Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
April 12, 2008 · Print This Article
Opening nationwide in theaters next week, April 18, 2008, is Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. This looks to be a good and entertaining look at the ongoing debate between the Darwinian Evolutionist camp and the Intelligent Design camp. With Ben Stein being involved, it will also prove to be somewhat funny as well.
The fact brilliant scientists are losing their jobs, being denied tenure, putting their entire academic careers on the line for an alternate theory is ludicrous, especially in this day and age. Unfortunately, the naturalistic evolutionists are the gatekeepers to upper echelons of the scientific community and therefore they wield a lot of power and can squash much of the counter-perspective brought against them. They say that the Intelligent Design group does not have any serious papers published in peer-reviewed journals, therefore their views and research cannot be taken seriously. But what most people do not understand is that those papers have to go through the evolutionists and they do the peer-reviews and they decide who gets published and who doesn’t. So the game is rigged right from the start because they control the peer-reviews, the access to get published by them, etc.
The unfortunate thing about all this is that there is some good research being done that has better explanatory power and scope over 19th century Darwinism. Just to be clear, I’m not claiming that all evolutionary theory is bad or incorrect. There is viable and valid aspects of what it has done and brought to light. But there are also many things that it is capable of explaining and it seems that there needs to be tweaks to the theories as well as alternate theories allowed the chance to come to light so that intelligent people can make up their own minds, do their own research, and be allowed access to grant money to help fund that research.
Anyway, I’m typically swamped with work, school, church activities and the like, but next week I plan on making time to catch this in the theaters.
Below is an extended trailer:
miss you guys!!
I’m looking forward to seeing this with you! It should prove to be enlightening, infuriating as well as entertaining.
Yep - me too. Should be fun, entertaining, and enlightening.
i’m looking forward to seeing this too.
i need to just write a blog on ID and how i feel about the whole thing. ah. this is a very involved discussion. i think ID-proponents have unfairly painted the picture of “the mean evolutionists are keeping us out of the discussion!” i’m sure–no doubt–that there are reviewers that see a name associated w/ id, and automatically discount the paper without giving it much thought. but i also know that–having been through the peer-review process myself several times–that the first mention i make toward any hint of supernaturalism in a scientific paper, will undoubtedly get my paper tossed in the “reject” pile, and for good reason! anything i present as science better be scientifically testible and falsifiable, and i just don’t see how ID is either of those.
and don’t get me started on “teach the controversy”. ugh….
anyway, i don’t mean to be hostile. i just think that the whole ID movement is worsening the whole public sentiment of “science vs. religion” when there is no “vs.” to begin with.
that being said, of course i think that it is unreasonable and unethical that just because people hold these views that they are being discriminated against. and of course i believe that all the galaxies i study are God’s awesome handiwork. just don’t ask me to prove it scientifically.
I definitely agree that the “vs.” is a forced controversy that ought not exist. Nevertheless it does and that, sadly, is what we are faced with and left to address.
I watched an interesting video last week (which incidentally was the video that helped push Dr. Antony Flew from atheism to a non-Christian form of theism) that spent an hour on the science behind ID speaking with several different people whom not all were theists or deists.
I think the main point of contention is that any questioning of the theory of evolution is not allowed, Even begin self-critical of the theory is frowned upon whether an alternate theory is present or not.
On the subject of “proving” it scientifically, I do not think that one can either prove or disprove the existence of God with 100% certainty. However, that does not mean that good evidence does not exist. Further, science is not equipped to discover, prove, or disprove God’s existence. That goes beyond the task of ability of what science is meant to do. I think other disciplines are better suited for that task such as philosophy. That does not mean that science is not essential to discovering truth’s about the physical world - it is perfectly suited for that endeavor, but science should stick to the realm that it is meant for and not pursue truth’s that is beyond its capacity. In a similar fashion (to use a crude analogy) I can’t put a chicken on the end of a yard stick and calculate its weight and then deny that weight does not exist because the yard stick is meant for a different purpose.
I’m glad that we can still be friends, and united through God, even though we come from different perspectives on this issue.
If we go, do you and Matt want to go with? It might be a lively conversation afterwards - lol
poor chicken! get a scale!
“science should stick to the realm that it is meant for and not pursue truth’s that is beyond its capacity” –> i totally agree, 100%. sometimes it seems to me that this is exactly what ID is doing: trying to use science to pursue truth beyond science’s capability to do so. just my opinion.
i think it would be fun to go with you guys! but it probably couldn’t happen til next weekend (25/26; i’m gone fri-sat. this wk). but i don’t want to volunteer matt for anything bc he may be totally wiped out from this new role he’s taken on, and just want to zone out on the couch all wkend.
we’ll see…if you guys were planning on going this wk, don’t wait for us…
…i’m going to watch who got voted off AI….
In the same way, I think there are some radical, fundamentalist Christians who lack the proper scientific qualifications and yet latch on to the ID concept and use it for their own agenda. But just because it has been abused in that manner does not necessarily mean that it has no merit and therefore should not be taken seriously - or at least allowed a fair hearing as an alternate theory.
I personally think the ID can be represented without bringing Christianity, the Bible, or any other religious group trying to misappropriate ID for their own purposes into the equation. Now, I say this not as someone is who well-versed in the sciences himself, because I am absolutely not. But I think I’ve read enough balanced views on the topic from scientists to say with some confidence that I think it is a viable option. Because of my lack of expertise in this area I have no choice but to rely heavily on the integrity of others’ work and research as well as their opinion and interpretation of the data.
I’m not 100% settled on my position, but I think I have enough information at this point to make an informed stand one way or the other. It is possible that I am biased to one view over the other since I’m already committed to certain presuppositions, but that can be laid at the feet of those on the other side of the debate as well. The bottom line is that no one is neutral in this - everyone brings their presuppositions from their worldview to the table when discussing this. The question, form a worldview and philosophical perspective, is which theory offers the best explanatory scope and power in the simplest terms.
I think it would be a good idea for anybody who is interested in the Intelligent Design controversy to check out “Expelled Exposed” (http://www.expelledexposed.com). It’s convenient to think that there are brilliant scientists out there who are doing groundbreaking research into discovering that an intelligent agent exists, but that they are being persecuted against by an evil, “Darwinist” conspiracy. That’s essentially one of the themes of Expelled. However, the truth is that very little research is coming from ID advocates, and saying that it is being suppressed is merely an excuse. The Discovery Institute is free to start it’s own journal; in fact, the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design’s journal has been defunct for nearly three years now (http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php).
ID advocates like to use the retraction of the Meyer paper from the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington as an example of how they are being persecuted against. However, there is a lot more going on here than the film or the Discovery Institute lets on. Firstly, the Meyer paper is a review article and does not present any original research. Furthermore, for a review article it did not cite many relevant papers on the topic(s) it was trying to tackle. Lastly, if you examine the circumstances, it appears to be a case of professional misconduct, where Sternberg - the editor at the time - had a conflict of interest. I think it is important to draw the line between professional misconduct or incompetence and persecution.
At this stage, I see no real justification in saying that universities are wrong to deny tenure to ID advocates, given that they seem to be heading down a dead end. ID has not yet proven to be a productive paradigm, and despite what it’s advocates may claim, evolutionary biology is helping us understand the evolution of antibiotic resistance, HIV evolution, et cetera through attempting to understand biological phenomena using a naturalistic methodology. As a student of the life sciences, I cannot understand how positing that something is designed based on an argument from incredulity or by analogy has any utility. It is also essentially an unfalsifiable theory, because if an intelligent agent does exist it would be impossible to distinguish between designed and undesigned objects.
Amber is correct when she says that ID is trying to pursue something that is beyond the capability of science. I see you are talking of “worldviews”, but I think that is a mistake many people make when approaching science. Science ought to be accessible to anyone regardless of his or her “worldview”. You have theists like Theodosius Dobhzansky, Kenneth Miller and Francisco Ayala on the one hand who accept evolution, and Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and E.O. Wilson on the other hand. Now, they may have differing ontological views, but as far as the process of science is concerned, they are on equal footing. It is always useful to make the distinction between the methodological naturalism that science employs, and ontological naturalism. There are many good reasons for not allowing supernatural explanations in science, but the most important one is that they are not testable and therefore not open to scientific inquiry.
FWIW, I think the film Expelled will mostly preach to the choir. It does not shy away from attacking “Darwinism” as what it implies is a “materialist philosophy”. I think that assumption is false and misleading, for reasons I have outlined above. But the film makes it clear that Intelligent Design is ultimately about bringing God into the equation. For this reason, creationists will love the movie, because they’ve been trying to get their pseudoscience into classrooms for decades.
I’m more concerned about those who sit on the fence between creationism/ID and evolution. If they see the film, I hope it inspires them to do more research into the issue. I certainly hope they take the films claims with a large pinch of salt, because to me it appears to be a propaganda film from the outset. Ultimately, I think people need to be aware that there is a large segment of the population that wants to subvert the scientific process in the guise of “academic freedom”. I’m of the opinion that scientists should have free speech, but that institutions also have their own obligation to uphold the highest standards possible. Intelligent Design is a non-answer as far as science is concerned, and there is no reason why scientists should be rewarded for promulgating a theory with no scientific basis. In a climate where funding for scientists is scarce, it is not persecution when a pseudoscience fails to get grants; it is part and parcel of academia. I don’t think magnet therapy and homeopathy should be taught in medical schools so long as they are not grounded in good science; likewise, I don’t see why any other pseudosciences should find their way into the curriculum. I should also mention that there are professors of evolutionary biology e.g. Will Provine and Allen MacNeill, who invite intelligent design advocates into their classrooms to give talks. It’s not a case of suppression; Intelligent Design has simply flunked thus far. Their biggest triumphs have been through the popular literature and media, but these are hardly indicative of true scientific prowess.
Cant have vs?!? Vs? You HAVE to have vs…. why its how the world exists!! You cant have them coincide at the same time, one must be right , the other wrong.. its why we have a washer AND A dryer, not something that dryes as it washes.. …uh, yeah.. ok , maybe bad example, but vs. it what the good stuff is made of! Superman vs the Flash for fastest man alive… ok, also no contest…
I think I will just go see this movie which looks like a funny way to put out both points of view… =)
@ Cap’n - We are heading to the theater this coming Friday to see it. We were not able to get away last Friday evening to make it happen. Should be an interesting movie and I am looking forward to it.
@ NP - I have not forgotten about your post. I’ve been reading and writing a comment as a response. I have already read an article by Lewontin that I wanted to add to the mix and I have started reading part of the Meyer paper, but it is lengthy and a bit beyond me so it is taking some time to go through it.
just saw Expelled; the fact that Ben Stein isn’t trying to win any popularity contests helps to validate his message… i gather that his goal is to promote free thought, especially more thinking about the worldviews that drive American academia
@ Patrick - just for a simple request of self-critiquing would be a nice win, but the commitment to the naturalistic methodology will not allow a setting aside of the dogmatic view that all is deterministic materialism. (And I’m speaking of a particular flavor of Darwinistic evolution - not all forms of evolution theory, because I do believe that some of it is viable and verifiable).
@ Ape:
in your comment after my first one you say “…any questioning of the theory of evolution is not allowed…” i guess maybe it depends on what you mean by “theory of evolution”. yes, evolutionary biologists no doubt get quite exasperated when people come along and try to contradict the mounds of evidence pointing at genetic changes in populations over time, common descent, etc. i’m sure they are asking for a better explanation of the evidence than what they have spent their lives studying–don’t they have the right to ask that? i think people don’t get that evolution is so *well* supported. and i’m sure there are dogmatic scientists that aren’t willing to listen to critique, but most scientists are scientists for the same reason i am one: we are fascinated by the physical workings of this world we find ourselves living in, and want to figure out how it all works. believe it or not, most scientists really are after natural truth and go to great lengths to make sure that others are doing the same (e.g. the peer-reviewed journals, etc.).
ok. in your comment right after my last one, you say “or at least allowed a fair hearing as an alternate theory” I don’t think you really mean that, in the sense of the word “theory”: theories are by definition very well supported by observations and have predictive power. i can’t stand this phrase i hear over and over: “evolution is *only* a theory” as if a theory is somehow not well substantiated. but this isn’t the sense of the word in the scientific world. if you can say this, you can also say “gravity is only a theory” and well…we’re all fairly sure gravity is real. ID certainly does not have the many years of observational work and mounds of sheer data behind it that evolution does. and, i think one of the weakest parts of ID is that it makes no real predictions about what we should find in nature. at least not that i can tell from what i’ve read about it. a good scientific theory says “i see this, it fits with this [other parts of the theory], and because of all of this, we should observe the following in the future……” anyway. i may be playing semantics, because i don’t really think you meant that the way i read it.
you also say “…ID can be represented without bringing Christianity, the Bible, or any other religious group…” and i agree with that. but what is BY DEFINITION brought into it is a supernatural element, and that is where it steers away from what science is meant to discover. hence the term, “super”natural. above nature.
you say “everyone brings their presuppositions from their worldview to the table when discussing this. The question, form a worldview and philosophical perspective, is which theory offers the best explanatory scope and power in the simplest terms.” totally agree that we all bring presuppositions w/ us. i think a scientific theory, though, should have nothing to do with one’s worldview or philosophical leanings. nature is nature, whether i’m a Christian, Hindu, or atheist.
interesting discussion.
i’m just not sure i get the whole ID thing anyway. nature is unbelievably beautiful and complex, and–what makes it just as if not MORE beautiful–is that it is understandable! i think God has designed this awesome world in such a way that nature progresses beautifully as nature does…because it’s nature! i think that God is much more “active”, if you will, in the hearts and souls of us human creatures that have consciousness and spirits, than he is in bacterial flagellum. and if you look at the big picture, things in science are relatively easy to explain (she says as she cringes at the stacks of papers yet to read for her dissertation), and are in fact *explainable*. it’s the abstract, non-science things–like love, justice, right/wrong–that seem to be the most tricky.
@ NP – Thanks for responding to my initial posting. I welcome the dialog and I apologize for not responding sooner, but I am usually fairly busy and I also wanted to do some additional reading on some of the items that you had brought up so that I, at a minimum, to respond with a more informed view.
First, I do not recall bringing up Sternberg in either my initial post or in any of my following comments. However, since you did bring up him and the Meyer paper that turned into a fiasco, and dare I saw a witch-hunt of sorts, I did do some more thorough digging on the issues surrounding it. I have come across the following report from the OSC’s findings in the matter. You might like to read it and see, as you say, that there was much more going on, but perhaps not in the way that you would wish it to be presented. Dr. Sternberg has posted the letter in full from OSC here: U.S. Office of Special Counsel “Pre-Closure Letter”. It is quite a fascinating read and actually shows much of the hostility and campaigning against Sternberg by false attempts to smear his reputation and question is academic and professional credentials not because of “professional misconduct” as you claim, but because of their staunch stance against ID and the Meyer paper.
Next, you mention “it [ID] is also essentially an unfalsifiable theory, because if an intelligent agent does exist it would be impossible to distinguish between designed and undesigned objects.” First, ID is a falsifiable theory. For instance, ID could be proven false if natural laws were discovered to create specified complexity. I would actually counter your argument by saying that Darwinism is unfalsifiable due to the fact that any counter-perspective and theory is not considered due to a priori commitment to naturalism. Second, in what way would it be “impossible to distinguish between designed and undesigned objects?” Are there any examples that you could provide?
Third, you attempted to discount the role of the individual’s worldview when approaching science. You are correct that “science ought to be accessible to anyone regardless of his or her ‘worldview’.” I do not think that a worldview precludes anyone from having access to scientific discovery per se, unless ones worldview is anti-science. Worldviews cannot just be set aside before engaging in the discipline of science, as if the scientist is completely neutral in their methodology. Everyone brings their worldview to the table, it is inescapable to not do so. It is the primary filter through which the interpretation of the data and reality passes in order to arrive at a particular conclusion. The conclusion is usually based upon what the worldview initially assumes and presupposes at the outset of the investigation and therefore directly effects the interpretation of the data. This means that no one is 100% objective.
Finally, I want to address one other thing you mentioned in your initial response, although there are several other points you have brought up that I disagree with. You wrote, “it [Expelled] does not shy away from attacking ‘Darwinism’ as what it implies is a ‘materialist philosophy’. I think that assumption is false and misleading, for reasons I have outlined above.” This will most likely be a long response to your claim, so I apologize up front. In the January 9, 1997 publication of the New York Review of Books, Richard Lewontin wrote a review titled Billions and Billions of Demons for Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. To roll out an oft-quoted portion from his article, I offer the following,
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Black used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
Admittedly, they are already committed a priori to a naturalistic worldview that ignores particular conclusions regardless of where the evidence leads, and they are not afraid to acknowledge this fact. If you have not read his article, I would encourage it. Lewontin reveals a lot of their thinking and prior commitments before the evidence is even initially encountered.
@ Amber -
Hi Amber! I’ll publish a response to your latest comment this weekend.
We did get to go and see the movie this afternoon and it is well worth the viewing in my opinion.
Hi Amber – sorry we did not get to speak the other day, I was not feeling well at service (my back was hurting again…ugh). Hope you had a good lunch with the President of NASA today. Wow, that is way exciting! Anyway, these comments are in response to your reply of April 24, 2008. I will reply them in the same order that you offered your answers.
1. It is probably best that I define what I mean by Evolution. Evolution, in its broadest sense simply means change over time. However, in its more biological sense, it means a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. I disagree with the biological definition that life arose from nonlife that information came about from purely natural causes. Further, I do not think that it is as well supported as they would have us believe. But even if it is, there is still no natural explanation for life coming from nonlife, or life progressing from a single cell ameba to human beings.
2. Admittedly I’m not trained as a scientist, but my understanding regarding the definitions of theory and law are the following:
a. Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory;
b. Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn’t necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.
c. Both of these definitions come from here: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-10/940942724.Sh.r.html but this is not the only place that I have heard similar definitions given. I should say that this concept is in the realm of philosophy and not science per se.
Now, Gravity is a law and not a theory because it is observable and predictable. Macro-evolution does not have the observable, nor predictive properties that a law requires, therefore the support is not sufficient to view it as a law, but rather a theory.
You mentioned, “ID certainly does not have the many years of observational work and mounds of sheer data behind it that evolution does.” First, that is true, but just because one theory has more years behind it than another does not make one more true than another. Authority or truthfulness is not determined by how long it has been around, it is determined upon how well it corresponds and coheres to reality. Second, I’m not convinced that the data behind evolution can best explain the abundant amount of information at the biochemical level – it just can’t get there.
3. I do not see the problem with ID leading to a particular metaphysic, after all, Darwinian evolution produces its own metaphysic, and no one seems to have an issue. Further, all science has philosophy as its underpinnings and that inevitably results in a metaphysic – so whether that metaphysic results in pure naturalism or supernaturalism is not the issue, it is just a divergent to the real topic at hand – which theory best explains the evidence.
4. In regards to my statement about presuppositions and worldviews, you responded with, “I think a scientific theory, though, should have nothing to do with one’s worldview or philosophical leanings.” Again, one cannot lay aside their worldview – that is a an impossibility. But, having said that, this does not preclude one from still being objective with the data, however, it can affect how they might interpret the data. While it is true that nature is nature regardless of one’s ultimate view of reality, it is precisely the individual’s worldview that will, a priori, suppress certain information. And if it does not, then it only speaks to the individual contradicting their own worldview and borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview. Let me say this – everyone will discover and come across truth, be it in science, the humanities, philosophy, etc. The reason that this is possible is for several reasons, but one of the main ones is that in order for humans to be wrong about everything, they must possess omniscience. Since God is the only being that is omniscience, God is the only one who can be wrong 100% of the time. So, regardless of one’s worldview, they will comes across some truth, whether it is purposeful or accidental. The problem is not whether we blindly bump into truth from time to time, but how we interpret that truth through our worldview.
5. I totally agree with everything in your final paragraph. I do have a couple of questions. You said, “I think God has designed this awesome world in such a way that nature progresses beautifully as nature does…because it’s nature!” Are you saying that there is evidence of design in nature? Also, I agree that nature is beautiful and explainable, but I wonder why that is?
I know it was scattered in my response, but let me state my view regarding evolution this way:
I think that biological evolution has explained a lot about the natural world and has done so accurately at the micro level. I believe that it can accurately account for micro-changes within species and do so quite adequately. Where I think it fails and lacks evidence is in the concept of random mutation from one species into another. Further, with the recent work and scientific discoveries in biochemistry over the last 50 or so years (thanks in large part to technological advances) we know now that at the molecular level we are dealing with information rich systems and machines. We also know from an entire lifetime of experience (historically and presently) that random, natural phenomena is incapable of generating information. The only source of information is a mind or intelligence.
I hope that helps to clarify my view and/or understanding of evolution as it stands today.
Thank you for your response, Trousered Ape. I apologize for not replying sooner, but I have also been rather busy over the past week.
(1) I brought up the Sternberg case because it is one of the prominent cases of alleged persecution that the film brings up. I would recommend that you also read Ed Brayton’s coverage of the Sternberg issue. The Meyer incident was not the sole factor which led to his unpopularity with his colleagues. One of the issues which is mentioned in one of the emails in the Souder report, but not discussed is the fact that Sternberg also showed poor regard for the handling of specimens. Now at a research institution where others also depend on these specimens for their work, it is a serious matter.
Nonetheless, here are my impressions specifically with respect to the Meyer paper. Firstly, as it has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the paper is a shoddy work of scholarship that fails to cite important papers on the topics it dabbles with. Secondly, the PBSW is a systematics journal; it does not usually publish papers on the topic of the Meyer paper. To illustrate this, Mike Dunford has listed the titles of the other papers in the same journal issue as the Sternberg paper. It is a cuckoo’s egg. Thirdly, Sternberg chose not to involve any associate editors in the review process. His reasons for doing so are that he claims he is far more qualified than anybody else; but this is not true as Brayton points out. A significant portion of Meyer’s paper focuses on the Cambrian explosion, an area of research that other editors were more familiar with than Sternberg. Fourthly, Sternberg cannot be said to have been neutral on the issue of intelligent design. He gave a talk at a Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference where Meyer also presented. Given that the two were acquainted, it raises even more questions as to the manner in which the review process was handled. These facts raise important questions: Why did Meyer choose to submit his paper to a journal which did not normally publish in this area, as opposed to others which do normally discuss it? And why was it submitted to a journal where he personally knew the editor? Based on this evidence, it is not difficult to see why this raises suspicions about Sternberg’s professional conduct.
But despite all this, Sternberg was never fired or “expelled”. He was never a paid employee of the Smithsonian to begin with. The Souder report mentions that his supervisor passed away, but again glosses over this issue. In order to remain as a research assistant, Sternberg would have to have a supervisor. Nobody was obligated to supervise Sternberg, and given the controversy he raised with his mishandling of the Meyer paper and his poor handling of specimens and books for research, it is not surprising. In any other line of work, it would be the same. So without a supervisor, Sternberg was offered the position of a Research Collaborator, one which he held even long after this incident erupted, as far as i know.
So it’s important to put this all into perspective when the film claims that ID advocates are being “expelled”. For starters, Sternberg wasn’t “expelled”. Some of his colleagues who were upset with his lack of professionalism relating not just to the Meyer paper discussed what needed to be done in private emails. The decision in the end was not to dismiss Sternberg. He continued to be affiliated with the Smithsonian despite bringing it into disrepute.
(2) You said: First, ID is a falsifiable theory. For instance, ID could be proven false if natural laws were discovered to create specified complexity. I would actually counter your argument by saying that Darwinism is unfalsifiable due to the fact that any counter-perspective and theory is not considered due to a priori commitment to naturalism. Second, in what way would it be “impossible to distinguish between designed and undesigned objects?” Are there any examples that you could provide?
Even if natural processes could be discovered to create whatever ID currently claims that they cannot produce, the argument from design can still apply - one could just suppose that an intelligent agent guided these natural processes. It would be impossible to prove or disprove the latter notion, which is why ID is unfalsifiable. You ask if there are cases where it would be impossible to distinguish between designed and undesigned objects. My response is that if ID were true and accepted as a scientific principle, then it would definitely be impossible to distinguish between the two. Currently, ID advocates point to specific molecular complexes or cascades which they believe are irreducibly complex and therefore designed. But what of other systems? I assume natural processes are kosher, but what is the rational basis for assuming that only irreducibly complex systems are designed and that simpler systems are not? Even those that theoretically could have evolved by natural processes could just as well have been designed by an intelligent agent. After all, methane gas can be produced by natural processes or artificially in a laboratory - if I were to present you with a sample of methane gas, it would be virtually impossible to distinguish whether it was synthesized naturally or artificially.
The methodological naturalism of ALL science, not just evolutionary theory does not make it unfalsifiable. Current theories of evolution would be falsified if genuine fossilized rabbits were discovered in Pre-Cambrian strata. If chimpanzee DNA shared a greater homology to jellyfish DNA than that of humans, it would also falsify our current understanding of phylogeny. What you are essentially stating is that all sciences are not falsifiable because they do not allow for supernatural explanations.
(3) I agree that 100% objectivity is impossible, and that’s not my point. My point is that methodological naturalism allows for far greater objectivity than when somebody’s philosophical or religious views are treated as scientific. And I would disagree that these are the primary filter through which scientists approach their subject. All good scientists will look at the evidence with some objectivity; that is why often scientists can make the same discovery independently of one another. Methodological naturalism is part of the scientist’s toolbox, regardless of whatever his or her views on the supernatural are. It is for that reason that Christians like Francisco Ayala and Kenneth Miller are able to accept the evidence for evolution just as atheists like Will Provine and Richard Dawkins do. It is for this reason that devout Muslim Abdus Salam and atheist Stephen Weinberg could both independently come up with a unification of weak forces and electromagnetism. There is a common ground that all good scientists share, and it is central to scientific process.
(4) Richard Lewontin is certainly entitled to his opinion, but Kenneth Miller and Francisco Ayala would be inclined to disagree as far as the application of naturalism extends to metaphysics. It is important to make the distinction between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism. Science is agnostic in the sense that it cannot deal with supernatural phenomena; therefore it must employ methodological naturalism. This is not to say that it is equivalent to ontological naturalism. After all, we don’t make that claim about economics either if economists do not invoke God in order to explain the dynamics of the market. Many evolutionary biologists are and have been theists. This includes Theodosius Dobzhansky and Ronald Fisher, two key figures in the development of the Modern Synthesis.
Lewontin makes a good argument for why science cannot allow supernatural explanations. After all, scientists come from all backgrounds and scientists in India and China are becoming quite prolific. If methodological naturalism were not adhered to, Hindu scientists could invoke reincarnation, whilst Chinese scientists might invoke Taoist ideals in order to explain phenomena, whereas Christians might invoke the Holy Spirit. In neither of these cases is the premise scientific or falsifiable; furthermore, anybody else would be entitled to invoke whatever supernatural explanations they may please. Science simply would not be able to function. Of course, one or more of these supernatural explanations might just happen to be true, but determining it would be well beyond the limits of science.
(5) You say: Admittedly, they are already committed a priori to a naturalistic worldview that ignores particular conclusions regardless of where the evidence leads, and they are not afraid to acknowledge this fact. If you have not read his article, I would encourage it. Lewontin reveals a lot of their thinking and prior commitments before the evidence is even initially encountered.
“They”? I presume by these you are refering to scientists who also happen to be atheists. But as I mentioned above, there are many scientists who are theists who reject intelligent design nonetheless. As I also mentioned, all scientists in all disciplines - not just evolutionary biology - adhere to methodological naturalism. If you can point to any scientific progress that has been made in any discipline that has come from a failure to adhere to this premise, then I’m all ears.
Furthermore, this statement about following the evidence where it leads is one of the ID movement’s many canards. To that, I ask, “What evidence?” There is no positive scientific evidence whatsoever to suggest that an intelligent agent exists. Virtually all arguments for Intelligent Design can be simplified as arguments from incredulity. It’s not a case of scientists refusing to accept the evidence for intelligent design - there simply isn’t any compelling evidence. If ID advocates argue that the implications of complexity are that biological systems are designed, then they are merely offering a more sophisticated version of Ray Comfort’s absurd “banana argument”. Furthermore, why are ID advocates so sure that the evidence leads to where they think it does?
(5) I notice you’ve summarized your understanding of evolution in another response, and I just felt I should comment. It is flawed.
Firstly, complexity is hardly compelling evidence for design - in fact, why would increased complexity not be a problem for a purported designer as well - after all, ID advocates don’t claim to have evidence for who or what the designer is. And to be fair, we will probably find that living things are far more complex than they appear today - especially when we learn more about how gene expression is regulated, and how various signalling mechanisms are coordinated.
Secondly, your assertion that natural processes have not been observed to increase “information” is patently false, and I can only guess that you got this misguided idea from creationist sources. There are plenty of known processes by which biological information can increase. The simplest of these is gene duplication followed by divergence. That means one of the copies of the gene undergoes mutations to give it a new function. Many of the genes in your own body probably arose through gene duplication. We have also identified a novel antifreeze protein which arose in Antarctic cod, which arose from a gene encoding trypsinogen. If this isn’t new information, then I don’t know what is. There has also been a study that has identified the putative mutations which gave rose to two different hormone receptors from an ancestral one. There are numerous examples of natural processes that contribute to novelty. It is beyond me why people still make this claim about “no new information”.
Oops, I just noticed I can’t count.
ok, Ape, thanks for your response to my response.
i have not forgotten, but i am so absolutely swamped right now that i may not get to a reply for a bit….but i won’t forget. i set my defense date for july 28 but hopefully it won’t take me THAT long to reply, hehe. i wish i had time to do another ph.d. in genetics. good heavens, shoot me now….. totally kidding btw, don’t tell matt i even joked about that. 
btw, my meeting last wk w/ the NASA Administrator was wonderful, thanks for asking! that’s one smart cookie.