Subscribe
Latest Activity
-
This week on CrossExamine.com -Kyle West Story-Truth Project - :
Kyle West Story-Truth Project
Why would God use a boy with cerebral palsy? That’s what 7 year-old Kyle West asked. Now 18, God has used Kyle in incredible ways, including on The Truth Project. Despite Kyle’s difficulties, God has a plan and purpose for his life and for yours. Watch Del's bonus teaching looking at the topic now or watch the full episode online now at Cross Examine's Facebook page www.facebook.com/CrossExamine.
-
About
Dr. Del Tackett is the author, architect and teacher for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project, a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
-
By Month
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
Links
The Debut of “Expelled”
Posted on April 18, 2008
Filed Under Worldview | 56 Comments
Last December, I had the privilege of seeing an advance preview of a movie that I am very excited about. It opens in theatres today and I hope you go to see it. I also hope that it stirs up a hornet’s nest because we as a culture need to deal with the issue this film raises and we need to deal with it honestly and openly.
I am speaking of Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” and the controversy it tackles is the hidden, but deep hostility that exists in science and academia toward those who dare raise problematic issues with evolutionary theory or thought. Ben documents the consequences that have fallen upon even evolutionists who have raised honest questions—questions that the scientific method is supposed to embrace. If evidence exists that contradicts a hypothesis or theory, that evidence should not only be allowed into the discussion, but its discovery should be celebrated.
The problem is that modern science has sequestered itself within the walls of the cosmic cube. Any evidence that would point to a transcendent force beyond the natural realm is forbidden and banned from consideration. Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and highly honored Harvard professor of biology, confessed this years ago [Scientific American, 1954]. When confronted with the overwhelming evidence and impossibility of life arising from non-life, Wald declared that he could not follow that evidence because of where it would lead. Therefore, he stated that he had to believe the impossible: non-life must produce life. This is a statement of blind faith—believing that which has absolutely no evidential support. But that blind faith now has a lock upon the major institutions of science and academia. Its adherents have become near zealots in protecting and guarding it—banishing any other faith claim in the area of origins. Ben Stein has documented the cases of professors and scientists who have lost their jobs, their grants, their reputations…because they stood up to question the establishment’s faith. Sadly, that fist comes down upon students as well. Those who dare to question can be mercilessly belittled and harassed into quiet submission. Some within the establishment have recently suggested that admission to graduate school be withheld from those who are outside the “faith”.
Unfortunately, the current mantra of philosophical science has morphed into something like the following:
“If a transcendent, intelligent force really does exist and if it has acted within the natural realm, any evidence that would support that premise will not be allowed to be a part of the scientific investigation nor will arguments in support of that premise be tolerated.”
Ben Stein might add: “And those who dare to disagree will be summarily defrocked.”
Go see the movie.
Comments
56 Responses to “The Debut of “Expelled””
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it to be inappropriate, i.e. offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious (what a list, huh?). Check it over for spelling and grammar before you submit so that nothing will hinder your eloquence!
Del,
From your text: “But that blind faith now has a lock upon the major institutions of science and academia. Its adherents have become near zealots in protecting and guarding it…”
One might argue that your use of the word “near” is being kind… Academia (in nearly all High Schools and Universities) is very hostile to anything that dares to even hint at Intelligent Design!
I just checked on the internet as to the local (for me) availability of the “Expelled” movie. I did this because I was concerned that there would be a concerted effort by the MSM to suppress this film. Surprisingly, and happily the movie is opening today in at least a dozen or more theaters in the metro area here in the Detroit area!!!
So far as I can tell, the distribution looks like a normal premier so far as I can tell. Thank God!!!
Dan…
I also hope the public, on both sides of the debate, goes out and sees this movie. It’s important to let people know that intelligent design supporters aren’t “just a bunch of Christians” trying to read something into the evidence that’s not there. I say, let the evidence lead where it may! I am confident that it will (and does) lead to a Creator if we are completely honest with ourselves.
It sounds like a very interesting movie. Like you, I hope that it stirs up a lot of discussion.
Thanks Dr. Tackett!
We will go see the movie. Evidently,:) God’s truth is marching on! If only the world could see God’s loving arms reaching out to give them more than they could possibly want, perhaps they wouldn’t be so afraid of exploring Ultimate Reality.
Blessings,
Mike Weaver
I saw the movie yesterday before going to TTP event in Troy, Michigan. Both of these experiences rock, and together they make a landside of truth. It`s a must see.
I did and it was well worth the hefty theatre ticket prices. There were some of our “friends” from The Truth Project including Dr. Stephen Myer and I think Ben Stein did a very unbiased job of “searching for the truth wherever it leads”! In addition to the very poignant Holocaust footage, there’s an incredible profile shot of Ben facing the larger-than-life statue of Charles Darwin. There could have been more exposure on why Darwin’s theory does not hold up (fossil record deficiencies that even Darwin admitted and the like) but all in all I thought it was very well done. God bless Ben Stein and I hope this effort will spark a return to freedom of speech in the science classroom!
Saw it last night with friends (4/20). He did a decent job. At this stage I think that the victory is in raising the subject matter to a society that wants to run and hide from it. That society would not only be the entrenched Darwinian community, but also that part of the Christian community that wishes to remain comfortable.
I heard about your project from the above mentioned friends. Hope to introduce it to our local church.
Went to see the movie. It was a hard movie to watch, because the culture of death, which emanates from Darwinism permeates the movie. In my opinion The Truth Project is better, because it is clearer and more complete, but I am glad the movie was made and is showing in theaters all over the country. I found one comment made by one of those “scientist” fascinating, when asked, what he would say to God, when he found that He existed after all: “Why did You do such a good job of hiding?” God says: “Seek Me, and you shall find Me”. I believe, God is bending over backwards to allow everyone to come to the knowledge of the Truth.
I saw “Expelled” this weekend. I think this is a must see for students (and their parents) who attend public high schools and colleges.
It shows that there is another side that they are not hearing in the classroom.
At the showing we attended, there was applause at the end of the movie.
Dave
We took our 13-year old son to see the movie on 4/19. Before he went in, he was very concerned that it would be boring. But at the end, he applauded with everyone else because he really like it. I pray that the general public will not dismiss this film with the nasty reviews that were given by the media.
“I say, let the evidence lead where it may! I am confident that it will (and does) lead to a Creator if we are completely honest with ourselves.”
Thank-you Jordan for your comment. That is my heart-cry. Thank-you.
Sam
I host a TTP small group, last week was Tour 5: Science pt. 1. As we closed, I encouraged all participants to see Expelled. For me, it was Saturday. Although it is not a perfect movie (straying from it’s stated focus that ID is being squelched), I was highly impacted by it. I grieved for our nation to see once again how far we have strayed from our origins. Even in the “stray”, I concur with Mr. Stein that a logical course of Darwinian theory may ultimately cheapen life and therefore bring about the mindset of the likes of Hitler (past) or Planned Parenthood (present). I pray that this movie creates a resurgence in the national discussion and that students all across the country will be emboldened to stand up with spoken and written words to say “Professor, With all due respect, there is another theory”.
Wow! Thank you Ben Stein!!
My question to the Christian community is this: why are there so many of us who act as though science is an unspiritual realm? As though pointing to science as evidence of a designer is not as holy as trying to get someone to say the “sinner’s prayer”? We Christians are for the most part our own worst enemies and are for the most part well deserving of the label, “non-thinking”. Jesus Himself used physical evidence to prove who He was, why shouldn’t we?
May God continue to use The Truth Project to wake the Church out of it’s stupor and set our hearts on fire for Christ!
Mike Weaver
Del, I’m so glad that you recommened EXPELLED for viewing,to the people of THE TRUTH PROJECT. I’ve been checking your blog site for your comments on this Documentery and am happy it has your approval. To me it just reinforces your teaching on the subject of EVOLUTION. I had the thought that it would be a GREAT IDEA if you would collaborate with BEN STEIN and his Production Co, and make a MOVIE about THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT as taught on your Lesson #10, for Viewing by the general public. Peace and GOD Bless you in your TRUTH PROJECT TEACHING. Dave Wissler St Louis Mo.
The movie sounds fascinating, certainly. Academic integrity demands that any view be entertained as long as it is supported somehow. I have to disagree that we can talk about evidence that points to God, though, in the scientific sense to which you refer. The simple reason is that science is the study of chains of causes and effects. If there is “evidence” for God, it will be, necessarily, unscientific. Doesn’t mean it isn’t rational or valid – just that it can’t be tested, repeated, and documented. The true fallacy is the attempts by moderns – evangelical and secularist alike – to make science comment on transcendency at all. History, maybe – with a healthy dose of philosophical introspection – but not science.
Thank you for your comments Jacob, but remember that it is impossible to keep science separated from everything else. As Ben Stein said in the trailer for his movie, there are those who would like to keep science in a box where it cannot possibly touch anything else, especially God. But the truth is that after a scientist gathers evidence, he or she needs to turn to a worldview for interpretation and meaning. In fact, the way in which he or she gathered and organized the evidence in the first place means he or she had to use a worldview. I think the whole point of the movie (although I haven’t seen it yet since it’s not currently showing in Canada) is that science is not an independent field in which things can be studied apart from outside influences, and that God should be allowed to be considered as one of those influences, along with all the other theories. In this sense, then, there will always be an aspect of science which is “unscientific”, but that’s okay because it helps keep us from thinking that science holds all the answers. Discovering there is a Designer behind science even provides motivation to study the natural world.
Hi Jacob!
There are some debates that will never be setteled this side of glory but hopefully this isn’t one of them. When one considers the attacks of the enemy, the hideous effects of “survival of the fittest”, I conclude that putting science in a secular realm is exactly what the devil wants.
I think that the true fallacy is for Christians to believe that we can divide life into secular and sacred realms. That’s unscriptural, “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it.”
Ps.19 says that the heavens declare the glory of God, pouring forth speech and displaying knowledge, their voice going out into all the earth… What are they saying brother??? Don’t look at us? Don’t study us? We don’t point to God?
Jordan is right, it is not possible to put science in a realm all by itself.
Blessings,
Mike Weaver
Some few years ago, when I was still working on my degree, I took an introductory course in astronomy. I couldn’t help but experience this course as a study into God’s creation. The further my class got into studying this subject, the greater God’s majesty in His creation became. I viewed biology as providing the same insight on a micro level. For me, to study science is to study God’s creation. They cannot be separated. This movie shows how we are having another gospel, the gospel of evolution, forced upon us. It is a gospel that says there is no God.
Del,
Loved the movie very much. It is a breath of fresh air for someone who has experienced the discrimination of the establishment back when I was in high school.
Also, I’m still interested in the trends you’ve noticed from your students in the Institute that you mentioned several posts ago…
Dave
The Truth, I have found, will survive all forms of suppresion and persecution in the long run. Are we witnessing the same sort of scientific struggle and transformation the world saw when evolutionary theory became dominant, only in reverse? If Darwin was correct, then his “theory” would stand the test of critcal debate and contrasting scientific evidence. Darwin’s adherents should welcome the opportunity to prove the truth of their thesis. But in fact they only seek to keep contrary thoughts imprisoned and to punish those who would challenge their position.
Jeff Brown
I’ve seen the movie twice and recommend it to everyone (in spite of the few who walked out presumably due to boredom: it is NOT an action flick). The movie premier has coincided with Lesson #10 (The American Experiment) with my current (and 2nd) small group sharing of The Truth Project. To recognize the historical revisionism that has taken place regarding the founding of our country and the evolution of it’s legal system, only to have the impact of Darwinism added to the heap of junk history and junk science gives reason for one to pause and reflect on where we are headed if we all remain silent so we don’t offend anyone.
Dr. Tackett,
Scenario: An active duty military member who is highly cleared with sensitive accesses has an experience with the living God on active duty in the military. His superiors question his mental stability and security clearance trustworthiness. Can his claims be substantiated? No.
But if the natural is all that there is, then any claim of supernatural experience must be considered evidence of psychosis as the patient is responding to stimuli not there or verifiable. And the default arbiters of truth in this scenario? Psychiatrists.
26 days in a military mental ward, loss of clearances, separation from service after 15.5 years. No retirement or benefits.
I too, was “expelled.”
But that is only a partial picture that does not report the incredible blessings of walking closer with God. What I gained far outweighs what was lost.
I just wanted to share a bit of my expulsion story to note that this hostility is not by any means limited to the academy. Stein does a great service in pointing out this tension that is not at all illusory.
The bottom line is static, unyielding and unchanging. If God exists and He is Creator, Law-giver, Judge, and Redeemer, then the duty of man is obedience. This is anathema to men who want always, as the Lord said through Isaiah, to go their own way.
Dave Gilmore
I hope this not too controversial to fit in this thread. I thought it could be germaine in this thread.
It was a breath of fresh air to sit in the movie as well as a disturbing connection to the oppressive regime in Germany in the 30′s and 40′s.
I must quit hiding from this issue. It is real! I remember Del talking about being lied to. Having been raised in the public schools at a time when the church was trying to blend evolution and creation, I now realize how much untruth I have swallowed. How to force this dialogue while being loving with blinded people is the challenge. Only God knows!!
My wife & I enjoyed the movie immensely. The issue of academic freedom is a hot topic here in Florida. Our Legislature is poised to pass a law giving public school teachers the freedom to address the existence of theories competing with evolution. But, within the media and much of scientific academia, there seems to be a strong rejection of intellectual freedom, when considering evolution.
As a retired Christian school administrator, I’ve carefully looked at evolutionary claims and alternatives. I’ve concluded that much of this knee-jerk reaction against alternatives to evolution stems from the fear of discovering that a Holy God-Creator exists. And, if He exists and created us “in His image”, as the Bible states….. perhaps we all have responsibilities towards Him & are not free to just do our own thing. Not politically correct, but most Americans are still very open to it, even in this post-Christian, relativistic world we live in.
“Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” exposes the degree to which some are attempting to move education towards intellectual bondage. I’m not suggesting government-sponsored teaching of Biblical creation; but I am concerned when we belligerently defend the unproven theory of evolution. Our students and education system deserves better.
Thank You Del and also Ben Stein. I have seen the movie, and I am encouraging many people to go see it. Many of those who have been through the Truth Project have been excited about this movie and are planning to use it as an opportunity to share God’s creation and His Story.
My wife and I saw the movie this past weekend–sadly only 8 people in the theatre. I was very pleased with it. Maybe the public attention will bring the Darwinists under more scrutiny.
Dr. Tacket, thanks to you and all the folks at Focus who had the vision to put Truth Project together. We have just completed 11 groups in our church and are planning for the next round of groups. It is truly life changing. God bless you.
I saw the movie, and loved it, except for the separation/portrayal of Creationists as “religious” zealots or wackos. It is obvious we have to hide our religous side and get behind Intelligent Design to push the “religious” conotations away from us to even be able to bring a point to the table! Why? Why can’t there even be discussions? Evolution is only a “Theory” (with many flaws and holes). Where is their PROOF/data? Why are Evolution supporters mostly “Atheists” (and don’t get me started on why that doesn’t violate separation of church and state – isn’t is a registered “religion”?)?
If we can’t teach alternatives, why allow them to teach lies? We are falling behind in English, Math and Basic Sciences (Chemistry, Biology), why not teach neither and put the time to better use?
I have amazing Christian friends and role models (brought me closer to God), who are Creationists (and phenomenal Scientists and Engineers). They and others did presentations on “theories” with data that seem to me to make more obvious sense than Evolution, but you be the judge:
Geophysicist, Dr John Baumgardners’ “Fitting the Puzzle Pieces Together: Global Tectonics and the Flood” http://www.globalflood.org/
and
Creationist Geologist, Dr Andrew Snellings Radioactivity Dating of Rock Strata and the Age of the Earth and RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project, http://www.icr.org/rate/
It set my heart on fire to desire knowledge of Christ through this. I am a “thinker” (Engineer), so “faith” was very hard for me, but presentation of the Creationist “evidence” set my mind aside enough to trust in faith and Christ.
Battles like this are coming to the forefront, just like the Truth you mention in “Diversity” or “Tolerance”. Why accept or allow Evolution? It is a battle cry and wake up call, before our society falls to a truly separated Church and State (and NOT what the founding fathers had in mind)…
Lee
Dear Dr. Tackett,
After having hosted the Truth Project twice in our home, and 3 times to small groups at church, it only becomes more and more necessary to see it again. Now we have also seen Ben Stein’s movie Expelled. We said on the way home that after it comes out on DVD it would be great to show it after showing the science parts of the Truth Project. Once again, thanks for your passion to get the TRUTH out there.
Jim and Joy Galvanek
I’m very excited about “Expelled”. Our family went to see it and encourage others to see it as well. I DUGG his article and am so encouraged by Dr Del Tackett’s comments. Our church is RUNNING with the Truth Project and I’m certain “Expelled” will be one of the many topics that are discussed during our times of ministry. God is awakening another “Sleeping Giant” in his Christians across the country… and as my husband Wayne Sedlak has always said, ” Take heart when the struggles are great… for the size of the giants in the land is the size of the Reformation that steps over it!
I attended the opening night showing of Ben’s movie. I found it a pleasure to hear the side of the story I have observed for over 20 years. Being in the LifeScience research arena for the last 2 decades, I have watched the vigilence and outright slanderous maligning of anyone even loosley aligned with ID.
It’s great to see someone taking on the establishement in such an in-your-face way. Thank you Ben.
Thanks for the article, Dr. T. I saw “Expelled” and appreciated it highly. I so enjoy watching secular knowledge catch up to the Bible, but if one’s heart is hardened against the Lord, no evidence will suffice (even Jesus’ miracles).
I’ve been eagerly waiting for an arrowhead in a T-Rex skull (or similar, irrefutable evidence) to be discovered. But now I’m thinking it would be explained away by the evo zealots, just like the T-Rex soft tissue was. Like Ray Comfort says, “It’s not a matter of the intellect, but the conscience.”
I took a Speech class at a local community college recently and picked Intelligent Design for my topic. I used Darwin’s own book “On the Origin of Species” to prove him wrong. People should read “Origin of Species” for themselves. It is so archaic and filled with Darwin’s own doubts!!! Darwin muses that if any part of his theory is found to be wrong, it crumbles the whole theory. After watching several Intelligent Design DVDs and the incredible trap doors and highly sophisticated systems inside our cellular system in our bodies, I was totally blown away. Clearly, Darwin missed a great deal.
My husband and I saw Expelled last weekend and found it to be a very balanced movie. Ben Stein gives both sides opportunities to present their cases. In some cases, their words cause entire audiences to laugh out loud. Some parts of the movie are tough to watch. I especially appreciated how he made the connection to Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement. That fact has been hidden for far too long. I want to know how he got this into the theatres? He is one brave guy and I applaud his research, all the travel he did, all the time he spent, and his search for truth. I don’t know how he did it. It is incredible.
The genius of the devil behind mega-conglomerates such as Universities and Public Schools is the control of Truth. In fact what happens is the UNIVERSALIZATION of Error.
People in general need to be woken up the fact that Error begets pain and suffering, and eventually death both to individuals and to society at large.
Christianity has a system of living that is so unique, so fresh, so joyous that when shown to the general populace can only but gasp in amazement.
When Christ speaks of the Darkeness and light, he is quite emphatic that there will be a contest between Light and darkness. By definition, darkness and light can not co-exist:
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
The enemy is large, like Goliath of Old, but it is our duty and our callings as Christians to expose the darkness.
I often wondered why John the Baptist got thrown in jail and lost his head. Because he exposed darkness in High Places.
We today are dealing with Spiritual Wickedness in High Places: Universities, Schools, Government, even Churches and families.
The trumpet sound is needed and I am very happy for this “nail in place (Ezra)”
I was hiking some deep trails in the Colorado Rockies last year, and in some areas the trails were so raw that the “trail” was merely marked by piles of rocks, called carnes, every 20-30 yards. There was no other evidence of a trail. But even when the “pile” was only a few rocks, the evidence a man’s presence was readily discernable.
I wondered up there; would an evolutionist be able to follow this trail? After all, how could he prove that the evidence of a rock pile was of an intelligent design? Was it scientific to even consider the evidence in view of this possibility? Could he not reasonably say that, over millions of years, surrounding rock were eroded to leave these that simply appear to be stacked? I concluded, from everything I’ve heard evolutionists say about ID, that the poor soul would probably end up lost on the mountain, just as many seem to be lost in life.
A few months ago I wrote a paper on cosmology, part of which was the message behind what I think Ben is now heading for and the other part is a relatively new and very good cosmology (not mine) that should be competed with the Big Bang. With regard to the Stein-like purposes, here are the messages that could add to Ben’s:
1. The issue is not religion at all – that is a smoke screen used by those who are either uninformed or intentionally misguiding the public for parochial purposes. ALL of the scientific theories have a starting point assumption which is a dogma, or premise, or presupposition. That does not make a theory derived from any one of these starting points a religion! To say so is dishonest and on the part of the established scientific community, it is hypocritical.
2. The Science Community needs to be about freedom of inquiry in the midst of a level playing field – it is far from that and that is deplorable.
3. The idea of separating religion or philosophy from science is bogus. Science is part of a pursuit of truth. Philosophy means a love of truth and science was always a part of philosophy until science did not want the checks and balances any more. We need a holistic process, not a disjoint process in discovering truth.
The science community has its starting point “religion” or “philosophy“ as well. Let me give one example. Let’s take the Big Bang (BB) theory. It is based on General relativity (GR) as the core proven law of space-time-gravity. Good thing right? But BB has a starting point assumption that establishes the boundary conditions for GR and results in a cosmology – the BB. The dogmas behind it are these: 1) The cosmos is all there ever was, is, or ever will be, and 2 the modus operandi of the cosmos is randomness. These are relatively arbitrary dogmas. The starting point assumption of the BB derives from them and is the Copernican Principle which presupposes the cosmos to be homogeneous, unbounded and without any special points including a center. The BB expansion is of space not matter and is from ALL POINTS in space not one. The opposite of this theory assumes the Cosmos is not all there is and has an intelligence modus operandi rather than one that is random. So why is that not legitimate and worth a scientific theory and investigation also? The derived starting point assumption for GR in this model is a bounded, centric, isotropic (at the center) but not homogeneous cosmos. This yields a very different conclusion than the Big Bang but explains much of what the BB does not explain. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a theory that employs these other dogmas and starting point. If so then I guess Ben has made his point! So what part of either the BB or an opposite theory is religious?
It is high time that we start with zero tolerance for the knee-jerk playing of the “religion card” by the science community. For example, when you hear the often used smokescreen that “This guy is pushing creationism or is pushing Intelligent Design, and these are just religion on B-vitamins, not science,” do you buy into that lock, stock, and barrel? They use this kind of labeling as a means of insulation from competition by other legitimate theories. Differing ideological presuppositions are normal ingredients at the genesis of a theory. You might think of the scientific model of a theory (e.g., General Relativity) as a meat grinder. Inputs to this grinder are a starting point assumption and observations. You turn the crank on this grinder and obtain the results (predictions) of the theory. This is true whether we speak of a currently established theory, one developed by the Intelligent Design community, or one developed by the Creationist community. It does not matter which community. The starting assumption of each community determines the boundary conditions for the meat grinder and ultimately shapes the theory and its conclusions/predictions. All three communities in this example are still using science methodology!! That is what they are not saying. Instead the scientific community is masquerading the issue to be science on the mainstream side and religion on the ID or creation side (playing the religion card).
What I and others including Ben seek is the science community’s return to scholarship, objectivity, freedom of inquiry, and honesty. That must include a level-playing field, a competition of all reasonable theories, and a commitment to a true scientific process. Truth will become the alpha-male in that environment; it can’t now because the community has targeted opposing presuppositions and the people behind them. For example, how can you get peer review of a paper which is derived from a presupposition that is taboo to the peer reviewers?! Usually this kind of targeting is done to protect an agenda. I am a physicist and I have also stood by and watched people I know – PhD physicists, “Expelled” just for holding a counter theory or even for raising counter questions in classes. Excuse me, but isn’t that what education is about?
It is time we stop standing by and floating in the wind. Loss of freedom will affect us too! I have picked on science but there is also a problem in the religious community. Rather than looking for truth, some are capitulating to the mantra: “… I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.” Those speaking such words also do not understand the issue or science as I described it above.
I was first in line the day it opened here in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
If you are looking for entertainment and laughes, this is not the movie for you. Stein takes an intellectual viewpoint and confirms it through spending time with adversaries and advocates of Intelligent Design Theory (ID). His usual dry humor makes few appearances in this movie. The most humorous part of the movie is the movie’s posters which depict Stein in short pants and upturned collar with skateboard sneakers and high socks.
Bottom line… Excellent documentary, poor entertainment.
Though Stein takes the viewer in a logical trek to meet people around the world who have been tossed out of academia for even mentioning ID in professional realms, he makes too much use of the parallel of Naziism and Fascism. Every transition in the movie is connected with pictures of communist/fascist images. I was drawn to think in my mind, “Yes, Ben, we recognize the point that communism/fascism are extremes of what is happening in academia. But, once the point is made, you can back off the idea a little.”
Having mentioned the weakest part of the movie/documentary, I have to mention the strength. Stein eventually makes it quite clear that the conflict which exists in academia is the issue of World View. It is clearly demonstrated through interviews that American academia does not embrace Darwinism because it is a better explanation of the origins of life. It is embraced because of the World View which is dominant on the campuses of the American university structure. With the carrot of tenure dangling above each new professor, their choice is to tow the mark of, at least publicly, embracing Darwinism, or else peer review for tenure will literally expell a professor from their ranks.
Stein does a remarkable job of showing that even the most staunch advocates of Darwinism do so in order to keep their World View from being attacked. He also shows how easy Darwinism falls as simple questions of origin are explained away with “we don’t know” or if the door of intelligent design is cracked open, the intelligence comes from aliens from outer space… little green men? (Oh yes, I forgot. This WAS a humorous moment in the movie.)
For those of you wanting to take your family to this film… it will be a sleeper for anyone under 18 years old in general. It is compelling for 40+ crowds. The 20-40′s will enjoy the film if their World View has started making a comback from the indoctrination of American academia.
I agree that tour 10 is a natural for expansion to a feature movie format and presentation to the general public . The small group I hosted finished TTP two weeks ago and some went to see Expelled last week. We agree that Ben Stein and friends did a great job of exposing the unreasonable intolerance of the current scientific “orthodoxy.” We should encourage as many people to see Expelled as possible and then invite them to join us for a Truth Project small group to learn that they have been lied to in more than one area of inquiry. SDG
I thought Ben’s confrontation with Dawkins at the very end was especially revealing; on one end a militant atheist, across the table a loveable Jewish man, both of whom have rejected Christ! Please pray for them.
I would like to encourage folks to take your kids to this movie. I know I would have eaten it up as a kid, but regardless, they need to hear this!!!!!! Kids are not dumb.
I took my daughter to Expelled–a mistake. This movie was worthless for it doesn’t show any reason to believe in ID. My daughter thinks the ID people don’t have a leg to stand on. She wants to know where is the science behind ID. I honestly don’t know. Blind faith is not science.
I can’t wait to see it. The Truth I encounted via the Truth Project 2+ years ago changed my life. I anticipate this movie being another avenue through which God will expose Ultimate Reality. Thank you, Del, for your obedience in setting an example to follow as an ambassador of Truth!
Blessings to you and yours.
Steve Z.
Tell your daughter that the science behind ID is readily available on the internet and in libraries. The science used to attempt to sell evolution can be countered with scientific facts. ID and Creationism are based on real science. It is the world view of the scientists that makes the difference in how the evidence is interpreted.
One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Ben interviews the poster boy of evolution, Richard Dawkins and asks him about the origin of life. Richard plainly says, “We don’t know.” He then goes on to bring up “one possible explantion” being that aliens seeded life on Earth. But of course, he then puts forth the disclaimer that the “aliens” would have to have come about by evolution. Comical!! and sad at the same time.
The real untold story behind the theory of evolution is that academia sells it to our youth as an unquestionable fact that is fully supported by scientific eveidence. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Seek and you shall find. The evidence is out there.
My heart goes out to Steve and his daughter. I am only a stay at home mom, but I know that “scientific fact” has to be reproducible. As the beginning of the universe can not be reproduced all ideas regarding it are just theories. I think that the Christianity “theory” has more support than the “evolution theory” (they have only recently stopped calling it the “evolution theory”–wonder why?). I know these aren’t “scientific” proofs of God or ID, but they sure stump a lot of people: 1) Why is it that you can go any where in the world and take a person’s wallet and they know it is wrong? If Darwin was right with the survival of the fittest stuff than it should be expected and we shouldn’t jail people for doing it. 2) Why do people all over the world and throughout history have funerals? The ceremonies don’t help us “survive” ; funerals don’t make us any more “fit”. No,Steve, just plain old common sense tells us that there is something more–something put inside us that tells us that there are morally wrong actions–like what Hitler did. Otherwise we are left to embrace his kind of “survival of the fittest”–and that we can not do. I pray that you and your daughter keep searching. Also, I think that the main point of the movie is that we should have open debate. If ID is so lame and worthless, what are the evolutionists/Darwinians afraid of?Let all these highly trained people have their say rather than stifling the seeking of truth.
Dear Del,
I’am thrilled that you have taken the task of promoting this movie. I first heard about it through Creation Ministries International, and have anticipated its release. Yet where I live up here in Ottawa, I have not seen any mention of it whatsoever. Sure pray that it comes here as well. The world could sure use some truth instead of the steady stream of lies and deceptions we are bombarded with on a daily basis.
Keep up the good fight.
I saw “Expelled” on the date it came out, but it elicited little comment in the secular press. There was a review in the Denver Post from a writer for the Orlando Sentinel. His analysis was much more indicative of his worldview than the movie; he “awarded” it only one of four stars and panned it vigorously.
I expected little would be said about it in the press. This sort of politically incorrect thought is simply ignored unless enough public discussion results that it can’t be ignored.
I have a Ph.D. in chemistry. Things have apparently changed since my days in graduate school. I thought the ‘scientific method’ was to pursue truth regardless of where it led. It was not acceptable to base your conclusion on your worldview and summarily reject everything else.
Inevitably, any comment suggesting an even-handed approach elicits questions like, “Just how much time do you think we should spend researching the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?” This brings to mind C.S. Lewis’ observation that facetious people who cannot understand books written for grown-ups (e.g., the Bible) should not talk about them.
I have a B.S. in chemistry, and I’m in engineering grad school now. I found many of the interviews with the evolutionists to be very, very similar to the attitudes I’ve seen during casual conversations with some profs and grad students.
Biomimicry is the use (mimicking) of biological systems in designing artificial systems. This seems very well accepted as a part of nanotech. At the same time, any achievements are usually, causally assigned to “nature” or evolution.
It would be interesting if someone could get “Expelled” into the university theater at a major school (Pac-10, Big-10, etc.)
Hi. I am on the board of the Rocky Mountain Section of the American Scientific Affiliation, a fellowship of Christian Technologists and Scientists. The movie claims to do at least two things, one to support people like ourselves, believers in the scientific community, and to promote honest and open debate. Sadly, in my opinion, it has done neither. People line up either on one side or the other and only talk to their own side.
Del, you are involved with the Truth Project. The highest manifestation of this is found in the Ninth Commandment of not bearing false witness. From my own experience, what is portrayed in the movie bears little resemblance to what is going on in the scientific community because the atheists are just a noisy minority. A large percentage of those who see evidence that evolution is an accurate description of nature are theists and even Christians. Most of the interactions between believing and secular scientists are cordial and believers like myself can express our Christian faith openly without fear of persecution. In fact, to portray us as being persecuted does a disservice to those around the world who are truly martyred for our Lord.
Unfortunately, all the lay people see is the bomb throwers on either side. Alister McGrath, who was interviewed in Expelled and is also a theistic evolutionist, calls this the “warfare model” and it is not the historically normal relationship between science and faith which is to be at peace. All truth meets at the top because God is the God of truth.
What is desperately needed is people who are truly dedicated to the truth and not just promoting “their side”. Believers in science are caught in the middle and while you think you are doing us a favor, you are not.
In order to remedy this we have set places for both sides of the debate on our website http://www.asa3.org. We even have commissioned an attempt to have a balanced and very long review of the movie here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Schloss200805.pdf
Please also note another review of the movie done by the apologetics group, Reasons to Believe. Like many in the ASA they believe this movie has created more heat than light and has made their mission to bring the Gospel to the scientific community that much more difficult. Their review can be found here:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/expelled.shtml
Your Brother in Christ,
Rich Blinne
Member, American Scientific Affiliation
I saw the movie ‘Expelled’ in Bowling Green, Ky and was very encouraged by it. Truly it is time the we Christians take a stand for the ‘truth’ and shout it from the mountain tops if need be.
It reminded me of the ‘truth project series’ that we had recently finished in our home.
I am so grateful that God is using people who are capable and willing to combat the false teaching and philosophies that are being presented as truth to our young people in many of our universities.
I join with you in doing everything I can to help people know the ‘truth’ that can set people free.
Greetings to Rich Blinne,
From what I read by George Murphy on the ASA site it appears that I am suppossed to trust him as to what scriptures are relevant and which ones are not. This seems to be the same kind of trust that Carl Sagan asks me to give him when he says that we will follow the truth no matter where it leads. That is rather odd, don’t you think?
RTB claims to hold a high view of scripture and yet they want to view everyone as equally virtuous. Doesn’t scripture teach equal worth but not equal virtue? If as scripture teaches, that man is inherently sinful, should we not expect a wrong slant when that nature looks at scientific evidence? I appreciate the attempts to have a respectful debate but when we lose the Bible in the classroom (Noah Webster said that education without the bible is worthless) and evolution is taught as fact, those who claim that there is no real bias out there lose credibility.
Love in Christ,
Mike Weaver
Hi Jordan, and hello again Mike Weaver,
I realize this will probably be buried in the comments, but I thought I’d add my two cents anyway, in case you drop by.
I am aware that one’s worldview will affect how one interprets the evidence, and at times even how one decides which issues to pursue. It does not, however, affect the evidence itself, unless one is speaking historically and not scientifically. Science is premised on the fact that there are naturally occurring processes which are traceable through observation and deduction. Any act of God will fall outside this realm simply because of the way we have defined it. We are putting limits on science, not on God.
I think it is totally appropriate to keep science in a box. What’s inappropriate is the idolatry of making science comment on God. We can marvel at God’s works, but nothing about science leads us to conclude that they are, through some inherent characteristic, God’s works – or even that they are not God’s works. It can’t comment on these ideas because meaning and interpretation are not scientific processes. Michael Polanyi makes much of the point that science includes a necessarily unscientific aspect, and I think that’s true. Science rests on certain assumptions, and its proper interpretation must likewise be viewed through these assumptions. Its direction and significance are very much subject to outside forces, but science itself is an isolated phenomenon and should be treated as such. The whole idea of Intelligent Design is bankrupt not because there is no intelligent designer, but because the preconceived conclusions that are being forcibly drawn are only possible through a violation of the scientific method. Now don’t get me wrong – I’m saying that this is true no matter what you’re saying about transcendence. Hitchens and Dawkins are equally compromised by trying to conclude the “very very unlikely” existence of God, to put it in their terms, for all the above reasons.
I think Christians do themselves a disservice by attempting this sort of thing, and frankly, I think it amounts to idolatry. It even subverts the whole concept of faith.
Greetings Jacob!
There are a handful of core issues that are facing believers in our culture today that I am passionate about. This is one of them.
Whose definition of the “scientific” method am I supposed to believe? What unscientific aspects are allowed in the box? Does real science exclude logic and reason? Where does information neccesary for cell-building come from?
I challenge you to rectify your views with Ps.19-1-4 and Rom.1:18-20. To say that creation makes no comment on God, is like saying that music makes no comment on the composer.
As someone once said,there are only two religions, either God is God or man is God. Too many times I try to have it both ways but there is no middle ground. So it is with science, it will inevitably fall in one realm or the other.
Thanks for your response,
Mike Weaver
Hi Mike,
I’m afraid I must respectfully disagree, not with your points, but with the way you frame the argument (which, in a sense, is everything). This has nothing to do with whether man is God – unless we are talking about Dawkins or some such extreme case. It has to do with maintaining the integrity of both the scientific method and the transcendence of God.
It is not that creation bears no witness to God – it’s that science bears no witness to God by definition. I am not Kuyperian on this point. I was not aware that there was any challenger vying for the position of scientific method – it is, plainly, hypothesis, observation, and deduction of natural processes. Science maps out the chain of cause and effect. It is always a tricky business to interpret these, but, obviously, scientific investigation cannot be conducted without the assumption that there is such a thing as a natural chain of causes and effects. Any time that one posits a cause that is not natural, we do not say that it’s simply untrue scientifically (which is nonsense) – we say that it is outside the realm of science, which deals in usual and predictable occurrences.
To answer your questions:
The unscientific aspects of science are quantifiable. Man’s need for intellectual command of his surroundings is one (the intellectual passions, Polanyi calls them), as well as any one scientist’s particular interests and hopes for certain discoveries. Theory is very unscientific, technically speaking, but one can do theoretical physics and even come up with advanced models and useful concepts without a single experiment – not deductively, but creatively. There are others, but my point is that God is not a conclusion to which one comes scientifically. Were He such a thing, it would not be God that we had found, but the no-God (as Barth calls it) – i.e. that which is a great or high thing in creation, but not the transcendent Creator. Unless we are going to posit that God is involved in consistent efficient causes in nature, which is entirely without grounds. Miracles are another matter entirely.
No… science does not exclude logic and reason, and I’m not sure why you would say that. Perhaps you’re asking whether science excludes its own interpretation, and the answer is of course it does. Interpretation cannot involve itself in the process because such tampering and bias invalidates the results. Those results never lend themselves to any comment on the transcendent, however, unless you believe something superstitious, like a false cure or something – in which case the believer has simply misunderstood what the transcendent is. Talismans and false causes are easy to invalidate. The nature of a Divine being is impossible to comment on apart from revelation.
And finally, the information for cell-building comes from genes, and the genes come from amino acids, and those have a molecular source of some kind, and it all works together in a marvelous way. I have no idea what the historical facts of our origin are, and frankly, they are so distantly prehistoric that it’s almost not worth talking about (especially because the discovery of history and the mapping of nature are such very different, if not unrelated, processes, and the former is irremediably subjective). We are debating whether science comments on God. If you believe in God, it is a very simple matter to look at His works and marvel at them, as did David in Psalm 19. If you don’t, it’s a very simple matter also to marvel at nature and wonder where it must have come from, but not to reason your way there through scientific inquiry. Both are dealing with the facts of nature, which are the realm of science. Romans 1:18-20 supports my point. God’s eternal power and divine nature may be known from what is made: that is, His necessary omnipotence and ineffability. This is what is required to talk about God at all. Anything else – His laws, His character, His plans, or any such particulars – are totally unknown to us apart from the preaching of the gospel (see Romans 10:14-15).
These weird attempts to subject God to scientific scrutiny are misleading and wrong. My theory is that they are the product of doubt – that is, the central tenet of modernity.
Dear Jacob, you stated: “I think it is totally appropriate to keep science in a box.” and “Science rests on certain assumptions, and its proper interpretation must likewise be viewed through these assumptions.”
Respectfully, I believe that these statements are actually contradictory. Let us first discuss how science uses assumption:
The history of science as a human endeavor is replete with assumptions that were formerly considered foundational, unquestionable, and yet were subsequently found to be faulty and were replaced. The very nature of “true science” dictates that everything must be subject to the process of inquisition. No concept, whether a newly discovered theory or an ancient system that has been an assumptive standard upon which much has been proven since its adoption; is immune to continued scrutiny. You are very correct that science rests upon assumptions. But the True exercise of True science is continually re-evaluating its assumptions, especially when the evidence leads to the need for a second look. Again, the practice of true science should be universally corrosive to all ideas whether old or new. Regardless of its age or perceived importance, a pure and proper scientific concept has nothing to fear from the acid of fervent scrutiny. One might also argue that the more important the assumption is, the more it deserves close and careful examination. This is because it is not the new ideas that can mislead greatly, it is the deeply rooted ideas, the foundational precepts , upon which other theories depend that can do the greatest damage if they continue to remain undiscovered as being faulty. To put it succinctly, and less formally, true science can have no sacred cows!
Regarding keeping science “in a box”:
Unlike our Creator, our knowledge will always be limited. Hence, our scientific understandings will always have assumptions as its foundation. As a result of being tested by continuous scrutiny, our perpetually assumptive foundations of scientific knowledge will be work hardened and strengthened. It is only in this mode of true truth seeking, that our scientific assumptions will be increasingly able to resist the weight and the heat of continuous reassessment. Our foundational knowledge should be continuously earning its right to remain in its privileged position of great influence. Otherwise, we would be fools to continue to build upon it!
Now if we are truthful with ourselves, we must admit that true science cannot flourish, let alone exist without an unbiased and continuous process of re-evaluation. So to put science “in a box” and thereby exclude any possibility, any theory, or any explanation as a possible solution to the question at hand is quintessentially — un-scientific!
In Christ,
Dan…
Your essay contains this section:
“Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and highly honored Harvard professor of biology, confessed this years ago [Scientific American, 1954]. When confronted with the overwhelming evidence and impossibility of life arising from non-life, Wald declared that he could not follow that evidence because of where it would lead. Therefore, he stated that he had to believe the impossible: non-life must produce life. This is a statement of blind faith—believing that which has absolutely no evidential support.”
This is a misrepresentation of the point of Wald’s article. Whatever anyone might think of clarity of his writing style or of his arguments (remembering that he was writing in ’54), it is clear that his article was making the point that it is not necessarily impossible for life to arise from non-life, and that Pasteur’s experiments only applied to limited cases and were not overwhelming evidence against life having come from non-living materials at some point in the past under different conditions and over billions of years.
In his essay he was proposing a hypothesis, considering what chemical factors might be involved, and suggesting that some of those factors might be investigated experimentally. He was not choosing to ‘believe the impossible’ – rather, he was exploring his thoughts on why it was short-sighted to assume that life from non-life was impossible – quite a different thing.
For David Gilmore who was released from the military for his faith.
Around 1970, my cousin was denied his Masters Degree in Natural Sciences, at California State University in Fullerton. (He received his Bachelors Degree there.)
The reason given was clear. After his thesis, he met with three department heads who told him if he believed Evolution was a ‘theory’ his degree would be denied. And, it was! Others in my family have suffered a history of university prejudice and injustice.
As a fourth grade teacher in a public school for over 30 years, I must say that everything that was said and presented in Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” was ‘and is’ true. I personally, have letters in my personnel file from my principle for giving theories and allowing my students to think ‘out of the box’ in science and history that does not go along with our California Standards. I have been told not to teach “christian propaganda” because it is not in the standards of California (true or not), and I have been told that from 7:30 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. (contract hours)–I must give up my “Freedom of Speech”.
Sad but true: “Schools do not want thinkers… they want followers…”
Please do pray for your Christian Public School Teachers…