TruthBook Religious News Blog

Screening of controversial movie sparks debate

April 13, 2008
BY ANDRE SALLES

There's a war going on in our schools and universities, our laboratories and lecture halls.

The scientific community is so enraptured with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution that they are working as one to stamp out anything that may contradict it, especially the notion of intelligent design. Scientists with impeccable records are being ostracized from that community -- losing their jobs, their tenure, their professional credibility -- for even giving voice to the notion that life may have been the work of an intelligent creator.

At least that's the premise of the new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The documentary, produced by Premise Media and starring speech writer, actor and game show host Ben Stein, is set to open on Friday, but it has already ignited controversy.

It remains one of the most talked-about (and blogged-about) topics on the Internet, and producers are so concerned about pirated copies of the film showing up online that they've instituted strict security measures for preview screenings. Photo IDs are checked, bags are searched, and all cell phones and other electronic devices must be left in cars.

On Thursday night, the Total Living Network held one of those screenings in Aurora. TLN is a Christian television studio and broadcasting network based on Aurora's far West Side, which creates its own faith-based programming and beams it out via satellite to stations across the globe.

TLN's CEO and president, Jerry Rose, prides himself on using his network to spark open debate about important issues.

Expelled will certainly start a few of those. The film starts off with Stein, perhaps best known as the droning teacher repeating the title character's name in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, interviewing biologists who believe they've been censured for giving credence to the idea of intelligent design. Stein also interviews biologists who vehemently disagree with intelligent design, particularly Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.

Later, the film attempts to draw connections between Darwinist theory and Nazism, and compares the perceived debate in the scientific community to the erecting of the Berlin Wall.

Science, religion co-exist

The main criticism of intelligent design from evolutionary biologists is that it isn't really science. Darwin's theory of evolution states that species adapt and grow over time to suit their environmental and biological needs, and that one can trace that evolution down the chain. Biologists will tell you there is more than 100 years of observable, verifiable data to support evolutionary theory.

But evolution does not provide an answer to the big question -- where did we all come from? That's a hole the intelligent design theory attempts to fill by saying complex structures in nature can only be the work of an intelligent creator. The theory has been criticized as an attempt to bring religion into the classroom, but proponents are quick to point out the theoretical creator isn't necessarily the Christian God.

Labels: Andre Salles, Ben Stein, evolution, Expelled No Intelligence Allowed, intelligent design

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Saturday, February 23, 2008

New film questions bias against Intelligent Design

STEPHEN ROESLER
Staff Writer

Former Pepperdine Professor Ben Stein’s controversial film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” scheduled for release in early April, explores the complex topic of Intelligent Design (ID) and the role it plays in academia. Stein, who wrote and stars in the film, finds numerous examples of professors who are being denied tenure and publishing rights for subscribing to, or merely considering, the idea of Intelligent Design. Ironically, most Pepperdine biology professors disagree with Stein’s conclusion.

Intelligent Design, at its most basic form, suggests that an unseen force, namely a creator, developed humanity. In short, ID claims that life is far too complex to explain without including a creator.

Dr. Stephen Davis, a distinguished professor of Biology and this year’s winner of the Robert Foster Cherry Award for Great Teaching, maintains that the effort to include ID in the class was simply a legal maneuver to incorporate religion in the classroom. He therefore considered the idea flawed and claims “it’s unethical, it’s dishonest, it was flawed from the very beginning.”

The legal maneuvering, Davis said, was an attempt to advocate for religion in Pennsylvania schools. United States District Judge John E. Jones ruled ID unconstitutional in schools by explaining it violated the separation of church and state while attempting to proselytize.

While Davis and Honeycutt fervently oppose ID in the classroom, Professor of Law Ed Larson maintains that discussion of ID could potentially complement other topics and further the process of education.

“The idea of design in nature is a perfectly respectable concept that can very profitably be discussed in philosophy and different social sciences,” said Larson, a Pulitzer Prize winner for his novel, “Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion.”

Although Larson admits that ID does not exactly fit the definition of science, he holds that if discussion on the topic of ID intends for a pedagogical purpose, it maintains no legal problems.

“That doesn’t mean that there may not be supernatural explanations for physical phenomenon — it’s just not science,” Larson said. “As long as that distinction is made, I personally see no reason why you can’t discuss it as long as you don’t proselytize.”

While most consider ID disassociated with science, Dr. Jeffery Jasperse, an associate professor of sports medicine, argues that at a Christian school, students should understand the basis of ID and its connection to the Christian faith.

Jasperse, also a physiology and anatomy professor, spends roughly four hours per semester devoted to discussing ID while allowing students to direct conversation and inquiry on the touchy topic, he said. He understands that science tends to explain processes on microscopic levels, while ignoring the bigger picture. In his opinion, this should remain the core of the class.

Christopher Doran, professor of Religion, spends his class devoted to the big picture. His class, “Conversations at the Intersection of Theology and Science,” explores the interaction between science and theology, wherein he identifies its weakness, specifically in a theological setting. He considers the theological and scientific aspect flawed.

“ID is bad science and even prominent ID folks recognize if it was a scientific program it has significant shortcomings,” he said.

Doran also explains the inconsistencies between the claims of ID and the Christian God. Finding problems throughout, Doran still sees the importance of devoting much of his class to the trying subject because the fundamentals assume a higher power. Furthermore, some critics of evolution ask how a person of faith could denounce ID. More specifically, how could Davis or Honeycutt, in their Christian faith, deem ID flawed, inaccurate or not scientific?

“I believe in creation,” Davis said.

He said he also believes in a form of Intelligent Design, but does not want that belief associated with legal attempts to railroading religion into education.

Davis said the baggage associated with Intelligent Design is unfortunate.

“It confuses and it inserts wedges that are not justified,” he said. “It inserts a wedge that separates science from religion and right now we don’t need that, in fact, we need it less now than maybe ever before.”

Central to the theory of ID remains the idea of what scientists refer to as “irreducible complexity.” The idea assumes that the cell, comprised of many complex, working parts, cannot function if one of those parts is removed. In short, irreducible complexity demonstrates that biological systems did not evolve naturally.

Irreducible complexity, which has since been critiqued and unaccepted by many scientists, functions as the crux of creationism. The idea, in one sense, allows people to prove “God” or “faith” — it qualifies as a “God of the Gaps” theory.

“What if you really believe that the flagellum, being irreducible, is the foundation of your Christian faith, and what if someone reduces it?” Honeycutt asked. “Are you willing to test your faith on the flagellum being irreducible?”

Across the board, the topic of ID remains inherently connected to some kind of faith, saturating the subject with emotion and confusion for the general public. As Honeycutt understands, ID causes people to overstep their bounds. For example, he said he believes people of the Christian community attempt to make ID a “science” to prove their beliefs. “Christians are overstepping their area, they have no scientific basis,” he said.

But, Stein maintains a different point of view in his upcoming documentary.

“We’re not, by any means, certain that Intelligent Design is the answer,” Stein said. “We just want free speech.”

Labels: Ben Stein, Christianity, free speech, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, Stephan Roesler