E-Edition
Sign up for email newsletters<\/p>\n
Sign up for email newsletters
E-Edition
Let me confess at the outset that \u201cThe Story of Everything\u201d is for the most part over my head. My lack of knowledge of subjects like physics and the cosmos is too acute to address the details of the movie’s premise. But the premise itself, intelligent design, is refutable even by a layperson like myself.
Written by Stephen C. Meyer and based on his book, \u201cReturn of the God Hypothesis,\u201d \u201cThe Story of Everything\u201d was directed by Eric Esau. The last name of Esau is appropriate, Esau being in the Bible the son of Isaac. Not that the movie delves into biblical references. It purports to be a case based on science.
The movie presents itself on a false premise. Meyer indicates at the beginning of the movie that two competing theories will be examined, that of the origins of the universe being a material and spontaneous origin and the counter theory of the universe being a deliberate existence with a creator.
Alas, the first theory is forsaken. The movie is almost entirely made up of spokespersons advancing the theory of intelligent design. But whereas the movie is dominated by scientists, physicists, and engineers (too many to list) who adhere to the theory of intelligent design, the vast majority of people in the above fields reject this theory. Empirical evidence has not uncovered a creator.
What these agents of the intelligent design theory note is the order of things. There is direction in cellular life and DNA. And to be sure, as a wise person once put it, nature is one vast miracle. Science, including the Big Bang Theory, hardly disproves the existence of a creator. But the order cited by the voices in \u201cThe Story of Everything\u201d are careless to assert existence owes itself to a creator based on the paths of nature. Earth is over four billion years old and most life is recent. Development has not been timely enough to attribute it to scientific finding of a creator.
Don’t get me wrong. The existence of a creator is at the core of my beliefs. Christianity, Catholicism in particular, is to me an article of faith. But when speaking of the cosmos and life, “faith” is the operative word. “Faith is the evidence of things unseen” is the age-old maxim. There is yet to be any evidence introduced beyond faith to advance the conclusion that the universe has a creator.
Indeed, the movie in this way detracts from the notion of a creator. God is not an experiment or a case to be made. The pundits, minorities in their empirical fields, actually do God an injustice by reducing God to elements of an argument. Science is science and faith is faith. The two principles are by no means irreconcilable. But neither are the principles complimentary.
The pattern advanced in \u201cThe Story of Everything\u201d would have us believe there is deliberate intent behind nature. But the twists and turns of life have been too long and arduous to concede the argument of intelligent design. No doubt, the universe has a purpose beyond mere existence. But empirical knowledge pointing to a creator remains elusive. Case dismissed.
John O’Neill is an Allen Park freelance writer.<\/em>
Copyright 2026 Macomb Daily. All rights reserved. The use of any content on this website for the purpose of training artificial intelligence systems, algorithms, machine learning models, text and data mining, or similar use is strictly prohibited without explicit written consent.<\/p>\n