expelled?

Funny thing showed up in the NY Times yesterday. An article about evolution vs. intelligent design. It originates from Ben Stein's movie, set for a February release, Expelled. What fascinates me is the stir this has caused in the scientific community, all about a movie from a man who claims to be undecided on the debate. Read the full article here.

So here is the deal. Why does the science community immediately react whenever God is thrown into the picture? What is their aversion to Him, after all? Suddenly everyone is denying that they said what they are on tape saying, that they have been misrepresented, etc. (I must point out here that they should know, since they continuously misrepresent and muddy the opposing side, exactly how such things are achieved). Seriously? They may have been. They may have been "tricked" into going on the record for a project that they weren't intending to comment on. And if so, that is wrong, whether or not they do that to others all the time or not.

But also, I think it fascinating that the word "God" sparks such action and reaction from the science community. There is no room in the science world for God or any other possible truth besides what they have convinced themselves (by faith) that they will believe. And anything that would seek to deny their belief system, or even question it, is suddenly attacked from all sides of their community. What do they have to hide? Whether it be under the mask of misrepresentation or not, the science community's reaction to such things is always predictable. There is no openness to other views, or even the consideration of other views, from the evolutionary standpoint at all. What makes it more humorous is that this movie, which is being so strongly contested, is about just that. It's not about supporting intelligent design in the classroom, but ironically it's about showing how the science community is closed to any other belief but their own. Ben Stein believes that the two beliefs should both be presented in the classroom as "alternatives" to each another... a thought which I must say I find not half bad, at all.

I'll close my opinionated ramblings with a quote from Dr Eugenie C. Scott in the NY Times article, who fears that the movie will portray the scientific community "as intolerant, as close-minded, and as persecuting those who disagree with them. And this is simply wrong." Is it, Dr Scott? Can anyone show me proof that the scientific community is open to alternatives to evolution? For a community who say that they rely entirely upon evidence and not faith to support their beliefs, I'm afraid there is very little supporting evidence to their open mindedness to the intelligent design belief system.