Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Directed by	Nathan Frankowski
Written by	Kevin Miller Ben Stein Walt Ruloff
Produced by	Logan Craft Walt Ruloff John Sullivan Premise Media Corp.
Starring	Ben Stein Jason Collett
Edited by	Simon Tondeur
Music by	Andy Hunter° Robbie Bronnimann
Distributed by	Rocky Mountain Pictures
Release date	April 18, 2008
Running time	97 min
Country	United States of America
Language	English
Budget	$3.5 million

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial 2008 film which claims that American educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there might be evidence of intelligent design in nature. Hosted by Ben Stein, the film claims that what it calls "Big Science" suppresses dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and portrays the theory as having contributed to the rise of the Nazi Holocaust, Communism, atheism and Planned Parenthood. The film was released on April 18, 2008.

While a number of conservative and Christian media outlets have given it favorable reviews, the general media response has been largely unfavorable, and the science community's response to it has been widely negative, asserting that it is propaganda. The Chicago Tribune's conclusion was "Rating: 1 star (poor)", while the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."

Overview

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a film described by its promoters as a controversial new satirical documentary, and by Scientific American as an attempt at a creationist equivalent of a Michael Moore documentary. 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 symbolise what it alleges are barriers to intelligent design being accepted as science. 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 an interview with Richard Dawkins. 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 of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, he returns to the lecture hall for his closing statements.

Promotion of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution

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 describes "design theory" as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence". One review of the film by Fox News terms it junk science. 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.

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. 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. The court rejected the Discovery Institute's claims that intelligent design was not religiously motivated, and rebuffed the attempt to introduce it into public school science classes as a constitutional violation.

The consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience, with organisations including the US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science taking a stand against it. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The scientific theory of evolution is opposed for religious reasons by proponents of intelligent design and other forms of creationism, but is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists. According to one estimate, "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution." The film portrays this as an end to debate and alleges that those who dare to question "Darwinism" will quickly be silenced. In fact, there is vigorous debate on many aspects of evolution, and the scientific status quo is frequently successfully challenged by ideas supported by sound research and evidence. The view of the scientific community and of science education organizations is that there is in fact no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that whatever controversy exists is solely in terms of religion and politics. In a review of the film, Scientific American 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."

Claims that intelligent design advocates are persecuted

"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 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.

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", and assert that those who oppose intelligent design 'are simply wrong'." What one reviewer describes as four or five examples of "ordinary academic backbiting" are presented as evidence that scientists do not have the freedom to work within the framework of believing there is a god, and used to allege 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.

In the film, Stein claims that scientists do not have the freedom to work within the framework of believing there is a god. On the Expelled blog, Stein wrote:

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.

However, describing the film for New Scientist, Amanda Gefter wrote:

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!"

Portrayal of science as atheistic

The film portrays the scientific explanation of evolution as a materialistic theory, committed to atheism and refusing to accept ideas with a 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, that no one can "control" God, and that therefore scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable, regardless of the religious views of the scientists.

Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution

Further information: Creationism and Social Darwinism, Nazism and religion, and Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs

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. This is a common creationist claim. As Scientific American notes, the film almost always inaccurately labels evolution with the outdated term "Darwinism" to imply an ideology. Christianity Today film critic Jeffrey Overstreet's "spoiler" describing the film's specific content was also posted on the official Expelled website:

Many scenes are centered around the Berlin Wall, and Ben Stein, being Jewish, actually visits many death camps and death showers. 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.

"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, writing for New Scientist

The film opens with images of the Berlin Wall, and repeatedly uses what Richard Dawkins, a biologist and popular author who appears in the movie describes as the amateurish "Lord Privy Seal" technique of illustrating every point with images, including a guillotine, fist fights, and above all Nazi gas chambers and concentration camps. 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 evolution being responsible without acknowledging more direct causes such as the economic ruin of Germany after the World War I and the racism and anti-semitism dating back over seven centuries before Charles Darwin, particularly Martin Luther's book On the Jews and Their Lies. In fact, the works of Darwin were burned by the Nazi Party. The same purported linking of Hitler to Darwin was made in a Coral Ridge Ministries film which the Anti-Defamation League criticized as "an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people."

From a scientific viewpoint, any distorted misunderstanding of evolution incorporated in Hitler's thinking is irrelevant to the scientific validity of Darwin's theory of evolution. Michael Shermer, who was interviewed for the film, wrote of this:

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 economic conservative... I pointed out how the captains of industry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries justified their beliefs in laissez faire 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.

People presented in the film

The film portrays several people, who have featured in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, as victims of persecution by "Big Science" for their promotion of intelligent design. What one reviewer describes as four or five examples of "ordinary academic backbiting" are presented, and it alleges that they are evidence of widespread persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design. Other intelligent design supporters such as mathematician David Berlinski, theology faculty member William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, reporter Pamela Winnick and nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder also appear in the film.

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. These include biologists PZ Myers, William Provine and Richard Dawkins, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, historian of science Michael Shermer and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.

Richard Sternberg

Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy

Richard Sternberg is a Staff Scientist for the National Center for Biotechnology Information and a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), an intelligent design advocacy group. He is the prominent figure in the Sternberg peer review controversy which arose when, having served as editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and submitting his resignation in the previous year, he arranged for his last issue to include publication of a paper by leading intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer. The review procedure was questioned and the journal 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.

Expelled claims that Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian Institute due to his sympathy to intelligent design. However, Sternberg was never a paid employee there, and his resignation from his post as an editor had been planned long in advance.

Guillermo Gonzalez

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.

After the normal review of his qualifications, such as his record of scientific publications (which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty), 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. The Expelled roadshow 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."

Caroline Crocker

The film claims that Caroline Crocker, a trained biologist who currently serves as the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, was fired from her part-time faculty contract at George Mason University where she taught cell biology, because she mentioned intelligent design in a class she was teaching. She taught the class that "macroevolution" was not established as "No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory". That would, in fact, actually disprove evolution if it were to occur. Crocker told the class that many scientists believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer, that experiments that she said were supposed to prove evolution had been found to be false, and that antisemitism, eugenics and death camps in Nazi Germany had been based on Darwin's ideas and on science. The National Center for Science Education describes this as demonstrably false creationist material.

In spite of complaints made by students, she continued to teach her course until her contract expired. A 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.'" Stein claims in the film that her "sterling academic career came to an abrupt end", but she actually held another contract position to teach at Northern Virginia Community College, and continued teaching there.

Robert J. Marks II

Robert Marks is an engineering professor and director at Baylor University 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. In July and August 2007, they formed the short-lived Evolutionary Informatics Lab (EIL) at Baylor, and posted their work on the subject on a website hosted by the university. The university removed the website after receiving complaints. 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.

Michael Egnor

Michael Egnor is a 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, and this essay was criticized 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."

Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer is an author, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and editor of its 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.

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 and Shermer again expressed a sense that he was being manipulated:

...they showed [Ben] asking me about my books, and that's where I told him I thought ID was much closer to pseudoscience than science. Then he asked me AGAIN if I thought people should be fired....

Eventually:

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.

Shermer has, however, stated that he believes that the film is effective in delivering its message to its target audience.

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist, popular science writer, and holds a professorship dedicated to Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. 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.

In Dawkins' interview, the director focused on when Stein asked Dawkins under what circumstances could intelligent design have occurred. 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 '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 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett)."

PZ Myers

Paul Zachary Myers is an Associate Professor of biology at University of Minnesota, Morris, and the author of the science blog Pharyngula. In the film he is portrayed as a member of "Big Science".

Claims that film producers misled interviewees

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including Myers and Dawkins, Shermer 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 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:

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.

However, the movie was actually pitched to Stein as an anti-Darwin picture:

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. 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.

— World Magazine

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." 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."

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". The film's proponents point out that Dawkins participated in the BBC Horizon documentary A War on Science, whose producers, they allege, presented themselves to the Discovery Institute as objective filmmakers and then portrayed the organization as religiously-motivated and anti-scientific.

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times, complaining about the deception. Speckhardt wrote, "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?"

Misquotation from Charles Darwin

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:

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 italics) and the very next sentences in the book state:

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. 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.

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.

Failure to represent theistic evolution

Expelled has been criticized for not interviewing people who accept both theism and the theory of evolution. When the editorial staff of Scientific American asked Mathis why they did not include anybody like devout Catholic and prominent biologist Kenneth R. Miller in the movie, Mathis stated that his inclusion "would have confused the film unnecessarily" and went on to question Miller's intellectual honesty and orthodoxy as a Catholic because he accepts evolution. Expelled is often criticized for setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and religion.

In a review of the film, the Waco Tribune-Herald described its "failure to cover how Christian evolutionists reconcile faith and science" as "perhaps the film's most glaring and telling omission", and that the film rather "quickly dismissed [them] by a chain of quotes that brand them as liberal Christians and duped by militant atheists in their efforts to get religion out of the classroom."

Defending the movie, the producer, Walt Ruloff, said that scientists like prominent 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".

Legal battles

Cell Animation Sequence

The film uses animated sequences that represent the internal functioning of cells. These sequences were attributed to Light Productions and Out of Our Mind Studios by Variety; Joseph Condeelis is listed as the lead animator. IMDB identified Tom Whaley as the animator. However, PZ Myers found similarities between the animation sequences of cellular internal operations from the film and a video from Harvard University entitled The Inner Life of the Cell, produced in 2006 by XVIVO. Myers noted that the same errors and omissions were present in both animations. On April 9th, a cease-and-desist letter was sent by David Bolinsky of XVIVO to the producers of Expelled, alleging that they had infringed XVIVO's copyright:

It has come to our intention [sic] that Premise Media and Rampant Films has produced a film entitled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", which is scheduled for commercial release and distribution on April 18, 2008. To our knowledge, this film includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled "The Inner Life of a Cell". XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in this video, and has not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of this material. We have obtained promotional material for the "Expelled" film, presented on a DVD, which clearly shows in the "cell segment" the virtually identical depiction of material from the "Inner Life" video. Among the infringed scenes, we particularly refer to the segment of the "Expelled" film purporting to show the "walking" models of kinesic activities in cellular mechanisms. The segments depicting these models in your film are clearly based upon, and copied from, material in the "Inner Life" video.

Intelligent design proponent William Dembski had been compelled to discontinue using the same video after XVIVO accused him of copyright violation for using it in his lectures in 2007. Commenting on the cease-and-desist letter to Expelled's producers, Dembski wrote:

I've gotten to know the producers quite well. As far as I can tell, they made sure to budget for lawsuits. Also, I know for a fact that they have one of the best intellectual property attorneys in the business. I expect that the producers made their video close enough to the Harvard video to get tongues awagging (Headline: "Harvard University Seeks Injunction Against Ben Stein and EXPELLED" — you think that might generate interest in the movie?), but different enough so that they are unexposed.

It was a nice touch on the producer's part to use the same music as the XVIVO video. Presumably they got permission from the artist — or is that another possible oversight to explore? But then again, one of the producers was for years in the music business. So most likely they're covered here as well.

BOTTOM LINE: Before you think the producers of EXPELLED are idiots, you might think that they are chess players who have seen several moves ahead. For instance, have you ever thought who stood to gain the most from the Machine Video featured at UD a week ago?

On April 11th, two days after the cease-and-desist letter was sent, the following statement was posted on the Expelled blog:

Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.

On April 14th the producers of Expelled, Premise Media Corporation LP and C&S Production LP, filed suit in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against XVIVO L.L.C. asking for Judge Sidney A Fitzwater to rule that Premise owns the copyright on the images in question. The suit has been characterized by SA Smith, a prominent critic of the film and intelligent design as a 'SLAPP,' a strategic lawsuit against public participation intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition. Smith suggested that the film's producers filed suit in Texas because it is one of the few states that lacks protections for defendants against SLAPPs. She also linked a Get Expelled - Cellular Animation Movie Clip uploaded by "getexpelled" to YouTube on April 15, 2008, and anticipated that this crude animation would appear in the film as a substitute for the contested animation.

PZ Myers reported on April 15th, 2008 that it appears likely that some animation segments in the film were lifted from a PBS documentary as well. William Dembski published a longer statement from the producers of the film on his blog on April 15th, 2008 alleging that they had not engaged in any wrongdoing.

Music

Producers of the film have also run into legal trouble over their unlicensed use of John Lennon's song "Imagine", having failed to seek the permission of the copyright holder, John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono. Premise Media responded by saying that they had only used 25 seconds of Imagine and this constituted fair use under American copyright law. The Killers, had licensed their song, but said they had been misled, with the request having said it would be used in a "satirical documentary" about "academic freedom in schools".

Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution

In the wake of the film, Motive Marketing, the film's PR agency, have teamed up with the Discovery Institute to promote an "Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution", which, if passed, would legally protect teachers from any negative consequences for promoting anti-evolution beliefs in public schools. According to Amanda Gefter, this appears to be the latest campaign to "sneak" Intelligent Design into schools after the Kitzmiller trial ruled compulsory teaching of intelligent design unconstitutional. At least one Discovery Institute press conference on the bill has included a screening of Expelled.

Reaction

Response to the movie from some Christian groups and the Discovery Institute has been mostly (but not exclusively) positive, largely praising the movie for its humor and for highlighting what they perceive as a serious issue. One otherwise critical review in the mainstream press praised the movie for highlighting the idea of academic freedom.

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, but the film was widely considered unamusing and unsubtle, boring, poorly made, and unconvincing.

The rhetorical approach was subject to much criticism, widely considered to be misleading and dishonest and was compared to that used by Big Tobacco and propaganda. The movie's use of Holocaust imagery (and other techniques) to demonize evolution and those working in the field was a particular cause of concern and was considered distasteful and manipulative of the audience, with many critics surprised that Stein, being a Jew, was involved in a movie which exploited it in a "dishonest" way. Some wondered whether Stein was involved for purely mercenary reasons, or expressed concern for his career direction. The film's evasiveness with regards to actual information about intelligent design or evolution was criticized, in particular that the movie failed to coherently define either, or adequately explain the nature of the scientific debate pictured, in particular omitting pertinent facts regarding the "expelled" scientists. The movie was derided for a lack of historical accuracy with regards to Stalinism and the Holocaust, regardless of evolution's involvement in either.

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. Many were of the opinion that the movie is "preaching to the converted", and at least one reviewer was concerned that those asking questions at screenings were planted. There were also fears that the film was another step towards "sneaking" the teaching of intelligent design into schools.

Expelled has a 12% "fresh" rating on review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes, from 22 negative reviews and 3 positive., and a Metacritic aggregate score of 28 out of 100 ("Mostly Negative Reviews") from 10 reviews.[3] It was not screened for critics.

Box office

Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters, earning $1.2 million at the box office in its first day and earned $2,970,848 for its opening weekend ($2,824 theater average). 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." 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." Finke further wrote, "So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the "agenda of liberal Hollywood". (Just for comparison purposes: left-wing Michael Moore's most recent Sicko made $4.4 million its opening weekend from only 441 theaters, and his Fahrenheit 9/11 made $23.9 million its opening weekend from 868 venues.)" 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." In contrast, IMDB wrote that given the amount of theaters and promotion the movie "flopped", and "failed to bring out church groups in big numbers".

General media

Dan Whipple of Colorado Confidential, saw an early screening of the film at the Archdiocese of Denver in Denver, Colorado during the second week of December, 2007. Whipple was somewhat surprised that neither intelligent design nor evolution were defined in the film. According to Whipple, the film charges that intellectual freedom of intelligent design supporters is being restricted, but he was not able to find much substance in these claims when he investigated further. After the first half hour, Whipple reports that the film launches into a condemnation of evolution, blaming it for "Communism, the Berlin Wall, fascism, the Holocaust, atheism and Planned Parenthood". Whipple remarks that the film ridicules the panspermia hypothesis, which is one of the alternatives to evolution sometimes suggested by intelligent design supporters and evolutionists. He also notes that the film acknowledges that evolution does not concern itself with abiogenesis, and then attacks evolution for misrepresenting the origin of life. Scientists with hypotheses for abiogenesis are ridiculed for stating that this is still not understood. Overall, Whipple found it to be fairly boring and uncompelling. Whipple subsequently reported that after his review the producers began asking people to sign non-disclosure agreements before seeing the film, which he thought ironic in relation to producer Walt Ruloff's statement that "What we're really asking for is freedom of speech, and allowing science, and students, people in applied or theoretical research to have the freedom to go where they need to go and ask the questions."

Roger Moore of The Orlando Sentinel previewed the film at the Northland Church in Longwood, Florida, although the organizers attempted to belatedly rescind his invitation, as it had been mistakenly offered, and he refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Moore criticized the film's use of out of date research ("Citing scientific research as recent as 1953"), lack of factual evidence, the ineffectiveness of the movie's attempts at humor, and the use of imagery of the Holocaust, Stalin and Hitler to "in a not-quite-subliminal seduction way [...] demonize the people who might hold a contrary view". The rhetorical approach is compared to "Big Tobacco"'s attempts to spread doubt about the health effects of smoking. The review described the movie's restricted pre-release screenings as "a stealth campaign, out of the public eye, preaching to the choir to get the word out about the movie without anyone who isn't a true believer passing a discouraging judgment on it."

As a whole, Moore judged that the movie "makes good points about academic freedom and the ways unpopular ideas are shouted down in academia, the press and the culture", but "not offering evidence to back your side, where the burden of proof lies, makes the movie every bit as meaningful and silly as that transcendental metaphysical hooey of a couple of years back, What the Bleep Do We Know?".

Though executive producer Logan Craft and Paul Lauer, head of the movie's PR agency Motive Marketing, have denied any involvement an "online media alert" was apparently issued by Motive Marketing lambasting the professional film critic for criticizing the movie. The alert characterizes Moore's review as a "security breech [sic]" and claims that Moore gained entry by impersonating a minister. In the alert, Ben Stein responds to Moore's charge that the film's manipulation of Holocaust imagery is "despicable", by stating that "The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters."

Based on the movie's ten-minute online preview, John Patterson of The Guardian writes that due to Stein's involvement, "you'd expect a dishonest documentary, and apparently, we've got one". From his brief exposure "it seems to deploy all the loaded-dice arguments, the overdog's deep-seated sense of victimhood and conventional rightwing hysteria", "[a]nd yes - you get all that in the first 10 minutes." He expresses regret that Stein has moved from comedy, where he is talented, to "political apologias, where his talents simply die".

Tom Bethell of The American Spectator says that the film brought tears to his eyes and that the film is the "best thing that has been done on this issue, in any medium". Bethell asserts that the position of Ken Miller of Brown University and Francis Collins of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and by many religious figures, "puts diplomacy before truth".

American conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh states that the film is "fabulous" and "powerful". Limbaugh asserts that Darwinism does not allow for a belief in God, and that it has taken hold at every major intellectual institution.

Brent Bozell, a conservative activist and president of Media Research Center, gave a positive review, remarking how the film has drawn such negative ire from proponents of evolution, and claiming it to be an "...antidote to the atheism-friendly culture of PC liberalism".

Roger Friedman of FOX News, a TV network owned by Australian tycoon Rupert Murdoch, writes that "Expelled is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) 'exposé' of the scientific community" and echoes Patterson's concerns about Stein's career direction, stating that he "is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he's abandoned all good sense to make a buck" and "like some other celebrities, [he] finally has shown his true colors and they aren't so pretty." Friedman criticizes the film's exploitation of the Holocaust, "hoping someone will latch onto an anti-Semitism theme here" but that it is "such a warped premise that no one's biting", and Stein's involvement, as a Jew, is "so distasteful you wonder what in — sorry — God's name — he was thinking when he got into this". Ultimately he concludes that "It will come and go without much fanfare" and that were the film to be shown in his area he'd "boycott the filmmakers for thinking of me as this gullible and unsophisticated."

Justin Chang of Variety also pans the film, although he clearly is amenable to assorted anti-evolution arguments. Chang writes, "If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one". He further noted, "Expelled" is a "flimsy attempt to discredit Darwinist theory as the cornerstone of modern biology" and concluded the film would be "A probable punching bag for film critics and evolution proponents alike, [this documentary] will be a natural selection for Christian audiences and should spread like the gospel on [homevideo]".

Sean P. Means, movie reviewer for the Salt Lake Tribune wrote that the producers of Expelled are "hiding" the film from movie critics and "Every semi-knowledgeable moviegoer and reader of movie criticism knows what the words 'not screened for critics' means: The movie is a dog." Though Means withholds judgement on the content since he has not seen the film and was not invited to a screening, he explained that when producers do this it usually means the films are targeted to "teenagers and morons". In his article the author noted "I can't help but be struck by the irony of Stein's own words in the movie's introduction (which is also on YouTube): 'In my experience, people who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism. So that tells me the Darwinists are afraid. They're hiding something'." Means then asked, "What, pray tell, are Stein and the "Expelled" producers hiding? And what are they afraid of?" Three days later Means reviewed the film and wrote it is "a slick but intellectually dishonest documentary". He concluded of the tactics employed in the film: "Perhaps the intelligent-design proponents know that in a truly open debate, their argument isn't fit enough to survive."

Matt Stevens, of E!, called the movie "a flunkout of a documentary" that "pretends it wants to encourage debate but shuts down and edits around every Darwinian scientist who attempts to explain complex issues." In the Chicago Tribune, Roger Moore wrote the movie was "poor" which uses "under-credentialed academics dismissed from lesser colleges" to argue against evolution. Stephen Whitty, of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, rated the movie "1/2 out of four stars" calling it "a hard-core, fundamentalist bit of right-wing propaganda".

Frank Scheck's review, published by Reuters, stated that "copious use is made of vintage film clips, often to truly goofy effect." Furthermore, he wrote that "many of the central ideas expressed are truly offensive" and "there is a climactic showdown between Stein and the leading atheist of the day, Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion"), that is as unenlightening as everything that has preceded it."

John Serba of The Grand Rapids Press commented on the movie explaining "Maybe there's a case to be made for the rejected researchers, but Stein diverges from the path into something increasingly vaporous, using straw-man arguments that worthwhile thinkers avoid." He concluded, "Now, I'm all for a good discussion. Debate exists at the heart of all healthy inquiry. But ' Expelled ' is slick and slimy, and anyone wanting a proper response to the onslaught of leftist documentaries -- or harboring a similar viewpoint of man's origins -- likely will be put off by Stein's smug tone and his disigenuous suggestion that not just Darwinism, but science itself is a dangerous tool of evil minds."

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." He criticized the substance of the movie, saying the "startling and monumentally deceptive is that the movie never bothers to tell us what Intelligent Design actually is." Then 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." 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."

Christian media

On December 27, 2007, Concerned Women for America (CWA), a conservative Christian political action group, reviewed the film and posted a podcast discussing the film featuring Mario Diaz, CWA's Policy Director for Legal Issues, and Matt Barber, CWA's Policy Director for Cultural Issues, who went to a prescreening. Diaz and Barber thought the movie was entertaining, funny and shocking. They looked forward to it being profound and controversial. They felt this movie presented an extremely credible case.

Marvin Olasky of World Magazine, featuring "Today's News, Christian Views", writes that this is a "seriously funny documentary" that should be rated R for being "reasonable, radical, risible, and right". Olasky agrees wholeheartedly with the premise of the movie that evolution produced the Holocaust, and asserts that in the Library of Congress he has seen many shelves of racist and antisemitic journals full of articles frequently "citing and applying Darwin".

On Beliefnet, Nell Minow writes that "There may be a good argument to make on behalf of teaching Intelligent Design in science class, but this documentary from Ben Stein does not make it..... Instead of making a straightforward case for Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, Stein employs misdirection and guilt by very tangential association to try to make his case."

Science media

Amanda Gefter, reviewing the film in New Scientist, described the movie as "pure propaganda" in the style of a "sub-standard Michael Moore flick" with "problematic references to the Holocaust". Echoing Roger Moore's concerns that the movie demonizes evolutionary biologists, she notes that dark lighting, foreboding music and sinister camera angles are used during an interview with Richard Dawkins. She also observed that the movie makes explicit connections between Intelligent Design and religion, something which proponents of ID such as the Discovery Institute have argued is not the case. Reporting in the magazine's blog on a screening and subsequent question and answer session, she expressed concern that several of those asking questions appeared to be members of staff who arranged the screening.

Following an unexpected private preview of the movie provided by associate producer Mark Mathis, Scientific American is publishing a series of articles entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Scientific American's Take, in which editor John Rennie, movie interviewee Michael Shermer, and Steve Mirsky review and discuss the movie.

Shermer relates that he was surprised to see his alma mater Pepperdine University feature so prominently as supporters of Stein in the opening of the movie, as "their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution" and it was during his studies there that Shermer himself learned about evolutionary biology and realized that he had been "hoodwinked" by creationism proponents. He explains that according to the university, only "two or three" students appear in the scene, and the remainder are hired extras. He discusses how he was misled about the subject of the movie and how his interview was edited, and various omissions of pertinent fact in the movie. He describes the movie's exploitation of Holocaust imagery as a "propaganda production [that] would make Joseph Goebbels proud".

Rennie believes that Expelled is "a movie not quite harmless enough to be ignored" and although its points are "all recycled from previous pro-ID works", "its heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency". He criticizes the rhetorical device of referring not to "scientists" but "darwinists", indicating that "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." He echoes Shermer's comments regarding the omission of facts, and in particular the way that the movie depicts Robert Sternberg is "shoddy investigation or deliberate propagandizing", but more generally its depictions of the other scientist and the histories of Stalinism and the Holocaust.

He observes that "the omission of science from Expelled was a deliberate choice", that "Ben Stein doesn't want you to recognize evolution versus ID as a conflict between valid scientific ideas and invalid ones" because then "it suddenly begins to look much more just when, say, universities don't reward faculty who fritter away their careers on ill-conceived theories". In summation he considers that it is "a film for ID creationism's religious base", "a rallying point to revive their morale". His closing remarks express concern for Stein, who "might have lost relatives in the Holocaust but is now appropriating it for an intellectually dishonest purpose".

In a podcast, Mirsky talks with SA editors and an Expelled interviewee Eugenie Scott who explains how she was "bamboozled" into appearing in the film.

On April 18, 2008 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a statement about Expelled saying the AAAS was "especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called 'Expelled' are inappropriately pitting science against religion." The statement "further decries the profound dishonesty and lack of civility demonstrated by this effort" as well as the press release 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."

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, and The Polar Express. A total of four public relations firms have been hired. The film's website includes trailers, 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 freedom of inquiry, teleology and the beliefs of historically prominent scientists. He also accuses the modern American scientific establishment as being "a new anti-religious dogmatism". The letter claims 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.

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.

To publicize the film, Ben Stein appeared on the cable television show The O'Reilly Factor. Intelligent design was described by 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 gd. And yet, somehow, today you're not allowed to believe it. Why can't we have as much freedom as Darwin had?" 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.

Producers also gave away a free limited edition Ben Stein bobblehead doll to anyone who brought 25 people to see the movie.

The "Expelled Challenge"

In order to promote the film, the website "GetExpelled.com" launched "The Expelled Challenge" which offers to pay schools up to $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. 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.

The program also recommends a "school-wide mandatory field trip" as "the best way to maximize your school's earning potential". Elsberry criticizes this as a call to "take children away from classrooms, fill their heads with obnoxiously delivered misinformation, and profit off of it."

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.

Promotional interviews with producers

Walt Ruloff, executive director of the film, was interviewed on the Discovery Institute's ID the Future podcast. Ruloff said that "Ben Stein [is] obviously a great intellect, considered one of the smartest people as far as a Hollywood personality in the United States." Ruloff said that the dominant "Darwinist orthodoxy" was unfairly discriminating against religious scientists, discouraging any of the "future great minds" coming from the 85% of the American public that are religious. He felt Darwinism was preventing scientists from thinking outside the box, and therefore hurting science and innovation. He said he was surprised how widespread and entrenched the suppression of intelligent design is. Ruloff said that the emphasis on Darwinism was also preventing scientific advances with implications for health care, since scientists told him off-camera that as much as 30% of their scientific results had to be suppressed and were essentially "shelved" (particularly in RNA synthesis, and Ruloff claimed this percentage is growing). He alleges that he learnt that the standard response in genomics and molecular biology for most questions is "no you can't do that" because the ideas violated Darwinism, so Darwinism is a "science-stopper". Ruloff described the team he had assembled to make the film, and said he was glad that for the director, he had managed to hire Nathan Frankowski, who had previously been second unit director for the controversial ABC television movie, The Path to 9/11. Ruloff said he was looking forward to the film opening on Darwin Day, February 12th, 2008, though the movie would later be delayed.

In January 2008, one of the producers of Expelled, Mark Mathis, was interviewed on a Victory Broadcast Service Radio program, whose mission is to "spread the Good News of Jesus Christ". Mathis stated that it was unfair that "90% of the American public" believes that there is design in nature but in Academia, the opposite is true (independent surveys show that popular support for some form of theistic influence in the origin of species is below 45% as of 2007). Mathis said that at one time the Church had very strong control over science, and this was reasonable since the Church "advanced" science, and that now there is a backlash with the pendulum swinging the other way. Instead, Mathis said that now the Church of Atheism and Secularism excludes all ideas that are contrary to atheistic beliefs in climatology, biology and politics. Stein asks questions of scientists who subscribe to evolution "Columbo-style", and that it is "hilarious" to watch the scientists trying to answer, according to Mathis. Mathis stated that it was unreasonable for the scientists to claim that they were misled, since he personally contacted them and conducted the interviews and was quite open with them, and the scientists cashed the paychecks he gave them for their interviews. Mathis expressed surprise that the scientists answered his questions in a manner that was consistent with their publications, and supported evolution in the interviews and disparaged intelligent design. He was particularly dismissive of the complaints of Richard Dawkins since Dawkins was in the movie The Root of All Evil? and wrote the book God Delusion. Mathis said the reason that Darwinists oppose intelligent design is that this will mean they have to share grant money with intelligent design and cut into their book sales. Mathis predicted that this movie will have a big impact on the debate about evolution and government policy. Mathis stated that the movie will appear in the first or second week of April, 2008, but that the release date is not yet firm. Mathis was also interviewed by the Discovery Institute's Rob Crowther in February of 2008.

Executive Producer Logan Craft, chairman of the board of Premise Media, was interviewed by Jerry Pierce for the Southern Baptist Texan, official publication of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, in January of 2008. Craft said that the reason intelligent design is so controversial is that it is a scientific challenge to "Darwinism", not a religious challenge. Craft said that it was clear with the discovery of DNA that the materialistic basis of science must be discarded and the supernatural admitted into science. Craft stated that as Freud and Marx had been rejected, Darwin must be cast aside as well, calling the trio the "the three bearded men, or ZZ Top of the 19th century." Craft's main complaint about Darwin was that his theory was too simple to describe the origin of life.

Press conferences

A 50 minute telephone press conference with Stein and the producers was held 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?"

Producer Walt Ruloff claimed 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.

Another telephone press conference was held March 28, 2008. 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 claimed 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.

On March 28th, 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. In the interview, Mathis claims the overt use of Nazi imagery and quote-mining of scientists was not his decision, but instead blames unnamed 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 is being promoted by Christian media and by organizations affiliated with the Discovery Institute. As part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns claiming discrimination one of the institute's websites, Intelligent Design the Future, makes the claim that Expelled "reveals the stark truth: Darwinists have been conspiring to keep design out of classrooms, out of journals, and out of public discourse." The Discovery Institute has 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.

Many others in the Christian and Creationist communities are anxiously anticipating this movie. For example, Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis, a young earth creationist organization, discussed the film and the promotional campaign in an article that appeared December 17, 2007 on the AiG website. Purdom is glad that the film will highlight the discrimination against scientists who rely on the Bible, instead of human reason, for their work. She complains that the only scientists featured appear to be connected with the intelligent design movement, rather than creationists like herself. Purdom also expresses uneasiness about the "big tent" approach of intelligent design and this film, since it does not look like it will promote the Bible as a better source of truth than the Koran or human reason. She equates the use of human reason with agnosticism.

Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries also wrote about the upcoming film on the Probe Ministries website. Bohlin claims that the persecution of scientists who question Darwinism has led to the dismissal of tenured faculty. He also states 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.

Screenings

As part of the pre-release marketing for the film, a web-based RSVP system page was publicized, offering free private movie screenings. 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. The producers have also held invitation only screenings for religious organizations and government officials.

Conservative Christian groups

In advance of release, the film was shown at private screenings to various Christian conservative leaders including James Dobson. 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 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.

Florida legislators

In Florida, representative Alan Hays who had filed House 1483: Relating to Teaching Chemical and Biological Evolution, an "Academic Freedom bill" reflecting a Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign, invited Florida legislators to a private screening of Expelled. The screening held in the IMAX Theater of the Challenger Learning Center of Tallahassee, Florida, on March 12, 2008. It was stated that the event had been approved by House General Counsel and was not paid for by a lobbyist/principal. The legislation has been criticized as trying to allow biblical creationists to bring religious teachings into classrooms, but Hays states that the bill is simply drafted to allow teachers and students to discuss "the full range" of problems and ideas surrounding Darwin's theory, without fear of punishment. He and his co-sponsor Senator Ronda Storms were both unable to name any teachers in Florida who have been disciplined for being critical of evolution in the science classroom. Hays said "I want a balanced policy. I want students taught how to think, not what to think. There are problems with evolution. Have you ever seen a half-monkey, half human?" The bill is seen as an attempt to undermine recently adopted education standards, which have been opposed by supporters of intelligent design but which, according to a majority of the education board, already support the right to teach students how to question evidence and analyze scientific theories. The film and the bill have been described by critics as going hand in hand with the intelligent design wedge strategy.

The invitation was restricted to legislators, their spouses, and their legislative aides. The press and public were excluded, and when the House general counsel was asked if that was legal under the Florida sunshine law he stated that it was technically legal as long as they just watched the film without discussing the issue or arranging any future votes. 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."

The screening was attended by about 100 people, but few were legislators, and the majority of legislators stayed away. In a press conference afterwards Stein said the documentary showed that the academic freedom bill was needed. The legislation tells instructors to teach the "full range" of "scientific information" about biological and chemical evolution. During the press conference John Stemberger of the evangelical Florida Family Policy Council, one of the drafters of the bill, said that intelligent design could not be taught, though "criticisms" of evolution could, and the teacher would have to follow the curriculum. Stein said it was the teacher who would decide what was "scientific information", and Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, said that intelligent design constituted "scientific information", but that the bill was not intended to settle that question. The Miami Herald saw this as acknowledgement that the bill would make it easier to bring up religiously tinged intelligent design in public-school science classrooms. Wesley R. Elsberry considered that this would enable the Discovery Institute to recruit sympathetic teachers to introduce religiously-motivated antievolution arguments, and lawsuits would depend on someone with standing being willing to become a plaintiff. John West of the Discovery Institute said that "scientific information" would be determined by science teachers themselves in consultation with their science curriculum staff and their school boards. This would bypass the Florida education standards identified by science domain experts and education experts.

PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins at Minnesota 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. 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." Dawkins described the event as "a gift" and that "we could not ask for anything better".

One blog claimed 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." However, the producer later wrote:

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.

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. In an email to another blog, Mathis stated that "I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more."

ChristianityToday liveblog cited Myers as saying that he'd heard that the film is "not only boring and poorly made, but is ludicrous in its dishonesty. Apparently, a standard tactic is to do lots of fast cuts between biologists like me or Dawkins or Eugenie Scott and shots of Nazi atrocities. It's all very ham-handed. The audience apparently ate it up, though. Figures. Christians have a growing reputation for their appreciation of dishonesty." The student who had e-mailed described the film as "subtly clever and occasionally funny", and reported that the movie they had seen was a rough Director's Cut with occasional things out of sync or appearing to jump. The soundtrack included well known music, but Mathis indicated that music cues might change before the final cut.

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". 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. Dawkins was not asked for his identification when he arrived at the screening. It shows both of his forenames, giving his full name as "Clinton Richard Dawkins".

Reports of false cancellation notices for screenings

Arizona State University professor John M. Lynch (of "Stranger Fruit") has reported receiving an email (to him and several others) stating that the screening he was to attend had been moved one hour earlier. He later received an email (to him and five others) stating that the RSVP screening he was set to attend had been canceled. One of the other individuals to receive this email phoned the theater, which revealed that the screening was set to go ahead anyway. 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 proposed a guest pre-screening process was set up in response to the Myers and Dawkins incident, and uses this as evidence.

See also

• Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns‎
• Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, a NOVA documentary about intelligent design and the Kitzmiller v Dover trial.
• Flock of Dodos, a documentary contrasting the debate between intelligent design proponents and the scientific establishment that supports evolution.

External links

• Expelled homepage
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at IMDb
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at Box Office Mojo
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at Rotten Tomatoes
• Expelled Exposed — A National Center for Science Education site examining the claims made in the movie and the actions of its producers.
• Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know — A Scientific American article on the film.