Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Reviewed
Posted May 7th, 2008 by Aimee C. Wyrick...
image:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, written by Kevin Miller and Ben Stein, begins with intense footage of the building of the Berlin Wall. As the introductory credits roll, the confusion and shock at the wall’s construction is made very real as several young boys kick around a ball. As the ball is kicked into the air it flies up and over the wall, apparently lost forever. Numerous black and white film sequences are used throughout the film and are an effective (though cheap) way to elicit strong feelings from the viewer.
At the beginning of Expelled we watch Ben Stein, the infamously droll economics teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and former speech writer for President Nixon, address a college group. In his presentation Stein introduces the major theme of this movie and it’s not necessarily intelligent design! Instead, Stein focuses on freedom of speech in the United States of America and suggests that as Americans we are “losing freedom in science.” In this way, the movie jumps into an investigation of whether this is the case.
Stein interviews several scientists who have lost their jobs and been “black balled” from mainstream science because of minor admissions of the plausibility of design. Richard von Sternberg, former editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was fired by the Smithsonian Institute after he authorized the inclusion of a paper by Stephen Meyer that was supportive of intelligent design. Stein interviews two professors who each lost their jobs (from separate universities) after supposedly sympathizing with intelligent design. In addition, several more scientists are interviewed but their appearance is distorted because they fear repercussions from the scientific community. Overall, the conclusion appears clear that if you are a scientist you best never (publicly) discuss intelligent design.
So what is the problem with intelligent design? In one scientist’s mind ID is simply a “bore.” Another equates intelligent design with fundamental creationism and says that the only thing “intelligent” about ID is the clever way that this old idea has been repackaged. Still another scientist feels that an allowance of intelligent design in the classroom will eventually give way to mandated prayer in schools and religious intolerance. Ben Stein wonders if the ID movement is really the conspiracy that these scientists suggest.
The Discovery Institute is the primary think-tank of the intelligent design movement. This “institute,” according to its spokesperson, wishes only to encourage robust dialogue on the issues that Darwinism faces and intelligent design proposes. Stein interviews several other scientists that agree with ID and the impression is that these individuals are intelligent and are simply concerned about working under a set of scientific rules (Darwinism) that don’t totally work. David Berlinski questions whether Darwin is correct and/or whether these ideas are “clean enough” to really be worthwhile.
No movie that focuses on this issue would be complete without input from Richard Dawkins and we actually get to hear quite a bit of him. Dawkins is very direct and does not mince words. He knows that evolution is a fact and anyone who disagrees is “insane, stupid, or ignorant.” The movie delves into one of the questions that should be at forefront in the evolution-intelligent design conversation, how did life begin? Dawkins and others repeatedly state that we don’t know how life began. Maybe life on earth began on the backs of crystals or was seeded from an extraterrestrial source. What comes next is one of the best moments of the movie – a cartoon sequence starring Dawkins. Although the clip is a bit naive and dismisses the abiotic origin of life from a probability standpoint (argument from incredulity), it is hilarious to watch. In the end, evolutionary biologists believe that their hypotheses for life’s origin are less far-fetched than the explanation provided by intelligent design proponents.
The argument is made that our current understanding of cells and cellular technology goes far beyond what Darwin could have ever imagined when he first published Origin of Species in 1859. Several scientists wonder where the initial direction for cells and molecules (e.g., DNA) came from and suggest that this is a major area of biology with design implications. This point is made apparent as you watch a phenomenal three-dimensional sequence that puts the viewer on a ride through a working cell. I plan to buy a copy of the Expelled DVD primarily for this section. This clip was particularly impressive and although there was no explanation of the processes, someone unfamiliar with the cellular machinery would be equally struck by the complexity of the cell as I was.
After all of this discussion, the Berlin Wall footage returns and we are reminded of the freedom of speech angle. Not only scientists are to blame for the barricade that exists between those with reasonable intelligent design ideas and mainstream science. The government, media, and the courts are also responsible for the current stalemate. There is a disagreement from either side with one saying that intelligent design is misrepresented in scientific circles and the other saying that design is a religious war. At this point, much more of an attack on the opposition is seen from both camps. Although several people interviewed (i.e., John Polkinghorne) state that the ideas of Darwin and religious undertones of intelligent design can coexist, the film seems to focus on more of the extreme views and the particular evils of Darwinism.
One of the tangents explored by Expelled is the relationship between Darwinism and Nazism. It is likely that some of the ideas presented by Hitler in Mein Kampf were based on ideas of natural selection formulated by Darwin (but borrowed from Malthus). Stein and the producers of the film make a lot of the negative outcomes when Darwinism is overlaid onto human society. Nazism, racism, eugenics, and euthanasia are all presented as very real dangers of accepting Darwinism. While many may resonate with this viewpoint, most scientists, atheistic and otherwise follow the basic laws of society and an agreement with Darwinism does not automatically lead to these heinous acts. This connection is unfair and overstates the case by focusing on the extreme (and rare) examples.
In the end, we return to the metaphor of the wall and Stein makes an appeal to break down the wall that exists between entrenched science and novel (maybe better) explanations of life and its inner-workings. As the movie winds down we hear Ronald Reagan state that “the wall cannot withstand freedom” and watch as the Berlin Wall crumbles. In the same way, we can destroy the wall that exists in science by allowing a discussion of both perspectives and for the freedom of ideas in the scientific realm. This is a call to action. “Anyone? Anyone?”
I expected this movie to be more propaganda than anything and am pleasantly surprised that there is representation from both sides of the debate. What frustrates me is that this movie really doesn’t add to the viewer’s understanding of the real issue. Maybe the nuts and bolts of the issues are omitted because it is expected that anyone paying $7 (for a matinee) must already be informed. Unfortunately, this is probably not the case. In fact, if one was not aware of the issues at hand, there would be little solid evidence gathered from the movie to formulate an opinion. This is problematic in that there is much more to the Darwinist and Intelligent Design arguments, both of which can be incredibly convincing when presented in the “right” way. In fact, someone who did not hold a strong opinion either way before the movie might come out equating Darwinism with Nazism!
Another disappointing feature is the focus on the “wall” metaphor. While there is a divide between origins philosophy, most scientists agree on basic processes and mechanisms. It is more the metaphysical worldviews that divide us than the evidence that we gather from science. Though the request is made for scientists to consider design implications, the movie tends to paint the scientific community into a corner and adds more fuel to the debate than providing any relief.
I was very excited when I first learned of this movie’s release. In fact, I announced to my Philosophy of Origins class to watch for it last quarter and told students that I was going to see it this past week. Several students have since asked me for my reaction and unfortunately, I am not able to tell them much other than I am left empty by the film. In my mind, the status of the debate is unchanged by watching Expelled. While I do appreciate several aspects of what is presented, I remain decidedly unaffected by what I saw and heard.
Aimee C. Wyrick-Brownworth writes from Angwin, California where she is an assistant professor of biology at Pacific Union College.
Note: One of the associate producers of Expelled, Mark Mathis, spoke with Spectrum about the film. You can read that interview here.
Search
Recent Comments
- Elaine Nelson on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Alexander Carpenter on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Elaine Nelson on Two Kinds of Workers: The Seventh-day Adventist Church's Approach to Organized Labor
- Jared Wright on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- frank7 on We Ministers Have Professional Standards Too!
- Sona on Two Kinds of Workers: The Seventh-day Adventist Church's Approach to Organized Labor
- Deb on Before He Speaks: Pastors' Wives Get Their Day Via YouTube Parody
- Andre on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- John Tolman on Dr. Russell Standish Passes
- John Tolman on Dr. Russell Standish Passes
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Given your biology training, Aimee, I particularly appreciated your review.
However, it was your comment about Stein being a speech writer for Nixon that really struck me. Just as Nixon always seemed to think that people were out to get him, the freedom of speech approach of this movie seems to suggest that scientists are always out to discredit the ID people. Too bad the movie did not move the conversation past that point.
William Dembski, who wrote "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology:" in 1999, had this to say:
"[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient....[T]he conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ."
In 2004, in "The Design Revolution" Dembski wrote:
"Intelligent design is not an evangelic Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generically theistic thing....Intelligent design is an emerging scientific research program. Design theorists attempt to demonstrate its merits fair and square in the scientific world--without appealing to religious authority."
Is he illustrating evolution in his own thinking?
The major point of the film is the claim that there is NO controversy among scientists over Evolutionism or Darwinism. The film documents the very opposite. It shows that there really is controversy. That there is huge censorship. And people loose their jobs over it.
If you are looking for a debate on the merits of ID over Darwinism, this is not the film for you.
Instead it was designed to expose the public to the reality of intellectual censorship by academia and the media.
Christian Skeptic
Interesting quotes Elaine.
What web site did you cut and past this from?
Christian Skeptic
What happened to all the comments?
Oh this is a new page. My bad.
Thanks for such a thoughtful review.
The Stony Brook Independent critic notes:
Aimee, you might want to reconsider getting the DVD for the cell sequence. It was copied, (with changes) without permission from a movie made for Harvard. In fact, the Discovery Institute was slapped down for using it without permission and credit first, (Harvard threatened legal action) but I guess the Expelled people didn't get the memo. Or, more likely, they thought they could copy a lot of it while changing some things and get away with it.
Needless to say, there is more legal action rumbling as the original company that made it for Harvard is none too happy. And the Expelled people are using the dustup as an another example of how the "truth" is being persecuted.
If you want to see the original - which many say is even more stunning - you can google Harvard's "Inner Life of the Cell."
Is this it?
http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/
Clip Credits:
Inner Life of the Cell animation conception and scientific content by Alain Viel and Robert A. Lue.
Animation by John Liebler/XVIVO.
Stony Brook Independent:
1: True, Sternberg was stepping down as editor, but that was not the position that he was demoted from. Strike one.
2: Sternberg submitted the paper for peer review to 3 scholars in Ivy league schools per SOP. Their reviews are in the files (or used to be) of the journal and the journal board has read them. To cover their asses, the journal board is whining that Sternberg handled the paper himself, as was his prerogative as editor-in-chief and according to SOP, rather than passing the paper to an associate editor. Strike two.
The Stony Brook Independent story is a lie. Go to Sternberg's web page to get the rest of the story.
As for loco Yoko Ono:
May 3: The Fair Use Project of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society announced Thursday that it would serve as legal counsel for the producers of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” in their right to use a clip of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in its pro-intelligent design documentary. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080503/32230_Stanford_Legal_Group_Defends_'Expelled'_Against_Lawsuit.htm
And the Expelled producers have file for a ruling on the fair use of the cell clip. April 14
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle_lead_lawsuit.php
Christian Skeptic
Sorry, have to disagree, though I do agree that Dawkins appears to be a bit of a jerk. But talk about the emperor having no clothes, the only substantive part of ID is as a negative argument that diametrically opposed to evolution, otherwise it has nothing of substance to offer science. Imagine teaching ecology in school without a fundamental understanding of Darwinism and evolution. What would ID tell these students, other than the showing and teaching these alleged students the incredible complexity of nature? What’s the explanation for these systems and their numerous interactions? God did it of course. Cool huh? Sorry, that’s not science and I challenge any ID proponent to demonstrate a single predictive model that ID can make regarding living organisms and their present day ecosystems.
There are no scientific ID models, they got nothing but faith and fussy logic like this: Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people- Quote from Ben Stein
To your point about equating the holocaust with Darwinism the Anti-Defamation League said this:
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
The point is I have my faith too but the difference is I don’t subject you to it. Science is not faith but a way of reasoning and we need all the good scientists we can get with the way we are tanking the environment.
Erik John Bertel
Author of Flore s Girl:The Children God Forgot and the Millenniumwriting.com blog
Erik:
"I challenge any ID proponent to demonstrate a single predictive model that ID can make regarding living organisms and their present day ecosystems."
Perhaps you ought to actually read ID material.
Christian Skeptic
Yes that's it Alex, thanks.
Sorry Alex. That's not it. Close but no cigar.
Christian Skeptic
Christian Skeptic,
Actually you are wrong with that assertion and I have spent some time analyzing the Intelligent Design and creationist literature. I have actually created a spreadsheet listing hundreds ID papers to show the topics and the true nature of these arguments. I do so to understand the logic of these proponents so I can use this material in my novel and secondly, because some of the assertions are just so damn funny! Arguments such as when major phyla were introduced during the days of creation or evidence for how Noah managed to grab two of each species is out there and makes up the bulk of this alleged fundamentalist research. A T. Rex running around the Garden of Eden having a veggie salad before the prefall is gold I tell you!
The more substantial and negative research purporting to disprove evolution and Darwinism usually falls into one of the two camps of either irreducible complexity (life is too complex for time and random change to create) or a teleological argument (there is order in the universe so it was designed, ok I dumbed these down). Greater minds than my own, have responded to Dembski and his followers with effective rejoinders to these arguments and since I’m just a simple a biologist by training I will busy myself with ID assertions regarding living ecosystems. What I am looking for is an ID predictive model that describes the functionality and modeling of an ecosystem? Remember, you can't use competition and evolution to describe the changing ecosystem or fluctuating species populations. I bet ya you can't. Yet using the horrible Darwinist and evolutionist's theories we can model the environment and I ask you to reference the classic Wilson & Bossert's Island Biogeography and its modeling of species equilibrium.
What would ID have to say? Wow, this is ecosystem is so complex, forget about understanding this, this had to be an intelligent designer at work. And that's fine but it's not science and you can't do anything with it.
Do you think this is all esoteric science mumble-jumble and has no relevance in your day to day life? Well, think again when you have that flu shot this fall as scientists playing guessing games regarding the mutating influenza strains that originate from China.
And if you have such an ID paper that does predictive modeling please point me in the direction so I can give you my critique. This is how science works; it is called peer review and it’s a form of academic democracy. If a theory can stand up is it accepted by the scientific community until something new comes along that better fits the facts or until something causes it to be disproven. If wrong it gets thrown under the bus such as what happened with the arguments for irreducible complexity. It was debated and was discounted years ago and now the ID proponents want to take the argument to the public in the name of free speech because the public doesn’t know jack squat about science. And if that’s not true then why do we keep bringing Indian engineers into this country? This debate has been going for some time at my millenniumwritng.com blog.
Reconciling your faith should never be an easy exercise and we don't need to give people another excuse not to think. We have American Idol for that!
Erik John Bertel
Author Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot and the MillenniumWriting.com Blog
Seems like this discussion is getting involved. I will leave my view to this. Either the Bible is authoritative or not. Either it is what it claims to be or it is not. My position is that the Bible is authoritative. When the Bible says that creation did occur, I believe that regardless of what the present scientific understanding is. My faith in the Bible as God's Word is not dependent upon science.
Are there things that are difficult to explain from the creationist standpoint? Yes, and some things can't be at this point, such as tracing mitochondrial DNA back thousands and thousand of years predating our understanding of the age of this planet. All we know is a basic synopsis of creation - that He created this world in 6 days and rested the 7th and that this world is approximately 6000 years old. God only reveals in the Bible the things necessary for salvation. He doesn't go into detail of the science behind all He did and does. This is becoming rather protracted so I'll close with this. I believe that God is not bound by the laws of nature except as He chooses to operate within those confines so I am not going to rule out the possibility of there being explainations that contradict our feeble abilities at understanding. This does not mean I stop searching, testing, learning. It should compel me to seek and understand - afterall, nature testifies of God and His creative power.
Those Seventh Day Adventists who believe in a short-age earth need to be aware the ID movement disagrees with them. ID believes the Earth is as old as traditional evolutionists say it is.
The evidence for an old age Earth is very strong. It includes
> the depth of coral reefs (3500 feet deep in places!)
> the movement of continents (fossils matching on both sides of the line in the rock before the split, then diverging in the rock above)
> the bending and cooling of huge rock formations
> accumulation of meteorites by glacial movement in Antarctica
> volcanic chains such as Hawaii
> meteor impact chains
> the White Cliffs of Dover
> the fossil record itself
> DNA studies
If ID is right, then traditional SDA'ism and the short-age earth Flood model is wrong.
The requirement to believe in a short-age earth should be dropped, and SDA pulpits and publications should start treating people who don't believe it but who are otherwise are within the SDA theological circle with acceptance and respect.
/Bevin
ID, Creationism, and Evolution.
Here in Europe we find this never-ending debate of your's in USA quite curious.
This is no issue in Norway at all, except among the very few Adventists here, and possiby a few other ultra-conservative Christians and Muslims.
In this area, science has passed us silently like giant ships in the night without being noticed by the SDA church. In every debate within the chuch, and with people outside the church, it is always about how science is able to prove this and that, carbon dating, fossils, the age og Grand Canyon etc.etc. All these oppositions to modern science come from laypersons, not qualified for a discussion of that kind at all. This is waste of time, nonsense, detrimental to our mission, and has nothing to do at all with the Gospel.
For us here in Europe, this is a strange phenomenon in the American conservative churches, and in conservative Islam as well. In western Europe most Christians accept modern natural science without having any problem with the faith.
The issue is very similar to Galileo's experience in the 17th century, except for the fact that he was unhumanly treated. The issue was: What was moving, the sun or the earth? The church was absolutely right that the sun was moving, and not the earth, because many texts i Scripture say so, and anybody observed it with their own eyes. This dilemma was understandable, and Galilei was condemned, in spite of the fact that the Pope secretly agreed with him.
The church in the 17th centyry had indeed two compelling reasons to condemn his view. The church today has no compelling reason to condemn the evolution theory. Creationism as a scientific theory was falsified about 150 years ago.
I am wondering why this debate continues, because it is absurd. It is quite absurd that Geoscience Institute is called a scientific institution in spite of the fact that it does not follow normal and fair scientific procedures in its research. In addition, it is not a part of Loma Linda University at all, and can probably never be.
I am wondering when the Adventist Church shall begin to discuss how to intertpret the first 10 - 15 chapters of the Bible. In evey dialogue I have taken part, I have tried to turn the discussion over to the Bible, and how to understand it, but it has always been turned down. More or less illiterate persons are always intersted in discussing and attacking science, but almost never willing to discuss how to understand the Bible in spite of the fact that they are Christians.
For those with some time on their hands, here is a very thoughtful and in depth review of the movie written by a Christian biologist. The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is an organization of scientists committed to Christianity and their website asa3.org is a very interesting place to wander around.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Schloss200805.pdf
Too bad Kristenfj that you are clueless about the difference between science and the religion of Naturalism and Evolutionism. I find it amazing the you are so blaze about something that totally and completely submarines the things you say you believe. Evolution IS NOT modern Science. It is a religious dogma.
It is also too bad that you have bought in to the lie about Galilie. The issue at the time was not the church against science, but the "science" of Ptolemy held by clerical philosophers enamored with pagan Greek philosophy against new interpretation of the heavens by Copernicus and Galilie. Many Clerics supported Galilie and he even used some churches for his experiments. The issue was not about science vs. the Bible, but about who had the power of the Pope behind them.
You have also bought into the manufactured lie that Creation theory was falsified in the 1800s. In fact Creationism was ignored by hypocrites who were full of themselves. A study of the British scriptural geologists shows this true.
Further Creationism is not and has never been a hypothesis. Evolutionists invented the lie that it was, so that they could fool the public into rejecting Christianity in subtle ways.
The first 10 to 15 chapters of Genesis stand by themselves. They are fact. The Creation and Noah's Flood are not hypotheses to be tested by science. They are facts within which science is done and interpreted. Just as Naturalism and Evolutionism are not hypothesis to be tested by Science. Rather they are the facts within which what some erroneously call "modern" science is typically interpreted.
It is really had to believe that there are people in the Adventist church who are so utterly clueless about Creationism! What planet did you come from?
Christian Skeptic
/Bevin:
Yes, Most IDers are OEC or Evolutionists.
But what I find incredible is that you trot out a list of totally discredited evidences of old ages. All of these have been answered by Creationists long ago. Creationwiki offers common responses. http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page
You also need to realize that the Creation and Noah's Flood are not hypotheses that can be or even need to be proved or falsified by science. They are facts within which science is done.
While SDA's typically believe that life on earth did not originated until about 6000 years ago, and that the Flood is responsible for the entire Phanerozoic record, many agree with Ellen that the Universe, including this planet is probably very old. However, that does not allow for Evolutionism to be considered.
Christian Skeptic
Hypochondria DNA lie
What is usually not known about this is that a multiplier was added to the actual data to get "acceptable" ages for evolutionism. When the multiplier is removed the ages are well within 6000 years.
Christian Skeptic
Kristen
I agree with you, although I do think you misrepresent the Norwegian SDA church somewhat. I can't imagine that creationism has been abandoned by church members in general. I'm sure that my generation leading SDAs in Norway, such as Gunnar Jørgensen and Roger Robertsen, are just as conservative as Cliff Goldstein.
But you raise an important point when you argue that a literal 7 day creation week some 6000 years ago must be put in the context of the first fifteen chapters of Genesis, which obviously are mythological, in spite of Allen's protests to the contrary.
To start with, Gen 1 and 2 contain two creation stories, not one. The first one sees creation arising out of water, the second one, out of the desert.
When it comes to Noah's Ark, in spite of the heroic attempts made by creationists, how can anybody seriously believe that all the world's living organisms could fit into a wooden crate-craft of the indicated dimensions? (I'm sorry Allen--I'm not going to argue the case.)
And would anybody seriously argue that God began to get worried that the tower builders of Babel would pierce the firmament and enter heaven itself? That he had to "come down" and take a look at what the varmints were up to?
The literal reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis was Ingersoll's bread and butter, it was the armory of every village atheist out to to taunt his church-going acquaintances. The mainstream of Christianity conceded the point in the 19th century and moved on. And that's also why mainstream church have found it easier than evangelical churches (still largely fundamentalistic) to move beyond classic creationism.
Cliff Goldstein, though, has more than a point: You can't embrace evolution without having to radically rethink Christianity, if philosophical consistency is important to you.
Aage Rendalen
PS Beth linked to a fascinating review of the Ben Stein movie, written by a Christian evolutionist--possibly the most impressive example I have ever seen of fair-minded argumentation. Check it out:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Schloss200805.pdf
Well,... Allen Roy old Boy, you've got quite a hard sell. I myself am a very skeptical Christian.
Rendalen
Yes there two accounts of creation. The first one is what God told Adam and Eve about things which they could not know. The second account beginning in 2:4b was by Adam telling his story from his point of view. As Randall Yonker, in "Creation, Catastrophe and Calvary" points out, the first part of Adams story (2:5) talks of things that came about because of sin, before which the rest of Adam's account occur. They were not about creation.
No one has ever claimed that ALL THE WORLDS ORGANISMS would be on the Ark. In fact the Bible says that only those organisms that breathed through their nostrils and lived on land were on the Ark. Therefore no insects, no aquatic organisms. Its been estimated that one only needs some 16000 animals on the Ark. Only the committed would doubt. And the Flood and the Ark are not hypotheses to be tested by science, they are facts.
The tower was a symbol of rebellion against God's command to populate the entire world. How could anyone be so stupid to think that it had anything to do with a human tower reaching heaven. Sheesh, what an imbecile.
Ingersoll was a boring buffoon. But there are always the ignorant who can be buffaloed. You should know. Just because the apostate churches are again being led astray doesn't mean we can be. Like they say, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
Christian Skeptic
Roy
I didn't think much of Richard Jensen's crusade againsts science and his blind-faith approach to knowledge about creation, but his appeal for civilized dialogue was something I agreed with. His five point summary was actually good.
It's not very helpful to have Dawkins (whose Blind Watchmaker, in my opinion is brilliant) call people like yourself 'idiots' and 'morons'. You're obviously not lacking in intelligence. I shared your point of view years ago myself, and I was no less intelligent back then than I am now.
I'm sure that you have been stung by invectives thrown at you for your creationist stand, but I don't see that much is gained by appropriating Dawkin's language. I could care less personally that you call me an imbecile and lash out at people in rather intemperate ways for not sharing your opinions but it makes it almost impossible for there to be a meeting of minds.
Fundamentalism dictates that people who don't agree with you and the position of your church are your enemies (just look up how many times "enemy" and "enemies" are used in the EGW index, and see who she's targeting). I wish you'd understand that while I disagree with you, I'm not your enemy. Intemperate language is entertaining but it's impossible to sit down and reason with somebody who rants.
Aage
Aage:
I know that most SDAs i Norway are creationists, but the memership is not much more than about 4000 today. A recent survey has revealed that only about 12% of the Norwegian population (probably in most European countries as well) condemn or doubt the evolution theory, and the correspondig figure in USA is 62%. The fundamentalist churches in Norway, the SDA church included, are heavily influenced by their American sister churches and their way of thinking. But the issue does not interest the majority of churchmembers, and most SDAs will not be affected at all or become anxious if the chuch should allow for the accept of modern natural science. The habitual attacks on natural science on the part of the church do nor interest most SDAs, because the issue has a special interest for the very few only.
I beleive that modern science will be accepted by the SDA church in the future, if time shall last, because my church has always been open to modern science and stresses the importance of education. But we shall have to wait for a new generation.
Traditional creationism is a strange phenomenon, like a modern kind og illiteracy, even among people with academic education. And I feel that this kind of modern superstition is a tragedy.
I am no scholar, but I know that there is a lot of fiction and poetry in the Bible. The Creation stories contain beautiful poetry. Instead of attacking modern science again and again, and thereby creating barriers between us and the people we want to win, why are we not able to accept Psalm 90:4 and 2.Peter 3:8 which says that a day in Scripture is not necessarily 24 literal hours?
A literal interpretation of the creation stories results in contraditions. The two creation stories seem to contrtadict each others. That the sun was created on the fourth day in spite of three previous sunsets is also a literal contradiction.
To my knowledge so far, every time modern natural science is attacked by SDAs or others, it is made by a person who is no professional in the relevant issue. It is supposed to make some impression on the audience when the attacker is a professor etc., but if modern biology is attacked, it may be made by a scholar, but never by a biologist, or if modern geology is being attacked, it may be by an biologist or something else, but never by a geologist and so on.
In this case we as a people have to reconsider our attitude to the ninth commandment. By the way, Gunnar Jørgensen and Roger Robertsen are my friends, and in spite of the fact that we disagree on natural science, I have never seen that kind of attitude like that of Clifford Goldstein.
Kristen
In defense of Cliff Goldstein, his stridency is literary, not personal. He's actually a nice guy--but with strong opinions, just like Roger and Gunnar.
Most of us sound much harsher when we "opinionize" in print than when we sit down with people. There is something very liberating about writing, but the downside is that we easily get ahead of ourselves and end up offending people and in the process, misrepresenting ourselves.
Most people are better and usually more moderate than their rhetoric lets on.
In Ellen's writings the word enemy is almost exclusively applied to Satan. Satan is God's enemy. God is not Satan's enemy.
As Christians we are to love our enemies. This does not mean we are to love people we hate, because we love them, but love people who hate us. This is the position that Ellen takes when she uses the term enemy. It's not people whom she hates, but whom hate Christians.
Allen
I do not think that the Bible believers must become experts in natural sciences, in order to better interpret Genesis. Rather scientists should read more carefully the Bible, if their intellectual game must have any sense.
Besides, we need the Bible, since it supports our hope of salvation and eternal life, and we are naturally affraid of flirting with any other "truth" (including the scientific), that robs our only hope. We cannot have both evolution and faith. The God of evolution is a monster worse than a devil, while the Biblical God is clearly the loving Creator. Thus, if scientists wish to have the respect of believers, they should pay also respect to the hopes and faith and fears of these people.
This is a hard game. If you take Genesis 1-15 out of my Bible, you may tear out the ten commandments and the Jesus' story too. I do not need any God or Christ who sells me myths as natural history, and then expects me to believe in resurrection or in soul immortality, whatever. Do not wonder that believers use to see many scientists and philosophers as enemies of their faith. As regards to hate, let's not be hypocrites, since it is both natural and in some respect even biblical:
"Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?" NRS Psalm 139:21.
What will Florin Laiu say to the countless millions of Christians who accept ordinary natural science and believe that the Creation story is not to be interpreted literally? Are they not Christians? Do they not have the right to beleive that their sins are forgiven because of Christ’s death and resurrection? Do you have the right to judge them to perdition?
It seems to me that creationists have a serious problem. The knowledge provided by science will fall over all men like an avalanche, and we must be on top of it by accepting facts, or be crushed by it.
Do you build your faith on Creationism, and opposition to scientific facts, or on Christ?
To accept ordinary science does not at all mean that the Creation story is excluded from the Bible, that is a terrible misunderstanding. I beleive in the Creation story, I beleive in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and everything in the Bible, but I am not able to beleive that all of it shall be taken literally.
Creationist need a warning. If you are too harsh and judgmental, what will you say the day you discover that you have been wrong?
Kristen,
I am surpriced that you don't see the scientific approach in Creationism. We don't have to abolish science in order to be Creationists. Actually, the evolution theory is having a hard time because the evidence found through science doesn't really help in supporting the theory. The problem is that this is the only theory that is taught in school, so the normal student doesn't get the opportunity to make up his own mind about the evidence at hand. Creationists look at the evidence from science, and with scientific research come to a different conclusion than Evolutionists. I guess the problem is that there are different kinds of Creationists as Allen pointed out in another posts, eg. old earth, young earth (Allen made a very good explanation on the distinction there) and then you can perhaps get some unscientific ones as well who can bring incredibility to the rest. There was a big discussion about this on other posts where Allen made some very good points there with some thorough explanations (can’t find the posts anymore).
I think people should just study this matter for themselves with a critical mind, they might be surpriced of what they conclude! I only learned evolution at school, but later started to study the ID and Creationism, and have myself come to the conclution of YEC, i.e. Young Earth Creationist (wasn’t that the term you used in your explanation Allen?).
Thanks for your posts Allen, I appreciated them very much.
Sandra
The problem is not creationism--the idea that God is the creator. The problem is with "scientific creationism"--the hubristic term applied to something which is not science (not falsifiable).
The only thing that is scientific about that kind of creationism is using scientific principles to attack a scientifically based (and falsifiable) theory--evolution.
Popular creationism works on the principle that "you're wrong, therefore I'm right."
Sandra:
I have tried to defend creationism for many years. In order to be competent I have read about 20 volumes on creationsim, and in addition articles in perodicals. At the oustset I beleived that this was from God because much of it was written by SDAs. I have been wrestling with this problem for 40 years, so I think I know what I am talking about.
All these books and articles were more or less attacks on regular science, and all of them contained phantastic theories, biases and lies. Only when I started to read the Bible and a little regular science I saw that there is no antagonism between science and the Bible. But the Bible does not sanction lies and unsound arguments. I understood that I had a problem with facts versus certain interpretaions of some Bible passages, so I had to read my Bible another time. So I did, and got peace in my heart.
The only thing I can do, is to warn against all this creationist stuff, and read the Bible instead. There you can read about Gods commandments and the faith of Jesus. That is what we all need so desperately without knowing it.
If God said to you: If I created the world i 6 literal days or 6 billion years, how does that concern you? Follow me!
The silly attacks on science on the part of Christians should stop, it is blocking the way and making stumbling stones for numberless people who otherwise would have joined us. Anybody have the the freedom to beleive what they want, even in a flat earth, and still be good Christians, and saved for Christ. But if we take the role as attackers and accusers, we have the onus of proof, and we shall be judged according to the same standard as we judge others.
The two most efficient methods to produce atheists is proclaiming the eternal hellfire, and creationism.The first one is frightening, the other one is ridiculous.
Sandra:
I have tried to defend creationism for many years. In order to be competent I have read about 20 volumes on creationsim, and in addition articles in perodicals. At the oustset I beleived that this was from God because much of it was written by SDAs. I have been wrestling with this problem for 40 years, so I think I know what I am talking about.
All these books and articles were more or less attacks on regular science, and all of them contained phantastic theories, biases and lies. Only when I started to read the Bible and a little regular science I saw that there is no antagonism between science and the Bible. But the Bible does not sanction lies and unsound arguments. I understood that I had a problem with facts versus certain interpretaions of some Bible passages, so I had to read my Bible another time. So I did, and got peace in my heart.
The only thing I can do, is to warn against all this creationist stuff, and read the Bible instead. There you can read about Gods commandments and the faith of Jesus. That is what we all need so desperately without knowing it.
If God said to you: If I created the world i 6 literal days or 6 billion years, how does that concern you? Follow me!
The silly attacks on science on the part of Christians should stop, it is blocking the way and making stumbling stones for numberless people who otherwise would have joined us. Anybody have the the freedom to beleive what they want, even in a flat earth, and still be good Christians, and saved for Christ. But if we take the role as attackers and accusers, we have the onus of proof, and we shall be judged according to the same standard as we judge others.
The two most efficient methods to produce atheists is proclaiming the eternal hellfire, and creationism.The first one is frightening, the other one is ridiculous.
Christian Skeptic,
You boldly make assertions and attack others while claiming to know the truth but you never answer direct questions. I have studied the creationist literature, have you or have you relegated yourself to a facile study of the bible? You obviously have never studied biology since you believe in a 6,000 year old earth and Noah but you will never answer why we do not see a genetic bottleneck in genome of the surviving species of the flood?
And just to keep you consistent, and since I know you don't believe in genetics, I will remind you not to bother with that flu shot this fall. Your ignorance and your random personal attacks of other fundamentalist groups that disagree with you, indicates to me that you are poorly home schooled.
All I can say is beware of men who claim to speak for god!
Erik John Bertel
Author of Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot and the Millenniumwriting.com blog
We know that there was a flood some 4000 years ago. We know there was a creation of life on this planet some 6000 years ago. These are facts handed down to us by God through his prophets.
These are not hypotheses to be proven nor disproven by science. The natural world is to be understood and scientifically studied within these facts. If there are supposed conflicts between these facts and interpretation of nature within the evolutionary view then the evolutionary interpretation is wrong.
As Sandra said, I have made many comments on this topic in much more detail here: http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/spectrum_interview/2008/05/01/new_m...
Read those. The problem with these comment places is that you end up having to repeat yourself. I don't have time to address all these issues again that I already address before.
Christian Skeptic
Post new comment