Expelled: Why are Americans allowed to care so much about freedom?, and other thoughts
| June 28, 2008 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
Two nights ago, I finally saw the Expelled film.
I had become almost proprietorial about the widely denounced #5 political documentary. I had first broken the story of its existence last August. I watched it pitch and roll through accusations of trickery, a threatened lawsuit over plagiarism and a real one over intellectual property, production delays (it was supposed to be released on Darwin’s birthday but was pulled for edit), and, inevitably, street drama.
Security was so tight that – as I learned a couple of weeks ago – not only could I not get a screener, neither could the the screenwriter - fellow Canadian Kevin Miller.
Okay, so there I am, sitting half-frozen in a half-empty theatre in downtown Toronto, and … I had two main reactions:
Freedom … ?
As a Canadian, I felt confused by all the talk of freedom. Americans think so highly of freedom. It seemed so strange to me that the people in the film consider it normal to worry about life, the universe, and all that.
Here today, if you openly care even about your personal freedom to just be a goof somewhere unmolested, you are at war with society. The Government knows what is Good for us. Dissent caused by our dysfunctionally evolved neurons will be punished.
So the film felt strange – it assumed facts about human nature, such as the reality of the mind, that are everywhere under serious assault in the Western world. Canada used to be freer, but we aren’t supposed to know that any more. And people single themselves out if they say too much.
Intelligent design … ?
Second, the film badly needed an explanation of why there is an intelligent design controversy. Most of my friends and neighbours simply do not know. Legacy media retail tales from the bizarre swamplands of the United States where gun-toting cretins and their obliging sisters espouse unapproved doctrines without ever receiving any proper punishment.
When a Canadian writer wanted to publish articles on intelligent design that actually explain the arguments, he wrote to me wanting to know where he could get them published. I essentially replied, “Search me. I can’t imagine any legacy medium breaking free from the Darwinsludge – and if they did, they would be shut down much faster than in the States. The mere fact of independent ideas is itself the offence, as Maclean’s Magazine and Mark Steyn found. So watch your back.”
TV series needed?
Given the many recent discoveries that challenge Darwinism and materialism, a thirteen-part TV series on the real arguments for and against design is needed. But I can’t think who would show the series. That was likely a key reason for the producers’ decision to just make a film, so that at least people willing to buy tickets could find out something.
The God who had better really be there …
The film’s strongest point is that Stein is way too smart to waste a second on “theistic” evolution – the idea that we know that God exists by faith alone. On that view, God’s actions in the world around us are supposedly indistinguishable from chance events, so design is an illusion and faith means taking a leap without evidence.
So if, for example, neuroscientists had really found a “God gene” which explains why some people believe in God but others do not, well, we know by sheer faith that God put the gene there.
Or if evolutionary psychologists could plausibly explain belief in God as naturally selected for – again, we know by sheer faith that God really exists and caused this selection.
Except that he really didn’t, of course. It would be the other way around. The gene or the selection caused God.
Trust a smart fellow like Ben Stein to see through this gunk far more clearly than some of the Bible school biology profs I’ve dealt with: Put simply, if “theistic” evolution is true, religion is bunk.*
If, n the other hand, design is true, materialist atheism is bunk. Materialist atheists know this perfectly well. That is why they persecute the design guys and cozy up to the “theistic” evolutionists.
And why Expelled was made and has no time for “theistic” evolutionism.
Now here is a quick test: If “theistic” evolution meant anything other than what I am describing above, ID theorist Mike Behe and I should be called theistic evolutionists – we accept conventional dating methods and common descent of living things But we think that God’s actions, if they exist, can be detected. They are indeed distinguishable from chance occurrences. This is the position affirmed by Scripture, tradition, and reason and denied by “theistic” evolution. And it is why we are called “creationists.”
Look, if God doesn’t exist, he doesn’t exist. But if he does exist, we’ll know about it.
Finally, seeing the film shed light on two other controversial topics:
1. The Yoko Ono lawsuit: I got a chance to hear the controversial few bars from Lennon’s “Imagine” theme. Imagine so much fuss over so little! It sure helped me see why the Stanford fair use collective got involved on Expelled’s side. Politically, Expelled was not, perhaps, the most obvious choice. However, when I saw how little use was really made of the Lennon opus minimus, I understood why Expelled was a good choice.
Intellectual property laws were designed to bust knockoff Spongebobs, pirated Two Towers, photocopied textbooks, yada yada – in other words, substantial economic and moral losses – NOT some incidental capture of a cultural icon in a documentary. What a waste of court time! And what an opportunity to start reigning in such waste!
2. The claim that the atheists had been “tricked” into taking part. It was quite obvious that these professional atheists enjoy publicity. And why not? The legacy media have lionized them. The Expelled film is one of the few places ever that some of them are just allowed to be their nasty selves. Why that is anyone’s problem other than theirs, I confess I do not know.
*While we are here: The open theism that many “theistic” evolutionists flirt with just means that there isn’t really a God. A god who is “evolving along with creation” isn’t God. One should not describe open theism as a Christian heresy. It is an atheist heresy. The only important question is, can an atheist believe in superior alien beings like the evolving god?
Also: New at the Post–Darwinist:
Open letter to comedian Guy Earle … the latest to be charged by a Canadian “human rights”commission
Birds: What you thought you knew about their evolution is wrong, all wrong
Governor Bobby Jindal passes Louisiana bill to permit critical thinking about Darwin, and such (But is this a good idea?)
If order just somehow emerges from chaos, why aren’t we all young and beautiful?
Intellectual freedom: Is misunderstanding of Internet part of Canada’s “human rights” problem?
Alarm! Alarm! Critical thinking spotted in vicinity of pop science kludge
Intelligent design and the arts – better that way, actually. Much better.
The Right’s war on science? Lot’s of ink spilled there, but how about the Left’s war on science?
Teacher accused of burning cross on student’s arm and (much worse!) of teaching creationism
Write! Canada coverage highlights intellectual freedom risks, troubles of book industry
105 Responses to Expelled: Why are Americans allowed to care so much about freedom?, and other thoughts
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
vjtorley: All of your points granted except for one.
I hold that the official Catholic position is that one can be lost only through “voluntary fault.” If the word voluntary has any meaning at all it is that we all have some say about our final destiny. Now I realize that this teaching is specifically designed to obviate the need for roster-like membership in the institutional Church, but I think we can safely extend its meaning to apply to membership in the “elect,” as conceived by the radical determinists. If our fate is in doubt until the time of our death, which is the official Catholic position, then, clearly, our fate is in doubt from the get go.
Also, Aquinas acknowledges free will in unequivocal terms, as I am sure you know. Again, if free will means anything at all, it means that we have the capacity to act morally and embrace all the means necessary for salvation. If we don’t have that option, we can hardly be free in any meaningful sense.
Most important, we have the unmistakable Biblical teaching that “God wills that all men be saved.” It is inconceivable that God can, at the same time, set aside some to be damned while willing that all men be saved. For my part, this teaching alone seals the seal.
I realize that the term “predestination” carries difficult and confusing connotations, some of which seem at variance with the others. I think that is because we have two truths (predestination and free will) that appear to contradict each other but, in fact, do not. That is another way of saying that we confronted with a paradox and a mystery that does not admit of any final explanation that will close all the loops. This is all the more reason to emphasize the point that the door of salvation is open to all men even though many choose not to cross that threshold.
With regard to the so called tension between God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will, I don’t think there is any problem. To reiterate, God knows when the stock market is going to crash, but that doesn’t mean that he causes it. For this one problem, at least, extended analysis seems unnecessary and redundant.
Stephen B: “With regard to the so called tension between God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will, I don’t think there is any problem. To reiterate, God knows when the stock market is going to crash, but that doesn’t mean that he causes it. For this one problem, at least, extended analysis seems unnecessary and redundant.”
Extended analysis may seem unnecessary and redundant to some but not to all. The argument is over the nature of reality—of time—a subject of interest to philosophers and physicists and theologians. The debate diverges broadly between eternalism (where the future exists “somewhere”) and presentism (where the future does not yet exist anywhere). Augustine and Calvin, one would assume, were eternalists, as also Einstein. But there is an argument for the other side, as in Craig Bourne’s A Future for Presentism (Oxford University Press, 2007), which according to the blurb “makes an original contribution to a fast growing and exciting debate.” Here’s the first sentence of the book as quoted at Amazon: “Time plays a central role in our lives and our world-view; it is fundamental to the idea of what it is to be the very beings that we are; it is indispensable to the way we structure our experiences; it is central to our understanding of the world.”
Stephen B suggests that whereas God does not necessarily cause all future events he nevertheless has an exhaustive view of the future. Thus he does not believe that God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge because everything has been determined, rather he assumes the eternalist position—that a complete knowledge of the future is possible because the future actually exists “somewhere” and can be viewed from outside our time frame.
The Open Theism debate is not about knocking God off his pedestal, it is not a concession to materialism (just the opposite I should think), rather it is an effort to understand the nature of reality and of time. There are honest voices on all sides and the debate is not necessarily an unimportant one.
—–”Stephen B suggests that whereas God does not necessarily cause all future events he nevertheless has an exhaustive view of the future. Thus he does not believe that God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge because everything has been determined, rather he assumes the eternalist position—that a complete knowledge of the future is possible because the future actually exists “somewhere” and can be viewed from outside our time frame.”
Rude, that is exactly what I did not say. Let me reiterate: God DOES possess exhaustive view of the future and God DOES NOT cause all future events to happen. God EXISTS outside of time, but God can either enter into time or not enter into time. God can ACT in time but God does not EXIST in time. In that sense, God does not foreknow the way we do, in the sense of anticipating the “before” and reacting to the “after” because God simply KNOWS as a result of existing outside of time.
Open theism challenges the very nature of God by trying to negate this truth. If you want to disagree with me, then fine, but please do not put words in my mouth and attribute to me very heresy that I am challanging. God is omniscient in every way. It is the open theists who deny this, either explicitly or implicitly, depending on the author. To repeat again, God knows the future in every way and the future is NOT DETERMINED.
Stephen B, let me apologize for putting words in your mouth—I should have asked whether this was what you were saying.
But now I’m curious. When you say what you said you said you seem to be saying exactly what I suggested you said.
Thus what I thought you said before and think you are still saying now is that, 1) God does not cause all future events, and 2) God exhaustively knows the future. This implies that you are not a determinist (like Einstein) and that you are an eternalist (like Augustine). If I’m right then we can agree on the first and disagree (though my mind could change) on the second.
As for whether God can be outside of time depends upon whether the nature of time is such that it is possible to be outside of it. This is a hot debate in philosophy and I’m not sure whether one side or the other is heretical or blasphemous within any particular religious tradition.
Rude, OK, fair enough. After rereading my response to you, I find that I may have been a little snippy. Sorry about that.
I don’t care too much how folks resolve these problems as long as they don’t compromise on any of the non-negotiables, such as God’s omnipotence, God’s omniscience, and our free will. It seems to me that open theists do indeed make these kinds of compromises without realizing that they are doing it. To characterize God as existing in time is to compromise his nature, which is the one thing that must be preserved above all else.
It seems to me that open theists, and other types who challenge the classical model, strain at gnats (laboring over the less difficult problem of reconciling God’s foreknowledge and our free will) and swallow camels (downplaying the truly difficult problem of reconciling predestination [not determinsm]) and free will. Peter Kreeft, for example, takes up the really hard problem yet he compromises nothing of God’s nature. We can say the same of Craig and Geisler. They don’t negotiate away the non-negotiables.
To be more precise, my objection has to do with those who anthropomorphize God in order to make things work. That would include anyone who insists that God must EXIST in time in order to ACT in time. Since God created time, God exists outside of time. There is no reason to believe that he must exist in time as we do in order to make sense of it. We know that the big bang is a fact and we also know that this harmonizes with the Biblical idea that God created time along with those things that time measures.
Stephen B, you’re a decent man. I’m sure we agree on more than we disagree—on morality, society, politics. We agree on the importance of Intelligent Design.
There may be certain “non-negotiables”, however, where we can respectfully disagree. For some folks these may be the omnis of transcendance and associated theodicies, for me these are not so important as that God is Creator and hence our Father.
Take, for example, the Star Trek character Q. He and his “Continuum” possess all the omnis (omniscience, omnipotence …) yet it seems natural that humans not bow in obeisance—why? I think it instructive that Q was never pictured as creator. For the writers of the series, let me suggest, that would have made Q God.
I would agree that God is God, not just because he exists outside of time (or however else we might exhalt him beyond our realm)—God is God because he is our Creator. And it’s not just his power either, it’s not just that might makes right. It is also that God is good.
The emphasis of Scripture is the agency and goodness of God—for me these are the non-negotiables and any philosophical constructs that might diminish them are negotiable.
We can disagree on this, can we not?
Rude
“God is Creator and hence our Father.”
In my experience mothers have more to do with the creating of life than fathers. Except when it comes to creating religious screeds of course which handily explains why God, angels, messiahs, disciples, etc. are all men. You don’t find that the least bit suspicious?
—–Rude: “The emphasis of Scripture is the agency and goodness of God—for me these are the non-negotiables and any philosophical constructs that might diminish them are negotiable. We can agree on this, can we not?”
Well, sure. Far be it from me to arrogate unto myself the sole right to frame an issue. On the other hand, your characterization of what scripture emphasizes is, in itself, simply one individual’s interpretation, is it not? Does it not imply that one of God’s attributes, namely, God’s goodness, can be separated from all of the others? That is precisely what all the fuss is about, that is, traditional theists, who insist on God’s unity, and open theists, who don’t burden themselves with such things.
In any case, the problem about judgment persists. If our eternal fate rests in the hands of our Creator God, we are in big trouble if the “omni’s” (I like that formulation of yours by the way) aren’t there.
Unless God understands and factors in all of our thoughts, words, deed, and intentions, in conjunction with everyone else’s thoughts, words, deeds, and intentions, unless he considers all mitigating factors, including biological, psychodynamic, environmental, and self made influences, and unless he ties them all together with a full awareness of every possible combination of consequences, we are not going to get a fair hearing.
Think of it this way. If God is not perfect in every way, then he cannot even know what is best for us in our present condition, much less can he temper justice with mercy in the right proportions at the moment of our final judgment. Take away the omni’s and God is not God—he is simply a superhuman with a lot of power that may or may not be used in the right way.
It is all well and good to say that the agency and the goodness of God are the only non-negotiables, but how can God be all good without all of those other attributes? Unity, goodness, truth, beauty, and being are all tied together in God. Even as a practical matter, God’s goodness must be inseparable from his omniscience and his omnipotence. How can God be good and at the same time be compromised with limited knowledge about what constitutes a fair moral test, with limited power to administer that test in a fair way, and with limited capacity to judge the final results?
Dave: “You don’t find that the least bit suspicious?” I don’t but Freud did. Tikva Frymer-Kensky had another take on this that I found interesting.
Good points, Stephen B. Anyway it’s not that I should want to convince anyone that I’m right, just that I’m not crazy—or at least completely crazy. I’d like it that those who supported Open Theism in this thread not be dismissed as total kooks and that we keep the ID tent big enough for us all, that whereas Judeo-Christians can disagree on the nature of God (and ultimate reality), we disagree most fundamentally with the hard core atheists and Darwin’s sycophants.
Rude, you make a good point. Opportunities abound for theists of various stripes to come together in a spirit of solidarity and register their disagreements with the core atheists and Darwinist sycophants.
We know that most theistic evolutionists, as opposed to open theists, do qualify as Darwinist sycopants, and as such, are invested in militating against ID. Under the circumstances, they have chosen to be our adversaries rather than the other way around.
Open theists, however, may well be willing to renounce materialism/Darwinism and thereby distinguish themselves from the TEs. I have no way of knowing about this one way or the other. I am ready to drop the matter of open theism vs. classical theism and join with open theists to renounce the ideological pretenses of Darwinism.
What do you think? Are there any open theists who are explicitly anti-Darwin and will say so. Or do they simply visit this website to challenge classical theism and promote open theism, while keeping a safe distance from the ID/Darwin conflict? Are they OK with Theistic evolutionists and their futule attept to make Christianity and Darwinism compatible, or do they opt out of that controversy as well?
Stephen in 100 asks,
“What do you think? Are there any open theists who are explicitly anti-Darwin and will say so.”
Google the website of the young scholar who argued for Open Theism in this thread and you’ll find that he supports ID.
Gregory Boyd, who writes persuasively on Open Theism, is quite naive before the likes of Ken Miller. The truly big issue facing the nation and the world is the threat of materialism—not the various takes on ultimate reality and the nature of God—and so we owe it to our fellow theists who are simply naive (not perverse) on ID to welcome them into the Big Tent if and when they are ready.
Rude, again, fair enough. I am on board with establishing a spirit of solidarity with pro-ID open theists, and if Alan is in that camp, then I am with him in that context. I understand that open theists, unlike most TEs, are not necessarily anti-ID, though I have no idea of the proportions involved. Alan is a bit of an anomaly among open theists, any way, so, as an ID supporter, he may well be the exception rather than the rule. Again, I have no idea.
Remember how this whole thing got started. Denyse introduced open theism as a peripheral issue to theistic evolution and voiced her disapproval of it, even though her main objections were about TE. As an open theist, Alan entered into the fray, insisting that Denyse was misinformed about the subject. He proceeded to provide an eloquent defense of open theism, but his defense was on behalf of his own unique brand of open theism. In large part, he doesn’t explicitly identify with the broader claims of open theists in general. Therefore, he didn’t really refute Denyse’s charges about open theism except to say that they didn’t apply to his version of it, which seems true in most ways, but not all.
So, it was left to me to critique both open theism, in general, and Alan’s differences with his open theist colleagues in particular. I argued that open theism, is indeed consistent with intelligent design, but, in my judgment, it compromises the Christian teaching on God’s nature. In a more narrow sense, I also argued that Alan’s strategy is much better than mainstream OT, but that it still falls short. I continue to hold that position. So, this raises a question: Am I not permitted to [A] join with Alan as an ID supporter and as a mutual adversary to Darwinism while [B] disagreeing with him about open theism and arguing on behalf of classical theism? Does [A] rule out [B]? If not, then I am not sure I get your point. As I said earlier, I have had my say about open theism, so I am ready to join with OTs who support ID, however many or few there are, and challenge the tenets of materialism. I don’t think Alan will abandon ID simply because one of its advocates, namely me, disagrees with him about open theism. He impresses me as one whose shoulders are a lot broader than that.
In any case, ID doesn’t disinvite anyone to the big tent. The only ones who are not in it are those who don’t want to be here, as is the case for most TEs. We tell them that they ought to consider ID, and they respond by saying, “no thanks.” We do have one or two here who don’t want to hang out with YEC’s, but that is decidedly minority position. So the tent door is opened by those on the outside not by those on the inside.
Do I think that you, Stephen B, are permitted to enter the Big Tent of ID yet differ with those in the Big Tent who support OT? Surely you’re kidding! Why would I want—even if I could—to infringe on your liberty? Don’t we have the freedom to pursue the truth each in our own way? Organized religion may restrict us, but our nation (USA) should not.
And that’s the common enemy we face—state sponsored ideology, forceably financed by us.
As for OTs who might side with the TEs—the sad truth is that way too many theologians of all stripes, as well as all too many ministers and priests and rabbis, are on the wrong side of this the greatest dispute of the age. Many who are not outright hostle to ID are still fearful and silenced by the approbrium associated with it. I know a woman who gave her supposedly conservative Christian pastor a flier for Expelled!—he was not interested.
So it’s an uphill battle, and whereas we disagree on all kinds of biblical and theological matters, we are wise to join forces against this statist materialism that threatens us all.
Enough said, no?
Rude: “Enough said, no?”
One last point, I promise.
Here is why I asked the question about freedom to criticize
Earlier you wrote, “I’d like it that those who supported Open Theism in this thread not be dismissed as total kooks and that we keep the ID tent big enough for us all, that whereas Judeo-Christians can disagree on the nature of God (and ultimate reality), we disagree most fundamentally with the hard core atheists and Darwin’s sycophants.”
I took that to mean that you thought my spirited challenge to OTs (I seemed to be the most vociferous critic maybe even the lone critic) was an indication that I didn’t want them in the big tent or that I thought that they were kooks. Can you see how I might have interpreted it that way?
Stephen, no problem. Y’all have a good one now.