First of all, I wish a happy Father’s Day to all those good dads out there. I’m missing mine quite a bit today, and I feel especially for all those who have lost their fathers. My Dad’s birthday is coming on up Tuesday, too, so I’m feeling his absence rather acutely at the moment.
A week or so ago, I posted a Pew Research Center quiz about science knowledge on Facebook. I took it and got 12 out of 12 questions right (same for Ken), but of course if I hadn’t, I would have had to turn in my scientist card.
Several of my friend took the quiz, and all of those who commented got either 11 or 12 answers right. I understand that that is far from an accurate assessment of how all my friends did; perhaps some took it and chose not to comment or share their score. As one friend pointed out, the questions didn’t seem to be difficult, but that was kind of the point. It was designed to test for familiarity and knowledge of basic scientific concepts. What was astounding to me is that if you got 11 of 12 right, you did better than 90% of those Americans who took the quiz.
Although I also lament a general lack of knowledge about art, literature, and grammar, I find a lack of knowledge about science especially disturbing. In our current culture of embracing inadequacy and thinking that a good education somehow equates to “elitism,” I fear that we will soon fall behind the rest of the world in innovation and technology. What am I talking about? It’s already happening. Other countries are embracing alternative fuel sources, investing in their development, and pumping money into things like high speed rail. We are dropping the ball.
It’s not just that we need those with higher educations to do research and find innovative solutions. We need to train people for high-skilled manufacturing jobs, because there is an increasing gap between jobs that require little to no skill and those that require extended training. An effort to increase vocational tech colleges would help in this regard, and highly skilled manufacturing jobs are a crucial part of the success of a country like Germany. We could learn much from them.
I’ve been accused in the past of being some sort of know-it-all when it comes to science. (Not that the source of such ignorance and shortsightedness was credible.) I’m the first to admit that there is much out there that I know little to nothing about. I have a good working knowledge of microbiology, and a passable knowledge of other laboratory and medical disciplines, but don’t bother asking me about string theory or quantum physics! However, ridiculing others for their knowledge, for obtaining a good education, and for working for many years in a field that is there to help a patient get better seems to me to be the height of stupidity and pettiness. Those throat cultures you keep having your doctor run on your kid don’t just read themselves, you know!
Anyway, I don’t know what is going on with our country right now that it seems that ignorance is seen as some sort of virtue, or that a lack of knowledge somehow makes you a “regular person.” I don’t know about you, but if I ever have to have to have brain surgery, I don’t want my neurosurgeon being a “regular person.” I want one smart son of a bitch drilling into my skull. Michele Bachmann recently said that she thinks intelligent design should be taught in schools. She thinks all science should be put on the table and then let the students decide. No, you idiot. Intelligent design is NOT SCIENCE. It’s a religious belief, and science is not taught by raising your hands and voting on it. If we want to attempt to make a comeback and be globally competitive when it comes to science, we need to tell ignorant assholes like Bachmann to at least attempt to understand something about science. I know that’s not possible, but those of us that get it can make sure that such stupidity doesn’t pervade our education system.
I think I have smart friends. Our goal should be that everyone understands the basic principles of science, not just some of us.
Before I get into that, I hope you’ll send positive thoughts to my dear Cousin Shane. His awesome Dad, John, passed away yesterday. You all know that I love Shane like a brother, and it pains me to see him hurting. John loved road trips, cars, and Route 66. I wish him pleasant travels. Be careful on the highway out there. (One of his favorite things to say to Shane.)
In the interest of not letting myself fall back into the abyss of sadness, I will try to keep my mind occupied by writing a few things about the documentary I watched yesterday afternoon before I got Shane’s phone call. My friend Darren recommended it to me, and I can tell you that it is well worth watching.
“Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” was a Nova episode on PBS. It deals with the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial in 2005 in which concerned citizens brought suit against the school district for trying to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum. (The link is the Wiki article, which is pretty good and jibes with what I saw in the documentary.) I recall reading and hearing about this, but didn’t pay close attention at the time. I suppose I probably felt that it was a no-brainer, not realizing how much sway the equal-timers had upon our school districts.
To sum up: a couple of fundamentalist Christian school board members decided that teaching evolution in science class wasn’t giving the students the full picture. When their proposal of an additional textbook promoting intelligent design was rejected, they took matters into their own hands and secretly purchased the textbook from the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank that advocates for the teaching of intelligent design (AKA creationism) in our high schools. A battle of wills ensued, in which the science teachers refused to add ID to the curriculum, the superintendent required that they read a statement stating that evolution was “only a theory” that had significant gaps, and that some see intelligent design as an alternative possibility; the teachers refused to read the statement, so the assistant superintendent came into their classrooms and read it to the students.
As concerned parents got wind of this from their kids, one of them called the ACLU, and we were off to the races! This was a battle that had continued to brew after the Scopes trial of 1925, with many people refusing to accept the exclusion of creationism from the science classroom. (Eight decades, America? Really? Really?!) There was no jury here; it was heard by district court Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative appointed by George W. Bush, and his decision would be the final one on the case.
The plaintiffs presented a stellar group of witnesses, several scientists explaining the basic premises behind evolution and how scientific experimentation has supported the premise. Not only did they explain the science behind it, they explained how scientific inquiry itself works. In even more devastating testimony, they demonstrated that the ID textbook that had been sent by an “anonymous donor” to the science classrooms came from the Discovery Institute, and they showed that earlier drafts of the book had used the word “creationism,” which was altered in subsequent versions to read “intelligent design.” In other words, the concept was still the same--a religious one--and all they had done was change the phrasing. In yet more devastating testimony, they provided statements from a conservative advocate saying that the problem with the intelligent design movement was that they had no theory; if they were going to promote ID as an alternative to evolution, they had to come up with one.
In the most devastating testimony of all, they showed one of the fundamentalist school board members stating on camera that “creationism” needed to be taught alongside evolution, which showed that there was clear religious promotion there. Worse, they caught both of the fundamentalist school board members perjuring themselves when they said they didn’t know who they “anonymous donors” were; they had orchestrated the entire thing, and one of the board members’ fathers had written the check.
The defense countered with experts of their own, but their arguments were meticulously destroyed by the lawyers for the plaintiffs. The concept of “irreducible complexity” (which posits that there are some biological systems that are so complex that there is no function if one part is missing...the example of bacterial flagella was used, and was refuted) was discussed and proven wrong; one witness’s statements that no scientist has bothered to research or write about the complexity of our immune system was discounted in a very graphic way when he was handed numerous papers and a stack of textbooks that dealt with exactly that subject matter. The dismantling of every argument put forth about why ID is a legitimate scientific endeavor was a beautiful thing to see.
Judge Jones took some time to deliberate the case, and found that ID was not a scientific theory, and was, in fact, just another name for creationism. As a religious concept, it has no place in the science classroom. He also found that the two school board members violated the First Amendment in the Constitution by promoting a religion in the classroom. He also noted that the board members who had perpetrated this ID promotion because of their religion seemed to have no qualms about repeatedly committing perjury.
The whole documentary was excellent (if you have a couple of hours, and want to see more about the arguments put forth, I really recommend it), but there were a couple of things that I found of particular note. The witnesses for the plaintiff took particular pains to address the usual complaint of creationists that “evolution is just a theory.” (I’ve encountered that argument often, myself.) A quote from “The Princess Bride” is applicable here. Theory...“I do not think it means what you think it means.” A scientific theory is not an immutable fact; it is a body of thought that maintains, like all science does, that there may be modifications as more is discovered. Evolution is an ongoing investigation. Nothing has appeared to refute its claims, but more and more evidence is being found that confirms it. The scientists at the trial pointed out that the advent of molecular techniques, some of the most sophisticated tests to date that can provide incredibly detailed information, have only confirmed the theory of common ancestry. If anything were to disprove evolution, it would be looking at encoded information on a genetic level. Instead, we are finding incredible similarities between our own genetic code and that of other hominids, especially chimpanzees.
Speaking of that, another thing that creationists like to toss out is “I don’t know about you, but I didn’t descend from no ape!” Not only is that grammatically incorrect, it shows a complete ignorance about the entire concept. I shouldn’t have to say this, but I suppose I will: evolution is not a straight stick poking up out of the ground, with one-celled organisms at the base and us brilliant humans (ha) at the top. It is a tree with many branches. There have been many twists and turns along the way, with offshoots happening constantly over the millennia. Genetic mapping continues to show the similarities and where divergence took place.
After his decision, Judge Jones was accused by conservative groups of being an “activist judge.” Remember, he was appointed by GW Bush. He and his family received death threats, and one of the fundamentalist school board members said the judge is a “jackass.” Doesn’t that old-timey religion just make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
Finally, the documentary showed a local pastor who said that he was “personally offended” that the kids were being “indoctrinated” with evolution, without hearing alternative viewpoints. If you want your kids to hear alternative viewpoints, go ahead and teach them that at home. Your alternative viewpoint is not a valid scientific theory. It is based on your religious beliefs, and as such, has no place in the science classroom. As for you being “personally offended”...cry me a river, dude. The Constitution guarantees us all certain rights. The right to not be offended isn’t one of them. Get over it, and keep your religion out of my science.
People told me that it was a waste of time and that it was incredibly bad. But I had to see for myself. I just had to watch Ben Stein's paean to intelligent design and anti-Darwin documentary, "Expelled."
(I find it interesting--and I do recognize this in me--that I am so contrary in this regard. If someone tells me that I "have to" see a movie or "have to" read a particular book, I will go out of my way to make sure that I don't see it or read it. Apparently, the converse is true. Despite being REPEATEDLY WARNED, I just had to watch a movie that everyone said was not worth my time. But don't try reverse psychology on me. I can spot it!)
I was stunned at its badness. I'm one of those types who love bad movies for their sheer hilarity, and I suppose that if I got drunk and watched this with a like-minded individual who got drunk with me, and we could make fun of it a la Mystery Science Theater 3000, it would be a lot of fun. But watching it for the sake of critiquing it, and looking at it with a serious eye...wow. Really, really bad. I took a couple of pages of notes. Aren't you thrilled?
The premise is that scientists are censured and penalized, even to the point of being fired, if they dare to raise the specter of intelligent design in classrooms or in research facilities. Stein interviews various professors and scientists who claim that they were ousted by their employers because of their views on intelligent design. My first thought? There was more to the story there. In subsequent reading, there was indeed more to the story, with one researcher not even being a true employee, and other issues like publishing papers and assisting graduate students involved. It's never black and white, and shame on Stein for trying to portray these individuals' cases in this way.
Throughout the movie, Stein asks horribly leading questions; it's obvious that he is not out to find true or honest answers, but merely to prove his own point. I despise that sort of interview style, and Stein employs it throughout the movie.
A couple of choice quotes. First, Stein visits a seminary in Texas and hears this from a guy he talks to (I didn't catch the guy's name, and I'm not sure he even gave it):
If you look at the history of science, people often have a good idea and then they just decide to run with it. They say, "We're gonna apply this everywhere," so Darwin takes his idea of natural selection and says, "I'm gonna explain ALL of life with it."
No. No no no. If you have a "good idea" in science, that is called a hypothesis. You don't just apply a hypothesis everywhere and have that accepted and acceptable. You test, you experiment, you go through endless studies and answer questions, discard certain avenues and explore others. Your hypothesis and lab results are perused endlessly by your peers, and if your logic and data is faulty, your hypothesis is pretty much blown out of the water. You can readjust based on what you've learned in your experiments, and others may offer suggestions for a new path to pursue. Every hypothesis is subject to rigid scrutiny and testing; you don't just get a "good idea" and get to "run with it." That is such a stupid statement.
Stein seems to want definitive answers as to how life began. One of the people he interviews says derisively, "Darwin didn't know." No one knows! There are many hypotheses, and scientists are beginning to get a pretty good idea of the conditions required in order for life to begin; I have seen studies which show that proteins can be assembled via heat, pressure, and various other conditions. Research is ongoing. This is the way of science. There is always more to learn.
Stein interviews Alister McGrath, a theologist and author of The Dawkins Delusion?, which is apparently a response to Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. McGrath ridicules science:
Describing how something happened scientifically somehow explains it away. It doesn't. But the questions of purpose, intentionality, the question "why" still remain there on the table.
The purpose of science is not to answer "why." You can ponder that to your heart's content, Alister. The purpose of science is to answer "how." We do not see purpose or intentionality in why organisms behave the way they do, other than an urge to survive, whether rudimentary or highly developed.
Stein interviews another guy (I didn't catch his name) who calls Richard Dawkins a "reptile." My main impression of the interviewee was of a supercilious toad, so I suppose that is fitting. Seriously, that guy was a pompous ass.
I was extremely put off by the style of the documentary, which included plenty of vintage newsreel footage of Nazis, Soviets, marches in Red Square, and on and on. I felt like I was being hit over the head with a sledgehammer. Yeah, I get it...you think evolutionary science is oppressive and exclusionary. Stein mentions a 1953 experiment and ridicules it as indicative of the foibles of science. Hello? We've managed to make some progress in the past five decades! He mentions the panspermia theory, in which some believe that life was seeded on earth by extraterrestrial life. Although most will concede that this is entirely possible, since meteors hit the earth not infrequently, most will also say that there is no definitive evidence of such a thing. As with all of science, if any evidence shows up, it will be evaluated, examined, and duly and rigorously tested before it is accepted as fact.
Finally, like an anti-Vanessa Williams, I went and saved the worst for last. (I also didn't win the Miss America title, get the boot because of "candid" photos with another woman, and go on to a lucrative singing and acting career...so I guess I really AM the Bizarro World Vanessa.) Stein has the nerve to equate "Darwinism" with...get this...HITLER. And the Nazis, and their Final Solution. I am not kidding. In fact, he originally wanted to title this documentary "From Darwin to Hitler."
He builds a tenuous connection between eugenics, Margaret Sanger, and today's Planned Parenthood, somehow believing that all of these things were a result of Darwin's theory of natural selection, and stating that Darwinism led to Hitler's rise to power and mass genocide of Jews and others deemed unworthy of life. He talks to a reporter who states that Darwinism is a devaluing of human life, and Stein states, "Evil can sometimes be rationalized as science." Gee, Ben, as a speech writer for Richard Nixon, I suppose that you also could say, from experience, that evil can sometimes be rationalized as politics!
Stein saves an interview with heavy hitter Richard Dawkins for last. He asks Dawkins ridiculous questions like trying to get him to put a number on the possibility of the non-existence of God--95%? 99%?--and asks him if he believes in any other gods, like Hindu gods. It was laughable, and even Dawkins laughed and said, "Why on earth you you ask me that question?" Dawkins finally says, "I believe it is a liberating thing to free yourself from primitive superstition."
He ends his movie with footage of Reagan speaking at the Brandenburg Gate, exhorting Gorbachev to tear down the wall; Stein seems to equate his assertion that anyone who mentions intelligent design is fired and shut out of academic circles with the Berlin Wall. He certainly put plenty of footage of the Wall in this documentary.
What I found most appalling was his attempt to connect Darwinism with the Nazis and the Holocaust. He visits Dachau, and as a Jew, is obviously moved by the visit; anyone would and should be. However, his efforts to connect Darwin's theory to Hitler and the Nazis is just beyond stupid...it is incredibly manipulative, and he is using his religion in a clumsy and cynical attempt to portray evolution as the cause of the Holocaust! No lie! That is what he attempted to do here, and I could not believe my eyes or ears!
But wait...he backs off. Sort of.
I know that Darwinism does not automatically equate to Nazism; but if Darwinism inspired and justified such horrific events in the past, could it be used to rationalize similar initiatives today?
Un-freaking-believable. This is what demagogues like Glenn Beck do: throw out some crazy statement, then backpedal and say, "Now I'm not saying this is the case!" Stein spends quite some time in the movie trying to make the connection between Darwinism and eugenics and the Nazis' Final Solution...and he ends by saying that he knows one doesn't equate to the other. Absolutely shameful, and shameless.
Shame on you, Ben Stein. You are not a stupid man, but your documentary is unbelievably stupid. Sites have already sprung up that refute the claims made in Expelled. I think this is one that I can honestly call a cinematic turd.
If you want to watch Expelled, there you go. I don't recommend it unless you do it for morbid curiosity. It is so very, very bad. If you want to read a much better (and more scathing) review than mine, here is what Roger Ebert had to say about Expelled. Finally, here is a short video to give you an idea of just how intellectually dishonest this movie is. BAD, BAD MOVIE. Incredibly bad.
First of all, I wish a happy Father’s Day to all those good dads out there. I’m missing mine quite a bit today, and I feel especially for all those who have lost their fathers. My Dad’s birthday is coming on up Tuesday, too, so I’m feeling his absence rather acutely at the moment. 
I’ve been accused in the past of being some sort of know-it-all when it comes to science. (Not that the source of such ignorance and shortsightedness was credible.) I’m the first to admit that there is much out there that I know little to nothing about. I have a good working knowledge of microbiology, and a passable knowledge of other laboratory and medical disciplines, but don’t bother asking me about string theory or quantum physics! However, ridiculing others for their knowledge, for obtaining a good education, and for working for many years in a field that is there to help a patient get better seems to me to be the height of stupidity and pettiness. Those throat cultures you keep having your doctor run on your kid don’t just read themselves, you know! 
