Ben Stein's "Intelligent" Gamble
by Motte Brown on 08/30/2007 at 4:06 PM
Ben Stein is best known for his portrayal as the monotone economics teacher from the popular '80s movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off. You remember, "Bueller." (long pause) "Bueller." (long pause) "Bueller." But he also has a pretty impressive academic resume.
He graduated from Columbia University with honors and was elected valedictorian of Yale Law School by his classmates. He's worked as a poverty lawyer, a trial lawyer and a university adjunct at three prominent universities. Stein also served as Richard Nixon's attorney and as a speechwriter for both Nixon and Gerald Ford.
He's done a lot of other stuff too. But his credentials won't mean a hill of beans come this February. That's when he'll be maligned, mocked and generally mistreated by the mainstream media, ivory tower elitists, scientists, atheists, Darwinists, and maybe even a few politicians.
In February 2008, Ben Stein will release the documentary film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" about how "educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired -– for the 'crime' of merely believing that there might be evidence of 'design' in nature." Beliefnet.com describes it as an "unabashedly Michael-Moore-style, in-your-face documentary" with "liberals on the receiving end" for a change.
Liberals shouldn't worry though. They have at the their disposal the mainstream media, ivory tower elitists, scientists, atheists, Darwinists, and maybe even a few politicians who'll all come to their defense.
All Ben Stein will have is the Truth. That and maybe Fox News.
1. Chris Krycho said the following at 5:20 PM on Aug 30:
Interesting... I'll look forward to this.
You're about to get harshly critiqued, by the way, for the partisan and inflammatory tone of this post. *smiles pleasantly*
2. Fred said the following at 6:33 PM on Aug 30:
I wonder if it'll be intelligent design or Fox that cops it first.
3. e said the following at 6:55 PM on Aug 30:
It is refreshing to see that even Motte understands that the words 'truth' and 'FOX News' do not belong in the same sentence. :)
4. Alex C. said the following at 7:19 PM on Aug 30:
This sounds interesting. Ben Stein is cool.
I've always wondered but what is an "ivory tower elitist"? I always think of "The Neverending Story" when I hear that term.
5. Chris said the following at 7:20 PM on Aug 30:
I, for one, support these efforts. The more people know about the truth, the more they'll learn that His Noodliness is the designer in ID.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. The minute you bring God/Designer/Creator into scientific inquiry, you give everyone the chance to argue that science proves their God is the real God. And that devalues science to mere alchemy and witch-doctor potions.
6. Leah said the following at 8:39 PM on Aug 30:
Umm... though I agree with the post, it has rather snide and inflammatory remarks in it... I agree with Chris Krycho.
7. Peter said the following at 9:30 PM on Aug 30:
I hope Christians are careful to embrace this...not because of the message, but because of the messenger. It seems like so many evangelicals today like to align themselves with an identifiable figure rather than the word.
8. JB said the following at 10:13 PM on Aug 30:
You know, if Ben Stein's impressive credentials included something about biology, geology, or even the philosophy of science, then they would be relevant. As it is, his credentials don't really bear on the subject at hand. I think I'll be going with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community on this one.
9. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 11:13 PM on Aug 30:
Hey Motte, what do you think of the news about Senator Craig?
This man is probably more alone than Stein will be. Buchanan writes a good reflection on this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/the_friends_of_larry_craig.html
10. Fred said the following at 12:06 AM on Aug 31:
And the winner by a good 25 minutes is Fox! Congratulations 'e'.
11. Laur said the following at 1:16 AM on Aug 31:
and us! he'll have us!! (right?)
12. David at free Christian resources said the following at 2:10 AM on Aug 31:
I look forward to the ensuing debate! I am sure he will get slaughtered in the main stream press but I guess he is expecting this.
Anything that gets people to think is fantastic - it is easy in our society to assume that evolution is a proven fact. This is a huge stumbling block to many people thinking there is even a God.
13. Canadian Boy said the following at 6:45 AM on Aug 31:
I have my doubts that he'll get attacked by "mainstream media, ivory tower elitists, scientists, atheists, Darwinists, and maybe even a few politicians" as badly as you suppose, Motte. I think he's going to get respect. There's no reason why he shouldn't, even when dealing with this subject.
Looks like a cool documentary. Definitely gonna see it.
14. Matthew said the following at 7:12 AM on Aug 31:
Woe is us! The "mainstream media, ivory tower elitists, scientists, atheists, Darwinists, and maybe even a few politicians" are all going to gang up on us again.
Seriously, though... evangelical Christians vastly outnumber almost all of those groups in America, thus, they consider themselves ganged up on and oppressed (how would you feel if an atheist was President, making lots of decisions that you disagreed with?) An attitude of pithy self-pity with long lists of our enemies isn't going to move the discussion in any helpful direction.
15. kman said the following at 7:23 AM on Aug 31:
"educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the 'crime' of merely believing that there might be evidence of 'design' in nature."
Looks like the focus will be the treatment of those who believe there "might" be evidence of design. For organizations that say they promote diversity, tolerance, open inquiry etc... they do seem to be intolerant to differing views. Sounds like this is the main thrust of the documentary not debating the issues of origins.
16. Raj Sharma said the following at 7:52 AM on Aug 31:
David wrote " I am sure he will get slaughtered in the main stream press but I guess he is expecting this."
Agreed, in addition, I will bet ya anything that he gets slaughtered on this blog. This is based upon the LARGE number of kooky comments I see here. A consensus on abortion is lacking on this blog. So imagine what they would do to Ben Stein.
17. Christina said the following at 7:58 AM on Aug 31:
If you check out the website for the movie, Ben has a blog where some scientists have commented some pretty mean things. I think he's getting a lot of crap from people who misunderstand the movie. I know he probably is in the "creationist" boat, but at this point in time the documentary is about people getting shunned from the scientific world for merely raising questions (doing their job).
Who knows where the actual film will go, but this is how the movie is being publicized. And I could be wrong, but Ben hasn't yet taken a public stance on creationism vs. darwinism.
18. Carrie said the following at 8:38 AM on Aug 31:
JB said
" As it is, his credentials don't really bear on the subject at hand."
And Michael Moore is an expert in health care? What are Al Gore's credentials about environmentalism??
The whole secular argument on evolution is "Well, if you have half of a brain you're not going to believe that we actually came from dust, are you???"
The point is, Ben Stein has more brains than most liberal evolutionists. Through all of his degrees and accomplishments he has proved that he is a man who is not rash and brazen, but rather a man who is pensive and pretty darn intelligent.
So, the counter-argument to secular evolutionists is "Well, actually, if you think about it, you can't believe that all of this just happened, can you???"
Its all about slowing down and connecting the dots.
19. Katie said the following at 9:23 AM on Aug 31:
Just because Michael Moore has no real credentials in health care and Al Gore has no credentials in environmental science is no reason for Ben Stein to get a pass for having no real background in biological sciences. That is like saying, "Yes, we get a pass for having lax standards! After all, the OTHER guys are doing it too." :)
Don't get me wrong, although I haven't seen the movie yet, I'm pretty sure I will agree with most of the information presented in it. But it concerns me a bit at the excitment of ID proponents over having their own "Michael Moore" figure. Michael Moore has changed no one's mind, at least that I'm aware of. He has been nothing more than a champion to those who already agreed with him and target practice for those who didn't. It won't give the ID movement any credibility for having their own vitriolic, "in-your-face" character.
20. BB said the following at 9:38 AM on Aug 31:
There is a 100% correlation between ice cream sales and crime rates however I doubt many would say increased sales causes more crime (heat seems to be a more likely cause). Yes biology shows similarities between certain genetic traits but that doesn't mean we did what is physically impossible, evolve by chance.
The difference between the laws of physics and the theory of evolution is that the laws have been proved both by flawed observation and by mathematical calculations. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, one based on limited observation at that. I'm not saying it isn't possible because I wasn't there however without God, nothing is possible. That's a theory that physics can support (conservation of energy, and law of entropy say systems go towards disorder unless there is an outside source exerting energy and there is no new energy therefore it had to come from some where... I say it came from God's voice).
21. P&P said the following at 10:10 AM on Aug 31:
Raj wrote:
"This is based upon the LARGE number of kooky comments I see here. A consensus on abortion is lacking on this blog. So imagine what they would do to Ben Stein."
It's the lack of consensus that makes this blog interesting. Motte even admitted that he made a provocative remark about homosexuals and pedophiles to spark discussion. Sure I'm different from most other posters here and more than a few of my comments have been blocked (my money's on Ted being the culprit) but you need to examine all sided of an issue before you decide what's the Truth.
Oh, and if you want to talk about design, do it in a philosophy class, but please don't talk about it in science class unless you have hard proof to back it up.
I always liked his game show "Win Ben Stein's Money," as the questions were more intelligent than the average game show. I also adore the work he's done on behalf of promoting retirement saving. It's a pity that he's decided to take this stance on science.
22. John said the following at 10:21 AM on Aug 31:
I suppose I support Ben Stein's efforts to preach intelligent design, if it somehow makes people more open to the Gospel message.
What we have to keep in mind is that ID is not the Gospel. You can believe in ID and still be lost in sin. In fact, the devil would probably be very happy if Christians stuck with trying to convert the world to an ID philosophy. The Gospel of Christ is another matter altogether (although it includes a belief in the Creator God), and only it can save us.
23. Raj Sharma said the following at 10:36 AM on Aug 31:
All sides of an issue?????????
Some issues are black & white!!!!
24. Carrie said the following at 10:40 AM on Aug 31:
Katie, I agree. Perhaps I was judging JB too harshly. I just hope that the people that feel the way JB feels about Ben Stein's credentials feel the same way about Michael Moore and Al Gore's credentials.
However, I do think that one can present an intelligent discussion on logic without being a scientist. And, really, that's what the creation/evolution debate comes down to -- logic and order. One need not be a scientist to see that there is logic and order to "creation".
25. EJ said the following at 10:45 AM on Aug 31:
P&P wrote:
"Oh, and if you want to talk about design, do it in a philosophy class, but please don't talk about it in science class unless you have hard proof to back it up."
I would have to disagree with this statement. I am currently an engineering and science student. When it gets right down to it, what is evidence in science? Even though science prides itself on the defintion, and we present "evidence" you eventually learn that all we know doesn't always hold true. Even the "theories" we use fall apart at some point (think deep space and Einstein, super-cooled fluids, or heat transfer and critical temperature--things that are all considered "science"). I do calculations all day, in which we must constantly make modifications. Formulas and situations change. A lot of people who don't deal with science or math constantly think they are rock-solid, when really they are as mobile as everything else, only we occasionally use numbers to back things up once in awhile.
Science is investigative more than anything else. That includes investigating every possible option, until we can prove it doesn't exisit. In engineering, we are paid to investigate all ideas. In the real world, when we fail to find the best method, it costs the company money. We are paid to be creative, come up with innovative and new ideas, and find something cost-effective. Since science is truly investigative, we've got to look at the option of ID.
As far as the video goes, I am interested in seeing it and see how it turns out. :D
26. Canadian Boy said the following at 10:53 AM on Aug 31:
"All sides of an issue?????????
Some issues are black & white!!!!"
This ain't one of 'em.
27. Motte said the following at 11:03 AM on Aug 31:
Christina:
Your post about the comments on the movie's blog is insightful. The vitriol I saw there that gave me the angle for my post.
Jonathan from Canada:
First of all, I love the name, "Jonathan from Canada." I would refer to myself as "Motte from the United States" but it just doesn't have the same ring to it. =)
Thanks for the link to the Larry Craig article. I thought it was pretty fair to Craig. It's sad because it does look like he's in the grip of some deviant sexual sin.
28. Joe said the following at 12:21 PM on Aug 31:
"You know, if Ben Stein's impressive credentials included something about biology, geology, or even the philosophy of science, then they would be relevant."
For those that might not be familiar with Ben Stein, I have seen him at length in a number of interviews, as well as on the many, many episodes of Win Ben Stein's Money that I have seen. The long and short of that show was, in essence, that Ben Stein put up his own money against any challengers on an incredibly broad series of trivia questions. He very rarely lost. The man is unbelievably smart, and unbelievably well-informed about nearly every area imaginable. I would be willing to bet that, especially after preparing for this documentary, he is as well or better educated than the average scientist on the relevant issues.
29. Raj Sharma said the following at 12:35 PM on Aug 31:
The Canadian has made my original point.
Evolution/Creationism is a grey matter to you and I don't even know what to say about that.
30. Ted Slater said the following at 12:43 PM on Aug 31:
Joe -- I concur. You don't need a "degree" to be informed about something. And just because you have a degree doesn't mean you are an expert in that area.
"Appeal to authority" is, after all, one of the classic logical fallacies....
31. k. said the following at 3:39 PM on Aug 31:
I'll be curious to see this. Ben Stein's a smart guy!
Incidentally, I'm wondering if Motte ever manages to get through a day without venting about something.
And Raj Sharma, there's room for Christians to differ on the merits (or otherwise) of intelligent design.
32. JB said the following at 7:49 PM on Aug 31:
Ted,
Motte was the one who appealed to Ben's Stein's authority in the original post. I was just pointing out that it wasn't a particularly relevant appeal.
33. Chris said the following at 9:02 PM on Aug 31:
EJ writes:
"Science is investigative more than anything else. That includes investigating every possible option, until we can prove it doesn't exisit."
Um, no. Science is based on upon building theories and models (based on observations, experiments, and so forth) to describe the universe we live in. Using your description, I could claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the real creator and until you and prove His Noodliness doesn't exist, it's a valid "theory" along with ID. Go ahead, scientifically prove the FSM doesn't exist.
True, those theories and models do not always adequately or completely describe phenomena we see. That's why new ones come along. Ones that better explain natural phenomena will eventually win out. (Just look at models of the atom to see an example.) However, we don't accept all theories that haven't been proven false. We'd waste all our time proving things wrong!
A key component of these theories and models, however, is that they can somehow be tested. And that is where ID fails (along with falsifiability). One cannot conduct an experiment or make an observation showing an intelligent designer exists. Yes, we've heard the arguments about complexity and specificity (sp?), but if you examine them, they don't hold up.
EJ also writes:
"Since science is truly investigative, we've got to look at the option of ID."
Most scientists have, and they'll tell you that it's no good as a theory. Again, it's not falsifiable, you cannot conduct experiments to prove the existence (or lack thereof) of a creator, and it has severe logic problems, including the big one: who or what created the creator.
For those who do support ID, I challenge you to provide an answer to this question:
Through what mechanism (that we can observe or design an experiment, real or thought, to test) does the creator interact with/design life to create the varied species that we see? Is it some type of quantum effect that causes matter to behave in a certain way? Is it some string theory effect? What is it?
Even evolution can provide some potential answers to the question of how life developed (mutation, the species best suited to their environments will prosper, etc.). If ID is so valid, then please provide an answer to the above question.
Finally, EJ writes:
"A lot of people who don't deal with science or math constantly think they are rock-solid, when really they are as mobile as everything else, only we occasionally use numbers to back things up once in awhile."
True, they are not rock solid. But as an engineer, I *always* back up my claims with numbers. What changes is not the formula or equation or math. It's the resolution that changes. Things become negligible on certain scales or they become unknown. Any good engineer or scientist will always back up a claim with a model while still admitting what's known and what's unknown.
Sorry about the last point. Just a personal pet peeve.
Finally, finally, you'll notice in all this that I never said anything about proving a designer *doesn't* exist. Any true scientist (not someone with an axe to grind) will tell you that evolution does not prove, disprove, or even care about the existence of a designer. It simply tries to describe *how* life came to be. Any mention of a creator implies a *supernatural* effect, which is outside the realm of evolutionary theory, and particularly, *science*.
34. John said the following at 7:42 AM on Sep 1:
"He's done a lot of other stuff too. But his credentials won't mean a hill of beans come this February. That's when he'll be maligned, mocked and generally mistreated by the mainstream media, ivory tower elitists, scientists, atheists, Darwinists, and maybe even a few politicians."
Add to that posters here on this board.
"In February 2008, Ben Stein will release the documentary film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" about how "educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired -– for the 'crime' of merely believing that there might be evidence of 'design' in nature."
This is where the post about people not reading much or well comes into play. For those of you who are mocking Stein for believing in ID or creationism, take the time to read again. The documentary is about scientists who believe in design being shunned and having their careers destroyed. What is so difficult about understanding that? Where does that mention anything about Stein's beliefs?
Scientists are being censored and maligned simply for DOING what a scientist is supposed to do. Evolutionary "science" is being used as a litmus test to weed out noncomformists. It's similar to this situation:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2007/08/31/of_mice_and_mormons,_part_v
And, as Ted points out, he wouldn't have to be a scientist anyway to question a scientific theory, especially when that theory isn't even scientific! If that were the case, then nobody could question anything they didn't get a degree in.
They might as well just write all scientific literature in Latin, forbid everyone but "scientists" from learning Latin, and tell us "peasants" to simply believe them.
And consensus isn't science. A minority of people could believe something and it can still be true. A majority of people can believe something and it could still be untrue.
35. JB said the following at 7:46 PM on Sep 1:
John,
I think that the science in question is relevant to whether or not these people are being unfairly maligned for their beliefs. If evolution really is well supported and ID really is either not supported or not scientific, then it would make sense to not take seriously ID supporters. For example, we wouldn't criticize an association of geographers for kicking out a member who claimed the Earth was flat. There really has to be a controversy over evolution for us to care if creationists are being excluded. That's why Stein's understanding of the science matters to his argument.
36. KS said the following at 12:11 PM on Sep 3:
In a larger sense, I think that Expelled is about academic freedom and political correctness on campus. By the way, Ben Stein is Jewish, not Christian.
37. John said the following at 11:59 AM on Sep 4:
"I think that the science in question is relevant to whether or not these people are being unfairly maligned for their beliefs. If evolution really is well supported and ID really is either not supported or not scientific, then it would make sense to not take seriously ID supporters. For example, we wouldn't criticize an association of geographers for kicking out a member who claimed the Earth was flat. There really has to be a controversy over evolution for us to care if creationists are being excluded. That's why Stein's understanding of the science matters to his argument."
The problem is that the "Flat Earth Society" are the evolutionists kicking out those who know the truth or question non-scientific philosophies with true scientific inquiry.
And the point is that you don't have to be an expert to question the conclusions of so called "experts".
There IS a controversy. That's why the film is being made. Elitists academics are guilty of doing exactly what they accuse conservatives of doing! KS put it very well.