Comment I think the point of the film is being overlooked (Score 1, Insightful) 1766
It seems to me that most responses posted here fail to address the central premise of the movie. I think the premise is this: it appears that many scientists have a legitimate fear of losing or have already lost their employment because they are proponents of Intelligent Design, i.e. they have observed that many things in nature appear to be designed.
The central point is not whether:
1. Some things in nature actually are designed.
2. Who or what that designer may be.
3. Evolution may also be responsible for all or part of the formation of the natural world and our universe.
All of these points are ancillary. The film is meant to document the discrimination, fear, and prejudice present in scientific academia. That this point is missed in the forum posts above disheartens me, and I wish I could say that it also surprises me, but it does not. How easily we miss the simple point of something when there are other topics surrounding it that light a fire underneath us. I would hope that we all strongly agree with free speech, tolerance, and choice, regardless of what we may think about the beliefs of those being discriminated against. I will assume we all agree with this statement and will move on to the secondary issues which appear to be the main topic of interest.
I don't believe any Intelligent Design advocate would disagree with evolution (specifically microevolution) as a scientific fact. In fact I know that many ID proponents believe in macroevolution as well. For example Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box (which is famous for popularizing the premise of ID) is a macroevolutionist.
Many scientists have made the point that apparent design in nature and macroevolution are not always exclusive views. In other words, they feel they have the privilege of observing a world which was formed by the mechanism of evolution and the occasional direct work of some kind of intelligence. In this view, that same intelligence is responsible for designing the process of evolution as well and lets it do the job it was intended to.
Something else that seems to often be misunderstood is the claim that Intelligent Design is the same thing as creationism. I will only note that there are many who believe in ID but disavow conventional creationism, and there are many creationists who disagree with the conclusions of the ID movement (based largely on their belief that the earth is very young). Those who believe that they are the same are only aware of the surface of these subjects, or may simply hope that ID will just as easily meet the same demise that creationism so easily met. Either way they are not in a good position to intelligently criticize ID (or creationism, for that matter.)
Another error that I see many people make is equating ID to what they commonly term "the watchmaker argument". The real argument they are referring to is the classic Teleological Argument, which happened to receive a breath of life from William Paley's watchmaker analogy about 200 years ago. The argument itself, however, was articulated about 1,000 years before Paley by Plato himself and Aristotle after him, and has benefited from a long list of reworkings and clarifications, as well as much criticism. To quote the "watchmaker argument" at all in this context subtely reveals an ignorance of the subject, similar to how a creationist might think Darwin's evolutionary arguments are sole focus of scientific thought. In any case, we should certainly not dismiss ID so abruptly because the "watchmaker" aspect of the Teleological Argument has had popular critics over the years, because ID and the watchmaker argument are not the same. It is a different argument that appears similar to those who have not learned enough about each to be able to understand how they truly differ.
From what I have read, the scientists being discriminated against haven't even made ID part of their curriculum or classroom discussions, though I am certainly not aware of the details of every case. They appear to have been let go or denied tenure because they hold their belief and vocalize it primarily outside of the classroom. It seems like the ID proponents being discriminated against don't have any options. If they clearly teach their ideas in the classroom, they will find opposition and likely be let go. If they choose to never mention what they think at all due to fear, we have created the worst kind of atmosphere to promote knowledge, and more importantly, understanding. Finally, if they choose to hold a balanced view by embracing whatever conclusions their research leads them to, but not teaching that their view is true (or even mention it at all in this case), they may very well find themselves not only jobless, but possibly "careerless" as well, being denied the tenure that their peers are granted, which, again, is the main point of this movie.
I wasn't going to try to make my next point, but I suppose that only those really interested in my thoughts are still reading by now. I must say that I disagree with the idea that is imposed on academia that science, philosophy, politics, language, and religion are all completely separate beliefs and must therefore be compartmentalized. The fact that it appears impossible (at least in America) to imagine a way to integrate them is not a good excuse.
Historically, as well as currently in most other parts of the world, we find that cultures do not embrace the scientific method as the sole test of truth. They would agree that we can obtain knowledge that way, but that it is not the only way that something can be known. There are also some in current American academia who are wise enough to undersand this and who can articulate it far better than myself (e.g. Alvin Plantinga and his arguments from intuition).
Of course there are matters in each of the disciplines above that do not relate to the others, but most things that we experience, think about, and try to articulate find themselves quite naturally overlapping two or more of those categories, or others. I would argue that It is actually unnatural to artificially separate them. Philosophy would clearly be impotent without language, as would science (to a lesser degree). And science and philosophy are disciplines that make observations, then grapple with making sense of what those observations may mean and how it relates to us. Religion and politics are cousins, or possibly even brothers. They ask "what is good and right, and how are we to live based on that knowledge?" It is therefore no coincidence that the two things we are to never bring up if we mean to have a pleasant discussion are religion and politics. They touch us deeply and reveal our core, which we are sometimes not entirely comfortable with. I think it is also sometimes uncomfortable because it may be possible that we do not yet fully know who we are and find no pleasure in discussing a subject that reminds us of that fact. It is at least my hope, and hopefully my belief as well that this compartmentalization will be an artifact of our age and considered an odd and bewildering historical curiosity. The kind of thing that only makes sense if you lived in that time and had that idea drilled into your head day after day.
At the risk of sounding like a poem on a refrigerator magnet, I will nevertheless end with this: "May you be free to seek and discover truth without fear, have courage to live in the truth you find, and grant others the right to do the same."
The central point is not whether:
1. Some things in nature actually are designed.
2. Who or what that designer may be.
3. Evolution may also be responsible for all or part of the formation of the natural world and our universe.
All of these points are ancillary. The film is meant to document the discrimination, fear, and prejudice present in scientific academia. That this point is missed in the forum posts above disheartens me, and I wish I could say that it also surprises me, but it does not. How easily we miss the simple point of something when there are other topics surrounding it that light a fire underneath us. I would hope that we all strongly agree with free speech, tolerance, and choice, regardless of what we may think about the beliefs of those being discriminated against. I will assume we all agree with this statement and will move on to the secondary issues which appear to be the main topic of interest.
I don't believe any Intelligent Design advocate would disagree with evolution (specifically microevolution) as a scientific fact. In fact I know that many ID proponents believe in macroevolution as well. For example Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box (which is famous for popularizing the premise of ID) is a macroevolutionist.
Many scientists have made the point that apparent design in nature and macroevolution are not always exclusive views. In other words, they feel they have the privilege of observing a world which was formed by the mechanism of evolution and the occasional direct work of some kind of intelligence. In this view, that same intelligence is responsible for designing the process of evolution as well and lets it do the job it was intended to.
Something else that seems to often be misunderstood is the claim that Intelligent Design is the same thing as creationism. I will only note that there are many who believe in ID but disavow conventional creationism, and there are many creationists who disagree with the conclusions of the ID movement (based largely on their belief that the earth is very young). Those who believe that they are the same are only aware of the surface of these subjects, or may simply hope that ID will just as easily meet the same demise that creationism so easily met. Either way they are not in a good position to intelligently criticize ID (or creationism, for that matter.)
Another error that I see many people make is equating ID to what they commonly term "the watchmaker argument". The real argument they are referring to is the classic Teleological Argument, which happened to receive a breath of life from William Paley's watchmaker analogy about 200 years ago. The argument itself, however, was articulated about 1,000 years before Paley by Plato himself and Aristotle after him, and has benefited from a long list of reworkings and clarifications, as well as much criticism. To quote the "watchmaker argument" at all in this context subtely reveals an ignorance of the subject, similar to how a creationist might think Darwin's evolutionary arguments are sole focus of scientific thought. In any case, we should certainly not dismiss ID so abruptly because the "watchmaker" aspect of the Teleological Argument has had popular critics over the years, because ID and the watchmaker argument are not the same. It is a different argument that appears similar to those who have not learned enough about each to be able to understand how they truly differ.
From what I have read, the scientists being discriminated against haven't even made ID part of their curriculum or classroom discussions, though I am certainly not aware of the details of every case. They appear to have been let go or denied tenure because they hold their belief and vocalize it primarily outside of the classroom. It seems like the ID proponents being discriminated against don't have any options. If they clearly teach their ideas in the classroom, they will find opposition and likely be let go. If they choose to never mention what they think at all due to fear, we have created the worst kind of atmosphere to promote knowledge, and more importantly, understanding. Finally, if they choose to hold a balanced view by embracing whatever conclusions their research leads them to, but not teaching that their view is true (or even mention it at all in this case), they may very well find themselves not only jobless, but possibly "careerless" as well, being denied the tenure that their peers are granted, which, again, is the main point of this movie.
I wasn't going to try to make my next point, but I suppose that only those really interested in my thoughts are still reading by now. I must say that I disagree with the idea that is imposed on academia that science, philosophy, politics, language, and religion are all completely separate beliefs and must therefore be compartmentalized. The fact that it appears impossible (at least in America) to imagine a way to integrate them is not a good excuse.
Historically, as well as currently in most other parts of the world, we find that cultures do not embrace the scientific method as the sole test of truth. They would agree that we can obtain knowledge that way, but that it is not the only way that something can be known. There are also some in current American academia who are wise enough to undersand this and who can articulate it far better than myself (e.g. Alvin Plantinga and his arguments from intuition).
Of course there are matters in each of the disciplines above that do not relate to the others, but most things that we experience, think about, and try to articulate find themselves quite naturally overlapping two or more of those categories, or others. I would argue that It is actually unnatural to artificially separate them. Philosophy would clearly be impotent without language, as would science (to a lesser degree). And science and philosophy are disciplines that make observations, then grapple with making sense of what those observations may mean and how it relates to us. Religion and politics are cousins, or possibly even brothers. They ask "what is good and right, and how are we to live based on that knowledge?" It is therefore no coincidence that the two things we are to never bring up if we mean to have a pleasant discussion are religion and politics. They touch us deeply and reveal our core, which we are sometimes not entirely comfortable with. I think it is also sometimes uncomfortable because it may be possible that we do not yet fully know who we are and find no pleasure in discussing a subject that reminds us of that fact. It is at least my hope, and hopefully my belief as well that this compartmentalization will be an artifact of our age and considered an odd and bewildering historical curiosity. The kind of thing that only makes sense if you lived in that time and had that idea drilled into your head day after day.
At the risk of sounding like a poem on a refrigerator magnet, I will nevertheless end with this: "May you be free to seek and discover truth without fear, have courage to live in the truth you find, and grant others the right to do the same."
