Ben Stein sez "It's ok not to think"

If creationists had their way, today would be the "Waterloo" of evolutionary science. Lab equipment would begin to collect dust, once proud scientists would have to find jobs flipping burgers, and creationism's Trojan horse (intelligent design) would successfully "reclaim America for Christ," all thanks to a little documentary called Expelled. The film has been surrounded by controversy from day one, not only for it's propaganda-like vibe, but also for the dishonest tactics employed by the creators of the film. Popular songs have been lifted without permission/under shady pretenses, computer animations have been shoddily plagiarized, people in the film have been barred from seeing it for no other reason than spite, and the scientific community that the film rails against has largely been prevented from seeing screenings of the film while the target audience (Christians) have been welcomed with open arms.

The truth behind many of the claims made in the film Expelled is well-documented at the website Expelled Exposed, including the more troubling stories of people who were truly "expelled" (and sometimes worse) for refusing to acknowledge creationism as science. Given that the website and other bloggers have documented such cases in detail already I will not repeat the stories here, and I urge you to visit Expelled Exposed if you have not already done so. Rather, I'd like to focus on something about the poor-excuse for a documentary that is far more disturbing; that is fully acceptable not to think or to seek enlightenment about our own biological origins and that intelligent design is an issue of "freedom" rather than science.

For many years creationists have claimed that they don't want supernatural intervention taught in the classroom, but the presence of a film like Expelled (if not numerous articles in which people from groups like the Discovery Institute talk out of both sides of their mouths) shows that they are clearly resentful that time and again it has been determined that their view is not scientific. They have desperately tried to turn their case into an issue of freedom, asking schools to reveal the "gaps in Darwinism," such a technique begging the question "If evolution does not explain the unity and diversity of life on earth, what does?" True to the form of many suspicious ideas, intelligent design-creationists have been far more concerned with trying to poke holes in evolutionary science than supporting their own claims, all the while denying the obvious religious foundation of their crusade.

Creationists don't care one bit about science or trying to find the answers to major questions about natural history. They just want people to agree with them. In Expelled, for instance, the audience is never really told what evolution or intelligent design really are or what evidence there is for either (if, in the case of ID, there is any at all). Instead the film focuses on "freedom" and turns a scientific issue into a political one, professors who are so audacious as to teach their students about the fact and theory of evolution being cast as most-hated enemies of God. If we take the idea that any and all ideas should be permissible in the classroom, however, it can quickly become absurd.

In 2005, a number of prominent creationists allied with the Discovery Institute participated in the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see the NOVA documentary "Judgment Day"). One of them was the biochemist Michael Behe, and while on the stand he said that astrology counted as a scientific theory. He went on to say that he was thinking of astrology when it was in vogue, not now, but his statement still brings up an interesting point. If teaching intelligent design in the classroom is primarily an issue of freedom and scientific accuracy, should people who believe in astrology or that the Holocaust never happened or that aliens mated with hominids to produce our species be allowed to teach students about these ideas? Such propositions would be absolutely absurd because there is no evidence for the claims, the weight of information collected directly refuting such fringe ideas.

How, then, is intelligent design any different? Scientists have been asking for creationists to come up with some shred of empirical evidence for a Watchmaker for many years, yet the creationists are more concerned with publishing popular books and advising school boards that have been suckered into thinking that ID has some merit. They are trying to win a popularity contest and do not care one bit about elucidating mysteries of the natural world, but many people have bought into the notion that there is something to creationism. Why?

Many people don't know as much as they should about evolution or the roots of creationism, and that goes for people on both sides of the divide. Looking at a number of reviews for the film Expelled, some critics correctly see through Stein's shoddy showmanship but get tripped up when they talk about evolution. Simply put, too many people "believe" in evolution but don't know very much about it at all. The failure of our education system to properly inform students about science has made creationism seem like an appealing alternative, especially when there are people who try to put on the image of scientists and say that belief in supernaturally designed organisms or a 6-day creation of the universe is scientifically tenable.

Intelligent design is popular, yes, but not so much because of the efforts of Ben Stein, Michael Behe, or anyone else. There is a built-in audience for their views, and it may be comforting to some people to be told that top "scienticians" have empirically proven the existence of God, so they don't need to worry themselves with reconciling evidence from the natural world with their faith. Indeed, creationism is more of a symptom of a larger fundamental religious movement in which strict adherence to a narrow interpretation of a religious text is more cherished than the ability to think! Under this program, creationism becomes the ultimate answer to everything, and if something cannot be explained the Designer did it. Some think that this would make God bigger, giving credit where credit is due, but in reality it does little more than force a deity into the gaps. As we learn more about the natural world, those gaps often get smaller, and soon it seems like God only saw fit to fiddle around with the flagella of E. coli and little else.

Evolution also seems to be a popular scapegoat for any form of sin or evil some of the faithful feel threatened by. From the beginning, some saw Darwin's mechanism of natural selection for evolutionary change as a negative, destructive force. If we are the products of such a force, then the assumption of some was that all morality goes out the window, thus making our species nothing more than bloodthirsty brutes. After On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was published, some naturalists preferred other mechanisms for evolution that were viewed as more "positive" like Neo-Lamarckism. Under this competing system organisms could better themselves through achievement and what they did in life, which presented a more comfortable fit with religion.

Unfortunately for them evolution does not work in the fashion that they proposed, and the Modern Synthesis of the 20th century successfully married evidence from various disciplines to show that natural selection is the primary mechanism by which evolution occurs. Religious hardliners like George McCready Price didn't like any form of evolution at all, though, and during the 1920's creationists like him laid the groundwork for modern creationism. The "argument from design" can be traced back to Paley and beyond, but the rhetorical tactics of modern-day creationists are surprisingly similar to those used in much older works. In Price's The Predicament of Evolution, for instance, he says that evolution and socialism are effectively one, and thus teaching evolution in science classes makes children more susceptible to the despised political notions;

What more can I say here? I have already written quite fully on this subject in my "Poisoning Democracy." But I wish that somebody or something could make the people of America see what a viper they are holding to their bosom, when the children in the schools, as well as the university students, are being taught doctrines regarding the origin of man's body, and regarding the origin of the family and of social customs, that are making the rising generation a helpless prey to the radical agitators of tomorrow.

Although I doubt that Ben Stein has even heard of Price or read the tract, he takes a very similar approach to evolution in Expelled, linking Darwin to the Holocaust in such a way that you would think that the naturalist himself committed the atrocities the Nazis perpetrated. This tactic is not new, but no matter how many times it is refuted by credible scientists & historians, evolution is constantly blamed for any and all social ills, past or present. While not in vogue now, some 20th century fundamentalists went as far to suggest that accepting evolution as an idea led to the "devolution" of our species, perhaps ultimately causing people to become brutish, bloodthristy apes. There is no reason to believe this, and the idea of evolution did not cause the Holocaust. Evolution is a scientific description of what is, not what ought to be. As Niles Eldredge wrote in The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism;

To those who say there are moral lessons and ethical systems - evil or good - implicit in the very idea of evolution, I say, A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES.

Expelled will ultimately appeal to those who already agree with the ideas presented within it and Christians who wish to take a "Big Tent" philosophy to their spiritual siblings ("They may be jerks, but they're on our side.") If the film has any larger impact at all, it will inflame the problem rather than send people to the bookstore to start educating themselves about what evolution really is, and it just seems to be another attempt by the creationist camp to get their ideas accepted without doing any actual work. Regular readers of this blog already know all this, but I wonder how many other people do, and although I sincerely hope the film tanks, I know some people are going to walk away from it with a distorted view of what science is. It's these people that we ought to be trying harder to reach. It's easy to moan and groan about how the creationists are at it again, but unless we start actively trying to improve science education, how can we hope for improvement?

[Post-Script] If you're looking for some good resources to start learning about evolution, but sure to check out the Expelled Exposed website, a list of 24 misconceptions about evolution from New Scientist magazine, the Talk Origins Archive, and The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online. I'll put up a list of my favorite evolution books later in the day.