'No Intelligence' exacerbates controversy
Jon Fisher
Issue date: 4/24/08 Section: Opinion
Ben Stein's new documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," hit theaters Friday. The film endeavors to expose the abuses of the academy, the courts and the media in the debate on intelligent design.
I had hoped Stein would provide freshness to an over-battled issue by focusing not on arguments but on the miscommunication between both sides. Instead, Stein's movie only exacerbates the problem by devolving into all the old clichés with a new vigor of inflammatory language, rampant misquotations and childish associations.
Not terribly surprising; many intelligent design advocates have, after all, felt abused and ignored by the powers that be. Though it offers them a new venue to vent their frustration, Stein's movie only muddles the issue more.
And perhaps clarity could ease the tensions on both sides.
Typically, intelligent design advocates see their arguments as a powerful alternative to a thoroughly broken evolutionary science. As they see it, scientists must use evolution because it is scientific dogma: No one can challenge the establishment.
On the other side, most scientists have few reservations about evolutionary biology. As they know, evolutionary theory has led to profound discoveries in 20th century science.
Replacing evolution with intelligent design would have disastrous consequences to these scientists' work. Intelligent design makes no predictions and encourages no further research. Intelligent design does no explanatory work for scientists. In effect, intelligent design means stagnation for science. As a theory, it is bankrupt.
Hence, most scientists believe intelligent design imposes a fruitless dogma that fails basic tests of science. These scientists will not elevate a dogma to the level of credibility.
Neither side really seems to listen to the other's arguments, and the faulty communication only divides two well-intentioned groups farther apart.
In 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education invited scientists around the world to defend Darwinian ideas. Of course, asking scientists to defend decades of highly technical, empirical research before a court in several hours bordered on ludicrous. Not one evolutionary scientist came. Instead, lawyers came and argued intelligent design was unscientific.
I had hoped Stein would provide freshness to an over-battled issue by focusing not on arguments but on the miscommunication between both sides. Instead, Stein's movie only exacerbates the problem by devolving into all the old clichés with a new vigor of inflammatory language, rampant misquotations and childish associations.
Not terribly surprising; many intelligent design advocates have, after all, felt abused and ignored by the powers that be. Though it offers them a new venue to vent their frustration, Stein's movie only muddles the issue more.
And perhaps clarity could ease the tensions on both sides.
Typically, intelligent design advocates see their arguments as a powerful alternative to a thoroughly broken evolutionary science. As they see it, scientists must use evolution because it is scientific dogma: No one can challenge the establishment.
On the other side, most scientists have few reservations about evolutionary biology. As they know, evolutionary theory has led to profound discoveries in 20th century science.
Replacing evolution with intelligent design would have disastrous consequences to these scientists' work. Intelligent design makes no predictions and encourages no further research. Intelligent design does no explanatory work for scientists. In effect, intelligent design means stagnation for science. As a theory, it is bankrupt.
Hence, most scientists believe intelligent design imposes a fruitless dogma that fails basic tests of science. These scientists will not elevate a dogma to the level of credibility.
Neither side really seems to listen to the other's arguments, and the faulty communication only divides two well-intentioned groups farther apart.
In 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education invited scientists around the world to defend Darwinian ideas. Of course, asking scientists to defend decades of highly technical, empirical research before a court in several hours bordered on ludicrous. Not one evolutionary scientist came. Instead, lawyers came and argued intelligent design was unscientific.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
Matt
posted 4/24/08 @ 6:16 PM EST
An astute opinion, circa A.D. 408: www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm
Craig Fisher
posted 4/24/08 @ 10:34 PM EST
This is not a cliche. The courts will not allow even the discussion of the problems of evolution in the classrooms of Kansas. I must suggest that the lack of any open debate or challenge to any issue especially one as important as evolution elevates evolution to the status of a religious dogma. (Continued…)
psychoelf
posted 4/26/08 @ 10:04 PM EST
Jon, the point of the movie was not a case for ID. The point was that Evolutionists are like little children and plug their ears instead of engaging in real dialogue. (Continued…)
Mark Perkins
posted 5/14/08 @ 2:35 AM EST
Craig Fisher,
This is an opinion's piece, not a news article. Hence the bias.
Glenn
posted 8/24/08 @ 2:00 PM EST
Both sides smack of dogma to me. Religion and science have many instances where the respective communities stick to their ideas despite evidence otherwise. (Continued…)
Post a Comment