Below is a video by Ben Stein which catalogues the kind of difficulties that confront creationist scientists in academia. It was and is highly controversial and has been attacked by numerous sources because of its antagonism towards Darwinism. I cannot say that some of these attacks are not justified. Ben Stein tries to come across initially as an innocent, neutral, inquisitive journalist investigating claims of unfair treatment meted out to any scientists who dare question the claims of evolutionists. He plays up to this role in a slightly bemused manner as if he does not know in advance where his inquiry is going to conclude. In all this I agree that there is a degree of kiddology and maybe showboating going on. But nothing more or less than is common to media presentations in general.
However I want to be honest and for that reason I have included in full an article from Scientific American by John Rennie. It is titled No Integrity Displayed and subtitled A shameful anti-
Here is the promised rebuttal by Rennie. In my response I pick up a few of the issues that are raised. These comments of mine are in blue italics.
‘In the new science-
As to the first point it is not true to describe this video as science bashing. If Rennie applied even a fraction of his intellect to engage with what was said he would realise that science is held in high regard. The problem is with those self appointed guardians of evolutionary theory who go out of their way to ensure that the only alternative is banned from academia. As to the following point I guess quotes must count for something. They usually convey the opinions of those quoted. If these lead to the conclusion that evolutionary theory has been used by dictators as a justification for ethnic cleansing or ridding themselves of undesirables then the link is made.
No one could have been more surprised than I when the producers called, unbidden, offering Scientific American's editors a private screening. Given that our magazine's positions on evolution and intelligent design (ID) creationism reflect those of the scientific mainstream (that is, evolution: good science; ID: not science), you have to wonder why they would bother. It's not as though anything in Expelled would have been likely to change our views. And they can't have been looking for a critique of the science in the movie, because there isn't much to speak of.
A discourteous response to a courteous gesture.
Rather, it seems a safe bet that the producers hope a whipping from us would be useful for publicity: further proof that any mention of ID outrages the close-
Unfortunately, Expelled is a movie not quite harmless enough to be ignored. Shrugging off most of the film's attacks—all recycled from previous pro-
There is nothing wrong with recycling material, particularly when most of it remains unanswered by elitists like Rennie.
Expelled wears its ambitions to be a creationist Fahrenheit 911 openly, in that it apes many of Michael Moore's comic tricks: emphasizing the narrator's hapless everyman qualities by showing him meandering his way to interviews; riposting interviewees' words with ironic old footage and so on. Director Nathan Frankowski is reasonably adept at the techniques, although he is not half the filmmaker Michael Moore is (and yes, I do mean in both senses of the phrase).
The film begins with the triumphant entry of financial columnist, media figure and former Nixon White House speech-
Putting every remark in full and proper context in order to satisfy this critic would have extended this video to three or four hours.
(The newsreel footage from the old Soviet days kept confusing me. Stein does know that the Stalinists rejected the theory of evolution as a biological rendition of capitalism, doesn't he? And that they replaced it with their own ideologically driven, disastrous theory of Lysenkoism? Does Stein think that moviegoers won't know this?)
This is plain disingenuous. Lysenkoism was applied almost exclusively to agriculture. Stalin wanted to apply it more widely. This whole subject has to be met in some detail, so here goes. For the following I am indebted to the website Answers in Genesis.
The Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin…murdered an estimated 60 million people. Like Darwin, he was once a theology student, and also like Darwin, evolution was important in transforming his life from a professing Christian to a communist atheist. Yaroslavsky noted that while Stalin was still an ecclesiastical student he ‘began to read Darwin and became an atheist’.
Stalin became an ‘avid Darwinian, abandoned the faith in God, and began to tell his fellow seminarians that people were descended from apes and not from Adam’.
‘His brutal childhood and the worldview he acquired in that childhood, reinforced by reading Darwin, convinced him that mercy and forbearance were weak and stupid.
Koster added that Stalin had people murdered for two major reasons
‘ … because they were personal threats to him, or because they were threats to progress—which in Marxist-
The importance of Darwin’s ideas is stressed by Parkadze, a childhood friend of Stalin’s:
‘We youngsters had a passionate thirst for knowledge. Thus, in order to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin’s teachings. We were aided in this by … Lyell’s Antiquity of Man and Darwin’s Descent of Man... As a result of the influence of Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, Darwin became ‘an intellectual hero in the Soviet Union. There is a splendid Darwin museum in Moscow, and the Soviet authorities struck a special Darwin medal in honour of the centenary of The Origin’.
I could quote extensively from the the founders of communism to prove the influence Darwinism had on the thinking of these men. Nazism is similarly based on the elevation of the superior Aryan race and the extermination of those races and types considered inferior. The logic for this odious policy is based squarely on Darwin’s thinking as stated in his book The Descent of Man.
I should note that Stein and Expelled rarely refer to "scientists" as I did—they call them Darwinists. Similarly, this review may have already used the word "evolution" about as often as the whole of Expelled does; in the movie, it is always Darwinism. The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin's original ideas—most researchers would call themselves neo-
Who in their right mind would conclude that Rennie is dogmatic, atheistic or dictatorial.
Expelled then trots out some of the people whom it claims have been persecuted by the Darwinist establishment. First among them is Richard Sternberg*, former editor of the peer-
What most viewers of Expelled may not realize—because the film doesn't even hint at it—is that Sternberg's case is not quite what it sounds. Biologists criticized Sternberg's choice to publish the paper not only because it supported ID but also because Sternberg approved it by himself rather than sending it out for independent expert review. He didn't lose his editorship; he published the paper in what was already scheduled to be his last issue as editor. He didn't lose his job at the Smithsonian; his appointment there as an unpaid research associate had a limited term, and when it was over he was given a new one. His office move was scheduled before the paper ever appeared. [For more details see Ben Stein Launches a Science-
And so on. These confounding facts are documented in the appendix to the unofficial Congressional report from Rep. Mark Souder's office that the film cites in support of its story. At the very least, the Sternberg affair is considerably more complicated and questionable than Expelled lets on. The movie's one-
As regards this example Rennie may well have a point, but even he seems uncertain about what happened.
So it is with the rest of Expelled's parade of victims. Caroline Crocker, a biology teacher, was allegedly dismissed from her position at George Mason University after merely mentioning ID; the film somehow never reports exactly what she said or why anyone objected to it. Reporter Pamela Winnick was supposedly pilloried and fired after she wrote objectively about evolution and ID; we don't know exactly what she wrote but later we do hear her asserting with disgust that "Darwinism devalues human life." The film forgot to mention that Winnick is the author of the book A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion—a title that suggests her objectivity on the subject might be a bit tarnished.
Once again Rennie seems to want more than any production such as this could possibly give. “the film somehow never reports exactly what she said or why anyone objected to it.” What does he want, the entire history laid out, point and counterpoint? That is for him to research, he is not entitled to deduce that wool is pulled over his eyes just because he disagrees with what is being asserted, which is persecution by academia of scientists who break ranks and argue against Darwinism, whether classic or neo-
The movie's unreliable reporting is even more obvious during the scene in which Stein interviews Bruce Chapman, the president of the Discovery Institute, the institutional heart of ID advocacy. Stein asks whether the Discovery Institute has supported the teaching of ID in science classes so avidly because it is trying to sneak religion back into public schools. Chapman says no and the film blithely takes him at his word. No mention is made of the notorious "Wedge" document, a leaked Discovery Institute manifesto that outlined a strategy of opposing evolution and turning the public against scientific materialism as the first step toward making society more politically conservative and theistic. Maybe Ben Stein didn't think it was relevant, but wouldn't an honest film have trusted its audience to judge for itself?
As far as I know there has never been any secrecy about this agenda: it has been fought out in American courts with full publicity. Darwinism has led to justification for genocides and the removal from society of all those considered lower types, degenerate types or corrupting types. Eugenics, practised in twentieth century America was at least in part based on Darwinian principles. It should be and needs to be confronted, and apologists for evolutionary theory should be prepared to take responsibility for the actions of those who followed the logic of Darwin’s idea to its truly awful conclusions. Burgeoning dictatorships quickly act against any writers, artists and thinkers who oppose them. Academia will be purged of opponents and pliant voices encouraged to replace them. This is what the film Expelled attempts to expose, and in my view it does it powerfully and well.
|The Big Question of Life, Universe & Everything
|Did it all start with a Big Bang?
|What about the Dinosaurs
|Looking at your Family Album
|Fossil Record - Missing Links still Missing!
|What about Dating?
|Devolving NOT Evolving!
|Intelligent Design or Common Ancestor?
|Geology - How old actually are the Hills?
|Is God a Realistic Option?
|Why is all this so important?
|Creative Creation Tales
|In a Nutshell - What's it all about?
|The Gospel through Art
|The Big Issue
|Darwin's Theory of Evolution: What is it?
|The Fact of Evolution
|Why is Nothing Simple?
|It came from outer space
|Loss of Logic
|Is the Earth near Centre of the Universe
|Dissident Big Bang Scientists
|Find the Lady
|Roman Catholic Creationist Scientists
|Geology of the Earth
|Evolution: It's against the Law
|Fossils at Sharktooth Bone Bed
|Rocking the Boat
|Evolution of an Idea
|Built on Rock Websites
|Christian Flash Mobs
|Genesis 3D Movie
|Dinosaurs for Dummies
|Richard Dawkins - What if?
|More to Life
|About Built on Rock
|Book a Talk