This video, shot in February of 2008, is from an interview where RC Sproul discusses the upcoming Ben Stein movie called, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” The film is a documentary, hosted and moderated by Ben Stein, that covers the suppression of free thought, and consequentially free speech, in American universities, especially as it concerns those who think there may be some reason to discuss the idea of ‘Intelligent Design’ as at least an element of the dawn of life as we know it. Information about the film can be obtained at expelledthemovie.com, and about RC Sproul and Ligonier Ministries at ligonier.org
34 Comments
April 2, 2008 at 8:48 am
I am looking forward to see this documentary…though I’m sure it will be heavily propaganda-ized by those who are threatened by a non-evolutionary world-view.
April 2, 2008 at 9:16 am
[...] RC Sproul Interviews Ben Stein – This popped up on the “Science” section of wordpress today. I’ll be interested in the documentary when it comes out. [...]
April 2, 2008 at 10:25 am
Ben Stein is Jewish.
http://tonalddrump.wordpress.com/
April 2, 2008 at 2:26 pm
The proper name for this genre of film is “mocumentary.” Frankly, “Spinal Tap” has a deeper philosophical vein than “Expelled!,” and “Best in Show” has much better research.
April 2, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Oops, dropped a letter: “mockumentary.”
April 2, 2008 at 8:29 pm
This should be an alarm sounding for all Americans who don’t bother to think for themselves… do the research, think for yourselves, more than the present is at stake.
April 3, 2008 at 5:28 am
I’d love to see a non-evolutionary world view… unfortunately finding a realistic one is about as likely as me developing the power to teleport at will.
Nice idea, it may generate some fuzzy feelings, but ID is a scientific joke. A bad joke at that.
April 3, 2008 at 5:52 am
There is a reason intelligent design is suppressed in science departments at universities. It is not science! How can you find evidence for their missing link which is an almighty creator? Evidence is what science requires in order to take ANYONE’S claims seriously. Until then, why doesn’t intelligent design stay in the theology department.
April 3, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Creation is powerful evidence of the Creator. The human body alone shows that we were divinely designed versus being evolved and randomly concocted in some celestial cesspool. Check out the “Way of the Master” series and ABC debates. Links are on my blog.
http://chris-kratzer.blogspot.com
April 4, 2008 at 3:54 am
If the human body’s design is evidence of the Creator, the Creator is either a cruel joker, or an incompetent engineer. Why would a benevolent creator make reproduction so that half of all fetuses end up spontaneously aborted? What divine incapacity put the reproductive organs next to the waste vents, promoting infection? Don’t get me started on the spine.
April 4, 2008 at 4:19 am
Great Interview. It is obvious based upon some of the comments above, that this movie (and dialogue) needs to happen.
Faith and science are (and will always) compete for the minds of men. Simply because they are built on two totally different premises.
However, just as science as attempted to (for years) to impress its views upon people of faith, it now appears that the tables are turning.
Hope supporters from both sides will view the movie.
April 4, 2008 at 7:42 am
I’d like to add my European view to the discussion. Well, to be honest: 99.99999 % of all Europeans are simply laughing their heads off when they hear about ID, creationism and all that stuff. The fact that a lot of Americans really believe all that is hard to grasp when you look at the amount of evidence for evolution. Quite frankly, you’re making a big fool of yourself out there you know…
April 4, 2008 at 7:57 am
Personally, I want to see science explain “self”. And the ability of humans to put someone else’s welfare ahead of their own individual survival. No other species even comes close. Where is the genetic material that explains the ability to “choose” and the ability to “believe”?
God Bless,
Chris
http://sharpeningiron.wordpress.com/
April 4, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Ed,
If there was no design in the human body, then why should it seem strange to you that “reproductive organs are next to the waste vents”? By pointing out the alleged flaws in the design of the human body, you are acknowledging the very design that you see as flawed.
Not to mention the science cannot even explain itself without God.
See Can Naturalism Justify the Preconditions of Science?
Once an atheist provides a solid answer to Hume’s skepticism of induction, he may appeal to science. Until then, science only makes sense in a theistic worldview.
April 5, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Where did everybody go? I did use my deodorant today.
I guess atheists don’t like to play defense, huh.
April 5, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Your assumption that creationism is Christian, and that science and knowledge are atheist, rather suggest there’s nothing to discuss. You can’t reason a person out of some fool position he didn’t use reason to get to.
April 6, 2008 at 7:57 am
Quite to the contrary, I’ve made no such assumption. In fact, science cannot be atheistic, as David Hume (atheist) showed 300 years ago. You just want to call the movie a “mockumentary”, without having seen seen it.
If you want to discuss this issues, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I would have to consider that you are like most pop-atheists I’ve run into, wanting to rest on their own intelliectual superiority without having to defend it.
April 6, 2008 at 11:32 am
Really? How many times has Ligonier Ministries invited biologists to come lecture them on biology? How many scientists are invited to give sermons on genetics at conservative churches?
Seems to me that scientists have been willing to hear out the claims of “scientific” creationists plenty: they’ve evaluated them in detail and found them baseless. But to whine that there is no academic freedom is pretty sad coming from a group of people that do not allow any dissent or alternative views in their own places.
April 6, 2008 at 11:36 am
This is a pretty bizarre response: it doesn’t make any logical sense.
Ed’s argument was of the form: “If X (designer), then we would expect Z (optimized designs). But we don’t see Z, therefore the assumption of X is questionable.”
Your response was of the form: “since you already agree X, why should Z threaten X? ” But Ed very obviously did not agree with X: in fact his point was that X was questionable, given Z. One doesn’t need to assume the truth of something to point out that what we would expect to follow from that truth is not the case.
April 6, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Bad, your logic follows your name, bad. You entirely missed the point. Z cannot be flawed unless there is Z to begin with (Bad Z is still Z). In any case, I have yet to hear any explanation of how the human mind can comprehend Z without God, let alone account for it. For that matter, how can there be any intelligible experience, much less inductive reasoning, both of which are preconditions of science? Naturalists will never admit to their own metaphysics, and must borrow from the theistic worldview in order to argue against it.
April 6, 2008 at 10:46 pm
You seem unfamiliar with how logical argument works. In this case, Ed was making an argument of the reductio ad absurdum: i.e. assuming for the purposes of argument that what you claim is true, seeing what follows from that, showing that this leads so a serious problem or absurdity, and then finally concluding that the original assumption was flawed. So, no: Ed does not, in fact, have to believe X or Z in terms of “design” by an intelligent agent to argue hypothetically and show that X is counter-indicated by reality. He’s dipping into your claims, and showing a flaw. Not conceding that your claims or terminology are correct.
In the case of sub-optimal features in nature (i.e. the non-question begging version of “bad design”) these are actually quite well explained by sorts of changes natural selection is capable of: i.e. its inability to address large structural missteps that are only apparent in the long run.
This point seems moot, since by even responding to me here on the internet, you are already conceding all of these points. There is intelligible experience, and there is viable inductive reasoning, and you seem to already agree on these points, however you or anyone else gets there. In the case of methodological naturalism, these are, in fact, the basic assumptions, not conclusions of anything else. And as they are so fundamental to everyone’s experience of a common reality and interaction within it (in a way that supernatural or theistic assumptions are not so necessary or fundamental), they seem a lot sounder than any other starting point for inquiry.
This is, of course, a myth, though apparently a comforting one. But theism offers nothing at all philosophically that isn’t available elsewhere with just as many, or even fewer, assumptions.
April 7, 2008 at 9:18 am
Bad, let me correct some errors here.
First, you stated that “if X (designer), then we would expect Z (optimized designs).” I would disagree. My argument is “If not X (designer), then we should not expect to see anything, let alone design flaws.”
Second, you have simply dodged my question concerning induction and intelligible experience. I have not “conceded” anything to you. I hold that these things cannot exist without God, and it is up to you to prove me wrong. All of your arguments assume that these things are reality. I hold that God is a precondition of all intelligible experience. Without his design in the human brain, our “reason” is nothing more than electricity floating around inside ou skulls.
“This is, of course, a myth, though apparently a comforting one. But theism offers nothing at all philosophically that isn’t available elsewhere with just as many, or even fewer, assumptions.”
That is where we disagree. I’m asking you to prove this. Defend logic, reason, science, and morality from a naturalist, atheistic perspective. Until you do this, you cannot use them as you are begging the question.
April 7, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Magnificent. Thanks for sharing this gem.
April 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Ok, but that’s an extremely different argument than claiming that Ed must concede design because he shows how it would have be bad design, if so. And of course, this new argument is not very convincing at all. Why would we expect so “not see anything” without a designer? On what evidence could you possibly base such an assertion, having no experience with or knowledge about any existence other than our own?
Not in the slightest. I am merely pointing out that we both accept them already, and therefore demanding that I must prove them to you is silly.
Quite backwards, I’m afraid. You’d need to prove that you are correct before I’d be capable of arguing that you are correct or mistaken.
Indeed. Though, as I pointed out, those assumptions are axiomatic: they are essentially unavoidable in this context. So they seem to be a dramatically better place to start than anywhere else.
Ok, but I am not obligated to believe this claim or this assumption in the same way that you are obligated to accept reality to even debate the issue with me. Thus this is a claim that you need to prove. I see no reason to accept it. It doesn’t as far as I can tell, even explain anything at all about what an “intelligible experience” is: how God is a necessary precondition for it, or even how God goes about making experience “intelligible.” What would an “unintelligible” experience even be like?
This is a pretty flimsy proposition for at least two reasons. First of all, neither Ed nor I think that design is necessary for reliable function, let alone any functioning at all. Second of all, the fact that you can cite what the brain does in some reductive sense just not justify the word “merely.” The impulses in the brain are not wholly randomly jagging around: they appear to be doing all sorts of things that are clearly related to things like experience, memory, knowledge, reasoning, and so forth.
For you to imply that the fact that brains/minds have some sort of underlying mechanism or explanation for their functioning somehow weighs for or against the rationality of the arguments they make is, in fact, merely the genetic fallacy coupled with the fallacy of composition. Brains/minds have to work in SOME way, after all.
That’s not what “begging the question” means: it means assuming your own conclusion by using it as one of the premises, not “I have questions to ask.”
And your demand is premature for two reasons. One, you have not demonstrated that you have any special route or explanation or justification for these things. As I’ve noted in various times and places before, the general theist case for superiority here is usually based on a fatal misunderstanding of the concepts themselves. Two, as I have already noted, I can perfectly well use them simply by reference to them existing and you de facto conceding the point simply by replying. This makes the issue entirely moot. That reality exists and that the senses give a reasonably (though not error free) depiction of it within their scope is where I start to begin with: I do not need to “prove” my axioms. That is why they are axioms in the first place. And, in addition to you already agreeing with me on them for the purposes of any debate, these axioms seem a great deal stronger and more immediate than yours, which from their own starting points require all sorts of elaborate assumptions about hypothetical beings no one can demonstrate having intentions no one can discern, doing things you can’t explain in ways you also can’t explain.
April 8, 2008 at 7:41 am
Perhaps we need to restate Ed’s argument again. He wrote, “If the human body’s design is evidence of the Creator, the Creator is either a cruel joker, or an incompetent engineer.” He then proceeded to list what he perceived as flaws. Of course, it turns out that sex organs and waste valves are located in a perfect spot, but that isn’t the issue. You cannot have flaws in design without design. In using this argument, he assumes that the design of the human body could be improved, and thus insults the Creator. I’m sure you can see this. Any argument that points to “design flaws” is not an argument against the existence of a designer, but an argument against his competence. It must assume he exists.
Regarding my argument regarding design, I hold that without a designer, we could not expect the human eye to exist, nor would we expect it to be able to send accurate data to the most complex computer system known to exist (the human brain). I would not expect this brain to exist, nor would I expect it to have any fruitful connection with the created order. I’m only scratching the surface, but you can surely see the point.
But your problem, as an atheist, goes much deeper than that. Concerning induction and intelligible experience, you wrote that “I am merely pointing out that we both accept them already, and therefore demanding that I must prove them to you is silly.” Why do you keep dodging the question? My worldview can account for both items, as God created the human brain as well as the fruitful connection between it and physical reality. He “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3). This is the basis for the uniformity of nature, which you cannot account for. Uniformity of nature is the basis for all inductive reasoning, which in turn in the basis for science. This is why scientific advancement succeeded in the West, due to its puritan worldview. Eastern philosophy, pagan religions, and atheism could never have fostered such knowledge. Instead, modern atheism has tried to turn science into a prodigal son, revolting against the worldview that fostered it.
Don’t take my word for it. The father of naturalistic philosophy, David Hume, noticed this dilemma 300 years ago.
See Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding
Therefore, you cannot “assume” anything. If so, we can just assume the God exists, and all go home. If you reject Hebrews 1:3, then you need to account for the preconditions of your arguments.
You concluded, “One, you have not demonstrated that you have any special route or explanation or justification for these things.” On the contrary, I have just demonstrated that my worldview can account for the preconditions of science, logic, etc. My argument is that God exist because of the impossibility of the contrary. Without God, we cannot know or prove anything. Once you have provided an answer to Hume, then I’ll accept the idea of atheistic “science” and “logic”, Until then, these things are a pipe dream.
April 8, 2008 at 8:21 am
I want to know what Ben believes about Jesus Christ?
April 9, 2008 at 11:41 am
Where/when can I purchase the “Expelled” movie…do they have it in blueray? Awesome stuff, Love Ben…thanks for the post …FANTASTIC!
April 9, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Did you even read the link I supplied on the reductio? Someone does not have to assume the truth of X to argue that, IF X were true, then Z Y and W would be the case, and these being absurd, X is probably not true. In fact, the whole point is to argue that X is NOT true, not to assume that it is.
This is really, really basic logic.
I see your point. I don’t see that it’s based on anything useful.
I don’t see how I’ve dodged the question. You haven’t raised any question that I can see. You’ve made a groundless assertion that you don’t seem able to justify: that you are somehow able to better account for the way reality is than I can. And yet, you’ve missed the rather crucial element, which is that all you are doing is just laying out a bunch of assumptions. I can do the same. So what? My assumptions are at the very least a lot more direct and to the point.
And my point, again, was that the issue is moot. You may not agree with my assumptions, and I don’t agree with yours, but we both concede that reality is real and induction is valid, and so forth. In fact, you cannot HELP but agree with me no matter what you do (unless you stop treating reality as real, and thus are sure not to continue debating the point).
The fact that your worldview can tell a story accounting for them is irrelevant. That doesn’t make the story true. For all you know, a God could have made your brain such that it gives a grossly false picture of reality, and also prevented you from having the capacity to realize it. How would you know different?
Which means… what exactly? Can you actually explain what this purported act entails? If not, how can you claim to understand it or employ it in an “explanation” of anything?
We observe uniformity in natural laws. As for why there is that uniformity, we don’t pretend, falsely, to know why. Now, yes, if we wanted, we could make up any number of reasons off the top of our heads. But that’s not knowledge. The fact that you can tell a story that accounts for it is not knowledge either.
Your implication, however, seems to be that we should find it strange that there is uniformity in natural laws. But you haven’t justified this implication in the least.
You’re pretty ignorant of history as well, I see.
Genetic fallacy again. Snore.
You are welcome to assume that God exists. I don’t however. I merely assume the basic axioms necessary to act and live in our common reality.
And unlike your assumption, which is completely optional, the assumptions I’m making are not. You have to make them to function at all, even to have this argument.
You are even more deeply confused than I thought if you think that one does not have to make assumptions. ALL logical systems have to start with axioms. Everything you argue assumes some basic axioms, unproven.
No: you’ve told a story asserting that a Godidit. That’s not what an “explanation” is though. If all that mattered were telling a story, do you think I couldn’t tell stories too? I happen not to because it doesn’t explain or illuminate anything to do so, but if those are the rules you want to play by, anyone can do it.
You haven’t demonstrated that the contrary is impossible. I’m not sure, from talking to you, that you even understand what “demonstrating” something (logically or evidentially) would entail.
I’d certainly love to see you try to do so without making even a single implicit assumption!
I might as well say that, without the lack of God, we cannot know or prove anything. Why? Because the lack of God is what allows us to perceive things accurately and rationally. I don’t have to explain why this is true, or course, or demonstrate that it is, in fact, the case. I can just assert it, pointlessly, like you do your claims. And apparently, that’s enough to satisfy you, right?
Once you have provided an answer to Hume, then I’ll accept the idea of atheistic “science” and “logic”, Until then, these things are a pipe dream.
April 10, 2008 at 10:50 am
I am quite amazed at the ignorance of the pro-evolution crowd.
Remember that for hundreds of years it was a “proven scientific fact” that spontaneous generation fully explained the origins of life.
Then came Darwin who believed characteristics passed from parent to offspring by the environment. This was called “Acquired Characteristics” and was undebatably considered truth. You remember the old experiments where they would cut off the tails of mice for several generations believing that eventually the mice would be born without tails.
Then the science of genetics came along and totally disproved yet another “proven scientific fact”. Now you believe that we evolved through random genetic mutations. We are still looking for an example of even one positive genetic mutations, but you believe that countless billions and billions of them have taken place.
The more we learn about the complexity of DNA the more it looks like your latest “proven scientific fact” will fall by the wayside.
But this time you are completely sure that there are no holes in your theory.
Fine, believe what ever you want, but don’t stand in the way of those that actually want to seek the truth. And if it happens to lead to “Intelligent Design” or even “Creationism” so be it.
April 10, 2008 at 10:50 am
Bad,
Are you referring to the basic logic of Ed’s argument? It holds no water, because he must assume design before he can point to flawed design. He points to alleged flaws in design as evidence of no designer. His argument amounts to “I think God should have done it another way”. I would ask, “Says who?” His most basic premise is flawed. It is not based on any observable facts, but mere assumptions. In fact, I want to hear how putting “the reproductive organs next to the waste vents, promoting infection” is a bad thing in the world of Darwin. Seems to me that this helps limit population growth. You know, survival of the fittest and all. Perfect design if you ask me.
So lets put Ed’s argument in terms of your own logic.
“If X (designer), then we would expect Z (optimized designs).
Why would you expect to see Z, and by what yardstick will you measure “optimized designs”? We need an answer to that, as well as why the current design is to be considered flawed. Also, without God, please explain why we should be able to see anything.
“And my point, again, was that the issue (intelligible experience) is moot. You may not agree with my assumptions, and I don’t agree with yours, but we both concede that reality is real and induction is valid, and so forth. In fact, you cannot HELP but agree with me no matter what you do (unless you stop treating reality as real, and thus are sure not to continue debating the point).”
Again I’m not going to concede anything. If your worldview is correct, then you must somehow establish these thing arising from a strictly material universe. You demand scientific evidence for God, which you reject when given to you, as I will address below, yet you don’t hold the same standard for laws of logic, intelligible experience, or the uniformity of nature. You standard for knowledge is quite selectively and arbitrarily applied. But at least you admit that you have “assumptions”. That’s a step in the right direction.
“We observe uniformity in natural laws. As for why there is that uniformity, we don’t pretend, falsely, to know why.”
Are you suggesting that personal experience is a valid test of reality? Hume would disagree, which is probably why you won’t answer him. Shall we talk about personal experience? Will you apply this standard consistently?
There are no shortages of empirical evidences for God, especially in the created order. But you can watch the film and learn more about that. Of course, based on your own unproven assumptions, will reject these evidences as “we don’t know” and accuse us of adopting a “God of the gaps” philosophy. Fine, but if atheism is to be considered a valid worldview, then it must be able to account for the preconditions of the tools it uses. I have held the God is the precondition for science, logic, reason, knowledge, intelligible experience, human dignity, inductive reasoning, the uniformity of nature, free thought, free will, etc. Naturally, you are rejecting that argument, so the burden of proof is on you to account for these things in an atheistic, naturalistic worldview. Before you can even begin to do science, you must have order, uniformity, and intelligible experience. You must account for these things before you can appeal to science. I hold that science only makes sense in a theistic worldview. It is upon you to prove me wrong by accounting for the preconditions of science. You must answer Hume. I wish you well, as no one has been able to do so yet. I would have to call your approach to science the “atheism of the gaps” approach.
Why? Because the lack of God is what allows us to perceive things accurately and rationally”
Can you prove this, without being circular or arbitrary, or is this merely another assumption?
I see you like logic. Tell me, are the laws of logic universal, or are the subjective in the minds of individuals? Please account for them in a random, chaotic, naturalistic worldview.
April 11, 2008 at 9:22 am
What kills me is, how scientists make new DNA evidence fit their presuppositions.
Check this out – This is really ridiculous.
The NEW evidence:
Their ‘CONCLUSION’ based on the NEW evidence:
Man, this stuff becomes laughable because “scientists” accuse Christians of trying to make everything fit their model. Yet when scientists do it, there is no equivalent cry of “foul” against their own. Come on, you have to see the humor in this don’t you??? LOL
Source:
http://boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/
God Bless!
Chris
April 13, 2008 at 10:15 am
The faith it takes to believe that 10 to the nth number of mathematical impossibilities just “happened” to take place one after the other in the EXACT perfect order to produce the world today is a gigantic leap that baffles even me. . .and I believe in an intelligent creator of the Universe, too. What is scary is that this secular religion based on improbabilities, incongruent theories, and irrational leaps of faith has fervent followers that are willing to perpetrate a modern day Inquisition on anyone that dares question the laundry list of things that don’t add up in this secular Weltanschauung.
April 13, 2008 at 10:25 am
[...] “oops it just sorta accidently happened” versus the intelligent design camp. RC Sproul recently interviewed Stein to talk about [...]
April 21, 2008 at 10:29 am
[...] R.C. Sproul’s interview with Stein. [...]