Free Speech and Other Evolutionary Tales
April 18, 2008 – 1:15 amAs you probably know, a recommendation in contemporary socialization calls for an absence of political and religious chatter, as it is usually leads to severe disagreements. While there are issues that can be independently placed within either political or religious categories, some issues – like evolution and abortion – are fluid, as they meander within both the political and the religious modes of society. These are, undoubtedly, the most dangerous issues to address, as few topics incite such inflammatory ranting on both ends of the political spectrum.
Enter Ben Stein – the presidential speechwriter, actor, commentator, game show host, and economist turned documentarian.
If you haven’t yet heard about Expelled — Stein’s new flick — I’m not surprised. In a media that is saturated with a blind acceptance of Darwinian theory (not to mention liberal inclinations), an absence of coverage is par for the course.
In his new film, Stein takes on free speech and evolution, as he addresses the field of science — the discipline in which these two social constructs greatly clash. While the leftist critiques seem to focus too heavily on Stein’s efforts to allegedly disprove or prove theories of creationism and evolution, media critic Brent Bozell correctly characterizes the main points of the film:
What many will likely miss are the fine details that get at just how limited the scientific community has made itself in terms of alternative ideologies. While the film shows us firsthand just how much Richard Dawkins and other Darwinists hate theology – and religion in general – it also shows us the powerful limitations that have been placed on scientists. After all, isn’t science all about free-thinking and exploration? I suppose free-thinking entails anything outside of the realm of believing in the possibility that our entirely complex world was created by an intelligent being.
In his own words, Stein characterizes his film as:
Now, that’s a film you simply cannot miss.
4 Responses to “Free Speech and Other Evolutionary Tales”
Ben Stein on evolution?
No, thanks. I’m not interested in watching propaganda for the pseudoscience of “intelligent design”.
I don’t have to see the film to know (I can read) that Stein is as idiotic on evolution as he is on economics.
He sees an evil, atheistic conspiracy by scientists to suppress intelligent design and to foist evolution (the very foundation of modern biology), on a gullible public, just as he advised us of a conspiracy to drive the market down.
Leave it to Billy to embrace Stein’s ludicrous and dishonest drivel.
The stealth-creationist proponents of ‘intelligent design’ would have us believe that there is an ongoing scientific debate about the factuality of evolution. This is as false and misleading as Stein’s assertions that the “theory” of evolution is the underpinning of Nazism.
By Vince Williams on Apr 18, 2008
How about focusing on the lack of free speech present within scientific circles? You’ve done the same thing every other liberal has: You’ve made it all about the creationism vs. evolution debacle. The main issue is a lack of free-thought amongst scientists. And you haven’t seen the film, so maybe you’d have more context after seeing it? Just an idea.
By Billy Hallowell on Apr 18, 2008
Billy, you’re a master of ignoring everything you don’t want to hear.
I said very clearly why I don’t want to see the film.
I’m not in the habit of lending material aid to liars and frauds.
I will, however, try to instruct the intellectually lazy souls who are deceived by them.
By Vince Williams on Apr 18, 2008
And here I thought Billy really wanted to be taken seriously!
Not much chance of that when he posts statements like “blind acceptance of Darwinian theory,� and “how much Richard Dawkins and other Darwinists hate theology – and religion in general –“ …which sabotage his own cause.
Earth to Billy: Darwin’s theory has long ago passed the smell test; it’s the accepted explanation for the origin of species.
As for science being all about free-thinking and exploration – yes, it is, but with some discipline. It seeks to answer questions by providing supporting evidence.
As the National Academy of Sciences has written:
“Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.
“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.”
Once you understand that distinction, Billy, you should be able to avoid posting such ludicrous comments.
One can only hope.
By Steve Levine on Apr 18, 2008