P.S.

A quick note in my email suggests that a clarification might help.

If you saw on TV the trailer for Expelled you might think this is a movie about a student challenging his science teacher in high school, and this might raise questions in the minds of those who know my scruples.

This was my reply to the question:

Well, as I say, I don't want to go so far as to recommend what others might find objectionable. If their conscience binds them, more power to them. I salute them.

But as for me, my objection is to the theater, drama, tragedy by Aristotle's definition. This is a documentary, a string of interviews, visits to historical places interspersed with old film footage to produce a metaphor.

The trailer shown on TV is a bit misleading. It's really not a movie about a boy challenging his science professor in high school.

I saw it with some friends Friday night. It was less provocative than I might have expected, probably since I was already convinced of the truth of the stories it told. But anytime Richard Dawkins looks absolutely comical, I'm happy.

I got a kick out of the "scientist" who three times explained quite rationally how life began on the backs of crystals.

Brilliant!

My favorite part was when Richard Dawkins conceded the point at the end -- as long as the intelligent designer was a space alien who created us, and not God. And he was serious!

Yah.

A space alien could do it in a way we cannot explain. That's science.

If God did it in a way we cannot explain, that's just the religion of stupid people.

One of my friends thought that a great Stein line would have been to ask Dawkins if he thought maybe crystals were a more plausible explanation than his aliens hypothesis.

Who knows what Dawkins would say, but if he were truthful he would say that the crystal explanation is more plausible because that one isn’t suggestive of intelligence.

Not unlike Dawkins himself.

I haven’t seen anyone put this much faith in crystals since I talked with Ms. SpiritWhisper in that New Age Bookstore.

Dissidens:

I have not been able to see the documentary, so I have no idea how to take your commentary (whether as criticism or as praise of the movie). However, I was hoping you would expound on your view of Intelligent Design. I seem to recall something you wrote many years ago that disagreed with it. Could you enlighten me?

EC:

I don’t remember publicly addressing the issue of ID so I can’t speak to your recollections. I think it is unlikely I said I disbelieved in intelligent design. It seems more likely that I expressed a dim view of Creationism as opposed to creationism, by which I mean that I trust Moses’ word without the speculations, elaborations and embellishments of certain Creationists who were trying to shoehorn a particular view of science into the classroom. I did, and do, view those attempts as short on integrity.

I corresponded briefly with Duane Gish on that point and he admitted that his view was not science. He compared his view to evolution, also not science, observing that “they do have scientific characteristics”. He and his movement believed that whether offered as science or philosophy, both “be accorded the same status wherever they are placed.”

And there’s some crackerjack thinking.

That was on ICR letterhead dated December of 1985. I disagreed then and I still disagree. In fact I think part of our current snarl is attributable to such short-sighted activism. Dr. Gish enclosed copies of two publications. One was from his book; the title of chapter one is Evolution—A Philosophy, Not A Science.

It is ironic that he and his cohort sought to challenge philosophy with theology in the science classroom.

I said a moment ago that it is unlikely I expressed disbelief in intelligent design. Inasmuch as God created everything that is, there is no doubt in my mind that there are the marks of intelligence everywhere, even where not yet (or not ever) descried: in the physical universe, in history, in the expressions of human aspiration…. But that is a philosophical/cultural view. I defer to real scientists on the evidences of design in nature. So I would assert, contrary to ID defenders, that there is intelligent design even where it isn’t observed. That places me outside the conversation Stein was having with scientists.

I will observe, however, the superiority of Stein’s response to that of the church’s. Stein a) asked scientists a question scientists could not answer without making fools and bigots of themselves, and b) he demonstrated the loss of liberty that flows from enforced dogmatism…two points that could have been made 1200 years ago.

What if in 1925 and 1985 Christians had been putting that question to their scientists so the citizens could hear about those fabulous life-generating crystals? [I realize that the alien intelligence and crystal theories were not as attractive in ’25 and ’85 as they are now, but the principle is the same.]

What if Christians had stuck to the obvious point and not made it a political cause?

Dissidens:

What I was thinking of was an article you once wrote in The Candle concerning your correspondence with Duane Gish. I couldn't find my copy, and that was a long time ago, but I thought your problem with ID was the fundamental dishonesty of trying to slip creationism into the classroom under another guise.

And that brings me to an article I just read by John Derbyshire on National Review Online. The URL is http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=. I often like what he writes, but when it comes to ID, he becomes almost vituperative. In this case, he accuses Ben Stein of deceit and thievery. I would be interested in your reaction to it.

Well, you’re right that I was objecting to Creationists’ smuggling non-science into the classroom in order to combat the non-science that was already there. I think that was shameful and has contributed to the current frenzy.

But nothing in my letter to Gish and nothing in his reply dealt with either intelligent design or irreducible complexity. Dembski, Behe, Meyer and Johnson’s work came on the heels of that conversation.

Prescinding his specific claims, John Derbyshire clearly doesn’t want to be taken seriously.