They're the questions that loom largest in the whole of human experience. Where do we come from, and which elements have conspired to assure the continued existence of our planet? The Programming of Life series has proven unafraid of exploring such questions, and even less fearful of reaching conclusions which are largely unpopular within the mainstream scientific community.
Programming of Life 2: Earth features insights from a panel of distinguished academics, including geophysicist James Jordan, geneticist Dr. John Sanford and information scientist Don Johnson, who all testify to the limitations of widely accepted modern-day science to adequately explain the complexities and precariousness of the universe. In the process, they uncover aspects of evolution that they find flawed at best, and make an argument for the probability of intelligent design.
In one segment of the film, this leaning is supported by the observations of Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist and devoted Christian who adopts a scientific approach when defining the veracity of his religious convictions. According to the documentary, Dr. Ross conducted a comprehensive study to determine the odds that just the right levels of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon could exist to realistically sustain life as it does on Earth. The fruits of his calculations set those odds at one in a billion.
To be sure, the chemical balances that ensure our planet's continued inhabitability are astoundingly complex. Just the slightest deviation from the equations that create life would result in a completely different planet, and would make the prospect of sustainable life an impossibility. Presenting its views in a polished manner, Programming of Life 2: Earth regards these amazements as much more than just the random byproduct of a big bang.
A counter to the widely accepted theory of evolution, the film despairs that these mainstream views are overwhelmingly represented in school textbooks and public forums without comment or challenge. In the end, though, the film stresses the importance of challenging common thinking and wisdom, which is a point on which most figures from both the evolutionary and intelligent design sides of the argument can agree.