Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Page #6

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--

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes