Naturalism = the belief that everything that exists is physical in nature (consequentially, immaterial things like God, souls, spirits, etc. do not exist).

Evolution = the proposition that we originated and evolved according to contemporary evolutionary theory.

Plantinga argues that if naturalism is true and evolution is true, then the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is low. This is because evolution rewards ‘survival’ behavior, not accurate beliefs. So, this argument depends largely on the relationship between beliefs and behavior. For example, if you believe that a tiger will eat you (and do not want to be eaten), you will run. But you may also believe that the tiger is playing a game of tag with you (and since you want to win), you will run as a result. There are numerous incorrect beliefs that illicit ‘survival’ behavior for every one correct belief that accurately reflects the actual state of affairs. So, you can see why there is little evolutionary advantage for a species whose cognitive faculties are reliable.

This is especially true for abstract beliefs such as the propositions that God exists, that courage is a virtue, or that our mind and our brains are distinct entities. This of course is also true of the proposition that naturalism is true-it is an abstract concept. If you believe that naturalism is true, then you should also believe that the very cognitive faculties you used to arrive at that belief are unreliable. In other words, if naturalism is true, then we are all stupid. Or as Plantinga states naturalism creates its own defeater; naturalism is self-defeating.

Completely inaccurate. Equates scientists to Nazis. Doesn't even explain what Intelligent Design is, or offer one single opposing theory to evolution. Only interviews scientists who also happen to be Atheist, for obvious reasons of generating a false argument that evolution must lead to atheism.

The movie did not purport to prove that intelligent design is the best alternative theory to Darwinism. It is not an argument that intelligent design should be taught in the class room.

The movie does expose that Darwinists do not have all the answers that they claim to have. Furthermore, Stein argues that evolution should not have to lead to atheism as these prominent scientists argue. It is not the other way around. Stein interviews these scientists because the are prominent and they believe that atheism is supported by evolutionary theory, not because Stein believes that evolution leads to atheism.

 
Many naturalistic evolution proponents do not allow the idea of intelligent design to enter the arena for a fair debate. Why not? What intellectual basis do they have? Well, many naturalists will contend that intelligent design is scientifically un-testable. First off, intelligent design is testable. See www.reasons.org for a testable model.

If some scientific project or theory assumes as a basis that God does not exist, as naturalistic evolutionists suggest that science must, and God does in fact exist, then the whole scientific project comes into question. It is nearly worthless. The project would have start completely over from the beginning without assuming the non-existence of God. This false assumption would be the weakness of the project.

For those who do believe that science presupposes that God does not exist or that supernatural explanations must be ruled out as impossibility do a great disservice to science. The occurrence or acknowledgement of one single supernatural event would undermine all of science. As a house is build upon a foundation, so our beliefs rest upon their presuppositions.

Science is a wonderful, irreplaceable, and important means for discovering truth about the universe in which we live. Without it we would have zero insight into the structure of the cell, the behavior of the subatomic particles, and the nature of bacterial infection. Thankfully, practicing science does not require an assumption of the non-existence of God. In fact, without belief in God the scientific enterprise would not have begun when it did because it does require a belief that there is order in the universe. One need not assume, for example, that God does not exist in order to determine that plant cells have a cell wall. So, we can keep that.

My admonition is this. Let the evidence take you wherever it leads. Don’t let the dogmas of scientism, or of other religions, prevent you from believing the truth. Otherwise you will live in fear of the truth.