Last weekend, “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed,” a movie directed and co-written by Ben Stein, was released to theaters across the country. In the film, Mr. Stein highlights the vitriol and lack of scientific inquisitiveness demonstrated by evolutionists toward proponents of intelligent design. Even before it opened, the film generated significant controversy, fanning the centuries-old debate regarding origins and the creation of life.

Biblical creationism has been labeled by evolutionists as a religious belief system. They contend that its adherents accept its tenets by faith; therefore, it should not be considered scientific. While I agree the biblical creationist accepts the Genesis account of origins by faith, that faith is based upon reason and scientific evidence which point to an all-powerful Creator.

To be consistent, evolutionists must admit that their theory is also part of a religious belief system, born and bred by antipathy toward God. Many of evolution’s founders were atheists, thus it behooved them to conceive a purely naturalistic explanation of origins and human development. Evolutionists accept a universal cosmogony purely by faith, thus placing their theory on the same plane as that of creationists.

Consider the most commonly accepted evolutionary theory of origins: the big-bang theory. The big-bang theory posits that the universe was filled with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, which was expanding and cooling very rapidly. During one of its expansions, supposedly a phase transition caused the universe to grow exponentially. Where did the energy and matter come from? What caused the high temperatures and pressures? Evolutionists have no answer for these questions. They simply attempt to divorce evolution from origins because they simply cannot provide a tenable explanation. They make these assertions, accept them by faith, expect you to do likewise and criticize you if you dare question them.

A major criticism levied at creationism is that it is not testable nor observable. According to Austin Cline, a regional director for the Council for Secular Humanism, creationism is not testable because creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Let’s consider the same argument regarding evolution. Can evolution be put to the test in the lab environment? Many evolutionists point to the Miller-Urey experiment as an indication that the right chemicals under the right conditions could have spontaneously generated life.

Hold on! To be consistent with naturalism, no special, sterilized lab equipment should have been required. This just should have happened by chance. Creating the right conditions for an experiment in a lab environment violates the very tenets of naturalism. Indeed, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey were acting in the capacity of Creator, lending support to the pre-requisite of an intelligent designer.

I recently watched the IMAX presentation on Mount Everest. Liam Neeson, who narrates the film, provided an evolutionary explanation of Everest’s formation. Mount Everest was supposedly formed primarily due to the movement of tectonic plates 30 million to 50 million years ago. It then began to rise from the floor of an ancient tropical ocean, known as the Tethys Sea, some 10 million years ago.

Scientists now know that Mount Everest, which is 29,035 feet high, grows each year at a rate of anywhere from a fourth of an inch to 2 inches per year. Let’s assume that Everest originated 35,810 feet below sea level, which is the approximate depth of the Mariana Trench. Let’s also assume that Mt. Everest has grown at a constant rate of a fourth of an inch per year for 10 million years. This is possible because evolutionary geology relies on uniformitarian principles, which allow for a constant rate of growth.

Applying these best-case evolutionary assumptions, Mount Everest should tower 172,523 feet, or 32.67 miles above sea level. Even at a constant growth rate of a tenth of an inch for 10 million years, Everest should be 9 miles above sea level – and that’s not taking into consideration that its growth rate would have decreased over time due to gravity and friction. Clearly, Mount Everest demonstrates the fallibility of the evolutionary model and lends weight to the young earth of the creationist model.

Why, then do evolutionists demonstrate such a shocking lack of inquiry toward the evidence that refutes their theory? Why can they not admit its shortcomings? And why won’t they admit that their model requires as much, if not a greater, degree of faith than that of the creationist? The Apostle Paul in the book of Romans provides the explanation: “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”

Mr. Stein seems to concur with Paul. Evolution indeed could be summed up with, “No Intelligence Allowed.”

Doug Merrill is a resident of Verona Island.