific journal you have to back it up with actual research, including empirical observations, statistical analysis and, you know, facts and stuff….
No one is being censored for talking about God; but they ain’t gonna get published if they can’t back their ideas up with something substantial. It’s called having standards; the Right Wing in America should stop whining and learn what that means.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Dear Mr. Stein,
Science (unlike you, apparently) needs evidence to believe something is real. Bring evidence for ID and we’ll be happy to examine them.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Two words- Dover, Pennsylvania.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
While I am generally a fan of both your acting and, often enough, some of your political statements (though not all) I am flabbergasted at this notion you present that Intelligent Design represents “freedom” from institutionalized thought or has had anything to do with the developments of knowledge and technology science has granted us. History shows quite clearly that the involvement of religion has repeatedly hindered science and the development of society. Using the argument that “God did it”, as Intelligent Design does, effectively removes the questions and inquiry you reference. Additionally I have known many scientists and biologists and none have ever remarked that their thoughts are censored regarding religion. Contrarily the Intelligent Design movement often forces their supporters to sign a statement saying they will ignore all evidence that does not fit into their world-view. That is not science. That is limiting inquiry. And that is why I am astounded that you, a very intelligent man, can possibly make these claims. They are directly opposite of the reality of the situation. Thank you for your time and attention.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Wow Ben you’re so cool, trying to mask your religious views as Science and yourself as a rebel (perhaps you should read a little about the history of Science and free inquiry in Europe?). No, you don’t get “banned” for suggesting that God may have done something. Most theistic scientists probably believe that God directed evolution. I’m disappointed that you don’t know that Science isn’t something meant to confirm your religion–or anyone else’s religion–but I shouldn’t expect any more from someone who cares more about creating propaganda than they do promoting actual free inquiry.
Sincerely,
Alex Caro
High school freshman
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I’m terribly sorry you have wasted so much time and effort (and money?) creating this film if this is really your premise. I’m an evolutionary biologist and I believe in God and that the universe is a divine creation… Had no problems with the thought police so far.
What is not “allowed” as a scientific explanation is “God did it”. That has no explanatory or predictive power since God could do whatever whenever… pretty useless for creating technology or predicting what may happen. If Newton said “the apple fell because God made it”, then we’d have no Law of Universal Gravitation since God could make something fall or not at his whim. I hope you get my drift.
There are at least thousands of scientists who believe in a divine creator and still manage to not resort to “God did it” or the equivalent “magic happened” when they do their work. These scientists have no problem publishing, getting tenure, or enjoying a beer with atheist colleagues.
Oh, one more thing. Just ask yourself, “what is the ultimate divine revelation: the Bible, or the Creation itself?” It basically boils down to trusting the authors (and translators) of an old book with at least partially questionable origins, or the evidence provided to your own senses and reason. Seem pretty like a pretty obvious choice if you believe, as I do, that God created the universe and granted us the ability to at least partially understand it.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Ben,
I’m not going to accuse you of intentionally misleading your audience, because I’m no mind-reader and I have more respect for you than that, but just judging from the trailer for this film and from your initial blog entry, it looks to me as if the end result is misleading — intentionally or not.
Your blog and trailer seem to rely on scare tactics and also seem to overstate the intentions of some fringe minority. I hope that’s not your intention. I expect better of you. Perhaps I’m just reading into things. But as I said, that certainly *seems* to be the case.
Case in point: one of the most respected evolutionary biologists working today is Dr. Kenneth Miller, who was key to the anti-Intelligent Design case in Dover, despite being a devout and very open Christian. There isn’t a single person trying to keep him from expressing his religious views. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him give a single talk in which he didn’t state up front his religious beliefs. But he’s quick to point out that his faith — while not contradicted by science — also isn’t supported by it. If it were, it would stop being faith, wouldn’t it?
Therefore, I feel your assertion that some Darwinian orthodoxy is suppressing religious expression in the scientific community is overstated. Name one person in the scientific community trying to stifle Miller. Just one.
Furthermore, I think you’re using the words “Intelligent Design” in a manner different from which most biologists and the like understand it. There’s no doubt that Kenneth Miller believes in a creator. What he and many of us fight against is the political movement dubbed “Intelligent Design,” spearheaded by Michael Behe and William Dembski and the like at the Discovery Institute. The objection to “Intelligent Design” isn’t an objection to genuine inquiry as to whether or not there is evidence of design in nature, but rather the sneaky, underhanded, deceitful and obfuscatory tactics practiced by Behe and his ilk in trying to further their political agenda.
Seriously, Ben — religious freedom is one thing, but don’t confuse an effort to keep bad pseudo-science (and bad theology) out of the classroom and scientific journals with an effort to suppress religion. And don’t rely on semantical tricks in your efforts to expose the so-called Darwinian Orthodoxy.
You’re way better than that, my friend, and far too intelligent to get caught up in this steamroller of deceit.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
How about an economic theory based instead of on observation of markets and causal relationships, but rather one espousing it’s at the whim of a monetary fairy. Once there is evidence for a god, one of the thousands currently worshipped, we can start discussing what it can and cannot be capable of.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
The problem with creationist “inquiry” is that it’s not free inquiry at all. They begin with preconceived ideas and try to “carve the foot to fit the shoe” by cherry picking evidence and using it to bolster their preconceptions. This happens quite often in the fringes of science (pseudoscience). Basic scientific inquiry - the development of hypotheses and theorems - requires an open mind. This is why evolutionary theory is such a messy business. It is constantly changing (evolving) as new developments occur.
I’m not much of a writer so I’ll let more qualified people speak my mind.
Isaac Asimov sums it up:
“Science is a process of thought, a way of looking at the Universe. It consists of the gathering of observations that can be confirmed by others using other instruments at other times in other ways. From these confirmed observations, consequences and conclusions can be reasoned out by logical methods generally agreed upon. These consequences and conclusions are tentative and can be argued over by different people in the field and modified or changed altogether if additional, or more subtle, observations are made. There is no belief held in advance of such observations and conclusions except that observations can be made, that consequences and conclusions can be reasoned out, and that the Universe can, at least to a degree, be made comprehensible in this fashion. (If these assumptions are not true, then there is no way of using the mind at all.)
Creationism, on the other hand, begins with a strong and unshakable faith to the effect that all the words of the Bible are literally true and cannot be wrong. The function of observation and logic is then confined to the confirmation of the literal meaning of the words of the Bible. Any observation, or any course of logic, which seems to argue against those words must then be false and must be dismissed. Any conclusions of science that seem to argue against those words must also be false and must be dismissed. To find some excuse to do this without seeming entirely arbitrary, creationists do not hesitate to distort scientific findings, to misquote scientists, and to play upon the emotions and prejudices of their unsophisticated followers. Whatever creationism is, then, it is not scientific.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Stein has chosen a path that condones pseudoscience over science.
“Pseudoscience often strikes educated, rational people as too nonsensical and preposterous to be dangerous and as a source of amusement rather than fear. Unfortunately, this is not a wise attitude. Pseudoscience can be extremely dangerous.
Penetrating political systems, it justifies atrocities in the name of racial purity
Penetrating the educational system, it can drive out science and sensibility;
In the field of health, it dooms thousands to unnecessary death or suffering
Penetrating religion, it generates fanaticism, intolerance, and holy war
Penetrating the communications media, it can make it difficult for voters to obtain factual information on important public issues.” -Rory Coker
To turn Stein’s own words on himself:
“Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.”
Mr. Stein, if we had relied on religious based thinking to advance scientific knowledge none of your advances would have occurred. In fact, if the past teaches us anything at all - it is that religion does more to quell freedom of inquiry.
You seem to think that there is a conspiracy of scientists and educators to deny God. Not true. It has been my experience to find that many or even most of these folks believe in some form of deity. They also believe that science is under attack.
Patricia J. Princehouse wrote:
“People ask me, Why pour so much energy into protecting science education? Why not fight for literacy generally or any of a thousand other educational issues? I have two answers. One is easy: I know about evolution, so it makes sense that I would work on what I know best. The second is harder to grasp. And that is that freedom of religion is the bedrock foundation of liberty in this country. If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the public school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting children to religious views their parents don’t hold, if we allow them to spout outright lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have left? If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about anything.
Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg or, as the creationists put it, the leading edge of “the wedge.” The wedge they are seeking to drive through the heart of American democracy. The lies about science are not limited to evolution. Every day more lies about science seep into public consciousness. Lies about stem cell biology, lies about global warming, about clean air and water, lies about sexuality, about conception and contraception, lies about the effects of hurricanes on metropolitan infrastructure.
The war on science is a war on democracy itself. And the special weapons and tactics are rhetorical. The enemies of democracy use the language of tolerance to attack it from inside. Why, they ask, are we “censoring” the evidence for “intelligent design”? Why do we deny our teachers the “right” to use their “academic freedom” to teach “critical analysis” of evolution. Isn’t it only fair to teach both the evidence for and against evolution? All these clever ploys play well in the media on this issue and many, many others, and we will see these word games more and more in coming years. I call it the “orange is the new pink” strategy; every time the public cottons on to a catch term like “creation science” or “intelligent design,” they change to a more neutral-sounding term like “critical analysis” or “evidence against.” But defenders of American freedom are learning to stand up and say no, it really is fair to forbid teachers to lie to students, to prohibit school boards from using the power of the state to convert children to other peoples’ religions. Tolerance requires judgment.”
True freedom of scientific inquiry demands that all theories are testable. This is the basic tenant of the Enlightenment traditions that brought about modern scientific epistemology.
-Charles Bailey
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
is this serious or a parody?
i ask because Mr Stein seems far too intelligent to fall for ID’s claims about “discrimination” or “censorship” within the scientific community
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Wow… You seem to be WAY off
It’s not that Science is not allowed, it is that there is very little evidence to support Intelligent Design! What little “evidence” there is, it A: comes from a book that has been modified, rewritten, and translated many times, and being slightly changed each time the current version may have no similarity to the original, or B: is just some of the holes in Darwinism.
Darwinism on the other hand has fossil records. It has carbon dating. It has studies. It has a multitude more evidence than ID.
Stop whining that scientists aren’t taking ID seriously. If you want people to consider ID, find EVIDENCE!
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.”
It sounds like philosophy to me Ben, not science. You are perhaps confusing the two. Science is concerned with natural world:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
If God exists then surely it is outside of the physical universe?
Also, I don’t thin you understand what ‘hypothesis’ means. In scientific terms, it doesn’t mean belief:
“A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.”
Did they test their hypothesis? Did it become a theory?
People are of course free to believe what they would like. Science is actually evidence based, and ID has none - it is simply an argument from incredulity.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
You of all people should truly should be ashamed of yourself. I thought you were a smarter man than this.
There is nothing to this ‘intelligent design’ business but wishful thinking on the part of god botherers. Elite scientists have looked at what evidence there is and have rejected this nonsense out of hand — it’s not that they will lose their jobs or grants and so on — it’s that they’re rational, thinking, people who understand science. Plugging “goddidit” into areas we don’t yet understand isn’t science. It’s childish thinking.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
You, sir, are quite possibly the most misguided propaganda hound I have ever encountered. ID ‘theories’ are rejected not out of hand, merely because the concept of a creator is somehow offensive, but simply because they are not theories. A hypothesis has two main attributes neccessary to qualify it as a hypothesis and not merely speculation;
1) the hypothesis must predict a result - ie, I hypothesize that if I eat something when I am hungry, I will no longer be hungry… or, more abstractly, I hypothesize that the lack of food for a period of time can cause hunger. Thus predicting that a) if I eat, my hunger will subside, and b) if I don’t eat, my hunger will appear or get worse
2) a hypothesis must be falsifiable, able to be proven false. example, if I hypothesize that if I am hungry, and I drink water, my hunger will subside. I then proceed to drink water and my hunger remains, thus proving my hypothesis false, I must then create a new hypothesis that accounts for this new information, ie, I must eat food to satiate my hunger.
ID theories contain neither of these elements - one cannot disprove the existence of a creator, therefore it is not a hypothesis, merely an unfounded belief, superstition, or opinion - as the creationist faction has a tendency to say, it is wrong to teach an opinion as a fact.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
There are hundreds of papers published each month with new data on evolution by natural selection, versus close to zero per year on intelligent design (see link). If intelligent design crackpots had the data, they’d submit it for publication. If they had evidence of discrimination, they’d sue. They don’t have either, so they whine.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
In science, if you want your ideas about the natural world to be treated as a valid hypothesis, let alone a valid theory, you must present empirical evidence that verifies your idea.
Intelligent Design, as it is written about by authors such as Michael Behe, and championed by organizations such as the Discovery Institute, struggles in its effort to qualify even as valid scientific conjecture, as some of the foundational premises ID guesswork sees near uniform dispute by nearly every credentialed scientist in the pertinent fields, including some who personally hold deep religious beliefs, and subscribe to the notion of a creator deity.
Everyone who believes in a creator deity essentially believes in “intelligent design,” broadly defined. Although atheists and other non-religious individuals are disproportionately represented in the sciences, there is no reason to assume a conspiracy is responsible for the disparity, and there are still many religious people working in the academia and the sciences.
It should not be surprising that funding for the idea that nature is directly influenced by an unobserved, unobservable entity is not always readily forthcoming from traditional sources of scientific research grants, given that the first step in science is to OBSERVE. It should not be surprising that so-called scientists who are either ignorant of the scientific method or willfully ignore it are denied tenure.
It is a sad state of affairs that a celebrity intellectual like Ben Stein has decided to come out on the side of the enemies of science and obfuscate the truth.
Galileo and Einstein are invoked, stating that they “operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.”
While Galileo did believe in an intelligent creator deity, he did not see any need to inject his faith into his practice of science. Galileo said that “The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.”
From this I believe that Galileo would disapprove of a “god of the gaps” philosophy invading the domain of scientific inquiry.
You statements about Einstein’s beliefs are even more egregiously misleading. Einstein himself has explicitly stated that he did not believe in a personal god and what he refers to God with figurative language, he is essentially talking about the laws of nature, never indicating that he believes there is any sort of sentience or intelligence.
Science is not a democracy. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s not a celebration of multicultural values. It’s not about emotion, intuition or desires. Science, essentially is a meritocracy of ideas, where doubt and skepticism are (ideally) institutionally and methodically applied with the greatest possible degree of rigor. This means that bad ideas, ideas that are inconsistent with the evidence, have no direct evidential support, or have no predictive power/utility are generally discarded as irrelevant and non-scientific.
The sooner you understand this, the better off you’ll be.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Here’s how the ID community handles censorship / different viewpoints:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46cc995ed927ee59;act=ST;f=14;t=5141
Thanks.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
B.S.: “This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.”
Inquiring about a “higher power” is not science, it involves the supernatural. The supernatural doesn’t belong in the science class because by definition science does not deal with the supernatural because it is beyond nature. You may as well ask why the supernatural is not discussed in economics class. There are classes were the supernatural should be discussed those classes are theology and history. Regardless, saying that a “higher power” is involved in the universe is not helpful, it answers absolutely nothing and has been a stumbling block for past and present religious scientists. http://youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0 *
B.S.: Einstein’s god
Einstein’s god was the god of Spinoza, it was simply a metaphor for that which we do not yet know. He wasn’t referring to an old man with a beard in the sky and that is clear from his own records.
B.S.: “EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.”
And how do you explain all of those religious scientists working today? There are plenty of people like Francis Collins that are doing quite well. Obviously they do not ALL keep it a secret and we would certainly know if ALL of them were banned/fired. But wait, first you say that a scientist “would” be banned, and then a little later you say that it “can happen.” You went from “would” to “can”. Nice switch there. http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html
Seriously, when does it end? Should chemistry class be supplemented with alchemy class? Should astronomy class be supplemented with astrology class? R. Feynman famously said, “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.”
* = Description: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Beyond Belief Conference, 2006. “Among other things, Tyson asserts that the religiosity of some of history’s greatest scientists and their willingness to invoke the philosophy of intelligent design limited the scope of their inquiry into the natural world, to the detriment of scientific progress in general.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Can’t wait to see the movie. I’m sure it will blow the socks off those evilutionists who deny the all=mighty purposeful hand of god who has clearly invested a lot of his(her?) time in designing the phalluses of katydids and tinkering with the chimpanzee genome to fool materialists.
Athiest darwinist materialists have held the pulpit for too long, with their evidence and predictive power. The tide is turning in churches and homeschooled classrooms across the globe, upholding the observation that all true science is given to us from God and is an exploration of his glory and omnipotence. Only fools demand evidence to believe something.
Additionally, with the growing impetus behind Intelligent Design (including a real science journal and lots of internet weblogs that thankfully don’t worry about the opposing views to their arguments) soon we can be sure to finally see some real ID research from the growing number of ID labs in the United States. All Science So Far!!!
Stifling dissent is unamerican and unchristian. Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, there are even atheist pleasurians in the fold. In short, it is all about the maths.
See here for more about censorship and Darwinism.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46cc9be3d9ac55c5;act=ST;f=14;t=5141
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Greetings Ben - thanks many times over. When Carl Sagan famously said ‘This universe is all there ever was,is or ever will be’ (or something like that), he wasn’t making a scientific case but a philosophic one because there is no way he could possibly know that! Yet all orthodox science today is founded on that principal of blind naturalism. And they think IDers are the deluded ones! Gotta go, thanks again, take care, Shalom & L’Chaim
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
So, somebody has enough balls to expose what might just be science’s biggest hoax.
Groovy.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
Carl Sagan
Have you perhaps considered that mere ostracization is far more indicative of idiocy than it is of conspiracy or malice?
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
The reason an “intelligent designer” isn’t considered is because there’s been NO EVIDENCE for one.
How do you test a theory of a “god” designer if you can’t show “god” exists? And if you could (and you won’t), science would ask how did the “designer” do its work?
Plenty of scientists serparate their belief in god from their work as scientists.
They understand that they hold an irrational faith. They also understand it would be pointless to assume a god in any hypostesis they test. Any modern scientist who fails to understand that duality, probably isn’t a very good scientist.
How many good geologists think the earth is 6,000 years old?
Good luck with a movie that shows how little some religious people understand science.
Many of us will have a good laugh. It’ll be alot like “Jesus Camp”. Well, maybe not quite as scary,
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Kudos Ben. Thanks for putting this together. I linked to it at my blog. We all anticipate much from this. Let’s hope that it has the impact it can.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Its about time that this issue got addressed. Its beyond the fundemental issue of God versus primordial soup; its about the fredom of expression, the freedom to think, the freedom to choose.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Go Ben! Very encouraged by what you are doing and will do all I can to get friends and family to see your new doc. opening weekend.
Thank God for men like you!
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Ben,
As a longtime fan of yours I must say that I feel more than a little betrayed and offended by your involvement in this project. I felt from reading of your history and your politics that you were someone who would be able to see through the shroud of ignorance and false mysticism of the so-called “Intelligent Design” movement.
I am particularly disturbed by this sudden and ironic attack by ID proponents on real working scientists. All that you’ve said in this blog and all that’s been said in defense of Intelligent Design is the real affront to free inquiry. It was proven in a court of law (Dover, PA) that the Intelligent Design movement is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to suppress genuine scientific inquiry.
I’m glad to see in your blog that you’ve abandoned the pretense that ID is not a religious movement, but you’ve only gone halfway into the light. Now you must also abandon the intellectually bankrupt position that Intelligent Design has anything at all in common with real science.
I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do hope that interest of the free exchange of ideas you would allow this comment to remain on the site for all those that would see the other side of this issue.
A fan(EXPELLED)
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Ben,
I’m excited about this project, and can’t wait to see what you’ve got cooking. I’ve doing my own small part to wage the debate for intellectual freedom, and to point out that evolution itself is based on unprovable and untestable assumptions about the unrepeatable, unobservable past, and therefore just as much of a philosophical belief (religion?) as creationism or intelligent design.
I do hope you will make a distinction between intelligent design and creationism? ID is totally compatible with modern-day evolutionary theory and merely asserts that some Intelligent Designer got the ball rolling. Creationism assumes that God created, and that He created roughly six thousand years ago.
Your voice is a favorite among many conservatives, and many will be glad to get your perspective on this important issue.
Thanks for reading, and for making the project!
Dave
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
What a sad, sad fate for one of the conservatives I used to respect. Do you really believe that there are no scientists who believe in god? I’m sorry to see you acting as a catspaw for the religious right, and their bogus ideas of what science is all about.
I won’t be watching reruns of Ben Stein’s Money anymore. It would make me sick to see you on screen and think what a pathetic failure of intellect I was watching.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Science, by definition, is restricted to the investigation of measurable natural/physical phenomena and cannot invoke a supernatural explanation. The “intelligent designer made it” is not a fruitful theory in that it does not allow for predictions as no one knows when and where the entity in question will strike again. Furthermore, science does not preclude the existence of an intelligent designer, but merely places this supernatural entity beyond the scope of legitimate natural investigation. Here in Montana we say, “Trust in God, but tie up your horse”! While many in the academic arena feel one’s personal beliefs should not impact their career, if their personal beliefs are at odds with the foundational research within their field, they might expect their beliefs to be trumped by the weight of evidence. Would a Holocaust denier make an appropriate professor of WWII history? Should a class spend valuable time debating such a “controversy”?
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I guess this movie shoots down the notion that ID is a secular idea huh? Bwwwwaaaahahahahahaha
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Dear Ben,
Thank you! Finally we have some real media attention to bringing the Bible back to school! It’s the way that America was designed, I hate that these atheists want to take our faith out of schools and bring in their own. They have been chipping away at our beliefs, one by one.
While encouraging healthy debate about Creationism versus evolution is wonderful, I strongly encourage you to cover all the other facets of science that try to undermine our Faith, including heliocentrism, ‘carbon dating’ the earth to 5 billions years old, and the Big Bang. For the bible says:
Psalm 93:1 ‘The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.’
96:10 ‘Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.’
Chronicles 16:30 ‘Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.’
Psalm 104 ‘Bless the Lord … Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.’
Ecclesiastes 1:5 ‘The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth’
Thank you,
Yelena
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.”
Newton could not explain a certain motion of the planets and so ascribed the effect to God. Einstein came along and knocked poor God out of the box.
You offer very little to support your claim. Your logic is also self-disputed by the fact that Einstein did both publish his works in America and get grants in America. The straw man argument for Galileo and Newton will remain just a weak supposition.
Ben….did you really write or sign your name to this screed? It doesn’t sound like you at all.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I am eagerly awaiting this release. If it delivers what it says it will - I look forward to finally having an open debate on the facts and the merits of Intelligent Design. Which I find believable and compelling.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
You confuse oppression with rejection. The ideas proposed by ID are not ignored because they are threatening, but because they are not scientific - refusing to allow ID to be taught as serious science is no different to excluding astrology, tarot-reading or feng-shui. Academic freedom does apply, and it ensures that proponents of ID have the right to speak their ideas - which they do, as this movie does. But freedom to speak is not a requirement for others to listen, and ID will never have serious scientific credability so long as its core arguments remain as flimsy as they are.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
This is a joke, right? Please tell me that this is a joke. ..
If not, Mr. Stein you should know that you are being used by some rather unsavory and unscrupulous characters. Their mendacity is legendary; they have no shame. People should be AND ARE completely free to believe whatever they want and even to pursue research to prove whatever beliefs they have, however odd or unusual they may sound. But that’s not what’s happening here. So-called “Intelligent Design” advocates are attempting nothing less than the overthrow of the scientific method in favor of religious doctrine. Read the Wedge document, Mr. Stein. Educate yourself about what these people really want.
Science works by method, not by PR or popular vote. When Intelligent Design proponents put together an actual theory and start doing real research (in other words, actually doing SCIENCE), then the scientific community will begin to take them seriously. So far, they have put forth vague ideas and poor arguments, all of which have been examined and found wanting. But instead of working diligently to patch the holes and strengthen their arguments, they cry “victim!” and mount massive PR campaigns. Please Mr. Stein; I believe you to be a man of integrity. Don’t allow yourself to be used by these people for their anti-science, anti-human agenda.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I’m curious how the producers of the movie explain that they interviewed some people for a movie called “Crossroads” and it’s now called “Expelled”?
Just wondering.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Hello Mr. Stein,
I am glad to see that you have joined in the battle against the Darwinian Gestapo. The great thing about all of this is that they have already admitted to the “appearance” of design in nature, and better still, lack the mechanism to account for it.
These are exciting times.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Speaking of censoring and suppression - why was P.Z. Myers* interviewed by your associate producer under false pretenses? Is there a reason you need to lie?
*http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
How about instead of wasting money making this movie, you use the money to fund actual research - research you claimed can’t get funded otherwise. The Templeton Foundation, supporters of connecting science and religion, could find no actual ID research to fund. It would seem that the problem is not losing jobs, suffering ridicule or being banned from the lab, the problem is there is no actual ID research. Just like there’s no cold fusion research and no perpetual motion machine research.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Oy vey! This is going to be Most Interesting.
As a constant observer of the Neo-Darwinian machine (and the Paleo-Darwinian machine before it got retooled into its present version), I found the trailers on this site exactly what I was hearing 30 years ago in my undergraduate days. My children report that the script hasn’t changed a whit, though (perhaps) the machine is updated.
I’ll be very, very interested to see how you develop this project.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:20 pm
[…] I’m re-posting Ben’s first blog entry from yesterday. Hope you enjoy reading […]
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I thought I’d throw this response in:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/you_have_got_to_be_kidding_me.php
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
This subject has been a passion of mine in just the last year. I am elated that someone, especially an icon like Ben Stein, is standing up for what’s right. It is highly unlikely to see celebrities standing up for religion or to try to radically change what has been embedded in us for years as students. As a college student i am geared and ready to go to fight for as long as i have to to get people to at least acknowledge the fact that another possibility besides Darwinism exists. I applaud Ben Stein for taking a stand and am looking forward to helping out in tremendous ways to help this film succeed. I am so looking forward to being…EXPELLED!!!
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
So far I am not impressed, but merely amused at the lengths that the ID’ers will go to to be oppressed. Scientists are merely asking for a theory that can be tested, and until then the idea that Intelligent Design can be proven by misstating theories of evolution is what they are laughing at. They are not granting tenure to professors who have demonstrated that they will distort facts to make their case.
Until Intelligent Design can demonstrate how it can make the supernatural as demonstrable as a natural phenomenon (which is how science works) it will be laughed at and not called science.
The whole idea that thoughts are being suppressed is a bit of overblown rhetoric, don’t you think?
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Science is discriminatory, not against age, race or gender but against nonsense. Evolution occurred, we can see the evidence that life on earth started simple and has become more complex over time. There is still discussion over the mechanisms through which it worked but it did happen. Creationists are people who put a set of ancient myths before modern science. As even they recognise that science is pushing their dogma further into a corner they have tried to re-label that dogma as “intelligent design” and claim that it is science. Don’t get upset that we can see through the charade.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Many practicing scientists are devout Christians, and are accepted and respected by the scientific community at large, as are scientists of many other faiths. The people who Ben Stein wants to conflate with this larger class of Christians, the creationist subset of Protestant Americans, are however pretty much ignored by practicing scientists. For good cause.
Creationists are not scorned and ignored because they believe in a Creator.
Creationists are scorned and ignored because with rare exceptions they do not do science, and because they sometimes fight to suppress actual science that contridicts their religious convictions.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
“They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. ”
This is a flat-out lie. Plenty of scientists believe in a divine creator, yet have no worries about losing their jobs. One of the more prominent ones, Ken Miller, is actually on the “anti-ID” side. The people who get persecuted are the ones that pitch a fit when their pet ideas are shown to not stand up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I’m glad to hear about the film, and I’m glad you’re involved in it, Mr. Stein.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.”
This is true, but stated in a misleading way - what is basic to science is the ability (and a method) to inquire (about anything, at any time). To be clear and precise, this definition of the realm of science is not only basic, but also requisite: if an inquiry cannot be undertaken using the scientific method, it is not science (beyond this, the question of an inquiry’s validity is not a question for scientists - it could well be a valid philosophical/metaphysical/ legal/political/ ethical/moral/religious inquiry).
Whether the scientific inquiry is about the operation of the universe, the complexity of the bacterial flagellum, or the winners of the lottery next Tuesday, the scientific method is the same: propose an hypothesis, accumulate data (NOTE - one CANNOT do science without this step), assess the hypothesis with reference to the data, and repeat. Note: hypotheses are sometimes referred to as “predictions”, but I prefer to call them “expectations” about the fit between the “real” (=measurable) world (the data) and the hypotheses (the model).
All one need do is state the hypothesis(es) re: the intelligent designer (and, by preference, though not required for science, some suggestions about where and how relevant data might be collected), and then we’ll wait for the data collection and analysis to follow.
Hypotheses unsupported by data, whether contrary OR MISSING!!!, are of interest to science, but we should not dwell on them in science education, particularly at lower levels. There are enough well supported hypotheses (and supporting data) to fully occupy those developing scientists and others, without dwelling on the fringes of our scientific knowledge.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Wow. I could sorta understand you shilling for discredited right-wing economic theories, but *creationism*? Seriously? What a complete and utter tool.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
So… Christian mythology (the same puritanical, party-crashing, prohibitionist, “won’t somebody please think of the children”, wet blanket that has been sucking the fun out of life for 2000 years) is the “new” REBEL?? on the block. Puh-lease. How many times is Creationism going to repackage itself and come back for another round - still without a shred of evidence? And we wonder why kids in this country are failing at science…
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Hi Ben. I was just wondering if someone is moderating this blog. And, if so, do you think it is hypocritical to argue for free speech, but prevent critical comments from showing up on this blog?
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
[…] also noticed that Ben Stein has a blog post up at the movie’s website. Expecting my comment to be moderated (and it was held for […]
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Ben - I enjoy your Sunday NYT contributions, especially your emphasis on the treasure of friends and family.
You make an extraordinary claim in the Expelled post above. What scientists have been fired and lost tenure and grants for mentioning the possibility that god or a higher being created the physical laws of the universe?
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I think this is a big ‘put-on’ everyone knows its OK to investigate but, when your ideas have proved vacuous people no longer want to fund them. Read Kitzmiller v. Dover for more info. I think Stein and company may actually be duping the religious fundies behind creationism/ID. I can’t wait to find out for sure
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Don’t hold back–give names. Whose career got ruined for being creationist scientist? As for Galileo–this stupid jeezus movie completely misread the meaning (of course). Namely, he had scientific PROOF (do creationists have proof outside “cause it’s in the Bible”?) which clashed with the established belief (based on an old book written by camel herders), and was forced to recant.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Bravo! Yes, public institutions, supported by our tax dollars, are actively marginalizing descenters while supressing free inquiry and open debate in the field of science. What are the darwinist so afraid of? Those who have studied the issues think they know the answer. Darwinism does not rule modern biology because of “overwhelming evidence”. It rules primarily because of philosophical prejudice amongst a self appointed intellectual elite.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Ben,
I hope your project gets much needed attention. Can’t wait till it comes out.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
My, how wrong one can be:
To quote:
“Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.”
They worked under their belief, not any “hypohtesis,” as do probably the majority of evolutionary biologistts today.
Another errant line from the blog:
“In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.”
Completely false, and a bit bizarre. Indeed, I would help the first Intelligent Design researcher with a legitimate, testable hypothesis, to get their hypothesis tested and published. Alas, I’ve asked this for many years and have not a single taker.
Failed attempts to discredit evolutionary science, by the ICR, AIG, DI, and others, must take a serious turn … and actually do science, replete with hypotheses and hypothesis testing, before the scientific community can take them seriously.
Until then, they are just random and unguided voices in the wind.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Ben Stein in Hot-Pants for Intelligent Design
Expelled, a slick-looking documentary which looks to put a shiny new gloss on the Intelligent Design movement is due out this coming February. Though it went public a little while ago, the news that the Intelligent Design movement is going the Michael…
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
public institutions, supported by our tax dollars, are actively marginalizing descenters
Actually, the descenters are the majority in this “debate”.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
What a freaking moron. Come see RationalWiki for reasons why he’s wrong.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Mr. Stein,
Wow! I originally presumed that this film was a spoof, and thought it might be entertaining as such. I even thought the opening blog was very funny… until I later realized that you were serious.
Did you use freedom a dozen times on purpose? It’s like it was written for a Bush speech? Pandering to the uninformed that don’t know and don’t want to know.
I used to think highly of you, Mr. Stein. I actually thought you were intelligent, whatever you’re political leanings. Either you’ve been painfully misinformed, deluded or just plain losing your ability to distinguish fact from fantasy.
Do you know anything of science? Not only is ID not science, the movement as a whole is anti-science and based fully based in religion.
The ID movement deserves the same ridicule from science as does astrology. Is your next project going to be about getting astrology seen as science? You’re advocating a step back to the dark ages.
Here’s a tip… Do some of your own research. You might learn something and save yourself much embarrassment, although I think that’s too late.
Ken
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
As a member of the media I have been following the ID issue for a long time. I am looking forward to hearing your point of view. I sincerely hope it will advance fair and rational coverage of the debate.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I get a kick out of some of these typical, tired old knee-jerk, pre-rehearsed responses that clearly indicate the majority of the people responding so far have barely skimmed this site. I read nothing about religion on here, nor do I see crosses or scriptures or the word faith or religion even mentioned. Yet many of those posting seem to jump to the conclusion that this movie is religion based and that Ben Stein has flipped his lid and become some kind of evangelist for the creationist’s cause. He sounds like the same guy who wasn’t afraid to take the unpopular stand for the African-American Civil Rights Movement or one of the last know supporters of Richard Nixon to me. Say what you want about Ben but a “puppet” he is not and anyone who tries to imply as such must be that missing link you hard core evolutionists so desperately seek.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Well, nice to see the fanged monsters already blogging out over this. See the movie before judging. Read the evidence. Allow a thought inside your heads that might possibly, maybe, sort of, kind of, shed even a slightly different light on your entrenched secular worldview. Show a little tolerance and open-mindedness. If you dare.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Put another way, issues like this are dealt with here:
http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Intelligent_design
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Um, I thought all those ID supporters testified in Dover, under oath, that Intelligent Design “theory” was SCIENCE, and did NOT, repeat NOT, have anything to do with God, Jesus, the Bible or Religion. . . .
Were they just, uh, lying to us when they testified to that . . .?
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
[…] Also: Ben Stein, despite having kept much of his money for himself on his game show, isn’t very bright when it comes to science. […]
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Lenny Flank (#94), they were in fact lying. Judge Jones found as much in the Kitzmiller trial. Get a hold of the case file and look to the following quote: “One consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID…. We disagree.” Judge John E. Jones III, Republican, in Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, n.7 727.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I was excited when I heard the news, although perusing the site made me somewhat less so. This debate is just too important, and too interesting, to get locked and loaded into yet another culture war issue.
If this is about how scientists have been treated unfairly for their views on intelligent design in the academy, I am all for it. Everyone should have a problem with this. But if its about the fight to get it in High School classrooms, I am less enthusiastic. Student textbooks should not be determined by political battles (I know, what sort of dreamworld am I living in?)
What I worry about is that, with this billed as a culture war issue, people will simply make up their minds based on whether they are red or blue, and not by fairly looking at what’s going on. Oh well…what else is new?
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
It isn’t very likely that chimpanzees typed out Shakespere’s complete works. But we have it, so they must have. Alas, this is incomplete. Helicoptering them half-way up Mount Improbable by giving them computers and such. First they need to accidentally produce an industrial revolution, followed by a accidental technological revolution, followed by an accidental personal computer with accidental software so they can then accidentally type Shakespere’s complete works, and then accidentally explain it to us because its value resides in its context. It only has the illusion of design. How foolish you anti-darwinist boobs. The truth plain for any open minded (scientific) person to recognize. If you disagree with the Great God of Purposelessness and his true prophet Darwin or even his pet poodle Dawkins, your ignorance, stupidity, bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, general conservative naughtiness –and all other forms of venal ad hominem that can be conjured– make you suspect.
Best wishes
Glerb from the planet Deltroib
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Will the film present the ID explanation for men having nipples?
Or why whales have pelvises that serve no function, since they don’t walk?
Ben, you’re so smart. You may look back in embarrassment one day for letting these folks flatter you into this.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Hey Ben. Is it true that your production company misrepresented the film you were making in your interviews with Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers? Thanks!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 am
Ken Chorst in Buffalo, you’ve made quite an assumption there. You’re more wrong than you could possibly know. Most of these monsters have tentacles and beaks, not fangs. I hope you feel properly chastened, and that your bias against the tentacled is less extreme than your bias against the fanged.
Oh yeah, also, many of them have already spent years studying evolutionary biology and intelligent design creationism, and know a fraud when they see it. Yes, sir, you presume much. Oh, you mention secularism? Why? Many commenters seem to be claiming that this movie has nothing to do with religion - in fact, the post immediately preceding your own claims exactly that. Are you calling that commenter a liar when you place the content of this film in opposition to secularism?
Now. Where was I? Ah yes, the freedom to choose, THE ALMIGHTY FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. I can choose to believe that an acquired immune deficienty syndrom is due to an imbalance in my humors or to the vengeful stroke of an unforgiving deity, and not due to the debilitaing effects of a virus on my immune system, but dangit - I’d be wrong! But I’d defend to the death my right to be wrong!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
I love it!!!!!!!!!!! Ben you definately touched a nerve to have so many anti-ID guys responding so quickly. What the heck are they worried about? If the idea of ID getting more attention didn’t bother them so much they would just ignore it. Many people posting act like your claim that college students, professors and scientists can’t express their views is bogus. Maybe they should talk to Guillermo Gonzales who was denied tenure despite being vastly over qualified in comparison to what is the minimum expectations to receive tenure. This was simply due to his connection to ID. Truth be told most of the above hostile posters probably secretly applaud the denial of tenure but wouldn’t admit it publicly because they know in their heart that this kind of censorship of ideas is WRONG.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
I look forward to the movie. I’ve researched this issue from several angles and it is clear that we are not even close to answering the big questions with respect to the history of life on Earth. How did it start? Scientists are clueless. How did it develop? We have fragments of pre-historic finds that we try to weave a theory through.
Evolution? Then why did all the distinct body plans found on earth appear basically at the same time (The so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ duringthe Cambrian time period)? One thing that is clear from our current interpretation of the data is that life did NOT slowly develop from a cell into a fish, into a lizard, into a bid over many millions of years. How do systems with 50+ distinct parts and functions slowly develop, when if one piece/function is missing it serves no purpose?
Intellegent Design? Yes there is seemingly evidence of design, but, besides it’s philisophical implications, so what? What are Scientists going to do differently if they accept this as true?
I look forward to the movie, because, the most troubling aspect that I’ve seen in my investigation is the lack of open-mindedness, especially on the evolutionary side. I find it a total joke when I hear someone say “I don’t believe in evolution, I now it’s true like the earth going around the sun”. How do you “know” it is a fact when the evidence is very circumstantial at best with the ‘big events’ in life history? Yes, it can explain how a bacteria changes its resistance or how a bird’s beak size can change over time, but, it is sorely lacking in describing how one gets from a cell to a human.
At least there are some evolutionists that are willng to admit that this is a weakness in their theory and are trying to sure their theory up. I would recommend anyone to the budding topic of ‘evolutionary development’ or ‘evo-devo’ for short.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 am
Hahah. People who believe in god are wasting their lives.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 am
Considering that the producer of this film arrived at most of his interviews with eeeeeeevvvil biologists and scientists by OUTRIGHT FRAUD (providing a false name for the movie, a false description, and false credentials) I am looking forward to seeing the deceitful Mr. Stein be grilled about this if he appears on talk shows. I don’t think his fake persona as Mr. nice genial professorial guy will survive long once people see what a fraud he is and how he is associated with such a deceptive production.
Click my website link in my name for direct testimony from one of the interview patsies, who ironically would have been more than happy to grant an interview if the film producers had been up-front about their intentions, but who isn’t keen on being used in a phony bit of creationism agitprop.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 am
I am looking forward to the movie . . . as the movie’s purpose states, it will address the concerns of silencing ANY scientific questioning of Darwinism (as long as proper scientific methods and journaled papers are followed) which is unhealthy in any liberal education and absurd to think otherwise.
I don’t understand the hysteria among the Darwin camp, of which I am one. The Pope even supports evoultionary theory. Chill. Let nature crystallize into theory. Darwinism is like arithmetic, it makes sense, but in the details - we’re just getting started. Let’s look at this further, let’s study it from all angle, with awe.
After all, nature is cleverer than we think.
Note to fanatical atheists: Remember, Dawkins is a 6.8 agnostic, not even an atheist.
Oh and speaking of atheists, such as PZ Myers. It’s a shame he was out-witted by Dilbert, even worse that the brilliant scientist was conjoured into ‘taping’ for this movie, but priceless for the gut-twisting he’ll go through in being sued, however lame the suit is; the fat-mouth deserves it. Maybe now he’ll be a bit more civil, unlike I.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 am
I am another who got onto this website from the article on Dawkins site about how Myers was tricked into providing an interview for this movie.
*http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
This says a great deal about what has gone into this movie, this site and the opinions they try to espouse.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 am
Ben, I’m a great fan of your thinking and your insight in your financial column, as well as an admirer of your past movies and such. You’re smart and very likable, and I would love to get to talk with you, I think it’d be incredibly enjoyable and informative.
I do hope this movie you’re doing doesn’t cross beyond its basic thesis. If the movie is a polemic against intellectual prejudice and discrimination in academia, fine, let’s have it. But soliciting interviews under false pretenses (as with PZ Meyers) does not speak well to the intellectual honesty of the undertaking.
An honest, open debate would be very illuminating, but it doesn’t appear that this is what your movie is about.
I’d have expected better from you.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Abbey
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 am
You see, Ben! You are absolutely right! Do you see how all these secular progressives seek to persecute you, to dishonor your good name, and to censor your activities??!!
All these scientist elitists can do is resort to name calling and derision, because they know the ‘theory’ of evilution cannot withstand the scrutiny of Intelligent Design and the Lord our God.
And when Rep. Tom Tancredo becomes President of Our Dominion, I wouldn’t be surprised if he closes the doors to all Liberal Universities by his 96th day, or earlier!!
The Sweet Justice of Lord Baby Jesus fills me with a Spirit that makes me Drop to my Knees in Thanks!!!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 am
Creationism is wishful-thinking, just like all the other aspects of religion. As with all creationist, Stein has nothing to work in his favor to benefit this pseudoscience nonsence.
This film will only help to make people who want creationism to be real, look just like those who think they have been abducted by Aliens from Alpha Centauri.
Here they are again, those creationist, trying to make a case without any evidence. All the evidence availiable works in the Sceientist and Atheist favor. Are we going to go through the Eye thing again or wing crap that Science/Biologist have already beat creationism up with?
Why ignore the evidence that clearly shows EVOLUTION HAPPENS and continues to happen? Creationist might as well beat their head against a wall.
God is just as imaginary as Santa Clause, Fairies and Unicorns.
I should be surprised about the nasty little trick those creationist played on Meyers, but I am not shocked at those tactics of Scheming and lying…as usual.
There is no god and you know it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 am
‘There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry’
Yes, and they were all created by people who realised that they would get nowhere without divine intervention in , for example, the design of air conditioners.
And now such ideas are to be expelled!
Fight back, people. Fight back against the hypocrites who decry ideas of divine intervention yet still use the internet which was inspired by religious beliefs.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 am
This seems similar to the “debate” over global climate change - politically motivated conservatives have noticed that when it comes to their religio-political issues, scientists are both uninterested and write their ideas off as disproven. Who needs science when we can use public opinion to confuse the masses? Intelligent design is ignored, not because of supression, but because it adds nothing to current biological theory in explaining reality, and interjects quite a few unrelated and difficult-to-prove hypotheses. The preview comments that every generation has a rebel - Ben Stein doesn’t appear to have met that rebel yet.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:29 am
“# Nathan Daniels Says:
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
…Why don’t you read a biology book instead of pandering to the right-wing nutjobs?”
Because he is a right wing nut job, sad to say.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 am
I agree with disagreeing scientists and scholars that this really is a fulcrum issue for society. Where is the evidence pointing? How do we know what we know, to what level of certainty–and what role can science play?
Even if Ben Stein has adopted opinions along the way, I admit–I’m curious to see this film
–IF it takes a gander at some real physical evidence, and IF the final cut accurately shows a representative sampling of competing perspectives.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 am
I started reading all the posts with much interest and I can see alot of mentally blind people around bagging somthing they haven’t yet seen..(but that’s the same with alot of things even science)..but the title alone causes their blood to boil. Some of these people haven’t examined both sides of the debate and that is obvious by their crude uneducated comments spouting forth Dawkins and others like a well trained parrot. Shouldn’t science keep an open mind to all things (dare I say even God). It seems funny to me that even when science stumbles on its own laws and boundaries as long as the answer agrees with darwinisum it’s accepted. If you don’t agree with me please answer how science explains the second law of thermodynamics in relation to evolutional THEORY. I’ll save you some time it can’t. But the FACT that it is a LAW of science doen’t stop evolutionists ignoring it. Face it evolution is as much a religion as the Christian, Muslim or any other religion.
Ben, I’ll reserve judgement until I see the film…I do hope it’s comming to Australia….I’d love the debate it will obviously cause judging from this blog.
As to all you blogsters….peace, good will and love to you all.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:14 am
This is inspired by empty-headed amoral power grabs and propaganda moves by people who don’t much care for other people. If I didn’t worry about my nephew’s future and the future of his friends I suppose I could join you in this horrible charade.
Ben Stein is a creep.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 am
It is amazing how vile and nasty those on the anti-ID side are. To be honest, I don’t have a position yet, but I do know that I don’t want to sit down and have a cup of joe with those nasty guys.
Maybe I’ll just wait for the movie, watch it and decide if IT is done well or poorly. Either way, I promise I won’t jump off one side or the other of the topic purely based upon a flick!
And hey, Ben, you hang in there…always good to see someone take on a tough topic with a bit of humor.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 am
What, *exactly*, IS this “theory of Intelligent Design” which is supposedly being suppressed by a Dogmatic Scientific Orthodoxy (TM)? ID supporters, as a group, are quick to complain “No, *that* ISN’T what ID says”… but somehow, for all the “not This, not That, not The Other” verbiage they generate, ID supporters never quite get around to explaining what the heck ID *is*.
So, again: What, *exactly*, IS this “theory of Intelligent Design” thingamajobbie? From what I’ve been able to glean from the IDist literature, ID “theory” can be summed up in seven words: “Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something”. And *that* is what ID supporters claim is being unjustly suppressed? Yeah, right.
Now, I’m sure that ID supporters will complain that my 7-word summary is inaccurate, that it distorts ID, yada yada yada. Well, maybe so… but if my summary *is*, in fact, inaccurate, how about explaining where, *exactly*, it goes wrong?
What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “somehow” — what tool(s) and/or technique(s) did the Intelligent Designer(s) use to do whatever It/They did?
What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “somewhere” — in which location(s) did the Intelligent Designer(s) *do* whatever it was It/They *did*?
What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “somebody intelligent”, other than the bare assertion that It/They *is/are* intelligent — is there only one Intelligent Designer, or is there more than one?
What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “something” that the Intelligent Designer(s) “did” — what action(s) did It/They perform, for what purpose(s), using what resource(s)?
Hopefully, nobody out there will disagree that anything as vacuous as “somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something” is *not* a scientific theory; the only point of disagreement should be whether or not “somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something” is an accurate summary of Intelligent Design. So how about it, ID supporters? What *does* ID actually say? How *does* ID ‘theory’ differ from “somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something”?
Bueller? Anyone?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:14 am
I’m sorry but there is no grand conspiracy to eliminate alternatives to the theory of evolution. Academics around the world are not foolish enough to conspire to repress new ideas in science.
The fact is, IF someone were able to provide any solid evidence for an alternative theory to evolution they would be as celebrated in the scientific world as Einstein. The beauty of scientific inquiry is that you CAN become wildly famous by DISPROVING an accepted theory. There is no dogma in science.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 am
Well, you never know, maybe the movie comes to the sensible conclusion that ID is a vacuous mask for Biblical Creationism, and that is has absolutely no foundation in science.
*hollow laughing s