EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed and the Folly of Intelligent Design

I suppose the title covers an area too broad for me to cover after one cup of coffee, but the non-readers of this blog can just deal. Sorry.

So while I haven't seen Ben Stein's movie on how ID theorists are "persecuted" by the "Darwinian tyrants" in "Big Science," I do have a few things to say. For one, I would like to see this movie if only to rant angrily about it later. Per chance one could call me part of the Neo-Darwinist establishment, but, frankly, doing so would accomplish nothing.

So what is the "Neo-Darwinist" establishment that is "threatening" to overrule theism and all religion? Evidently its the "monopoly" on theories regarding the development of life from simple one-celled organisms to fabulously complex ones is unwarranted, at least according to the ID camp. Likewise, it is a theory that "obviously" promotes immorality (e.g., war, Hitler, racism, etc.), atheism, and self-righteous bigotry in the realm of the sciences and seeks to overcome the idea of an "Intelligent Designer." "Darwinism" (as it supposedly ought to be called despite the fact that evolutionary theory has developed greatly since the "Origin of Species") has seized the scientific community and turned them into monsters that seek to override religion and perhaps even God Himself.

Who, however, has claimed this? For one, the right-wing fundementalists, the militant atheists (i.e., Richard Dawkins et al.), and scientists who claim to see no proof for "evolution" and thus intend to attack it.

I have no issue with rationally defined Creationism insofar as it remains in the realm of metaphysics and theology. I do, however, have an issue (philosophically and theologically) with those who postulate a "negative" theory (i.e., one based on the denial of another) that tries to stand alone in the domain of science. Truth be told, Intelligent Design in its modern form CANNOT stand without Darwinism; that is, it rides on the assertion that Darwinism is false. God becomes the "God of the gaps," filling in wherever evidence cannot be provided. To wit, there is no evidence that macroevolution occurred; hence, it must be done by an "Intelligent Designer," for it is an "obvious" impossibility that life could come into being through a series of natural processes. Yet, the impossibility that life cannot come into existence through natural (as opposed to the supra-natural works of a Creator outside of space/time) rests on the "fact" that there is no proof to determine otherwise. That is to say, "life -- like the clock I found on the ground -- is so complex that there must have been a creator" or, in another form, "I see no physical evidence for the fact that life came into existence through natural means; therefore, a creator must be wrong." As much as I hate to say it, neither of these are adequate proofs for God's role in the creation process.

Part of why ID is antagonized so much is that it is not "science" in the strictest sense. For one, as I said before, it is not a "stand alone" theory per se, but rather rests on the idea that not enough evidence does and can exist to prove life came into being through natural means. Similarly, it rests on metaphysical claims that are beyond the realm of scientific thought. For example, while I can say "I (personally) see evidence for God in nature" (which I do) I cannot say God necessarily exists because of x, y, and z and claim it is science. It is part of God's nature that He is outside the natural world while nevertheless remaining the creator and an active participator in it.

I do want to see Ben Stein's movie. If anyone has, let me know if it is worth watching.