In February of 2008, Ben Stein is scheduled to release a movie called “Expelled.” From what I understand, the movie is going to be questioning Darwinism as the high ideology of science and how it doesn’t allow, as Richard Lewontin says, “a divine foot in the door.” The antagonism towards ID displays this.
Stein is not saying that Darwinism is wrong at this point. He admits Darwin got a lot of things right. Stein’s point is that Darwin cannot explain everything such as the origin of life and from the way things are going, it doesn’t really look like it will be able to. Why should science not be open to ID?
I’ll state outright that I am not a scientist. I do philosophy instead. However, I am interested in how the situation is shown. I find it amazing that Darwinism claims that it has the truth entirely, but it refuses to accept a challenge from the ID movement. It is almost as if the Darwinist movement is afraid that if left exposed, the public will learn that like the emperor, it has no clothes.
The main danger I see is that Darwinism has been equated with science. Now this would be denied, but as I ponder it, this seems to be the case. Imagine what it would be like to question geocentricism at one point in time. This was mainstream science. (We do have a myth of Galileo horribly suffering for questioning it, but that’s a blog for another day.) Imagine what it would be like to have questioned Newtonian physics! It works so well!
Both of these were questioned though and were dropped because we found better explanations. Why not Darwinism? If someone is truly doing science, they should be willing to say “I’d like to put Darwinism to the test and see if it’s the best explanation.” However, something must be stated at even that.
When scientists say they are looking for a best explanation of what we have, they usually mean the best naturalistic explanation as no religion is allowed in the door. The question to ask though is “Why only naturalistic explanations?” I do agree that evolution is the best naturalistic explanation we have, but if we take it as far as it can go and we find it unsatisfactory, then why not allow another theory in?
Well, that will mean saying God did it. Question though! What if God did do it? If he did, then all the science in the world won’t change that. If the true conclusion is God did it, then the evidence should show some signs of it, as is brought forward in the ID movement. Maybe the ID movement is wrong. Maybe the Darwinists are right. The point is though, we will not know until we examine the claims rather than have court rooms fight the battles.
Now when James Cameron came out with his claim, we were told that we should see what he has and then evaluate the evidence. I agree. We should do that. Now I was skeptical of course, and it was for good reason. Cameron’s event came and went with hardly a blip. Now though, the responders I’ve seen of this movie are not happy with it.
I contrast this with hearing Sean McDowell, son of Josh McDowell speak at the apologetics conference. He told of how he went to his Dad when he was around eighteen and told him that he had his doubts about Christianity and he wanted to check himself and see if it was really true, and his Dad answered “That’s great son!”
This is my response as well. If someone says “I’m not sure about Christianity. I want to study other world religions first.” I’d say “Be my guest.” I have no concern for I am convinced if someone is really seeking truth, they will come to Christ. If they are not, they won’t.
Why not try that with science? Why not let the kids in schools hear both sides? In fact, if Darwinists are so sure of their case, you think they’d welcome having students hear both sides so they can publicly show everyone exactly how weak the ID side is. I would have no hesitation to show how weak I think other sides are.
It could be the reason is what Plantinga says. If you’re a naturalist, evolution is the only game in town. You have nowhere else to go. If evolution does not explain life, then where do you go? Now I do not believe in macroevolutionary theory, but if it was true, it would not destroy my faith. In fact, I consider the odds so incredibly unlikely that it would be a miracle itself if it happened and if a miracle takes place, well, you do the math.
If evolution falls though, then the creation narrative of the naturalists is gone. The priesthood has lost the key story of the formation of man. What are they to do? Thus, the reaction of many to this movie coming does confirm what I think. When ID was just a few others out there, then they had no problem since they could fight it at a legal level. A figure like Ben Stein taking it on though in a public venue like a movie theater is different.
I congratulate and think Ben Stein for doing this. I plan on seeing this movie in February and I urge you to do so also. Remember that in the movie business, the producers get 100% of the ticket proceeds the first two weeks. Give this one a big showing and let them know you want to see more.