ie:missional

Yesterday I took my 17 and 12 year olds with me to see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the new movie concerning discrimination in the scientific community regarding some scientists who hold to Intelligent Design. Hosted by actor/comedian/talk-show host/activist Ben Stein, Expelled attempts to demonstrate that a “Berlin Wall” has been erected in science and that only those scientists and theories on the “Darwinian” side of the wall are able to get a hearing, tenure and publication in scientific journals.

First, the movie itself. It was better than I expected it to be, though not as good as it could have been. There was almost a consistent use of video clips, some of which were funny, but many of which were just distracting or overblown. The way I see it, those clips will merely feed those who see the movie as primarily entertainment, rather than a serious documentary.

Most of the interviews were enlightening and informative. Anyone who has read ID materials would recognize the names of Stephen Meyer, William Dembski and Jonathan Wells. To their credit, the producers also include agnostics like David Berlinski rather than those who can easily be traced back to religion or “young earth creationism” (which, it seems, no one in the movie holds). Berlinski, a virtual unknown to evangelicals, was thusly described by Slate magazine:

A secular Jew born in New York City, the 66-year-old began his career in academia. After earning a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton, he spent time teaching at Stanford, working as a management consultant, and completing postdoctoral work in mathematics and biology. Nothing took—as he describes it, he “got fired from almost every job [he] ever had.” And then, at some point in the last few decades, he decided to remake himself as a maverick intellectual operating out of a flat in Paris.

For an entertaining and wide ranging interview with Berlinski see here. It didn’t take long to determine that he was probably the smartest person being interviewed in the film.

Interviews with Darwinists were also enlightening. One, with a prof named Provine, easily demonstrated that Darwinists are as closed minded as they accuse Christian fundamentalists of being. Atheist Richard Dawkins’ arrogance comes across as clearly here as in his books and debates. Interestingly, he does admit that an intelligence could be responsible for “seeding” life on earth, but said intelligence would likely have been beings from a super-advanced civilization from another galaxy who would “necessarily” have evolved according to Darwinian evolution. How does he know this evolution would be necessary? He doesn’t say.

(In an interesting turn, ID theorists tend to reject the idea of “alien seeding” even though the theory itself does not rule out that very possibility. Upon rejecting the possibility that super intelligent aliens could have planted the first cell which became the common ancestor, they have nowhere to turn for the intelligent source but God which then becomes self-fulfilling of the accusation that ID is mere religion in cheap scientific terms or creationism in sheep’s clothing.)

Second, as might be expected, the basis for the movie (loss of tenure and/or grants for ID promoting professors and scientists) has already been challenged. The website Expelled Exposed is claiming that there were plenty of extenuating circumstances in each situation that renders the claims of ID discrimination impotent. I am not persuaded by each of the arguments, but if you are going to debate the veracity of Expelled, you need to be aware of the objections as there are always two sides to each story.

The most important part of the movie, IMO, is not the ID issue, but the inextricable tie between Darwinian thought and both Nazism and eugenics. This was not news to me, but it will be for many who see the movie and while critics will cry “foul,” it will make no difference, it is absolutely true. But further, if Darwinism is true, then there was nothing wrong with either the holocaust or eugenics. Survival of the fittest, we know, is an ugly, bloody, violent concept and whether you are talking about lions, tigers, bears or humans, the ones who adapt and find a way to maintain their existence are the ones best suited for survival. Ergo, it matters not that huge gas chambers were built all over Europe and vast ovens for the disposal of corpses, the Nazis were simply better suited to survive than 13 millions Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and crippled. The same with eugenics: why cry over the fact that scores of imbeciles were sterilized? The strong and smart were simply asserting their superior fitness to survive. As ugly as it is, that is the logic of naturalistic Darwinism. To appeal to morality or conscience is to recognize an objective law or truth outside ourselves.

The reality is that we don’t need Darwin as an excuse to kill and maim each other; as sinful creatures we did that quite efficiently before he ever came around.

Expelled is rated PG for a curse word, thematic material and holocaust film footage.

About a month ago, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper advertised for the opportunity to participate in a book discussion for Douglas A. Blackmon’s provocative work of history entitled, Slavery by Another Name. Those who desired to attend the discussion were to send a 100 word email describing themselves and why they would like to be a part. I sent mine and was pleasantly surprised two weeks later, with no acknowledgment or other response, to find a complimentary copy of the book in my mailbox with an explanatory letter. I began reading the book immediately (I had about 10 days to read the 400+ pages not including the notes section) and attended the discussion Wednesday night hosted by the AJC’s Richard Halicks, moderated by editor Jay Bookman and attended by the book’s author and around 13 other readers.

Sub-titled, “The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II,” the volume deals with a little remembered period in the southern US that followed emancipation and continued into the first decades of the Jim Crow era during which “separate but equal” led inevitably to “colored” water fountains, back of the bus riding, serving African Americans out of the back of restaurants, turning a blind eye to crimes against African Americans, etc. Having lived in the south my entire life this book was intriguing on its face, but I had no idea just how ignorant I was about the history of the places of my raising. The essence of the book is that slavery in the US did not end in the 1860’s as we have believed, but in the mid 1940’s. The argument is bulletproof. Slavery did not disappear; it simply changed names.

Immediately following Lincoln’s Proclamation that granted freedom to all slaves in the US there was confusion in the South. Was it really freedom? Where would these millions of freed slaves live and work? Could they really vote? What would happen to the land belonging to whites? Would there be an occupying army from the North for months or years? How would the economy, which had become substantial in steel and cotton production, be rebuilt without slaves? It would not take long for these questions to be answered in the most horrifying way-a way that would make some antebellum plantations and the sipping of mint juleps while black hands deftly cleared cotton bolls under the threat of the lash pale by comparison. Blackmon writes, “By 1900, the South’s judicial system had been wholly reconfigured to make one of its primary purposes the coercion of African Americans to comply with the social customs and labor demands of whites.”

The core essential to the re-enslavement was the “convict lease” program entered into by many corporations and plantation owners. In order to provide cheap labor for the burgeoning mining industry, lumber yards, mills, and turpentine production, businesses as large as U. S. Steel (via its subsidiary Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co.) would “lease” convicts for labor–convicts that could not pay off the fines and debts charged to them in court. The problem was that the legal system that grew from this arrangement had a single purpose: the arrest and conviction of African American men who had no means of paying the fines and fees assigned to them so that they could be “leased” to a corporate entity for a period of time (say, 100 days) after which time they would supposedly be freed.

Across the “Black Belt” of the old South, small town governments gave wide latitude to local sheriffs, constables and justices of the peace to arrest, on the flimsiest of evidence, convict, sentence and lease prisoners. The laws that were passed and enforced were, primarily, those of which African-Americans would be found “guilty”: vagrancy (vaguely defined as not being able to prove at a given moment that one has a job), making a pass at a white woman, leaving employment without permission from the employer (creating permanent servitude). At sentencing a “friend” or corporation would pay the fine and associated fees thereby taking possession of the prisoner until the debt was paid or lease the prisoner from the controlling government. The “convict” would then be taken to a place such as the Pratt Mines in Birmingham, the Chattahoochee Brick Company in Atlanta or one of any number of plantations or forests across the south. Once in the system, any person could be sub-leased any number of times making it almost impossible for concerned family members to ever find them. Powerful Atlanta families as well known and honored in memory as the Woodruffs and the Hurts were involved in this chicanery to various degrees.

Additionally, once leased, any infraction could add days, weeks, months or years to a sentence that might have been as short as 30 days. Broken tools, stolen food, lack of productivity and others infractions real and imagined could and did accumulate at the time of impending freedom for many, if they were blessed enough to live that long. Because of the endless supply of African Americans to be arrested, there was little to no incentive for the corporations or landowners to take care of those they had leased. In the slavery era, each slave represented a capital investment from which the slave owner expected a return. To kill a slave was akin to throwing money in the wind. The convict lease program removed all need for such “compassion.” At the Slope No. 12 mine outside Birmingham, AL, men were daily loosed from their barrack shackles at 3:00 AM, taken into a labyrinth of tunnels underground, worked all day in excrement fouled waters, brought back above ground after nightfall only seeing the sun on Sunday. That, of course, was the Lord’s Day and the white folks did not work.

Murder, contagion, rape and intentional sickness from drinking the defiled tunnel water were common. Those who died were dumped unceremoniously into unmarked graves at the edges of the massive compound. The call would then go out for more workers. Which meant more trumped up charges. More arrests. More money changing hands. In a single year, 25% of the income for the State of Alabama came from the convict lease program.

With the exception of an extended investigation under President Teddy Roosevelt and a tenacious, heroic effort by an Assistant U. S. Attorney named Warren Reese, virtually nothing was done to stop, as the author phrased it during our discussion, this “malevolent exclusion of justice.” In the aftermath of the Civil War and the still tenuous relationship between North and South, the investigations ended in minor penalties on some very guilty men with most sentences being suspended. Had he been supported with a little backbone from those in Washington, DC, Reese may well have gone down in history as the William Wilberforce of his generation. But it was not to be.

Anyone raised in the south should read this book. Anyone interested in racial understanding or reconciliation issues should read this book. IMO, it will set a standard for understanding this period of American history. It is a deep and profound work.

On Wednesday evening last the selected readers gather at the AJC building on Marietta Street in Atlanta. What was to be a two hour discussion lasted a little over three and I did not get the sense that anyone was really ready to leave. If my memory holds, the group consisted of nine African Americans and five of anglo heritage, among us a judge, state representative, community activist, grad student and college dean all of whom spoke openly and passionately about how the book made us feel and the issues that it raised. While the subject matter was limited to the substance of the book itself, I could not shake the feeling that another two hours and we would have begun making progress on how these issues affect each of us personally. It would have been time well spent.

Today’s AJC featured a summary of the meeting which can be found here.