Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Intelligent Design is not science in that it can never be falsified and thus cannot become a solid theory. The problem is that this simple statement isn’t enough and it seems to baffle even trained scientists because of a religious bias. The difficulty that arises, as demonstrated in this documentary, is that because the proponents of Intelligent Design believe it is science they try and treat it that way; spending time and money on research and discussing it in science venues, such as journals and classrooms. However, because it does not fall within the bounds of science, universities and other organizations do not wish it to be part of the discussion, any more than they wish other unsubstantiated claims to be. This is not unique to Intelligent Design, other claims that cannot be proved or disproved have been ignored by science—ideas such as ghosts, alien abductions and any number of pseudoscience ideas. There is no evidence or theory postulated by Intelligent Design and the scientific community is right to deny a place to Intelligent Design. The problem however lies in the fact that, especially in America, Intelligent Design has very strong political backing unlike the other fields of pseudoscience and much of that political backing comes from religious interests. If Intelligent Design did not have the strong religious and political connections it does, it would be a non-issue, as it is in some countries, but in America it has enough support to make it very difficult—and even risky—for scientific organizations to treat Intelligent Design as they would other pseudoscience claims.

String theory offers some interesting parallels to Intelligent Design, and some important differences. String theory has been criticised as being un-falsifiable and as such there are many who view it not so much as a scientific theory as they do a philosophy or metaphysical idea. Yet, String Theory is allowed to be discussed by scientists (now, in the early years it was denied publication and rightly so). Why is it that String Theory can be discussed but Intelligent Design can’t? It comes down to this: while the ultimate premises of String Theory are not yet falsifiable, they could be and the theory offers means of demonstrating its validity (such as various particles and phenomenon that it predicts as a result of particle accelerator experiments). Also the theory is founded firmly upon mathematics and mathematical formula and proofs that work. This makes String Theory a combination of Theoretical Mathematics and Physics which are both valid fields of scientific study. Intelligent Design on the other hand is a type of Theological study with no mathematical or biological foundation.

My primary complaint with Expelled is the juxtaposition of irrelevant footage of Nazi Germany with very brief quotes. The quotes are from various unidentified people and does not even consist of their complete sentences. I recognized Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and I think Sam Harris, tho I couldn’t be sure it was him because the clip was so very brief. This is simply poor form and I would (and do) complain about this directorial style regardless of topic. If I cannot hear enough of what a person says to understand the point they are making I will disregard everything they are shown to say, even if it something I want to agree with.

The ultimate failure of this documentary is that it never actually presents a scientific theory of intelligent design. All they talk about is that evolution has “problems” and “scientist and biologists don’t agree”. Which could describe any scientific theory, especially gravity! That’s the key to science: that there are always problems, always unknowns, always things that can’t be fully explained yet. And that’s what scientists do, they identify and focus on all the unknowns and then they research, explore, study, observe. They form hypotheses with falsifiable claims and then they seek to falsify them They seek solid data to support their claims, and their peers seek to break down their data and their hypotheses, and that’s how theories are formed. Intelligent Design has not done this because it offers no hypothesis or data or anything more than “an Intelligence caused it”.

Intelligent design was defined by Dr. Nelson of Biola university as “[t]he study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence” and was “a minimal commitment, scientifically, to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation.” Not to pick apart his words, but nothing he said could actually be science. The study of patterns is certainly valid and is a common theme in theoretical mathematics. But to claim that they are best explained as being caused by intelligence is at best a hypothesis, it can’t simply be assumed to be a part of the patterns from the outset. As to the second part, science is always open to possibility, but it does not commit to anything as the source of causation with out substantial proof. If intelligence as a causation of life on earth could be demonstrated that would open up a variety of new possibilities, including alien intervention or seeding of planets which would be no more or less plausible than a god-like entity. Even if life on Earth were being intelligently designed, there could be other explanations which would not necessarily be an extra-dimensional, all powerful, energy being like God. The point is that for Intelligent Design to enter the realm of science, there must be something about it that can be proved or disproved. There must be a hypothesis which can be falsified or else it cannot be science.

The prime complaints presented by proponents of Intelligent Design were that evolution was wrong, that it altered the data, that it didn’t have evidence, that it didn’t explain how life began. Even if they were right about all of these claims, they still don’t offer a functioning theory that could replace evolution and be just as useful, all they say is “there has to be something else!” Later in the show the Intelligent Designists ultimately admit that they fear that evolution takes away all their religious hopes and that evolution “deconverts” and “erodes faith”. Ben Stein says, “Evolution leads to atheism.” The last 30 minutes or so of the “documentary” is just fear mongering,  with the juxtaposition of unrelated footage and voiceovers and claims that evolution leads to Nazism. And that seems to be at the root of Intelligent Design, not that they have a theory or want to be credible science, but that they are afraid that science is undermining religions and religious values.  And that is not science, that is political.

The bottom line is that the suppression of ideas is never the solution, but neither is blindly embracing any idea that presents itself.