Tag Archives for darwin

Expelled reviewed

I went to the 7:10 showing of Expelled  last evening. I have to admit, I was a bit afraid to see it. You see, I am used to seeing things produced by Christians that are just embarrasing.  I was kind of afraid that the movie would go way over the top, make outrageous claims, and lose any credibility that they may have had.  The events of the last couple of weeks, with PZ’s black-listing and various claims of copyright infringement, didn’t help. So, I was prepared to write a review dealing with the good, the bad, and the just plain ugly.  I am surprised, then, to not have to do that.  Expelled is a pretty decent documentary.  In fact, it’s fairly brilliant.

Now, I know I’m going to be called delusional (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) for that last statement, but I’m just being honest. I thought they did a darn good job putting the film together, and that they acheived their goal.  It was pretty fast-moving, coherant, and at times humorous. I thought the editing was quite good. The use of old b&w film clips to make points was well-done.

However, it wasn’t perfect. I thought the opening b&w sequence really didn’t fit the rest of the movie. Certainly they continued to use b&w throughout, but it was a quite dark and depressing way to start the film, and really didn’t have the same feel as the movie itself.  Two things that could have been left out, in my opinion, are the two clips where copyright claims are being raised: The CGI bit on the inner working of the cell is cool, certainly, but really didn’t add to the movie, and actually seemed a bit out of place. The same is true, in my opinion, of the short Imagine bit. It wasn’t necessary, and if anything was distracting.  

Before I say any more about Expelled, let me offer a little autobiographical information. While I have always enjoyed science, until the last year or two I have not paid much attention to the whole Darwinism/ID debate. I have seen a few TV documentaries over the years, none of which were favorable at all to any non-Darwinian position, but other than that, I paid little attention. I enjoy astronomy, physics (I especially enjoy quantum theory) and cosmology, but have little interest in biology (other than going to the zoo) and don’t like chemistry at all.

It was only after I reconnected with my friend Mike that I started catching up on the Darwinism thing. I started reading a number of blogs and articles on various sides of the issues, finding that not all evolutionists agreed on all issues, and neither did the non-Darwinists (I’m using the terms generically). Since then I have formed my own opinions on a number of issues, and am still undecided on many. I accept that some evolution happens, as evolution is loosely defined. I don’t – at the moment – believe in common descent.  I am, overall, something of a skeptic, and that goes for religious issues as well as in science or any other topic. I always question the status quo, whatever it is. So, I have read all sides with a skeptical eye, discounting many on both sides of the issues.

What I found as I watched Expelled was that the film fairly represented the positions of those interviewed; in fact, most information came from the individuals themselves rather than from Ben Stein, who served to put the information into context.  I also thought that the overall point of the film, that there is a Darwinist establishment who is more concerned with self-protection than allowing any real questioning of the issues, reflected what I have seen in my own reading. 

The film won’t change the minds of any who are already entrenched in their positions. It doesn’t give any pat answers. What it does is expose issues that deserve to be brought to light. For those who are not already entrenched in their positions, it may prompt them to do further study, and will of course let them make up their own mind.

I thought Will Provine expressed best what I would expect from a true scientist, that people should be allowed to examine all of the evidence, and decide for themselves what to make of it, whether it be some form of ID, or as in Provine’s case, a purely materialistic (and fatalistic) viewpoint.  Eugenie Scott and PZ Myers were themselves; no real surprises there. Dawkins provided some comic relief, with his rambling thoughts about ID and aliens; pretty much the whole audience broke into laughter during that segment.

One thing that surprised me what that David Berlinski was not identified as an agnostic, which I think would have given his opinions a bit more punch, seeing as he is perhaps the only one interviewed who is not committed to either deism or atheism.

I also thought the segment dealing with the Darwin – Nazi connection was fairly well done. The interview with Uta George, the director of the Hadamar Gas Chamber Memorial, was absolutely shocking; I found her complete detachment to the horrors of eugenics – and her refusal to say anything negative about it – horrifying. My son thought she was only representing the Nazi position, but to me it seemed that she really bought into it. And, by the way, she emphasized several times that those in charge of the eugenics programs were influenced by Darwinism.

I saw the film tonite with my oldest son and his girlfriend (who chose to see Expelled rather than the new Jackie Chan movie). He commented that it seemed to him that the first part of the movie focused on how ID is not tied to religion, but the 2nd part seemed to try to tie the issues to religion. My other son wants to see it, but was sick, so I’ll probably watch it again with him in a couple of days and will comment further on this and any other new thoughts.

 

Much ado about Darwin / The progress myth

I’ve got to admit it’s getting better
A little better all the time
(it can’t get more worse)
-
Lennon/McCartney, “Getting Better”

You could say I’ve lost my faith in science and progress…
- Sting, “If I Ever Lose My Faith”

Most people in the Western world probably know who Charles Darwin is, and understand that that he had something to do with formulating the theory of evolution. If they haven’t learned about him in school, they’ve seen his name inside the little walking fish emblems on many cars. It seems lately that he has become something of a poster child for evolution, scorned by some and sainted (in a matter of speaking) by others.  If he were still alive, he’d probably be wishing people would stop talking about him and leave him in peace.

A few days ago I wrote about the arrogance that is attached to modernism, still the pervasive worldview in the West. Modernism, I think, is essential to our current understanding of science, or at the very least is so intertwined that it’s hard to tell them apart. As I wrote, I think this is true of much Evangelical theology as well, where elements of the scientific approach to knowledge has permeated our thinking. Modernism, growing out of the Enlightenment and the rediscovery and molding of Greek philosophy, focused knowledge on the part rather than the whole, on the individual rather than the community. As a result, you could say that Modernism often fails to see the forest for the trees. Modernism also brought us the myth of objectivity, and the fundamental belief in progress.

In NT Wright’s Surprised by Hope, he discusses the myth of progress and it’s impact on the church as well as on society. He had this to say about Darwin, and the rise of Darwinian thought:

… Darwin was himself not so much the great new thinker, coming from nowhere to his radical new idea, but rather the exact product of his times, one particular high-water mark in the onward rush of liberal modernist optimism, himself the product of a particular evolution of Western thought. The eagerness with which his ideas were embraced and reapplied not only in the narrow biological sphere in which they belonged but also in far wider areas such as society and politics indicates well enough the mood of his times.  …  Evolution, in this more general sense of progress, was already widely believed; it was a deeply convenient philosophy for those who wanted to justify their own massive industrial and imperial expansion; Darwin geve it some apparent scientific legitimacy, which was quickly acted upon and which, within half a century, had been used to justify everything from eugenics to war.  

Wright talks about how this notion of progress – that change is ultimately for the better, and that the future is necessarily better than the past – was adopted by the church as well as by science, and social Darwinism became the social gospel, the belief that the meddling of the church could solve the problem of evil. Not that social work (what we call the mercy ministries) isn’t good, but we can see every day in the news that we as a race - and even as Americans – are no less evil than we were 150 years ago.

What I am asking myself is what is probably the foundational post-modern question (or at least should be): “If we were able to remove the elements of modernism, what would we have left of Christianity, and of science?”  It’s one thing, of course, to ask this question (i.e. “deconstruct”) of Christianity, but altogether another thing to ask this of science.  Without the foundational worldview of modernism, could science survive?  If so, what would it look like? 

I have some thoughts, and I think that especially in areas like quantum physics, where cause and effect sometimes breaks down, we are beginning to see some of this.  To quote from yet another song, “The times, they are a changing.” If Darwin was a product of his times, what kind of scientist is a product of our time?  These are some of the things I think about when I should be sleeping.