 |
| Taken from: woub.org |
Is science strictly the pursuit of knowledge,
or are there some other ugly competitions and quarrels underneath? For a long time, I thought of science as an “untainted”
study, but biologist Kenneth R. Miller (through his discussion of Ben Stein and
his movie Expelled) has made me doubt [Argument! 393]. In his article, “Trouble Ahead for Science,”
Miller appears to be too biased to truthfully review the movie, and instead he condemns
it from every angle. By examining
Miller in his shaky assumptions, reliance on inference rather than fact, and
personal grudge against the movie-makers, it will be clearer to observe Miller’s dirty
fighting with Ben Stein.
First, Miller assumes too much in the
article, and he irrelevantly connects occurrences outside of Expelled to cause a public disliking of
Ben Stein and his movie. In his review,
Miller cites a separate interview where Stein expresses his belief that the
Darwinism theory influenced the Nazis to create their superior race ideals and
commit the horrors of Holocaust [Argument! 393]. Then, from out of nowhere, Miller concludes
that Stein believes that all science is murder, and that there is nothing good
(only evil) in its study.
The overwhelming presence of opinion, and not
of fact, is the next aspect that discredits the article “Trouble Ahead for
Science.” Miller first vaguely mentions
the inadequacies of Christian creationism, and then continues to negatively point
out all the things he dislikes of Stein and Expelled
without giving any fact about the movie.
His sentences are distressing and loaded, such as, “The story line is
that Intelligent Design advocates are persecuted and suppressed.
Expelled tells of this terrible campaign against free expression,
and mocks the pretensions of the closed-minded scientific elite supposedly
behind it” [Argument! 393].
Finally, Kenneth R. Miller should have never
condemned the movie Expelled as he
had a bone to pick with the movie beforehand.
Miller openly states that Mark Mathis (the co-producer of Expelled) did
not pick himself, Kenneth R. Miller, as an interviewee, which sounds like a
particular tender issue for the writer.
In his own words, he writes, “Mathis cited me by name, saying “Ken
Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily” [Argument! 393].
Overall, with Miller’s hasty (and negative conclusions), over-dependence on opinion rather than fact, and personal grudge with the
filmmakers, it is easy to see that he is too biased to be a credible
writer. His overall negative tone, in particular,
causes me to wonder how much of what Miller says is true. However, one fact does stand strong: scientists,
just like Hollywood celebrities, do quite of bit of dirty fighting in their own
way.
Work Cited:
Miller, Kenneth R. ""Trouble Ahead
for Science"" Argument! 10th ed. N.p.: McGraw-Hill,
2011. 393-94. Print.
