I first heard about this movie from my brother Nathan in our ongoing dialog. I immediately put it at the top of my Netflix queue. I’ll say up front that Nathan described it as “interesting” but he also said he didn’t think Ben Stein was completely fair.
The movie starts with a conspiracy theory. The thing i hate about conspiracy theories is that if you say “that’s bogus” then you can easily be dismissed as just another person who doesn’t know what’s “really” going on. Or worse, as someone who is helping perpetuate the conspiracy. In this conspiracy, scientists are getting fired from jobs for coming out in favor of intelligent design. Ben Stein seeks to be the hero who uncovers this vast conspiracy in the scientific world.
The concept of Irreducible Complexity is the core of Intelligent Design (ID) theory. This is the idea that there are things that exist in nature that could not have evolved from a lesser life form. If this can be proved, or failed to be disproved, ID proponents conclude that these life forms must have been designed by someone or something. However, be aware that many peer-reviewed articles have debunked the theory of irreducible complexity. Peer review is not given any face time in the movie, yet peer review is the backbone of the scientific community. No articles supporting ID have been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Is it really a surprise that scientists are questioned when they come to conclusions that are not scientific?
After expanding on the conspiracy theory, the movie finally gets to irreducible complexity mid-way through the movie, focusing on the cellular level. But it seems to offer, unsurprisingly, an unscientific look. “We think these things are irreducibly complex” which i translate as we don’t understand how things could have evolved to this point. “Therefore a designer must be present,” meaning we’ll insert God a designer as the cause for all the things we don’t understand.
The movie takes a turn at this point, and implies a belief in evolution will lead to Naziism. Stein visits the site of an old concentration camp, and flashes horrific images from WWII. It is completely emotional, fear-based and not at all focused on fact. The acts committed in the concentration camps were absolutely atrocious, no doubt about it, and i don’t want to minimize that at all. But it is complete propaganda to insinuate that the ideas behind evolution will lead to such atrocities.
The final big moment of interest was an interview with Richard Dawkins. The interview was absurd. In one question Stein asked Dawkins to give a percent likelihood that ID was incorrect. Dawkins didn’t want to, saying he had no exact number he could give, but he could only give his opinion. Stein pressed him, and Dawkins said 99.9%, again saying that was just his opinion. Stein immediately turned around and said “Why 99? Why not 49% or 44%?” Dawkins immediately clarifies “you were the one who asked for a number, i didn’t want to give one,” yet the way it was edited makes Dawkins look defensive. In the end, Stein took this and concluded that even Richard Dawkins thought ID might be possible.
In the concluding segment, Stein equates his attempts to bring down the walls between evolution and ID with tearing down the Berlin Wall. I mean – Really? The Berlin Wall?
I agree with Nathan, the movie was interesting. At least in the sense that it made me want to read more and try to understand more. I am not a scientist; i have to lean on those who know more and are doing research and are actually working in this field. I guess i expected more from Ben Stein – more science, less propaganda. But, i suppose i’m just perpetuating the conspiracy.
November 18th, 2009 1:37 pm
What was Stein’s approach? To debunk the theory of ID or not? I would envision Ben Stein to be more approaching scientific data but when he determines that Richard Dawkins thinks ID is possible, then it blows my vision.
November 19th, 2009 12:24 am
You might be interested to know that scientists like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and others were approached by the producers about doing an interview for a film called “Crossroads,” which would be “about the ID/Evolution debate.” They were under the impression that it would be a documentary looking at both sides of the issue, and so they went into the interviews with a very different attitude than they would have if they had known that it was a pro-ID propaganda piece.
November 19th, 2009 12:27 am
And by “under the impression,” I do in fact mean “very deliberately misled by the lying assholes who made that movie.”
November 19th, 2009 3:13 pm
I had wondered why Dawkins ever agreed to this interview. Now i know.