How to Share Your Faith Using Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Jane Dratz

Christian Post Guest Columnist

Fri, Apr. 18 2008 02:15 PM ET

[-]Text[+]

E-mail Print RSS More on Topic

Are faith and science truly at odds? If you’ve ever sat through the average high school biology class you might be inclined to answer that question with a resounding “Yes!” Should they be?

That’s the question Ben Stein’s upcoming movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” tackles with a mix of deadpan humor and thought-provoking insight. Stein invites you along on his journey as he lays bare the reality that teachers, students and scientists are being silenced and persecuted for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature. Stein’s inquiries uncover the harsh reality that questioning Darwinian evolution, despite the increasing scientific evidence that challenges the theory and points toward an Intelligent Designer (“God”), is enough to get you ridiculed and sometimes fired.

“Expelled” makes a strong case for challenging the existing academic status quo and demanding that the free exchange of ideas, so highly-valued in other areas of academic inquiry, be extended to the origins of life debate. Stein documents the close-minded treatment many scientists give these new evidences for design. To learn more about these scientific evidences, you can check out Expelled’s free leader guide on the movie’s website.

Stein actually captured footage of ‘famous’ atheist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, acknowledging that he is more inclined to believe that life originated on earth as a result of a visit from aliens, than to entertain the scientific possibility that an Intelligent Designer could exist. No surprise here, but Dawkins is reportedly a bit upset about how he comes across in the movie…

Why is this whole debate about Intelligent Design even important? Because Scripture tells us the natural world is a billboard for God’s existence, if only you have the eyes to see it. Check out these passages from the Bible:

The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world (Psalm 19:1-4).

Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20).

The freedom to follow the scientific evidence down whatever road it leads, including the road that points to an Intelligent Designer, is a deep-seated longing in the human soul!

“Expelled” provides a great opportunity for you to engage your unreached friends (particularly those with a bent toward science) in spiritual conversation. So consider buying your friends a ticket to see this movie and plan some God-talk time to debrief after the movie. Here are some ideas to help you launch your conversation:

• Do you think Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory on the origin of life? Why or why not? Listen and share what you believe. For help with this go to http://www.getexpelled.com/leaders.php
• Do you think scientists should have the freedom to follow the scientific evidence wherever it leads? Do you think they currently have that freedom?
• Have you ever had a personal experience where you felt uncomfortable because you believe a Designer had a hand in creating life?
• Does it matter what’s taught in schools about this topic? Why or why not?
• Do you think this topic has an impact on how people answer larger questions like “what is the meaning and purpose of life?”

Colossians 1:17 tells us, He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together. As a believer, you can have confidence in knowing that the Intelligent Designer holds all creation together. Take the opportunity to you share this Good News with your friends this week.

________________________________________________________________

Jane Dratz works for Dare 2 Share Ministries in Arvada, Colo., a ministry committed to energizing and equipping teens to know, live, share and own their faith in Jesus. For more information on Dare 2 Share Ministries, please visit www.dare2share.org. Send feedback to jane@dare2share.org.

Comments

Most recent comments

View all

agentorangex

Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:51 pm
: 0
: 0
Flag

“But for it to be put forth as absolute TRUTH (fact) it "must" be supported "by HARD FACTUAL EVIDENCE" to make it so”

Here’s some evidence, deduce away.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

agentorangex

Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:47 pm
: 0
: 0
Flag

truth_revealed,

“"theory": ...which *some believe can have a totally new and DIFFERENT meaning when it comes to "science”

The very meanings of words depend upon CONTEXT and their implied meaning, with no CONTEXT words have not much meaning.

“Of *COURSE* the word "theory" has a "particular" meaning "in the context of science" because "SCIENCE ITSELF" conveniently **MADE it that way!”

Well, science also uses words like ‘law’ in reference to science solutions which are mathematically backed, however only no smart person would think in such cases it implies the knowledge relates to some arbitrary man made law. Again, this is why CONTEXT is key. In any matter they could change the word ‘theory’ as its used in science and use something more concrete, it still wouldn’t change what the underpinning and message means regarding the evidence, ultimately the EVIDENCE is what matters, so rather than arguing over semantics, argue the evidence. Evolution as a process is a FACT, the FACTS of Evolution is explained by the model/theory of Evolution, this is why in Science theories are larger than facts, as they support and explain the facts.

“That has to be one of the most ridiculous uses of deceitful hypocrisy that I've yet to encounter.”

No, it’s b/c you don’t understand the vernacular or how ‘context’ changes the implied meaning of a word.

“Because science has to have a way to make their "hypothesis and theory" APPEAR as "FACT" to delude the masses”

So by this logic it’s not correct to accept other ‘theories’ in science too then? Say goodbye to gravitational THEORY, cell THEORY, atomic THEORY, etc. Just b/c you can’t grasp what ‘theory’ denotes in the context of science doesn’t make it wrong; it just means you have much to learn.

“When there's ONE rule for science and ANOTHER rule for everyone else that's sheer hypocrisy.”

No, it’s called CONTEXT. Context gives a word its derived meaning and thus a given word isn’t applicable to all situations, it’s dependent upon the CONTEXT of which its used in.

agentorangex

Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:30 pm
: 0
: 0
Flag

“what is the purpose in arguing about it. What difference does it make if we believe the earth was created on the back of a turtle? Why do you care?”

How about wanting to know genuinely what is true in all things, shouldn’t, above all else, we be most concerned with what is true? After all our beliefs influence our decisions and based on that, knowing what is true is important. If you don’t care for truth and you couldn’t care less if we know if the earth is round or sits on back of a turtle, then why are you here what gives YOU purpose?

Are you genuinely indifferent to such things or is it simply above your head and you’d rather not wrestle with it? Oh no, dare not to think and learn, such a dreadful thing!

agentorangex

Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:25 pm
: 0
: 0
Flag

lossnerp,

It is a theory, regardless of how it is defined, not fact.”

Gravity is a ‘theory’ too pal. As is atomic matter, and cell theory, and quantum theory and tectonic plate ‘theory’. You see, ‘theory’ in the context of science is different from how we use it in layman speech, understand the difference and you’ll see why a ‘theory’ in science is actually a strong argument. A theory in science explains observed facts.

Secondly, most scientist don’t geniuely question the theory of evolution, regardless if they are in biology or not. The list the DI provides are mostly mathematic persons are those not directly in the fields of biology. I know donexodus produced a vid on ‘how many scientists actually reject evolutionary theory’ enjoy.

www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2

‘the lack of sufficient missing links”

Like these ?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

“the complexity of the cell”

These and other instances of IC were addressed in Dover in 2005 when Behe has to confess such biological systems weren’t IC. Besides, comment on the evidence from vids I gave earlier. You asked for evidence, there you go explain away.

truth_revealed

Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:20 pm
: 3
: 0
Flag

AGENT ORANGATANG- Regarding the word "theory": ...which *some believe can have a totally new and DIFFERENT meaning when it comes to "science"...but ONLY then!

Of *COURSE* the word "theory" has a "particular" meaning "in the context of science" because "SCIENCE ITSELF" conveniently **MADE it that way! That has to be one of the most ridiculous uses of deceitful hypocrisy that I've yet to encounter.
WHY is this particular meaning only used in "science"? Hmm?..Because science has to have a way to make their "hypothesis and theory" APPEAR as "FACT" to delude the masses!.
That's deliberately deceiving, self -serving and outrageously hypocritical.
In a nutshell...UN-trustworthy!
Shouldn't we expect much more than that from our "faithful scientists" who seem to control so much of what one thinks and believes???
The word THEORY can evidently ONLY be used in such a manner by SCIENCE...because THEY *invented* the "extension of the definition" and made it their very own for their own dilusional purposes.
When there's ONE rule for science and ANOTHER rule for everyone else that's sheer hypocrisy. NOT SCIENCE.
What's WORSE is that evolutionists FALL for the it !! - Talk about gullible and non-educated!

Having said all that I WILL agree that there are times when a hypothesis IS actually proven to be true...but only AFTER it has been *TESTED* and produces HARD convincing EVIDENCE. Once it has been tested and PROVEN then it CAN (generally) be trusted as a "FACT". But for it to be put forth as absolute TRUTH (fact) it "must" be supported "by HARD FACTUAL EVIDENCE" to make it so.
If a scientist tells me "The dog is peeing on the carpet" I would expect some proof. I would go in, SEE the dog peeing on the carpet...see the wet spot and maybe even smell it and feel it... just to be certain. If I was still not convinced, I might even take some of the wet substance into my lab and test it to be sure that it was REALLY urine. I would then most likely find that it was INDEED urine. In THAT case, when the statement or hypothesis IS SUPPORTED by HARD FACTS (I *saw* the dog peeing on the carpet, I TESTED the urine etc) then it has EVERY right to be called a TRUTH or a FACT. But then and ONLY then.
MANY so-called "Scientific FACTS" are NOT supported by any such evidences. THIS is where they very conveniently stick in their "other" deceptive meaning for "theory".
Claiming that "It's truth because we SAY it's truth...but we have no real proof to back it up".
GIVE me a BREAK!
To recap once more for those of who JUST don't get it yet:
A theory is ALWAYS going to be "a theory" unless or until it's PROVEN true.
SCIENCE ITSELF conveniently *changed* the true definition to the following:
"It may also SOMETIMES mean FACT"
...but ONLY when it suits their own selfish purposes.
At ANY OTHER time, it simply means what it means; a theory. ;o)

Professor T

Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:57 pm
: 1
: 0
Flag

The beauty of "Expelled" is that Ben Stein has shown us that we don't have to get into the public schools to talk to people about Creationism and Intelligent Design. I am calling upon Christians to start buying Creationism and Intelligent Design books and DVDs for the purpose of giving those books and DVDs to friends and neighbors, especially those with Jr. High and High School age kids. If we are going to take back origins science education from the God-hating Darwinists, we are going to have to circumvent the public education system and go directly to the people ourselves. Are you on board with me? Please vist my blogsite http://exploringcreationism.blogspot.com God bless you.

lossnerp

Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:45 pm
: 0
: 0
Flag

What I do not understand is why atheist even bother to argue about evolution anyway. Since ithe atheist believe that we simply fight to survive then die and are eaten by worms, what is the purpose in arguing about it. What difference does it make if we believe the earth was created on the back of a turtle? Why do you care? Unless you are indeed mixing philosophy with science, which you chastise Christians for doing. Do you think that atheist maybe have other motives?

lossnerp

Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:40 pm
: 1
: 0
Flag

I stand corrected on the name. I will attribute that to the small screen to type and the fact that on a previous post it was referenced that all of you were of the same thought.

Somehow, you are missing my point as well. I didn't say if X people believe in it, it must be true. You find that idea ridiculous, and so do I. But the same standard must be put to evolution as well. If 1000 scientists believe in it, does not make it true, if the facts cannot be proven, and they have not. It is a theory, regardless of how it is defined, not fact. There are still toomany unanswered questions to make it fact; the lack of sufficient missing links; the complexity of the cell; the incredible mathematical improbability numbers. The list goes on.

cevink

Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:45 pm
: 1
: 1
Flag

First of all, you are responding to agentorangex's post...not mine. Hard to hold a valid debate with someone who isn't sure which posts are written by me, but I will attempt to refute you anyway. Let me reiterate; an argument based on "This many people believe X, so it must be true" is fallacious (ie. argumentum ad populum) and an argument made stating "Person X believed Y, so it must be true" is also not logically sound (ie. argumentum ad verecundiam) because it doesn't matter what a person believes if they are not an expert at the subject at hand. The Beatles might believe the Fed should cut interest rates on long term loans...but it doesn't matter because the Beatles are not experts in fiduciary matters and I doubt Bernake will listen to their opinion. Darwin's religious beliefs are not pertinent to our discussion here.

Let me play Devil's advocate (go ahead and have as much fun as you like with that one...I'll wait....) and accept your invalid points, and then make a few invalid observations of my own. Have you heard about the petition that was signed by 1000 scientists in favor of teaching ID/creationism along with evolution? They found 1000 "scientists" to sign this petition and it took the better part of a year, but the ID crowd happily pointed to it as validation of ID/creationism...UNTIL mainstream science responded with a petition of it's own; they got 1000 scientists NAMED STEVE to sign a petition stating that ID was unscientific nonsense. Here's a little argumentum ad verecundiam for you: the POPE admitted evolution was very real and the framed it as the tool God uses to enact His will. Again, a useless argument because the pope doesn't know evolution from microwave popcorn...but since you like informal fallacies SO MUCH, I thought I would bring it to your attention.

I don't believe I am superior to you in any way except for possibly being better at applying logic, I'm sure there are areas where you might well outshine me....this just doesn't happen to be one of them. =)

lossnerp

Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:34 pm
: 0
: 1
Flag

cervink,

So your source of proof is youtube? Let me make it clear. There are LOTS of qualified scientists that are not convinced that evolution is a fact! Many can't even accept it as theory. If there were only five qualified scientist that questioned it, then their views need to be taken into account and at least discussed. The FACT is that this issue is still so hotly debated after all these years, means that it HAS NOT been proven. The earth revolving around the sun, no one will argue about. A frog turning into a prince given a million years, it no so convincing. That is the point of the Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed. As Carl Sagan said, "We will search for truth, no matter where it leads." Unless of course it leads to God, then, "Oh no, we can't go there."

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

View all