Missing image

Propaganda Expelled

By Michael Giardinello

There certainly is no intelligence allowed in Ben Stein’s recent documentary, Expelled. In the film, Stein is searching through academia not for Ferris Bueller, but for the so-called “fascist” dictations that mainstream science, which supports evolution, has cast upon intelligent design.

Stein is portrayed as a courageous and daring figure standing up against the tyrannical actions of the scientific community. He travels around the country interviewing “scientists” who have felt the raft of his conceived assault on free speech.

Some of the subjects interviewed have lost their job due to their self-prescribed inclusion of intelligent design, into their students’ curriculum; and some, like Richard Stenberg, have lost their jobs and integrity because of their inclinations to spread the idea of intelligent design. Intelligent design is the assumption that life on Earth is simply too complex to have been created by undirected mechanisms; therefore, the origin of life is best explained as being created by an intelligent designer.

There are, however, significant differences between what was portrayed in the film and what actually happened. In the film, an editor for a scientific journal, Richard Stenberg, was demoted because he approved a publication of an essay associated with intelligent design. What Stein doesn’t tell you is that he already had plans to step down from his position before he even approved the publication. Also not mentioned is the way in which he published the essay; he self-approved the publication, bypassing the necessary process of peer review. These are two significant details Stein failed to mention, a reoccurring trend in the film.

The producers cleverly picked the interviewees in their consistent deceptive fashion; all of the advocates for evolution were led to believe that they were participating in an unbiased film about science and religion. Also, all of the advocates were atheists. They were handpicked to coincide with the film’s underlying theme that evolution is synonymous with atheism, and atheism is synonymous with evil.

The film points the finger at evolution as the cause for the holocaust. A woman being interviewed conveys that Hitler was an atheist who, in her opinion, was not insane, but he was simply a product of evolutionary ideology. Hitler, however, was not an atheist — he was a Roman Catholic. It is well documented that Hitler had multiple psychological disorders. There is also not a single mention of Darwin, or his theory, in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. If Hitler was so inspired by Darwin’s theory, wouldn’t he at least give Darwin a little acknowledgment?

Most of the film focuses on the previously mentioned tools of persuasion. A very small portion of the film discusses the actual ideology of intelligent design and for good reason — there is no empirical evidence in support of intelligent design. If there was
evidence, the film’s primary purpose wouldn’t be to bash evolution — there would be no need, because the evidence would do the bashing for them.

There was a purposeful cause for the termination and defamation of the “victims” of mainstream science. Intelligent design is not science; thus, it should not be presented in science classrooms and journals.

Mainstream science holds the responsibility to maintain the integrity of science. If intelligent design is permitted then other nonscientific
ideas would follow (e.g. astrology, witchcraft), which would ultimately deteriorate the true essence of science — progress.

  • Hannodb

    [quote=Michael Giardinello]By Michael Giardinello
    Intelligent design is the assumption that life on Earth is simply too complex to have been created by undirected mechanisms; therefore, the origin of life is best explained as being created by an intelligent designer.
    [/quote]

    Isn’t it funny how Darwinists expect people to accept their interpretation of the fossil record, when they do not even posses the ability to accurately discribe a simple concept like Intelligent design? Intelligent Design has nothing to do with “assumptions”, but is a well thought through conclusion based on an objective study of biochemistry. The arguement of Irreducible Complexity has not yet been refuted by Darwinists. Ken Miller is the only person I’ve heard who attempted a scientific arguement against IC, but even his arguement failed.

    Ironically, it is Darwinism that is based on the ASSUMPTION that life had a material origin, an idea that is totally discredited by the Cambrium explosion and IC in biochemistry. For Darwinism to be a real science, we need a real, physical demonstration of how natural processes created life. Also, it is a historical fact that the attrocities of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia was justified by Darwinism, which can not be argued away. Why would Hitler acknowledge anyone else in Mein Kampf? Mein Kampf means “My suffering”. Note the word “my” in the title. Nazism was an extension of Eugenics, which have its roots clearly in Darwinism.

    [quote=Michael Giardinello]By Michael Giardinello
    there is no empirical evidence in support of intelligent design. If there was
    evidence, the film’s primary purpose wouldn’t be to bash evolution
    [/quote]
    Nonsence! There is lots of empirical evidence in support of intelligent design. The fact that you chose to ignore it, does not mean that it isn’t there. It is not the purpose of the movie to explain intelligent design, for there is lots of published material that does that already. This movie is about how those are treated who dares to be convinced by ID. It doesn’t matter who strong your arguement, and how well qualified you are, if you believe the evidence point to ID, you are discriminated against. Ofcause, Darwinists like to cry fowl when the published matterial is not “peer reviewed”, but fails to mention that those “peers” are always strongly biased towards Darwinism. The journal “Nature”, for instance, was created with the purpose to promote darwinism. I don’t expect any of their “peers” to be objective when judging an article on ID.

    [quote=Michael Giardinello]By Michael Giardinello
    Intelligent design is not science
    [/quote]

    A tipical ex cathedra statement of Darwinists. Funny how they always misrepresent ID, and then claim it is not science, rather than awnsering the arguements ID really raise.

  • BlueRaja

    A scientific theory by definition must be falsifiable and make predictions, sorry Hanno

  • Michael Giardinello

    I would first like to begin with your assertion that “Intelligent Design has nothing to do with ‘assumptions’, but is a well thought through conclusion based on an objective study of biochemistry”. Intelligent design has everything to do with assumptions. Science requires the application of the scientific method; cause and effect relationships must be observable, measurable, and empirical. The intelligent design ideology thrives upon the unknown. Behe used the flagellum as his cause for irreducible complexity because nothing was known of its evolutionary origins. In Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, he writes:

    “By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of anyone of these parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”

    It was found, as it seems you know, that the portion of the flagellum that is unified with the cell membrane served a different function; there are homologies between proteins that compose the flagellum. This tells us that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. This reflects Behe’s analogy of the mouse trap; yes, a mouse trap only works when all of the parts are in place, however the mousetrap when broken down can be used as a clip for a necktie, a paper clip, a paper weight, et cetera.
    Behe simply wrapped his irreducible complexity with wrapping paper of logic tied together with a bow of biochemistry. It is a complete assumption to propose that something must have been designed due to a current lack of understanding; it is in no way scientific.

    For your assertion that “For Darwinism to be a real science, we need a real, physical demonstration of how natural processes created life.” Evolution is essentially descent through modification; it answers why there is a vast variety of life on this planet. Evolution does not attempt to answer how life first began. Just because something is unknown doesn’t mean you can pragmatically attribute a Creator as the antecedent to life. Evolution is a real science; we have an extensive fossil record to support it. We have discovered transitional forms of organisms (e.g. birds –> dinosaurs, whales –> terrestrial whales). We do not possess every fossil from every species that has ever roamed the Earth; some have been destroyed, and others simply haven’t yet been unearthed.
    For the millions of people who get a flu shot every year, they need an annual shot because the influenza virus evolves. You can also look at the increasing resistance that some bacteria have to antibiotics; this is happening because the bacteria are being naturally selected. Some bacteria have developed genetic mutations that make them resistant to antibiotics. Because they’re not being killed off by the antibiotics, they are able to reproduce; therefore, passing on the favorable phenotypes that give rise to resistance.
    Evolution, undoubtedly, is occurring and has occurred.

    There is no conspiracy going on in the scientific community. Intelligent design is dependent upon the unknown to formulate its assumptions. Again, we cannot attribute the unknown to a Creator. It is in no way science to use logic that depends on the unknown: “if the effect of ‘x’ is unknown, then the cause for ‘x’ must be that it was intelligently designed.” Using the scientific method, you cannot observe, measure, or test for a Designer — it is as simple as that. When Behe looks under the microscope he doesn’t see “Made in Heaven” stamped on the flagellum.
    Polls consistently reveal that 40% of scientists believe in a deity. The scientist you mentioned, Kenneth Miller, is one of the most recognizable defenders of evolution — were you aware that he is a devout Roman Catholic? He doesn’t attempt to use his Ph.D to promote his God or religion. Why didn’t the producers of Expelled invite Miller to contribute to the film? They told Scientific American that it would “confuse the audience” — that’s for certain. Miller wrote an entire book, Finding Darwin’s God, in an attempt to find common ground between evolution and God. Miller knows that there is indisputable evidence in support of evolution, and no scientific evidence in support of a Designer. Miller points out that when evolution is applied to a deity, it actually leads to a higher opinion, and understanding, of God. Because Miller knows there’s no evidence doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe in God, it means he is pragmatic; not allowing his religious beliefs to manifest into his laboratory. Believing in God is about faith; faith is defined as believing in something that has not been observed. Miller is honest with himself.

    Darwin never intended for his theory to be applied towards sociology; evolution by the means of natural selection is a biological theory. Social Darwinism was used as a disguise to justify preexisting superiority complexes; this is known as “ethnocentrism” in sociology. If you were one of the many that were fooled by the film’s complete fabrication of Darwin’s excerpt from his book, Descent of Man, regarding etymology I refer you to the following link:
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
    The producers took fragments of the excerpt, mixing and matching sentences together. It was portrayed in the movie in such a way as to generate false impressions of Darwin, and evolution. Again, another tool of persuasion.

    It’s not that I think intelligent design is bad science, it’s that I don’t think it’s science at all. The reason why we, the United States, are #1 in regards to science and applied science (i.e. technology) is because of the integrity that is inherent in our science. This integrity has given rise to our unprecedented progress in being able to explain the world around us, and thus has allowed us to go where no man has ever gone before (i.e. the moon). If we allow unscientific ideas to manifest as science, there will be an inevitable ebb of progress; this will, in turn, give someone else the opportunity to take our leading role, and who knows how that may unfold.

  • Snedman

    Hano wrote “Also, it is a historical fact that the attrocities of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia was justified by Darwinism, which can not be argued away. Why would Hitler acknowledge anyone else in Mein Kampf? Mein Kampf means “My suffering”. Note the word “my” in the title. Nazism was an extension of Eugenics, which have its roots clearly in Darwinism.”

    That is funny, as Hitler did not acknowledge Darwin in Mein Kampf. He also made no reference to Darwin’s theory.

    He did make reference to a short group of three people who provided particular inspiration to him. One of them once wrote a document against the Jewish people, advocating that their property be seized, that their synagogues and prayer books be burned, that they be forbidden from practicing their religion, and that they either be forced into servitude to the German people or be driven from the land. Wow, that looks like a blueprint for the Holocaust. Look up this document. A simple search will find it. The title is “The Jews and their Lies”. It was written in 1543. Who is this inspiration for Hitler? None other than Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church.

    In case you are curious, Hitler’s two other idols were Richard Wagner (the composer) and Frederick the Great.

    The fact is that anti-semetism had been preached from the pulpits of many European churches for centuries.

    Churches don’t like rival religions, and tend to preach about how the other guys are not to be trusted (either evil, or they just have gotten it all wrong). In the case of Jews, Christian Churches for much of history have preached that they are evil.

    This lay the seeds for the Holocaust. The Nazis campaign against Jews was largely based on religious arguments.

    Consider Hitler’s book. You can find a number of translations on the web. Go ahead and search it. Try a key word “God”. Here is a quote from Hitler’s book “And so, internally armed with faith in the
    goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the
    struggle for what is called ‘the reconstruction of the REICH’ can now
    begin.” There are many more. For a supposed atheist, Hitler sure talked a lot about God. Now if you want to argue that he left the true teachings of the Church behind, that’s fair. But he clearly saw himself as a Christian, doing God’s work against God’s enemies.

  • dmazza90

    ***************
    *SPOILER ALERT: *
    ***************

    God isn’t real!