I have been struggling with this for a couple of days... How do I say it? How do I make it sound interesting to anyone but me?
Gaah! Screw that. This place is for me. If you happen to want to tag along, great! If not, don't let the door hit you in the keister ...
Okay, that's taken care of. Now breathe, Pos. Breathe.
...
Last week, I was watching a documentary on Evolution -- Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Produced by PBS. Part of a series. I mentioned to a near and dear friend of mine that I was watching it, which prompted a discussion.
In this discussion, he stated something to the effect of "Well, you know that the theory of evolution is full of holes," and "You know what I saw that I really loved? Expelled, made by Ben Stein."
And I thought "Uh oh. No good can come of this."
A couple of necessary points of background. This near and dear friend of mine is the child of a very conservative man of the cloth. And he is also an emergency room physician. So, despite the first, I was sure that the second would automatically dictate that he was in the natural selection camp. But it sounds like I may have been wrong.
As an aside, I personally am not sure whether there is a higher power or not, and being a humanist, I am coming to the conclusion on this matter that if there is or is not, none of us will ever know for sure, not while we draw breath, and our best course of action is to live our lives according to a code of civil morality, and simply hope that if there IS a higher power, that will cut it.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Nevertheless, this friend is the sort of friend who would not only pick you up from the airport, but would give you the shirt off his back, and if he were not wearing a shirt, would fashion one for you out of his pants. He's generally a great guy. A sweetheart. He loves dark and twisted movies, just like me. He has a mangled sense of humor, just like me. In almost every way, he is just like me.
Excluding politics and religion.
So, in fairness to him, I watched Expelled.
I think I know now how a conservative feels when watching a Michael Moore film.
As a general overview, I have to say that this was possibly the most illogical, irrational documentary I have ever seen. The lines of causality it draws are dotted and frail and dishonest. No form of intellectual honesty was present at all. And Stein's prejudice was so apparent as to render any of his rhetorical devices powerless.
The day after watching this drek, I wrote out some notes on some specifics. These are in order of how they occurred to me, not assembled into a logical essay of any kind. Still, as stated above, this is my place so...
Eugenics. The film makes the claim that subscribing to the theory of natural selection would lead to a policy of eugenics. In fact, it very nearly makes the claim that it would inexorably lead to eugenics. Which would then lead inexorably to Nazis, or course. However, the application of a policy of eugenics represents a complete and total misunderstanding of the theory of natural selection.
The argument of eugenics is that modern society's support for the sick and the feeble and the elderly weakens the race as a whole, so it is in the race's best interest to eliminate them. But what this fails to account for is the fact that our species' capacity for compassion for even the weak buoys the entire species up as a whole.
So, eugenics is not natural selection -- it is artificial selection. And as we have demonstrated so often throughout our history, whenever we try to manipulate some natural mechanism to enhance our position, we usually wind up screwing up big time. What we think is desirable to the continuation of the human race may actually be our downfall, and that which we shun may be that which causes us to thrive.
Origin of Life. Because no scientist yet has come to a proven theory of the origin of life, proponents of intelligent design wish to rush in there and proclaim that "because and intelligent designer did it" should be one of the scientific theories studied. Fine. So how do we frame a scientific experiment to prove that? Although we can try to recreate primordial conditions in a lab, it is very difficult, if not impossible to include the experimental procedure of "Now, apply God." Because "God did it" is not testable or even repeatable, it is not a scientific inquiry. It very well may be a Philosophical inquiry, since Philosophy is the area best suited for debating the "why" type questions.
This tendency to want to insert an intelligent designer into the mix here at the origin of life is an application of what Dawkins calls the God of the Gaps. That is to say, whenever a gap in evolution appears, ID folks like to say, "That gap in species development is so wide, it must have been designed." This is the same gap that people used to declare that the seeing eye is so complex, it could not possibly have evolved via natural selection. But science has shown time and time again that where a gap exists, we simply need to collect more data, and soon enough it is explainable. Now, do we have access to all the data? No. Will we have access to all the data? No. But I have seen enough examples of unfillable gaps that have eventually been filled that I am convinced that where a gap exists, we do not need an intelligent designer to fill it.
That said, if there were an intelligent designer, wouldn't that designer need to have some sort of mechanism for bringing about that which comes about? Would that mechanism not have to include some sort of natural, observable phenomenon? But, as I have stated, this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
The complexity of the cell is another gap used in this documentary to show that Darwin was naive. But their attempts to show the unlikelihood of a cell emerging via natural selection is what winds up coming across as naive.
Abortion and Euthanasia. The documentary makes an argument that Planned Parenthood was started by a follower of Eugenics, with the express purpose of eliminating lower class births, and that Euthanasia is made tolerable by natural selection for similar reasons as the eugenics argument.
But who gets the abortions? I don't have stats on this, but it seems to me that the very very poor don't. That they get welfare. The middle class, and possibly the upper class, are the ones getting abortions. And planning their parenthoods.
About euthanasia... who gets euthanized? The oldest and sickest. Long after any of them have already passed on their genes, if they were going to do so. We're not talking about infanticide here, we're talking about mercy killing. Saying euthanasia follows from natural selection is simply not logical.
Abortions and euthanasia are most likely not tolerable due to natural selection, but instead due to the fact that our planet is straining to support the volume of human life on it given the number of resources it possesses.
Darwinism. Expelled keeps throwing the term "Darwinists" out there. "Darwinists believe that...," "According to Darwinists...," etc etc. But what is a "Darwinist?" Scientists who believe that the theory of natural selection accurately explains how species have evolved don't call themselves "Darwinists" any more than Mormons call themselves "Smithists." Use of this term is an attempt to paint belief in natural selection with the veneer of religious fervor, which could not be further from the truth.
Being fired for believing in intelligent design. The one point that the film makes that warrants examination, possibly, is it purports to show that several scientists were fired from positions for espousing, or even just mentioning, intelligent design in a position paper or in a classroom setting. I didn't see what I thought to be credible evidence for knowing for sure that that was the cause of each and every one of their dismissals, but if it were, it certainly needs to be discussed.
If Intelligent Design is raised in a scientific class as a philosophical point, I have no objections. If it is raised as a theory of how such and such came to be, I would need to know how these scientists planned to test that theory, and apply the scientific method to the hypothesis. If a natural designer is found, I would hope they would turn that same method to the question of where THAT designer came from.
Okay. I am done. I have been exorcised of these demons, and I may now face my dear friend again without feeling as though I need to explode intellectually.
Of course, on matters of religion and politics, I still think he's an idiot.