You are on page 1of 10

Murad 1

Lindsey Murad
11/30/13
Philosophy of Religion
In the film, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, various scientists seek to either provide
alternatives to Darwins theory on natural selection or reconcile his theory with the existence of
God. The film is meant to be a scientific explanation for the existence of an intelligent designer.
In the film, various scientists cite examples meant to help prove the intelligent design theory. I
will first look at a few of the theories that are discussed in the movie, then I will explain William
James theory and whether the film helped me consider the existence of God as a genuine option,
and finally I will conclude whether the film was successful or not in achieving its intellectual
mission.
Theories Presented in the Film
In the film, various theories are brought up to help explain and promote the intelligent
design theory. Some of these theories directly support intelligent design, while others are
evolutionary theories that are discredited by various scientists throughout the film. These
theories, according to the scientists in the film, all point to the existence of an intelligent
designer. The theory of intelligent design is a form of creationism. It is meant to be an
evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins as oppose to a religious-based idea
(Intelligent Design). The various concepts that branch from intelligent design all propose that
certain biological features are too complex to be the result of natural processes, and proponents
therefore conclude that these features are evidence of design (Intelligent Design). Even
Murad 2

though in the film they dont make too many specific references to God, the central part of the
theory of intelligent design is that there is some creator or designer of it all.
One of the theories in support of intelligent design is the irreducible complexity theory.
Michael Behe, a biochemist, is a major proponent of this theory and actually coined the term
irreducible complexity. In this theory, it says that there are multiple components that make up a
system. If you lose one part of this system, then you lose the whole function of the system. The
system cant function if parts are missing. Supporters of this theory contend that the present
biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler or less complete
predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring,
chance mutations (Irreducible Complexity). Therefore, natural selection cant possibly
explain the complex systems we have today. If a system is in fact built gradually, then how can it
function if all the parts are needed in order for that to occur. To describe this theory in simpler
terms, they gave an example of the mousetrap in the film. They described the different parts of
the mousetrap and how if even one component is missing, the mousetrap loses its function. All of
the pieces must be in the right place in order for the mousetrap to work. Now, according to
Darwins theory of natural selection, any change that takes place in the organism has to be an
advantage to the organism and serve some sort of function. It is not necessarily dependent on any
order as long as it somehow benefits the organism. But supporters of intelligent design argue
that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or
would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of
natural selection (Irreducible Complexity). Therefore the theory of irreducible complexity is
not meant to entirely discredit the theory of evolution, but it is an argument whether evolution
provides a complete explanation.
Murad 3

Another theory that was presented in the film is called co-option. This theory, however, is
not a supportive theory for intelligent design. Instead, intelligent design proponents like scientist
Scott Minnich, present challenges to this theory. In the co-option theory, evolution borrowed
components from one machine and used them to create another machine. The example they used
in the movie was the bacteria flagellum motor. Bacteria flagellums have 40 components, 10 of
which are found in other molecular machines. The other 30 components are unique to this
particular structure. Minnich questioned the co-option theory in the film because it does not
explain where these other parts are borrowed from. Also, the bacteria flagellum motor has to be
assembled in particular order. Similar to building a house, the flagellum motor has a specific
blueprint that has to be followed if the motor is going to be put together correctly. Other
machines regulate the assembly of the machine, but then those machines require additional
machines to assemble those machines. This is just not a possible concept according to theory of
co-option.
An additional theory that is presented in the film is the chemical evolution theory.
Although it is also not directly a supporting theory for intelligent design, in the film it is used to
show how a scientist realized he was completely wrong with his evolutionary theory. This
scientist, Dean Kenyon, is one of the leading chemical evolutionary theorists. In the book he
helped co-write, Chemical Predestination, he tried to explain how life on earth began though
entirely natural processes. The theory of chemical evolution uses Darwinian principles to
explain the development of the first primitive cells. After writing his book, Kenyon had a hard
time figuring out a way to explain the origin of proteins. Proteins are entirely made up of amino
acids. There are over 30,000 different types of proteins. Kenyon began to doubt his original
theory. He realized that proteins couldnt possibly self-assemble without the instructions from
Murad 4

DNA. His new focus became discovering the source of the biological information in DNA.
According to natural selection, it can only work with organisms that are capable of replicating
themselves. The cells have to be equipped with DNA that passes on the genetic changes to the
organisms future generations, therefore the origins of the complex DNA was brought into
question. The film, through interviews with Kenyon, greatly impressed the importance of how
Kenyon cam e to reject his own theory of chemical evolution.
William James and A Will to Believe
In William James essay, A Will to Believe, he presents a doctrine that allows one to
assume belief in a god and prove its existence by what the belief brings to ones life (William
James). He starts out by saying that the essence of religion is contained in two fundamental
claims (Cahn, p.239). One claim is that the best things are the more eternal things, and
another claim is that we are better off if we believe (Cahn, p.239). James continues on to say
that people shouldnt allow fear, essentially the fear of holding a false belief to prevent us from
losing the benefits of believing what may be true (Cahn, p.239). This leads into James idea that
we have the free will, the option, to choose what we believe. According to James, an option is
defined as the decision to choose one of two hypotheses (Clack, p.52). He then goes into
discussion of the different types of options. An option can be living or dead, momentous or
trivial, and forced or avoidable. James describes a living choice as a choice that involves a real
possibility of belief (Clack, p.52). A momentous choice is a unique opportunity (Clack,
p.52). Lastly, James describes a forced choice as being a decision that has to be made [and]
cant be avoided (Clack, p.52). From these types of choices, James says there is also a genuine
option. A genuine option is forced, living, and momentous (Cahn, p.239).
Murad 5

James then continues to talk about the religious connection with options that are
presented to us. He says that religion is both a momentous option and a forced option. Religion is
a momentous option because we are supposed to gainby our belief, and to lose by our
nonbelief (Cahn, p.246). James also says that religion is a forced option. This is because we
cannot escape the issue by remaining skeptical and waiting for more light, because, although we
do avoid error in that way, if religion be untrue, we lose the good, if it be true, just as certainly as
if we positively chose to disbelieve (Cahn, p. 246). In his doctrine, James discusses the benefits
of religion, whether or not it ends up being true. He then goes on to write that there are two
affirmations of religion. One of these affirmations is that the best things are the more eternal
things, the overlapping things (Cahn, p.245). Another affirmation is that we are better off now
even if we believe her first affirmation to be true (Cahn, p.246).
He also relates this issue with the example of moral questions and beliefs. He says that
moral questions are not of what sensibly exists, but of what is good, or would be good if it did
exist (Cahn, p.244). These are questions whose solution cannot wait for sensible proof (Cahn,
p.244). The commonplaces of traditional theism are that God cares for us, responds to our
needs, [and] helps us in times of difficulty (Cahn, p.249). James does not make any explicit
assumptions about the nature of God and does not require that these commonplaces be true,
but only that they be believed (Cahn, p.249). In his essay, James says that whether or not you
have these moral beliefs is decided by your will. Although science can tell us what exists, in
order to compare the worths, both of what exists and what does not exist, we must consult not
science, but our heart (Cahn, p.244).
This film helped to solidify my acceptance of the existence of God as a genuine option.
James, in A Will to Believe, defined a genuine option as an option that is forced, living, and
Murad 6

momentous (Cahn, p.239). I consider the existence of God a genuine option because it fits the
criteria of being forced, momentous and living. It is forced because you either believe there is a
God, or some other higher power, or you believe that there is no God at all. Belief in God is
momentous because it essentially decides your fate. There is a heaven and a hell, and what you
choose to do in your life, in relation to God, determines where you will end up. Belief in Gods
existence is a living option because both the hypotheses are live ones. It is considered living
because each hypothesis makes some appealto your belief (Cahn, p.239). You choose to
either believe that there is a God, or to not believe that there is a God.
Successful Mission?
Overall, I believe that the film was somewhat successful in its mission. Although it was a
bit overdramatic, in my opinion, it provided a clear presentation of the different components of
the intelligent design theory. I thought it was interesting that religion and God were not brought
up in the movie, like I originally thought going into the movie. Instead they just refer to an
intelligent designer without specifying who the intelligent designer is. Since it was produced by a
Christian company for those purposes, I was a bit surprised they didnt mention God and
blatantly push their religious agenda more. In the film, it surprised me when one of the scientists
actually said that intelligent design does not even depend on religious premises. Although they
did not outright talk about religion, I could definitely pick out that behind all the science, they
were trying to prove the existence of a Creator, namely God. But I think since they did not push
their agenda, it helped to base their arguments on a more scientific level and appeal to a wider
audience. Much of the design theory is overlooked because of its religious background, which
normally makes it harder to present their argument without being dismissed in the scientific
community.
Murad 7

Based on the example of the bacteria flagellum motor, I believe the film was able to
successfully refute Darwins theory on natural selection as an explanation for all the creation of
complex systems. Although the scientists did still claim that natural selection does occur with
smaller changes, I was surprised that not all the scientists in the film were completely against the
idea of Darwins theory. They just believed it did not provide a complete explanation of nature.
In order to explain why they believed natural selection could not explain the origins of these
complex organisms, they used the example of the bacteria flagellum motor. Throughout the
documentary, they consistently used the example of the bacteria flagellum motor. I think that this
was well done because flow and consistency is important when presenting a point. They could
have discussed a few other examples in order to make a more concrete argument. I do believe
they could have been more successful if they had integrated other examples into their
presentation, but it impressed me that they clearly presented the information regarding the
flagellum motor. I also think they should have incorporated simpler scientific examples that a
wider audience could understand. Other than that, they were successful in their presentation of
why Darwins theory cant explain the origins of complex organisms.
Another point brought up in the film that I believed to contribute to its success is that we
make inferences about intelligent design. We do this all the time without really realizing it. An
example they described in the movie was the Easter Island heads. We know that erosion and
weathering did not produce those forms; some intelligent being had to create it. Same with a
hedge shaped like a giraffe. The hedge did not just grow and form that familiar shape. There was
an intelligent designer that created the hedge in the pattern of an animal we are familiar with. I
thought this was a great example because it connected with the viewer concepts we were actually
familiar with.
Murad 8

The background story of the documentary was at first interesting, but I felt it was a
little too played out. It started out by discussing how a group of scientists and philosophers met
in the 1990s at Pajaro Dunes California. They met to reexamine the mystery of lifes origin, and
so the film centers around this topic for the entire film. These men were from various disciplines
and backgrounds. They all sought to form an alternative to the central theory of modern biology.
Throughout the movie, various examples are presented that are topics the scientist at this meeting
talked about. They conceded that Darwins theory of natural selection explains minor changes,
but does not explain the origin of the organism itself. Although what was discussed at Pajaro
Dunes is central to the film, I feel like since it was drawn out and was brought up in small
sections throughout the film, it made me lose interest.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe the film succeeded in presenting intelligent design as a viable
theory. The theories presented, irreducible complexity, co-option and chemical evolution, are
detailed in the movie in a way to promote the intelligent design theory. I believe that they
effectively explained these theories in a way that scientifically made sense, even though not all
the theories they discussed were intended to support intelligent design. Although I admit my
viewpoint is biased because of my religious background, I recognize the examples they brought
up as being based on scientific fact. I do believe that the film could have included further
scientific illustrations besides the bacteria flagellum motor in order to make their argument more
concrete. Since they mainly focused on the flagellums motor, I think it was somewhat harmful
to their argument. When trying to prove a point, multiple examples should be given that relate to
your ideas. Overall, the ideas they presented appeared to be relatively scientific without
incorporating religion into it. Near the end of the movie an interesting quote from Bill Gates was
Murad 9

brought up that I think fits in with the overall discussion. Bill Gates said that DNA is like a
computer program, except more complex. Gates employs engineers, the designers, to form
computer programs. The coding in a computer program does not just form itself. Although we
cant really compare ourselves to computers, it is relevant to the idea that complex programs or
organisms dont just form themselves; a designer is needed to put it together. This is seen in
DNA, where there are 3 billion individual characters in a humans DNA. They are specifically
arranged to provide meaningful code to the cell. This example is at the core of the questions the
scientists seek to answer. I think that film was able to successfully question Darwins theory
while providing a viable alternative. Although they themselves do not have what would be
considered a scientific answer to the question of where life originated from, they are able to
counter natural selection with a possible explanation that makes sense.









Murad 10

Works Cited
Intelligent Design. Wikipedia. 27 Nov. 2013.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>.
Irreducible Complexity. Wikipedia. 25 Nov. 2013.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity>.

You might also like