Monday, April 21, 2008

Expelled the Movie

EXPELLED: THE MOVIE
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
Ben Stein is a political commentator, actor, and speech writer for former presidents. He was approached by a couple of producers to become active in this movie. It is about the conflict in the scientific community between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design. People who have spoken about Intelligent Design have been “expelled” from various universities such as Iowa State, George Mason and Baylor, from writing about in newspapers, and from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.
The movie opens with the building of the Berlin Wall in Germany at the beginning of the Cold War. The comparison is that the Communists in East Germany wanted to keep out Western ideas especially of that of freedom. Our nation was founded on the idea of freedom, freedom of speech and as Mr. Stein says, of inquiry. He and his team interview various experts, both atheists and Intelligent Design.
Among the most famous atheist is Richard Dawkins. He is the most arrogant of the group though others see God as myth, and see those who do not accept their views as ignorant. Dawkins admits at the end of the movie that he might believe in some sense of intelligent design, from another source in the universe. One scientist thinks that one legitimate view of the beginning of things was some molecules riding on ice crystals of some kind.
Mr. Stein interviews a number of Intelligent Design advocates some who have been expelled. We find that there are a number who come from various beliefs; they are not all Christian. They state that their view as been misrepresented in both the media and other areas. Included in the interviews are a number of Christian and Jewish scientists who believe in God.
One can see that in this movie both sides are presented as Mr. Stein travels throughout the United States and France, Germany and Britain exploring the conflict. What we learn from the movie is that a wall has been built by the powers that be in the elite scientific community that is attempting to stop all discussion. One lesson learned is that the worldview of the scientist effects his view of science. It appears that because Darwinian evolution is the accepted view, no questioning is allowed. Interestingly enough, it was Darwin who “rocked the boat” as it were when he presented his views back in the 1800s.
Throughout the movie Mr. Stein asks why not have this discussion? One explained it this way. Imagine a wall going through your brain or yard. Only one side of your brain has an acceptable view and the other an unacceptable view. Everything on the acceptable side can be spoken while the other side cannot even be mentioned. Go back to the Berlin Wall.
There is interesting dialogue throughout the movie, explanations on the basic level, and astonishing comments. Ideas have consequences. The last part of the movie explores this and has brought about controversy. One comment that caught my attention was something to the effect that these things always have the same beginning. The eugenics movement in the early part of the 20th Century, based on Darwinian evolution, sought to eliminate those who were inferior, or who were an expense on families or nations. Some fifty thousand Americans were sterilized because of this view. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, held this view. Today it continues with abortion (an unwanted baby who the mother cannot care for), euthanasia (the elimination of the sick and aged), and now infancide (the killing of born babies if not pleasing to parents). Sex selection in some areas of the world has lead to the aborting of baby girls, for in these cultures, baby boys are more valuable. This will lead to unintended consequences down the road.
Finally, Mr. Stein, a Jew, goes to Germany, where the Darwinian philosophy was part of the murder of millions of people, including six million Jews, in the Nazi concentration camps. The two people he interviews state that Darwinism was an very influential on Hitler and various Nazi scientists. For Stein, this was an emotional and moving moment. He asked the author of a book about Hitler and Darwinism what he thought about this. The author stated that Hitler carried his views to the extreme, that he thought Hitler thought that he was moving evolution along. The author also stated that there was no doubt that Hitler was evil.
Mr. Stein concludes by asking what can we do? This movie is a beginning and I would suggest that as many go see it as possible. Keep in mind, it is a documentary. I know that some good books have been written about Intelligent Design, some by believers and some not. Philip Johnson, a lawyer, has lead the charge in this area from a Christian perspective and his books are worth reading. I’m not much into detail science but if an elite group can force experts in various scientific fields to keep quiet, what can happening in other fields? This is all part of what has been called the cultural war.
For more information on this movie you can go to http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
One additional note. Some of the excuses used by those who expelled people from their teaching positions are excuses I have heard as a preacher. I think that we are in danger of building a wall, if we haven’t already, to try to prevent discussions on various topics. Traditional positions are being defended as law and any who question that are considered “outsiders” and some are attempting to “expel” them. I have written more on this in the next bulletin.

1 comment:

Jaakonpoika said...

Stein is under heavy attack for 'exaggerating' the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I.

The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between "white" and "colored races" was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).

The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould's scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87).

So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular Finnish media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the 'Up' of the ancient city from Plinius' Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17).

Hitler's formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the "Nordics", a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel's position on the Jewish question was assimilation, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

In 1917 the immigration of "defective" groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the "nordic" balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the "yellow" group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.

Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century, and in 1933 the German people had not lived normal life for twenty years. And so Adolf Hitler did not need his revolution. He did not have to break the laws in Haeckel's country, in principle, but to constitute them.

Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee, that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

You may read more on the matter from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a 'bit'):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

PS. Here's the final chapter scanned from an evolutionist scholar D. Gasman from his The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (chapter 7, Gasman 1971)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
I emphasize that Daniel Gasman, unfortunately, is NOT an IDist or Idealist of any kind.