I watched Expelled: No Intellengence Allowed tonight. Kudos to The Rave in Chattanooga for playing it, though I guess they won’t get tenure now. Before I tell you about it, let me say I can see why some liberals will hate it. Not only does it argue that Darwinian Evolution has flaws, it criticizes abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, atheism, and closes with images of Ronald Reagan. That’ll boil the blood.
Expelled appears to be a solid, well argued movie. It’s premise is clearly communicated in the long trailer. I’m amazed in part by the effort the producers put into giving credible scientists deserved credibility. They spend no time arguing specific scientific findings, which would go over our heads probably. Instead they explain that Darwinian Evolution may be mostly correct, but Darwin’s theory is unclear and cloudy—to use one scientist’s words—and for a scholar to suggest Intelligent Design over random mutation as a cause for evolved life should not be unacceptable. The fact that good scientists and teachers have lost their jobs for either discussing or advocating an Intelligent Design theory argues for a clash of worldviews, not a clash over hard evidence.
Sidenote: Scientists, like journalists, want to appear objective. Some of them are; I assume most believe they are. And scientists, unlike many journalists, are highly educated, intelligent people, so when they draw a hard conclusion, they will naturally believe it is the rock solid truth. That’s why they argue about certain things as if anyone who could see all the tangible evidence clearly would draw the same conclusion they did. But piles of scientific evidence do not draw conclusions on their own; interpretation of that evidence does. And when researching the origin of species, one’s philosophy of science and origin plays a large part in one’s interpretation.
But Expelled is not content to argue against freedom in philosophy of science debates. It has to explain that Darwinism appears to lead many proponents to atheism, and that the two theories devalue mankind. As one professor, who seemed to be the least credible of all the people on camera, said, Darwinism explains away God, an afterlife, human purpose, morality, and free will. In the second half of the movie, a scientist says that while the link between Darwin and Hitler is not straight and bold, you have only to read Mein Kampf to see clear Darwinian ideas behind Hitler’s arguments.
Sidenote: Did Darwin support eugenics, the weeding out of weak men for the health of all mankind? You can read his book, The Descent of Man, here. Skip down to page 167 where the section “Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations” begins. He says it would be nice to “indefinitely increase” restrictions on the marriage of “inferior members of society,” but doesn’t think it would be possible.
Darwin would have us believe men are not created equal by anyone. We all sprang from an unknown, meaningless origin. Obviously, such an idea has metaphysical implications on the big questions of life purpose, morality, and destiny. Why should scientists fight a different metaphysical idea with better implications if the evidence at hand is still well-explained?
Perhaps because they dislike God so much that even suggesting the office of god, the generic idea of god, is a reasonable part of a scientific philosophy smells like death to them. Suggesting that aliens (who evolved somewhere else) seeded life on earth is more acceptable than suggesting someone like God designed life and everything else.
If you can’t see this in theaters, buy the DVD. It’s better than The History Channel and never mentions Nostradamus or UFO sightings once.