Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Page #11

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,

"sadomasochistic,

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.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes