Now, I’m no big city lawyer. But, while the scientist/rationalist side of me could not object more strenuously to Ben Stein’s “documentary,” Expelled, the lawyer side of me is giggling like a schoolgirl. And here’s why.
(Author’s Note – this is a long post! Skip to “Now, until Ben Stein came along…” if you know what intelligent design is.)
For those of you who may not know – and happy be you! – Ben Stein recently released a documentary, to lukewarm returns and abyssmal reviews, which sought to profile how “Big Science” systematically and without cause kicks out thinkers who devote their careers to researching intelligent design. Intelligent design is the idea that some biological structures appear too advanced to have evolved on their own. In its most rudimentary form, intelligent design is an argument from awe – “wow, that’s really complicated! It can’t possibly have evolved on its own!” More advanced versions (but still wrong) of intelligent design are slightly better – they confront structures (like the flagellum) that look too complex to evolve, and then argue by assertion that they couldn’t have evolved on their own. Ergo, evolution is wrong, and God did it all.
Why that hypothesis is bunk is a post for another day.
Moving on, intelligent design is different from creationism merely because it couches itself more in the vocabulary of science than its ideological brother. Creationists hoped to use this costume to smuggle intelligent design (a thinly veiled religious argument) into public schools, since creationism (an open religious argument) can’t be taught in schools. See Edwards v. Aguillard,
See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, against the efforts of a school board trying to force intelligent design onto the school curriculum, plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller proved that intelligent design, as it was phrased in Dover, fostered the entanglement of religion and the state. 400 F. Supp.2d 707. She proved that a reasonable person would perceive that intelligent design, as it was being taught, had a religious motivation, and that the state, through the Dover School Board, was therefore advocating a religious position.
The Lemon test, as applied by Judge Jones, asked whether an objective, reasonable observer would perceive that a religious message was conveyed by the teaching of intelligent design. Id. at 714-16. Judge Jones found in the affirmative. Id. at 714-730. However, the test is very record-sensitive. If the record does not disclose mentions of religion in the area and time surrounding the adoption of intelligent design as government policy, the Lemon test may result in the conclusion that religious motivations were not in play. Thus, the plaintiff’s job in a suit to enjoin the teaching of intelligent design is to find a “smoking gun,” where religion/creationism and ID are mentioned as inextricable.
Now, until Ben Stein came along, I worried that the next Dover may not have a record that compels this conclusion. After all, the active mission of groups like the Discovery Institute has been to expunge any mention of religion from discussions on intelligent design, thus allowing creationist groups to smuggle it past the eyes of the watching Lemon-armed judge. Intelligent design had been exposed as religion once, but only because Bill Buckingham, the motivation behind the Dover school board, messed up. What if the next time, the school board was more careful?
Luckily for us, Ben Stein has on multiple public occasions clearly linked intelligent design, creationism, and religion. In an interview with Bill O’Reilly, watch, at mark 4:50, as Ben Stein answers a question about creationism by describing intelligent design. In Stein’s own promotional materials, he explains how evolution leads to atheism, while intelligent design leads to God. He even proposes sermon ideas, based on intelligent design, for your next church youth group meeting. And the public is buying it. Watch on Conservapedia – a young earth creationist blog, masking itself as an encyclopedia – as its creationist editors have praise sessions for the movie, hailing Expelled and Ben Stein as defenders of God, and extolling the virtues of intelligent design as the new creationism.
In short, Stein has handed us the smoking gun. Where, before, intelligent design could have potentially become a “Trojan horse” for creationism, thanks to Stein, the Achaeans are out of the proverbial horse – the public now clearly links intelligent design with creationism, with religion, and the next Kitzmiller (if there is one) is in the bag.
Hallelujah.
Submitted to a Candid World 
Earth is a petrie dish. It’s quite possible the we were seeded from another planet: whether it be as microbes aboard space rocks or voluntarily (see the Noah’s Ark fable) as the fully developed complex biological entities that we are. On the fringe are those who believe that we were “assembled” by a federation of extra-terrestrials (see Raelians).
The fact remains that if evolution were to have taken it’s true course we would have been devoured out of existence by far larger and more powerful animals before we would have a chance to develop into what we are…we had ‘some’ sort of help.
As a spiritualist who deeply believes in God, albeit NOT that guy with the long beard and robes who punishes us for misdeeds, I believe God is no more responsible for our complex components like our flagellum than ‘It’ is responsible for Earthquakes and floods.
why could not intelligent design entail an intermediary, i.e., ET? Why do we have to be so ego-centristic and believe that man was created directly by God? Why can we not evolve just because we are “created”? If a computer could think, then it would know that an evolution took place from its very beginings from glass tubes to solid-state circuitry
The appearance of design is not the same as design – it’s just an argument from awe to say, “my my, how complicated we are!” – and the evidence doesn’t bear out design in our case, ET or God.
It’s like the Pro Life lobby not wanting to admit their real agenda: any form of birth control or family planning is a sin, but focusing on abortion creates a more lurid, dramatic debate.
Currently I am struggling with a nasty, antibiotic resistant cellulitis. I wonder if Doctor Ben would take a look at my rather disgusting infection site and then tell me how this constitutes “intelligent design.” Stein has come a long way since his days as a Penthouse columnist.
well, there’s still huge scientific hurdles to make evolution by random natural selection good science. As it currently stands, it’s not. The big problem with this debate is not the Ben Steins or the outright creationists, it’s an orthodoxy that demands that all ‘intelligent’ people believe that purely random changes in the binary DNA code produced all complex life on earth.
Intelligent people are not demanded or expected to believe in quantum physics, nor games theory, nor any number of other contested scientific disciplines. Nor are intelligent people expected to believe that the computer functioning that enables them to read and write these blogs arose through random changes in binary coding. Monkeys randomly typing at keyboards could not produce the screen you are looking at, even with 15 billion years.
Yet skepticism (!) about pure random changes in DNA code being sufficient to explain all life on earth, is equated with heresy, religion, and close-mindedness. There needs to be a space for those of us– probably a majority– who believe neither that the world was created in six days six thousand years ago, nor that all life on earth arose through random mutations. We believe that there’s a better answer which is not yet known yet. Stop calling us names.
Mat, I think you’re missing something – I agree that random processes, if that’s all that evolutionary theory rested upon, would be inadequate as an evolutionary mechanism to explain the complexity of life. However, say that evolution is just random chance is to miss half the theory.
Evolution is random chance mutation + natural selection “survival of the fittest” favoring certain random mutations. So it’s not really random at all; it’s this mechanism, which favors useful adaptations, that is so powerful at generating complexity and explaining the world around us.
Can I suggest Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” for more on this issue?
push everything else aside – go to the very foundation. on some level “something” was created from “nothing” (unless you hold to the pre-existence of matter for all eternity [which brings with it many new questions/inconsistencies]). evolution cannot explain this, and as such is deficient. even if the evolutionary process can account for the form of what we observe today, it cannot disprove intelligent design because: at the most basic level, intelligent design is creation of “something” from “nothing.” evolution (as a theory) is merely citing the changes we hypothesize about “something” already in existence.
i have yet to see ben’s movie – but i look forward to it, and appreciate the dialogue and interest generated by this discussion.
I too am glad that it’s provided a reason for people to talk about these issues. Serious business.
Now, that said, evolution doesn’t *have* to explain abiogenesis. There’s no requirement that every scientific theory explain every other one. Gravity doesn’t explain where matter came from, either, and we don’t question that.
I admit that evolution is inadequate to explain where the first speck of life came from. But evolution doesn’t seek to answer that question in the first place! Rather, it explains how life changed from speck to modern life, and it does that very well.
Now, intelligent design is *not* about what created life in the first place. ID is a creationist attack on evolution, attempted by means of distorting and ignoring selected scientific evidence (see a more recent post). ID says evolution can’t explain changes from speck of life to modern life, which evolution, quite clearly, is fit to do.
Abiogenesis speaks to the question of what created life in the first place. But I’m not defending that here.
AMES – you are obviously correct that a scientific theory does not have to explain all of reality. but even so, if two theories explain equally as much in a focus area (for our discussion: the data evaluated being the same for ID scientists and evolution scientists), as both evolution and ID attempt (albeit both have questions left to answer, you may prefer to take the *gray areas* of “evolution” on faith and I prefer to take those of ID on faith, both of us holding our positions to be more thorough and cogent regarding the *evidence*), it then becomes pertinent to look past that one area to a broader context.
ID assumes the creation of matter from nothing (and as such addresses the issue of *abiogenesis*) – evolution defers the question. the ability of ID to explain the data present and also to explain the foundational concept of creation are inseparable. just because the issue of *abiogenesis* is not within the scope of the theory of evolution, does not eliminate the strength it provides ID as a theory. one must wrestle with *abiogenesis*, i understand that you are not wishing to tackle it in this debate, but ignoring it (and it’s potential implications) regarding ID is in a way “fixing” the discussion. if the presupposition of ID (a designer that brings something from nothing) is strongly supported with regards to *abiogenesis* then this necessarily strengthens the case for the theory as an explanation for the reality we experience daily.
as regards the following: “intelligent design is *not* about what created life in the first place. ID is a creationist attack on evolution, attempted by means of distorting and ignoring selected scientific evidence” (from previous post)
evolution as a theory attempts to explain just as ID seeks the same. you obviously have a preference with regards to how the *facts* are interpreted. but your prefrence for one theory over another does not prove or disprove anything. you can take ID as an attack on the theory you hold (which you take to some degree on faith), but i (from the perspective of ID [taken to some degree on faith]) can claim the same of evolution. evidence must be interpreted and as such theories are created. belittling ID as an “attack” is nothing more than voicing your perspective on the issue and in no way speaks to the *evidence* for or against. hold to your theory, but try not to misrepresent mine as a reaction not fitting of the term “theory”.
(also the presupposition that is foundational to ID does deal directly with *abiogenesis* – intelligent design necessarily assumes the creation of all, regardless of whether you focus on the reality of this world as debated against evolution or with regards to the creation of the first speck of matter – intelligent design remains constant, everything was created initially by design)
on a slightly different note: as established earlier in this post – this is indeed a matter of faith. (the following quote is taken from the original post)
“Creationists hoped to use this costume to smuggle intelligent design (a thinly veiled religious argument) into public schools, since creationism (an open religious argument) can’t be taught in schools. See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) (holding that creationism is religion; accordingly, the teaching of creationism in public schools is an abridgment of the first amendment).”
merriam-webster defines *religion* as follows: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
this describes the way many hold to ID/creationism as well as evolution. allowing the theory of evolution to be taught and not ID is choosing one religion/*faith issue* and rejecting another. this isn’t science vs. faith – this is faith vs. faith. one side holds to a religion that places faith in a *God* that cannot be completely proven (ID) and the other side holds to a religion that either places faith in a *God* that used evolution to bring about creation (which cannot be proven), or that believes that no such *God* exists (which also cannot be proven). either way, there are presuppositions about the divine and as such *faith*/*religious* components. ID cannot be dismissed because of faith/religion if the same criteria is not applied to evolution. as a firm proponent of ID, i believe that it should be taught in schools… but unlike many who put faith in evolution, i would be perfectly content to see both theories taught and explained. neither can be said to be definitive, both are theories, and if the issue of *faith*/*religion* is the issue – then throw them both out, because *religion* is unavoidable; which *religion* [if any] you choose to teach, is the issue.
i realize this was long – if you made it to the end… thanks.
Oh, bull. The problem with just saying “goddidit” as an origin for the universe is twofold: If everything needs a cause, what’s God’s cause?
1: Either you assert that it doesn’t need one (in which case you might as well just cut out the middledeity and assert that the universe doesn’t need a cause), or
2: Assert that God was caused by an even bigger God, in which case it’s ‘turtles all the way down’.
Ames, I did read the Blind Watchmaker (not impressed), and also took a MA course in Darwinism and Evolution with Oren Harmon, a respected evolutionary biologist. Yes, I understand that natural selection of the allegedly random mutations is what is supposed to explain evolution.
But neither Dawkins, nor the considerable body of far more detailed research I’ve seen in other places (also from David Stern, a noted evolutionary biologist at Princeton and a friend of mine) convinces me that this theory is adequate to be BELIEVED in.
Certainly VARIATION can be well explained by random mutations and natural selection. But actual speciation would seem to require some sort of mechanism or process for dozens or hundreds of complementary and interdependent changes in DNA code to happen together. It may well be that at the ‘software’ rather than the binary level of genetic coding, there is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation– random or not– for how the kinds of changes that can lead to the leaps of speciation can happen. But it has NOT been explained yet.
The school of thought called ‘punctuated equilibrium’ holds the most promise, IMO (better than ‘intelligent design’). But to demand the public to ‘believe’ in such a poorly developed and inadequately proven theory, as anti-religious crusaders like Dawkins do, shoots science in the foot.
Gulik –
i understand what you’re trying to argue – but the real issue is the necessary presence of an ultimate. the argument for intelligent design, or as you have stated it – “God” – is an argument for an uncreated ultimate. without such an ultimate you are correct, there is *infinite regress*. that which is created cannot by definition be ultimate. so if “God” had a *cause* then you’d be correct, “it’s turtles all the way down.” but your assumption here is that everything must have a cause, and as such you are assuming the “infinite regress” already.
if you are sure that the “goddidit” theory is flawed, then what is your ultimate? how do you prevent the “infinite regress”? is “matter” self creating or eternal? if you can believe that then you are willing to take as much on faith as someone who says “goddidit” (and i am assuming this is your position based on your first point). it sounds like you don’t like the ID idea because your bias is your refusal to accept/allow for the supernatural – but the creation of the first speck of matter was supernatural, whether you identify “God” or something else, you are nonetheless left with something outside of nature. evolution itself (see excellent point made by matjew above) at best may explain the variation we see, but the natural process it is supposed to explain (and i find its explanation wanting) assumes the presence of something created, so nothing about evolution eliminates the need for an un-caused ultimate. and if you default to “the universe is eternal”, then you are in denial of the *science* that you hold in reference to the process & timeline of evolution.
“If you are sure that the “goddidit” theory is flawed, then what is your ultimate? how do you prevent the “infinite regress”? is “matter” self creating or eternal”
Do we need to know how it all started, how space-time and matter originated in order to study the world today, and to investigate the past?
The universe is about 13 billion years old, our solar system about 46 billions.
Why not concentrate our effort at understanding how we got here in the study of the past, say since the ‘Cambrian explosion”?
The evidence from geology, palaeontology and many other sciences is clear: A progressive development (end extinction) of species. That much is admitted even by prominent ID-ers, while those of a more fundamentalist bent support ID only because they see it as a defender of the biblical account of Genesis.
What ID is trying to say is, that some features in biology are too complex to be the result of natural processes, they are Irreducibly Complex, so an ‘Intelligent Designer” must have fixed it.
According to science that is not true, and a study of the subject should clear that up.
What then about the limits to genetic mechanisms, natural selection et cetera? “Micro evolution” is ok, “Macro evolution is not”? That seems like some kind of last resort – “we accept science, but do not believe natural processes can account for speciation, diversification of species.” Well, we are all free to believe or disbelieve what we want, but can any creationist say with confidence: “I know science is wrong, the scientists that try to convince us that nature alone is responsible for the origins of species are either lying, or they are reading too much into their evidence.”
Well, it so happens that for the time being, we have no evidence for intervention either by God, Aliens or other unidentifiable causes for speciation. Examining the motives for our beliefs may help identify what causes our problem with scientific theories and our preference for quasi science.
WRT “nothing about evolution eliminates the need for an un-caused ultimate.” All right. Evolution is not about the ultimate, its causes or not any more than electromagnetism or gravity are.
The study of the ultimate is quite another cup of tea. No matter what caused or not-caused the ‘ultimate’, the hydrogen bomb works as predicted, and so do our cell phones and computers.
We need now know how it all began to do archaeology or study nature.
For ultimate causes, I suggest a study of cosmology and theoretical physics. Or the Bible;-)
A supernatural intelligent designer, ie god, having an infinite supply of knowledge, power, and time, could have created the universe any way he wanted. He could have poofed everything into existence yesterday and make it seem like the universe was actually 13 billion years old and life evolved by natural means, just to be perverse. This is the problem with supernatural ID as a scientific theory: it is compatible with any and all possible evidence and thus cannot be tested. It is not within the purview of science even if it were true.
As for a natural intelligent designer, ie an alien, there are two problems:
Firstly, the aliens have to come from somewhere, and we get our infinite regress again.
Secondly, the aliens, being natural, would have limitations. They should leave behind evidence of their activities. So far, no such evidence has been found. Every biological system studied to date shows clear signs of having NOT been designed by any kind of natural designer that we can currently understand.
Perhaps one day we might discover evidence for such natural intelligent designers. Humans may in the future become natural intelligent designers (some would argue we already are). Natural intelligent design also does not conflict with evolution in any way: designers arise through evolution, and designed systems are subject to the laws of evolution from the moment of their creation onwards.
I.D. is like explaining the origin of an egg by saying “well a chicken laid it”.
It astonishes me that some of the commenters above criticize evolution for not explaining biogenesis, and then manage to say with a straight face that “life created life”.
I don’t agree with Creationism, but at least it’s honest – we believe life was created by magic. I.D. is just like some sort of spoof.
Hello my friends :)
;)
“The fact remains that if evolution were to have taken it’s true course we would have been devoured out of existence by far larger and more powerful animals before we would have a chance to develop into what we are…we had ’some’ sort of help.”
Dear David,
I truly believe you just don’t understand the basics of evolution. Being large and powerfull surely doesn’t make up higher fitness in any case or environment.. The only thing aiding in evolution is change itself and chance for that matter.
Kind regards, Daan van Rijswijk
The whole point of the film was to make the public aware that the “powers that be” in our colleges and universities are not always allowing the debate in their classrooms.
That is what is concerning. Not who is right or who is wrong.
Both ID and evolution are theories. Neither has been proven 100%. We must continue to debate these things. This is America, land of the free!
Shannon –
No, the Theory of Evolution hasn’t been proved 100%. However, in 150 years, the ToE hasn’t yet been proven false, not even once. That’s the important part!
Theories aren’t about ‘proving things 100%’. Theories are about testing the evidence you have, and if any test falsifies your theory, you change or dump your theory until you can’t find any test that falsifies it. THAT we’ve done with the Theory of Evolution. In 150 years of testing, no one yet has managed to find the test that shows the falsity of the theory.
Just as importantly, ID hasn’t got ANY scientific evidence in its favor. Not one peer-reviewed article, not one reproducable experiment, and most especially, not one single prediction that can be made by ID ‘theory’ and not by evolution theory.
All of this argument is happening in school boards and in books released to the general public, and NONE of it is being done in laboratories, universities, or in peer-reviewed science publications. Why? Why are the ID people unable to show ANY science to back up their ‘theory’?
No, the ToE hasn’t been ‘proved 100%’, but neither have Germ Theory, Gravitational Theory, Electromagnetic Theory, Plate Tectonics Theory, etc. NO theory has every been ‘proved 100%’. But it’s stood up to 150 years of scientists from all over the world trying to prove it wrong, and none of them have been able to.
Meanwhile, ID has NOTHING. ID hasn’t got even 1%, much less 100%! All ID has is ‘Dang, that looks complimicated! I don’t understand how it could be!’ Lack of understanding on your part doesn’t put the ToE in jeopardy, it just shows your ignorance.
[…] of my first posts on this site was to say that Ben Stein has destroyed intelligent design, by proving once and for […]
[…] ID still retained from fundamentalist religion, as I wrote early in this site’s history, Ben Stein destroyed, by openly and publicly equating the movement with religion in Expelled. As always, idiocy contains […]
[…] Thanks to Trent of RationalWiki for bringing these to my attention. In the meantime, read my previous legal analysis of ID, and an explanation of the importance of the intersection between the law’s approach to […]
[…] loon cum felon, “Dr. Dino.” Epic Lemon v. Kurtzman fail: Stein’s still destroying creationism’s legal chances by openly equating intelligent design with creationism. […]
[…] along – until it was exposed on the stand for all to see.2 Now it seems that (ID)eologues, from Ben Stein to the Discovery Institute to (now) Uncommon Descent, have openly given up the ghost and conceded […]
[…] who first settled on the idea of “stealth creationism,” public relations disasters like Ben Stein have insisted on making a “religious” case for intelligent design, spoiling ID […]
[…] who first settled on the idea of “stealth creationism,” public relations disasters like Ben Stein have insisted on making a “religious” case for intelligent design, spoiling ID […]
[…] loon cum felon, “Dr. Dino.” Epic Lemon v. Kurtzman fail: Stein’s still destroying creationism’s legal chances by openly equating intelligent design with creationism. [BPSDB] 0 Comments No Comments so far […]