Earth Day 2010

A speech by James Cameron on Earth Day in Santa Barbara.

Estes to Loveland in 5 Minutes

This is my first new entry at my blog since Gaia's closing. :-(

Shot this footage in January while driving back to Laporte from Estes Park, CO. Sped it up to 500% to make a 25 minute drive condense down to 5 minutes. Music was found at a great new website I came across called Jamendo.com. The song is Gypsy Romance by Jacques Bellanger. His personal website is: http://jbabebel.perso.sfr.fr

Buddhist Faith Fellowship: Community

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Feb 3rd, 2010

Just put another promotional video together for the BFF, this time focussing on our community. Audio credits for the song are below:

The music used in this video was taken from Wake Up.org (http://wkup.org):

http://wkup.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=243:wake-up-song&catid=41:listen&Itemid=131%E3%80%88=en

It was composed and performed at Plum Village by the following artists:

Written by Phap Linh; Guitar & Vocals: Joe Reilly; Female Lead Vocals: Melina Bondy; Cello: Phap Linh; Bass Guitar: Phap Luu; Keyboard: Phap Dan, Andrew; Djembe: Phap Dang; Guitars: Phap Lai, Luc Nghiem; Harmonica: Phap Man; Backup Vocals: Plum Village Sangha. Recorded and rehearsed on Thursday, January 28th, 2010 in Plum Village. This recording is the third take. For more of Joe Reilly's songs, follow the link to his website at: http://joereilly.org

Successful Operation

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Jan 28th, 2010

One of my cousins recently sent a message alerting me to their son's plight this week. Here's  a picture I took from their blog tracking his progress, of him being airlifted to another hospital where he received emergency surgery to remove a brain tumor. :-(  Luckily he pulled through and his progress has been encouraging. I was grateful that the prayers and visualizations everyone sent out for a successful surgery have been realized. I continue to send more prayers of positive visualization for his full recovery and hope that this too will be realized.

Loss of a Friend

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Jan 28th, 2009

Just got word this week that a friend passed away. :-( Went through my photo album and found this shot I took of him on a trip across Long Island Sound returning from a friend's wedding. 

Mike was a very creative guy who was a wonderful music composer. He sent me a lot of his compositions and I promised to use them in one of my short movies. I hope to honor that promise with something worthy of his talent. 

BFF Welcome Video

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Jan 5th, 2009

Put this short video together as a teaser for people attending our sangha at the Buddhist Faith Fellowship for the first time.

Humanity's Prayer

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Dec 17th, 2009

I put this little video together for my World Citizen Practice blog to express the highest human aspirations as a prayer for a future in which our species is finally united in peace. I think this fits squarely with the spirit of the holidays, "Peace on Earth and goodwill towards all men." Or more appropriately,  "...towards all humans." ;-)  My commentary can be found here.

President Obama's Peace Prize Speech as it Should Have Been

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Dec 11th, 2009

I've had the domain Americatransformed.us for awhile and haven't had time to build my grand vision for it yet. ;-) I used it for awhile when I was campaigning for Obama. And now it seems appropriate for me to use it to present the vision of Obama that I had hoped was going to manifest and bring about real change; ending the Bush administration's bungled military campaigns.

This is Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech that I reworked a little bit to cut out justification for the war in Afghanistan. The rest of his original speech I thought was wonderful. But it is unknown what would happen if he gave this speech rather than the one originally delivered. Would the Military Industrial Complex make him their number 1 enemy? Would he alienate himself and Democrats from the GOP half of our nation? Just as junkies have to be weaned off of drugs gradually, perhaps Barack is seeking to gradually wean from war, those in our nation who are addicted and intoxicated by visions of further Middle East conquest. Unfortunately this is a naive hope in the face of new troop deployments to Afghanistan.  :-(

World Citizen Practice: Victory Tabernacle

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Oct 29th, 2009

I attended a very fascinating service at Victory Christian Church in Middlefield this last Sunday. I've always seen this church when driving by it on route 66 and have been curious as to what it's all about. I first checked the website and discovered that it seems a bit fundamentalist in orientation with their statement of beliefs. But as part of my World Citizen Practice every month, half of my fellowship is intended to take me outside my comfort zone and home base at my Buddhist sangha. 

Another reason I am more open to explore what was once considered incompatible with my spiritual orientation is the gradual realization that in going beyond surfaces, things aren't always as they appear. Even though I may attend a Buddhist sangha that is guided by the teachings of spiritual leaders such as Teitetsu Unno, Shinran Shonin, Thich Nhat Hanh, Pema Chodrin, The Dalai Lama, Ekhart Tolle and even the historical Buddha himself, not everyone will agree as to what the implications of where these teachings should lead. There are Buddhists who voted for Barack Obama just as there are Buddhists who voted for John McCain. 

There are Buddhists who favor Fox News and there are Buddhists who favor CNN. And even though one of our highest aspirations is to become "food and drink during time of famine, to give assistance to the helpless and the poor," what if the poor people being assisted are illegal immigrants? It may not sit well with Buddhists who are anti-immigrant and support measures of shutting down the border between the U.S. and Mexico to keep them out. The point I am getting at here is the moral cohesion and certainty is blurry everywhere you look and this includes Eastern and Western centers of fellowship. 

Even though a Christian church may appear to have fundamentalist and dogmatic leadership, there are always members within their midst who are more liberal in their thinking. They may not rock the boat and they may not speak their mind in the presence of more conservative leaders and fellows, but they are nonetheless there and think outside the box. There may even be some members who are non believers or will later become non believers. This is just a natural course of being human and how there is often a constant shift in orientation that contradicts one side of a duality that was once deemed the standard. We hear examples of this from both sides too. 

There have been instances where rock hard atheists had conversion experiences, devoted their life to Christ and became "born again." There are also instances of steadfast missionaries who had conversion experiences that lead them to atheism. And as a rule of thumb, there is a piece of yin within yang and yang within yin. Some who may appear to be oriented on one side of the duality may display characteristics that would orient them to the other side and vice versa. 

Learning to live with this reality has been an exercise in tolerance and going deeper than the appearance of surfaces. I used to believe that those who displayed such hypocrisy were corrupt and potentially untrustworthy. What I have gradually discovered though is that these contradictions of the duality exist even within myself. I come from a family split down the middle between the atheist and theist orientations. Even if I favor the atheist orientation, it is entirely possible I may have offspring that adopt a Western theism just as my Christian grandfather gave rise to pagan children who followed a guru and favored an Eastern spirituality.


Before he died, I became one of the most loyal and trusted helpers of my grandfather, helping him go shopping, run errands and even go on trips across country with him. In helping him, I not only became an indirect supporter in the fundamentalist ministries he donated money to or bought books from, (Jessie Duplantis, Kenneth Hagin, John Hagee, Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn to name a few) I also became an indirect supporter in the election and reelection of a politician (George W. Bush) whose legacy as one of the most misguided presidents in U.S. history is being hotly debated by people around the world. Even though I didn’t approve of everything my grandfather did, I still loved the guy dearly and saw the good within him. 


The choice at hand is not how we can make war on our opposite or our hypocritical selves, but about how we can accept, integrate and create something new with the other side so as to potentially make peace with them.

In my forays into Christian fundamentalist churches, I have had to fight back fears that it will lead me into a direct confrontation with their dark side. But there is also the possibility that their side might open up to its opposite. Rather than seek a continuation of warfare, perhaps they might see the potential for wholeness where East and West unite and create lasting peace together. 

When I first arrived at Victory, the members that greeted me were friendly and outgoing. They took a genuine interest in knowing who I was and finding out why I was there. But as the sermon started, I saw some red flags go up inside my mind. The minister (Pastor Pete) began with an offhanded comment about hippies. (both my parents were hippies and I have hippy friends) Then he performed a prophetic pronouncement over a young kid in the audience, declaring that he would become a great business man and leader for the Lord. Not my kind of thing but I took it in strides and was open enough to stay, pushing the limits of what I was used to. 

Then there was the worship provided by Victory's very own rock band. People would move to the front, raising their hands towards heaven and shouting glory to their God. Afterwards the pastor told us that the purpose of praise and worship is, "to give God the glory. To let him know that you appreciate him, to express your love. I mean what can we give the Lord physically? well we can't, he owns everything. But we can give him our heart. and so we can bless him as we let him know that we love him and appreciate him."

Pastor Pete then began his sermon which was Part III of Understanding the Biblical Church. Here is a excerpt of part of the sermon I found the most compelling and took down after listening to the recording:  

"What is the local church and why is it so strategic? The local church is critical because it is the place I submit myself and my family to spiritual oversight and accountable living. If you're a parent this morning you want your children to listen to you and submit themselves into your parental leadership for their lives. Well guess what? In a pastoral sense it's the same thing. It doesn't matter how old chronologically someone is. When they come to Christ, they are an infant. That was one of Paul's issues with Timothy. 

When you read second Timothy chapter one, he says two things to Timothy. He says first of all, you need to stir up the gifts of God that are in you. The implication being, because if you don't, no one else will. You gotta stir it up. Second thing he says in verse 7, for God has not given you a spirit of fear but of power and love and of sound mind. Why was he saying both of those things? Because Timothy was being harassed and beaten down and intimidated by people older than him. They were trying to leverage their age over Timothy and harass him into submission and here he is the pastor. Whether they were doing it intentionally or not is not clear in the scripture but the effect on Timothy's life was that he was shying away from his call because he was being intimidated, looking at peoples age and position. 

I remember that happening to me years and years ago early in the ministry. There were people two in a half times my age and they had to listen to me. I was always taught, you respect your elders. Mr. So and So, Ms. So and So, Mrs. So and So. Yes, ma'am, yes sir! And now God puts me in this place where I'm teaching people two in a half times my age. I tell you what, I always held that with great respect. Even though I could preach and administer to them in the Lord, and had the anointing to impart to them, I always respected them for the position they had in mind. 

But Timothy was loosing a handle on this. So, let's go again, let's look at number three and lets look at the scripture. This is what the writer of Hebrew said regarding this issue. He said, obey those who have, (to paraphrase a little bit) the spiritual rule over you, the spiritual leadership in your life, and simply learn to listen. Why? For your spiritual leaders watch out for you and those who are, must give an account for their leadership. Let them do so, let them do their job with joy and not grief. For, if they had to do it with grief, it would be unprofitable for you. 

Let's dissect a couple words. First is the word submission. What he means by that word is to yield under. So when you are being submissive, it doesn't mean you don't have a brain, it means you are choosing to yield under someone else's anointing and spiritual authority. I'll tell you what, you will never be a good leader unless you learn how to be a good follower. You will never be given your own thing unless you can be faithful to that which is called another. Who said that? Oh yeah, Jesus did in Luke 16. If you can't serve someone else's vision, you'll never be given your own. Oh, you'll get a vision but it will be a pipe dream. Understand? You'll never make a great leader unless you're a great follower. It just starts in the trenches."

What was interesting to me at this point was the use of the word "trenches" which wasn't the first time I heard this word used in the service. It evoked imagery of warfare for me and even the church name, "Victory" could refer to a game, or a battle. 

Pastor Pete's service continued...

 "I'll tell you what, this spirit of submission, here's the difference. Someone can obey on the outside, you can only submit on the inside. Jesus was submissive to the will of his father even unto the death at the cross. He submitted here because when his flesh was tempted in the garden of Gethsemane, he wanted that cup to pass from him, he took it back and said nevertheless, not my will father but yours be done. You can only submit in here."

 This was the part of the sermon that made me a bit uncomfortable. One of the many criticisms lobbed at Christianity from atheists is the story of Christ submitting to his divine Father who wants him to be executed as a sacrifice. One of the other stories that this evokes in the Old Testament is the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham thinks he hears God telling him to sacrifice his son Isaac, who obediently allows his dad to bind and prepare to have him stabbed with a knife. 

If the New Testament was supposed to be the new revelation of God, why does Christ so obediently submit to his father's will of sacrificing himself? What kind of father would send off his own son to be sacrificed even if we are told that it was for reasons of cosmic importance? Did not Abraham believe that his son being sacrificed was of cosmic importance to his God? 

It could be said that there are thousands of fathers today in this nation who have not resisted their sons being sent to be sacrificed on the battle field of Iraq and Afghanistan and we are conversely told by our leaders that the shedding of their innocent blood is the necessary ingredient for the salvation of our nation's freedom. If this is mirroring the New Testament story, how much has really changed since the Old Testament? In the New Testament, God allows the son to be sacrificed and in the Old Testament, he stops it from happening. Is this an instance of the yin being within the yang and vice versa? The Old Testament is usually known for its childish depiction of God where as the New Testament is supposed to show a wiser, more loving and evolved God who acts more like an adult. 

Pastor Pete continued...

"You can make people obey and comply on the outside but you can only submit on the inside.The reality of inside is the essence of the New Testament. And the Old Testament, what was it about? Outward sacrifices, keeping all the laws, keeping all the customs, showing up in Jerusalem for the feast. And in the New Testament, Jesus said, and now I say, you've heard it said that basically it's wrong for a person to commit adultery, that guy should be stoned, but I say to you, if a man lusts after a woman in his own heart, I consider that he has already committed adultery with her. 

What was the issue? The message was this, whatever was externally based and judged in the Old Testament, everything now is internal. everything is internally evaluated judged and assessed. Why? Because now we have the Holy Spirit in us. He dwells in us. In the Old Testament he dwells among us. So in other words, you can't have a new and better covenant without taking the responsibilities that come with it, which is, let me change you from the inside out instead of just making you a bunch of people that keep outward observances of feast and holidays and festivals. I want to change you from the inside so that you actually want to do it. So this is what it comes down to. Let us do our job with joy."

 This part of the sermon I really liked and it sent the wheels inside my head spinning. It also reminded me of the banner hanging on the wall near the church sanctuary's entrance. (pictured above) On it was the first and last letter of the Greek alphabet and symbolically, it is representative of God as the first and last revelation ending with the return of Jesus Christ to Earth. The way the Greek letters were merged together on the banner made me realize that this is the Christian version of the Yin and Yang symbol. And in Pastor Pete's assessment of the Old and New Testament, made me think about the masculine and feminine relationship as they relate to the nature of matter and spirit. 

The journey we take in life begins with the masculine side, (the material). We are preoccupied with our appearances and the superficial surfaces that surround us. We may follow rules and the crowd, not because we feel compelled from the inside, but because of what we fear from the outside. The same thing can be said about children just beginning to understand how the material world works. They don't jump off of tall buildings because they don't want to, but because they fear the consequences. Later in life our compulsions to pull off dangerous stunts that threaten to punish us by the material laws of gravity are diminished and a new will comes into place from the inside, compelling us to live in accordance with the laws of gravity because we want to and are concerned not only about ourselves but others. 

By the same token, the latter half of life is marked by connecting with the inside. We realize that our looks are impermanent and our external surfaces don't necessarily determine our identity. The Old and New Testament basically describe the internal evolution of the human race. Our early ancestors were dominated by the external compulsions of fear from a wrathful, vindictive and childish God. Then in the New Testament, a new inner sanction came into being and God became kinder, wiser and more adult like. And in the Old Testament account of Adam coming first, this would correspond to the banner and the Alpha symbol which is often placed in front of male to describe their egotistical orientation when not in touch with their feminine side. And as a Male's sex organs are external, outside the body, conversely, a female's sex organs are hidden inside the body. Paster Pete describes the New Testament revelation being guided by the Holy Spirit, that hidden and invisible force that resides inside the body rather than being external on the outside. 

The last revelation, "Omega" must come at the end of time in order for the birth of world spirit to bring peace and the beginning of a new human kind who is no longer estranged from the divine. And as Jesus stated, "The first shall be last and the last shall be first." This now makes sense in context of the masculine coming first to find itself last as the feminine becomes the only one capable of giving birth and nourishing new life to be the first of a new revelation. This new revelation; World Spirit, is the new consciousness that will unite the world and bring God's will to be done, "on Earth as it is in Heaven."

Pastor Pete ended his sermon with a great couple of sentences pointing his congregation towards the "Omega" of the Holy Spirit and the new Revelation.

"Make our job a joy. We don't rule over anyone with an iron hand. We don't rule in the flesh. We don't ever take our anointing and our position for granted. We're always one in equal living. Hallelujah. But let your heart be open in peace. That's something God will always bless."

I left Victory church feeling glad that I had explored it. The people who came up after the service to introduce themselves were very kind and genuine. I even got to meet pastor Pete and shake his hand. It felt liberating to connect with my opposite orientation in a domain I used to be intimidated by. I now seek to passionately share my gospel of coexist with Christians just as passionately as they seek to share their gospel of Jesus Christ with me. And even though my sangha feels it is a better path to be lay rather than monastic, something must also be done to break the spiritual monasticism of just remaining inside your comfort level amongst your own kind. My world citizen practice is a means for me to become a spiritual lay person, finding a relationship and learning from those outside of my orientation as well as offering whatever perspective I have from my angle that may enrich their lives.

Full Health Visioning

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Oct 18th, 2009

The picture below is some art therapy I used for visualizing myself back to full health and free of Lyme spirochetes.

Too Cute Again!

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Oct 10th, 2009

I can't help it. I keep taking these adorable pics. This particular one was of my friend who I passed on the road. Of course her dogs (Briel = black and Abby = white - far right) had to jump up and say hi and luckily I had my camera ready.  :-)  The brown dog (Teddy) with them is their buddy from a few blocks away who was being baby sat.

Too Cute!

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Sep 17th, 2009

Ran into this little critter the other day at the vet. :-)  

World Citizen Practice: Catalyst Church - Middletown, CT

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Sep 13th, 2009

My World Citizen Practice is a means to try and connect with the reality beyond surfaces and discover the peace that can come from this perspective by making contact with the one behind the many. In less abstract terms, it means to celebrate the diversity surrounding us but not to lose site of our non dual interconnected core, binding all of us together as one. In this unity, a space for freedom is born thus allowing for diversity to flower. It’s the whole paradox expressed in the U2 song “One,” where Bono sings, “We are one, but we are not the same.”

The world citizen practice I've developed is born out of a conviction, that like the diverse drinks we consume that are all connected by the common denominator of water, so to are all religions linked together by the universal spirit within. Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or practitioners of any other wisdom tradition may have a diverse language of symbolism and elaborate rituals that appear different on the outside, but inside they are all expressing the journey of the same inner spirit, connecting us all into one being. Even in religions where there are obstacles obstructing the spiritual path, eventually blinders will be removed and truth revealed. Water always returns to its source. 

Because I started my journey with an orientation leaning towards the left side of the polarity, I was naturally drawn towards Eastern spirituality. Atheism resonated more with me than Western theism. This is why I immersed myself into Buddhism and joined a sangha. Buddhism served as a home base grounding me and providing an environment with a freedom to develop and implement the World Citizen Practice which is basically a means of seeking to bridge the divide with the opposite side. The journey for every individual usually begins with an orientation leaning towards one half of the polarity and ends by reaching out for the other side to eventually integrate the two polar energies within oneself, finding greater wholeness and integrity. 

This is why my World Citizen Practice seeks a balance by bridging the divide between the East and West, the left and right. Half of my attention is spent at my home base while the other half is traveling outside my comfort zone to explore and befriend western religions while extinguishing fears that this experience will bring me face to face with the  potential duality within; their dark side. 

Just as the unintegrated right side expresses their fears of evil emerging out of the left, the unintegrated left side expresses their fears of evil emerging from the right. World W1n was a vehicle from which I was able to express my own personal fears. Do I know for sure they aren’t going to play out? It is possible that our world as we know it could come to a screeching halt in the fires of World War III caused by a battle between East and West. But it is also just as possible that it won’t. I’ve spent enough time worrying about this possibility and the best way to extinguish one’s fears is to face and overcome them. Then the next phase of the journey becomes a movement away from fear into hopefulness and a focus on visualizing and then moving towards desirable outcomes rather than obsessing about potential worse case scenarios.

I’ve already attended several Christian services in and around Middletown and my goal is to continue doing so until I’ve found one that welcomes world citizen ideals as much as my sangha. Uniting Christ and Buddha is a symbolic exercise representing a viable bridge capable of uniting East with West. The great thing about Middletown is its spiritual and religious diversity. There is not only a Hindu temple here, but also Buddhist centers, a Muslim Mosque and Jewish synagogue; all of which I’m in the process of exploring (for those that I haven’t already).

Today, I checked out a new Christian church that just opened in Middletown called Catalyst Church. It was a heavy dose of Western Yang energy expressed by their own personal rock band. 

At the very beginning of the service, was a symbol that reminded me again of my fears that inspired World W1n. 

During worship as the band performed, two video screens projected the song lyrics for all to read. In the background were computer generated blue patterns. One of the blue patterns present for several of the songs was something that looked just like a Nazi swastika. Part of me thought of the tell tale signs of a potential sweeping religious revival in America of a fanatical kind, justifying the alarm of Sinclair Lewis that lead to his famous quote, “When fascism comes to America, it will be draped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Another part of me was reminded by how the similar symbolism in Buddhism was hijacked by Hitler and is cause of concern for those who first come to Buddhism but don’t dig any deeper only to leave forever because they fear it is being commandeered by Nazi’s. 

After the catalyst rock band finished, we were introduced to the pastor, Michael Larkin. His sermon put me to ease, as its emphasis focussed on an inner fulfillment guided by a movement away from the limited ego towards the fellowship and wholeness of the collective. (the same emphasis is found within Buddhism) Some of the main points of Larkin’s sermon were as followed;

“Jesus always met physical and emotional needs before he ever got into spiritual needs. We can’t leave the spiritual part out when ministering to people. A child who gets a backpack he needed for school is good but it doesn’t help him when he goes home and sees his parents throwing things at each other. It doesn’t help a child who goes home and sees his parents shooting up on drugs. And it doesn’t help a child who has great parents but they have to work all the time just to survive. The only thing that can help them is if they hear about God’s power to make a way out of now way. As a church we don’t have all the answers, and a lot of times we don’t know what to say, but God is saying I can.” This reminded me of the concept of “Other Power” in Buddhism. 

Further in his sermon, Larkin described the message of the Bible as a passion of God in pursuit of a prodigal people. “You may not understand Revelation or understand the ending. The old testament; all it’s doing is saying Jesus is coming. And here’s why he needs to come. And the New Testament, all it’s doing from Matthew through Revelation, is pointing back to Jesus and what he did on the cross. That’s the Bible. It’s the passion of God in pursuit of a prodigal people.”

“Moses says to the Lord, Lord I’ve never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you’ve spoken to your servants. I’m slow of speech and tongue and I stutter and I can’t say anything. And the Lord said to him, “who gave site to the blind? Is it not I the Lord? I’ll help you to speak and teach you what to say.” The Lord, as Larkin describes in this situation represents higher consciousness; the God like part of ourselves capable of rising above negative circumstances to push us into action even though we may feel inadequate.

“Some may say, my past is dark. You can’t use me.” “No, no, I created you and I want to use you.” Moses says, “please send someone else to do the job.” Then God got angry. “People are living without hope, now go.” Of course God has to get angry because he’s a passionate God in pursuit of a prodigal people. “I want to use you. I want you to make a difference in this community. I want you to have purpose. I want you to have significance and life. I want people to find life in Christ because of what I am doing inside of you.” And you’re coming to God and saying, who am I? That’s an amazing place to start. That’s where we have to start. Because it shows that God is saying, “here we go. There’s something huge I want you guys to do.” 

“Are there burning bushes in your life that you’ve been ignoring? Maybe you’ve got to go back to your middle school days when you were curious. Burning bushes take all forms and shapes.” Larkin was speaking here of crisis in people’s lives that make them want to fold up and throw in the towel. “Maybe this is your burning bush. And maybe if you stop long enough to check it out, maybe God will reveal something to you. “Hey look. I want you to have a purpose and significance with your life.” Larkin’s sermon ended with a challenge calling us towards community service and action; “I want to challenge you with this question. Will you let God be a burning bush in your life? Will you let him say to you, here we go.” 

The music after the service was good and the lyrics seemed to be expressing a reference towards spirit. "Come to the waters and you will thirst no more." At another point, the lyrics made me think about Eckhart Tolle and the power of now. "Love is here. Love is now."

I left Catalyst church glad that I had explored it. It is possible that I may return at some point in the future.

------------------9/16--------------Update--------------->

To be fair to Michael Larkin and his church, I'm posting his response to my blog:

"Thank you as well for your honest candid evaluation of our service. I also want to thank you for pointing out what could be perceived by some to be a swastika. I in no way agree with the thoughts or actions behind the symbol. It is one of those things that we just never noticed. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, we have deleted that background."

Expelled Analysis

Originally Posted to firesofcreation.gaia.com on Sep 13th, 2009

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I watched Expelled the other day on a recommendation from a friend. I’d been meaning to check it out just to get the take from the other side of the evolution debate. Expelled came out around the same time as Bill Maher’s anti-religious movie ‘Religulous,’ which I thought was good and blogged about briefly. Watching Expelled provided me with some interesting insights and although I’m not an advocate of Intelligent Design, I am open enough to hear out the other side’s argument. 

Expelled begins with footage of the Berlin wall being constructed in Germany following world war II. Two peoples who used to be united are now cut off from each other as hostilities ratchet up and threats of World War III escalate. 

Now we open with a college crowd waiting for Ben Stein who sits in his dressing room preparing to come out and speak. There is a cut to Richard Dawkins; "The battle over evolution is only one skirmish in a much larger war." Now Daniel Dennett appears; "Science simply makes no use of the hypothesis of God."  

Ben Stein walks into a hall full of clapping students. He takes the podium and begins his speech. "Freedom is the essence of America, we're talking about  freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from fear, freedom of religion. Martin Luther King said America is essentially a dream. A dream of freedom and equality and freedom is the way to equality." 

Stein continues with footage of Iconic images of America. "Freedom is what makes this country great. Freedom has allowed us to create, explore and overcome every challenge we have faced as a nation. But imagine if these freedoms were taken away. Were would we be? What would we lose? Unfortunately I no longer need to imagine. It's happening. We are losing our freedom in one of the most important sectors of society; science. I have always assumed scientists were free to ask any question. To pursue any line of inquiry without fear of reprisal. But recently I have been alarmed to discover this is not the case."

Now Stein introduces evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg whose life was nearly ruined when he strayed from the party line while serving as editor of a scientific journal affiliated with the prestigious Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. He dared to publish an article by Stephen Meyer, one of the leading lights of the intelligent design movement. The article suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began. As a result, Dr. Sternberg lost his office and was pressured to resign. 

Stein next takes us to Michael Shermer's office where he heads the skeptics society. Now we see Shermer giving a lecture - "I can't prove there is no God or Yaweh in your case any more than I can prove there is no Isis, Zeus, Apollo, Brahma, Ganesha, Mithras, Allah or for that matter the Flying Spaghetti Monster." He tells Stein in his office that skepticism is not a position you take. It's just an approach to claims. Stein - "Is intelligent design nonsense?" Shermer - "Well, it's unproven so in that sense it's nonsense. In the shaded areas between good solid science and total nonsense, it's sort of 3/4 of the way towards the nonsense side." Stein - "You think people should be allowed to speak about and write about it." Shermer - "They are free to write and publish and be heard in public forums and go to conferences just like everybody else does." When Stein asks about the situation with Sternberg, Shermer says, "People don't get fired over something like that." What Shermer espouses from his interview are the same ideals Stein rattles off at the beginning of the movie about freedom. Science has nothing to fear of new ideas if they are backed up by good solid data. 

Now Stein introduces scientist after scientist from various schools around the country who were curtailed in their attempts to bring intelligent design into their work. Here were a few examples: Caroline Crocker mentioned intelligent design in a classroom leading her career to come to an abrupt end. When confronted by her supervisor, he said she was going to be disciplined for teaching intelligent design which becomes the loss of her job. We see footage of a guillotine coming down. Ben stein continues that she not only lost her job but was blacklisted and unable to find a job anywhere. Caroline - "I was only trying to teach what the university stands for which is academic freedom." 

Stein introduces Robert Marks who Baylor University shut down his research website while forcing him to return grant money when they found links between his work and intelligent design. We cut to a scene of an ape-man in the movie Planet of the Apes, "Shut up you freak!" Now it shoots water from a hose at Charleton Heston's character who shouts back, "It's a mad house!!!!" 

Next we meet Guillermo Gonzalez who found himself in a fight with Iowa State University after publishing a book that argues the universe is intelligently designed. His application for tenure was denied even after his work led to the discovery of some new planets.  Dr. Gonzalez advice to other scientists who explore intelligent design in their work; "If they value their careers, they should keep quiet about their intelligent design views." 

We encounter many more scientists throughout this documentary who wouldn't dare show their faces in an interview for fear of losing their jobs.  One of these guys says, "If I write intelligent design, they hear creationism, they hear religious right, they hear theocracy." Stein now pipes in; "It appears Mr. Shermer was wrong. Intelligent design was being suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion. It was time to ask the scientific establishment what was so bad about intelligent design."

It is this last example that got me thinking about orientations within a polarity. Each side often fears their opposite and sees it as evil unless both energies are integrated together. In this case and countless others, the left side whose orientation often connects with atheism, science and Eastern spirituality, naturally fear the right side who are more often connected with theists, duality and western religion. Because my orientation began on the left side, I also fear intelligent design being connected to fundamentalism and sinister plans of the right to bring about a theocratic dictatorship that cuts off any and all expression of the left. This idea will be explored later on in this essay. 

At this point in the documentary, we see the opposing scientists speaking their mind. The first is Richard Dawkins; "Intelligent design people are not genuine scientists." Daniel Dennett - "It's just propaganda." P.Z. Myers - "Intelligent design is a racket. It's a set of excuses to squeeze creationism in the classrooms." Another scientist I couldn't identify says, "To present intelligent design stunts their (students) educational growth." Another scientist warns us; "Get intelligent design in the schools today and we can have school prayers tomorrow." Ben Stein finishes this thought as we view footage of former vice president Dan Quayle taking the stage and podium with 700 Club evangelist Pat Robertson. "Any other complaints?" Is Stein downplaying fears the left have of theocracy coming into power as an arm of the religious right? The answer seems to be yes considering that Stein uses Expelled as a vehicle expressing his own fears that dictatorship and evil threatens to emerge from the liberal - atheist leaning, Darwinism thumping left. 

The song "Love is in the Air" begins playing as we view a rally protesting intelligent design. Some signs read; "You evolved, but not enough." One sign is held by someone dressed in a George Bush mask; "Religion is the root cause of all terrorism. All terrorists are religious people. None are atheists." Another sign - "You're right, there is an intelligent designer and her name is mother nature!"

Stein - "There seemed to be a  lot to hate about intelligent design and nearly all of that hatred was focussed on one place." Daniel Dennett appears - "The people from the Discovery Institute doing the intelligent design, they're all varnish and no product." P.Z. Myers - "The Discovery Institution is a propaganda mill. It's an institution designed to suck in money from religious investors and turn it into a sanitized somewhat secular version of the creation story to get it into the schools."

What’s interesting about this is Dennett fears the same institution that I use as a model for a similar one in my screenplay, World W1n. In my story, The Eye of Enlightenment Institute colludes with this organization after fabricating a piece of Noah’s Ark in order to make a fundamentalist Biblical world view look true so it could assist in the rise to power of a president whose sole aim is to create an American theocracy.  

Now Ben Stein takes us to Seattle in search for the Discovery Institute, but everyone he asks on the streets haven't heard of it. He finally finds a big tower. Stein - "It's got to be the whole building." The institute turns out to occupy a single suite on the eighth floor. Ben Stein walks in and meets Bruce Chapman, head of Discovery Institute. Stein - "You've made an awful lot of trouble for being such a small office. I thought it was going to be like the pentagon."  Chapman - "We're like the little boy who said the emperor has no clothes. And he didn't have a big organization either."

One could argue here from the left’s or right's perspective that every form of evil looks harmless at its earliest stage. And in using an example from the classic mythological story of Star Wars, the Sith are only two in number when they begin to take over the galaxy. So from the point of view of someone’s fears on the left side, the Discovery Institute could be akin to something like the Sith in Star Wars. They look weak in number compared to the other side, but through deception and great evil, they are able to turn society in their favor to become a mighty force capable of stamping out all their enemies. 

But in looking at the polarity from the other side, the idea that the left is evil is just as palpable to Ben Stein and those on the right. In their minds, the institutions of science are so vast and gigantic already, they believe the danger lies in seeing another Hitler rise to power but this time from the left. They imagine eugenics and concentration camps happening all over again along with the persecution of anybody presenting an alternative perspective to the party line of Darwinist conformity. I wrote a brochure not long ago bringing attention to this interesting phenomenon of the left and right fearing that their opposite side is the vehicle through which evil is seeking to enter into the world.  

Stein continues to interview Chapman from the Discovery Institute. Stein - "When you go around and raise funds,  your people are not saying, btw, we're going to get all these scientists out and put Christ back in the classroom." Chapman - "Well, I don't know that Christ has ever been in the science classroom. This is not a religious argument, we have fellows who are Jewish or agnostic or various other things. There are Moslem scientists. There are people with all kinds of backgrounds who believe Darwin's theory has failed and so why would you bring religion into it? You don't need religion. This is a red herring and people who don't have an argument are reduced to throwing sand into your eyes." 

So, if Chapman is right, the theory of intelligent design can stand on its own power without the persuasive force of religion entering the equation. If this is the case, I’m all for Intelligent designers being allowed to reveal for one and all to see the solid science and hard evidence behind their theories.  

Stein next travels to Biola university, formerly known as the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. There he interviews professor Paul Nelson. Stein - "How much money have you ever gotten from Falwell or Robertson?" Nelson - "0" "Are you a minister?" "No." "Priest, pastor?" "No, I did teach sunday school once." "Has this all been resolved. Aren't we all Darwinists now except for a few cranks like you?" "It's a funny thing that questions that aren't properly answered don't go away. My experience is that evolutionary biologists will say, yeah, this theory has a lot of problems. Evolution is a kind of funny word. (like God) It depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time, even the most rock ribbed fundamentalist knows the history of the earth has changed, that there has been change over time. If you define evolution precisely though to mean the common descent of all life on Earth from a  single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, that's textbook definition of Neo Darwinism. Biologists of the first rank have real questions." "But the modern theory of intelligent design is just microwaved creationism." "I don't think that's the case. Creationism properly understood begins with the Bible and says, how can I fit the bible into the data of science? Intelligent design doesn't do that. Intelligent design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence." "So intelligent designers believe God is the designer." "Not necessarily. Intelligent design is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation."

Stein - "Dr. Nelson didn't sound like a crazy person, but I still suspected that intelligent design was reheated creationism. My next stop didn't seem like it was going to alleviate those fears." Now we see Texas flags flying in the wind where Stein takes us to the Southwestern theological seminary to interview William Albert Dembski in Fort Worth, Texas.

Dembski - "Evolution from an intelligent design perspective is perfectly acceptable if the sense is how did the design get implemented. The issue is, is there real design there and are these material mechanisms like natural selection? Are these adequate to account for everything we see in biology and our argument is, no it's not." Stein - "But Darwin produced all this evidence from his travels and his studies of the Galapagos that evolution explained things." "But if you look at the history of science, people often have a good idea and they decide to just run with it. And they say we're going to apply this everywhere. So Darwin takes his idea of natural selection and says, I'm going to explain all of life with it. Physics used to be Newtonian physics. Newton was physics and then you gotta look to Einstein, general relativity; Newton isn't enough. I think likewise what we are finding with Darwin is that he had some valid insights but it's not the whole picture. "

After hearing this argument, I immediately thought, “fair enough.” This guy has a point. Darwin’s theory of evolution may have worked for his time and up until the next brilliant scientist comes along with a new theory giving us a clearer perspective of life in the universe we inhabit. 

Stein shows us more clips of Richard Dawkins; "Evolution is a fact. It is a fact established as securely as any other fact in science. It is completely right to say that since the evidence for evolution is so absolutely totally overwhelming. nobody who looks at it could possibly doubt that if they were sane and not stupid, so the only remaining possibility is that they are ignorant. And most people who don't believe in evolution are indeed ignorant."

Stein takes us to the office of molecular biologist Jonathan Wells who is employed by the Discovery Institute. Stein - "How does Darwin or Darwinism say life began?" Wells - "Well, he didn't know and in fact nobody knows. So Darwinism strictly defined starts after the origin of life and deals only with living things." "How can their be a theory about life without a theory of how life began?" "Well, a grand overarching evolutionary story does include the origin of life but Darwin's theory doesn't begin until you have the first cell."

Now Stein puts the question to us, "Does someone have a theory about how life began?"

We next view footage of an evolutionary documentary called Cosmic Origins. The narrator explains to us; "The chemical elements essential for life, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen were now in place. What was needed was a way of combining them. Perhaps the energy came from lightning. Whatever it was...," Stein - "Excuse me? Whatever it was? I was hoping for something a little more scientific. The most popular idea is that life emerged spontaneously from primordial soup. In 1953 Stanley Miller mixed water, Methane, Amonia and hydrogen to simulate the early Earth's atmosphere. Then he ran electricity through it in an attempt to jump start life. It didn't work. While the initial results seemed promising, 50 years later most serious scientists have abandoned this approach in favor of alternate theories. 

Prominent Darwinist Michael Ruse attempted to explain one of these theories to Ben Stein and wasn’t kidding about it. Ruse - "One popular theory is that it might have started off on the backs of crystals.  Molecules piggybacked on the back of crystals forming and this lead to more and more complex, of course the nice thing about crystals is that every now and then you get mistakes and mutations and this opens the way for natural selection." Stein - "Yeah, but at one point there was not a living thing and then there was a living thing. How did that happen?" Ruse - "Well, I just told you, and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't go from very simple to more and more complex to more and more complex." Stein - "I don't know either but I don't know how you get to mud to a living cell. that's my question." Ruse - "Yes, well I've told you and I'll try one more time. On the backs of crystals is at least one hypothesis." Stein - "So, that's your theory and you think that is more likely and less far fetched than intelligent design?" Ruse - "I think it is." 

Stein - "What were the chances of life starting on its own?" Dr. Walter Bradley - "It has been speculated that there would have to be a minimum of about 250 proteins to provide minimal life function. If that's really true, I think it's almost inconceivable that life could have happened in some simple step by step way." 

Dr. Doug Axe - "We're talking about something staggeringly improbable, roughly one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion." Stein - "When faced with the overwhelming problem of the origin of life, nobel prize winner Francis Crick proposed this theory, that life was seeded on earth which basically means, aliens did it. Crystals? Aliens? I thought we were talking about science, not science fiction."

This idea that life was seeded by aliens caught my attention and I think is one of the ideas used for the aliens in the movie ‘Knowing’ which recently came out and starred Nicholas Cage. This is an interesting concept and makes one think of all sorts of other scenarios too. If we were created by some alien entity, could they ever return and decide to lord over us like the Conquistadors decided to lord over and plunder the Aztecs? All they would have to do is appear to us with the identity of Jesus surrounded by an army of angels and millions of Christians may be inclined to bow down and worship them. If humanity was able to create artificial life forms with machines, would we feel so bad if we misused and abused them? Just watching the movie A.I. gives one the clear idea that the answer to this question if expressed by the masses is a resounding “No!”

Molecular biologist Doug Axe then takes us into the mysteriously wonderful world of the cell through an animation. Axe - "Think of a cell as a nano factory where on a very small scale, digital instructions are being used to make the components of the factory. Here we have the famous DNA double helix. This is the material that stores all of our genetic information. In higher life forms, this would be the equivalent of something like a gigabyte of information stored in the molecules that form the individual chromosomes all packed within the nucleus which is a tiny fraction of the entire cell size. So what does DNA do? Well the information in DNA ends up providing the information for sequencing amino acids to make protein. We have information in a one dimensional form that provides the information for a three dimensional form."

We see a computer animation showing the inner workings of a cell which is both alien and strangely beautiful compared to anything we could witness with our consciousness in the natural world. A scientist named Myers tells Stein, “You got two possible hypothesis, you got a wall through the middle of your brain in affect, through your thinking saying, well you can't consider anything on this side of the wall. only hypothesis on this side of the wall are permissible for consideration.”

This comment makes one think about the polarity expressed in the world and in the human body. The tendency we all fear is when the opposite side of the polarity, to which we identity with, is overpowered and made to be subservient to the other side. This has happened throughout history and in a less tragic sense, in 19th century America where teachers forced students who were left handed (dominated by the right side of the brain) to switch to their right hand. (dominated by the left side of the brain) A more severe and disturbing scenario was seen in Nazi Germany where those with a left leaning orientation were made to be subservient to the right or face extermination. The question now is, can the left and right sides be merged into one unified whole? Can each side of the polarity be free of fear from their opposite? 

Further into the documentary we are treated to some B-role footage from an old movie of some kind. In the clip, a larger and stronger kid has pinned down a smaller and weaker boy. “Are you going to be on my side if I let you up?” “Sure, I'm on your side. Just let me up. I'll do anything you say." 

Now Stein introduces us to Will Provine, professor of the history of biology at Cornell, one of the few Darwinists who agrees with Stein's position that intelligent design should be open and freely studied in an academic setting. Unexpectedly, Provine becomes the one example Stein uses as the disturbing glimpse into the dangers of where Darwinism can lead. "I was a Christian but I never heard anything about evolution because it was illegal to teach it in Tennessee." 

Stein - “Dr. provine's first biology professor changed all that with a text book.” Provine - "I read that book so carefully and I could find no sign of any design whatsoever in evolution and I immediately began to doubt the existence of the deity. But it starts by giving up an active deity, then it gives up the hope that there's any life after death. When you give those two up, the rest of it follows fairly easily. you give up the hope that there's an immanent morality and finally there is no human free will. If you believe in evolution you can't hope for there being any free will. There is no hope whatsoever of there being any deep meaning in human life. We live, we die and we're gone. We're absolutely gone when we die." 

Stein - “Dr. Provine is no stranger to the prospect of death. Nearly a decade ago he was diagnosed with a large brain tumor.” Provine - "Let's suppose my tumor comes back as it almost certainly will. Well, I'm not going to sit around like my older brother did last year when he was dying of Lou Gherig's disease. He wanted desperately to die but we couldn't help him die. I don't want to die like that. I'm going to shoot myself in the head long before then. I want to do something different.”

Stein - “Dr. Provine's conversion story was typical amongst the darwinists we interviewed. After hearing these stories I was not surprised to hear that most evolutionary biologists share professor Dawkins views. It appears Darwinism does lead to atheism." This made me think back to arguments I’d have with my grandfather who had fundamentalist leanings. For him, Darwinism and God couldn’t co-exist. But for me, if there is a creator God, why couldn’t he/she operate the creation within context of the rules in gravity and the material world -- along with the rules of natural selection?  

Stein shows more clips of devout atheists. Dawkins - “I think that God is about as unlikely as fairies, angels hobgoblins etc.” Dr. Peter Atkins - “Religion is just fantasy basically. It's completely empty of any explanatory content. And it's evil as well.” Stein - “Will eradicating religion really lead to a modern utopia? Mmmm. Let me try to imagine that and lets let history be our guide.” We now see footage from Soviet Russia and Stalin.

Stein - “What other societies have used darwinism to trump all other authorities including religion. As a Jew, my mind leapt to one regime in particular. Darwinism isn't a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it's certainly a necessary one. This is a connection I had to explore personally." Now we see footage of Stein visiting a Nazi death camp and are shown footage of starving people. Stein then meets with the  author of ‘From Darwin to Hitler,’ Dr. Richard Weikart. "Hitler and many of the physicians that carried out this program were very fanatical darwinists and they particularly wanted to apply darwinism to society."

Weikart continues - “The spirit of the movement (Eugenics) lives on today. Margaret Sanger was the head of planned parenthood. She was very fanatical in her promotion of eugenics. In fact, planned parenthood was all about birth control for the impoverished and lower classes to try to help improve the species." Stein then travels to Dachau Concentration Camp in Germany.

Stein - "I know that Darwinism doesn't automatically equate to Nazism. But if Darwinism inspired and justified such horrific events in the past, could it be used to rationalize similar initiatives today? " When I heard Stein say this, I immediately thought that the same statement could be made but by replacing Darwinism with the word religion. Both sides of the polarity can look back throughout history and site examples of the evil committed in the name of religion and atheism. Both are guilty of wrong doing just as both can be elevated by all the good that they’ve done.  

Weikart - "And when we see an elite, and it is an elite; an elite that controls essentially all the research money in science, saying there is no such thing as moral truth. Science will not be related to religion. I mean it's essentially official policy of the national academy of science that science and religion will not be related. "

This statement made me think about how this may be the best opportunity for religion to unite under a single banner. Rather than remain fragmented as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, perhaps the perceived experience of being looked down upon by scientists would change if religion united. If these separate fragments that all use different symbols and languages to describe the nature of the divine, stopped fighting and came together to form a single world religion, they might be able to change their negative status in the eyes of the secular. Just as scientists from across cultures and languages can come together and work as one with the same language of mathematics, perhaps this cooperation is what religion needs in order to move them towards a more legitimate identity. But alas, this is just a dream that may take a long time to ever happen.

Stein then travels to the birthplace of Darwinism and sees all the exhibits at his museum; Down House. While traveling through his estate, Stein quotes some of the writings of Darwin. "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men on the other hand do our upmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of society propagate their kind.  No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to let his worst animals breed." Now Stein goes through the museum looking at exhibits. He stops at a marble statue and stares into the face of Charles Darwin. 

One of the most interesting portions of this documentary sees Ben Stein go and interview Richard Dawkins. What was fascinating to me, is that Richard Dawkins doesn’t seem like his quick witted self when Stein sits for their conversation. I don’t know if Dawkins was having an off day or if Stein made him look off through editing. For someone on the left, is it possible their fears might see this interaction in good vs. evil terms as to why Dawkins doesn’t appear to come out on top in their debate? Would they see Stein as someone like a Sith whose powers of mind trick persuasion trump Dawkins and his extraordinary intellect? This latter theory seems the least likely. Here is an alternative perspective that will emerge from my notes throughout this dialogue. 

Richard Dawkins begins the conversation by reading from his book, The God Delusion - "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.” After Dawkins reads this and doesn’t get the counter reaction that he perhaps was expecting, the resulting effect seems to be a relaxing of his position. In effect, he is disarmed when Stein replies, “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? Why not just let them have their fun and enjoy it?" 

Upon realizing that Stein’s consciousness or center of gravity doesn’t place him down to the level of fundamentalists that worship the Old Testament God, he responds in a more kindly fashion; “I don't want to spoil anything for anybody. I wrote a book, people can read it if they want to. I believe it is a  liberating thing to free yourself from primitive superstition.” Stein - "So religion is a primitive superstition?” Dawkins - "Oh, I think it is, yes." Stein - “So you believe it is liberating to tell people 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 tink that? You're a scientist, what's your data?”  "Well, I've had a lot of letters saying that.” 

This next part made me scratch my head. If Dawkins was in the sharp form of his usual self, he would have knocked Stein’s next statement right down. Stein - "There are eight billion people in the world Mr. Dawkins.” Dawkins - "Yeah, I know, I know, I know. I know.”  Hmmmmm. This is what I’d imagine Dawkins responding here. “There are not 8 billion, there are 6 billion people in this world Mr. Stein.

Stein continues - “Professor Dawkins seems so convinced that God doesn't exist that I wondered if he was willing to put a number on it." Dawkins - “Well, it's hard to put a figure on it but I'd put it as something like 99% against." Stein - "How do you know it's 99% against and not something like 97%?” Dawkins - "You asked me to put a figure on it and I'm not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it's just very unlikely.” Stein - “But you couldn't put a number on it?” Dawkins - Of course not.” Stein - “So, it could be 49%.” Dawkins - “Well, I think it's unlikely and quite far from 50%.” Stein - "How do you know?" Dawkins - “I don't know. I put an argument in the book.” Stein - "Well then who did create the heavens and the earth?" Dawkins - "Why do you use the word “who?” You see you automatically beg the question by using the word who.” Stein - "Well, then how did it get created?" Dawkins - "Well, um by a very slow process." Stein - “Well, then how did it start?" Dawkins - “Nobody knows how it started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.” Stein - "And what was that." Dawkins - “It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.” "right and how did that happen?” "I told you, I don't know." "So you have no idea how it started?" "No, nor does anybody else." “What do you think of the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?” "Well, 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 by some 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  if you look at the details of biochemistry or molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”

This is an intriguing statement by Dawkins here and makes me think back to the novel Carl Sagan wrote; Contact. In it, an advanced alien race has been crunching the number in Pi on their supercomputer for millennia and have begun encoding a message within its very structure. Could there be something similar within our DNA? Of all those gigabytes of information inside our genetic material, is there a section that designers designated as a owner operators manual that contains all the information we need to master our bodies and repair them if needed? Perhaps there is even packets of more data within the data that if decoded, may yield terabytes and terabytes of something like an encyclopedia galactica. Maybe the aliens were hoping we would evolve to an advanced level (without destroying ourselves first) where retrieving this information became possible. Perhaps it would help us get to the next stage of our evolution or provide instructions of what we are supposed to do next. This is a fascinating idea worthy of further exploration. :-) 

Rather than branch off into this brainstorm, Ben Stein instead sees the response that Dawkins gives as a sign of weakness in the wall of Darwinian theory. Was Dawkins conceding defeat in taking the time to present what might be a viable scenario in which intelligent design might be plausible? Dawkins answers for himself at his own website. Stein - "Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be  a legitimate pursuit?" Dawkins continues - “And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, but that higher intelligence would itself had to come about by some explicable process. it couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.” What Dawkins says here reminds me of a lecture I watched him give at a Barnes and Noble in Manhattan. I had a small audio recorder I brought with me and recorded a portion of his talk and then synced it with footage from Spielberg’s movie A.I. to visually illustrate it’s idea.

I also blogged about my experience at this lecture here.

Stein’s voice over - "So professor Dawkins wasn't against intelligent design, just certain types of designers such as God.” Stein’s question for Dawkins - "So the Hebrew God, the God of the Old Testament, he doesn't exist in your view?” Dawkins - "That would be a very unpleasant prospect." What Dawkins says here made me LOL.  :-) And the idea of an alien entity who created us, acting like the God of the Old Testament is an unpleasant prospect too. 

Stein continues - "And the Holy Trinity of the New Testament?" Dawkins - “No. Nothing like that." Stein - "Do you believe in any of the Hindu Gods?” It is at this point were Dawkins seems to be more like himself. “How can you ask such a question? How could I, why would I considering I don't believe in any of the others.” Stein - "You don't believe in the Moslem God?" Dawkins -“No! Why do you even need to ask?” Stein - "Well, I just wanted to be sure. So you don't believe in any God anywhere?” Dawkins - "Any God anywhere would be completely incompatible with anything I have said.” Stein - "I just wanted to make sure you don't believe in any God anywhere.” Dawkins - "No." Stein -  "What if after you died you ran into God? He said, “what have you been doing Richard? I've been trying to be nice to you. I've given you a multi million dollar paycheck over and over again with your book and look what you did.” Dawkins - "Bertrund Russel had that point put to him and he said something like, “sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?”” At this point the interview ends but Stein continues the dialogue - "But if the intelligent design people are right, God isn't' hidden. We may even be able to encounter God through science if we have the freedom to go there.” This made me think of the Hadron Super Collider in Austria and France in which science is in pursuit of an elementary building block of matter which they have termed the  "God particle. " Stein - “What could be more intriguing than that?” 

Now Stein concludes expelled by moving back to the same auditorium in which he was addressing the students. “Freedom is what this country is all about. A huge part of freedom is freedom of inquiry. But now I'm sorry to say freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.” We jump cut to Reagan giving a speech at the Berlin wall in West Germany. "The wall cannot withstand freedom."

Now we cut to Will Provine endorsing Steins' vision: "I don't care what they end up as being. I don't care if they end up being religious creationists. If they have thought their way through the issues and get there, I'm all for them.”

Stein - “And why I think we're going to win in this struggle; because truth crushed to earth will rise again. Because no lie can live forever. I believe science gives us one perspective on the world and our religious insight gives us another insight on the world and by putting the two together, it will seem more deeply and more truly.” This is an attractive idea just like the idea that Democrats and Republicans, or any two sides of a polarity can compliment each other rather than fight each other tooth and nail.

Stein - “And if we will stand up for freedom... we will overcome.” The students in the auditorium rise and give Stein a standing ovation. We cut back to people chipping away at the Berlin wall as a big section starts crumbling away. Stein - I’ve taken a first step by speaking out about this issue. But if the wall is going to come down. We all have to do our part. Some of you will pay a heavy price for speaking out. You may even lose your job. I guarantee you will get hate email. But if you don't get involved, will anyone be left to carry on this struggle. Anyone, anyone, anyone?” We end Ben Stein’s documentary with an homage to his role in the movie ‘Ferris Beuler’s Day Off’.