"The neat part about this country is you can
agree to disagree," remarked a conservative
Christian from Kansas, whom Olson interviewed.
A necessity of civilization and freedom that some
European nations, as France, Switzerland and
Austria, have forgotten.

 

Dr. Michael Behe

The chief scientist the forces of Intelligent Design call upon is Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, and author of 1995's Darwin's Black Box. His favorite way of explaining Intelligent Design, making it comprehensible to the dumber ones among us, is this: If you were to ask how the Rocky Mountains got there, the answer would be along the lines of a geological process, erosion or some such thing. But Mount Rushmore? Someone carved that, allowing us to detect the effects of intelligent activity. Intelligent Design detects effects of intelligence in life.

John Denver

(Later in the film, when a pastor from a Pennsylvanian school board drives home the same point, it's amusing when the filmmaker keeps reminding the pastor that it was humans who carved Mount Rushmore. But I am now thinking of another flaw in this analogy. Since God gets the credit for creating everything, and as much as John Denver got a high out of them, what is so intelligent about the Rocky Mountains?)

But Olson is ahead of the game, as he next presents a few scientific testimonials demonstrating the lack of "Intelligent Design." (This is the great thing about filming a documentary to push one's point-of-view. One always has the power to make a fool of the other camp. A delirious example is Andrew Goldberg's PBS-sponsored "Armenian Genocide" propaganda show, where even the rare truth allowed to slip through — the testimony of Gunduz Aktan explaining why there could have been no genocide — was allowed to be called "garbage" by Ara Sarafian. In this case, however, anyone taking the trouble to scratch a little more deeply beneath the easy surface could see where the real garbage lay.) And so we have a professor explaining that the human heart comes from the reptilian heart, which comes from the fish heart, containing only one measly coronary artery, leading to poor circulation and great vulnerability; and an animated Dr. James Hanken explains the shortcomings of the digestive systems of cows and horses, but it's the rabbit who gets the grand prize for unintelligent design; the rodent's food travels past its stomach & intestines, the matter is excreted, and it is at this point that the rabbit eats the nutritious (and non-fecal) excretion, allowing the matter to finally go through the intestines. (Hanken does concede cases of Intelligent Design, as with the eye, but exclaims that for every one case of such intelligence, there are ten cases of unintelligence.)

Interestingly, we are informed that Intelligent Design experts mostly accept the evidence for evolution, such as the
earth's being 4.6 billion years old (Biblical believers, by contrast, go for a life span of around 6,000 years), and that over 90% of human DNA is shared with chimps. In other words, the Intelligent Designers have truly made sure to distance themselves from the the non-scientific ideas of Creationists, and the core of their concept rests with "Irreducible Complexity," the idea that some structures and organisms are so complex that there is no way evolution alone could have created them. There had to be something else at work, an intelligent designer guiding it all.

We next get into the stage of teaching evolution in the classroom, a most relevant parallel with the genocide debate. Once impressionable youngsters are taught the myth of the Armenian genocide in American classrooms, they learn that Turks were no better than the Nazis, breeding the racism that hateful Armenian extremists would love to share with the rest of humanity.

The film tells us that the evolutionists say there is only one thing to teach in biology class, evolution. It's science and involves only natural explanations as to how species originated and changed over time. Their Intelligent Design opponents counter, however, that evolution has flaws, and there are many other equally viable explanations; all of which add up to what they feel is a controversy, and their message is to "teach the controversy."



Director Olson regrets that Behe has no evolution counterpart, a champion who goes around fighting for evolution in conferences and the like. A former educator of his, Steven Jay Gould, was one, but he died in 2002.

Dr. John Angus

Here's a big parallel with the genocide world. The Intelligent Designers have the obsession and the money to arrange conferences (and to utilize other tactics such as influencing school boards, manipulating the media, and so forth) to spread the word. Nobody from the opposing team is present in these conferences (by film's end, we learn there is one evolutionist who attends such conferences, but it turns out he is really on the Intelligent Designers' team. [Dr. John Angus, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute.] Sneaky!), and the reason given is that there are no evolutionists who care to attend these conferences, because Intelligent Design is not real science.

Similarly, don't we know that the genocide industry gives closed door genocide conferences all the time, preaching their hateful agendas to the rest of the lazy-thinking world; these forces have the obsession and deep pockets to do so, and even if contra-genocide specialists wished to attend such conferences, they would not be allowed to. The genocidists are aware the factual content of their propaganda is so fragile, it wouldn't take much to create doubt in the minds of those the genocidists hope to corrupt. This is why the genocidists concentrate on the ad hominem attacks they frequently engage in, hoping to damage the credibility of the true scientists and historians who know there was no Armenian genocide. As a result, there are very few historians who wish to enter this debate, with the knowledge that such dangerous and unscrupulous people can harm the historians' precious reputations. This is the downside of being the underdog; the ones in power write the rules. If the evolution debate was such that Intelligent Designers had the upper hand, you can bet the people in charge would be behaving similarly, engaged in underhanded tactics such as calling the evolutionists "deniers," and attempting to reduce them to the level of crackpots. (During "Evolutionary Wars I," when they were Creationists, they somewhat went this route, telling the evolutionists that they are destined for Hell; but this strategy did not go far, and that is why they've toned down their fanatical attitude, and are now focusing on pseudo-science.)

Olson wonders, "Scientists alone are not enough to create a social movement. Who was behind the promoting of Intelligent Design in our society?" One name kept cropping up, that of John Calvert, a geologist and attorney who had taken on Intelligent Design as his life's mission, traveling the country to promote and defend the concept. We also meet the conservative author and filmmaker, Jack Cashill, who discusses the situation in Kansas (i.e., the way the Kansas school board handled the issue), terming Darwin a "borderline hoax," and emphasizing that the anti-Darwin movement has been taken over from the Creationists, by agnostics and non-religious people. (Cashill was so sharp and engaging, if Olson were to devote more screen time on the man, I suspect a lot of evolution-minded folks would have been second-guessing themselves.)

(However, here is a good example of why we must always remain on guard regarding things that we are told, that is, we must try to  maintain a healthy skepticism. When Cashill reported that the Anti-Darwin movement had been taken away from Creationists by agnostics and non-religious people, of course I paid attention. Obviously non-religious people will have much less of a conflict-of-interest, and if they are saying Intelligent Design has merit, then I would listen more attentively to such people. On the other hand, Is that an accurate statement? Perhaps there are a couple of people like that, but who are they? Even the ones featured in this film who tried to come across as non-religious, as Dr. Behe himself, admitted later that God is their man. If non-religious people are looking into Intelligent Design as genuine science, then who becomes the creator of this Intelligent Design? Martians? Klingons, perhaps? It is logical that the only contender could be God, and if these agnostics or non-religious people give God the credit, then it would be difficult to see them as agnostics or non-religious people.)

(That is to say, since the human mind is too limited to know for sure the answers to how the universe was created, it is possible to allow for the existence of a supreme entity, without being religious. But if these "agnostics and non-religious people" actively support the hand of God by going on record about how great Intelligent Design is, instead of passively allowing for the possibility that, who knows, maybe there is a God, then they would stop being agnostics and non-religious people.)

Sue Gamble, Kansas school board

The realists on the Kansas School Board had been outvoted on almost every issue by the six member conservative Republican majority. (A majority member admits that the Kansas Republican Assembly, representing the far right wing of the Republicans, helped raise the funds for her election.) One admirable woman, Sue Gamble, described as a "moderate Republican" on the school board, made very insightful comments throughout the film; she was troubled, at this point of the production, by the majority board members "trying to interject concepts into the science standards that would have explanations other than the natural one."

One of the poker-playing evolutionists commented, "All these matters speak to truth in government and transparency in government and when you can compromise the truth in textbooks, through quasi-governmental bodies like the school board or when you can quash government reports, it all leads to the same place, it leads to a breakdown of democracy." And isn't that the truth! That's what the lawsuit still brewing in Massachusetts boils down to: why is the Massachusetts school board censoring the contra-genocide standpoint, the one in keeping with historical facts, and not hateful propaganda?

And this is a point where the contra-genocide perspective comes more in line with the Intelligent Designers; the genocidists have succeeded so wildly with their falsehoods, thanks to their immense power, prejudice and propaganda (along with Turkish apathy), now the historical truth (that there was really no Ottoman extermination plan against Armenians) has become a "controversy." And this is the ace-in-the-hole of the Intelligent Designers. They are saying, since there is more than one view on evolution, why not "teach the controversy," as Jack Cashill is shown to be urging. This is the way the Intelligent Designers can sneak in their Godly non-science, you see, crashing through that separation of church and state.

Interesting dilemma, isn't it? On one hand, we have the principles of Darwin, which is much more than a mere theory at this stage of the game, representing the real science. If the nonsense of Intelligent Design is introduced into the classrooms, in order to be fair to the religious-minded, then a great disservice would be committed toward the concept of education, helping to corrupt the minds of the students. On the other hand, there are reasonable people who don't come from the perspective of religious fanaticism, as Cashill struck me (at least from the things he was stating onscreen; it could have been a front to disarm the critics of Intelligent Design, just as the religious administration of Turkey claims they are for secularism, but once in power, try to sneak in their religious agenda), and could genuinely believe in Intelligent Design as a "science."

 
So what do you think happens when activist Armenians make a point of
hitting school boards, as the one from Kansas above... particularly when
the Armenians present their "genocide" arguments unchallenged, since
Turkish-Americans are often in their own worlds, and are unaware of
such meetings? School board members don't even need to be so devoutly
Christian to sympathize with the poor, innocent Armenians at the hands of
the brutal Turks, suckered in as they are to do the politically right thing, feeling
it is their duty to teach students about "human rights," and of the evilness of
genocides. Such board members rarely consider that there may be another
side to the story, and that they serve as accomplices to promote hatred
and racism. (Unless the meeting is the extremely rare one where Turks attend;
and board members have the honor to consider the actual facts, as occurred
in 1999 Wisconsin.)

The forces for evolution boycotted the Kansas hearings in 1999, sending one lawyer against twenty-five Intelligent Design experts; Cashill opined the lawyer was "obnoxious." Here again, the forces of Intelligent Design represented the side of the underdog, on similar plane as the contra-genocide perspective of the genocide debate. Deborah Lipstadt is outraged that she should even acknowledge what Holocaust deniers have to say, and it is hard not to sympathize, because we all know the Holocaust definitely took place.

Deborah Lipstadt.

However, it's one thing when her opponents are looney Sieg-Heil'ing types, and another if they are legitimate historians with track records who have objections (for whatever reasons; maybe they are anti-Semitic, but maybe they're not). If Deborah Lipstadt is certain of her facts, then as distasteful as she might find doing so, she must let her facts speak for themselves. The worst thing Lipstadt and her "genocide scholar" ilk can do is go after the character of her "legitimate" opponents, and encourage (indirectly, in Lipstadt's case; she was not in favor of the idea, but her efforts encouraged such a result) their imprisonment (as what happened with David Irving in Austria). We may not like what the other guys say, but we must defend their right to say it. Otherwise, tomorrow, the ones getting censored and threatened with imprisonment could be us.

Here is the great damage caused by the "I'm not going to discuss your notion that there is no Holocaust, you're crazy" crowd characterized by Lipstadt and company. The unscrupulous Dashnak "end-justifies-the-means" Armenian extremists noticed their opportunity to take advantage of the strategy, and attempted to liken their phony genocide with the Holocaust, just so they can cash in on the idea of dismissing the honorable historians as neo-Nazi types, in order to stifle the debate they know will expose their false version of history. (Peter Balakian cleverly went this route, and actually placed Justin McCarthy in the same category as a "white supremacist"; similarly, Harut Sassounian aided in forcing an editor out of The Los Angeles Times, by implying the editor was somehow linked with the distinguished historian, Andrew Mango, whom Sassounian wrote was like "David Irving, the infamous Holocaust revisionist.") And Jewish Holocaust scholars sadly go along for the ride, because they have their own Holocaust agendas, and irrationally fear that telling the truth about the Armenians will cast doubt upon the Holocaust. (David A. Harris, the Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, wrote in his "Truth and Consequences: Armenians, Turks and Jews" essay of August 21, 2007 that digging in to the truth of the Armenian matter “does not bode well for those who would oppose Holocaust denial,” echoing Kenneth Stern's words.) But if the Holocaust scholars are going to be untruthful about the Armenians, what else are they being untruthful about? Don't they realize they are endangering the credibility of the Holocaust?

Spencer Tracy vs. Fredric March in Inherit the Wind

It seems to me that if a real scientist goes up against an Intelligent Designer, the Intelligent Designer would stand no chance. (Think of the scene in "Inherit the Wind," where Spencer Tracy's  character — based on Clarence Darrow — completely pulverized his opponent, by showcasing the inconsistencies of the unscientific Bible.) Similarly, if a Holocaust believer goes up against a Holocaust denier, the latter will not stand a chance either, as Lipstadt demonstrated in her court battle with David Irving. (I believe Irving finally had to concede, in face of the overwhelming evidence, that yes, there was a Holocaust.... which makes one wonder why he got imprisoned by the Austrians. On the other hand, because the conclusion is correct does not mean everything said about the Holocaust is necessarily correct, especially when the genocide field has become so disgustingly politicized; the reason why Holocaust scholars wish to stifle debate very likely has to do with their desire to not have anything questioned *, which would certainly not be in keeping with true scholarship.)


( * As an example, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has revised the figure of WWII's Jewish mortality down to a median of 5.25 million; holocaust scholars should know better than to keep repeating six million.)

Dr. Bottier: another smart cookie. What a sad reminder with the inset that the "Weekly World News" has gone out of business.

Dr. Bottier opines that the Icons of Evolution book struck him as "really just one big tabloid style article," very cleverly written as a National Enquirer piece on evolution and "why it has to be so wrong, And just as we all like to read the National Enquirer and other tabloids, this makes for interesting reading too." The same can be said for the Armenian genocide books, as well. (For example, Peter Balakian's "The Burning Tigris." Horseshoes nailed onto Armenian feet, anyone? The difference, however, is that these latter books perpetuate hatred.)

The passionate poker-playing evolutionist interestingly claimed that if a professor applies for a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant (described as the "bread and butter of top scientists") today in Evolutionary Biology, "You are advised that when you get the money, you are told by your...director, when you do your plain English summary, that you don't mention evolution." If that's the case, what a great pity; another indication of how truth-in-education cannot escape the effects of politics, even when the subject matter is still comfortably in the lead of public acceptance.


Conservative yet charismatic Christians, clockwise from
top left: Jack Cashill, Connie Morris, John Calvert, and
Kathy Martin; all would make fine poker playing pals.

Olson makes a wonderful and amusing point; the Intelligent Designers onscreen all come across as very nice people, many with friendly and fun personalities, charismatic, and without anger. In contrast to the evolutionists who, as a group, come across as fairly drab. Olson asks, "Who'd you rather play poker with?" This served as a reminder of the difference in approach I had noticed between the two genocide camps. The Armenian sites had sensationalism and personality, whereas the Turkish sites had taken the high road, in a boring, academic manner. Who was being listened to? That influenced the reason why the TAT site has taken the more colorful approach.

The "Discovery Institute is truly the big fish in this picture, with an annual budget of about five million dollars... According to the New York Times, their funding comes from twenty-two right wing foundations, at least two-thirds of which have explicitly religious mission statements." And that's what it all boils down to, doesn't it? Money. No different than with the genocide industry. (The Discovery Institute would not grant the filmmaker an interview.)

The school board in Dover, Pennsylvania got a little too enthusiastic about Intelligent Design, more than the Discovery Institute desired. The board put together two paragraphs they wanted to be read in their 9th grade biology classes, basically attesting to evolution being only a theory, and not a fact. (The teachers refused to recite the statement.) A court case subsequently materialized over the violation of church and state, and the Discovery Institute withdrew support, leaving the Dover school board on their own.

Judge John Jones said  his decision “had  nothing to do with  politics and polls” and  “everything to do with ...  evidence ... and  precedents ....” What a professional!

The film's narration informs: In December of 2005 the forces of Intelligent Design were dealt a stunning defeat in the Dover lawsuit. Judge John E. Jones, a Bush appointee, ruled that Intelligent Design is in fact repackaged Creationism, and the school board's decision to introduce it into the classroom was "breathtaking inanity."

If the defamatory proponents of the "Armenian genocide" should ever be taken to court, and if the judge possesses the necessary professionalism and objectivity (a significant requirement, as the Perincek trial bitterly demonstrated), the results would be no different. The claims of the "science" of the Armenian genocidists boil down exactly to Judge Jones' words, "breathtaking inanity."

Director Olson examined the ins and outs of the evolution debate very nicely. "Intelligent Design," Olson tells us, "is a movement that has stalled out at the intuition stage. A great deal of very valid and important science begins as mere intuition, scientists looking at nature and having a gut instinct about how things work which they then figure out if they're right by creating hypotheses and putting them to the test."

"There's nothing wrong with intuition, and we can see it's a major part of the process for both John Calvert, who looked at DNA and intuitively knew it was designed, and Dr. Behe, who looks at the bacterial flagellum, and intuitively knows it is designed. But this is where they have stalled out; they have been unable to advance their intuition into testable hypotheses. And so, in the end, all they are left with is intuition."

The Discovery Institute, far from defensive, is nearly always on the attack, just like the Armenian lobbying groups. We are told they hired the public relations firm CRC (Creative Response Concepts), the ones who had masterminded the Swift Boats Veterans for Truth campaign in 2004's presidential election, giving a black eye to George Bush's opponent, John Kerry. The Discovery Institute also recruited an Austrian cardinal, according to the New York Times, to write an editorial, in essence, reversing the endorsement of evolution by the previous Pope.

In the poker party, Olson's boom man asks why the evolutionists are losing this game, and are not able to communicate their version of science?

One professor replies, "Part of it is human nature; humans like a simple answer for any complex problem and Intelligent Design offers a simple explanation that is not founded in science."

No different than the Armenian genocide claims; people love the pat, black and white representation of brutal Turks vs. poor, innocent, Christian Armenians ripe for the slaughter. They buy the whole sticky business, from harems to impaling women to conversion to Islam at the point of a sword. The "soap opera" explanations are simply much more fun than the real facts and history, and are in keeping with comfortably established, ingrained prejudices.

Another scientist insightfully explains: "Evolutionary biologists have not fought the fight... [as] they don't respect the kinds of arguments these people are making, and they just ignore it and think that it's going to go away, and that's probably one of the problems. They haven't gone to task with these people in the way they need to. Most self-respecting evolutionary biologists would not give them the time of day. I mean, they won't get into debates with them because they think it's so ridiculous."

For many years, the Turks kept quiet in the face of genocide charges for exactly the same reasons. They considered it beneath them to acknowledge these vicious accusations. But in this world, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, and a strategy of "noble" silence simply does not work. Silence only encourages such fanatical forces to step up their assaults.