Why won’t the scientific academy give Intelligent Design a fair hearing? That is the question raised by Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a pseudo-scholarly attempt to document the scientific establishment’s hostility toward anyone who would dare consider the theory of Intelligent Design as a plausible alternative to theory of Darwinian evolution.

As an interesting side note, the idea of “the survival of the fittest” originally came from Sociology and was retroactively recognized in the term social Darwinism; so it wasn’t even original to Darwin, but rather, it owes its conceptualization to the sociologist Herbert Spencer.

Nevertheless, Intelligent Design, as a theory, is so incompatible with the naturalistic worldview that the scientific establishment can’t help but reject it outright. The naturalistic worldview assumes that matter is all there is and ever will be; thus, there is no supernatural realm, no God, no answers to be found outside of the interaction of molecules. If God existed, He would be made out of matter and explainable through evolution and the interaction of natural processes.

One of the obvious problems with the naturalistic worldview is that it essentially negates our ability to reason. What’s to say that the thoughts we have are real and not just the result of the Mexican food we just ate? There is no self-transcendence because everything can be explained by the physiological reactions in our brains. Another problem is the assumption that matter is all there is. Granted, just because science is limited to observing matter, does not mean that God, therefore, exists.

Scientists loyal to the naturalist faith can’t help but reject the idea that an Intelligent Designer exists, and exists outside of evolutionary processes. It can be likened to an ultra-conservative seminary expelling a student whose thesis suggests that God is evil. It is the exact same principle. On an individual level, both naturalistic scientists and conservative theologians might toy with these forbidden ideas, but from an institutional perspective, these ideas must by publicly condemned.

I obviously believe in an Intelligent Designer, but have come to better understand the opposition’s point of view through reading Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Ben Stein’s movie was decent; even one that I would like to see again (and that doesn’t happen very often!) However, the propagandistic elements of the movie greatly undermined Intelligent Design’s credibility in my own eyes, and I even believe it!

There is an obvious need for change, but this movie shouldn’t be given too much of a central role in the challenging of scientific naturalism. Hopefully, it encourages intelligent investigation into both sides of the argument. Dawkins’ book is the opposite equivalent of this movie: it too is very tricky, deceptive, and yet contains some useful information.

Here’s to legitimate scientific inquiry and the recognition of the need for an interdisciplinary perspective. The next section will explore the dynamics between two types of inquiry and their respective worldviews.