BLOG

Expelled opened last Friday and I watched it. If you care at all about the debate between Darwinism and alternate views of origins, you should watch it too. And take your family: The PG rating is for some brief holocaust scenes and perhaps an incident or two of mild language (such as "hell"). In it, Ben Stein treks the U.S. and Europe interviewing proponents and critics of intelligent design.

The film built a convincing case for the discrimination that has been leveled at ID advocates in universities and science establishments (such as Guillermo Gonzalez, Richard Sternberg, Robert Marks, and others), and contrasted that discrimination perfectly with the freedom of speech we expect to hold sway in American academia. Using vintage footage and shots of the Berlin wall and Hitler's crusade against the Jewish race, Expelled suggests what can happen when Darwinian ideas are applied to society. I was glad to see the film briefly point out the connection Planned Parenthood--and especially its founder, Margaret Sanger--had with Darwinian ethics.

Some critics have attacked the documentary as low-quality and amateurish, probably because it relies heavily on shouldered cameras, close-ups, and snippets of vintage tape. But because Expelled is a documentary, these techniques are forgivable and contribute to an overall style that keeps the story interesting and fast-paced. The only moment I felt a touch bored was during a cartoon clip illustrating how many hundreds of times in a row you'd need to pull a jackpot to match the odds of life arising by Darwinian evolution.

I found Stein genuinely enjoyable to watch, as he questioned his interviewees with a kind of blank, unperturbed stare that often made the other party look nervous. He does a convincing job playing the role of an unconvinced skeptic who is genuinely seeking answers about intelligent design and Darwinism--and because of that Expelled will be influential for those who are still undecided in the debate.

In news outlets and blogs the debate is escalating. The National Center for Science Education, recognizing the impact Expelled could have, has created an entire website to "refute" the content of the film, arguing (for instance) that the discrimination directed at people like Richard Sternberg was self-induced. These guys aren't persecuted, they're just paying for their own sins.

Casey Luskin has posted a 3-part response on the Evolution News & Views blog to skeptic Michael Shermer's anti-Expelled article for Scientific American. On the same blog, Martin Cothran responds to other critics of the documentary. At Jewcy.com, David Klinghoffer delves into the connection between Darwinism and Hitler, and Sahotra Sarkar counters. MSNBC's Cosmic Log posted a list of negative reviews (that is, pro-Darwin reviews) here--I guess in case you're having trouble making up your own mind.

While Florida media has defaulted to asking the public for advice on covering the intelligent design versus evolution controversy in that state, Texas is hesitating to grant certification to the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School for their master's degree in science education. (ICR has recently relocated to Texas from California.) The commissioner of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Raymund Paredes, has been quoted as saying ICR's curriculum "doesn't line up very well with the curriculum available in conventional master of science programs here in Texas. I wanted them to either revise the curriculum or explain why it departed from the norm." I won't go out on a limb and call this challenge against ICR anti-creationist discrimination, but it is pretty suspicious. If anyone knows specifics about how ICR's curriculum "doesn't line up" (beyond challenging party dogma), I'm curious to know. Much as I hate to link you to such an anti-ID site as the NCSE, they have a good overview of this situation.

With all the Darwinism that creationists have to deal with these days, I wish they had could deal better with one other. At least two major disputes between creationists have been in the news in the past year. One was the ongoing tussle between AIG-U.S. and Australia's CMI, and the other, in the news this week, involves a 7-year dispute between creationist paleontologists over a particularly valuable Allosaur fossil. Tomorrow, Joe Taylor of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Texas will be auctioning off a large mastodon skull (bids start at $120,000) to help pay off $130,000 in damages a court has ordered him to pay for violating a written agreement made with the other parties to the Allosaur discovery.

As in many such cases, there are layers and layers to both of these disputes, which would ultimately be unprofitable to get into here. Conflict of some sort is inevitable, even among Christians. It would be presumptuous for me to make a judgment about who is right or wrong in these situations, but according to the Bible, someone in the church is qualified to arbitrate. Why bring everything into the news by allowing it to evolve into a lawsuit? Why discourage a generation of young people who might otherwise be interested in pursuing creation science work themselves? 1 Corinthians says, "The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already."

As a fellow creationist--one who is completely supportive of the missions of all groups involved--without any motive beyond love and a desire to see God's name respected, I can say this: We should have had the maturity to handle this conflict years before the secular courts became necessary. I am ashamed, not that we have conflict, but that it seems no one can resolve it.

Outside Protestantism: Pope Benedict XVI cancels a speech after his scheduled visit to La Sapienza university in Rome is protested by faculty and students. But is this really about the pope's comments on Galileo, or about anti-creationism?

If environmentalists really want to raise a generation of ecology-conscious citizens, they should encourage kids to spend time with their moms. A new study says that housewives are more likely to recycle and be "ecologically aware" than university students.

Maybe because housewives spend so much time and effort ensuring their homes run efficiently and responsibly, they're more willing to take the extra steps to conserve and avoid waste. Whatever the reason, environmentalism had better not overlook the average home if it wants to cut out excess.

Remember Al Gore's $30,000 utility bill? Hmm, maybe he just needs to take a good Home Ec. course. . .

Just another example of why you shouldn't believe what you read in forwarded emails. For more doctored photos, and to see how this one was made, go here.

In spite of hoaxes like the one above, the Bible and other ancient texts do indicate that races of giants once lived on the earth, albeit not as large as what is falsely portrayed above. If you find that hard to believe, just take a look at these two fellows. 

We have followers in Switzerland, as this Swiss news source explains. Apparently they're having a controversy over school textbooks like just about everyone else. (Not to be confused with Sweden's ban on creationism)

Speaking of bans, there has been some effort recently by school teachers to stop kids from using Wikipedia as a source for their assignments. Isn't that cruel?

Last week news broke concerning a kerfuffle over the Texas Education Agency and the resignation of the state's director of science curriculum, Chris Comer. Comer says she was pressured to resign as a result of a memo she sent out announcing a presentation by Barbara Forrest, a prominent opponent of intelligent design theory. In released documents agency officials said,

"Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral."

I think we can expect Texas to come under fire soon from the anti-ID crowd over this one.

Also: The hexagonal stones of the Giant's Causeway in Ireland are being defended by creationists as the result of Noah's flood. AIG has an old article by geologist Tas Walker explaining a flood interpretation of the causeway.

Hanna Rosin, author of "God's Harvard," has written a four-page article about the young earth creationist movement for the New York Times. Her tone is of course skeptical, or even beyond skeptical to sweetly tolerant, and she gives creationists plenty of room to defend themselves while at the same time portraying them as conflicted and schizophrenic. I won't blame her, but at the same time doesn't it imply that our theories aren't as valid as those of secularist scientists, whose "conflictedness" is the very wax that moves science forward? If scientists were in agreement on everything 50 years ago, where would we be today?

The history of science is littered with ideas that got thrown out--and the fact that the YEC and ID movements are growing, not fading, is evidence of their merit and the growing problems of neo-Darwinism and uniformitarian thinking.

Of course, even if new evidence came to light virtually proving creationism, many would continue to disbelieve, simply because they've accepted the Bible to be false a priori. Secular geologists might one day be convinced to believe in a global flood, for example, but it's unlikely they'd believe in Noah without a change of heart. . . 

Paul Davies also has a piece in the Times, an Op-Ed called "Taking Science on Faith," in which he explains scientists need as much faith as the devout:

And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe.

. . . .

[T]he laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Finally, Robin Finn writes about what might turn into another Dover-style trial in New York. One Robert Harrison has been teaching a night class on creation science at a Northpoint school district adult learning center. The New York Civil Liberties Union is threatening the school district with litigation. A law firm representing the district says the class falls under free speech protection.

A new book is coming out from William Dembski and Jonathan Wells called The Design of Life. It's supposed to provide a good overview of intelligent design to general audiences. It's available to pre-order for a price a bit below Amazon here.

The Ledger, a Florida paper, reports on the Polk County school board. The board is debating whether they support new science standards that would specifically include the teaching of "evolution," instead of the current teaching of "biological change over time." Four out of seven of the board members say they'd support teaching ID alongside evolution. More coverage from The Ledger here, here, and here.

Some friends sent me a couple interesting links this week: One is of an AP story about a fossilized 8-foot-long "bug," that is, a sea scorpion, found in Germany. (Well, a least a claw was found--the rest of the creature's size is inferred. Some think high oxygen concentrations once caused bugs to grow to their enormous sizes.) The second link is to a page from the Northwest Creation Network about global flood theories the world over. In case you aren't aware, it's well known that nearly every culture in the world has a flood theory that varies on the biblical account. The implication is that all originated from a true historical event, as I believe.

Lastly, although I'm not sure when it was first published, here's some good stuff from Duane Gish highlighting the severe problems facing an evolutionary origin of life.

Without further ado, follows here a hodgepodge of responses to this week's anti-ID NOVA program, "Judgment Day":

Mark Looy of Answers in Genesis has the best detailed review of the program I've seen so far. He says AIG was "disappointed" by PBS and NOVA. David DeWitt also has a review up on AIG's site.

The National Center for Science Education has a page of links to writers who liked the production and generally dislike ID, and further, assures us the docudrama was accurate.

The Discovery Institute's blog says, no, it wasn't, and provides 10 instances of false claims or inaccuracies.  For his part, anti-theist and ultra-Darwinist PZ Myers says the DI's points aren't worth refuting.

Greg Anrig, Jr. calls the NOVA production "superb" and says it generally parallels what he views as "lame-brained agenda items of the well-financed, relentless conservative movement."

John Daly thinks ID advocates are "unduly vain" for believing that unknown causes should be attributed to a designer.

Lawrence Seldon says the NOVA producers and many of those in featured in the documentary just don't understand intelligent design, and has some criticism for the critics of the former Dover school board.

(Suprise coming) Michael Lollar at commercialappeal.com writes that some PBS affiliates didn't air the NOVA special--at least not on Tuesday--because of worries about the controversial nature of the program.

 O'Leary has posted a transcript of an interview with Phillip Johnson about the Dover trial and NOVA.

On another note: My current favorite talk show host, Michael Medved, has become a Discovery Institute fellow.