In a variety of different locations around the web, I've encountered ads for a film that's coming out early next year. The film in question is a documentary/expose (exposentary? docuse?) entitled
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." It stars Ben Stein, a former speechwriter for the Nixon administration and a comedian. Two great tastes that taste great together! You've got to love a career arc that goes from working with
Caspar Weinberger in the White House to starring alongside Hillary Duff in
Wendy Meets Casper. It's a classic of the genre, really it is.
Obviously, I haven't seen this film, but the
commercials and
appearances Stein has made hawking it are pretty telling. The narrative arc of the film appears from all pre-release press to be a slam on the oppression academe inflicts on Intelligent Design proponents, with Ben starring in the alternate-universe Michael Moore Noble Truthteller role.
The challenge here is that the point of the film appears to be to assail the scientific community for refusing to allow advocates of intelligent design to articulate their position. Here's the rub, and the issue that overarches the entire ID movement. If what Stein reveals is that scientists who are also persons of faith are being systematically driven from the scientific community, then I think he's got a valid point. But the signs don't point to that. It just ain't what he's doing.
Instead, he appears to be trying to argue that religious resistance to evolutionary theory should be permitted in the scientific community. Through the eyes of my faith, I see in our vast and infinitely complex universe evidence of God's work. I believe that the processes of evolution, through which life both adapts itself to creation and increases in depth and complexity, are non-random in purpose. But as I've posted before, I believe that from faith, not as a testable hypothesis that is provable or disprovable based on empirical evidence.
I'm not even sure how you'd operationalize intelligent design in a scientific framework. At best, it seems to be a God-of-the-Gaps approach, which means that you're just plugging God in to places where existing data or theory doesn't provide a viable alternative. At worst, you'd have folks measuring scientific phenomena like this:
How's your TA in ID342 going to grade that? "I'm afraid I'm going to have to mark you down for your answer on that ion flux equation. Jesus should be squared."
Further, I hold that the mingling of these two arenas is not just dangerous to science.
It's dangerous to faith itself. Why? Well, lets take a look at the witness of Scripture, why don't we?
Christians affirm that God is the Creator of the Universe, whose creative power underlies all things. (Ps. 104) But while we make that assertion, the way that we understand creation's expression of God's glory isn't like the speech and words that comprise human language. (Ps. 19:1-4). It is a wordless word, a voiceless voice, a peculiar paradox that isn't comprehended in the same way as other things. God does not act in ways that are easily grasped or empirically discerned. (Isaiah 55:8-9) Ascertaining the specific mechanics of God's actions in particular events is beyond us (Job 36:14-17...and pretty much the whole dang book of Job after that.)
In claiming that we can prove the presence of a designer, we are making a similar demand for empirical proof as the demands of the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. Show yourself! Prove to us that you're divine! (Ps 78:17-20; Ps. 106:14) Such an effort is little more than putting God to the test...and if you listen to Jesus at all, that's kind of a theological and spiritual no no. (Matt. 4:5-7)
If God's design is empirically provable, then faith--our act of trust and hope in the gracious promises of God--is no longer necessary. Further, the Protestant Reformers argued that the purpose and intent of Scripture was to open our eyes to how God acts, because the witness of creation itself was too obscure. If the underlying presumption of ID is correct, you can be done with your Bible, as well.
Embracing ID as a theological perspective is entirely comprehensible. It gives meaning and purpose to the ultimately value-neutral findings of science. But if we understand intelligent design as science, then not only have we corrupted science, but we've eliminated faith and abrogated the need for scripture.
Thanks a bunch, Ben.
Comments (4)
The problem that I have with the whole debate is that to me...whats the point? Does attempting to prove God's existence, or more importantly, his actions through the lense of emperical evidence actually do anything but glorify US?
Much as I respect what you have to say, I think you speak as someone who hasn't done much actual research on Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory; tell me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem to understand what, exactly, it is.
I don't believe that science will ever "prove" God, because I believe that science is the act of explaining the natural; it has no basis over the supernatural. You cannot test something larger than the universe. I do believe, however, that the act of observing science can lead us to conclude that many of the claims made about God are true. This would be no great surprise, as Paul tells us that God reveals Himself in the world in which He has created. Of course, you are certainly free to deny that such evidence is evidence of God, and I don't believe that scientific proof of God will ever exist; but preemptively excluding the possibility of any supernatural influence on the natural should not be what science is about. Science is about following evidence wherever it may lead.
Germanwrench: My beef with I.D., and, more deeply, with "Creation Science," is that they aren't really anything. They are neither faith nor science. My difficulty with ID is not that I have trouble grasping it conceptually, but rather that its underlying assumptions are internally incoherent.
As you rightly state, the assertion that there is an influence on the natural world that is outside of it's boundaries is scientifically untestable. Science is not capable of determining or measuring God's influence. If a hypothesis or assertion is beyond the reach of empirical evidence, it cannot be legitimately expressed from within a scientific and theoretical framework.
Basically,as much as I like Ben Stein,I kinda think he's barking up the wrong tree with"Expelled"!!
Essentially,"Expelled"is in the same vein as Al Gore's"A Delicate Balance"or Michael Moore's Documentaries:Essentially,they fall into the"My Mind's Made Up,Don't Confuse Me with The Facts!!"line of thinking!!
Yes,I think there's room for discussion of Intelligent Design in Academia,however,it should be treated with the same rerspect as evolution,not as a political debate!!
And another problem with"Expelled"is that Ben Stein blames Darwinism for the rise of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union!!
Yes,Hitler and Stalin were two of the most evil men who wandered the earth in their time!!
But,as far as the rise of Nazi Germany being brought upon by Darwin's Theory of Evolution,that's just plain nuts!!The rise of Nazi Germany was brought upon by a lot of things,including crippling inflation;massive war debts to England and France and massive unemployment as well as covert anti semitism!!
Prior to the First World War;German Jews were the most prosperous and assimilated of all of European Jewry;and I'm sure quite a number of German Jews voted for and supported Hitler at the beginning;only to quickly find themselves Persona Non Grata BFT!!
And the Catholic Church signed a Concordant with Nazi Germany as well!!Now,in all fairness,let's not belittle the efforts of the Vatican to help out the Jews during Hitler's monstrous reign,although they shouldv'e done more at the beginning!!
In fact,the Catholic Church finally absolved the Jews of all wrongdoing in the death of Christ in the mid 60's,however,there's a splinter group of'Traditional Catholics'out there who disagree with it and started their own'Splinter Church'so to speak!!
And among their most prominent members are Mel Gibson and his Father,Hutton Gibson!!Basically,a pair of Father and son Alcoholic Anti Semites!!
Also,Hitler had quite a number of prominent admirers in America,including Aviator Charles Lindbergh;Ford Motor Company Founder Henry Ford;Publisher William Randolph Hearst;Senator Joe Kennedy,JFK's Father and Senator Prescott Bush,Father and Grandfather of Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger,respectfully!!
Plus,Joe Kennedy and Prescott Bush were belivers in the Eugenics movement during the 20's and 30's!!
In closing,yes,people have done evil things in the name of science,but they've done evil things in the name of religion as well!!