Movie Review: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

**We've moved!!**


Please visit our new site, ModernAlternativeMama.com.


Comments on this post have been locked and updates are no longer being made to this page. Please click here to view this article on the new site.


We recently finished watching Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." The film looked at the question of intelligent design vs. evolution. It was a very interesting experience, and everyone should see it, especially those who believe in ID or creationism.

First, let's define "Intelligent Design" as they do in the movie: The belief that there is some sort of higher power or intelligent designer who created life on earth, which may then have evolved or changed through natural selection and adaptation. That is to say, God is not necessarily that higher power or designer (according to the scientific theory), and they are not saying that once created, life did not change through adaptation. There is absolute scientific credence to this notion -- though evolutionists patently disagree, without actually knowing what the argument is. Most assume that ID is simply religion, but that is not the case.

Stein begins the movie by pointing out how most evolutionary biologists are rather arrogant, referring to ID as "utterly boring" or saying things like "I can't prove a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, either." He also shows many scientists who were fired or had their funding cut off for even mentioning that intelligent design MIGHT be a valid theory. As he says, "So much for academic freedom."

At one point in the film, Stein interviews a biologist. "It's a funny thing that questions that aren't properly answered don't go away," he says. When Galileo said that the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of the other way around, the Catholic church imprisoned him for the last 10 years of his life to keep him quiet (much the opposite of what's going on now). But once everyone saw the evidence for Galileo's theory, they all believed, as we do today. But 150 years after The Origin of Species, despite that we see thousands of the brightest minds rejecting Evolutionary Theory because they don't feel the scientific evidence proves it, most scientists still consider anyone who doesn't believe in evolution a "nutcase." This is despite extreme advances in science since Darwin's time, which allow us to examine the evidence in a totally new and different way. Evolutionary biologists stubbornly cling to evolution based on old, outdated evidence.

Dr. Steve Meyer says, "For every evidence-based argument for Darwin's two points, there is an evidence-based argument against it." This is the view of many, many qualified scientists.

For example, Darwin has no theory on how life originated, where the first cell came from. Generally, it is believed that the big bang occurred, and that the necessary elements for life were put onto earth and the energy stimulated them in just the right way and life occurred. Some think that primordial ooze is also a possibility. Basically, somehow, the correct proteins were in the right place at the right time, and life just came from that (i.e. much like my lego argument before -- lots of non-living proteins were swimming around together and happened to create something complex and new -- life!). Scientists do not know how this happened, but they believe that it did. Several scientists, beginning in the 1950s, even tried to replicate this in the lab. They put all of the proper proteins together and stimulated them with various forms of energy. This type of experiment, which seemed "promising" at first, has NEVER produced any type of life. i.e. this theory CANNOT BE REPLICATED IN A LAB.

When I was watching this segment of the film, I had a thought. Every type of life on the planet reproduces itself either sexually or asexually. Every (non-genetically-modified) species has the ability to reproduce. So, I would like someone to show me one species that can spontaneously produce or come into being, without any part of itself used in reproduction. I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen anywhere on earth. So, why should we accept that it ever did happen?

Another scientist in the movie said that somehow life formed on the back of crystals. When asked how, he stated "I already told you." He could not come up with any greater explanation. So, it remains: scientists do not have any explanation for how life actually formed in the first place. They have various, unproven theories on this, some as strange as "aliens did it" (which, by the way, is actually intelligent design...a superior race of aliens creating us is STILL a designer placing us here).

Some scientists were asked about the proteins theory. There are 250 proteins needed to create life, and many amino acids needed to build each protein. There is "one in a trillion trillion trillion chance this would happen...essentially zero," to quote the movie. Part of the reason that Darwin theorized it did occur is because he had no idea of the complexity of the cell -- he thought it "quite simple." 150 years ago, the cell was considered the building block of life. Darwin had no way of knowing about DNA, amino acids, etc. But today, as one scientist said, "if Darwin thought the cell was a Buick, today we know it is a galaxy." It is that much more complex than Darwin ever knew.

Many of the evolutionary biologists are making this a religion vs. science debate, when it doesn't need to be one. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion says the book is a "full frontal attack on religion," because "both science and religion are trying to explain existence but religion gets it wrong." Dawkins won't entertain anything he thinks even comes close to religious territory, nor will he admit that ID is not a debate about religion (according to the agency that promotes research into ID, it is not a religious theory).

In response, Alistair McGrath wrote The Dawkins Delusion. He says Dawkins is naive and believes that scientific explanation gets rid of religion. In fact, many of the ancient scientists (Galileo among them) were quite religious, and were trying to understand the world that God had created (as they put it). They were not trying to explain God out of the picture, as today's scientists do. Today's scientists say things like "Science tells you there is no God," but this is impossible. God remains metaphysical, and scientists cannot prove His existence either way. To say that science eliminates the possibility of God is wrong and rather idiotic.

One evolutionist says, "Religion...at the level it should be treated. Something fun that people get together and do on the weekends, but that doesn't affect their life as much as it has."

And what would happen to the world if that were the case? If Darwinism were the only theory that explained life?

Two very important historical movements were based on Darwinism. Hitler's Nazi regime, and the eugenics projects in U.S. in the 1920s and '30s. Yes...Nazi Germany was based on Darwinism.

According to Darwin, every species adapts and changes over time as the weaker members die out. Those weaker members do and should die so the "fittest" can survive. Darwin says that "hardly anyone would let his weakest animals breed," and explains it should be the same with people. He says that certain people -- those who are disabled, for example -- are a drain on society and unnecessary. He doesn't go quite as far as to say they should be killed, but Hitler did. Hitler believed in a pure race. He wanted to kill off all of those who were not pure in order to create a better race. Hitler said "What we desire of today's youth is different from what was desired in the past. We must create the new man so that our race will not succumb to the phenomenon of degeneration so typical of modern times." And he used this as an excuse to commit genocide.

Germany wasn't the only country who believed this line of reasoning, however. Plenty of American scientists did (do?) too. Scientists created a field called "eugenics," which aimed to sterilize the "feeble minded" or disabled so they could not reproduce. 50,000 people were involuntarily sterilized. This occurred to "help natural selection along."

This is a total lack of morality. A value is put on each life, so that some are highly valued and some are beyond worthless. Those deemed worthless can be killed. Scarily enough, one of Obama's czars holds this belief today.

Finally, Stein went around to several prominent institutions were scientists had been fired for discussing ID. At one, he was simply escorted out by security. At others, he was told "it had nothing to do with ID" and no real conversation was had. So, Stein ended up speaking to Dawkins. Dawkins has "no idea how life started," he freely admits. He also says, at one point, "it could be that at some earlier time in the universe, some other civilization evolved on some other planet, and they designed a race and put it on earth," and he also admits "if you did research, you might find that there are marks of a designer, from some race of higher intelligence." Yet, Dawkins will not entertain the theory of ID in general. (After the movie came out and Dawkins realized how his comments were being taken and in what context they were being used, he was very upset and stated that he will not even speak to anyone who believes in ID, because it "only gives credence to the theory." How is that for logical scientific debate? He won't even speak to someone who believes differently, he is that arrogant.)

Finally, a small side note...I was criticized in my original post about mentioning the second law of thermodynamics. Yes, it does relate to energy. Here is a more complete explanation of the law:

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy."

"Entropy is defined as a measure of unusuable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusuable energy increases, entropy increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness, and chaos increase."

So as you see, it DOES relate to the point I had. It is unlikely, with the amount of energy required to create life (i.e. to perfectly arrange those 250 proteins into one cell, and continue the process from there to create more and more complex organisms), that such evolution could occur. There would not be enough energy to create those more complex organisms. Instead, as energy was spent, the organisms should fall apart, not become more complex. So, evolution does NOT overcome the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Have you seen Expelled? Are you interested to watch it now? Do you follow this debate at all? Despite what many have to say, there IS a debate here!