nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + + + − + − {{cite web − |url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm&adjust_yr=2008&p=.htm − |title=Documentary Movies − |publisher=www.boxofficemojo.com − |accessdate=2008-05-16 − |last= − |first= − }} − − + + − + − + − ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' is a film described by its promoters as a controversial new [[satire|satirical]] [[Documentary film|documentary]].<ref name=presskit/> It makes considerable use of vintage film clips to put over its message, and opens with scenes of the [[Berlin Wall]] being constructed, used to symbolize what it alleges are barriers to intelligent design being accepted as science.<ref name=MovieMom /> In [[Ben Stein]]'s opening scene he gives a talk in a lecture hall, and throughout the film he provides narration. He interviews those claiming to have been victimized, and several scientists who are atheists, selected by the producers to represent those supporting evolution, culminating in an interview with [[Richard Dawkins]].<ref name=Expulsionrevulsion /> Intelligent design proponents are also shown, including [[David Berlinski]] who raises the claim that Darwinism influenced the Nazis. Stein then tours sites of Nazi atrocities emotively describing the nightmare he implies was due to Darwinism. After a symbolic scene using footage of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall,<ref name=NewScientist12April2008 /> he returns to the lecture hall for his closing statements.<ref name=Expulsionrevulsion>{{cite web |url=http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/2008/04/expulsion-revulsion.html |title=Halfway There: Expulsion revulsion |format= |work=interim source until better cite found.}}</ref> − ===Promotion of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution ===+ − {{see|Intelligent Design |Intelligent Design Movement}} − − In a scene in the film, Stein interviews [[Bruce Chapman]], president of the [[Discovery Institute]], and accepts his assurance that its support for teaching of intelligent design in science classes was not an attempt to sneak religion back into public schools.<ref name="sciam-rennie"/> The film responds to the outcome of the ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover]]'' trial with Stein saying he thought science was decided by evidence, and not the courts.<ref name=Timonen>{{cite web | url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,2400,Expelled-Overview,Josh-Timonen | title= Expelled Overview | author= Josh Timonen | date= March 25, 2008 | publisher= RichardDawkins.net | accessdate= 2008-04-04}}</ref> The trial resulted when a public school district required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution, and the court ruling concluded on the basis of expert testimony and the testimony of leading intelligent design proponents that intelligent design was a creationist religious strategy and was not science.<ref>[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism|An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism]]. The judgment concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." {{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=[[December 20]] [[2005]] }}, [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 136 of 139|Conclusion of Ruling]].</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=[[December 20]] [[2005]] }} [[s:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#4._Whether_ID_is_Science|p. 64]]</ref><ref>In [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin her article] about the film for the ''[[New York Times]]'', environmental journalist [http://www.sej.org/confer/pitts/04Bios.htm Cornelia Dean] describes [[intelligent design]] as "an ideological cousin of [[creationism]]" and later as a "creationist idea".</ref> The court rejected the Discovery Institute's claims that intelligent design was not religiously motivated,<ref name=oreilly/><ref name=idnotCreationism/><ref>"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/3:Disclaimer#Page 43 of 139|Kitzmiller conclusion, page 43]]</ref> and rebuffed the attempt to introduce it into public school science classes as a [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment|constitutional violation]].<ref name="sciam-rennie"/><ref>"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/3:Disclaimer#Page 137 of 139|Kitzmiller conclusion, page 137]]</ref><ref>In her article about the film for the [[New York Times]], environmental journalist [http://www.sej.org/confer/pitts/04Bios.htm Cornelia Dean] describes [[intelligent design]] as "an ideological cousin of [[creationism]]" and a "creationist idea".[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]</ref><ref>At the 2005 ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' trial it was concluded on the basis of expert testimony and the testimony of leading intelligent design proponents that [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism|An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism]].</ref>+ − ===Claims that intelligent design advocates are persecuted===+ − {{rquote|right|Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference. ... It is perfectly okay to question Darwinism (or any other ''[[-ism|ism]]'' in science), as long as there is a way to test your challenge. Intelligent Design creationists, by contrast, have no interest in doing science at all.|[[Michael Shermer]], one of the interviewees for the film|<ref> Shermer, Michael. [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer&page=4 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin]. Scientific American. April 9, 2008.</ref>}} − + − On the ''Expelled'' blog, Stein wrote:+ − {{quotation|Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of "anti-intelligent design" would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him... EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe? EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS... HE WOULD BE BANNED.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/ |title=Ben Stein’s Introductory Blog |accessdate=2008-04-03 |format= |work=}}</ref>}}+ − However, describing the film for ''[[New Scientist]]'', Amanda Gefter wrote:+ − {{quotation|Its selling point is that academic freedom in the US is threatened by a vast conspiracy of atheist scientists, hypnotised by what Stein labels in the film the "Darwinian gospel". Supporters of ID are fired from their institutions or denied tenure, the film argues, while journalists who report on ID are silenced or shunned. This is an old trick. By claiming their views are suppressed, proponents of ID hope to be protected from criticism. When someone argues that ID is bogus, all they need do is yell: "See? Suppression!"<ref name=NewScientist12April2008> + − {{cite journal | last = Gefter | first = Amanda | date = 12 April, 2008 | title = Warning! They've Got Designs on You | journal = New Scientist | volume = 198 | issue = 2651 | pages = 46 | publisher = Reed Business Information, Ltd. | location = London, England }}</ref>}} − ===Portrayal of science as atheistic===+ − {{quotation|Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people. [[Ben Stein]]<ref name=miller>{{cite web |url=http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/ |title=Trouble ahead for science |author=Kenneth R. Miller |authorlink=Kenneth R. Miller |date= May 8, 2008 |publisher=The [[Boston Globe]] |accessdate=2008-05-08}}</ref>}} − − In its review, the [[Waco Tribune-Herald]] said "That’s the real issue of Expelled — atheist scientists versus God — even though it wholly undercuts statements by intelligent design researchers early in the film that ID has nothing to do with religion." It described the "failure to cover how Christian evolutionists reconcile faith and science" as "perhaps the film's most glaring and telling omission", and said that the film rather "quickly dismissed [such proponents of [[theistic evolution]]] by a chain of quotes that brand them as liberal Christians duped by militant atheists in their efforts to get religion out of the classroom."<ref>[http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/04/19/04192008wacexpelledrvw.html Review: Baylor officials among those demonized in 'Expelled'], Carl Hoover, [[Waco Tribune-Herald]], April 19 2008</ref> Defending the movie, the producer, Walt Ruloff, said that scientists like prominent geneticist [[Francis Collins (geneticist)|Francis Collins]] keep their religion and science separate only because they are "toeing the party line". Collins, who was not asked to be interviewed for the film in any of its incarnations, said that Ruloff's claims were "ludicrous".<ref name=nyt>{{cite news |author=[http://www.sej.org/confer/pitts/04Bios.htm Cornelia Dean] |title=Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin |work= |publisher= [[The New York Times]]|date=[[September 27]], [[2007]] |accessdate=2007-09-28 }}</ref>+ − The film portrays the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]] as a theory that refuses to accept ideas with a [[theistic realism|theistic component]] like intelligent design. The National Center for Science Education states that this ignores the many scientists who are religious but do not bring God in as part of their theories, as testing requires holding constant some variables and no one can "control" God; consequently scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable, regardless of the religious views of the scientists.<ref name=EEEvolution>{{cite web |url=http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution |title=Expelled Exposed > Evolution |date=2008|publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref>+ − On the film's portrayal of science, Lauri Lebo, a [[York Daily Record]] journalist who covered the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover]] trial, noted "The first half of the movie is devoted to explaining how intelligent design is not religion" and then "the filmmakers seem to completely forget their earlier message. The rest of the movie is devoted to proving that atheistic scientists hate God and are trying to suppress intelligent design because, well, it's all about belief in God".<ref name=LLAlterNet>{{cite web |url=http://www.alternet.org/movies/83427/ |title=Intelligent Design Propaganda Is Coming to a Theater Near You : Movie Mix |author=Lauri Lebo |authorlink=Lauri Lebo |date= April 24, 2008 |publisher=AlterNet |accessdate=2008-04-25}}</ref>+ − ===Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution===+ − {{see|Nazi eugenics|Creationism and Social Darwinism|Nazism and religion|Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs}} − {{quotation|In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany. ''[[Christianity Today]]'' film critic Jeffrey Overstreet<ref>{{cite web − |url = http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/richard-dawkins-crashes-the-party-at-a-screening-of-expelled/ − |title = Did Richard Dawkins just crash the party at a screening of “Expelled”? − |accessdate = 2008-05-15 − |last = Overstreet − |first = Jeffrey − |authorlink = Jeffrey Overstreet − |date = March 20, 2008 − |work = The Looking Closer Journal − }}</ref>}} − The film is largely devoted to portraying [[evolution]] as responsible for [[Communism]], [[Fascism]], [[atheism]], [[eugenics]], [[Planned Parenthood]] and, in particular, [[Nazi]] atrocities in the [[Holocaust]],<ref name=Timonen/><ref name=CC/> a common [[creationism|creationist]] claim.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2172&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Social%20Sciences%20and%20Humanities Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life?] [[Richard Weikart]]. The Human Life Review. Discovery Institute, March 1 2004.</ref><ref name="richards">[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=16 Intelligent Design Theory: Why it Matters] Jay W. Richards. IntellectualCapital.com, July 25 1999.</ref><ref name=darwins_legacy>[http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ Darwin's Deadly Legacy] Television documentary. [[James Kennedy (televangelist)]], [[Coral Ridge Ministries]]. Aired August 26, 27 2006.</ref><ref name=hitler-eugenics>{{cite web |url=http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics |title=Hitler & Eugenics |accessdate=2008-04-16 |date=National Center for Science Education |work=Expelled Exposed |publisher=National Center for Science Education }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html |title=Claim CA006.1 |accessdate=2008-05-06 |author=Mark Isaak |work= Index to Creationist Claim|publisher=[[Talk Origins Archive]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html |title=Claim CA006 |accessdate=2008-05-06 |accessmonthday= |accessdaymonth= |accessyear= |author=Mark Isaak |work= Index to Creationist Claim|publisher=[[Talk Origins Archive]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html |title=Claim CA006.2 |accessdate=2008-05-06 |accessmonthday= |accessdaymonth= |accessyear= |author=Mark Isaak |work= Index to Creationist Claim|publisher=[[Talk Origins Archive]]}}</ref> [[Richard Weikart]], a DI fellow and historian, appears in the movie claiming that [[Charles Darwin]]'s work influenced [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>[http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2008/04/21/darwin_and_the_nazis_richard_weikart Post details: Darwin and the Nazis - Richard Weikart] [[Access Research Network]] April 21, 2008</ref><ref>[[Richard Weikart]], "[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13061 Darwin and the Nazis]," [[The American Spectator]], April 16, 2008</ref> As [[Scientific American]] notes, the film almost always inaccurately labels the modern theory of evolution with the outdated term "[[Darwinism]]" to imply an ideology.<ref>"Stein and Expelled rarely refer to "scientists" as I did—they call them Darwinists. Similarly, this review may have already used the word "evolution" about as often as the whole of ''Expelled'' does; in the movie, it is always Darwinism. The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin's original ideas... Yet the choice of terminology isn't random: Ben Stein wants you to stop thinking of evolution as an actual science supported by verifiable facts and logical arguments and to start thinking of it as a dogmatic, atheistic ideology akin to Marxism." [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie&print=true Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed], [[Scientific American]].</ref>+ − {{rquote|right|The film-makers' logic is that by teaching evolution, the US public school system is telling children that there is no God, morality or free will. And this can lead to only one thing: Holocaust.|Amanda Gefter|[[New Scientist]]<ref name=NewScientist12April2008 />}}+ − Nazi [[gas chamber]]s and [[concentration camp]]s<ref name=LyingforJesus>{{cite web |url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins |title='Lying for Jesus?' |accessdate=2008-04-16 |author=Richard Dawkins |authorlink=Richard Dawkins |date= |publisher=RichardDawkins.net |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref> figure highly in the narrative of the movie. In the film, intelligent design proponent [[David Berlinski]] says that Darwinism was a "necessary though not sufficient" cause for the Holocaust, and Stein presses the message of [[evolutionary biology]] being responsible without acknowledging more direct causes such as the economic ruin of Germany after [[World War I]] and the [[racism]] and [[antisemitism]] dating back over seven centuries before [[Charles Darwin]].<ref name=hitler-eugenics/><ref name="sciam-rennie"/>+ − From a scientific viewpoint, any distorted misunderstanding of evolution incorporated in Hitler's thinking is irrelevant to the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis.<ref name="sciam-rennie"/> [[Michael Shermer]], who was interviewed for the film, wrote of this:+ − {{quotation|When Stein interviewed me and asked my opinion on the impact of Darwinism on culture, he seemed astonishingly ignorant of the many other ways that Darwinism has been used and abused by political and economic ideologues of all stripes.... Because Stein is a well-known [[Conservatism in the United States|economic conservative]]... I pointed out how the captains of industry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries justified their beliefs in [[Laissez-faire|laissez faire]] [[free market|capitalism]] through the social Darwinism of 'survival of the fittest corporations.' ... Scientific theorists cannot be held responsible for how their ideas are employed in the service of non-scientific agendas.<ref name=Shermer2/>}}+ − [[Arthur Caplan]], Professor of Center for Bioethics [[University of Pennsylvania]], wrote in his [[MSNBC]] column that the movie is a "frighteningly immoral narrative" and wrote that "this film is a toxic mishmash of persecution fantasies, disconnected and inappropriate references to fallen communist regimes and their leaders and a very repugnant form of [[Holocaust denial]] from the monotone big mouth Ben Stein."<ref name="Caplanreview">{{cite news | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755/ | title=Far Worse than Stupid: Ben Stein's so-called documentary 'Expelled' isn't just bad, it's immoral | publisher=[[MSNBC]] |date= April 21, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-04-22}}</ref> He criticized the substance of the movie, saying "[w]hat is especially startling and monumentally deceptive is that the movie never bothers to tell us what Intelligent Design actually is."<ref name="Caplanreview"/> He questioned the movie's understanding of science because "Science, by the very definition of the term, wants to invoke god or divine intervention as little as possible in seeking explanations for natural phenomena."<ref name="Caplanreview"/> He concluded, "To lay blame for the Holocaust upon Charles Darwin is to engage in a form of [[Holocaust denial]] that should forever make Ben Stein the subject of scorn not because of his nudnik concern that evolution somehow undermines morality but because in this contemptible movie he is willing to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end. Expelled indeed."<ref name="Caplanreview"/>+ − The [[Anti-Defamation League]] issued the following statement condemning the film's use of the [[Holocaust]]:+ − {{quotation|The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. − Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.+ − Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry. Anti-Defamation League <ref name="ADLstatement">{{cite news | url=http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm | title=Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust | publisher=[[Anti-Defamation League]] |date= April 29, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-04-30}}</ref>}}+ − After watching the film, one Jewish viewer wrote an angry letter to interviewee Michael Shermer, which Shermer forwarded to fellow interviewee Richard Dawkins. This prompted Dawkins to write "Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda"<ref>[http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda] by Richard Dawkins</ref> as a response.+ − + − The film portrays several people including [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)|Guillermo Gonzalez]], and [[Caroline Crocker]] as victims of persecution by "Big Science" for their promotion of intelligent design and for questioning Darwinism. Other intelligent design supporters such as [[David Berlinski]], [[William Dembski]], [[Stephen Meyer]], [[Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)|Jonathan Wells]], [[Paul Nelson (creationist)|Paul Nelson]], Pamela Winnick and [[Gerald Schroeder]] appear in the film as well. − + + + − ===Richard Sternberg===+ − {{main|Sternberg peer review controversy}}+ − − In the movie Stein states that the paper "ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began". He claims that Sternberg was "terrorized" and his "life was nearly ruined when he strayed from the party line while serving as editor of a scientific journal affiliated with the prestigious Smithsonian Museum of Natural History."<ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=2 Rennie, John; Mirsky, Steve; "Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know......about intelligent design and evolution"; sciam.com; [[April 16]], [[2008]].]</ref> The journal is not affiliated with the Smithsonian, and Sternberg still has his research position.<ref name=MailCall>{{cite web |url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/132855 |title=Mail Call: Election & Climate - Newsweek Letters to the Editor |author=Randall Kremer, Director of Public Affairs, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution |date=April 28, 2008 |accessdate=2008-04-30}}</ref> Stein claims it was the "most egregious" case and "He lost his job",<ref name=NewsweekPeriscope>{{cite web |url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/130619 |title=Fast Chat: Ben Stein : Newsweek Periscope |author= Jessica Bennett |date=April 14, 2008 |publisher=[[Newsweek]] |accessdate=2008-04-30}}</ref> but the [[National Center for Science Education|NCSE]] noted "the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost every person, it’s hard to see how this could be construed as 'life ruining'".<ref name=EERS/>+ + − ===Guillermo Gonzalez===+ − − After the normal review of his qualifications, such as his record of scientific publications (which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty),<ref>"Under normal circumstances, Mr. Gonzalez's publication record would be stellar and would warrant his earning tenure at most universities, according to Mr. Hirsch. But Mr. Gonzalez completed the best scholarship, as judged by his peers, while doing postdoctoral work at the University of Texas at Austin and at the University of Washington, where he received his Ph.D. His record has trailed off since then. 'It looks like it slowed down considerably,' said Mr. Hirsch, stressing that he has not studied Mr. Gonzalez's work in detail and is not an expert on his tenure case. 'It's not clear that he started new things, or anything on his own, in the period he was an assistant professor at Iowa State.' That pattern may have hurt his case. 'Tenure review only deals with his work since he came to Iowa State,' said John McCarroll, a spokesman for the university." [http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/05/2007052103n.htm Advocate of Intelligent Design Who Was Denied Tenure Has Strong Publications Record] Richard Monastersky. [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]], May, 2007. Subscription needed</ref><ref>Name on 12 original articles and 3 reviews between October 2001 and April 2008; first author on only one article and two reviews. [http://apps.isiknowledge.com ISI Web of Knowledge database], accessed April 25, 2008.</ref> he was not granted [[tenure]] and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." In the previous decade, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the department were not granted tenure.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2007/jun/statement.shtml |title=Statement from Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy |author= [http://www.president.iastate.edu/ Gregory Geoffrey]|accessdate=2007-12-16 |date=[[June 1]], [[2007]] |work=[http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/ News Service: Iowa State University] |publisher=[[Iowa State University]] }}</ref> ''Expelled'' portrays Gonzalez as a victim of religious discrimination and the [[Discovery Institute]] campaign asserts that his intelligent design writings should not have been considered in the review. However, Gonzales listed ''The Privileged Planet'' as part of his tenure review file. Dr. Gregory Tinkler of Iowa Citizens for Science stated that "Being a religious scientist is perfectly normal and acceptable, but scientists are supposed to be able to separate science from non-science, and good research from bad. Academic freedom protects a scientist's ability to do science, not to pass off a political or religious crusade as science."<ref name=CitizensforSciencePandas>{{cite web |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/iowa-citizens-f-1.html#more |title=Iowa Citizens for Science Press Release on Gonzalez Case - The Panda's Thumb |accessdate=2008-03-05 |author=[[Wesley R. Elsberry]] |date= December 12, 2007 |publisher=[[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iowascience.org/?p=37 |title=Iowa Citizens for Science - Gonzalez, Discovery Institute seek to replace science with politics, religion |accessdate=2007-12-16 |format= |work=}}</ref>+ + − ===Caroline Crocker===+ − [[Caroline Crocker]] was a part-time [[cell biology]] lecturer at [[George Mason University]] who became the center of controversy after her lecture taught students demonstrably false creationist material, including claims about intelligent design.<ref name=EECC>{{cite web |url=http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker |title=Expelled Exposed > Caroline Crocker |date=2008 |publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref> − In the film Stein states, "After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt end." However, she continued to teach her course until her contract expired,<ref name=EECC/> and after losing that job repeated the creationist lecture in her other position at [[Northern Virginia Community College]]. A George Mason University spokesman said her contract was not renewed for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design, and that though they wholeheartedly supported academic freedom, "teachers also have a responsibility to stick to subjects they were hired to teach, and intelligent design belonged in a religion class, not biology. Does academic freedom 'literally give you the right to talk about anything, whether it has anything to do with the subject matter or not? The answer is no.'"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html |title=Eden and Evolution |accessdate=2008-02-16 |author=Shankar Vedantam |date=February 5, 2006 |work= |publisher=The [[Washington Post]] |quote=}}</ref> Crocker subsequently had a postdoctoral year at the [[Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences|Uniformed Services University]], and currently has a full time post as executive director of the [[Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center]] which promotes intelligent design clubs at high schools and universities.<ref name=EECC/> − + − [[Robert J. Marks II|Robert Marks]] is an engineering professor and director at [[Baylor University]]<ref>{{cite web+ − | url= http://www.ecs.baylor.edu/engineering/faculty/index.php?id=31104 − | title= Full Vita: Robert J. Marks II − |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= [[Baylor University]] − | accessdate= 2008-04-04 }}</ref> and author of numerous technical books and articles. The Baylor administration asked Marks to return an intelligent design research grant. Marks' collaborator in this project was Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski.<ref name=sbtexan>[http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=5527&issue=1/28/2008 ''Baptist professors featured in new film''], Jerry Pierce, [http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?page=9778&action=getpage&m=p Southern Baptist Texan], January 28, 2008</ref><ref>[http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=5534&issue=1/28/2008 ''Q&A: 'Expelled's' Robert Marks''], Jerry Pierce, [http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?page=9778&action=getpage&m=p Southern Baptist Texan], January 28, 2008</ref> In July and August 2007, they formed the [[Evolutionary Informatics Lab]] (EIL) at Baylor, and posted their work on the subject on a web server hosted by the university. − The university removed the website after receiving complaints that the website appeared to be endorsed by the university. Baylor officials later allowed the website back on their server but required changes be made to the website so that it did not appear to be endorsed by the University.<ref name=ChronHiEd>[http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/09/2007090406n.htm Baylor U. Removes a Web Page Associated With Intelligent Design From Its Site], Elizabeth F. Farrell, [[Chronicle of Higher Education]]-Daily ed., September 4, 2007. subscription required.</ref> − [http://www.evoinfo.org/ Evolutionary Informatics Lab] was reestablished independently of Baylor University. − + − Michael Egnor is a [[Neurosurgery|neurosurgeon]] and a signatory to the [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns]] ''[[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]]'' and ''[[Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism]]''. When a citizen's group in Virginia sponsored an essay contest for high school students on the topic "Why I would want my doctor to have studied evolution", Egnor responded by posting an essay on an intelligent design blog claiming that evolution was irrelevant to medicine. His essay was met with considerable criticism by medical professionals, professors and researchers. In the film, Stein describes this as "Darwinists were quick to try and exterminate this new threat", and Egnor says he was shocked by the "viciousness" and "baseness" of the response. The [[National Center for Science Education]] surmises that "Michael Egnor had apparently never been on the Internet before."<ref name=EEEgnor>{{cite web |url=http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/egnor |title=Expelled Exposed > Michael Egnor |date=2008 |publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]|accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref> − ===Michael Shermer===+ − [[Michael Shermer]] is an author, [[History of science and technology|science historian]], founder of [[The Skeptics Society]], and editor of its magazine [[Skeptic (magazine)|''Skeptic'']], which is largely devoted to investigating and debunking pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. He was interviewed for the movie by Stein and assistant producer [[Mark Mathis]] and described feeling awkward about their motives soon after the interview began. − {{quotation|For my part, the moment I sat down with Stein (with Mathis there) and he asked me that question about firing people for expressing dissenting views a dozen times, I realized that I was being manipulated to give certain answers they were looking for me to give. I asked them both, several times, if they had anything else to ask me about evolutionary theory or Intelligent Design. In frustration I finally said something like "Do you have any other questions to ask me or do you keep asking me this question in hopes that I'll give a different answer?"}}+ − After a break and small talk the interview resumed, but the questions continued to follow a similar vein.+ − {{quotation|Stein finally asked my opinion on people being fired for endorsing Intelligent Design. I replied that I know of no instance where such a firing has happened. This seemingly innocent observation was turned into a filmic confession of ignorance when my on-camera interview abruptly ends there, because when I saw ''Expelled'' at a preview screening... I discovered that the central thesis of the film is a conspiracy theory about the systematic attempt to keep Intelligent Design creationism out of American classrooms and culture.<ref name=Shermer2>{{cite web+ − | url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html − | title=Ben Stein's Blunder − | author=Michael Shermer − | accessdate=2008-04-17 − }}</ref>}} − Shermer has, however, stated that he believes that the film is effective in delivering its message to its target audience.<ref>[http://skepticality.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=323914# ''Skepticality #074 - No Intelligence Allowed! - Interviews: Professor Richard Dawkins and Dr. Michael Shermer''], Skepticality [[podcast]], April 1, 2008.</ref>+ − + − + − In Dawkins' interview, the director focused on when Stein asked Dawkins under what circumstances could intelligent design have occurred.<ref name=lying>{{cite news | url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins | title=Lying for Jesus? | publisher=[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] |date= March 23, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-05-17}}</ref> Dawkins responded with [[Francis Crick]] and [[Leslie Orgel]]'s tongue-in-cheek example that in the case of the "highly unlikely event that some such '[[Panspermia#Directed_panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would ''themselves'' have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent '[[Darwin%27s_Dangerous_Idea#Skyhooks_and_cranes|crane]]' (to quote [[Dan Dennett]])."<ref name=lying /><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dawkins18apr18,0,2798612.story | title=Gods and earthlings | publisher=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date= April 18, 2008 | first=Richard | last=Dawkins | accessdate =2008-04-17}}</ref>+ + + − ===PZ Myers===+ − − | url= http://www.morris.umn.edu/academic/biology/faculty.html#myers − | title= Paul Myers, Associate Professor of Biology − | publisher= [[University of Minnesota Morris]] − | accessdate= 2008-04-04 }} </ref> and the author of the science [[blog]] [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]]. In the film he is portrayed as a member of "Big Science". − + − The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including Myers, Dawkins,<ref>{{cite web | author = MacAskill, Ewen | url =http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2178958,00.html | title =Dawkins rails at 'creationist front' for duping him into film role | work = [[Guardian Unlimited]]|date= [[September 28]], [[2007]] }}</ref> Shermer,<ref>John Rennie and Steve Mirsky, [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=2 Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know] ''[[Scientific American]]'' April 16, 2008</ref> and [[National Center for Science Education]] head [[Eugenie Scott]], who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named ''Crossroads'' on the "intersection of science and religion", with a [[blurb]]<ref>{{cite web+ − | title ="Crossroads" synopsis+ − | publisher =Rampant Films+ − | url =http://rampantfilms.com/+ − | accessdate =2007-12-12 }}, under "Properties" menu, select "Crossroads" icon+ − </ref> which described the strong support that had been accumulated for evolution, and contrasted this with the religious who rejected it, and the controversy this caused.<ref name=star>{{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php |title=I'm gonna be a ☆ MOVIE STAR ☆ |accessdate=2007-09-28 |author=[[PZ Myers]] |date=[[2007-08-22]] |work=[[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] |publisher=[[Scienceblogs]], [[Seed (magazine)|Seed Media Group]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/expelled_producer_seems_to_be.php|title=Expelled producer seems to be embarrassed about his sneaky tactics |accessdate=2007-09-28 |author=[[PZ Myers]] |date=[[2007-08-28]] |work=[[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] |publisher=[[Scienceblogs]], [[Seed (magazine)|Seed Media Group]]}}</ref><ref>[http://chronicle.com/news/article/3124/scientists-say-intelligent-design-movies-producers-deceived-them-into-participating ''Scientists Say Intelligent-Design Movie's Producers Deceived Them Into Participating''], [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/9803/forum/life_bio.html Richard Monastersky], [http://chronicle.com/news/ News Blog], [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]], [[September 27]], [[2007]]</ref>+ − {{quotation|It has been the central question of humanity through the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, "The Origin of Species". In the century and a half since, geologists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin's idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. The conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across America and beyond.|Defunct Rampant Films site for ''Crossroads''<ref>quoted at [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background/interview-tactics Expelled Exposed: Questionable Interview Tactics], [[National Centre for Science Education]]</ref>}}+ + + + + − However, the movie was actually pitched to Stein as an anti-Darwin picture:+ − + − Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis' Final Solution to their so-called "Jewish problem" and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally.|Ben Stein|Mocked and Belittled|[[World Magazine]]<ref>[http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13926 Mocked and Belittled], an interview with Ben Stein, [[World Magazine]]</ref>}}+ − + − On learning of the pro-intelligent design stance of the real film, Myers said, "not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of [[quote-mining]] and is fundamentally dishonest."<ref name="star"/> Dawkins said, "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front", and Scott said, "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren't."<ref name="nyt"/>+ − − Mathis called Myers, Dawkins and Scott a "bunch of hypocrites", and said that he "went over all of the questions with these folks before the interviews and I e-mailed the questions to many of them days in advance".<ref name="Lifesite">{{cite web |author=LifeSiteNews.com|publisher=[http://lifesitenews.com/ LifeSiteNews.com]|url=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/oct/07100505.html |title=Atheist Scientists in Uproar|date=[[2007-10-05]] |accessdate=2007-10-05 |format= |work=}}</ref><ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/10-04-2007/0004675856&EDATE=THU+Oct+04+2007,+08:00+AM ''Atheist Scientists in Uproar over Movie: EXPELLED''], [[PR Newswire]], [[Los Angeles]], [[October 4]], [[2007]]</ref> − [[Roy Speckhardt]], executive director of the [[American Humanist Association]] wrote a [[letter to the editor]] of the ''[[New York Times]]'', writing, "If one needs to believe in a god to be moral, why are we seeing yet another case of dishonesty by the devout? Why were leading scientists deceived as to the intentions of a religious group of filmmakers?"<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2DC123EF937A35753C1A9619C8B63 ''Humanists vs. Evangelicals''], [[Roy Speckhardt]], [[New York Times]], [[September 27]], [[2007]], Published: [[October 4]], [[2007]].</ref> − − ==Charles Darwin quotation issue== − In support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired [[Nazism]], Ben Stein attributes the following statement to [[Charles Darwin]]'s book ''[[The Descent of Man]]'':<ref name=6things>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...], John Rennie and Steve Mirsky, [[Scientific American]], April 16, 2008</ref> − {{quotation|With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.}} − − Stein stops there, then names Darwin as the author in a way that suggests that Darwin provided a rationale for the activities of the Nazis. However, the original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) ('''words that Stein omitted shown in bold''') and the very next sentences in the book state:<ref name=sciamMine>{{cite web |url=http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=61D30BEB-A65E-7583-BB264FABBD4CD879 |title=Scientific American: Never You Mine: Ben Stein's Selective Quoting of Darwin |accessdate=2008-04-19 }}</ref><ref name=6things/> − − {{quotation|<p>With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; '''and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health'''. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; '''we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox'''. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. '''It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself,''' hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.</p> − − <p>'''The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.'''<ref name=descent>[[Charles Darwin]] (1871) ''[[The Descent of Man]]'', 1st edition, [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=181 pages 168 -169].</ref></p>}} − − The Expelled Exposed website also points out that the same misleading selective quotation from this passage was used by anti-evolutionist [[William Jennings Bryan]] in the 1925 [[Scopes Trial]], but the full passage makes it clear that Darwin was not advocating [[eugenics]]. The eugenics movement relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity, and by the 1920s evolutionary biologists were criticizing eugenics. [[Clarence Darrow]], who defended the teaching of human evolution in the Scopes trial, wrote a scathing repudiation of eugenics.<ref name=hitler-eugenics/> − − ==Copyright controversies== − {{main|Copyright controversy of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed}} − {{wikinews|'Expelled' producers accused of copyright violations}} − In pre-screenings of the film, [[animation]] sequences portraying the internal functioning of cells as having machine-like complexity were seen to resemble a video from [[Harvard University]] entitled ''[[The Inner Life of the Cell]]'' produced by XVIVO,<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/about_that_cell_video_in_expel.php ''About that cell video in Expelled...''], [[PZ Myers]], [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] [[blog]], March 23, 2008.</ref> which intelligent design proponent [[William Dembski]] had used in lectures until he was stopped in November 2007.<ref name=ERVYah>{{cite web |url=http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/03/yah-about-that-cell-video-in-expelled.html |title=ERV: Yah, about that cell video in EXPELLED... |author= SA Smith |date=March 23, 2008 |accessdate=2008-05-04}}</ref><ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/molecular-animations/news-release-harvards-xvivo-video/ News Release: Harvard's XVIVO Video], [[William Dembski]], Uncommon Descent blog, 27 November 2007</ref> XVIVO issued the film producers a [[cease and desist|cease-and-desist]] letter on [[April 9]], [[2008]], alleging infringement of [[copyright]].<ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/301_expelled_producers_accused_of__4_9_2008.asp ''Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement''], [[National Center for Science Education]] [[website]], April 9, 2008.</ref> The producers then filed a suit claiming that they owned the copyright on animations in the film,<ref>{{cite news | url=http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txndce/case_no-3:2008cv00639/case_id-175993/ | title=Premise Media Corporation LP et al v. XVIVO L.L.C. | publisher=[[Justia.com]] | date=April 11, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2008-11-04}}</ref> and a different animation was publicized, apparently as a substitute.<ref name=slapp>[http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/04/premise-lawsuits-toddler-animations-and.html Premise Lawsuits, Toddler Animations, and a Final Resolution] SA Smith, ERV, April 16, 2008.</ref> Other animation segments in the film have also been questioned.<ref name=aggro>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/expelled_draws_more_aggro.php ''Expelled draws more aggro''], [[PZ Myers]], [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] [[weblog]], April 15, 2008.</ref> − − The film includes a portion of [[John Lennon]]'s song "[[Imagine (song)|Imagine]]", which led the copyright holder [[Yoko Ono]] to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement on [[April 23]], [[2008]]. Ono's lawyer stated that the film had failed to license its use of the song, while the film's producers responded by claiming protection under the [[fair use doctrine]].<ref name=wsj>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap] Ethan Smith. Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2008.</ref> In response to the lawsuit, a federal judge in New York issued an [[injunction]] preventing the further distribution of the film pending a hearing on May 19.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/05/injunction_against_expelled.php|title= Injunction Against Expelled|accessdate= 2008-05-05|last= Brayton|first= Ed|authorlink= Ed Brayton|date= 2008-05-04|work= [[Dispatches from the Culture Wars]]|publisher= [[ScienceBlogs]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2008/05/03/flunked-not-expelled-expelled-enjoined/|title= Flunked, Not Expelled: Expelled Enjoined|accessdate= 2007-05-05|last= Elsberry|first= Wesley R.|authorlink= Wesley R. Elsberry|date= 2008-05-03|work= [[The Austringer]]}}</ref> A song by [[The Killers (band)|The Killers]] is used in the film under a license which the band's manager said was obtained by misleading them about the film.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/ben-stein-yoko-ono-on-lin_b_97174.html |title=Ben Stein: Yoko Ono On Line One (And The Killers Are On Hold) |last=Boyce |first=James |date=2008-04-17 |work=[[The Huffington Post]] |accessdate=2008-05-12}}</ref> − − ==Academic Freedom bills== − {{main|Academic Freedom bills}} − Since 2004 a series of anti-evolution [[Academic Freedom bills]] have been introduced in [[State legislature (United States)|State legislatures]] in the [[United States]], based on the claims by the [[Discovery Institute]] that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection.<ref name=DIStatute>[http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php Academic Freedom Act]</ref> The [[Wall Street Journal]] describes the bills as aiming to expose more students to anti-evolution articles and videos produced by advocates of [[intelligent design]] or Biblical [[creationism]]. There were pre-release screenings of ''Expelled'' for [[Florida]] and [[Missouri]] legislators in support of Academic Freedom bills in those states.<ref name=WSJschools/> − − The Florida screening, held in the [[IMAX]] Theater of the [[Challenger Center for Space Science Education|Challenger Learning Center]] of [[Tallahassee, Florida| Tallahassee]] on [[March 12]], [[2008]], was restricted to legislators, their spouses, and their legislative aides, with the press and public excluded. Under the Florida [[Freedom of information in the United States|sunshine law]] they had to watch the film without discussing the issue or arranging any future votes.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/NEWS0120/80311045/1075 |title=Legislature invited to movie about creationism debate : news-press.com : The News-Press |accessdate=2008-03-13 |format= |work=}}</ref> Commenting on this, and the controversy over Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel managing to view the film against the wishes of the film company, House Democratic leader [[Dan Gelber]] of [[Miami Beach]] stated, − "It's kind of an irony: The public is expelled from a movie called Expelled."<ref name=03/10/2008MiamiHerald/><ref name=03/10/2008MiamiHerald>{{cite web |url=http://www.miamiherald.com/458/story/451272.html |title=Ben Stein weighs in on evolution fight - 03/10/2008 - MiamiHerald.com |accessdate=2008-03-11 |author=Marc Caputo |date=March 10, 2008 |work= |publisher=[[Miami Herald]] }}</ref> The screening was attended by about 100 people, but few were legislators,<ref name=lawm>{{cite web |url=http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/CAPITOLNEWS/803130323/1067/RSS15 |title=Lawmakers attend Tallahassee screening of movie by Ben Stein : tallahassee.com : Tallahassee Democrat |accessdate=2008-03-14 |format= |work=}}</ref> and the majority of legislators stayed away.<ref name=eyes>{{cite web |url=http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/OPINION01/803140322/1006/OPINION |title=Eyes wide open : tallahassee.com : Tallahassee Democrat |accessdate=2008-03-14 }}</ref><ref name=Newlegislation/> − − Shortly before the film's general release, its producer Walt Ruloff held a press conference at the [[Heritage Foundation]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] on [[April 15]], and announced his plans to use the film as part of a campaign to pass academic freedom bills in a variety of American states.<ref>[http://reason.com/news/show/125988.html ''Flunk this Movie!''], Ronald Bailey, [[Reason magazine]], April 16, 2008</ref> At least one Discovery Institute press conference on the bills has included a screening of ''Expelled''.<ref name=NewScientist12April2008 /> − − ==Reaction== − {{main|Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed}} − ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' was not screened in advance for film critics,<ref name="MeansSLT">{{cite news | url=http://www.sltrib.com/arts/ci_8903065 | title=Hiding 'Expelled' from critics a not-so-intelligent move | publisher=[[Salt Lake Tribune]] | date=April 12, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2008-08-18}}</ref> and when the film was released it received generally negative reviews. As of [[April 26]], 2008, the review aggregator [[Rotten Tomatoes]] reported that 3 critics gave the film positive reviews and 30 gave negative ones.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ |title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes |accessdate=2008-04-26 |publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]}}</ref> [[Metacritic]] reported the film had an average score of 20 out of 100, based on 13 reviews.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/expellednointelligenceallowed |title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008): Reviews |accessdate=2008-04-26 |publisher=[[Metacritic]]}}</ref> − − Response to the movie from conservative Christian groups and the Discovery Institute has been mostly (but not exclusively<ref name=MovieMom>{{cite web |url=http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/2008/04/expelled-no-intelligence-allow.html |title=Beliefnet: Movie Mom - Movie Mom Nell Minow reviews movies and DVDs to advise parents|accessdate=2008-04-19}}</ref>) positive, largely praising the movie for its humor and for focusing on what they perceive as a serious issue.<ref name=cwfa>[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/14428/CFI/misc/index.htm Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], including [[podcast]], [http://www.cwfa.org/cfi/ Culture and Family Issues], [http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp Concerned Women for America website], [[December 27]], [[2007]]</ref><ref name="olasky">[http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13903 ''Seriously funny: Ben Stein takes on the debate-phobic Darwinian establishment''], Marvin Olasky, ''[[World Magazine]]'', Vol. 23, No. 7, April 05, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2007/12/06/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_four_st ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Four Stars''], Tom Magnuson, [[Access Research Network]] [[blog]], [[December 6]], [[2007]].</ref> One otherwise critical review in the mainstream press praised the movie for highlighting the idea of academic freedom.<ref name=moore/> Not all conservative reaction has been positive; conservative [[National Review]] columnist [[John Derbyshire]] described the movie as "creationist porn" and "propaganda for ignorance and obscurantism."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=&w=MA== |title=A Blood Libel on Our Civilization||accessdate=2008-04-30 |publisher=[[National Review]]}}</ref> − − Response from other critics was largely negative, particularly from those in the science media. The film's extensive use of [[Michael Moore]]-style devices was commented upon,<ref name=moore> [http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html ''Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism?''], Roger Moore, Frankly My Dear... Movies with Roger Moore, [[The Orlando Sentinel]], February 1, 2008</ref><ref name=CC/><ref name=NS>Gefter, Amanda: [http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/03/are-id-proponents-being-silenced.html Short Sharp Science: Are ID proponents being silenced?] (blog), ''[[New Scientist]]'', [[March 24]], [[2008]].</ref><ref name=NSArticle>{{Citation|last=Gefter|first=Amanda|publisher=New Scientist|title=Warning! They've got designs on you|date=[[12 April]] [[2008]]|page=46|url=http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19826512.100-film-review-iexpelled-no-intelligence-allowedi.html}}</ref> but the film was widely considered unamusing and unsubtle,<ref name=moore/> boring, poorly made,<ref name=FOX>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 '' Ben Stein: Win His Career''], Roger Friedman, [[Fox News]], April 9, 2008</ref> unconvincing,<ref name=NS/><ref name=moore/> insulting,<ref name=NYTR/><ref>[http://www.tvguide.com/movies/expelled-intelligence-allowed/review/293361 Review of ''Expelled'' at tvguide.com]</ref> and offensive to the religious.<ref>[http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Calendar/Film?Film=oid%3A612799 Savlov, Mark; Review of ''Expelled'' at austinchronicle.com; [[April 25]], 2008]</ref> − − The film's rhetorical approach was subject to much criticism, widely considered to be misleading and dishonest<ref name=CC>{{cite web |url=http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3229 |title=Colorado Confidential: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies |accessdate=2008-02-16 |author=[http://www.newwest.net/member/bio/13005/ Dan Whipple]|date=[[December 16]], [[2007]] |format= |work= |publisher=[[Colorado Confidential]] }}</ref><ref name=Guardian>{{cite web − | url= http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,2268344,00.html − | title= "A step to the right" − |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= − |date= [[March 28]], [[2008]] |publisher= ''The Guardian'' − |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= − | accessdate= 2008-04-04 }} </ref><ref name="sciam-shermer">{{cite web |url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer |title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin |accessdate=2008-04-19 |last=Shermer |first=Michael |date=2008-04-09 |publisher=Scientific American}}</ref> and was compared to that used by [[Big Tobacco]]<ref name=moore/> and [[propaganda]].<ref name="sciam-shermer"/><ref name=NS/><ref name="sciam-rennie">{{cite web |url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie |title=Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed |accessdate=2008-04-19 |last=Rennie |first=John |date=2008-04-08 |publisher=Scientific American}}</ref> The movie's use of Holocaust imagery (and other techniques)<ref name=NS/> to demonize evolution and those working in the field was a particular cause of concern and was considered distasteful<ref name=moore/><ref name=FOX/><ref name="sciam-rennie"/> and manipulative of the audience,<ref name=NSArticle /> with many critics surprised that Stein, a Jew, was involved in a movie which exploited the Holocaust in a "dishonest" way.<ref name=FOX/><ref name="sciam-rennie"/> Several writers wondered whether Stein was involved for purely mercenary reasons and some expressed concern for his career direction and the film's effect on his reputation.<ref name=moore/><ref name=Guardian/><ref name=FOX/> The film's evasiveness with regards to factual information was criticized, in particular that the movie failed to coherently define either evolution or intelligent design,<ref name=moore/><ref name=CC/><ref name=NS/> or to adequately explain the nature of the scientific debate, in particular omitting pertinent facts regarding the "expelled" scientists.<ref name=CC/><ref name="sciam-rennie"/> The movie was further derided for a lack of historical accuracy with regards to [[Stalinism]] and the [[Holocaust]], regardless of evolution's involvement in either.<ref name="sciam-rennie"/> − − The movie's promotional campaign also raised eyebrows, with many reviewers characterizing it as an attempt to drum up support from those who already agreed with its viewpoint while shielding the film from outside appraisal.<ref name=moore/><ref name="MeansSLT"/> Many were of the opinion that the movie is 'preaching to the converted',<ref name=CC/><ref name="sciam-rennie"/> and at least one reviewer was concerned that those asking questions at preview screenings were planted.<ref name=NS/> There were also fears that the film was another step towards "sneaking" the teaching of intelligent design into schools.<ref name=NSArticle /> − − On April 18, 2008, the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] (AAAS) issued a statement about ''Expelled''. The AAAS was "especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called 'Expelled' are inappropriately pitting science against religion." <ref name="AAASPressRelease">{{cite news | url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0418expelled.shtml | title=New AAAS Statement Decries "Profound Dishonesty" of Intelligent Design Movie | publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] |date= April 18, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-04-20}}</ref> The statement "further decries the profound dishonesty and lack of civility demonstrated by this effort," and said the movie "seeks to force religious viewpoints into science class – despite court decisions that have struck down efforts to bring creationism and intelligent design into schools." <ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/media/0418aaas_statement.pdf | title=Statement of AAAS Regarding the Importance of the Integrity of Science as Depicted in Film | publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] |date= April 18, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-04-20}}</ref> − − The [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] describes the film as dishonest and divisive, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms,<ref name="AAASPressRelease">{{cite news | url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0418expelled.shtml | title=New AAAS Statement Decries "Profound Dishonesty" of Intelligent Design Movie | publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] |date= April 18, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-04-20}}</ref> and the film is being used in private screenings to legislators as part of the [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns|Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign]] for [[Academic Freedom bills]].<ref name=WSJschools>{{cite web |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120967537476060561.html?mod=googlenews_wsj |title=Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools|author=Stephanie Simon |date=May 2, 2008 |publisher=[[Wall Street Journal]] |accessdate=2008-05-03}}</ref> − − − ===Box office=== − As of May 13, 2008, ''Expelled'' had grossed over $7 million and was ranked twelfth-highest-grossing in the documentary film genre in the United States from 1982 to the present, figures not adjusted for inflation. − <ref name=mojorank> − {{cite web − |url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm − |title=Documentary Movies − |publisher=www.boxofficemojo.com − |accessdate=2008-05-13 − |last= − |first= − }} − </ref> − ''Expelled'' opened in 1,052 theaters (the most ever for a documentary),<ref name=NewScientist12April2008 /> earning $2,970,848 for its opening weekend with a $2,824 theater average.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm | title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Box Office Analysis | publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]] |date= April 21, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-04-21}}</ref> Subsequently, in the second weekend it earned $1,394,940 at 1,041 theaters ($1,340 per theater), in the third weekend it earned $678,304 at 656 theaters ($1,034 per theater), its fourth weekend it earned $328,836 at 402 theaters ($818 per theater).<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=expelled.htm | title=Daily Expelled Numbers | publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]] |date= 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-05-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/numbers.php | title=Expelled Numbers | publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] |date= May 1, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-05-21}}</ref> Originally, Walt Ruloff, the movie's executive producer, "said the film could top the $23.9-million opening for Michael Moore's polemic against President Bush, ''[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]'', the best launch ever for − a documentary."<ref name="projector">{{cite news | url=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-projector18apr18,1,4982009.story? | title='Expelled' could exceed box-office forecasts | publisher=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date= April 18, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-04-18}}</ref> Reviewing ''Expelled's'' opening box office figures, Nikki Finke of the [[Los Angeles Weekly]] wrote that considering the number of screens showing the film, the ticket sales were "feeble", demonstrating "there wasn't any pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/jet-and-jackie-nudge-out-judd-on-friday/ | title=Ben Stein Shows He's No Michael Moore | publisher=[[Los Angeles Weekly]] |date= April 19, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-04-19}}</ref> Referring to its opening weekend, Joshua Rich of [[Entertainment Weekly]] said the movie "was a solid top-10 contender" and "[t]hat's a very respectable total for a documentary, although non-fiction fare rarely opens in 1,052 theaters."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20193285,00.html | title='Forbidden Kingdom' Rules the Box Office | publisher=[[Entertainment Weekly]] |date= April 20, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-04-20}}</ref> In contrast, [[Lew Irwin]] (StudioBriefing) wrote that the film "flopped", and "failed to bring out church groups in big numbers".<ref>{{cite news | url=http://us.imdb.com/news/sb/2008-04-21/ | title=Studio Briefing: 21 April 2008 | publisher=[[IMDB]] |date= April 21, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2007-04-21}}</ref> − − ==Promotion== − The promotion of the film is being managed by Motive Marketing, which was responsible for promoting ''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'', ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia (film series)|The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', and ''[[The Polar Express (film)|The Polar Express]]''.<ref>[http://www.moviemarketing.biz/recentprojects.html Recent Projects], [http://www.moviemarketing.biz/index.html Motive Marketing website]</ref> A total of four [[public relations]] firms have been hired.<ref>[http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/04/04/expelled_movie/ ''Is film's marketing intelligently designed?''], [[Marketplace (radio program)|Marketplace]], [[American Public Media]], April 4, 2008.</ref> The film's website includes [[Trailer (film)|trailer]]s, additional material, press articles, and a [[blog]]. The blog's first entry was an [[open letter]] from Ben Stein which explains his personal premise for the movie. Stein utilizes arguments based on [[Academic freedom|freedom of inquiry]], [[teleology]] and the beliefs of historically prominent scientists. He also says that the modern American scientific establishment is "a new anti-religious [[wikt:dogma|dogmatism]]". The letter says that [[Galileo]], [[Sir Isaac Newton]] and [[Albert Einstein]] based their work and discoveries on creationist assumptions, and that they would not be allowed to pursue their science in the anti-religious scientific atmosphere that exists today.<ref name=letter>[http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#more-4 ''Ben Stein's Introductory Blog''], [[Ben Stein]], [[August 21]], [[2007]].</ref> − − The film's website asks for submissions of personal stories of discrimination against students for suggesting design or questioning Darwinian theory, with the enticement that a winning story, or stories, will be featured in the film.<ref name=shoutout>[http://expelledthemovie.com/shoutout.php MOVIE CONTEST] Premise Media Corporation, Accessed November 2007</ref> − − To publicize the film, Ben Stein appeared on the cable television show ''[[The O'Reilly Factor]]''. Intelligent design was described by [[Bill O'Reilly (commentator)|Bill O'Reilly]] as the idea that "a deity created life", and Stein stated that "There's no doubt about it. We have lots and lots of evidence of it in the movie. And you know Einstein worked within the framework of believing there was a god. Newton worked within the framework of believing there was a god. For gosh sakes Darwin worked within the framework of believing there was a god. And yet, somehow, today you're not allowed to believe it. Why can't we have as much freedom as Darwin had?"<ref name=oreilly>{{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/official_denial_unofficial_end.php |title=Pharyngula: Official denial, unofficial endorsement |accessdate=2007-12-16 |author=PZ Myers |authorlink=PZ Myers |date=[[October 24]], [[2007]] |publisher=[[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] }}</ref> The Discovery Institute quickly issued a statement that when Bill O'Reilly conflated intelligent design with creationism he was mistakenly defining it as an attempt to find a divine designer, and regretting that "Ben referred to the 'gaps' in Darwin's theory, as if those are the only issues that intelligent design theory addresses." It went on to assert that "intelligent design also provides a robust positive case, and a serious scientific research approach", a claim that had been explicitly refuted in the ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' [[court case]].<ref name=idnotCreationism>{{cite web |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/intelligent_design_is_not_crea.html |title=Evolution News & Views: Intelligent Design is Not Creationism (No Matter What Bill O'Reilly Thinks) |accessdate=2007-12-16 |author=[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=215 Robert Crowther] |date=[[October 24]], [[2007]] |publisher=[[Discovery Institute]] }}</ref><ref name="Kscience">[[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#4. Whether ID is Science|Kitzmiller v. Dover:4. Whether ID is Science]]</ref> − − In advance of the film's release, executive director Walt Ruloff, and producers Mark Mathis and Logan Craft provided interviews to various Christian media outlets, explaining what they thought of the movie, why people should see the movie, and why it would have an impact on the evolution debate.<ref name=idI>[http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-08-27T14_35_24-07_00 ''Expelling Dogma: Executive Producer Walt Ruloff and Expelled (Part I)''], [http://www.idthefuture.com/ ID the Future] [[podcast]], [[August 27]], [[2007]].</ref><ref name=idII>[http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/08/nothing_up_his_sleeve_executiv.html ''Nothing Up His Sleeve: Executive Producer Walt Ruloff and Expelled (Part II)''], [http://www.idthefuture.com/ ID the Future] [[podcast]], [[August 27]], [[2007]].</ref><ref name=Mathis>[http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html ''Interview with Mark Mathis, producer of "Expelled" with Ben Stein''], Bill Greene Show, January 11, 2008</ref><ref name=idI2>[http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2008-02-04T15_39_42-08_00# ''Behind the Scenes with Expelled Associate Producer''], [http://www.idthefuture.com/ ID the Future] [[podcast]], [[February 4]], [[2008]].</ref><ref name=craft>[http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=5533&issue=1/28/2008 ''Q&A: 'Expelled' producer Logan Craft''], Jerry Pierce, [http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?page=9778&action=getpage&m=p Southern Baptist Texan], January 28, 2008</ref> − − Producers also gave away a free, limited edition Ben Stein [[bobblehead|bobblehead doll]] to anyone who brought 25 people to see the movie.<ref name="projector"/> − − ===The "Expelled Challenge"=== − In order to promote the film, the website "GetExpelled.com"<ref> http://www.getexpelled.com/index.php , a website "specifically designed for students, teachers, pastors, youth leaders and organizations to provide useful tools and resources to promote the ideas surrounding [the film]".</ref> launched "The Expelled Challenge"<ref>[http://www.getexpelled.com/schools.php Take the Expelled Challenge: Raise money for your school!]</ref> which offers to pay schools up to [[United States dollar|$]]10,000 to send students to see the movie. The program offers between $5 and $10 for every ticket stub submitted by the school within the first two weeks of the release of the film.<ref name = ChallengeFAQ>[http://www.getexpelled.com/challengefaq.php Expelled Challenge FAQ page]</ref> [[Wesley R. Elsberry]] noted that at the upper end of the range, the value of the reward is probably greater than the actual ticket price.<ref name = Austringer/> − − The program also recommends a "school-wide mandatory field trip" as "the best way to maximize your school's earning potential".<ref name = ChallengeFAQ/><ref>Q: What's the best way to get our school families to come out to the movies?<br>A: In speaking with Christian Schools, we've found that hosting a school-wide "mandatory" field trip is the best way to maximize your school's earning potential. Send a field trip home with your middle school and high school students, have each child pay for their own ticket, then collect the stubs at the door once you get to the movie theater. With this model, you also will be able to benefit from the ticket stubs purchased by parents who choose to come as well. [http://www.getexpelled.com/challengefaq.php Expelled Challenge FAQ page]</ref> Elsberry criticizes this as a call to "take children away from classrooms, fill their heads with obnoxiously delivered misinformation, and profit off of it."<ref name = Austringer>{{cite web|url= http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2008/01/16/flunked-not-expelled-gaming-the-movie-ratings/|title= Flunked, Not Expelled: Gaming the Movie Ratings|accessdate= 2008-01-16|last= Elsberry|first= Wesley R.|authorlink= Wesley R. Elsberry|date= 16 January 2008 |work= The Austringer|quote= }}</ref> − − A similar program called the "Adopt-A-Theater Campaign" was announced in March 2008. The goal is to produce a competition among church groups and other organizations to see which can generate the largest group sale of movie theater tickets to see the film. The five largest groups to register and attend a screening will be awarded $1,000.<ref>[http://getexpelled.com/groupsalesapplication.php ''Adopt-A-Theater for the chance to win $1000!!''], [http://getexpelled.com/index.php Get Expelled] [[website]]</ref><ref>[http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2008/03/29/flunked-not-expelled-cant-get-buzz-offer-more-kickbacks/ ''Flunked, Not Expelled: Can't Get Buzz? Offer More Kickbacks''], [[Wesley R. Elsberry]], [[The Austringer]] [[weblog]], March 29, 2008.</ref> − − ===Press conferences=== − Stein and the producers held a 50 minute telephone press conference in late January 2008. Dan Whipple of ''[[Colorado Confidential]]'' reported that journalists had to submit their questions by email in advance for screening, and at the conference "softball" questions were posed by Paul Lauer, a representative of the film's public relations firm. Only four outside questions were used, all from Christian organizations with only two of them from "the press". Questions came from the policy/lobbying groups [[Focus on the Family]] and the [[Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission]] of the [[Southern Baptist Convention]], the Christian program ''Listen Up TV'', and the ''Colorado Catholic Herald''. Whipple described ''Expelled'' as appearing to be anti-rational, and cited Stein describing problems with Darwin's Theory of Evolution as being the unanswered questions "Where did life come from?... How did the cell get so complex? ... Assuming it all did happen by Random Mutation and Natural Selection, where did the laws of gravity come from. Where did the laws of thermodynamics come from? Where did the laws of motion and, of heat come from?"<ref name=BraverScientists/> − − Producer Walt Ruloff said that they had interviewed "hundreds and hundreds of scientists who wouldn't even talk" because of their fears for their career prospects if they strayed from the current orthodoxy or from a "Darwinian position". Whipple contrasted this with his own experience of interviewing many scientists holding very unorthodox ideas who were "forthright, diligent and feverishly eager to promote their ideas", and not finding any refusing to defend their research.<ref name=BraverScientists>{{cite web |url=http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3463 |title=Colorado Confidential: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled' |accessdate=2008-02-16 |author=[http://www.newwest.net/member/bio/13005/ Dan Whipple] |date=[[February 15]], [[2008]]|work= |publisher=[[Colorado Confidential]] }}</ref> − − Another telephone press conference was held March 28, 2008.<ref name=NewsLI>[http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Y4h4NI4zYakJ:www.newsli.com/2008/03/26/ben-steins-controversial-film-expelled-tops-the-blogosphere/+%22Ben+Stein%E2%80%99s+Controversial+Film+%E2%80%9CExpelled%E2%80%9D+Tops+the+Blogosphere%22+NewsLI&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us ''Ben Stein's Controversial Film "Expelled" Tops the Blogosphere''], posted by News LI Editor, edited by C. Cuizon, [http://www.newsli.com/ NewsLI.com], Society section, March 26, 2008.</ref> PZ Myers listened in on the initial part of this press conference, and then (having heard the password to talk into the call during pre-conference chatter) challenged the producers for "lying". The producers were flustered when Myers confronted them with the information that there had been [[persecution of Jews]] long before Charles Darwin's theory. Myers asked them if they had ever heard of the word "[[pogrom]]". At this, the producers said that Myers was dishonestly listening to the telephone conference, and Myers was asked to leave the conference call. He did so, after first providing the press with an email address where he could be contacted.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php ''I always aim to misbehave''], [[PZ Myers]], [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] [[blog]], March 28, 2008 </ref><ref>[http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=1190 ''Audio of PZ Myers Crashing the Expelled Teleconference''], Rebecca Watson, [http://skepchick.org/blog/ Skepchick] [[blog]], March 28, 2008.</ref> − − On March 28, 2008, many members of the staff at Scientific American were invited to view the film. After which, they began an interview with Mark Mathis which was recorded and is hosted on their website.<ref name=sciammathis>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis]</ref> In the interview, Mathis says the overt use of Nazi imagery and quote-mining of scientists was not his decision, but that of his superiors. He concedes that the cases of the scientists shown in the film are inflated (again, not his decision) and makes erroneous claims regarding the Dover vs. Kitzmiller case which the editors factcheck on the same page. − − ===Promotional efforts by others=== − The film was promoted by [[Christian]] media<ref>{{cite web |publisher=[http://www.christiancinema.com ChristianCinema.com]|url=http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=431 |title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed |date=[[2007-09-23]]|accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}.<br>• [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840 ''Ben Stein to battle Darwin in major film: Actor-commentator stars in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''], [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/resources/about_WND.asp WorldNetDaily], [[September 28]], [[2007]].<br>• [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070928/29497_Ben_Stein_Confronts_Dominance_of_Darwinian_Thought_in_New_Film.htm ''Ben Stein Confronts Dominance of Darwinian Thought in New Film: Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism''], Katherine T. Phan, [[Christian Post]], [[September 28]], [[2007]].<br>• [http://au.christiantoday.com/article/ben-stein-exposes-the-frightening-agenda-of-the-darwinian-machine-in-new-movie-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/3281.htm ''Ben Stein exposes the frightening agenda of the Darwinian Machine in new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''], [[Christian Today]], [[Australia]]n [[edition]], [[September 23]], [[2007]].<br>• [http://www.frcblog.com/2007/11/expelled_live_lecture_webcast.html ''"Expelled" Live Lecture Webcast at 11:00AM EST''], [[Family Research Council]] [[blog]], [[November 28]], [[2007]].<br>• [http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10252 ''New documentary to expose academic punishment for those against Big Bang Theory''], [http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ Catholic News Agency], [[August 29]], [[2007]].</ref> and by organizations affiliated with the [[Discovery Institute]].<ref>{{cite web |publisher=[[Access Research Network]] |date=[[2007-09-24]]|url=http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2007/09/24/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed |title=In the News - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref><ref name = future>{{cite web |publisher=[http://www.idthefuture.com/ ID the future]|date=[[2007-09-22]]|url=http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/08/new_video_podcast_expelled_no.html |title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed the new film on the ID controversy |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref><ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/4182 ''What Happened to Freedom of Speech? Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''], Premise Media, [[Center for Science and Culture]], [[Discovery Institute]], [[August 22]], [[2007]]</ref> As part of the [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Campaigns claiming discrimination|Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns claiming discrimination]] one of the organization's websites, ''Intelligent Design the Future'', said that ''Expelled'' "reveals the stark truth: Darwinists have been conspiring to keep design out of classrooms, out of journals, and out of public discourse."<ref name = future/> − The Discovery Institute published more than twenty articles featuring on its evolutionnews.org website and blog, tying its promotion of Expelled in with its effort to pass the "[[Academic Freedom Bill]]" in Florida.<ref name=RemFlorAcadFreeBill>{{cite web |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/prepared_remarks_for_florida_a.html |title= Prepared Remarks for Florida Academic Freedom Bill Press Conference |accessdate=2008-04-17 |date=2008 |format=html |publisher=http://www.discovery.org }}</ref> − − Georgia Purdom of the [[young earth creationist]] organization [[Answers in Genesis]] commented that the film was to show "expelled" individuals from the [[intelligent design movement]] rather than biblical creationists. She and other [[creation science|creation scientists]] also had difficulties in getting their research published in scientific journals, as their presuppositions were based on [[Bible|God's Word]], but the journal's reviewers had presuppositions based on human reason. Purdom noted that Ben Stein wants everyone to have access to the "truth" regardless of their beliefs, in accordance with the intelligent design "[[big tent]]" approach, but considered it a problem as truths would differ if based on [[agnosticism|agnostic]] human reason, the [[Muslim]] [[Koran]], or the born-again Christian reading of the Bible.<ref name=Purdom>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/12/17/expelled-the-movie ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_purdom.asp Georgia Purdom], AiG–U.S., [[Answers in Genesis]] website, [[December 17]], [[2007]].</ref> − − Ray Bohlin of [[Probe Ministries]] also wrote about the upcoming film on his website.<ref name=Bohlin>[http://www.probe.org/hot-topics/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed.html ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''], [http://www.probe.org/content/view/1008/41/ Ray Bohlin], [[Probe Ministries]] [[website]]</ref> He also stated that it was possible to doubt Darwin in biology [[graduate school]] in the 1980s, but it is no longer possible because of increasing restriction of academic freedom.<ref name=Bohlin/> − − [[Kent Hovind]]'s [[Kent_hovind#Creation_Science_Evangelism|Creation Science Evangelism]] ministry has also promoted the film on its website as well as selling ''Expelled'' resource material.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.drdino.com/expelled-the-movie.php? |title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed |accessdate=2008-04-17 |date=April 2008 |format= |publisher=[[Kent_hovind#Creation_Science_Evangelism|Creation Science Evangelism]]}}</ref> − − ==Pre-release screenings== − As part of the pre-release marketing for the film, a web-based [[RSVP]] system page was publicized,<ref name=CH!CAGO>{{cite web |url=http://onegreatcityblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/private-screening.html |title=One Great City ~ CH!CAGO: Private Screening |accessdate=2008-03-23 }}</ref> offering free private movie screenings.<ref name=RSVPSystem>{{cite web |url=http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled |title=Expelled - RSVP System |accessdate=2008-03-23 }}</ref> Persons filling out an online entry form were sent a reservation confirmation via email which stated that no ticket was needed and that IDs would be checked against a list of names.<ref name=AustringerExpelled>{{cite web |url=http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/expelled-from-expelled/ |title=The Austringer » Expelled from "Expelled" |accessdate=2008-03-23 |author=Wesley R. Elsberry |authorlink=Wesley R. Elsberry |date=21 Mar 2008}}</ref><ref name=SantaClara>{{cite web |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/expelled-gone-m.html |title=Expelled gone missing from Santa Clara - The Panda's Thumb |accessdate=2008-03-23 |date=March 21, 2008 }}</ref> The producers also held invitation only screenings for religious organizations and government officials, including screenings for legislators to promote anti-evolution [[Academic Freedom bills]].<ref name=WSJschools/> − − ===Conservative Christian groups=== − In advance of release, the film was shown at private screenings to various Christian conservative leaders, including [[James Dobson]].<ref name="Metcalfe March 10">[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/media/10stein.html ''Disinvited to a Screening, a Critic Ends Up in a Faith-Based Crossfire''], John Metcalfe, [[New York Times]], March 10, 2008.</ref><ref>"Question: What would you like to say to Darwin?" Stein: "You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don't you just live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?" ([http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007058.cfm ''Friday Five: Actor Ben Stein''], Jennifer Mesko, Citizenlink, April 4, 2008)</ref><ref>[http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/Archives.asp?bcd=2008-4-7 ''Exposing the Truth in the Evolution Debate''], [[Focus on the Family]] ([[James Dobson]]), Broadcast Archives, April 7, 2008</ref> On [[March 11]], [[2008]], a preview screening was held in [[Nashville]] for attendees at the annual convention of the [[National Religious Broadcasters]]. The [[Young Earth creationism|young Earth creationist]] organization [[Answers in Genesis]] reported that its leader, [[Ken Ham]], met Ben Stein beforehand to discuss promoting the film. It requested supporters to ask local movie theater managers to show the film, and to encourage their church leadership to buy out a local theater to show the film to as many people from that church as possible.<ref name=aig>{{cite web |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/03/13/meeting-of-minds |title=A Meeting of Minds |accessdate=2008-03-15 |author= Mark Looy, [[Answers in Genesis]] |date=March 13, 2008 }}</ref> − − ===PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins at Minnesota pre-release screening=== − ''Expelled'' interviewee [[PZ Myers]] followed the online procedure to reserve seats for himself and guests under his own name to attend a showing at the [[Mall of America]] in [[Minnesota]] on [[March 20]] , [[2008]], but shortly before the film started, a security guard told him that the assistant producer [[Mark Mathis]] had instructed that Myers be removed from the premises.<ref name=latenightquickone>{{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_late_night_quick_one.php |title=Pharyngula: A late night quick one |accessdate=2008-03-23 |author=PZ Myers |authorlink=PZ Myers |date=March 21, 2008 }}</ref> Myers described being expelled in this way as showing off "the hypocrisy of these people, as well as their outright incompetence". His guests were allowed in, including fellow interviewee [[Richard Dawkins]], who asked in a question-and-answer session at the end of the film why Myers had been excluded. Dawkins later said that "if anyone had a right to see the film, it was [Myers]. The incompetence, on a public relations level, is beyond belief."<ref name=twinc>{{cite web |url=http://www.twincities.com/ci_8653837 |title=Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled' - TwinCities.com |accessdate=2008-03-21 |author= Chris Hewitt |date=03/21/2008 |publisher=[[St. Paul Pioneer Press|The Pioneer Press]]}}</ref> Dawkins described the event as "a gift" and that "we could not ask for anything better".<ref name = DeanNYT>{{cite news | first = Cornelia | last = Dean| authorlink = | title = No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin | work = [[New York Times]] | publisher = | date = 2008-03-21 | accessdate = 2008-03-21 }}</ref> − − One blog said that Myers had gatecrashed the showing. Jeffrey Overstreet, a film critic for ''[[Christianity Today]]'', cited an e-mail from a college student who was at the screening. The student assumed that Dawkins and Myers had not been invited, and suggested that Myers had been "hustling and bothering" invited guests. The student subsequently stated that Myers "didn't cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out."<ref name=overstreet>[[Jeffery Overstreet]], "[http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/richard-dawkins-crashes-the-party-at-a-screening-of-expelled/ "Richard Dawkins crashes the party at screening of ''Expelled''], ''The Looking Closer Journal'', Retrieved [[March 21]], [[2008]]</ref><ref>[[Mark Moring]], [http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html "Dawkins crashes ''Expelled'' party"], ''Christianity Today Blog'', Retrieved [[March 21]], [[2008]].</ref><ref name=latenightquickone/> However, Mathis later wrote: − − {{quotation|Yes, I turned Mr. Myers away. He was not an invited guest of Premise Media. This was a private screening of an unfinished film. I could have let him in, just as I invited Michael Shermer to a screening in Nashville. Shermer is in the film as well. But, in light of Myers' untruthful blogging about ''Expelled'' I decided it was better to have him wait until April 18 and pay to see the film. Others, notable others, were permitted to see the film. At a private screening it's my call. − − Unlike the Darwinist establishment, we expell{{sic}} no one.<ref>Inside Higher Ed, "[http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/24/expelled See Ben Stein's Movie]", March 24, 2008</ref>}} Myers described this as an admission by Mathis that Myers had not been "unruly" or "gatecrashing", but had been thrown out "on a petty, arbitrary, vindictive whim" without legitimate cause.<ref name="titlePharyngula: An admission from Mark Mathis">{{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/an_admission_from_mark_mathis.php |title=Pharyngula: An admission from Mark Mathis |accessdate=2008-03-25 |format= |work=}}</ref> In an email to another blog, Mathis stated that "I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more."<ref>[http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008/03/intelligent-design-film-volunteers.html "Intelligent design film: Volunteer's account of what really happened when Darwinist was kicked out of the screening"; post-darwinist.blogspot.com; [[March 23]], 2008]</ref> − − In a press release dated [[March 25]], 2008, Mathis claimed that the decision to expel Myers was made well in advance, as soon as it was noted that Myers, Dawkins, and "a group of other atheists" had signed up to view the movie, and was a deliberate PR move to capitalize on the irony. The release claims that Myers is "distraught" and that he had been calling upon others to sneak into screenings for "many weeks".<ref>[http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080325006175&newsLang=en EXPELLED Controversy Top Issue in Blogosphere], Premise Media press release, Business Wire, March 25, 2008.</ref> Myers responded that he only felt "a little guilty that I'd escaped a bad movie while my friends and family were stuck with watching it" and that he has never requested that people sneak into screenings or "even asked them to sign up for them, as I did". He observed that Dawkins was registered only as an anonymous guest — the press release claim that he "oddly used his formal surname [sic] 'Clinton' instead of Richard to sign up" was erroneous.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/lying_by_press_release.php Lying by press release], [[PZ Myers]]</ref> All attendees had to show identification, and Dawkins had used his British passport, which shows both of his forenames, giving his full name as "Clinton Richard Dawkins".<ref name = DeanNYT/> − − ===Reports of false cancellation notices for screenings=== − [[Arizona State University]] professor John M. Lynch (who blogs at "Stranger Fruit" on the [[ScienceBlogs]] network) reported that he and several others received an email stating that the screening he was to attend had been moved one hour earlier.<ref>{{cite web − | url= http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/03/even_m7pmore_on_expelled_in_te.php − | title= Even more on Expelled in Tempe − |author= John Lynch | date= March 31, 2008 |publisher= Stranger Fruit − | accessdate= 2008-04-04 }}</ref> He and others later received an email<ref name="strangerfruit/2008/04/">{{cite web − | url= http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/04/expelled_in_tempe_the_final_co.php − | title= Expelled in Tempe: The Final Countdown − |author= John Lynch | date= April 2, 2008 |publisher= Stranger Fruit − | accessdate= 2008-04-04 }}</ref> stating that the screening had been cancelled. One of the other individuals to receive this email phoned the theater, which revealed that the screening was not cancelled. He attended, and found that his name was no longer on the guest list, but after some negotiation (presenting his confirmation email and stating he was not representing any organization) he was allowed to view the movie. Lynch hypothesized that a guest pre-screening process was set up in response to the Myers and Dawkins incident, and points to this as evidence.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/04/expelled_in_tempe_the_expected.php Expelled in Tempe: The Expected Happens]</ref> − − ==External links== − *[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ Official website] − *[http://www.premisemedia.com/ ''Premise Media'' homepage] − *{{imdb title|id=1091617|title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed}} − *{{rotten-tomatoes|id=expelled_no_intelligence_allowed|title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed}} − *{{metacritic film|id=expellednointelligenceallowed|title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed}} − *{{mojo title|id=expelled|title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed}} − *{{amg movie|id=1:421523|title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed}} − ===Supportive sites=== − *[http://www.arn.org/expelled/ Expelled Resources] A list of articles, multimedia resources from [[Access Research Network]], a creationism and intelligent design advocacy group. − *[http://www.discovery.org/expelled/ Expelled Resources] A list of articles, multimedia resources from [[Discovery Institute]], an intelligent design advocacy group. − − ===Critical sites=== − − *[http://www.expelledexposed.com/ Expelled Exposed] — A [[National Center for Science Education]] site debunking various claims made in the movie and examining the actions of its producers. − *{{cite web |url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled |title=Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Scientific American's Take: |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=April 9, 2008 |publisher=[[Scientific American]] }}, package of reviews and commentary including [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]. − − [[Category:2008 films]]
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view source)
Revision as of 15:03, May 20, 2008
, 15:03, May 20, 2008Reverted edits by Carsond (Talk); changed back to last version by Ed Poor
'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a controversial 2008 [[independent film|independent]] [[documentary film]]<ref name=presskit>{{cite web |url=http://www.expelledthemovie.com/_downloads/expelled_press_kit.doc |title=Expelled Press Kit |accessdate=2008-04-16 |date=2008 |format=doc |publisher=expelledthemovie.com }}</ref><ref name=Newlegislation>{{cite web |url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article416362.ece |title=Politics: State: New legislation to keep debate on evolution alive |accessdate=2008-03-15 |author=Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler |date=March 13, 2008 |publisher=[[St. Petersburg Times]] }}</ref> which claims that "Big Science" suppresses criticism of both the evidence for [[evolution]] and the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]], which is the [[theory]] explaining this evidence.<ref name=nyt>{{cite news | author=[http://www.sej.org/confer/pitts/04Bios.htm Cornelia Dean] |title=Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin |work= |publisher= [[The New York Times]]|date=[[September 27]], [[2007]] |accessdate=2007-09-28 }}</ref><ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref> The film, hosted by [[Ben Stein]], contends that this scientific theory contributed to the [[Nazi]] [[Holocaust]], [[communism]], [[atheism]] and [[Planned Parenthood]].<ref name=CC/> Furthermore, the film claims that American educators and scientists who believe that there [[teleological argument|might be evidence]] of [[intelligent design]] in nature are being persecuted for these beliefs.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/movie_overview.php Movie overview], retrieved 4/10/08</ref>
'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting scholars who disagree with them in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[On_the_Origin_of_Species_by_Means_of_Natural_Selection | Origins of Species]] aspects of [[Theory of Evolution]].<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> .
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released in America on Friday, April 18, 2008.
''Expelled'' opened in 1,052 theaters, far more than any other documentary before it,<ref name=mojorank/> and grossed over $2,900,000 in its first weekend, the third biggest opening for a documentary.<ref>
In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name=nyt>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>
</ref> As of May 13, 2008 it had earned over $7 million, making it the twelfth-highest-grossing documentary film in the United States - (in [[Real versus nominal value|nominal]] dollars, from 1982 to the present).<ref name=mojorank/>
The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable, receiving a 9% ("Rotten") meta-score from [[Rotten Tomatoes]]. Multiple reviews, including those of ''[[USA Today]]'' and ''[[Scientific American]]'', have described the film as [[propaganda]].<ref name=USATODAY>"This is propaganda, a political rant disguised as a serious commentary on stifled freedom of inquiry." {{cite web |url=http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2008-04-17-also-opening_N.htm |title=Also opening: 'Bin Laden,' 'Intelligence,' 'Forbidden Kingdom'|author=Claudia Puig |date=April 18, 2008 |publisher=[[USA Today]].com |accessdate=2008-05-03}}</ref><ref name=NYTR/><ref name="sciam-shermer"/> The ''[[Chicago Tribune|Chicago Tribune's]]'' conclusion was "Rating: 1 star (poor)",<ref>{{cite news | first = Moore | last = Roger | title = 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys with evolution) | url = http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/chi-18-expelled-review,1,6127461.story | work = [[Chicago Tribune]] | date = | accessdate = 2007-04-24 }}</ref> while the ''[[New York Times]]'' described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."<ref name=NYTR>{{cite news | first = Jeannette | last = Catsoulis | title = Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary | url = http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?ref=movies | work = [[New York Times]] | date = 2008-04-18 | accessdate = 2008-04-24}}</ref> One of the few positive reviews appeared in ''[[Christianity Today]]''. <ref name=CHRISTIANITYTODAY>{{cite web | url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html | author=Mark Moring | date=2008-04-18 | title="Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"|accessdate=2008-05-14 | publisher=Christianity Today}}</ref> <!-- expanded to include Christian, Jewish, and Muslim groups as well as narrowing the scope -->
The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]], journal editor, and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>
The [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] describes the film as dishonest and divisive, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms,<ref name="AAASPressRelease">{{cite news | url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0418expelled.shtml | title=New AAAS Statement Decries "Profound Dishonesty" of Intelligent Design Movie | publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] |date= April 18, 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate =2008-04-20}}</ref> and the film is being used in private screenings to legislators as part of the [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns|Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign]] for [[Academic Freedom bills]].<ref name=WSJschools>{{cite web |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120967537476060561.html?mod=googlenews_wsj |title=Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools|author=Stephanie Simon |date=May 2, 2008 |publisher=[[Wall Street Journal]] |accessdate=2008-05-03}}</ref>
* The film opens with documentary footage of the Berlin Wall going up and closes with it coming down. The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=27872]</ref>
== Overview ==
==Summary==
The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as a causation for all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand the underlying philosophical culture war.
The film claims that [[intelligent design]] deserves a place in academia and refers to examples of what it calls a "design approach". The [[Discovery Institute]]'s [[Paul Nelson (creationist)|Paul Nelson]] describes "design theory" as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence".<ref name=EEID/> Stein says in the film that "Intelligent design was being suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion", although the [[National Center for Science Education]] says in response that intelligent design has been scientifically unproductive and has not produced any research to suppress, having failed to find any way of testing its claims.<ref name=EEID>{{cite web |url=http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/id |title=Expelled Exposed > Intelligent Design |date=2008|publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]|accessdate=2008-04-17}}</ref> In a review of the film, ''[[Scientific American]]'' editor [[John Rennie (editor)|John Rennie]] comments on the vagueness of intelligent design's proposals, describing it as "a notion which firmly states that at one or more unspecified times in the past, an unidentified designer who might or might not be God somehow created whole organisms, or maybe just cells, or maybe just certain parts of cells—they're still deciding and will get back to you on that."<ref name="sciam-rennie"/>
The film attempts to describe how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.
Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.
The producers claim that those opposing intelligent design "don't like the very idea of an intelligent cause because they don't like the idea of allowing even the possibility of the existence of an intelligent 'designer.' That might lead to scientific evidence in support of the unthinkable, i.e. G-O-D". The producers further assert that those who oppose intelligent design "are simply wrong."<ref name="titleEXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed">{{cite web |url=http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?article=1 |title=EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed |accessdate=2008-04-03 |format= |work=}} Content of page has changed since reference was cited, quotation of original reference can be found [http://www.soundwitness.org/pop_culture/expelled.htm here]. Mirror of cached page can be found [http://www.webcitation.org/5X5N9u1cP here].</ref> What one reviewer describes as four or five examples of "ordinary academic backbiting"<ref name=CC/>, the film presents as evidence that scientists are not free to work within the framework of believing there is a god.<ref name=oreilly/> The film also uses these incidents in support of its allegation that there is widespread persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, and a conspiracy to keep [[God]] out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms.<ref name=nyt/><ref name=pressrelease/> In the film, Stein says, "It's not just the scientists who are in on it. The media is in on it, the courts, the educational system, everyone is after them."
The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for [[atheism]]. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].
* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".
==Darwinism==
The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. For example, modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. Armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself almost defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.
But the film does not point to the problems with Darwin's work to prove that evolution is false. In fact, the film accepts that over time, species really do adapt or evolve as described by Darwin. The film pays tribute to the brilliance of Darwin, who correctly described adaptation, natural selection and some evolutionary processes.
The film's criticism is not so much with Darwin, but rather with the atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life and even the origin of species. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is at least as problematic as the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film.
The film alleges that scientists and the scientific enterprise (which it calls "Big Science") are dogmatically committed to atheism,<ref name=EES&R/><ref name=6things/> and that [[intelligent design]] proponents are "suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion." It alleges a previous commitment to [[materialism]] in the scientific establishment as the cause of this "persecution".<ref name=EEID/> Stein contends that "There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch a higher power, and it can’t possibly touch God." The [[National Center for Science Education]] says that the film represents scientists who are atheists as representative of all scientists, without discussing the many prominent scientists who are religious, and thus creates a [[false dichotomy]] between science and religion.<ref name=EES&R>{{cite web |url=http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/science-religion |title=Expelled Exposed > Science & Religion |date=2008|publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]] |accessdate=2008-04-23}}</ref> In an interview with ''[[Scientific American]]'', the associate producer of the film [[Mark Mathis]] said they had excluded scientists who are religious, such as Roman Catholic biologist [[Kenneth R. Miller]], because their views would have "confused the film unnecessarily". Mathis also questioned Miller's intellectual honesty and orthodoxy as a Catholic because he accepts evolution.<ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis A Conversation with ''Expelled's'' Associate Producer Mark Mathis], [[Scientific American]]. Audio recording: [http://www.sciam.com/media/sound/2008-04_matthis-sciam-roundtable_p1.mp3 part 1] and [http://www.sciam.com/media/sound/2008-04_matthis-sciam-roundtable_p2.mp3 part 2]. [http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=999 Partial transcript].</ref> Miller later noted that 40% of the members of the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] profess belief in a [[personal god]], and that the film by "avoiding these 50,000 people, tells viewers that 'Darwinists' don't allow scientists to even think of God."<ref name=miller/>
==Academic Freedom==
Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of Intelligent Design.
The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether the life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?
Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.
==About intelligent design itself==
Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,
: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. <ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>
==[[Eugenics]]==
The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>
*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." <ref>http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778</ref>
*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>
While the film takes pains to point out the theory of evolution is not solely responsible for the Holocaust, one Jewish group felt the tie-in between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust went too far.<ref name=ADL> [http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust]</ref> However, writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] have uncontroversially (among researchers on this topic) pointed out the linkage between Darwinism and Hitler's [[Eugenics]]-based program of mass murder.<ref>Weikart, Richard, [http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/was-it-%E2%80%9Cshameful%E2%80%9D-for-expelled-to-connect-darwinism-and-nazi-atrocities Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?] 3rd May, 2008.</ref>
==Filmmaker statements==
{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}
==People presented in the film==
==Positive reception==
In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and criticize intelligent design as an attempt to bring religion into the science classroom.<ref> [http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf "Finding the Evolution in Medicine"], [[National Institutes of Health]], quoting [[McGill University]] Professor [[Brian Alters]] ([[2006-07-28]]). Retrieved [[2008-04-12]].</ref> These include [[PZ Myers]], [[William Provine]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Michael Ruse]], [[Michael Shermer]], and [[Eugenie Scott]].<ref name=nyt/>
In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."
Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>
[[Richard Sternberg]], a Staff Scientist for the [[National Center for Biotechnology Information]] and fellow of the intelligent design advocacy group [[International Society for Complexity, Information and Design|ISCID]], also has an unpaid research position giving him facilities at the [[Smithsonian Institution]]. Six months after he gave notice of resignation from a temporary unpaid position as editor of the scientific journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', he circumvented the journal's reviewing process to include a paper by intelligent design proponent [[Stephen C. Meyer]] which argued that the development of [[Phylum|phyla]] during the [[Cambrian explosion]] was not fully explained by evolution. The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.<ref name=EERS>{{cite web |title=Richard Sternberg |url=http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg |work=Expelled Exposed |publisher=National Center for Science Education |accessdate=2008-04-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html |title=Council Statement |accessdate=2007-12-16 |date= |publisher=[http://www.biolsocwash.org/ The Biological Society of Washington] }}</ref>
[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}
[[Richard Dawkins]] "posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>
[[Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)|Guillermo Gonzalez]] is an [[astrophysicist]], an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at [[Iowa State University]] and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's [[Center for Science and Culture]]. He is also a fellow with the [[International Society for Complexity, Information and Design]] and co-authored ''[[The Privileged Planet]].''
In his quest to attack Ben Stein, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, <i>Time</i></ref>}}
:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.
===Robert J. Marks II===
== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen in its first weekend<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> and after three weeks had grossed $6.9 million US.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm Box Office Mojo]</ref> It continued to make over $1,000 per screen in its third week - a better performance than many of the movies above it.<ref>[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2008&wknd=18&p=.htm BOX OFFICE MOJO, WEEKEND BOX OFFICE, May 2–4, 2008]</ref>
===Michael Egnor===
== Negative Reception==
Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.
The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>
The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>
[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. <ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>
John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]]. He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>
===Richard Dawkins===
== Issues surrounding the film ==
[[Richard Dawkins]] is a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[evolutionary biology|evolutionary biologist]], [[popular science]] writer, and holds a professorship dedicated to Public Understanding of Science at the [[University of Oxford]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml |title=The Simonyi Professorship Home Page |accessdate=2008-03-08 |publisher=The University of Oxford}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/dawkins.html |title=The Third Culture: Richard Dawkins |accessdate=2008-03-08 |publisher=Edge.org}}</ref> Dawkins is portrayed as one of the leading members of "Big Science". In her review of the film for ''New Scientist'', Amanda Gefter comments on the film's presentation of Dawkins' interview, including showing him "in the make-up chair, a move calculated to demean since surely everyone else, including Stein, is powder-puffed off-camera", and describes "foreboding music" and a "low-lit room" filmed with "sinister camera angles" used as part of an appeal to "raw emotion" during his interview.<ref name=NewScientist12April2008 />
Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years."
The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref>
[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but was prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in.<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref>
[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>
[[PZ Myers|Paul Zachary Myers]] is an Associate Professor of [[biology]] at [[University of Minnesota Morris]],<ref>{{cite web
==Claims that film producers misled interviewees==
== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Premise Media]] (Producers of the film)
== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on <i>Expelled</i> Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]
* [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php Theater locater for North America]
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/ Reviews of 'Expelled' on Rotten Tomatoes.]
* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/expelled.html Christianity Today review of 'Expelled']
== References ==
{{quotation|I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of ''Expelled'', which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can't question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you'll lose your job, and you'll be publicly humiliated. As they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic about participating.
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]