Oh, gosh … this Expelled movie is going to be ghastly. Check out this interview with Walt Ruloff, the executive producer. Ruloff’s credentials on this issue are that — get ready for it — he was a software engineer. We get a good feel for the tack the movie is going to take: biologists don’t ask interesting and productive questions, they are defined by the Darwinist orthodoxy, and they actively suppress any questioning. It is, of course, a lie from word one.
Intelligent Design is a science stopper. It offers no productive hypotheses, but only carps upon subjects where our knowledge is incomplete. Ruloff tries to get around this deficiency of his favored superstition by turning it around and claiming that evolutionary biology is the science stopper. He makes two arguments for this:
He claims that roughly 85% of the country are religious (a conservative estimate), either creationist or theistic evolutionists. Then he argues that because we have this godless, materialist theory of evolution, that is effectively a barrier that prevents a huge majority of the country from studying evolutionary biology — therefore, we are preventing real advances in the science.
He sneakily elides several issues. One is that business of theistic evolutionists: he admits that 30-40% of the population fall into that category. Somehow, though, he neglects to mention that these are religious people who are doing good science. Whoops. His barrier seems to be rather permeable.
Another flaw in his complaint: of course a large proportion of the country can’t contribute to the science. The fact that they don’t know calculus is probably a bigger barrier to entry than that they believe in god; the obstacle that stops most of our students from advanced study is general chemistry, not their knowledge of Southern Baptist dogma. They can and do shed or modify their superstitious beliefs as part of their education.
His second reason is truly contemptible. He admits that his movie is going to show many people complaining about evolution, and their faces are blacked out and their voices disguised. In other words, he’s going to trot out a collection of anonymous creationists who are going to claim that there is all this secret evidence pointing away from natural mechanisms.
He claims, for instance, that the “area of RNA synthesis” points in “radical new directions”, and that they can’t publish it because it doesn’t meet the standards of fitting into the orthodoxy. He pulls an imaginary number out of his ass, 20-30%, of all scientific evidence is unpublishable for this reason. What nonsense.
He never bothers to actually describe any of this mysterious suppressed evidence — “RNA synthesis” is not an answer. He also doesn’t explain how ID helps to explain this evidence better, which of course he can’t do because he doesn’t tell us what the evidence is. So, in other words, we’re going to get a bunch of gomers with bags over their heads talking funny and telling us there is secret evidence of Intelligent Design, although they won’t tell us what or how or anything relevant.
Let me just say that if you’ve got a good, testable idea that explains 30% of the uninterpretable data coming from a lab, that makes that data comprehensible and interpretable, it can be published. I guarantee it. These ID frauds don’t have one.
I guess this is the future of the ID movement. Demand representation by religious ideology in the halls of science, and use anonymous informants to make up unsourced and non-specific claims of mysterious data supporting their position. I am even more unimpressed than I usually am by the handwaving and nonsense of the creationists — this movie is going to be a kangaroo court, where they control the words of the defendants and use innuendo and ideology from masked “witnesses” to prosecute science.