I know I'm a little behind on this, but I watched Expelled for the first time last night. I expected it to be something different from what all the hype was saying, and I was right.
The purpose of the film was not to convince the viewer that intelligent design (ID) is a valid scientific theory (as the hype would have you believe). It focused on convincing the viewer that there is discrimination against people who hold this view throughout the academy and the media. Ben Stein spent way too much time "crying" about discrimination, when he should have spent more time explaining why ID should not be discriminated against. I mean, flat-earthers are discriminated against in the scientific community too, but you don't hear anyone crying about that. The reason is because there is NO evidence that the earth is flat. If someone was to attempt to change the paradigm, they would need to convince scientists that there is evidence- not just cry about not being heard. No one cares that you aren't being heard, unless you can convince them that what is not being heard has credible evidence. Also, parading in person after person who says that there is evidence for ID is different from actually presenting the evidence for ID.
Ben Stein did take about five minutes to put forth one argument for design (the complexity of the cell), but it was not very convincing. Ben Stein was also successful at making naturalists look like morons. If Ben wants to be heard by the institution and not just the public, he needs to stop trying to make them look like idiots and instead have an intelligent conversation about the evidence. Ben Stein was too focused on a negative argument against evolution, rather than a positive argument for his position. If you tell someone that their plan sucks, they will most likely ask you if you have a better one. If you can't provide a better plan, they will stick with the one they had originally, no matter how flawed it is. This is the approach taken in this movie.
Ben Stein did go off on a tangent near the end of the movie. He decided to talk about the implications of naturalistic Evolution. This is probably the most useful part of the film. He was really playing on the audience's emotions here. It really doesn't matter if someone likes the implications of a worldview or not, what matters is if the worldview is true or not. Don't get me wrong, when I argue against naturalistic Evolution or atheism, I will bring up the implications. But I include facts in my argument, because if the facts are not there, the implications can be discarded immediately (no matter how emotional).
Should you watch Expelled? It depends, if you believe that there is no discrimination against ID proponents, then Yes. If you are looking for credible evidence for ID, No. If you're interested in "Evolution bashing", Yes. If you want an intelligent conversation with evidence, No. If you want to see the implications of Naturalistic Evolution or atheism, Yes. If you want the facts before you consider the implications, No.
Here are the resources I recommend for credible evidence:
Websites:
Reasons to Believe
Reasonable Faith
Lee Strobel
Podcasts:
Science News Flash
Defenders
I Didn't Know That
DVDs:
Biology:
Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Netflix Online Rental) (Clip on YouTube)
Astronomy:
Journey Toward Creation (Netflix or Blockbuster Online Rentals)
Cosmic Fingerprints
Why Is the Big Bang Evidence That God Created the Universe
Can The Biblical Account of Creation be Reconciled with Scientific Evidence Today?
Both:
The Case For A Creator (Netflix or Blockbuster Online Rentals)
Books:
Biology:
Darwin's Black Box- Dr. Michael Behe
The Edge of Evolution- Dr. Michael Behe
The Cell's Design- Dr. Fazale Rana
Origins of Life- Dr. Fazale Rana and Dr. Hugh Ross
Astronomy:
The Creator and the Cosmos- Dr. Hugh Ross
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is- Dr. Hugh Ross
Lights In The Sky and Little Green Men- Dr. Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, Mark Clark
Both:
Creation As Science- Dr. Hugh Ross
The Case For A Creator- Lee Strobel
Who's in Control? Part 2
I want to start by discussing God's omniscience a bit. The Bible clearly teaches that God knows all things (see Part 1 for references). He also knows our hearts (Ps 44:21; 139:1-4). I would like to propose that, based on this, God knows how every person will react freely to any and all circumstances that may be presented to them before He created them. This is referred to as "middle knowledge". (For more information about the doctrine of God's omniscience, including His middle knowledge, I will refer you to William Lane Craig's podcast Defenders. You will want the episodes on the Doctrine of God.)
How Did It All Begin? Part 2- Big Bang = Evolution?
If you have not already, please read my post "Nature vs. Scripture" before continuing.
In Part 1, I talked a little bit about how the Big Bang theory is a theory that is compatible with the Bible. In Part 2, I will tackle one of the Christian objections to the Big Bang:
Does accepting the Big Bang as fact mean that you concede any ground to evolution or naturalism? The major concern among Christians about the Big Bang is that it states that the universe is billions of years old; and these Christians believe that this is enough time for evolution to explain life naturalistically- doing away with God.
Big Bang cosmology states that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. In order for naturalistic evolution to take place and end up with life as complex as it is now, it would take into the trillions of trillions of years (this calculation was performed by a naturalist, not a theist. I'll post the reference as soon as I can find it again). 13.7 billion years is way too short of time for naturalistic evolution to explain the complexity of life. This is why many naturalists do not accept the Big Bang. Many naturalists prefer the steady state or cyclic universe model (both are infinite in time). If they can have an infinite or near infinite universe, then evolution has enough time to explain the complexity of life. The Big Bang actually restricts the amount of time evolution has to produce the life forms we see today (and even the first life forms in the fossil record). Therefore, the Big Bang does not require or even imply a belief in evolution to explain life. But let me take this one step further:
The origin of life problem. Evolution does not even attempt to explain how life started; it only attempts to explain how the different types of life emerged. It assumes life already exists. There have been many naturalistic theories to explain how life began. Earth has been abandoned as a source for the origin of life (primordial soup theory). Naturalistic origin-of-life researchers have shifted their focus to extraterrestrial sources (that's why the media freaks out every time there is the slightest discovery on Mars or Titan). Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. Fazale Rana have both argued in their books (Darwin's Black Box and The Cell's Design, respectively) for the extreme complexity of even the simplest life. Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana argue in their coauthored book (Origins of Life) for the impossibility for the origin of life on earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) due to its irreduciblely complex requirements. Hugh Ross also argues against the current theory of aliens bringing life to earth in his book Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men. If you want one book that quickly gives an overview of all this material, check out Creation as Science by Hugh Ross.
For further investigation, I recommend checking out the list of resources from Part 1 and this blog post by Billy Pratt from the Ankerberg Theological Reasearch Institute:
Does 4.5 Billion Year Old Earth Prove Evolution is True?
Since the Big Bang has now been separated in our minds from Evolution, in Part 3 I will tackle the other Christian objection to the Big Bang's claim of billions of years. Does the Bible strictly teach a creation that took place in only 6 24hr days?
In Part 1, I talked a little bit about how the Big Bang theory is a theory that is compatible with the Bible. In Part 2, I will tackle one of the Christian objections to the Big Bang:
Does accepting the Big Bang as fact mean that you concede any ground to evolution or naturalism? The major concern among Christians about the Big Bang is that it states that the universe is billions of years old; and these Christians believe that this is enough time for evolution to explain life naturalistically- doing away with God.
Big Bang cosmology states that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. In order for naturalistic evolution to take place and end up with life as complex as it is now, it would take into the trillions of trillions of years (this calculation was performed by a naturalist, not a theist. I'll post the reference as soon as I can find it again). 13.7 billion years is way too short of time for naturalistic evolution to explain the complexity of life. This is why many naturalists do not accept the Big Bang. Many naturalists prefer the steady state or cyclic universe model (both are infinite in time). If they can have an infinite or near infinite universe, then evolution has enough time to explain the complexity of life. The Big Bang actually restricts the amount of time evolution has to produce the life forms we see today (and even the first life forms in the fossil record). Therefore, the Big Bang does not require or even imply a belief in evolution to explain life. But let me take this one step further:
The origin of life problem. Evolution does not even attempt to explain how life started; it only attempts to explain how the different types of life emerged. It assumes life already exists. There have been many naturalistic theories to explain how life began. Earth has been abandoned as a source for the origin of life (primordial soup theory). Naturalistic origin-of-life researchers have shifted their focus to extraterrestrial sources (that's why the media freaks out every time there is the slightest discovery on Mars or Titan). Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. Fazale Rana have both argued in their books (Darwin's Black Box and The Cell's Design, respectively) for the extreme complexity of even the simplest life. Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana argue in their coauthored book (Origins of Life) for the impossibility for the origin of life on earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) due to its irreduciblely complex requirements. Hugh Ross also argues against the current theory of aliens bringing life to earth in his book Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men. If you want one book that quickly gives an overview of all this material, check out Creation as Science by Hugh Ross.
For further investigation, I recommend checking out the list of resources from Part 1 and this blog post by Billy Pratt from the Ankerberg Theological Reasearch Institute:
Does 4.5 Billion Year Old Earth Prove Evolution is True?
Since the Big Bang has now been separated in our minds from Evolution, in Part 3 I will tackle the other Christian objection to the Big Bang's claim of billions of years. Does the Bible strictly teach a creation that took place in only 6 24hr days?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)