I believe that this movie has the potential to be the most talked about event in 2008, even eclipsing the political conventions, the Olympics and the Election. I am equally sure that if it does well in the box office that there will be MUCH negative publicity against it. At any rate, this is a very thought provoking trailer. Enjoy
If nothing else I hope that this movie will engage Christians in and with the culture once again. Forcing us to think! and get off our pat answers and shallow arguments. This could be a great opportunity to participate in conversations with the culture at large. It will also be an opportunity to show our ignorance if we are not careful. There is a risk of the anti-intellectuals, who shun academia, science and the institutes of higher learning, to solidify the sterotypical image of the “Christian” as the ignorant, blind faith bumpkins that many in the culture say we are.
At any rate, it is time to get out of the bunkers we call church and engage our culture again, not in some antagonistic conflict, but in truth and love. It is possible to win the argument and lose the person with whom you are conversing. (I have to give props to my Pastor, Josh, for that line, it was too good not to borrow.) It is also possible to lose an argument due to lack of preparation and basic knowledge and end up looking like a backwoods banjo picker.
March 7, 2008 at 11:38 pm
It’s like the fahrenheit 911 for Darwinism.
March 8, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Thanks for the trailer. I’m not terribly impressed with the writing — I wonder if they’re target audience is students.
March 8, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Good point Chris. As to the writing and narration, it is Ben Stein after all (Bueller, bueller…). I don’t think that the target audience is for students at all. Much like Fahrenheit 911 and An Inconvenient Truth, the target audience for this film is most likely the general populace. Consequently, I don’t expect this film to make huge waves within academic circles, and I doubt very seriously that there will be any Darwinian evolutionists who will convert to ID after watching it.
That being said, I do expect this film to cause a stir within the popular masses and to (hopefully) bring to light the obvious predjudices that exists within academia. I think that it was Bacon’s fourth idol (the idol of the theatre) that is being challenged here. Time will tell if this film produces any positive impact or is simply discarded into trash heap of forgotten pop culture fads.
March 8, 2008 at 4:41 pm
What prejudices in academia, exactly?
ID isn’t included because it simply isn’t science, unless you want the rules changed to accommodate it then it simply is never going to happen.
Meanwhile the case examples the film brings up get proven wrong time and again.
Crocker, just as one example, was clearly let go because of her incompetence as a professor:
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/ode-to-caroline-crocker/
Gonzalez’s academic record has also to be shown to be extremely poor, hence why he was denied tenure rather than his pro-ID claims.
March 8, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Matt,
Thanks for stopping by, but until the movie is released and we get to see it all in context I’ll withhold judgment.
If you are claiming that ID has to be proven by the application of the Scientific method in order to be valid, then Darwinian Evolution fails to pass muster as well.
As for the case examples, I want to hear their side of the story before declaring them incompetent. Have a good day.
March 8, 2008 at 5:50 pm
No, I’m claiming (as well as pretty much every scientist with decent credentials) that ID isn’t science. Even one of ID’s main proponents, Behe, was forced to admit (at the Dover trial) that for ID to be classified as science then the definition of science would have to be changed - which at the same time would also allow astrology to be a fully recognised science.
If you are claiming that ID has to be proven by the application of the Scientific method in order to be valid, then Darwinian Evolution fails to pass muster as well.
And I have no idea how you came to that conclusion at all.
March 8, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Matt, c’mon man, there have been predjudices in academia as far back as Plato’s Academy and before. Just think of the resistance to Relativity theory by adherents to Newtonian physics. Or the vociferous denial of the big bang cosmology by the steady-state theorists. It’s always been that way: prejudice comes with the territory.
Besides, when I refer to “predjudice” I am in no way commenting on the truth or falsity of Darwinian evolution. Besides, there are theistic Christians who hold to evolution themselves. All that I am saying is that there has always been a tendency within academia to resist any challenge to the status quo (ala Copernicus being censured by the scholastic RC church which was the ‘academia’ of the time). If Stein’s movie is championing academic freedom of speech, I’m all for it. If he is saying that we should idealistially burn Darwinists at the stake, then I’m completely against it for the same reason. I think we should take persifler’s stance on all this: wait for the movie and then critique it.
March 8, 2008 at 6:09 pm
btw Matt (hate to double post). Please don’t think that we at Quadrivium think that a popularly produced documentary (i.e. F-911, Inconvenient Truth, etc.) is actually going to set forth an analytically scientific case for a certain position. I tend to view films such as these as mild propaganda for the views that they espouse. Frankly, anyone coming away from a film like this having made an ironclad decision on an extremely complex subject is simply naive. I think persifler’s initial point (barring the Darwin vs. ID debate that ensued in the comments) is that it will be interesting to see the cultural aftermath from the film as well as helpful in getting the average person to actually think about these things.
March 8, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Matt,
We must be consistant with our definitions and applications. Is evolution observable? Is it reproducable? So what we actually have is differing opinions on the existing evidence. Darwin filtered his hypothesis through a non-theistic lens. Creationists filter the same information through a theistic lens. Many ID proponents if not sympathetic to theism at least are not antagonistic to it.
But Josh is right, the premise is not ID -vs- Evolution but Academic freedom vs Censorship. G’day.
March 10, 2008 at 2:05 am
There is a very pertinent quote which I feel is relevant whenever I see this kind of talk:
“Convinced that powerful vested interests, including the scientific establishment, are conspiring to hold back a scientific revolution, speakers complained that “new” science is denied funding, rejected by journal editors and even subjected to ridicule, just because it doesn’t fit some outdated paradigm. Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” - Robert Park
To paraphrase - it could be that the scientists are trying to censor ID, or it could just be that ID is a total load of bollocks.
March 10, 2008 at 9:17 am
Joshua,
I agree with that quote, I would even tip my hat to Voltaire, One may not agree with what I am saying but at least respect my right to say it.
I do not fear the truth, I fear those who form the truth to fit their version of it. (I fully accept that the “Christian” religion has in the past been guilty of this very thing… I see the secularists now becoming guilty of it as well.)
In any case allow the truth to be persued no matter where it leads.