(CC) Expulsado No Se Permite La Inteligencia / Expelled No Intelligence Allowed

Uploaded by apologeticacristiane on 01.02.2013

[strings playing "all along the watchtower"]
Male announcer: ladies and gentlemen, welcome.
Today it is my distinct pleasure
To introduce a man who is recognized--
The battle over evolution is only one skirmish
In a much larger war.
Science simply makes no use of the hypothesis of God.
Ask yourself, what has intelligent design given us? Nothing.
We cannot accept intelligent design
As an alternative scientific theory.
They will never accept that we have a better argument.
They just pester us, and they waste our time.
Announcer: ...Variety of topics, ranging from economics, civil rights,
To how not to ruin your life in ten easy steps.
Today, ben is speaking on the topic
That has become increasingly important to him over recent years.
While ben has always been an ardent supporter of science,
Lately he has noticed an alarming trend
In the scientific establishment
That could have dire consequences
For every american.
Without further ado,
Please join me in giving a warm welcome
For mr. Ben Stein.
[audience applauding]
Ben stein: thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you very, very much. Thank you.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Thank you very much, gangstas.
Thank you very, very much.
Freedom is the essence of america.
We're talking about freedom of speech,
Freedom of assembly,
Freedom from fear, freedom of religion.
Martin luther king said,
"america is essentially a dream,"
And he said it is a dream of freedom and equality.
Freedom is the way to equality.
And america simply would not be america without freedom.
In every turning point in our history,
The decision has always been about freedom.
[stein narrates] freedom is what makes this country great.
Freedom has allowed us to create, to explore,
To overcome every challenge we have faced as a nation.
But imagine if these freedoms were taken away.
Where would we be? What would we lose?
Well, unfortunately, I no longer need to imagine.
It's happening.
We are losing our freedom
In one of the most important sectors of society--
I have always assumed
That scientists were free to ask any question,
To pursue any line of inquiry
Without fear of reprisal,
But recently i've been alarmed to discover
That this is not the case.
It all began when I met
Evolutionary biologist richard sternberg
In washington, d.C.
His life was nearly ruined
When he strayed from the party line
While serving as editor of a scientific journal
Affiliated with the prestigious
Smithsonian museum of natural history.
Your office was over there?
That's correct.
This here is the west wing.
Directly ahead of us is the west wing
Of the natural history museum.
So now you're not there anymore
Because you were a bad boy.
No, i'm not. No, I was exiled.
You were a bad boy.
You questioned the powers that be.
[typewriter clacking]
What was dr. Sternberg's crime?
He dared to publish an article by dr. Stephen meyer,
One of the leading lights
Of the intelligent design movement.
The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy
Merely because it suggested intelligent design
Might be able to explain how life began.
As a result, dr. Sternberg lost his office,
His political and religious beliefs were investigated,
And he was pressured to resign.
The questioning of darwinism
Was a bridge too far for many.
The mentioning of intelligent design
That occurs at the end of the paper was over the top.
And I think the intelligent design proponents
Have raised a number of very important questions.
And you wanted to get those questions
Brought up and discussed.
- placed on the table. - placed on the table.
People were so upset about it.
They were so upset that you could see their--
They had a physical emotional reaction.
They were saying
That stephen c. Meyer is a well-known Christian,
That stephen c. Meyer is an intelligent design proponent,
That stephen c. Meyer is a republican.
It was all couched in terms of
Religion, politics, and sociology.
The way the chair of the department put it
Is that I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist.
Because of giving the topic
Of intelligent design some modicum of credibility.
What happened to dr. Sternberg was terrible,
But surely it was just an isolated case.
I was still pretty skeptical,
So naturally I checked in with the head
Of the skeptics society, michael shermer.
So I can't prove there is no God,
Or yahweh in your case,
Any more than I can prove there is no isis, zeus,
Apollo, brahma, ganesha, mithras, allah,
Or for that matter, the flying spaghetti monster.
And think about just one thing:
Why would the aliens look like this?
- these are bipedal-- - king: who drew that?
Shermer: skepticism... It's not a position you take.
It's just an approach to claims.
This one's called the borderlands of science: where sense meets nonsense.
Is intelligent design nonsense?
Well, it's unproven,
So in that sense it's nonsense.
So I would put it in the sort of shaded areas
Between good, solid science and total nonsense.
You know, it's sort of three quarters of the way toward the nonsense side.
Stein: but you think, nevertheless,
People should be allowed to speak about
And publish papers about it.
They are free to write and publish and be heard
In public forums and go to conferences
Just like everybody else does.
What if a person published something, say, at the smithsonian
In favor of intelligent design and lost his job over it?
I mean, it had been peer-reviewed and published
And then he lost his job over it anyway.
What about that situation?
Well...I think that particular situation,
There was something else going on.
- what was going on? - I don't know.
I mean, I don't know because I don't know,
But I think there had to be something.
People don't get fired over something like that.
You roll up your sleeves, you get to work,
You do the research, you get your grants,
You get your data, you publish,
And you work your butt off,
And that's how you get your theories taught--
What if you try and try and roll up your sleeves
And go to work and work your butt off,
And they say, "we're going to fire you
If you even mention the word intelligent design"?
I don't think that's happened. Where is that happening?
Filmstrip narrator: george mason university--
Throughout its 50-year history,
Our mission has remained clear--
To prepare a diverse population of students
To think and to grow
In a climate of unbridled academic freedom.
[typewriter clacking]
Stein: after dr. Caroline crocker simply mentioned
Intelligent design in her cell biology class
At george mason university,
Her promising academic career came to an abrupt end.
My supervisor invited me into his office.
He said, "i'm going to have to discipline you
For teaching creationism."
And I said, "I mentioned intelligent design
"on a couple of slides,
But I did not teach creationism."
He said, "nonetheless, you have to be disciplined."
At the end of the semester, I lost my job.
Not only did this well-loved professor
Lose her job at george mason,
She suddenly found herself blacklisted,
Unable to find a job anywhere.
So whenever I interviewed for a job,
I would be offered it usually on the spot.
Since this has happened
And since people can google my name,
I'm finding that when I send my credentials,
I do get interviews-- I get many interviews--
But I never get offered a job.
I don't tell them about my--
About my, uh, "science sin."
[bell tolling]
I was only trying to teach what the university stands for,
Which is academic freedom.
Egnor: there's nothing to be learned in neurosurgery
By assuming an accidental origin
For the parts of the brain that we work on.
Stein: it wasn't just biologists
Who were feeling the darwinist wrath.
When neurosurgeon michael egnor
Wrote an essay to high school students
Saying doctors didn't need to study evolution
In order to practice medicine,
The darwinists were quick
To try and exterminate this new threat.
A lot of people in a lot of blogs
Called me unprintable names that were printed.
There were a lot of very, very nasty comments.
Other people suggested
That people call the university I work at
And suggest that perhaps it's time for me to retire.
I realized when I kind of went public
With my doubts about the adequacy of darwin's theory,
You know, that I would encounter criticism.
What has amazed me is the viciousness
And the sort of baseness of it.
I'm an old guy. I have tenure.
I'm academically safe.
But the young people
And what is happening to them in america right now
Because of this scientism gulag
Is really terrible.
Apparently professor marks
Was not as safe as he thought.
A few months after this interview,
Baylor university shut down his research web site
And forced him to return grant money
Once they discovered a link
Between his work and intelligent design.
In order to attract grants, you have to market yourself.
So you put up sites and call yourself
"labs" and "groups" and things like that
In order to get visibility.
And in my entire experience in academia
I never went to any superior
And asked them any permission
To put up any of these labs.
So the fact that this was singled out,
Let alone shut down, is jaw-dropping. It's astonishing.
I have never been treated like this in my--
About 30 years in academia.
Shut up, you freak! I said shut up!
[echoing] it's a madhouse!
If you peel back the onion,
I think that there's no doubt
That the center of this is my work
In what some would call intelligent design.
Dr. Gonzalez: people really get emotional about this.
Whenever you say "intelligent design" in a room of academics,
Them's fighting words.
Astronomer guillermo gonzalez
Found himself in a fierce shootout
With iowa state university,
Following the publication of his book
Arguing that the universe is intelligently designed.
Despite a stellar research record
That has led to the discovery of several planets,
His application for tenure was denied,
Putting his career in jeopardy.
I worried about my tenure a little bit in 2005
When the petition was being circulated
Because I viewed that as a strategy
Of hector avalos and his associates
To try to poison the atmosphere on campus against me
Because he knew I wasn't tenured yet
And I was very vulnerable.
I have little doubt that I would have tenure now
If I hadn't done any professional work on intelligent design.
Dr. Gonzalez had this advice for scientists
Who might be thinking about following his example.
If they value their careers--
[laughs] they should keep quiet
About their intelligent design views.
We know there are times and places to be quiet
And other times and places
When we can make noise if we want to.
- filmstrip narrator: will you show us? - of course.
Boys and girls,
How would you like to show
Some of the ways we know of being quiet?
Man #1: it's the kind of thing where you just learn to keep your mouth shut.
Stein: in addition to those scientists
Who were willing to appear on camera,
We encountered many more who didn't dare show their face
For fear of losing their jobs.
Man #2: you use an intelligent design perspective
To get the research done,
But you're not allowed to talk about it in public.
Man #3: and so there is definitely incentive, if you think about it,
For people to remain within the mainstream.
Man #4: you know, "what's he up to?
What is he thinking? Is he one of them?" that kind of thing.
Man #5: if I write "intelligent design,"
They hear "creationism,"
They hear "religious right," they hear "theocracy."
So it appears mr. Shermer, the self-styled skeptic,
Was wrong on this one.
Intelligent design was being suppressed
In a systematic and ruthless fashion.
But maybe intelligent design should be suppressed.
I didn't like what was happening to these scientists,
But on the other hand,
We don't want our kids being taught
That the earth is flat
Or the the holocaust never happened.
It was time to ask the scientific establishment
What was so bad about intelligent design.
Intelligent design people are not genuine scientists.
Intelligent design is a racket.
It's just propaganda.
The only intelligent thing about it
Is to have got people to call it that.
It's really very stupid, as well.
Everybody knows science education
In america is appalling.
What we don't need at this time
Is intelligent design in the classrooms.
To present intelligent design
Stunts their educational growth.
It stunts their intellectual growth.
But what I don't understand
Is how these animals could've been on earth
Millions of years before man
When the bible says the whole earth was created in only six days.
It wasn't just the educational aspects of intelligent design
That had scientists concerned.
Many suspected the movement masked a much larger agenda.
Intelligent design is a set of excuses
To squeeze creationism into the classrooms.
Get intelligent design in the schools today,
And we can have school prayers tomorrow.
Chorus: hallelujah
Stein: any other complaints?
Can you imagine anything more boring?
The boredom attached to id is supreme.
It is so boring
That I can't even bother to think about it much any more.
It's just utterly boring.
John paul young: love is in the air
everywhere I look around
love is in the air
every sight and every sound
Stein: love was in the air, all right,
But none of it was directed toward intelligent design.
There seemed to be a lot to hate about id,
And nearly all of that hatred was focused on one place.
The people in the-- from the discovery institute--
The people who are doing the intelligent design--
They're all varnish and no product.
The discovery institute is a propaganda mill.
It's a-- it's an institution
Designed to suck in money from religious investors
And turn it into a sanitized, somewhat secular version
Of the creation story to get it into the schools.
If they have a way of understanding nature
That's superior to the one that we all
Are making lots of discoveries using, great.
- bring it on. - [rings]
[norman greenbaum's "spirit in the sky" plays]
We are really, really lost.
I think it's on third.
I think it's on third. I think it's down there.
I have no idea where this place is.
I guess I just keep walking.
Do you have any idea where the discovery institute is?
Have you ever heard of that?
- never heard of it. - stein: okay, thank you.
- man: hey, ben. - how are you, sir?
- man: i'm good. Yourself? - good.
Do you have any idea where the discovery institute is?
- not a clue. - discovery institute?
- thank you, it's very kind of you to offer-- - welcome to seattle.
Thank you, sir.
It's gotta be this whole building.
Yes, where is the discovery institute, please?
Discovery institute-- on the eighth floor, suite 808.
when I die and they lay me to rest
gonna go to the place that's the best
Okay, very good.
when I lay me down to die
goin' up to the spirit in the sky
Aha, success at last.
goin' up to the spirit in the sky
Aha, we found you.
Are you bruce chapman?
- I am. - how are you? I'm ben stein.
- welcome. - kind of you to have me here.
Delighted to meet you.
Can I look around and see your offices?
Do you just have this floor,
Or do you have several other floors as well?
- chapman: no, this is it. - this is it?
You've made an awful lot of trouble
For being such a small office.
I thought it was going to be like the pentagon.
We're like the little boy that said the emperor has no clothes.
And he didn't have a big organization either.
When you go around and raise funds,
Your people are not saying to them,
"by the way, we're going to get
"all these scientists out of the classroom
And put Christ back in the classroom?"
Well, I don't know that Christ
Has ever been in the science classroom.
This is not a religious argument.
This is something that people--
We have fellows who are jewish or agnostic
Or various other things.
There are--there are moslem scientists.
There are people of all kinds of backgrounds
Who agree that darwin's theory has failed.
So why would you bring religion into it?
You don't need religion. This is a red herring, ben.
People who don't have an argument
Are reduced to throwing sand in your eyes.
If the discovery institute
Could get its wish about this subject,
What would your wish be?
Well, on this subject, as on others,
We'd like people to be able to have
A robust dialogue and even a debate
Where the best evidence--
In this case the best scientific evidence--
Is made available to people.
Surely no one questions there should be a debate.
Oh, yes, they do.
- they do? - they say the debate has been settled,
- that the issue's settled. - when was the debate settled?
Ben, i'd like you to talk to the scientists.
You don't want to get your science from me.
Mr. Chapman claimed id had nothing to do with religion,
So why was my first stop biola university,
Formerly known as the bible institute of los angeles?
[johnny cash's "personal Jesus" plays]
your own personal Jesus
someone to hear your prayers
someone who cares
Nelson: string theory will be a footnote in the history of science.
The inference that stonehenge was caused by intelligence...
your own personal Jesus
someone to hear your prayers
someone who's there
Stein: how much money have you ever gotten from jerry falwell?
Uh, zero dollars.
How about pat robertson?
Are you a minister?
- are you a priest? - no.
- pastor? - no.
- youth pastor? - no.
I did teach Sunday school once.
Hasn't this all been resolved?
Aren't we all darwinists now,
Except for a few cranks like you?
Well, it's a funny thing that questions
That aren't properly answered don't go away.
This question is loaded with all kinds of political baggage,
But one-on-one at a scientific meeting
After the third or fourth beer,
My experience has been
That many evolutionary biologists
Will say, "yeah, this theory's got a lot of problems."
So you mean to tell me
That there really is a debate among scientists
About whether or not evolution occurred?
Well, "evolution" is a kind of funny word.
It depends on how one defines it.
If it means simply change over time,
Even the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist
Knows that the history of the earth has changed--
That there's been change over time.
If you define evolution precisely, though,
To mean the common descent of all life on earth
From a single ancestor
Via undirected mutation and natural selection--
That's textbook definition of neo-darwinism--
Biologists of the first rank have real questions.
But the modern theory of intelligent design
Is just microwaved creationism.
I don't think that's the case.
Creationism, properly understood,
Begins with the bible and says,
"how can I fit the bible into the data of science?"
Intelligent design doesn't do that.
Intelligent design is the study of patterns in nature
That are best explained as a result of intelligence.
So intelligent designers believe that God is the designer.
Not necessarily.
Intelligent design is a minimal commitment,
Scientifically, to the possibility
Of detecting intelligent causation.
Dr. Nelson didn't sound like a crazy person,
But I still suspected id was nothing but reheated creationism.
My next stop didn't seem like
It was going to alleviate those fears.
Male country singer: didn't crawl out of the ocean
I didn't come from no monkey
but science tends to forget
evolution's just a theory
they present it in the textbooks
and on animal tv
like it's fact
but tell me were you there
12 million b.C.?
Evolution is a-- from an intelligent design perspective,
Is perfectly acceptable if the sense is that
"how did the design get implemented?"
The issue is, is there a real design there
And are these material mechanisms,
Like natural selection,
Are these adequate to account for everything
We see in biology?
And our argument is no, it's not.
But darwin produced all this evidence
From his travels and his studies at the galapagos
That evolution explained things.
If you look at the history of science,
People often have a good idea,
And then they decide just to run with it.
And they say, "we're going to apply this everywhere."
So darwin takes his idea of natural selection
And says, "i'm going to explain all of life with it.
Physics used to be newtonian physics.
Newton was physics.
And then you gotta look to einstein, general relativity.
It's not newton is enough.
I think, likewise, what we're finding with darwin
Is that he had some valid insights,
But it's not the whole picture.
Okay, darwinism may not be the complete picture,
But what made these guys think
They had the missing pieces?
I put this question to dr. Stephen meyer,
Author of the paper that originally got
Dr. Sternberg in so much trouble.
Stein: it's hard to believe that this little town
Is the headquarters of giant microsoft,
Which enabled mr. Gates to become fantastically rich.
Maybe that's what steve meyer's doing here.
Maybe this is somehow going to make him fantastically rich.
We'll pin him down
Like a butterfly on a butterfly board--
A butterfly on a killing board.
Coffee shop straight ahead.
Stein: newton is buried in the genius's corner
At westminster abbey, right?
That's correct, yeah.
Darwin is also buried in westminster abbey.
Right. And so is darwin.
- right, right. - right near each other.
And you're here in redmond
In a little building without a sign, right?
And you're obviously an incredibly smart guy,
But how dare you challenge
Someone who's buried in the genius's corner
Next to newton at westminster abbey.
Well, it may seem a little cheeky,
But it's what scientists are supposed to do.
When I was in cambridge,
One of my supervisors often advised us
To beware the sound of one hand clapping,
Which was a way of saying if there's an argument on one side,
There's bound to be an argument on the other.
What I found in studying the structure
Of the argument in the origin of species
Is that for every evidence-based argument
For one of darwin's two key propositions,
There is an evidence-based counterargument.
Well, but--is it a debate?
There's just you and a couple of other guys
In a dinky little office downtown, say, on one side,
And there's the faculties of all
The great universities in the world on the other side.
Speaking with a great, uniform, and authoritative voice.
Yes, right.
Well, in any case, the debate
Really isn't going to be settled by numbers.
It's going to be settled by the evidence and the arguments.
While I was still in bill gates country,
Dr. Meyer recommended I check in
With molecular biologist jonathan wells.
What kind of names do they call you?
- uh, creationist. - what do you say back to them
When they say you're a creationist?
Well, I usually don't get the opportunity.
What's at stake for you, personally?
First of all, I love science.
I think the way darwinism
Corrupts the evidence, distorts the evidence,
Is bad for science.
Well, the other scientists will tell you
To just shut up if you love science, okay?
Because you're sort of being a bomb thrower into science.
I am upsetting the applecart.
I think it deserves to be upset in this case.
Because the evidence is being distorted
To prop up a theory that I think doesn't fit it.
Was darwinism really that bad?
Perhaps a change of scenery
Would give me a fresh perspective.
[man singing in french]
Mr. Berlinski, I assume?
- ben stein, what a pleasure to meet you. - how are you, sir?
So, where are you from originally?
I was born in new york, spent 31 years in manhattan.
- yes. - and I spent a lot of time in california, too.
And tell me all the various universities
Where you've studied or taught.
I was at princeton, then I had a professorship at stanford.
Then I left stanford, and I taught at rutgers.
I left rutgers, and I taught
At the city college in new york.
I left the city college of new york.
I taught at the baruch college, I taught at san jose--
What did you teach at baruch college?
Anything they wanted. Come on in.
Thank you, monsieur.
What an old building! Wow.
It's the oldest in paris.
You're kidding.
Merci, monsieur.
- ah, je vous en prie, monsieur. - merci.
Stein: wow, this is fabulous.
Berlinski: let's put it this way.
Before you can ask is darwinian theory correct or not,
You have to ask the preliminary question
"is it clear enough so that it could be correct?"
That's a very different question.
One of my prevailing doctrines about darwinian theory
Is, man, that thing is just a mess.
It's like looking into a room full of smoke.
Nothing in the theory
Is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated.
It lacks all of the rigor
One expects from mathematical physics,
And mathematical physics lacks all the rigor
One expects from mathematics.
So we're talking about a gradual descent
Down the level of intelligibility
Until we reach evolutionary biology.
We don't even know what a species is, for heaven's sakes.
So his theory is smoke, but elegant smoke.
There's a certain elegance to it,
But I think einstein had the appropriate remark:
He preferred to leave elegance to his tailor.
A room full of smoke?
That certainly wasn't what I was hearing
From prominent darwinists like richard dawkins.
Evolution is a fact.
It's a fact which is established as securely
As essentially any other fact that we have in science.
Richard dawkins is so confident
That evolution is a fact
And that therefore God doesn't exist
That he has devoted his entire life
To spreading the evolution gospel.
I'm an atheist with respect to the judeo-Christian God
Because there is not a shred of evidence
In favor of the judeo-Christian God.
It is completely right to say
That since the evidence for evolution
Is so absolutely, totally overwhelming--
Nobody who looks at it could possibly doubt that
If they were sane and not stupid--
So the only remaining possibility is that they're ignorant,
And most people who don't believe in evolution are indeed ignorant.
But the people I spoke with weren't ignorant.
They were highly credentialed scientists.
So there had to be something else going on here.
So you think the whole theory of evolution is false
Or just certain parts of it?
Well, again, "evolution" is a slippery word.
I would say minor changes within species happen.
But darwin didn't write a book called
How existing species change over time.
He wrote a book called the origin of species.
- he purported to show how this same process-- - huh, I see.
...Leads to new species-- in fact, every species--
And the evidence for that grand claim
Is, in my opinion, almost totally lacking.
How does darwin-- or darwinism--say life began?
Well, he didn't know. And, in fact, nobody knows.
So darwinism, strictly defined,
Starts after the origin of life
And deals only with living things.
How can there be a theory about life
Without a theory about how life began?
Well, a grand, overarching evolutionary story,
Of course, does include the origin of life.
Darwin's theory doesn't begin
Until you have the first cell.
Does someone have a theory about how life began?
Man: this is the story of a small planet in space
Called earth.
Stein: for a typical darwinian explanation
Of how life originated,
Dr. Wells directed me toward this documentary.
Man: the chemical elements essential for life--
Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen--
Were now in place.
What was needed was a way of combining them.
Perhaps the energy came from lightning.
- whatever it was-- - [film pauses]
Stein: excuse me?
- [film resumes] - man: whatever it was,
Energy managed to arrange these chemical ingredients
In just the right way.
Stein: "whatever it was"?
I was hoping for something a little more scientific.
The most popular idea
Has been that life emerged spontaneously
From primordial soup.
In 1953, stanley miller
Mixed water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen
To simulate the early earth's atmosphere.
Then he ran electricity through it
In an attempt to jump-start life.
It's alive! It's alive!
It's alive!
It didn't work.
While the initial results seemed promising,
50 years later most serious scientists
Have abandoned this approach
In favor of alternate theories.
Prominent darwinist michael ruse
Attempted to explain one of them to me.
He wasn't kidding.
How did we get from an inorganic world
To the world of the cell?
Well, one popular theory is that it
Might have started off on the backs of crystals.
My crystal ball.
Molecules piggybacked on the back of crystals forming,
And that this led to more and more complex--
But of course the nice thing about crystals
Is that every now and then you get mistakes--mutations--
And that this opens the way for natural selection.
But--but at one point there was not a living thing,
And then there was a living thing.
How did that happen?
Well, that's just a-- i've just told you.
I don't see any reason why you shouldn't go
From very simple to more and more complex to more and more complex--
I don't either.
But I don't know how you get from mud
To a living cell. That's my question.
Yes, well, i've told you. I'll try one more time.
You think it was on the backs of crystals.
On the backs of crystals is at least one hypothesis, yes.
So that's your theory, and you think that is more likely
And less far-fetched than intelligent design.
I think it is.
I wouldn't put ben stein's money
On dr. Ruse's joyriding crystals,
But it did make me wonder
What were the chances of life arising on its own?
Bradley: it's been speculated that probably
There would have to be
A minimum of about 250 proteins
To provide minimal life function.
Um, if that's really true,
Then I think it's almost inconceivable
That life could've happened
In some simple, step-by-step way.
Okay, so the simplest form of life
Requires at least 250 proteins to function.
What's so difficult about that?
[1950s school filmstrip music plays]
Filmstrip narrator: welcome to the casino of life.
Who wants to spin for a chance to win?
Oh, sure. I'll give it a shot.
What do I win?
Take a look at this.
- [man in audience wolf-whistles] - huh?
How 'bout the world's first single-cell organism?
This perfectly aligned string of proteins
Could be yours.
Now, take a spin.
- [bell rings] - I won!
Tina, tell him how many times
He needs to do that to win the prize.
Two hundred and fifty.
- [audience boos] - show host: that's right, folks.
And all in the correct order.
But that's impossible.
[laughs] we've heard that before,
Haven't we, richard?
[like dawkins] come on, mother nature, do your thing.
[machine buzzes]
You stupid machine! I hate you.
We're talking about something that's staggeringly improbable,
Roughly one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.
Let all of life chose a million, a trillion,
A trillion trillion--
The number is essentially zero.
Something has to skew nature to chose the ones that work.
So, in the game of life,
It looks as if the house always wins.
Luckily, some serious scientific minds
Have figured out a way to beat the odds.
[man reads in ominous voice]
Stein: when faced with the overwhelming problem
Of the origin of life,
Nobel prize-winner francis crick
Proposed this theory--
That life was "seeded" on earth,
Which basically means aliens did it.
Crystals? Aliens?
I thought we were talking about science,
Not science fiction.
We don't know what caused life to arise.
Did it arise by a purely undirected process,
Or did it arise by some kind
Of intelligent guidance or design?
And the rules of science
Are being applied to actually foreclose
One of the two possible answers
To that very fundamental and basic and important question.
So the rules of science say
We will consider any possibility
- except one that is guided. - exactly.
No matter how life began,
On the backs of crystals
Or in the test tube of some intelligent designer,
Everyone agrees it started with a single cell.
But what is a cell?
- let me ask you a question. - yeah.
Darwin wrote the origin of species in 1859--
Published it in 1859.
He had an idea of the cell as being quite simple, correct?
Yeah, everybody did.
Okay, if he thought of the cell as being a buick,
What is the cell now
In terms of its complexity by comparison?
A galaxy.
If darwin thought a cell
Was, say, a mud hut,
What do we now know that a cell is?
More complicated than a saturn v.
So what is in a cell as far as we know now?
A world that darwin never could've imagined.
I needed someone who could
Give me a glimpse into this world,
So we went to molecular biologist doug axe.
Axe: think of a cell as being a nanofactory,
A factory where, on a very small scale,
Digital instructions are being used
To make the components of the factory.
Here we have the famous dna double helix.
You can see the two helical strands
That are intertwined and wind around each other
On the outside of the molecule.
This is the material that stores
All of our genetic information.
In higher life forms, this would be the equivalent
Of something like a gigabyte of information
Stored in the molecules
That form the individual chromosomes,
All packed within the nucleus,
Which is a tiny fraction of the entire cell size.
So what does dna do?
Well, the information in dna
Ends up providing the information
For sequencing the amino acids to make protein.
We have information in a one-dimensional form
That provides the information for a three-dimensional form.
[liquid gurgling]
I'm finally just beginning to grasp
The complexity of the cell.
Are there systems within the cell
That go well beyond darwinian evolution,
Some type of cellular technology
That drives adaptation, replication,
Quality control, and repair?
What if these new mechanisms
Have massive design implications?
Well, I say so be it.
The cell really is like nothing we've ever seen in the physical world.
That's got to be firmly grasped.
That's not something we can just say,
"oh, well, it's just a little bit more of the same old, same old.
It's not the same old, same old.
What we are finding is that there's information
That's in the cell that cannot be accounted for
In terms of these undirected material causes,
And so there's some other--
So there has to be an information source.
So one of the key questions faced by modern biology
Is where do you get information from?
Well, darwin assumed
That the increase in information
Comes from natural selection.
But natural selection reduces genetic information,
And we know this from all the genetic manipulation studies that we have.
Where is the new genetic information gonna come from?
Well, that's the big question.
So when we find information in the dna molecule,
The most likely explanation
Is that it, too, had an intelligent source.
We need engineering principles
To understand these systems, okay?
It's only because of our advancements in nanotechnology
That we can even begin to appreciate these systems.
But using intelligent design
Didn't seem to stop the scientists I spoke with.
So why all the controversy?
Suppose we find, simply as a matter of fact,
That our scientific inquiries point in one direction.
Which is that there is an intelligent creator.
Why should we eliminate that from discussion?
Streng verboten? How come? Why?
Streng verboten. Very good.
What does streng verboten mean, "strongly forbidden"?
Strongly forbidden.
You've got two possible hypotheses.
You've got a wall through the middle--
Through your brain, in effect-- through your thinking.
You say, well, you can't consider anything on this side of the wall.
Only hypotheses on this side of the wall
Are permissible for consideration.
What about academic freedom?
I mean, can't we just talk about this?
Their reply is that science is not a democratic process.
Oh, really?
And that there is a consensus view
And that we are to subscribe to the consensual view.
Wait a second. Darwin challenged the consensus view,
And that's how we got darwinism.
If darwin wanted to challenge the consensus today,
How would he do it?
Science isn't a hobby for rich aristocrats anymore.
It's a multibillion-dollar industry.
And if you want a piece of the pie,
You've got to be a "good comrade."
Man: scientific ideas--
How we get them to you, the people.
Every idea must be inspected to ensure that it is safe.
All theories must pass through a series of checkpoints.
First--the academy.
Stein: getting a controversial theory
Through the academy can be dangerous.
Few people know this better than congressman mark souder.
He uncovered a targeted campaign
Led by individuals within the smithsonian
And the national center for science education
To destroy dr. Sternberg's credibility.
If you want peer reviews, if you want to be published,
If you want to go to respected institutions,
The core view does not tolerate dissent.
There's kind of a "this is the way it is,"
And anybody who's a dissenter should be squashed.
Are you going to be on my side if I let you up?
Sure, chick, sure. I'm on your side.
Just let me up. I'll do anything you say.
Souder isn't the only one who has witnessed the academy's tactics.
Journalist larry witham
Has seen similar behavior during his 25 years
Of covering the evolution controversy.
Once you're thick in science,
You can't question the paradigm.
But if you want to get grants,
If you want to be elected to high positions,
If you want to get awards as a promoter
Of public education of science,
You can't question the paradigm.
People cannot be trusted to form their own opinions.
This business about open-mindedness is nonsense.
Why is the scientific establishment
So afraid of free speech?
There is this fear
That if one aspect of a theory
Is closely scrutinized,
There's going to be an unraveling.
Who are you?
Oh, uh--
I am the great and powerful...
[weakly] ...Wizard of oz.
I interviewed dozens and dozens of scientists,
And when they're amongst each other
Or talking to a journalist who they trust,
They'll speak about,
Um, you know, "it's incredibly complex,"
Or "molecular biology's in a crisis."
But publicly they can't say that.
Man: keeping a keen eye on the academy
Are various watchdog organizations.
Stein: listen to eugenie scott
Of the national center for science education.
The ncse has been at the heart
Of virtually every evolution controversy
Over the past 25 years,
Vigorously defending the darwinian gospel.
Scott: we have had a lot of business,
Unfortunately, at ncse in the last few years
Because virtually every state
In which science education standards
Has come up for consideration
Has had a big fight
About the coverage of evolution in them.
Scott: ncse was started by a group
Of scientists and teachers
Who were very concerned
Because in the late '70s and early '80s
There were a lot of attempts to pass
"equal time for creation science and evolution" laws.
Clearly, this is something that neither scientists nor teachers liked.
It wasn't exactly "help, help, the creationists are coming,"
But, you know, kind of along those lines.
Most scientists just throw up their hands and say,
"creationists! They drive me crazy. You handle it."
We've worked a lot with science education organizations.
The most important group we work with
Is members of the faith community,
Because the best-kept secret in this controversy
Is that catholics and mainstream protestants
Are okay on evolution.
Are you sure about that, eugenie?
Liberal Christians have been fighting with
Conservative Christians for so long
That they'll side with anybody against the fundamentalists.
And eugenie scott says, "well, welcome over."
There's a kind of science defense lobby
Or an evolution defense lobby, in particular.
They are mostly atheists,
But they are wanting to-- desperately wanting
To be friendly to mainstream, sensible, religious people.
And the way you do that is to tell them
That there's no incompatibility between science and religion.
But is there really an incompatibility?
Can't we believe in God and darwin?
Implicit in most evolutionary theory
Is that either there's no God,
Or God can't have any role in it.
So, naturally, as many evolutionists will say,
It's the strongest engine for atheism.
If they called me as a witness,
And a lawyer said,
"dr. Dawkins, has your belief in evolution--
Has your study of evolution turned you towards atheism?"
I would have to say yes.
And that's the worst possible thing I could say
For winning that-- that court case.
So people like me are bad news
For the science lobby, the evolution lobby.
By the way, i'm being a hell of a lot
More frank and honest in this interview
Than many people in this field would be.
Man: working hard to keep ideas in check
Are our friends in the media.
Morning paper! Paper, mister?
The tendency of the media is to side with the establishment
Because they inherently agree with the establishment.
Abrams: eugenie scott, my understanding is
That there is not a single peer-reviewed article out there
That supports intelligent design. Am I wrong?
You are not wrong. You are correct.
I believe that we get coverage,
But we always get coverage like we're the outsider,
Not like it's an even debate.
Filmstrip narrator: but instead of merely reporting news,
He analyzes it, often expressing his personal opinions.
We constantly deal with reporters
Who refuse even to report
The correct definition of intelligent design.
They, over and over again, talk about
"life is so complex, God must've done it."
- meyer: let me explain-- - abrams: admit it, it's religion.
- it's very simple. - you can't--it's religion.
It's a wanton distortion of our position.
[phone rings]
City desk.
I've got a hot story here.
You can look at associated press stories,
And the same sentence will appear in those stories for 10 years:
"intelligent design says that life is too complex."
It's called a boilerplate.
And the reporter never reports any more
Or gets any new ways to say it,
So the public understanding never advances.
But what happens if a reporter
Decides to take a more balanced approach to intelligent design?
There might be remarkable pressure on that reporter
Not to side against the evolutionists.
I thought I told you to kill that story.
Few reporters have learned this better
Than author and journalist pamela winnick.
When she refused to take sides
In an article she wrote about intelligent design,
The darwinists found a new favorite target.
Number one-- I wasn't Christian, I was jewish.
Number two-- I wasn't religious.
Number three-- I was not taking
A position in favor of creationism.
I was writing about intelligent design.
And it didn't matter.
After I wrote that one piece,
Everything I wrote on the subject was scrutinized.
There were hate letters coming into the newspaper.
If you give any credence to it whatsoever,
Which means just writing about it,
You are just finished as a journalist.
Other journalists we spoke with
Told similar stories but didn't dare appear on camera.
Filmstrip narrator: and now the presses are ready to roll.
Man: when all other checkpoints fail,
There's always the courts.
We have spent an enormous amount of time
Trying to prove to the court
What everybody already knows,
That intelligent design
Is a particular religious belief.
But I thought scientific questions
Were settled by the evidence,
Not by taking people to court and suing them.
How do other countries deal with such disputes?
Dr. Marciej giertych, a population geneticist
Who now represents poland in the european parliament,
Was able to shed some light on this topic.
Giertych: the censorship of
Teaching criticism of evolution
Is and always was much stronger in,
Say, your country, the United States,
Than it ever was in poland.
Why? Why would the censorship--
That is because you have a political correctness in your country.
These issues are brought to court,
And the court says
What you can and what you cannot teach.
We want to know what you teach,
What books you use, how you teach it.
We never had that sort of way
Of deciding scientific issues in poland.
We never had the courts involved.
So you are saying that
As far as the teaching of science is concerned,
Poland is freer academically than the United States?
I think--in this particular issue
Of evolution, I think this is true.
But how effective are the courts
In deciding such matters?
What about the general idea that intelligent design
Is doomed as a result of several recent legal setbacks?
I think court cases don't decide anything.
If you look at the scopes trial, who won that trial?
It wasn't the evolutionists. It was the--
The tennessee law was upheld, barring evolution,
And yet in the popular imagination,
Scopes is the hero.
Inherit the wind-- that movie--
Which is really bogus history based on the scopes trial,
Has carried the day.
These issues go much deeper than any decision by a judge.
The evolution debate
Does seem to run much deeper than the courts,
Much deeper even than science.
To generate this level of hostility,
Id must threaten something at the very core
Of the darwinian establishment.
Filmstrip narrator: the entire globe
Is today the site of a momentous conflict.
It is the challenge of ideas.
I'm edward r. Murrow.
For a little while,
I would like to review with you
The great conflict of our times,
One which demands and must get
The attention and the involvement
Of each one of us.
This conflict
Over the principles of evolution
Has become a religious war.
It really is no longer about scientific investigation.
It is total competition with an antagonist
Who is putting into it
Everything within his capability.
The situation has reached a point
Where many of evolution's top apologists
Have switched from defending darwinism
To attacking religion, in what they see as a bid
To stamp out intelligent design at the source.
Richard dawkins is the best example of this.
His recent book, the God delusion,
Has sold over one million copies worldwide.
The God delusion
Is my long-expected, long-worked-on,
Full-frontal attack on religion.
To me, science is about trying to explain existence,
And religion is about trying to explain existence.
It's just that religion gets the wrong answer.
But is dawkins correct?
Are science and religion really at war?
For an appraisal of this continuing and protracted conflict,
We can go to a reporter
Who has watched the growing conflict
With the perception of a trained military observer.
Oxford professor alister mcgrath,
Author of the dawkins delusion,
Seemed like the ideal person to answer my question.
Mcgrath: richard dawkins has a charming
And very, I think, interesting view
Of the relationship between science and religion.
They're at war with each other,
And in the end, one's got to win.
And it's going to be science.
It's a very naive view.
It's based on a complete historical misrepresentation
Of the way science and religion have interacted.
Dawkins seems to think that scientific description
Is an anti-religious argument.
Describing how something happens scientifically
Somehow explains it away.
It doesn't.
But the questions of purpose, intentionality,
The question why,
Still remain there on the table.
I think it was just a catastrophic mistake
To have someone like dawkins address himself
To profound issues of theology,
The existence of God, the nature of life.
He hasn't committed himself to
Disciplined study in any relevant area of inquiry.
He's a crummy philosopher.
He doesn't have the rudimentary skills
To meticulously assess his own arguments.
Genius guy, though.
Very smart guy.
Little bit of a reptile, but very smart guy.
The opposing point of view in this conflict
Rests on a fundamentally different vision of man.
If you have two distinguished scientists--
And, in fact, you can range many more on each side, as you know--
Saying exactly opposite things,
That's telling me that the conflict
Is not between science and belief in God.
Otherwise you'd expect all scientists to be atheists.
But it's a worldview conflict.
It's between scientists who have different worldviews.
You've got two competing explanations of the evidence.
One says design, one says undirected processes.
Both of them have larger philosophical or religious
Or anti-religious implications.
So you can't say that one of those two theories is scientific
And the other is unscientific
Simply because they have implications.
Both have implications.
People who tell you,
For example, that science tells you
All you need to know about the world
Or that science tells you that religion is all wrong
Or science tells you there is no God,
Those people aren't telling you scientific things.
They are saying metaphysical things,
And they have to defend their positions
For metaphysical reasons.
What is being presented to the public is
First comes the science,
And then comes the worldview.
I would want to argue that that may not be the case,
That it may actually be the other way 'round,
That the worldview comes first
And is influencing the interpretation of science.
My deep regret is some people
Are so deeply entrenched in their own worldviews
That they will simply not countenance alternatives.
I'm actually a person of the left,
And not even a particularly religious person.
I think of myself as kind of humanist.
And I think it's sending a very bad message
To religious people who are interested in science
That in some sense,
In order to do science credibly,
They have to leave their religious beliefs at the door.
The founders of early modern science--
Sir isaac newton, robert boyle,
Johannes kepler, galileo--
Most of these early scientists
All not only believed in God,
But they thought their belief in God
Actually made it easier to do science.
You can be religiously motivated
And you can do good science,
And they have more often gone together
Than not gone together.
Admitting our biases
Is the best way towards rational discussion,
Which I would welcome.
Rational debate is a nice thought,
But it's nearly impossible in the current climate.
I'd seen the chilling effect
That this unquestioning devotion to darwinism
Has had on science...
But were there other consequences?
No Gods, no life after death,
No ultimate foundation for ethics,
No ultimate meaning in life,
And no human free will
Are all deeply connected to an evolutionary perspective.
You're here today and then gone tomorrow,
And that's all there is to it.
Stein: dr. Will provine,
Professor of the history of biology
At cornell university,
Gave us another disturbing glimpse
Into where darwinism can lead.
Oh, I was a Christian,
But I never heard anything about evolution
Because it was illegal to teach it in tennessee.
Dr. Provine's first biology professor changed all that.
He started talking about evolution
As if it had no design in it whatsoever.
And I came up to him, and I said,
"you left out the most important part."
And he said, "if you feel the same way at the end of one quarter,
"I want you to stand up in front of the students in this class
And tell them this deep lack in evolution."
And I read that book so carefully,
And I could find no sign of there being
Any design whatsoever in evolution.
And I immediately began to doubt
The existence of the deity.
But it starts by giving up an active deity.
Then he gives up the hope
That there's any life after death.
When you give those two up,
The rest of it follows fairly easily.
You give up the hope
That there's an eminent morality.
And finally, there's no human free will.
If you believe in evolution,
You can't hope for there being any free will.
There's no hope whatsoever
Of there being any deep meaning in human life.
We live, we die, and we're gone.
We're absolutely gone when we die.
Dr. Provine is no stranger to the prospect of death.
Nearly a decade ago,
He was diagnosed with a large brain tumor.
Let's suppose my tumor comes back,
As it almost certainly will.
Well, i'm not going to sit around
Like my older brother did last year.
And he was dying of als, lou gehrig's disease.
He wanted desperately to die, but we couldn't help him die.
I don't want to die like that.
I'm going to shoot myself in the head long before then.
I'm going to do something different.
I hope these are empty words
From my friend dr. Provine,
Because shortly after this interview was recorded
He learned his brain tumor had returned.
Provine: I don't feel one bit bad
About holding the views that I do.
There's not anything in the views I hold
That makes me, "oh, I wish I had free will,"
Or "oh, I wish there were a God."
I don't ever, ever wish for that.
Dr. Provine's de-conversion story
Was typical amongst the darwinists we interviewed.
Biologist p.Z. Myers,
Who runs the pro-darwin, anti-religion blog pharyngula,
Says science eroded his faith as well.
I never hated religion.
I found religion quite comfortable,
And I liked the people in it.
What led to the atheism was learning more about science,
Learning more about the natural world,
And seeing these horrible conflicts with religion.
And it was then, when I discovered evolution,
When I discovered darwinism,
That I realized there's this magnificently elegant,
Stunningly elegant explanation--
Which I didn't quite understand to begin with--
But when I did understand it,
Then that finally killed off my remaining religious faith.
After hearing these stories,
I was not surprised to discover
That most evolutionary biologists
Share professor dawkins' views.
It appears darwinism does lead to atheism
Despite what eugenie scott would have us believe.
And if you separate out the ethical message from religion,
What have you got left?
You've got a bunch of fairy tales, right?
I think that God is about as unlikely
As fairies, angels, hobgoblins, etc.
Religion--I mean, it's just fantasy, basically.
It's completely empty of any explanatory content...
And is evil as well. [chuckles]
Half the people in this country think that drugs
Is what you have to regulate to make us safer,
And half the people think guns--
That's what you gotta regulate to make us safer.
But I always think that if you're going to regulate
One thing that has the most potential
To cause death and destruction-- religion.
You gotta start with religion.
[audience applauds]
Religion is an idea that gives some people comfort,
And we don't want to take it away from them.
It's like knitting. People like to knit.
We're not going to take their knitting needles away.
We're not going to take away their churches.
But what we have to do is get it to a place
Where religion is treated
At the level it should be treated.
That is, something fun
That people get together and do on the weekend
And really doesn't affect their life
As much as it has been so far.
Stein: so what would the world look like
If dr. Meyers got his wish?
Greater science literacy,
Which is going to lead to the erosion of religion,
And then we'll get this nice positive feedback mechanism going,
Where as religion slowly fades away,
We get more and more science to replace it.
And that will displace more and more religion,
Which will allow more and more science in,
And we'll eventually get to that point
Where religion has taken that appropriate place
As a side dish rather than the main course.
Stein: but will eradicating religion
Really lead to a modern utopia?
Let me try to imagine that.
And let's let history be our guide.
Berlinski: in part, I think matthew arnold
Put his hands on it when he spoke about
Um, the withdrawal of faith.
There is a connection between a society
That has at least a minimal commitment
To certain kinds of transcendental values
And what human beings permit themselves
To do one to the other.
That got me thinking.
What other societies have used darwinism
To trump all other authorities,
Including religion?
As a jew,
My mind leapt to one regime in particular.
The connection between hitler and darwin
Is of course historically a difficult connection
Because they were separated by a good many years.
One was english, one was german.
Nonetheless, if you open mein kampf and read it--
Especially if you can read it in german--
The correspondence between darwinian ideas
And nazi ideas just leaps from the page.
Of course you have to add every historical caution.
Not everyone who read darwin became a nazi, obviously not.
No one is making that case.
Darwinism is not a sufficient condition
For a phenomenon like nazism,
But I think it's certainly a necessary one.
This was a connection I had to explore personally.
[church bells tolling]
Filmstrip narrator: american officers arrive at a nazi institution
Seized by first army troops.
Under the guise of an insane asylum,
This has been the headquarters
For the systematic murder...
[filmstrip audio fades]
Stein: so, what is this place?
During the second world war,
15,000 people were killed here.
Why were they killed?
They were killed because they were people with handicaps.
Why kill them? What's the point of killing them?
People who were not able to work,
People who were not able to live by themselves,
That they were "useless eaters."
"useless eaters."
And "life unworthy of living."
George: this idea grew up in the '20s,
So long before national socialism,
Biologists, anthropologists,
They thought that maybe mankind could--
Or the government could interfere
- into the growth of the population. - stein: I see.
And they had the... Utopia?
- utopia. - utopia...
That they would have a society
Without illness and without handicap.
[man speaking german]
So this was a darwinian concept.
- yes. - and also a malthusian concept,
Very much malthusian.
- malthusian? - thomas malthus, who said
That there was a shortage of resources.
English philosopher, said there was a shortage--
Yes, but the nazis, they relied on darwin.
- they relied on darwin. - yes, darwin and german scientists.
Patients were led down this hallway
To nazi doctors,
Who decided who would live and who would die.
They were accompanied by 15, um, 15 nurses.
- nurses. - nurses.
Male and female nurses.
So nurses were helping lead them to their doom.
So, were the prisoners told they were taking a shower?
Yes, they were taking a shower,
And here was one or two showers.
So, how many people were brought into this room?
Sixty to seventy.
So, what is this?
This is the dissection table.
Do you ever think to yourself
The sane ones were the ones
Lying here having their brains removed--
The insane one was dr. Gorgass and all the other people--?
No, no, I don't think that
Because I think those people who killed here,
They were very sane because they had their purposes.
They had purposes?
Yes. I don't think they were insane.
- they had two crematory ovens. - I see.
And they killed about 70 people.
- a day. - a day, so they had--
That's barely enough time. They had their work--
They only killed from Monday to Friday, so...
Because the people who were doing the killing
Needed to have the weekend off.
If you met dr. Gorgass today, what would you say to him?
I don't know.
I don't think that it's my--my role
To--to tell him something.
It's difficult to describe
How it felt to walk through such a haunting place,
To know that these cold stone and tile walls
Were the last things the victims of hadamar ever saw.
I wanted to explore this connection further,
So I met with the author of from darwin to hitler,
Dr. Richard weikart.
Hitler and many of the physicians
That carried out this program
Were very fanatical darwinists
And particularly wanted to apply darwinism to society.
[hitler speaking german]
Many of these people in the 19-teens, 1920s
Who were putting forward some of these ideas about racism
Were considered the leading scientists.
These were darwinists who were taken seriously by fellow academics.
It's not to say that all academics believed it.
These leading academics, were there any of them who were americans?
There were plenty of americans
Who were saying similar kinds of things.
Not only were americans saying such things,
They were pioneers in this fledging science
Known as eugenics.
They thought they could help evolution along
By sterilizing the so-called feeble-minded
And prohibiting them from getting married.
Physicians who are aware of the history
Of 20th-century american medicine
Harbor some bad feelings towards darwinists
Because of eugenics.
And eugenics--
Which was an attempt to breed human beings--
It was the darkest chapter of american medicine ever.
There were 50,000 people involuntarily sterilized
Because they were deemed unfit to breed, basically.
Stein: eugenics isn't just history.
The spirit of the movement lives on today.
Weikart: margaret sanger
Was the head of planned parenthood.
She was very fanatical in her promotion of eugenics.
In fact, planned parenthood was all about birth control
For the impoverished and lower classes
To try to help improve the species.
From hadamar,
I traveled with dr. Weikart to dachau,
Where the nazis applied the ideas of eugenics
On a massive mechanistic scale.
When it was a fully functioning concentration camp,
Uh, what was the purpose of it?
I mean, part of it was to repress political enemies.
What was the rest of the purpose?
Well, beyond the repression of the political enemies,
Which was its purpose at the very beginning,
Then later on it transformed into repressing racial enemies.
And sometimes those categories overlapped
Because sometimes they thought
That these people were political enemies
Because they were inferior biologically.
The war itself was part of
The darwinian struggle for existence, for hitler.
And he saw that extermination of the jews
As one of those fronts to this warfare going on,
As this darwinian struggle for existence.
Would you say that hitler was insane?
No, I wouldn't say he was insane.
I think he had imbibed some very, very wrong ideas,
And, in fact, I think
He took the logic of them in certain ways
That brought him to take
Very radical solutions for them.
Would you say he was evil?
Oh, i'd definitely say he was evil.
Is there such a thing as evil?
Oh, I think there is.
And is there such a thing as good?
Oh, definitely.
And...Evil can sometimes be rationalized as science.
Oh, sure.
And evil can sometimes be rationalized--
When it's rationalized as science,
And I think when it was rationalized in this particular way,
I think hitler thought he was doing good.
He thought he was doing good?
Oh, I think so.
He thought he was benefiting humanity
By driving evolution forward
And creating a better humanity.
Before leaving dachau,
I stopped by the memorial
Commemorating the thousands of jews
Who were killed there in excruciating conditions.
I know that darwinism
Does not automatically equate to nazism.
But if darwinism inspired and justified
Such horrific events in the past,
Could it be used to rationalize
Similar initiatives today?
There's a good german expression, "so faengt es immer an."
I mean, "always begins in the same way,"
Something to remember in the context of
The united states' discussions of euthanasia and abortion.
It always begins in the same way.
There seems to be an excellent argument
For getting rid of useless people by killing them.
Or at least it seems excellent
To the people advancing the argument.
It's the love affair with death
And, you know, the euthanasia and this movement going on,
Which I find appalling.
And the idea is that, you know,
Immediately rid our society
Of anybody who might be a drain
And think of people in economic terms,
And I think that's where some of the darwin fits in, actually.
It's just a devaluing of human life.
First of all, if you take seriously
That evolution has to do with
The transition of life forms
And that life and death are just natural processes,
Then one gets to be liberal about abortion and euthanasia.
All of those kinds of ideas,
Seem to me, follow very naturally
From a darwinian perspective,
A de-privileging of human beings, basically.
And I think that people who want to endorse darwinism
Have to sort of take this kind of viewpoint very seriously.
And when we see an elite-- and it is an elite--
An elite that controls essentially
All the research money in science,
Saying, "there is no such thing as moral truth;
Science will not be related to religion."
I mean, it's essentially official policy
Of the national academy of science
That religion and science will not be related.
I mean, hey, that cuts off a lot of debate, doesn't it?
What's going to happen if this doesn't change?
I think we're watching it happen, aren't we?
I needed time to think,
So I traveled to the birthplace of this idea.
"with savages, the weak in body or mind
"are soon eliminated.
"we civilized men, on the other hand,
"do our utmost to check the process of elimination.
"we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick.
"thus the weak members of civilized societies
"propagate their kind.
"no one who has attended to the breeding
"of domestic animals
"will doubt that this must be highly injurious
"to the race of man.
"hardly anyone is so ignorant
As to allow his worst animals to breed."
--charles darwin, the descent of man, 1871.
[church bells tolling]
Meyer: throughout the cold war in germany,
There was this wall erected to keep ideas out.
It was erected by people who held an ideology,
That were afraid of a competition
From other ideas that would come into their society.
And what we're seeing happening in science today
Is very much like that.
But I think that's just a strategy
For protecting a failing ideology from competition.
America didn't become the great nation that it is
By suppressing ideas.
It progressed by allowing freedom of speech
And freedom of inquiry.
Thomas jefferson got it right when he wrote,
"we hold these truths to be self-evident,
"that all men are created equal,
"that they are endowed by their creator
"with certain unalienable rights,
"that among these are life, liberty,
And the pursuit of happiness."
Hundreds of thousands of americans
Have given their lives to protect these values,
But now they're under threat once again.
It wasn't just scientists who were being expelled.
It was freedom itself,
The very foundation of the american dream,
The very foundation of america.
If we allowed freedom to be expelled in science,
Where would it end?
The darwinian establishment
Is so massive and so entrenched
It appears impenetrable.
I couldn't bring it down myself,
But I could at least confront
Those who'd expelled the scientists i'd met.
What would you say if you had eugenie scott sitting next to you?
What would you say to her?
I would ask her by what authority
Does she and those like her
Presume to declare
What is and is not science.
He's sort of made himself martyr of the day.
They've gotten a lot of mileage out of,
You know, poor rick sternberg.
And we got lip service
From the leadership of the smithsonian,
But I didn't feel they ever followed through.
We went into the smithsonian looking for answers,
But we ran into the same stone wall as congressman souder.
You're not authorized to do this here, so stop.
[overlapping chatter]
He said, "nonetheless, you have to be disciplined,"
And I lost my job.
We did get an interview
With a spokesman from george mason,
But it was impossible to knock him off his script.
Her contract was not renewed.
It was simply, um, not renewing her contract,
Which she satisfied.
Her contract was not renewed.
It had nothing to do with the controversy
Of that topic of intelligent design.
I have never been treated like this in my--
About 30 years in academia.
We received a similar reception at baylor university.
They refused to admit
That what had happened to dr. Marks
Had anything to do with id.
Certainly the conversations i've had, this has not--
The intelligent design situation
Has not been the thrust of the conversation.
It was a procedural issue,
And that's the way we dealt with it.
Funny, that's not how dean kelley put things
In his original e-mail to dr. Marks.
I'm not mixing my religion with my science.
The questions that I ask
In my intelligent design research
Are perfectly legitimate scientific questions.
At least the top guns at iowa state
Were willing to own up to their actions.
What we wanted to stop is the use of the name of isu
To validate intelligent design.
And we did succeed.
I really think a lot of guillermo. He's a great guy.
So that's why i'm kind of disappointed.
He should've just left this alone,
In my opinion, should've just left it alone.
Dr. Hauptman elaborated further
On his great regard for gonzalez.
Man: uh, this is quoting an e-mail from you to mr. Avalos.
You say, "sometimes it is just best to ignore idiots,"
In reference to guillermo.
And then, "the religious nutcases
Should be challenged at every opportunity."
Yeah, because, for example,
You-- [chuckles]
In that case, i'm thinking more of,
Say, the creationist crowd, who claims that God
Put all the animals on an ark, and that's it.
That's where all of our animals came from today.
That's crazy, okay?
You shouldn't be insulting
Even children with that kind of thing.
So these are the idiots, all right?
They've always been around.
They've always been around.
Going after the perpetrators in each of these cases
Wasn't getting me anywhere.
So I reconnected with dr. Berlinski and dr. Schroeder
To see if they had any advice.
Berlinski: there's a boundary
To what science will accept right now.
I think the parallel is exactly this wall coming down.
Ask any berliner from the east side
What it meant to have the wall come down.
If it is possible to make a break in the wall,
That would allow academia
To ask these fundamental questions that exist
And allow them in the science classrooms as well.
It'd be nice to see the scientific establishment
Lose some of its prestige and power.
It'd be nice to see other questions being opened up.
Above all, it would be nice
To have a real spirit of self-criticism
Penetrating the sciences.
Stein: what can I do to bring down the wall?
Is there anything I can do?
Make it apparent to the world
That a wall exists.
There are vast numbers of persons
Who talk about academic freedom,
And there is academic freedom
As long as you're on the correct side of the wall.
But if you're on the wrong side of the wall,
As you mentioned a few moments ago,
You lose tenure, and that's a given.
I took dr. Schroeder's words to heart.
Obviously I couldn't take down the wall myself,
But I could confront one of its modern architects.
Hello, professor dawkins. How are you?
I'm ben stein, i'm so sorry to keep you waiting.
- how are you? - fine, thank you.
You have-- you have written
That God is a psychotic delinquent
Invented by mad, deluded people.
No, I didn't say quite that.
I said something rather better than that.
Oh, well, please tell us what you said.
Well, I would have to read it from the book.
No, please.
"the God of the old testament
"is arguably the most unpleasant character
"in all fiction--
"jealous and proud of it,
"a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak,
"a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser,
"a misogynistic, homophobic,
"racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
"pestilential, megalomaniacal,
Capriciously malevolent bully."
- so that's what you think of God. - yeah.
How about if people believed in a God
Of infinite lovingness and kindness
And forgiveness and generosity,
Sort of like the modern-day God.
Why spoil it for them?
- oh, um-- - why not just let them have their fun and enjoy it?
I don't want to spoil anything for anybody.
I write a book. People can read it if they want to.
I believe that it is a liberating thing
To free yourself from primitive superstition.
So religion's a primitive superstition?
Oh, I think it is, yes.
So, uh, you believe it's liberating
To tell people that there is no God.
I think a lot of people, when they give up God,
Feel a great sense of release and freedom.
Why do you think that?
- you're a scientist. What's your data? - well, I...
Well, i've had a lot of letters saying that.
There're eight billion people in the world, dr. Dawkins.
Yeah, I know, I know...
How many letters have you had?
No, I-- that's quite true.
Professor dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn't exist
That I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.
Well, it's hard to put a figure on it,
But i'd put it as something like,
You know, 99% against or something--
Well, how do you know it's 99% and not, say, 97%?
I don't. You asked me to put a figure on it,
And i'm not comfortable putting a figure on it.
I think it's-- I just think it's very unlikely.
But you couldn't put a number on it.
No, of course not.
So it could be 49%.
Well, it would be-- I mean, I think it's unlikely,
And it's quite far from 50%.
How do you know?
I don't know.
I mean, I put an argument in the book.
Then who did create the heavens and the earth?
Why do you use the word "who?"
You see, you immediately beg the question
By using the word "who."
Then how did it get created?
Well, um... By a very slow process.
Well, how did it start?
Nobody knows how it got started.
We know the kind of event that it must've been.
We know the sort of event that must've happened
- for the origin of life. - what was that?
It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
Right, and how did that happen?
I've told you, we don't know.
So you have no idea how it started?
No, no. Nor has anybody.
Nor has anyone else.
What do you think is the possibility
That intelligent design
Might turn out to be
The answer to some issues in genetics
Or in evolution?
It could come about in the following way.
It could be that at some earlier time,
Somewhere in the universe,
A civilization evolved
By probably some kind of darwinian means
To a very, very high level of technology
And designed a form of life
That they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet.
Now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility,
And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that.
If you look at the detail--
Details of biochemistry, molecular biology,
You might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Wait a second.
Richard dawkins thought intelligent design
Might be a legitimate pursuit?
And that designer could well be a higher intelligence
From elsewhere in the universe.
- well-- - but that higher intelligence
Would itself have had to have come about
By some explicable or ultimately explicable process.
It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
So professor dawkins was not against intelligent design,
Just certain types of designers,
Such as God.
So the hebrew God,
The God of the old testament--
He doesn't exist in your view?
Uh, certainly.
I mean, that would be a very unpleasant prospect.
And the holy trinity of the new testament--
No, nothing like that.
Do you believe in any of the hindu Gods?
- like vishnu? - how can you ask such a question?
- you don't, right? - how could I?
I mean, why would I,
Given that I don't believe in any others?
You don't believe in the moslem God.
No. Why do you even need to ask?
I just wanted to be sure.
So you don't believe in any God anywhere.
Any God anywhere would be completely incompatible
With--with anything that i've said in--
I assumed, I just wanted to make sure
You don't believe in any God anywhere.
- no. - what if after you died, you ran into God.
He said, "what have you been doing, richard?
"I mean, what have you been doing?
"i've been trying to be nice to you.
"I gave you a multimillion-dollar paycheck
"over and over again with your book,
And look what you did."
Bertram russell had that point put to him,
And he said something like,
"sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"
But if the intelligent design people are right,
God isn't hidden.
We may even be able to encounter God through science
If we have the freedom to go there.
What could be more intriguing than that?
[at podium] we take freedom for granted
Here in the United States.
Freedom is what this country is all about.
And a huge part of freedom is freedom of inquiry.
But now, i'm sorry to say,
Freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.
Behind me stands a wall
That encircles the free sectors of this city,
Part of a vast system of barriers.
There are people out there
Who want to keep science in a little box
Where it can't possibly touch a higher power,
Cannot possibly touch God.
Those barriers cut across germany
In a gash of barbed wire,
Concrete, dog runs, and guard towers.
If you believe in God
And you believe that there is
An intrinsic order in the universe
And you believe that it's the role of science
To try to pursue and understand better that order,
You will be ostracized.
I'm frightened by this,
But i'm not going to let it stop me
From investigating or from speaking.
The wall cannot withstand freedom.
What i'm asking for is the freedom
To follow the evidence wherever it leads.
My hope is that there'll be enough
Independent-thinking scientists
Who don't like to be told what to think.
People on both sides of the argument
Being prepared to talk and listen,
And, above all, a willingness
To keep these dialogues open.
It might allow a lot of very good scientists
To be scientists,
Who aren't allowed to be scientists right now.
I don't care what they end up as being.
I don't care if they end up being religious
Or young-earth creationists.
If they have thought their way
Through the issues and get there,
I'm all for them.
And why do I think we're going to win in this struggle?
Because truth crushed to earth will rise again.
To find out what's true has a value all of its own.
If it has additional good consequences, so be it.
Because no lie can live forever.
I believe that science gives us one perspective on the world,
And our religious insight gives us another perspective on the world.
By putting the two together,
Then we'll see more deeply and more truly.
And if we will stand up for freedom...
Freedom is the victor.
If we all do that, we will overcome.
[the killer's "all these things that i've done" plays]
[audience applauding]
all these things that i've done
yeah, you're gonna bring yourself down
yeah, you're gonna bring yourself down
I've taken a first step
By speaking out on this issue.
But if the wall is to come down,
We all have to do our part.
Some of you will pay a heavy price for speaking out.
You may even lose your job.
I guarantee you you'll get hate e-mail.
But if you don't get involved,
Will anyone be left to carry on the struggle?
I got soul, but i'm not a soldier
I got soul, but i'm not a soldier
I got soul, but i'm not a soldier
I got soul, but i'm not a soldier
I got soul, but i'm not a soldier
yeah, you know you got to help me out
yeah, oh don't you put me on the back burner
you know you got to help me out
yeah, you're gonna bring yourself down
yeah, you're gonna bring yourself down
yeah, oh don't you put me on the back burner
you're gonna bring yourself down
yeah, you're gonna bring yourself down
over and in
last call for sin
while everyone's lost, the battle is won
with all these things that i've done