Expelled: So the best Darwinists can come up with is Aliens?

OK, I know I am biased. I am a christian and a firm believer in my creator and his design for my life. That being said, I am appalled by what is going on in our scientific community. I was amazed that so many of the "greatest minds in science" are so closed minded on the subject and that they are applying their belief system and politics before they apply good scientific thinking. The very thing they are screaming those in favor or at least open to Intelligent Design are doing.

In my education I had the privilege to be taught by some science instructors that taught me some basics of scientific thinking. One of the most important principles is that everything is theory until proven. The difference between law and theory is a law is proven through repeatability among other things. As far as I have seen there are several factors in evolution that can not be reproduced, nor have any explanation that does not require "faith" to believe. (Which is one of the reasons they say Intelligent Design can not be good science, because it requires "faith".) The most glaring of these is how an inorganic world created life. No scientist has any evidence as to what created life. Most of these "greatest minds in science" would entertain a theory of an alien life form "seeding" our planet to create life but will not even consider that life could have been directed by some form of intelligence. Another is a phenomenon called "spontaneous evolution". This is where in some mutation a million years worth of evolution happens in almost an instance.

This brings me to my most favorite principle. (I can not honestly say this is truly a scientific principle or just one of open mindedness that should be in science) Lack of evidence for something is not evidence against. Noteworthy, is the fact that this is the explanation used by evolution scientists to explain the two points in the previous paragraph. Each of the scientists in the film stated that the reason there is no "Intelligent Designer" is that there is no evidence to support it. So, using this admission and the same logic scientists use to prove their own theories, no scientist can conclusively say "there is no God" because there is no evidence either way.

One of my most favorite instructors had this philosophy: As a true scientist I am open to the disproof or alteration of all "laws" of science. To explain this he stated "I know that each time I drop this pencil it will fall to the table because of gravity. However, if it didn't one time would not completely surprise me."

As I see it, there is little difference between Darwinism and Religion (any). They both require "faith" in things unseen. They have a loyal following that believes that the other is wrong and that there is evidence the other is wrong. They have either in the past or currently taken steps to disallow the opposing view in academics.

Now we come to the scary part, if there is no designer, no purpose, we are just clumps of matter, atoms floating around and nothing we do matters. There is no conscience, no morality, no creativity, no intelligence for that matter. Because if you reduce us to simply complex patterns of atoms, we are no different from the rock. And survival of the fittest is the only law. What does that mean for the future of the weakest? What empowerment and justification can that lead to? We've seen one such empowerment and justification. It was the justification used in the Holocaust. This is not shock factor, this is fact. (OK, before you start, I know all of the atrocities done in the name of a religion, and can probably name as many as you can.)

The belief that we are nothing but atoms arranged interestingly is the most scary part. Imagine how much life is worth with that view.