One doesn’t usually perform a review of another person’s movie review, but I came across this review of Ben Stein’s movie, Expelled, that was so full of either inexcusable ignorance or downright dishonesty that, even though I have not yet seen the film, I feel as though I should comment on the comment. So, while I have not yet seen the film and can’t really comment on it directly, I already fear that evangelicals everywhere are not going miss another opportunity to boldly advertise their ignorance of science. 

Unfortunately, the film will probably be very effective on my fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord. Not because it might be particularly well done (again, I can’t comment on this yet) or because Ben Stein has any clue what he’s talking about (I have heard him in an interview actually fault Darwin’s theory of evolution for not being able to explain where gravity comes from - huh?), but for no other reason than the embarrassing fact that Christians are woefully ignorant of the epistemological limits of science, and we have become too intellectually lazy to research simple facts about science for ourselves. This review is a perfect example.  Here is goes:

Science and faith are in a battle, we are told, and those who stand on the side of reason and academic maturity side with the scientists, while those who stand on the side of irrationality and religious superstition side with the faith-based lunatics.

This sounds good on the surface, but what does it really mean?  Science and faith are in a battle…over what exactly?  Does this mean that the medical community is in a “battle” with supporters of Dianetics over the efficacy of ”faith healing” in treating diseases?  Does this mean that the astrological community is in a battle with NASA over the basic principles of astronomical science?  Does this mean that Shamanism is under attack by the meteorological sciences over the role of the gods in controlling the weather?  Do these science/faith battles also deserve our attention?  Should they be taught side-by-side in institutions of higher learning?  Ironically, most evangelicals will gladly side with the scientific community over the paranormal and mystical delusions of pseudo-science without hesitation.  But when this same naturalistic methodology is applied to a theologically sensitive question such as the age of the earth or the diversity of the species, Houston — we have a problem! 

But is the “battle” between science and Christian faith legitimate or contrived?  Honestly, I can’t think of one important question of Christian doctrine that can be settled or even informed by science.  In fact, when it comes to spiritual matters, science is quite helpless.  Scientific questions of material cause-and-effect are settled by collecting data and testing hypotheses. Questions of faith are settled by appeals to Scripture, tradition, and philosophy. Our faith tells us that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”- and our science only reveals the ordinary (material) means by which God accomplishes these amazing things. The methodology of Scientific inquiry simply has nothing to say about the ultimate cause of those ordinary patterns of God’s providence found in nature.  This is a very simple but important concept, entirely under-appreciated by most evangelicals. 

The elites in secular academia do not prove this, but they assert it - repeatedly. It is one of the large disconnects separating the ivory tower from the mainstream of American culture: the vast majority of Americans believe in something transcendent, and do not feel it fair or appropriate to be condescended to by elites who have suddenly taken to rejecting millennia-old beliefs and values.

I can go along with this statement. But it has nothing to do with questions of a scientific nature. Science, by its very nature, is silent on questions of God and theology. If certain individuals are using (or abusing) science to argue against God as the creator and sustainer of the Cosmos, then we need to call those individuals to task for twisting the naturalistic methodology of scientific inquiry to promote a worldview of materialism. To draw a clumsy line between secular academia and mainstream America is lazy and ineffective.

Well, I agree with the mainstream of America here, and it is one of the large reasons I do not take seriously the large increase in “popular atheism” as of late, evidenced by best-selling books from Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. While I am always concerned that people could be led astray by the self-serving propagandizing dogma of secular rationalists like this unholy trinity, the truth is that I am fully confident that there will never, ever be a time in American culture that we vastly repudiate the transcendent truths of a divine being.

But with that said, there is a crucial battle taking place, and it is not over my right to be a faith-based nut vs. their right to be academic stalwarts. The battle is over the fact that these people - the ivory tower culture of atheism and secularism in America - is an academic fraud, a scientific failure, and a phony. And Ben Stein’s brilliant new documentary exposes the emperor as the naked beast that it is …

Huh? This statement is so ridiculous I don’t even know how to characterize it other than a frontal assault on science — which has made all of our lives better by its rigorous investigations into the universe God created. I wonder how Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and evangelical Christian author, would feel about this statement. His leadership in cracking the human genetic code was probably one of the most significant scientific achievements of our generation, with implications for every aspect of the biological and medical sciences — and we have a self-professed conservative evangelical Christian leading the entire effort!  Why wasn’t Dr. Collins Expelled for his outspoken faith in Christ?  Were his accomplishments also in vain? An academic fraud? 

I have yet to come into contact with a critic of intelligent design that can explain why dialogue with proponents of such are not worthy of an invitation to the conversation. They usually have so much foam coming out of their mouths that I can not even understand what they are saying. Their objective is not mature conversation, and it certainly is not scientific inquiry, because the foundations of such require objectivity, open-mindedness, and a repudiation of academic censorship and bullying.

I find this hard to believe.  You don’t even have to leave your house to dialogue with the millions of thoughtful critics of intelligent design in the blogosphere, who can easily explain this to you in about two seconds. It goes something like this: If the conversation is taking place in the science classroom, then it should at least have something to with science. ID, on the other hand, has nothing to do with science. This doesn’t mean that ID is false.  But rather that it belongs to another category of knowledge called teleology – or the study of ultimate meaning, purpose, and design.  Believe it or not teleology is even more important than science.

Every Christian already knows that the entire cosmos reflects the wisdom and purpose of God. Why anyone would want to pay thousands of dollars per semester to learn something you can easily read in the Bible is beyond me.  In case anyone missed it, Paul says in Romans 1 that ALL of creation declares the handiwork of God. This is simply what we Christians believe, by faith. I also believe this is evident to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear – just as the Apostle says. BUT THIS IS NOT SCIENCE! In fact, it is an insult to the Creator of Heaven and Earth to even suggest such a thing!  

Here is why this debate is so frustrating.  Science is simply mankind’s tentative formulation of working models to explain only those data that subject themselves to our limited methods of empirical observation!  The fact that all things in nature are subject to God’s soverign design is a transcendent, immutable, and eternal truth, not subject to revision, refinement, or dismissal upon the discovery of new evidence! Why would we voluntarily downgrade an important teleological truth to the level of a tentative scientific theory?  Is it so we can feel like a part of the exclusive “science” club?  Does calling our beliefs “science” give them a measure academic merit greater than the “mere” level of faith?  Talk about selling our birthright for a bowl of cold soup!  Geez!

Sadly, the defining characteristics of those guarding the academic walls are the opposite - they refuse to engage the massive and overwhelming scientific case for intelligent design, and they discard of anyone who represents a threat to their system.

The most subtle lies are often mixed with truth. Yes, I agree that there is a “massive and overwhelming” case that all things have been ordered by an intelligent creator.  You don’t even have to leave your backyard to witness the majesty of creation.  But as soon as you sneak the word “scientific” into the sentence — you are either completely ignorant of the epistemological limits of scientific inquiry, or you are being completely dishonest simply to stir up controversy unnecessarily. Can somebody please explain to me how science, which thankfully concerns itself only with that which can be observed, measured, and quantified, can possibly comment one way or the other on supernatural activity accomplished by divine fiat? When God carries out His will (design) using ordinary (material) means, we can use the tools of science to help piece together the clues nature leave us, but how can science possibly comment on that which transcends the created order? These things are eternally hidden behind a veil of material causality and are hopelessly inaccessible to the methods of scientific inquiry.  The problem with ID arises when people insist that teleology should be taught as an alternate form of science!  This is absurd.

If you want to compete on the scientific playing field, you need to have a testable model that can be either falsified or confirmed through empirical analysis. That is what science does. That is all science does.  That is also why we don’t allow Astrology, Shamanism, Phrenology, Dianetics, Telekinetics or any other paranormal pseudo-science into the classroom. While there certainly is an anti-religious bias that exists in academia, THE REJECTION OF ID AS SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTI-RELIGIOUS BIAS! Those who keep insisting that it does are merely reacting and not thinking this through.

In the meantime, the public schools continue teaching their Darwinian drivel, and grown-up people continue to exit a life of such indoctrination with the perfectly coherent ability to see that the human reproductive system did not come from a cellular malfunction, and that the beauty of the world was not something to happen accidentally.

Again, the theory of Evolution does not concern itself at all with ultimate causes. The meaning of a word like “accidentally” depends on the context.  In a scientific context, it simply describes an unpredictable, or chance event - such as the casting of the lot.  But in a teleological context, ”accidentally” could in fact mean that there is no ultimate purpose to the cosmos.  Thankfully, sir, Christians don’t have to view the natural sciences through the godless lens of materialism!  The Bible tells us that “the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is of the Lord.”  How an intellectually-comfortable theist can feel threatened by something that science attributes to “chance” or “probability” is beyond me.  Those teleological questions are appropriately answered from one’s faith tradition or religious worldview.

This point is critical, so I will offer another example.  When a meteorologist gives you a forecast for tomorrow’s weather, he is not declaring that earth’s atmosphere is merely the result of impersonal forces, such as pressure and gravity, acting on local variations of temperature and humidity.  In other words, there is no implicit teleology one way or the other. Physical cause and effect is simply all that meteorological science can offer.  Now comes the interpretation of that data.  If you are materialist, you might assert that this process is indeed absent any ultimate cosmic purpose. If you are Christian who believes in a sovereign Creator, then you should already know that the science of meteorology is only concerned with the study of proximate causes, and that behind the ordinary patterns of providence that we call the “laws of nature” there is a sovereign God who determines whatsoever comes to pass.

Extending the analogy even further, Evolution is a scientific model that accounts for many facts observed in nature, such as: the genetic and morphological similarities and differences between species, the patterns of faunal sucession up through the geological column, and the distribution of species across the surface of the earth. It is a physical model of natural history that has endured over 150 years of challenges.  It is the only model that unites all of the biological sciences under a single comprehensive paradigm.  It has no rival.  It has no competition. But despite all of its success, Evolution - like any other scientific idea - says absolutely nothing about the ultimate purpose of creation.  There it is as helpless as meteorology.

If an atheist wants to argue that a scientific model based on the uniformity of nature is definitive proof that life has no purpose or meaning, then we need to address THAT problem directly. Attacking an entire field of well-established science for the transgressions of a vocal minority is either dishonest or lazy. In fact, many biologists in academia are evangelicals.  I have read many of their books, and they regularly point to the amazing natural history of earth’s biosphere as a testament to God’s good providence. Why are they not Expelled from their institutions? Because they clearly understand the difference between science and faith, and they don’t fall for the lie that ID is something that can compete at the academic level with science!

So in one sense, the faith-based folks like me who have absolutely do no doubt that life and the world have their origins in a divine being really have little to be afraid of. I can not see a time coming when people will ever have enough faith to really be atheists. Yes, it takes a great deal of effort to have the obedient faith that the Christian religion speaks of, but in a pure metaphysical sense, does anyone really believe it is easier to believe that a single cell explosion created the world eco-system than it is to have faith in a transcendent being?

A single cell explosion created the world eco-system?  I could have some fun with this.  That’s almost as absurd as a single cell explosion“creating” an entire human being in only 9 months! Can you imagine such a thing happening all by itself? Don’t these worldly doctors believe in the miracle of life! Absurd! Don’t people know that God causes a fertilized egg to develop into a fully formed human - not science? Does the Bible not say that God accomplishes this amazing feat with knitting needles, by His own literal hand? Should we now start teaching “intelligent embryology” in schools everywhere? The godless and naturalistic science of secular embryology that permeates academia is proof of a conspiracy against Biblical truth!

Obviously, I’m being silly. But do you see how ridiculous and counter-productive these tactics really are?

However, the blackballers and ACLU hypocrites should not be let off the hook just because their agenda is so miserably failing in this postmodern culture of ours. We demand academic integrity in each scholastic discipline, and rightfully so.

Integrity? You mean like telling people that you’re making a documentary about X, getting them to say things that you can take out of context, and then actually making a documentary about Y? You mean that kind of integrity? Or what about mischaracterizing science and exploiting the public’s general lack of scientific literacy to take a cheap shot at academia? You mean that kind of integrity?

As Ben Stein’s movie so irrefutably points out, science is the one academic arena receiving a hall pass from such requirements.

Only somebody who has no first-hand knowledge of how science works could make such an uninformed statement. For all of its many faults and institutional imperfections, you will find no higher standards of academic integrity than in the scientific community. Nothing is assumed except that the universe is real and coherent, nothing is taken for granted except for the uniformity of nature. Fraud is not tolerated. Dishonesty is not tolerated. Deception is not tolerated.  Careers are ended over even a minor mishandling of data, or rushing to publish something without the proper checks and balances. Everything in science is checked and rechecked and checked again. Nothing gets published in a reputable journal unless it has been thoroughly vetted by other experts in the field. When mistakes are made, others in the community quickly find them and expose them. Even a careless accidental mistake can ruin your reputation and end your career forever.

And the entire process is completely transparent.  Nothing happens behind closed doors.  Anybody can participate as long as they agree to a few basic rules of professional conduct. And rule number one is this: when we do science, we only observe and comment on the material. For Christians, that simply translates into the rigorous and systematic study of God’s ordinary providence.  That’s it!  Everything else, no matter how true or theologically correct, falls outside of that circle. We can believe what we want both in the laboratory and out, but when it’s time to collect data, formulate hypotheses, and devise experiments to test these ideas, we need only consider material cause and effect. It’s really that simple.

The movie is well made, and does a very fair job in portraying the opponent’s viewpoints. The critics response to the film has been, well, not surprising. But I challenge all people, of all persuasions, to see this movie. I do not have any doubt that the manner in which one interprets truth claims, scientific analysis, and all sorts of metaphysical considerations of these integrated subjects is completely tied in to their worldview. I have no desire to see the worldviews of such angry atheists as Dawkins and Hitchens transition (I guess I should say, I have little hope). And if a public university or tax-funded think tank wants to promulgate their worldview, even at the expense of the others, I suppose there is not much I can do. But when these cowards do such in the name of science, they rob from the term any lasting dignity or relevance.

Again, when people use science to promote their Godless worldview, we need to go after that. Not attack the entire scientific establishment.

See this movie, please. The final scene interview Stein does with Richard Dawkins, in which he devastatingly admits that he has no idea how life began, and that Darwinian evolution can not account for it.

I can’t figure out if this last statement is the result of outright dishonesty or intellectual laziness. It only takes a second to Google “Evolution” or “Darwinism” and see that the theory itself has nothing to do whatsoever with how life began.  Do people really think they’ve scored a point when Dawkins freely admits that he has no idea how life began?  That’s sad.  The truth is, biologists don’t really care how life began. There is no evidence one way or the other, and it has no bearing on the observed relationships between the species. Evolution only attempts to explain the similarities and differences between the species and the patterns observed by paleontologists. The actual (and in my opinion - dead end) study of how life may have began is properly called, “Abiogenesis” and is very controversial.

To fault Darwin for not having an answer to the origin of life is like faulting Newton for not being able to explain where gravity comes from. YOU CAN’T FAULT A THEORY FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING THAT IN NOT INCLUDED IN THE THEORY! The theory of evolution only deals with what happens next, just as Newton’s theories of motion assume gravity already exist.  This last statement clearly demonstrates the root of the problem with reviews like this. Americans in general, and Christians in particular, are so ignorant of basic scientific principles, that they will fall for anything that sounds scientific as long as seems to reinforce their worldview assumptions.

If you are a believer with young or teen children, see this movie. If you are an incredibly rational and academically-minded kind of guy or girl, see this movie. If you know there is no God, and are sure science proves such, see this movie. At the end of the day, few people will change their minds about anything. But at least eyes may be opened to what is really happening out there. It is ugly. And it is not science. You can have faith in that.

The main problem with the film, even though I have not yet seen it, is that rather than elevate the debate to where it needs to be, it only serves to muddy the waters and further divide people along “party” lines. Christians clearly need to address those clear instances where science crosses the naturalistic line and is incorrectly used to promote the worldview of atheism and materialism in the name of science.  But we can do this more effectively without attacking science!  If your doctor claimed that he is treating your physical illness with medicinal remedies because he doesn’t believe in God and the supernatural, would you then reject all of the medical sciences simply because of the necessary ”godless” presuppositions about physiology and anatomy?  After all, the medical sciences simply treat the human body as a mere collection of chemicals.  should we reject their conclusions because their methodology leaves God out of the picture?  OF COURSE NOT! Would you then make a film crying about the materialistic philosophy that permeates the medical sciences? OF COURSE NOT! Would you insist that prayer and faith healing be seen as a legitimate form of medical science, and that they be taught in medical school along side of germ theory? NO WAY!

No thinking Christian would respond to medical science in this way.  They would quickly recognize that the regular patterns of material behavior observed in nature are simply the consequence of God’s ordinary providence, and they do not suggest that the universe operates without any need for a creator who continually sustains and upholds it. To take the understanding that physical problems can be cured with a physical treatment and make the philosophical leap to atheism or materialism is just as irresponsible as suggesting that ID is an alternate form of science! AND THAT IS WHAT WE MUST BE ALWAYS READY AND WILLING TO CHALLENGE!

One final thought: when missionaries prepare to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ into hostile territory, they invest a lot of time and energy learning everything they can about the culture they will be trying to reach.  They learn their languages, their customs, their traditions, their myths, their legends; they try and understanding how they think and what motivates them.  Many times, these ambassadors for Christ will simply live with their target audience, work side by side with them, and serve them for quite a while before attempting to share the Gospel.  This allows them to understand how best to chose their evangelical battles, so that legitimate spiritual obstacles to the Gospel are effectively removed without completely going after their enitre culture.  Over time, after the power of Jesus Christ takes hold, many of the peripheral issues will work themselves out through the faithful study of God’s Word. 

Based on this, I can’t figure out why these same folks, who would go to such great lengths to reach a distant people for Chirst, are content to simply cast stones at the entire community of professional scientists for the transgressions of a vocal and obnoxious minority, all without spending even as much as 1 minmute to Google“evolution” or “common descent” in a good-faith effort to first understand what the theory actually says before going on the offense.  If the scientific community is a culture to be redeemed by the Gospel, we must do better than this.  Having a basic understanding of scientific concepts would enable Christians to target the specific abuses of the scientific establishment in such a way that stays true to both science and the Gospel.  Unfortunately, films like Expelled seem content just to capitalize and exploit this ignorance rather than work to instruct and inform.

I probably will not see the film. But if I ever do, I promise to conduct an actual review — rather than just a review of a review.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 at 12:57 pm and is filed under Random Things. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.