Ben Stein: appropriately Expelled

Scientific American recently reviewed Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The review, and even more so, the comments that follow it, are enlightening. In fairness, though, before I go further, I should note that I have not seen the movie, nor have I read any of Darwin's work. Nevertheless, I think that some comments can be made based on what I see in the review and its replies.

I'll start by defining science and religion as I understand them, as those terms, and their meaning, seem to play a large part in this debate. Both purport to explain the workings of the world around us, and so on that level, they are comparable. The difference, as I see it, is that while religion tells us "this is how things work," science is less absolute, saying only "this is our best understanding of how things work - new information may result in new theories". In other words, science encourages debate into the validity of its theories, with the understanding that debate and challenge will bring it closer to understanding the truth, while religion tells us what truth is, and has no mechanism for evaluating or updating its views. Admittedly, the degree to which science is open to challenge and revision varies - anyone looking to challenge the theory of gravity, for instance, will be hard-pressed to find support - but the theoretical basis of science is the scientific method, which includes challenge and revision as main tenets.

But, on to Ben Stein and Expelled. Stein proposes that educators and scientists who dare mention intelligent design are being shut out of the discussion on the origins of mankind. As part of this argument he compares proponents of evolution to Nazis, and apparently claims that Charles Darwin's theories led to the rise of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. The difficulty with this argument would be that it confuses inspiration with responsibility. Hitler may have used the theory of evolution as a basis for his own theories, and it may have in fact inspired some of his thinking, but we can't thereofor suggest that people who believe in evolution are akin to Nazis, or that without the theory of evolution, Hitler's Nazism would never have emerged.

Personally, I don't think that Stein truly believes that Charles Darwin is responsible for the crimes of Germany before and during World War II; he's too smart for that. But I do think that he believes that there are people who will believe in that connection, and I agree with him on that, particularly if someone like Ben Stein voices it. In other words, I think Stein is using the Nazis as propaganda in an attempt to connect a phenomenon scorned by much of the country with the theories of evolution. If he can convince people to connect evolution with Nazism, then he can make evolution a very scary thing. This is something like the negative campaigning so often seen in political races, where candidates have little to say about their own qualifications, but a lot to say about their rivals' shortcomings.

I am also reminded of the alar scare during the late 1980s. Lab studies found that alar, a chemical sprayed on apples, caused cancer in lab animals, and eventually public distrust of the chemical caused it to be removed from the market. Whether alar was harmful or not is not my point here (even water is harmful enough in high enough doses), though; my point is that it was a chemical sprayed on apples. What could be a more basic and friendly food than an apple? What could be more healthful? What other food could so easily create a public outcry if it were tampered with and made unsafe? Chemicals more dangerous than alar no doubt were being used in the food industry at the time, but none was as easy a target as alar because alar was sprayed on apples - on the apples that we - and especially our children - eat. By connecting the theory of evolution with Nazism, Stein can elicit a much more vociferous response, in many more people, than if he merely said that the theory was counter to his own beliefs, or was faulty for any number of more plausible, more honest, but less dramatic, reasons.