Trying to remove information from the Internet is like trying to remove pee from a swimming pool.

Ben Stein isn't a scientist, but he plays one on TV, and now, apparently, on the big screen. In his new film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," Stein will attempt to ascertain why Intelligent Design isn't being fast-tracked into the educational system despite the overwhelming disapproval of the scientific community. He blames "big science" for keeping "intelligent new ideas" out and their own dogma in.

I haven't seen the film, but from the previews and what I've seen with the older arguments for creationism-in-disguise, I'm guessing it's going to be the same old predictable rhetoric from religious people trying to hide the fact that they're religious. We're going to see creationists playing the victim card, saying that they're being "persecuted" for their beliefs because their theory, one that is backed not by facts but solely on criticism of the opposing theory, is not given equal time. Stein is even making the claim that not teaching ID in the science classroom is violating the first amendment. Really, Ben? Does "big science" have secret police roaming the halls of universities, ready to snatch science students that profess a faith in God from their dorm rooms and send them to secret prison camps? The fact that real scientists are putting up a fight against this ID nonsense and exposing it for what it really is is not a violation of the first amendment. Science is not a democracy. The truth is not what we want to say it is because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We don't get together and vote whether 3 and 3 should equal 7 because 6 is an "ongodly" number, and even if we did, 6 would still be the answer. Evolution and creation are not a battle of world-views; one is backed by facts, the other is backed by emotion.

Did Stein forget that the judge presiding over the Dover trial was not a raving atheist, but a creationist himself, hand-picked by President Bush? If Intelligent Design had any better time to prove it's legitimacy, the Supreme Court was it, but they failed. They failed even though they had the decked stacked in their favor.  So how could a judge that personally sided with ID advocates decide against ID if it were really founded on good science and "smart ideas"?  Could it be the facts backing evolution were so compelling, and the argument for ID so weak that even the judge set aside his personal feelings and ruled that ID is not science and should not be taught as such?  It's not like ID wasn't trying.  The proponents interviewed at the trial included none other than the ultimate poster-child of ID himself: Michael Behe.  Unfortunately for him, all of his objections to evolution (including the "irreducible complexity" argument of the bacterial flagellum) were addressed and answered.  ID put up the best fight it could possibly give and lost, miserably, to real science.

What concerns me is that a lot of people actually think Ben Stein is a scientist.  I'm not going to attack the man's background, there's no need, but I think his personal bias towards creationism and the fact that the only scientific background he has is playing a science teacher on Ferris Beueler's Day Off should definitely be considered a factor on whether or not he speaks with authority.  So what needs to be done?

I think we should fight fire with fire.  We need an "Expelled" style rebuttal documentary.  Stein may be right in one area: scientists too often sit in their easy-chairs and mock other theories with the assumption that everybody has had a thorough education on the subject.  It is an unfortunate fact that many people who believe evolution do, in fact, take it on "faith."  They haven't done the research, but just believe it because mainstream science does.  "Big science" simply hasn't done it's job educating the public.  While Intelligent Design advocates are out popularizing their bogus claims, science is just letting it happen, thinking that dignifying these theories with a response will only give it more attention.

The problem is there's a difference between astrology, phrenology, water dowsing, and creationism: well-funded religious groups aren't trying to get water dowsing and astrology into the science curriculum.  People need to know just how compelling the evidence was that made the creationist Dover trial judge rule against teaching creationism in the science classroom.  People need to know that ID is not a benign, secular Deist theory, but that it's arguments are lifted directly from creationist textbooks.  They need to know that the book Of Pandas and People started out as a creationist book, but the editors just replaced the words "creator" with "designer" and "creationism" with "intelligent design."  They need to understand WHY scientists reject the idea that ID is science.  They need to understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific setting.  They need to understand why science HAS to be independent from the supernatural, that it is neutral when it comes to the existence of God.  They need to know that there are millions of people, ranging from top biologists to the Pope, that believe in God and evolution, and that's just fine.

Obscure PBS documentaries and YouTube videos aren't enough to get the message out.  Only a major motion picture will be enough to do the job.  It has to be just as gritty and entertaining as Expelled at least, but preferably more so.  Will it draw controversy?  Absolutely.  But, it WILL make a difference.  Rocking the boat is what needs to be done.  The evidence for evolution can no longer be locked away in some university or museum.  It needs to be shown, promoted, and it needs to piss people off.