You are here

Home ›

ID: Dawkins isn't opposed to space aliens bringing it...

by David and Tim Bayly on April 28, 2008 - 6:30am

(Tim) Went to Ben Stein's Expelled this weekend. A couple comments...

Dawkins' facial tics get the best of him when Stein puts him through his paces, repeatedly asking him about his non-belief in God. Do you believe in God? Do you believe in the Christian God? How 'bout the Muslim God? Any one of the many Hindu Gods? Do you believe in any God at all? Are you sure? Absolutely sure? What would you put the chances of God's existence at? Ninety-eight percent sure He doesn't exist and two percent sure He does? Fifty-two percent He doesn't and forty-eight percent He does?

It's a good education watching the über-evolutionist squirm under such scientific scrutiny...

Then there's the bit about the possibility of tracing the origin of life back to hitchhikers catching a ride on the back of a crystal; or space aliens traveling to earth to provide the intelligent design needed to jump start mother earth. Really, I'm not making this stuff up. In fact, the space alien thing comes from Dawkins himself and he doesn't crack a smile when he says it. Amazing stuff, although Dawkins since said the aliens are the bright idea of the ID people.

That said, remember Michael Moore and Ben Stein both use video and the medium really is the massage. So the best part of this flick isn't the ID guys (although note our own Steve Bradley's Dad, Walter, gets a cameo and does himself proud). Nor is it Stein's splices.

It's watching the God-haters' delusions and knowing the end of the story:

Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!”

He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them. (Psalms 2:1-4)

PS: From Joani, here's a good review of the film.

Tags: 
Academia

Permalink

Comments

Submitted by Kamilla on April 28, 2008 - 8:09am

I'm going to have to see that - Ben Stein skewering Dawkins? I've no doubt it was brilliantly done.

I did catch a few moments of Dawkins on a show while recently over the pond. A few moments is all my stomach would handle. There was a gracious woman doing her best to explain a little bit about a Christian worldview and Christian morality. Dawkins basically accused her of trying to ram her religion down everyone's throats when all she was asking for was a moment to speak, a chance to convince, in the over-used way of putting it - a place at the table. She was not demanding she make all the rules. It was as if Dawkins was afraid to honestly engage the arguments.

I can't tell you what I thought of Dawkins as I'm trying to maintain the illusion I can act like a lady once in a while.

Kamilla

Submitted by (I refuse to id... on April 28, 2008 - 8:57am

Intelligent design is a childish belief in magic. Anyone who believes in it deserves to be ridiculed.

Ben Stein is a professional liar and he knows nothing about biological evolution.

The producers of the anti-science propaganda movie Expelled are compulsive liars...

Submitted by RBerman on April 28, 2008 - 9:03am

Well, I guess we've just been blessed! (Matthew 5:11) Thanks, (refusetoidentifyyourself). That was an unexpected Monday treat.

Submitted by al on April 28, 2008 - 9:55am

I refuse said: "The producers of the anti-science propaganda movie Expelled are compulsive liars..."

Well, that was a convincing argument.

Again and again the anti-ID folks show themselves for what they are... closed minded lovers of approved science.

al sends

(And I'm not even an ID guy)

Submitted by Michael Foster on April 28, 2008 - 1:42pm

It does sound like Dawkin's comment on life being seeded by aliens was taken somewhat out of context from what I've read. We need to be careful that we aren't taking Michael Moore-like tactics to make a point.

For the record, I believe Exodus 20:11 to be inspired and accurate.

Submitted by ck on April 28, 2008 - 4:31pm

Michael is right. The context (as you must know from seeing the film) is that Stein asked Dawkins to give a possible scenario in which he *might* concede ID is correct. He responds using the "panspermia" theory (which Stein had earlier ridiculed in the film, ironically enough, given his enthusiasm at its emergence here).

Dawkins' point is that, even if we were to go to such lengths as to grant that space aliens "created" life here, the aliens themselves would be products of natural selection.

But Stein misses that point entirely in the film (I saw it and reviewed it on my own blog).

Look, I can understand (as I'm a former PCA member) why this film might be seen as a welcome addition to the discussion. Unfortunately, it doesn't put its best foot forward in terms of presenting the facts fully and avoiding poor reasoning.

[I'm posting this as an exception to my normal rule to lurk on Reformed blogs rather than participate and will certainly leave the discussion alone if you'd wish...]

Submitted by Tim Bayly on April 28, 2008 - 5:05pm

CK, that's not my recollection of Dawkins' point at all, but you may be right.

What I observed--and Dawkins was given extended time here to make his point, unedited if I remember correctly--was Dawkins showing that he's open to intelligent design being behind earth's life as long as that ID has its origin in a closed system. He wasn't forced to come up with that scenario, but came up with it on his own. Taken out of context?

Well, after the fact, he says this about his space alien offering in the film: "I sometimes hand an olive branch to these people by pretending to take their 'space aliens' political ploy seriously. Unrealistic as the space alien theory is, it constitutes intelligent design's best shot."

But the salient point in the film was not that Dawkins was lowering himself to the absurdity of space aliens as an oline branch to "these people," but that he was willing to consider space aliens as a valid example of ID as long as they themselves were not created by God. His thrust here was that it must, it absolutely had to, come from a closed system.

Incidentally, it should be noted that Dawkins had a lot of face time and many, many words in this film. So no, having read his response, I don't think Dawkins' explanation cuts it, nor do I think that this particular part of the film was unfair, taking him out of context.

You said Stein missed Dawkins' point that "the aliens themselves would be products of natural selection," but I didn't think Stein missed it.

That said, we welcome your comments, brother.

Submitted by ck on April 28, 2008 - 5:56pm

Thanks for the positive response, Tim, although I'm biologically female and not a Christian but technically an excommunicated former PCA member (I'm assuming the 'brother' was not indicating a camaraderie based on gender alone).

We'll have to part ways on our interpretation of Stein's construal of Dawkins, but I think that the closed system gets it precisely. It's a pretty standard philosophical and scientific concept: causal exclusion. Physical events have physical causes. Non-physical events have non-physical causes.

So, yes, the rejection of a non-physical deity goes well hand-in-hand with that. And my major point is that rather than realize that this is what is at issue, Stein seems to take the space alien scenario as some kind of mini-victory for ID, although it isn't.

A victory for ID would require admitting that physical events have non-physical causes (c.f. irreducible complexity hypothesis) and Dawkins did not do that.

(I'm not a huge Dawkins fan, please note, just someone who want the debate to be clean on all sides!)

Enjoy your evening and thanks for the conversation.

Submitted by Tim Bayly on April 28, 2008 - 8:11pm

Dear CK,

Quite helpful. But turning to the infinitely more important...

Come on home--quickly!

For the love of Christ,

Tim Bayly

Submitted by Tim Bayly on April 29, 2008 - 5:48am

By the way, having read Dawkins' explanation of his intent, I've changed the title of this post, as well as part of the content. Thanks for the pushback, Michael and CK.

Submitted by rob on April 29, 2008 - 10:09am

Tim, as a physics professor who has lost several jobs over ID, everything Ben said in his movie is accurate, and even understated. Read my review: http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/24/expelled_the_movie.thtml

For ultimately, Stein's point is not that ID is a scientific alternative to evolution (which it is), but that Evolution is an alternative to God. The apoplexy of evolutionists when asked tough questions is exactly the same treatment they've been dishing out to Christians for the past 70 years (Crusades, Inquisition, Luther's tirades, etc.)

It is only when atheism settled into its dogmatic phase that atheists have become such poor debaters. (Or is that "because"?) It isn't the scintillating argument that makes this a movie worth watching, but seeing atheists apoplectic when gently questioned about their faith.

Which just goes to show that the benefits of suffering are often reaped in the next generation.

Add new comment

2013 Clearnote Summer Conference
Man vs. Lust
Sexual by Design