Our culture loves to pigeonhole, label and “straw-man” nearly everything it disagrees with. Which means, if you’re a miracle-believing Christian, then in the eyes of a growing demographic, you are branded a “science denier.” And in 21st century western culture, because of the high value placed upon “science,” that’s among the worst things you could be accused of. But foundational Christian teachings such as the incarnation, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, will earn you the badge faster than just about any transgression.

Acceptance of the Biblical narrative causes many non-theists to view Christians as “irrational.” They conclude that the Christian’s faith “does not align with clearly established science.” The Bible speaks of miraculous events, and miracles are difficult (at best) to support scientifically. Therefore, Christian, you’re a “science denier.” For some Christians, the moniker is (strangely) worn as a badge. But for the larger majority, once labeled, many will back quietly away from the conversation. Why engage when you’re going to be branded and stigmatized?

Science is the new faith and doctrine of many naturalists. For them, Christians (i.e., “science deniers”) probably believe the Earth is flat, and that we didn’t go to the Moon too. In fact, if you listen to some skeptics, in their perspective, Christianity is the greatest of all conspiracy theories to be foisted upon us throughout history. But as you probe a bit deeper, one must ask, do not many naturalistic atheists also deny (certain) science? Do not many that hold to strong “left-of-center” political and social views, and often pride themselves as having progressed beyond “belief,” do this as well?

Non-theist naturalists deny (certain) science too.

Perhaps deny is too strong a word. “Selective,” where science is concerned is probably more appropriate.

Take as a first example a TED talk I watched some time ago called * “The History of the World in 18 Minutes.” In the opening minute of the well-produced talk, presenter David Christian (ironic last name) grips the viewer’s attention with a video of scrambling an egg. But the mind quickly registers an inconsistency. The egg, which at first appeared to be scrambled was actually reconstituting, from scrambled, to a whole egg. As it does, Christian narrates:

“…We all know in our heart of hearts that this is not the way the universe works. A scrambled egg is mush—tasty mush—but it’s mush. An egg is a beautiful, sophisticated thing that can create even more sophisticated things, such as chickens. And we know in our heart of hearts that the universe does not travel from mush to complexity. In fact, this gut instinct is reflected in one of the most fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy. What that says basically is that the general tendency of the universe is to move from order and structure to lack of order, lack of structure—in fact, to mush. And that’s why that video feels a bit strange.”

To that point, the theist is tracking perfectly with Christian. But he continues:

“So here’s a great puzzle: In a universe ruled by the second law of thermodynamics, how is it possible to generate the sort of complexity I’ve described, the sort of complexity represented by you and me and the convention center? Well, the answer seems to be, the universe can create complexity, but with great difficulty.”

Entropy. It’s “one of the most fundamental laws of physics.” Miracle. “A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.” David Christian’s presentation doesn’t jive with one of the most fundamental laws of physics. It doesn’t align with “science.” It sounds a lot like a miracle. But that doesn’t change his naturalistic conviction. Is he a science denier?

A second example. The science is becoming clearer every day. Life begins at conception. Call it a fetus all you want. It is not—as was wrongly assumed 50 years ago—just a “clump of tissue.” As ultrasound technology has refined, and the ability to study in utero child development has advanced, it has become increasingly difficult to conclude that a fetus is not a human life.

To this reality, many non-theist naturalists have chosen to call the fetus a “potential human being.” But they refuse to ascribe “personhood” to the unborn child. Some sociologists even argue for extending non-personhood beyond birth! Apparently, it’s legitimate to deny clear medical and biological science when it fits with a social position. This seems like scientific malpractice for the sake of strongly held personal or political convictions. Or perhaps social science is higher on the hierarchy of value than biological or medical science? It appears that grant dollars and media space think so.

Consider a third example. Gender studies departments, in the humanities sector (again, within the social sciences) of the modern western “church”—the university—have promulgated theories that are in outright, and even hostile opposition, to extensively researched and peer-reviewed biological science regarding sex. What becomes very clear when you begin reading the publications from these institutions is that they love to attach the word “science,” or better yet “established science” to anything that has received grant dollars and has been researched according to a scientific method. Then, if anyone speaks up with counterfactuals, even scientifically researched ones, they are lambasted and labeled “junk science.”

For most people, ideology and political persuasion trumps science.

Let’s be very clear, politics is the new religion of the West. In the United States there are two state denominations (i.e.parties), and within those denominations, many factions and networks. And although a large segment of theistically minded individuals (who often lean right politically) are accused of science denial as a result of their beliefs, those that adhere to the religion of Leftism, fight ardently for worldview positions that, also, do not align with many of the sciences. They too do so because of ideology. Generally, this ideology has been birthed and has grown through the evangelical and discipleship efforts of higher education. Especially the humanities. So why the pejorative labeling?

Agreeing to disagree, agreeably.

I suggest that neither the theistically minded Christian or the atheistically minded naturalist are necessarily science deniers. Science isn’t a worldview to deny. It’s a methodology of hypothesis, observation and experimentation, to discover the legitimacy of our worldview. But such scientific endeavor is always biased by preliminary assumptions. In other words, you can use “science” to “prove” a lot of different things. Just like wrongly interpreted, or out-of-context Biblical study can be used to approve all kinds of abhorrent positions.

To my leftist and non-believing friends—and I do have them—let’s dispense with the nonsensical ad-hominem attacks, labeling people “science deniers.” As if that somehow ends the debate. Let’s agree that in the hierarchy of values you (and we) have elevated, or the convictions (be they religious, ideological or political) we maintain, that they are more ideological and religious than scientific. Which means that we need to return to a rigorous debate of ideas, evidenced by logic and science-based rationale. Let’s acknowledge that conversations that descend toward character assault and bluster rarely produce anything worthwhile and are typically employed when one has no further winning argument.

^{* CalvaryChapel.com does not necessarily endorse or agree with every outside source attached amongst these diverse pieces of content. By providing these sources, we hope to help you stay informed of important events, conversations and ideas taking place in the world that are relevant to the Christian faith.}

The idea of existential nihilism couldn’t be more opposed to my Biblical, Christian worldview. To think that everything we see and experience ultimately lacks purpose or significance is incredibly depressing and defeating. Why would we do anything? Why should we care? What’s the point? It creates a vacuum of hope within a world that seems to be brimming with purpose. And it’s also not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that I have meaning and that Creation as a whole has thoughtful purpose. And when I view the world through this lens, I can clearly see the unmistakable evidence of a personal, omniscient and benevolent Creator. I don’t see a planet filled with souls born for no reason and governed by no hope other than arbitrary, dispassionate chance, where the only balance and order present exists simply because it was produced randomly. I see Creation, design and life, all with intrinsic value, significance and purpose.

But if I were pressed to imagine a world without a Creator, defaulting nihilism to reality, I would imagine a world similar to what is found in the ambitious new film by Alex Garland, Annihilation.

The film is loosely adapted from the popular fictional series of the self-same name penned by Jeff VanderMeer. The story follows soldier/Johns Hopkins biologist Lena (Natalie Portman) as she and a team of female scientists seek to unlock the secrets of “The Shimmer,” a beautiful and mysterious phenomenon (think giant rainbow wall of dangerous energy) that is slowly engulfing an uninhabited section of coastal Florida. Though numerous teams have been sent into it to determine it’s nature, communication is always quickly lost, and none have returned to tell what awaits inside. It’s up to this small team of scientists to discover the phenomenon’s origin, and to stop it’s imminent spread across the state, the country and the world.

As the team plunges into the unknown, they are met with a world that becomes increasingly strange and disorienting the deeper they venture. Time passes differently; their compasses don’t work, and their thoughts and memories feel scattered. And the normal swamp types of plants and animals have been changed, twisted into new things that are at times beautiful and at others, the stuff of nightmares. Director Alex Garland crafts a lush, eerily familiar world that is both gorgeous and terrifying. Using a broad palette of lushly saturated colors, he has painted a unique vision of a dystopian future, where overgrown ruins and vibrant jungle are all that remain of abandoned neighborhoods and towns.

While the action in this film is used fairly effectively to keep the storyline tense, it’s mainly the standard sci-fi fare (jump scenes, monsters and ominous music). The main attraction here isn’t the plethora of horrible creatures that seem to lurk behind every corner, nor other-worldy landscape. What takes center stage in this tale is the vast unexplored psychological landscape of our protagonist.

While each woman on the expedition is haunted, flawed and broken, none are more so than Lena. Still reeling from the sudden and mysterious reappearance of her long-missing husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac) and his subsequently dire medical conditions, she is still dealing with the traumatic effects of her own extramarital affair with a colleague (while no explicit nudity is present, the relationship is shown on a few occasions) during her husband’s long absences due to military deployment. And now she must battle her own demons, the elements and the clock to try and find the answers that will save her husband and the world.

And it’s against the visceral backdrop of her own personal failures that we start to understand the lens through which she, her team and the filmmakers view life: the actions of an impersonal, dispassionate universe are random. Cosmic events happen without purpose or malice. And the inevitable destruction they bring into our lives is something humanity must deal with on an individual and societal level. As the world is being destroyed (or remade) by the mysterious “Shimmer,” do we confront it; do we rage against it, or do we make peace with the change and embrace it as inevitable and not evil? At a cosmic level, entropic destruction is as inevitable as gravity. How should humanity react to it? But even more existentially, as the team’s psychologist Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh) observes, self-destruction seems to be pre-programmed into us on a cellular level. It’s human nature to veer towards destruction. We constantly seek to bring imbalance to healthy situations. We sabotage our own healthy marriages. We undermine our perfect, comfortable jobs. We seem inexplicably drawn to breaking and being broken. And even if we do decide to confront it and rage against it, destruction will come eventually.

And this is actually a much more nuanced difference to the gospel message than it might seem. The Bible tells us that entropy will run its course on society. As sinfulness continues to rise, the wrath of God will eventually reach it’s boiling point and be poured out onto the world. And on an individual level, if left to our own natural, sinful tendencies, hurt and destruction are the inevitable outcomes. As this film postulates, destruction is simply change in varying degrees. And if that is how you define change, then change is inevitable; all we can do is decide how we will react to it. And this would be absolutely true BUT FOR CHRIST.

Jesus came to save humanity from it’s inevitable self-destruction. And He comes to the individual to present Himself as the answer to our seemingly inevitable tendency to break the good things around us. He is both willing and able to redeem the brokenness that we cause and experience, to bring about a hope-filled end. And His solution is much more existential than symptomatic: I lovingly and sovereignly made you, and I crafted you for a purpose. To fulfill a cosmic plan that was pre-ordained since before the beginning.

For the Christian, Annihilation paints a fairly bleak view of life. But I think it’s necessary for believers to be confronted with such despairing perspectives. We should deeply consider the views of the non-Christians around us. And not for the purpose of crafting our best apologetic responses so as to win arguments and gain respect. We should understand the truly hope-less views of the people in the world around us. And we shouldn’t do it as a once-and-for-all type exercise. New arguments and worldviews combatting God’s true nature are constantly popping up. As the salt and light, we should constantly be thinking through the implications of differing worldviews so as to better present their adherents with a thoughtful, truthful and compassionate response to their beliefs.

While the language, violence and implied sexual content in this film may be unpalatable to many believers, confrontation with a nihilistic worldview should open up a healthy dialog among believers, as well as informing our understanding of a worldview that logically goes hand in hand with atheism, a belief that is more and more becoming our culture’s default worldview.

And while the story is engaging, intense and well crafted, and the visuals seamlessly blur the lines between tangible and surreal, the philosophical implications of the film are this: The result of the natural world running its course is unavoidable and indifferent destruction. What a perfect place to begin a conversation about the purpose, the plan and the salvation that God has in mind for every individual person that has ever been and ever will be.

Annihilation is Rated R for violence, bloody images, language and some sexuality.

Image credited to Paramount Pictures

CalvaryChapel.com does not necessarily endorse or agree with every message or perspective in the diverse film reviews posted. By providing these film reviews, we hope to help you stay informed of important events and conversations taking place in the world that are relevant to the Christian faith.