Verdreven: Een verloren Kans

Blogosphere is na het eerste bekijken van de nieuwe documentaire van Ben Stein „losgebarstenVerdreven: Geen Toegestane Intelligentie“. Afhankelijk van wie u spreekt aan, is het één van beiden over:

a) censuur en onderdrukking van wetenschappers die steun voor Intelligent Ontwerp (identiteitskaart) uiten

of

b) het ondermijnen van evolutieve gedachte Darwinian in een poging om identiteitskaart goed te keuren

Het eerste onderwerp klinkt lonend, tot wat basisonderzoek naar de gevallen van geëistee censuur of afschaffing wordt gedaan. Verdreven Blootgesteld gaat in diepte op elk van de gevallen fallaciousness van de argumenten tonen (om een favoriet te plukken: u kunt niet door iemand worden in brand gestoken u nooit voor werkte).

Bovendien recente proef in Dover debatteerde al dan niet identiteitskaart binnen de grenzen van wetenschap is of of het in het grondgebied van filosofie of theologie valt. Wanneer zelfs de verdedigers van identiteitskaart toelaten (zoals in de proef van Dover) werd gedaan dat het uitbreiden van de grenzen van wetenschap om identiteitskaart op te nemen betekent dat andere disciplines (zoals horoscopes & astrologie en andere pseudosciences) dan de definitie van' wetenschap' eveneens zouden passen, trekt het een onhoudbare situatie. Weinig ouders die op het hebben van hun kinderen hell-bent zijn leren creationismidentiteitskaart hen het leren magische alchimie zou willen, kabbalist of astrologie, maar die allen zouden onder het kader van de nieuwe' wetenschap' passen. Met dat die begrijpt, is het geen verrassing toen dat vele wetenschappers, met inbegrip van sommigen wie persoonlijk in een schepperGod geloven, de introductie van identiteitskaart als bedreiging voor hun discipline zien.

Verdreven draaien de kwestie, die, in een godsdienstige oorlog van soorten zou kunnen elegant worden behandeld. Wetenschappelijke Amerikaan vroeg de hulpproducent van Verdreven, Teken Mathis, why every scientist advocating evolution was an atheist: there are plenty of examples of Christians or other believers who work within and advocate evolutionary biology - why were none in the movie? The response was that this would have confused viewers. Confused meaning the straw man that only atheists believe in evolution would fall apart, exposing a major flaw in the thoughts proposed in the film. To hear a different perspective, here is a lecture from evolutionary biologist and Roman Catholic Ken Miller discussing ID, evolution and the Dover trial.

Finally, Mark C. Chu-Carroll from the Good Math, Bad Math blog writes a devastating critique of the association the film makes between Darwinism and horrors such as the holocaust:

Suppose that it was true that Darwin’s writings about evolution were the primary thing that motivated the Nazi’s genocide against the Jews, the Romany, and all the other “undesirables” that they killed. Forget, for a moment, that the linkage is a crock. Pretend that it’s the truth.

What difference does it make?

Does the truth become less true because some idiot used it to justify something awful?

Science isn’t morality. Science describes what is. Morality defines our understanding of right and wrong. Science doesn’t tell us what’s morally right and wrong. It tells us what is. It can allows us to reason from what we know, to determine the effect of an action, which can allow us to decide whether that action is morally right or wrong. But the science doesn’t tell us what’s moral.

What Stein and friends are doing is trying to say that it’s appropriate to judge science based on what kinds of moral judgements a lunatic can derive from it - and further, they’re basically trying to argue for suppressing the truth when they don’t like the results of trying to infer morality from that truth.

He goes on to describe that you can draw some fairly bizarre ethics from the laws of thermodynamics, but that doesn’t invalidate physics. There may be an argument against evolution, but this isn’t one of them.

In my humble opinion, having followed the making and the build up to this film for some months now, I am disappointed; not so much that it appears to be a crock on par with a Michael Moore pseudo-documentary, but rather because it could have been so much better. A balanced, open discussion over the naturalistic assumptions that the field of science works with and whether there are merits to broadening the discussion of the discipline to exploring other phenomena is a worthwhile discussion. Rather than pulling soundbytes from interviews that people were conned into allowing, a real discussion from bright people on all sides of the issue, arguing pros, cons, and the evidence involved would be a fantastic work that would stimulate discussion and open ears on all sides to hearing that ‘yes, they may disagree with me but they’re not all crazy’.

In the end, I simply do not see anything of merit with the way the film was made; from lying straight out to get interviewees off guard, to stacking ’student’ audiences with extras, to using classic propaganda poses, music and cuts in order to demonize one position and extol another: none of it comes off as loving, Christlike or worthy of attention.

May we learn from this mistake, and rather than playing into the world’s win/lose dichotomy, let us draw people by our willingness to listen to those who disagree with us, even as we hold firm to those things that form our foundations.

Peace to you and yours.

PS: Just for fun, here is a parody of the Expelled trailer, entitled Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed.

Author Bio:: Jordan Peacock lives and works in Minnesota with his beautiful wife and daughter. When not playing with technology or music, he’s writing comic books and wrapping up a university education.

image by Esthr

for further reading . . .

• None Found