GREEN'S HOW TO BE AN INTELLECTUAL TERRORIST REVIEW:Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"
Dr. Richard Dawkins: "No, n-n-o, no, no, nor has anybody."
Stein: "Nor has anyone else."
Dawkins: "No."
Of course, Stein's "it" refers to the origins of life.
Dawkins goes on to say that he thinks God is about as unlikely as fairies, angels, hobgoblins, etc. and that anyone who has a belief in God or religion is irrational.
So Richard, if you nor anyone else supposedly in the know (that would be scientists, in case you were wondering) has any idea how "it" started, then why not Intelligent Design or, dare I say, God?
This is a fundamental question I've been asking for quite a long time but have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. This is the same essential question Ben Stein is trying to have answered in this documentary movie.
Stein talks with scientists in academia who have lost their jobs not for teaching intelligent design but for the mere mention of it as an alternative to Darwinism in papers that they've submitted. Of course, these great academic institutions of higher learning deny this as the reason for the firings, otherwise they'd be facing lawsuits up the wazoo for discrimination. Wow. If Darwinism and evolution are undoubtedly true, what does the scientific institution have to worry about? If evolution is on such rock solid ground, why use strong armed guerrilla tactics to suppress alternate ideas?
This documentary is not, I repeat, NOT about the right to teach Intelligent Design over Darwinism in schools and Universities. Rather, it's about the suppression of ideas and freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment. Restrictions on rights that shouldn't be infringed upon in a supposedly "free" country. This infringement is akin to censorship and reminds us of those wonderful regimes who brought such good things to world history. Regimes such as communist China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Regimes that officially banned religion as state policy.
Stein interviews scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism and the theory of evolution and some of those who are its most ardent supporters, including Dawkins himself.
Stein also delves into the question of how Darwinism leads to atheism, with Richard Dawkins as the star witness. This is not to say that all those who believe in evolution as fact are atheist or will become atheist, but that's the road that Darwinism inevitably leads down.
Stein, being of Jewish heritage, tours some of the WWII concentration camps in Europe. He takes some time for personal reflection about the horrors committed there thanks to Darwinistic thinking and "preservation of the superior race" as popularized by Chucky D from his little book and carried to the extreme by the Nazis. Truly the most somber section of the whole documentary.
One of the things I wondered about while watching is if you were entrenched in your position on the side of evolution and watched this documentary, would you be swayed to consider the alternatives or would you remain steadfast in your beliefs? Do you let your science take you where the evidence leads, no matter what or do you let your world view shape your science? I think I can guess the answers for most of you who will read this.
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" asks excellent questions and raises good points for discussion. It is well thought out and well written. I thoroughly enjoyed watching this documentary and I believe you will too.
***** out of *****
SCRIBE'S HOW SERIOUSLY CAN ONE TAKE A FORMER NIXON SPEECHWRITER & COMEDIAN WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE REVIEW:
As it turns out, Ben Stein, the conservative Nixon speechwriter turned comedian/actor has an ax to grin with academia. As shocking as this, it also turns out he is pissed at those who claim Evolutionary theory is more logically sound than Intelligent Design. And here's the real head turner...he decided to make a movie about it.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is Stein's attempt at getting to the bottom of the firings of certain teaching professionals around the nation who dared mention the mere possibility of Intelligent Design in regards to the origins of humanity. It is actually a noble aim on the surface because the true aim of academic research is supposed to be the ability to ask questions no matter where they may lead.
Stein takes his cameraman all over the globe in search of a reason behind why people are being silenced and losing their jobs. Is there a Darwinian Industrial Complex? I made that term up.
The evidence Stein uncovers would seem to indicate there is one, sadly. Science has become a realm of narrow thinking bureaucrats hell-bent on preserving whatever they hold to be true rather than allowing for alternatives in thought.
Ironically, Stein the so-called "comedian" is rarely funny or amusing in this documentary or anywhere else for that matter. He's about as dry as day-old toast and in no way compelling enough to carry us through his film, a stark contrast to the robust screen presence of Bill Maher in his superior film, Religulous. In fact, Expelled works best when other people are doing the talking... Of course, some would argue that all documentaries should work that way but Michael Moore might kick their asses.
When Stein is interviewing stuffy university department heads blustering on about why these people lost their jobs or talking to scientists who implied an Intelligent Design possibility that doesn't even necessitate the existence of God, that's when the film is at its most compelling. When it tries to tie in fascistic regimes and politics, it fails on all fronts.
Stein's visit to the Concentration Camps is a heavy-handed attempt to make a point he doesn't seem to realize he's making without this side trip. Maybe I should do a documentary some day on the evils of unfettered capitalism by visiting slavery plantations and the Bastille since I am mixed with both heritages. Stein loses momentum during this portion of the film to the point where his big "Roger & Me" moment with Richard Dawkins lacks much of the significant punch it could have packed had we not sat through the high school civics lesson.
By the way, Richard Dawkins is a piss poor spokesperson for not believing in God. Holy shit in a shoebox! Perhaps he is an intelligent man in his own regard, an idiot savant at the least, but he comes across as a yammering halfwit when confronted with the simple questions mentioned in Green's review. In fact, he basically admits the possibly of Intelligent Design by the end, implying an alien life form or intelligence could have been the originator... Bastard stole my belief system.
At the end, Expelled does what any successful documentary should do. It leaves the answers up the audience~
*** out of *****
17 comments:
Wow. Almost as many comments here as on the movie blog...
Oh Green, you do talk a lot of wank, don't you? I love creationists: always trying to make water flow naturally uphill by wishing that it were so.
"Stein also delves into the question of how Darwinism leads to atheism, with Richard Dawkins as the star witness. This is not to say that all those who believe in evolution as fact are atheist or will become atheist, but that's the road that Darwinism inevitably leads down."
Which, of course, has not the slightest thing to do with whether evolution is true.
Scribe said: "In fact, he [Dawkins] basically admits the possibly of Intelligent Design by the end, implying an alien life form or intelligence could have been the originator"
Actually, what Dawkins was doing, as he's stated on numerous occasions, was to (paraphrasing him here) bend over backwards and offer an olive branch to the IDists by trying to find a plausible version of ID that might conceivably be true but that still wouldn't violate any natural laws. He wasn't actually saying that he for a moment believes that aliens actually seeded life on Earth. He was merely trying to find a half-plausible scenario in which ID could conceivably be made respectable.
"Regimes such as communist China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Regimes that officially banned religion as state policy."
Banned religion? Where'd you get that outrageous lie? Surely not from this documentary, I hope? The Nazis not only didn't ban religion (though they did place restrictions upon it, as they placed restrictions upon a lot of other things), but Hitler himself drew inspiration from the atrocities in the Bible, and spoke of himself as a tool of God's will ("the consciousness that dominates the universe"). He doesn't mention Darwin once in Mein Kampf - something that's also, no doubt, "thanks to Darwinistic thinking". One would think that if Chucky D, as you snidely call the great scientist, was so seminal in Hitler's thinking, he would at least get a mention in that book. The Soviet regime killed people for reasons of maintaining power like the Nazis did, but did it kill people for reasons inspired by Darwinistic thinking (whatever that means)? The Soviets were actually against any notion of superior races. It seems that Darwin is fit to be vilified even when people don't use his ideas.
As an "economic conservative", is Stein interested in looking at the grotesque inequalities and crimes that have flowed from capitalism? As a former presidential speech writer, is he interested in looking at Nixon's role in the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia, a state crime that killed hundreds of thousands of peasants? One gets the impression (I certainly do) that he is more interested in legitimating (or diverting attention from) the crimes of his favoured state, pouring scorn on the crimes of official enemies (and thereby showing "his side" to be the morally righteous and superior one, something that all mandarins are eminently adept at doing), and equating any misuse of scientific ideas by dictators as a fundamental indictment of those ideas (by that "logic", Protestants should hang their heads in shame at the crimes committed by Protestant monarchs, since these monarchs legitimated their actions with appeals to religious precepts and goals).
Here is Michael Shermer's take.
I didn't mean to imply that Dawkins actually believed aliens seeded Earth, plausible though that theory is to me, but I think he's full of shit if he's trying to make it sound as if he was trying to find a happy medium. Dawkins is an extremist and in no way interested in middle ground. Belief in an evolutionary path for the human race does not seem to me to preclude the possible albeit doubtfully as described in folklore an intentional design. If anything, evolution has always seemed to me to be the path by which the idea was made manifest.
lui: spoken like a true member of the brainwshed scientific establishment - and coming to Dawkins defense, too. Gotta stand with your boy, even if he's standing in a sinking ship. How predictable.
Actually, in the documentary intrview Dawkins sounded like he truly believed what he was saying about aliens seeding life on earth and not like he was trying to placate a bunch of IDers. Dawkins, if his books are any indication, is an extremist and doesn't believe in placating anyone who has any inkling that God may be responsible for creation or that God even exists.
Nice link you provided to someone else's critique of the documentary. You ought to watch it yourself and then weigh in with your original criticisms.
In this documentary, Stein is not interested in any of those topics. Maybe in another documantary he'll deal with those issues.
Certainly you're not suggesting that the Soviets didn't ban religion? What version of world history are you reading?
Have you ever been to any of the Eastern European countries that were part of the Soviet bloc? I have.
I was in Budapest, Hungary in June 1991 (when the communist government was leaving) and talked to people who experienced, in the 1940's - first hand, being prohibited from going to church and expressing their faith publicly and watching as their church's property was being confiscated by the Soviet backed communist government. I've been to a (then secret) chapel carved into a cave on a hillside overlooking the Danube River where people could go to worship.
I saw the relief on these people's faces when they knew they could express their faith publicly without fear of being arested for it. That same excitement when churches were able to return and buy property and reestablish themselves in the community.
I witnessed the party in the streets of Budapest the day the communist government left and attended some of the events in the city that night. I even bought a t-shirt from a street vendor that commemorated the date (June 30th, if memory serves) of "independence" from communist government.
"lui: spoken like a true member of the brainwshed scientific establishment -"
This coming from someone who STILL believes - after it's been explained patiently, clearly, unambiguously and repeatedly to him what natural selection is and what it isn't, as well as why scientists think that the world is 4.55 billion years old instead of 6,000 - that natural selection is the same thing as "chance" and that the Earth is 6,000 years old (i.e. younger than the domestication of the dog). And yet you have the temerity to call me "brainwashed". You choose to believe the word of an ancient book written by pre-scientific nomads over that of the people engaged in the most rigorous, self-checking, honest enterprise in the history of the species, and yet I'm crazy. This doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy.
"Gotta stand with your boy, even if he's standing in a sinking ship. How predictable."
Sinking ship? Nah. Atheism is spreading faster than any religion even in your own country. The only thing that's sinking is the stinking corpse of faith. Oh, and this pathetic documentary, which quickly became a laughing stock that not only bombed at the box office but also ended up being more of a liability to the IDists than a blessing.
"Actually, in the documentary intrview Dawkins sounded like he truly believed what he was saying about aliens seeding life on earth and not like he was trying to placate a bunch of IDers"
Ok, he "sounded like" he believes that aliens seeded life on Earth, even though he's stated clearly in articles and in talks that he emphatically DOESN'T believe it (where he also "sounded like" he meant what he said). Maybe you just hear what you want to hear.
"Dawkins, if his books are any indication, is an extremist"
Which ones?
"Nice link you provided to someone else's critique of the documentary. You ought to watch it yourself and then weigh in with your original criticisms."
I notice that you didn't actually have anything to say about the article. Watching the doco won't change whether or not the claims made in the article are true or not. If Shermer is being truthful in what he says that the movie is pushing, then the physical act of watching it isn't going to change anything one iota.
"In this documentary, Stein is not interested in any of those topics. Maybe in another documantary he'll deal with those issues."
The "topic" being simply the accuracy of claims made. You're probably right though, he's probably not interested in those topics.
"Certainly you're not suggesting that the Soviets didn't ban religion? What version of world history are you reading?
The version where Stalin met with the head of the Russian Orthodox Church during World War 2.
Dawkins is an extremist and in no way interested in middle ground."
Well I don't know how Dawkins is supposed to be an extremist so I can't really criticise that since I don't know what you had in mind. But you're right that he's in no way interested in middle ground. Neither am I; I'm certainly not going to give any credence to an idea just because it becomes popular in the public consciousness by treating it as being on a par with a systematically worked-out scientific framework. Green might be of the mindset "We've lost, so let's split the prize", because his views on the topic of evolution are almost completely vapid. I don't see why anyone who utilises their rational faculties should feel compelled to find middle ground with nonsense.
"I witnessed the party in the streets of Budapest the day the communist government left and attended some of the events in the city that night. I even bought a t-shirt from a street vendor that commemorated the date (June 30th, if memory serves) of "independence" from communist government."
I do love it how religious fanatics wear their anti-communism on their sleeve, as though it automatically enhanced their credibility on matters of ethics and freedom. Until you can also critique the tyrannies perpetrated by your own favoured state, instead of fawning over such people as Ronald Reagan, then you're nothing but a vulgar propagandist for state violence, a commissar in the Soviet mould you so righteously denounce. Communism is like homosexuality: it's an easy target. Furthermore, critiquing it doesn't mean a damn thing unless you also critique the atrocities committed by your own side. In fact, unless we judge ourselves by the same standards we apply to others, there's no point even having this conversation. Denouncing communism while erecting, and allowing oneself to be seduced by, an ideological smokescreen to justify Western violence, has the moral substance of chalk. I know that you like to get all giddy and teary-eyed over those liberated Hungarians, but until you become more concerned with first dealing honestly with the injustices committed in the name of your own country, crimes that are in your capacity to try to put an end to, it has absolutely no moral significance WHATSOEVER (yes, I'm paraphrasing Chomsky a lot here). So don't talk to me about Hungarians until you can also talk to me about Guatemalans and Chileans, or Palestinians and Egyptians. Because I don't give a shit. I'm glad that they threw off a hated regime, but for you to celebrate that as though it were something that you could share in with a clear conscience, is simply hypocrisy, and nothing more.
What I meant by middle ground was simply that Dawkins needs to stop lying about trying to find a way to meet the Creationists on an appeasement level. He is obviously no more interested in that than they are and just comes off as disigenous when he lies about it.
lui:
"Maybe you only hear what you want to."
As AG likes to say: Pot. Kettle. Black.
blah, blah, blah.
That's all you hear when I talk and that's all I hear when you talk.
"I don't see why anyone who utilises their rational faculties should feel compelled to find middle ground with nonsense."
I always utilise my rational faculties, as I'm sure you do. However, my rational faculties tell me that God exists and that evolution is a statistical impossibility.
What book?
Any one of them. Take your pick. Dawkins hostility to religion and particularly Christianity is no secret.
"I always utilise my rational faculties, as I'm sure you do"
So equivocating natural selection with chance is what passes as "rational" these days? Hmmm, interesting. I can't wait for you to explain that one to me. Honestly, I'm waiting. I'll be patient.
"However, my rational faculties tell me that God exists and that evolution is a statistical impossibility."
Nope, total bullshit. Your subjective impression of something isn't the same as your rational faculties. By your lights, it would be rational to believe that the Earth is flat. Using your rational faculties means investigating claims, going beyond what your mammalian instincts tell you, by systematically interrogating nature and trying to piece together the processes and dynamics involved, rather than simply formulating your beliefs based upon your immediate subjective impressions. No doubt you would admonish someone for rejecting Christian ideas and concepts before they were given proper consideration? A pity that you forgot the definition of "hypocrite" spoken about by your favourite philosopher, Jesus Christ: someone who doesn't apply to himself the standards he applies to others. So you can accept utterly counter-intuitive notions like a timeless being who is one while also being a trinity, and who can effect physical changes despite being composed of nothing but "spirit", yet you breathlessly and shamelessly (or maybe just blindly, which is the more charitable possibility that I'll go along with) reject something like natural selection (a concept which actually makes sense, can be modelled, has been shown to work in numerous cases, and provides a coherent explanation rather than an appeal to mysticism) in favour of a complete caricature which is the OPPOSITE of its definition. Tell me how that's rational, because I really need to know. Until you can do that, you're talking vapid nonsense. When have you ever addressed what evolution is rather than the caricature you choose to believe in the face of all the evidence? Perhaps you think that you're so "rational" that reality itself is somehow mistaken, such that you don't need to apply even a semblance of analysis to a situation.
And statistical improbability? Wow, someone hasn't read Dawkins (you can pick up his most anti-religious book, The God Delusion, and go through the chapter "The Ultimate Boeing 747" to see why it's actually your God which is massively statistically improbable, for exactly the reasons you think that evolution is). Come to think of it, someone hasn't read statistics. Doing both would do you a lot of good. And while you're at it, read some Chomsky as well, before you break out in more pious anti-communism. That fawning over Hungarian liberation was a complete dad-wank, and you know it.
--What book?--
"Any one of them. Take your pick. Dawkins hostility to religion and particularly Christianity is no secret."
A) being hostile to religion isn't synonymous with extremism, for the same reason that being hostile to astrology isn't synonymous with extremism (of course, a certain type of mind is incapable of distinguishing between opposition to an idea and frothing-at-the-mouth hatred, but then your training as a commissar would have inculcated habits ideal for defending another system of fantasy: Biblical literalism); B) most of his books are predominantly concerned with evolution, with some making barely a mention of religion at all; C) you're a retard if you think that Dawkins believes in the scenario he suggested. What he DOES believe (I suppose you saw this and then just assumed that the scenario proposed is the one he subscribes to) is that such a scenario offers a plausible version of ID that would be consistent with the laws of nature; D) unlike you, I actually CAN take my pick, since I've read all his books. I doubt that you'd have the patience or the interest to read through something as dense as The Extended Phenotype.
Sorry Green, we brainwashed Darwinian closet-Stalinist anti-religious science people who abort babies and send Christians and their puppies to Siberian concentration camps aren't splitting the prize with you. It's that simple. But you have a choice. You can fulfil your human responsibility to the planet, to humanity (including those non-people in places that are bombed in your name) and to the truth; or you can continue to subordinate yourself to power and mysticism.
I'm gonna go on record as saying I don't think that description really fits Green. One thing that's interesting about him is that he is not your typical fire and brimstone religious right conservative. It's easy to throw everybody into the wacko box (on both sides of the argument) but ultimately we do our own causes a disservice by doing so. Ok, passing the soapbox to someone else.
I don't see what part of my "description" (if it can be called that, given that I was only responding to things he said and calling attention to his own hypocrisy where I deemed it relevant) doesn't apply.
He's certainly not a fire-and-brimstone sort.
despite al i've heard, I'm trying to get my hands on a copy of this but no luck yet.
So the next question to you - are you going to review Religulous as well? I'm sure unclean green will find Bill Maher's arguments about how nutty mormons and muslims are right on the mark and marvel at how he got it so wrong about poor misunderstood xians.
I'm all for it.
Green, you're a champ. And you've given me a good idea for an early morning TV show - Biff The Atheist. Fun for the whole family.
Aside from being a source of inspiration for evangelical television programming, you've poked my thinking brain with the follow declaration.
So Richard, if you nor anyone else supposedly in the know (that would be scientists, in case you were wondering) has any idea how "it" started, then why not Intelligent Design or, dare I say, God?
Why not indeed? My first instinct was to argue with you without thinking about it. But it's a valid question and deserves serious consideration...with the following results...
Why not #1: Because it is conceit, and thus likely to be an illusory idea.
Why not #2: Because the fact that it is a feel-good truth, does not make it a true truth.
Why not #3: Because with the Judaeo-Christian version of god has been surrounded with so many tidbits that has been definitively discredited by other reliable measures available to us, the reasonable position to adopt therefore becomes one of skepticism.
Why not #4: Because the ID / god hypothesis as a reasonable basis for truth does not hold up when you remove the base assumption that it must be so (check out Descartes' flimsy-ass conclusions about god's existence if you doubt what I'm saying)
Why not #5: Because fairies were there first, and they think god's a tool. So they winked him out of existence before he could create anything.
Incidentally, the issue of censorship is an interesting one. I'm not really for censorship of ideas, generally speaking, especially by gov't. However, personally, I would prefer my kids to be taught about the various scientific theories that smart people have come up with and backed up with tangible, epistemologically sound evidence AND be taught that belief has its own power and they are free to choose whatever belief system fits for them than have freedom of speech protected 100% and religious fanaticism subsequently loosed upon them, infecting their impressionable minds unnecessarily with the psychological virus known as fear.
But, hey, that's just me.
And, Lui, I think that last should be subordinate yourself to the illusion of power and the sentiment of mysticism. The nature of mysticism is open to debate, but in terms of material manifestations of power, it is all a construct, a projection - there is only does happen and does not happen and the stories that we tell ourselves about how it all came to be.
*curtseys*
Woo-hoo! Home time!
I hate to tell you this, but our institutions of learning are for the acknowledged fields of mathematics, linguistics and science. Nowhere is it stated that "ideas" or religion should be taught in schools, other than religious type schools.
We don't teach religion in our school system and we never will.
BTW, Stein is as much a conservative schmuck and propagandist as Bill O'Reilly, John Stossel and Rush Limbaugh. You're cherry picking your propaganda, which is what this film is.
Post a Comment