Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

This is a great position piece Jillynn and I watched tonight - here are some of our thoughts on the matter, mostly mine to be honest. It's currently on instant play on Netflix.

This film is a defense of theism - not a bad thing in a day when the existence of deity is denied in "intelligent" circles. Intelligent Design is not about religion, but it implies that deity may exist, while not attempting to enter such an impossible realm as to prove that premise.

It is interesting that opponents of ID state that it hasn't a foot to stand on - that there is no proof. Others would say that "all things denote there is a God." Perhaps this is a difference in belief/philosophy, as one interviewee states. Neither biogenesis nor ID is more scientific than the other - they stop short of answering the difficult question of how life began with irrefutable scientific evidence. In other words - each side requires some belief in the tenets of its arguments, perhaps even faith to follow along.

Here's the thing - science is ever evolving. It is our learning, our explanation for how the world works. Science has improved dramatically in the last 500 years, particularly in the last 200 years. We have learned a lot, but science doesn't have all of the answers, and just because someone enters a realm that some scientists deem incorrect and not worthy of time (not morally wrong, just an unworthy pursuit), does not mean the topic should not be explored.

I suppose, as a very strong theist, the issue is thus: each individual must decide for herself if the idea of biogenesis appeals more to her or if intelligent design appeals more to her. Absolute tangible proof seems slippery, and I think it's supposed to be that way. If a man wants to investigate biogenesis, he should - science leads to many truths, and I don't know what he will discover. If an individual decides to investigate intelligent design, of course that individual should do so. Neither side should be quashed because the powers that be are against it, and I think this was one of the basic tenets of Stein's show.

Obviously, he points out the dangers of science mixed with the philosophies of men (another completely mutable entity) untempered by morality. Perhaps the scientist with the tumor stated it best when he spoke of how science alone removed hope from life. Pure science and pure religion are wonderful companions, as they are most agreeable with each other.

One of my religion professors, an Egyptologist, probably put it best - "Filter science through your religion, not your religion through science. The textbooks you use now will be replaced in five years time because we'll have learned that most of what is in them is wrong anyway."