Why won't intelligent design just go away? This week sees the US release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary film that attacks the theory of evolution. As suggested by its subtitle it berates the rejection by the scientific community of intelligent design - the mock-science creationism that was banished from US science classrooms in 2005 and in the UK last year.
For those of us who follow the often irritable interaction between creationists and those of a more rational disposition, Expelled first entered our consciousness when it emerged that vocal critics of creationism, including Richard Dawkins and the brilliantly caustic science blogger P Z Myers, had been conned into giving interviews last year. They had been booked to appear in a film about the intersection of science and religion, not creationist propaganda. From the word go, the film-makers demonstrated their dishonesty.
I have not seen Expelled. However, there is a wealth of clips and information available on the web. The trailer and reviews - including one by Dawkins, who slipped into a screening undetected - P Z Myers, who had invited him, was booted out of the queue by security - indicate that Expelled suggests the holocaust was a direct result of Darwinian thought. This absurdity is the cinematic debut of a rhetorical device all too familiar to Cif regulars - reductio ad Hitlerum. As with all creationist arguments, it is specious and simplistic. Whether Darwinian thought influenced Hitler is unclear, but here's one pretty solid reason why this claim is plain daft: murderous persecution of the Jews predates the theory of evolution by a couple of millennia.
Expelled is fronted by a minor American celebrity called Ben Stein, whose bragging rights include being a speech writer for that crook Richard Nixon. The film's 10 minute preview concludes with a play on what he is probably best known for, a small role in the 1986 high school comedy Ferris Bueller's Day Off. His soporific teacher drones on at a bored economics class, trying to engage the drooling students by repeating "Anyone? Anyone?". Although I am fond of this movie, and Stein's lines are funny and quotable, there's more than a little desperation in making such a lame reference. But then this typifies many of the arguments put forward by creationism: weak and desperately out of date.
Conspiracy is the latest weapon in the creationist's arsenal. Stein makes a big play of the alleged shunning of supporters of intelligent design by scientists, whom he perplexingly refers to as "big science". The trailer introduces a conspiracy theory laden with paranoia about the suppression of pioneering researchers who dare to question Darwin. It's no great revelation to say that the journal I work for, Nature, is a pillar of the science establishment, and yes, we have unequivocally rejected intelligent design and other forms of creationism as valid explanations for the origin of species. As with so many conspiracy theories, any analysis beyond the most superficial reveals that there is no conspiracy. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?
It now seems unlikely that a theory will ever emerge which could completely replace Darwin's theory of evolution. But should that happen, scientists would be committed to investigating it fully. Intelligent design is emphatically not that theory, as it has systematically failed to stand up to any scrutiny. But, like a turd in the u-bend, it just won't go away.
What are we doing wrong? Legislation says intelligent design is balls. The entire scientific community say it's balls. How do we get rid of its lingering odour? Systematically refuting its pseudoscientific claims is futile. It's time to acknowledge that even though the facts of evolution are freely available, no amount of repeating them will counter the belief inherent in intelligent design.
It is very easy to mock things of little value, harder to mock those of any worth, but is ridicule a useful way to combat the resistible rise of creationism? I'm certainly guilty of this. But derision can make us look supercilious and sneering. The danger is that it opens the door wider for creationists who want to create martyrs and appeal to moderates who are ignorant of the robustness of evolutionary theory. And indeed, Expelled does make martyrs out of, for example, Guillermo Gonzalez, whom I have criticised on these pages, a supporter of intelligent design denied tenure at his university not because of his religious stance as the creationists claim, but for performance reasons. Fortunately, the cavalry have arrived right on cue in the form of the US national centre for science education and its head - Eugenie Scott - herself another duped contributor to Expelled. They have launched Expelled Exposed, a counter-offensive website which tells more honest stories behind these so-called martyrs.
So why give Expelled the coverage that the makers so clearly crave? Is engaging the wrong thing to do? Millions of words have already been written about it on the web. One reason to not engage is that it implies that there is a debate to be had. In scientific terms, there just isn't.
But creationism is persuasive because it's easy to follow. You don't have to think too hard when the answer is "God did it". Furthermore, at the heart of Expelled's fatuous arguments are human stories: martyrs, conspiracies, repression, Nazis. Scientists intuitively focus on the cold evidence. Maybe this is not an effective counter-tactic.
Another good reason to be cautious is that the film is being publicised by Motive Marketing, who were also the driving force behind Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. They helped whip up grass-roots enthusiasm for this visceral film by offering free screenings in churches around the US. By the time it opened there was a frenzy of religious support for a gruesome but otherwise pedestrian movie. The Passion of the Christ is now the 11th biggest grossing film of all time.
Ben Stein is no Mel Gibson. Dawkins' review suggests that the film is so unimaginative, poorly argued and generally crappy that it will vanish from cinemas in a heartbeat. Even Fox News, not celebrated for its impartiality on matters concerning conservative Christianity, has impressively trashed Expelled. By most accounts, it's intellectually dishonest, badly made, and its makers deceitful.
If Expelled is indeed as bad as it is wrong it will do damage to the cause of creationism, and it will become another entry in the catalogue of failed creationist propaganda. Until then, we need to think hard about explaining to people not why creationism is wrong, but why science matters.