EXPELLED: Evolutionary Ignorance

EXPELLED: Evolutionary Ignorance

The other night I saw “EXPELLED,” a documentary by Ben Stein that exposes a serious crisis in American society: The denial of freedom of speech to those who question evolutionism.

“EXPELLED” features interviews with university professors and others who have lost their jobs because they dared to suggest that perhaps Darwinian evolutionary theory does not adequately explain the origin and complexities of life on this planet. Even worse, some of them mentioned the forbidden term “intelligent design” in articles or lectures, thus signing their own career death warrant.

Not one of these people espoused creationism; none of them even suggested that evolutionary theory not be taught in public schools. They only wanted freedom to discuss different points of view.

That, they discovered, will not be allowed by Big Science.

Himself a Jew, Stein was led to consider some curious and rather scary links between belief in Darwinism and the eugenics movement, which led directly to the Holocaust. Though he makes it very clear that holding to Darwinian evolutionism does not automatically lead to killing off undesirables, Stein’s interviews demonstrated the well-known fact that Hitler was a fanatical follower of Darwin, and used Darwinian theory to justify eliminating the insane, deformed, and otherwise “unworthy” people from society. The same was true of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Zedong, by the way.

Stein also interviewed eminent Darwinists at length. Allowing them to speak for themselves in answer to his questions, he let them show how irrational is their resistance to dialogue and how inaccurate are their characterizations of those who believe in intelligent design.

One common statement is that no reputable scientist could ever question the “fact” of evolution of all life from the simple to complex by random, impersonal processes.

But Stein found a number of people with one or more doctorates in science and/or mathematics who had serious doubts about the scientific basis for evolutionary theory. It seems that real evidence is lacking for the belief (and it is a belief) that all life comes from some original “simple” cell that somehow mutated into the plants and animals populating the globe today.

When pressed really hard, one evolutionist posited the possibility (he had no proof) that it all started with something piggy-backing on crystals. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said – sit down and try to be calm –that perhaps life on earth came from a superior race on another planet who had evolved to a higher intelligence and then had “seeded” the Earth with the original life forms. This is science?

As it happens, I ran into the problems with evolutionism a long time ago, so I asked a friend who worked at the prestigious Cold Spring Harbor laboratory. “Of course,” he replied, “all serious scientists know that evolutionary theory lacks sufficient evidence.”

“So,” I queried, “why don’t they tell us the truth?”

“Because the only alternative is creation, and we can’t believe that!”

My curiosity piqued by his admission of the lack of proof for macro-evolution, I have read a number of books and articles over the years. Thus, I was not surprised when I recognized a couple of the people whom Stein interviewed, including William Dembski, who has been called “the Isaac Newton of information science,” and who holds two doctoral degrees, and the eminent German-born Jewish mathematician, David Berlinski.

If you want to follow this up, I recommend the following volumes, written for non-scientists like myself:

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, an evolutionist who is alarmed by recent findings that undercut evolutionary theory.

Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, who maintains that Darwin simply could not know how “irreducibly complex” even the simplest cell is, making natural selection over long periods of time virtually impossible.

Darwin on Trial, by Phillip Johnson, a professor of law at Berkeley, who used the normal rules of evidence to evaluate the claims of evolutionary theory and found them almost without basis.

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells (who also has two doctoral degrees), which examines the most commonly cited instances of development from one species to another and shows that they are all either fraudulent or lacking any foundation in fact.

I haven’t finished William Dembski’s Intelligent Design yet, but it looks pretty good.

Note: Not one of these people argues for young earth creationism.

But you might want to look at Faith, Form, and Time, by Harvard Ph.D. Kurt Patrick Wise. A student of one of the most eminent Darwinists of the 20^th century, Stephen Gould, Wise actually thinks that the Genesis account of a six-day creation makes better sense scientifically than does the evolutionary model.

One caveat about “EXPELLED”: Stein is pretty angry about the suppression of evidence and the silencing of people who dare to challenge the status quo, so this documentary, though very well done, comes across as pretty stark and black and white. But then that’s how the dogmatic evolutionists portray the conflict between evolutionism and intelligent design, so maybe Stein is simply telling it as it is.

Why I like “Pride and Prejudice”

Why I like Pride and Prejudice 

            The other night at our church potluck dinner, I explained to the young woman next to me why I was drinking regular coffee at that hour. 

            “I want to be alert when I get home tonight, so I can watch Pride and Prejudice[1] on PBS. 

            She expressed surprise: “Oh, I thought Jane Austen was only a girl thing. You mean that men like her, too?”

            So, for the next few minutes before the annual meeting started, I told her why I like both the six-hour version and the newer film starring Keira Knightly.

            I’ll start with the obvious. Both the women playing Elizabeth Bennett are beautiful, with expressive faces, and the Jane in the shorter film is also equally gorgeous.

            My enjoyment of these movies goes beyond that, however. I’ll try to be brief.

            Both Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bingley evoke my admiration. Not just that they dress well and carry themselves with grace and dignity (though some of the poses Darcy strikes seem a bit too much). Each rides like an expert horseman, contrast to Wickham, who can barely stay in the saddle). They are honorable men, who abhor falsehood, dissimulation, and every shade of wrongdoing. Bingley doesn’t seem to have the capacity for thinking or speaking evil, and exudes constant optimism. While Darcy’s  gloominess reflects a darker perspective on life, he shows himself to be utterly true to what he thinks is right.

            As for the dialog, Jane Austen’s English is peerless for purity, precision, and provocative wit. I am ashamed not to have read more than fifty pages of the novel, but that was enough to enlist me as one of her fervent admirers as a stylist.

            But we still haven’t gotten to why I have been more than willing to watch the longer version of P&P twice in the past two months, and the shorter one for the second time this week (Dori and I went to view it when it first came out.)

            What draws me to this story? Isn’t it just a high-brow chick flick?

Well, it may be that, but I think I am fascinated by the main theme, which is, of course, true love. More than that, I revel in Austen’s firm endorsement of marriage. Apart from the conventional reasons given by various characters, including the clergy – financial security for impecunious women, lawful sex, the propagation of the race, avoidance of shame and disgrace – P&P highlights the role of real love between man and wife.

And just what is “real love”? It’s certainly not the lust which brings Lydia into the clutches of a worthless rake like Wickham, a thoroughly debased cad with thoughts only for his own pleasure and promotion. Nor does it consist only the mutual appreciation for handsome good looks to which both the older sisters and their beaux freely admit.

No, it’s deeper. Without trying to be profound or moralistic, I locate Austen’s definition of true love somewhere in the realm of admiration for virtue and character. Jane and Bingley are both too good for anyone but each other, in their charitable attitude towards everyone and effusive expression of appreciation and affection.

Lizzie and Darcy, both pensive types with a strong negative lens on life, cannot fall in love so quickly and easily. Her prejudice and his pride (a fault to which she also admits; nor he is devoid of class prejudice, either) prevent them at first from discerning the other’s true worth.

In time, however, their eyes are opened, and they begin to love a person completely committed to honesty and integrity. In addition, Darcy sees how much Lizzie loves her goofy family members, and she is overwhelmed by his kindness and generosity, both observed and learned from his devoted housekeeper.

Another feature of the film(s) seems most Christian to me: The main characters who are portrayed as complex – Mr. Bennett, Darcy, and Lizzie – admit to having been wrong. This self-knowledge and frank confession of fault break the logjam and allow for reconciliation and reunion.

In a day when romantic love has been reduced to overactive hormones, indulged without restraint, P&P’s characters, with their courtesy, deference, and self-restraint evoke an era when baseness and coarseness had not penetrated as far into all levels of society as it has now.

I’m not a move critic, but I do think that the entertainment media have done much to glorify every sort of vice and demean the paramount place of marriage in society. P&P recognizes the vital role that marriage must play, and presents a vision of what might make for a truly happy union.

A buddy of mine and I were talking about P&P the other day in Starbucks. With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the unraveling economy, an election coming up, and the ravages of relativism in the academy, just how much of our attention does a love story deserve?

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the sanctity of marriage, its central role in almost everyone’s life, and the picture it is meant to convey of the relationship of Christ and his church make the P&P films well worth our time, and fully worthy of our enjoyment.

---

[1] Hereinafter referred to as P&P.