Expelled: The Intelligent Design movie

Cross-posted with a tongue-in-cheek quiz at the Daily Kos.

The whole problem with intelligent design is that its proponents like to say it is science, and that the status quo of scientists are not allowing this new concept to be introduced into science classrooms, from some sort of discrimination or something. It's a reasonable enough sounding argument, and the premise of the new documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." And the makers of this film want people to see this movie so badly that they're offering to pay schools and churches $5 per student to see it. I first read about this on The Daily Irrelevant and The Bad Idea Blog.

What intelligent design proponents - in the movie and elsewhere - don't tell you is that science and scientists do not have PR campaigns. They don't have to pay money to people to accept scientific theories and facts. They quietly go about their work in the halls of academia, in the laboratory, using computer models, in the field doing experiments, publishing results in scientific peer-reviewed journals. This is how science works. Scientific ideas don't need a PR campaign, films, and money to promote themselves. They MAY use these techniques as teaching tools, but that is generally after a scientific concept is well established.

Intelligent design is not well-established, and despite what the film may tell people, it's not being expelled. It doesn't have enough data or studies behind it to be put into textbooks. In fact, it's not even science. Somehow we as a society seem to have forgotten what science even is. This shall not do! Science revolutionized the way people thought, paving the way for the amazing scientific and technological advances since then - germ theory, vaccines, antibiotics, traveling to the moon. The key here is that science requires scientists to throw out ideas that don't have supporting data. Every scientific hypothesis is always open to falsification - being shown to be false.

The whole problem with intelligent design as "science" is that the concept has a predefined result - that the origins of the natural world must literally match the Genesis Creation account. Science does not work if you have a pre-set conclusion! No, for a process or idea to be science, those testing the premise have to be able to throw out the hypothesis if the data doesn't fit. Intelligent design is not willing to do that. Because that would mean they are saying, nope, we're wrong. God didn't create the world. At least that is what the fear it means.

People that promote intelligent design KNOW that there is a God who created the universe. And I, myself a Christian, believe that they're right. But that doesn't make intelligent design right. Because ID does not even provide a proper mechanism, or method, through which the universe came into existence other than "God did it," (technically, their terminology is that the world has "irreducible complexity" that could not possibly have been created by anything other than an intelligent designer).

However, evolution by means of natural selection has amazing explanatory power in terms of how the world could have gone from single-celled organisms to complex beings, even human beings. There's no scientific controversy over evolution. There is ONLY a social, religious and cultural controversy.

Another problem with intelligent design proponents is this - very few people who follow it have ever taken a college Biology class in which they learned about evolution and its evidence. Instead they learn about evolution from those attacking it, in the churches and by the "professional creationists" who make money by selling books and making movies to promote their views. And now if you will excuse me, I need to go worship my Noodly master. Ramen!

When science & faith find common ground

Daily Kos contributing editor Steven Andrews wrote a fantastic Op-Ed in Wednesday Jan 16's Austin American-Statesman, "When science and faith find common ground." He starts by saying

"The age-old, simmering conflict between science and religion is threatening to boil over in Texas with the usual battle lines being drawn around evolutionary biology and public education science standards. Here's a thought: Instead of a long and potentially bitter stand-off between science advocates and creationist proponents, why doesn't Texas skip that mess and go straight to a reasonable compromise? Instead of arguing about fossils, radiometric dating methods or constitutional law, I'd ask those skeptical of evolution what better natural evidence for the brilliance of a Creator could there be than myriad complex processes unfolding over billions of years through countless steps in exquisite order spanning the entire cosmos?"

But my favorite line is when he uses the term "professional creationists" in this paragraph:

"It's no coincidence that professional creationists try to frame the issue as a struggle between science and religion. It's a false dichotomy to be sure, but it's also a powerful public relations tactic, one that serves their goals well. But despite what creationists may say, the choice is not between science and religion, or belief vs. atheism."

I've never heard it put like that, but it's such a perfect characterization of the people who devote their lives to pushing creationism in the classrooms and in society. I strongly believe that despite it being led largely by (right-wing conservative) Christians, creationism detracts from Jesus' message and does far more harm to Christianity than good. In fact, I don't see any good coming from it at all. It wastes taxpayers money (over $1 million spent on the recent Dover court case), tries to insert a religious concept into science classrooms, weakening science education, specifically and our school systems, generally, and last but not least, makes Christians look foolish to educated scientists and academics, many of whom are turned away from religion because of such tomfoolery. And as a concept, it's simply wrong, false, untrue, a lie masquerading as "Christian truth" which is really the most insidious of all things. A wolf in sheep's clothing, if ever there was one. Beware of creationism and inteligent design!

Christianity is about loving God and loving your neighbors of all sizes, shapes, creeds, colors, and religions. And forgiveness and grace. Fighting to get everyone to take a literal view of Genesis creation account should not be the central focus of any Christian's life. Nor should fighting to get schools to remove evolution, or introduce its supposed "weaknesses" or to push intelligent design (another form of creationism). What the Creation tale offers us is not a scientific treatise on Creatoin, but a story of how humanity got a soul, a conscience. Adam didn't eat an apple. It didn't have anything to do with sexual sin. What he did was eat of the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil." If that is not profound, and clear, I don't know what is.

The problem with anti-evolution rhetoric

All I can say is that people can convince others just about anything if they have enough money. This New York Times article, "Adam and Eve in the land of Dinosaurs" talks about the $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky which opens May 28. The museum is the brainchild of the notorious young earth creationist Ken Ham.

People talk about "What Would Jesus Do?" but would Jesus have Christians spend billions of dollars to promote literal interpretation of Genesis like the Discovery Institute and the young earth creationists starting the Creation Museum and Dinosaur Land, while people around the world are starving and gravely suffering? While people still don’t know the love and grace of Christ? Creationist movements preach to the choir and at the same time, without doubt, they turn people away from the faith far more than they bring anyone into the faith. Has anyone ever become a Christian from listening to creationists preach Creation?

I honestly can’t understand how any Christian who truly assesses the situation can think Christians that live that kind of way could be truly following Jesus. What about spending that kind of money on missions and humanitarian work instead?

I care about the faith, about the integrity of God’s word, and the way that people practice it out in their lives as witnesses to nonbelievers. But frankly the direction it’s headed scares me! Clinging to nonsense at the expense of rationality does not serve as a good witness.

National Center for Science Education Director Eugenie Scott appeared on ABC's Good Morning America to discuss the new museum. In this ABCNews online article, it says:

"In an evolutionary world view, why should you have things like absolute morality? Why would it be wrong to kill someone?" said Jason Lisle, of Answers in Genesis. "I'm not saying that evolutionists aren't moral. I'm saying they have no reason to be moral."

This basic misunderstanding is one of the biggest problems with anti-evolution rhetoric. The Judeo-Christian faith teaches that a Savior or Messiah will come into the world. Christians believe it was Jesus. Jesus rescued all people from sin and death... to those who accept the Way, the Way of love. Absolutely, you can not deny that horrible pain and suffering exist - among humans and animals. People do horrible things to other people - murder, rape, torture, manipulation, lies. Evolution does not give permission to anyone for anything. Evolution simply describes the way the world is. It's a dog eat dog world. Hello... that is what the whole story of original sin, and the Fall, are all about.

Yes, religion and spirituality offer morals and rules for living that allow people to rise above their sinful and selfish tendencies that we all have. To Buddhists, it is way of dharma - right conduct, and nonharm. The Boddhisattva in Buddhism commit to helping all others achieve a state of enlightenment out of the committed Bodhisattva's compassion. To Christians, it is the Way of grace and forgiveness and brotherly love. The Golden Rule. Christian and other religious tenets allow people living in an evolutionary world - in which yes, horrible events such as murder occur and we all are selfish by nature- to choose not to live a life that harms others- such as murder. So how come Christians know their faith so little that they can not understand that?

So the point the guy's making is that evolutionists don't have a "reason" to be moral, meaning that they don't have a God telling them what to do. Yet many do live just as moral of lives as Christians. How can this be? And many Christians fail to follow the tenets of their religion. Priests abusing young boys. Pastors leaving churches in shame after extramarital affairs. Christian abortion clinic bombers. These are extreme examples - but not really. Every Christian, like every person, has things in their past - or present - they're ashamed of. We all fail to be perfectly good, we all hurt others intentionally or not. That is why Christians believe we need a Savior - someone who loves us unconditionally no matter how much we screw up. And I'm talking major screw up - God's forgiveness is for those very people who do the major ^&*%-ups as well as the little ones. If only they can accept it - to really accept that one is loved and forgiven despite one's flaws - that is when a revolution of the heart takes place (and those who have committed the most grievous crimes are often the most grateful recipients of grace).

But when an evolutionist follows morality despite not having a religion - well, what do you think of this? Jesus said, in one of my favorite passages, when he was hanging out with a Samaritan woman who had been divorced many times and was living with a man not her husband. Jesus shared water from the well and said "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24)

To worship in spirit and in truth, to me, means to live out the way of loving your neighbor as yourself (which is the earthly manifestation of loving God) - and those who do this are following God whether they think they are or not. To be not hypocritical, to be truthful in words, to live a life of respect for one's fellow human beings - that to me is worshipping in spirit and in truth.