User:Filll/expelledtest

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial film which presents claims of persecution to promote intelligent design, "an ideological cousin of creationism" or a "creationist idea", according to the New York Times. Proponents of intelligent design assert that it is not creationism and have objected to this description being used in promotion of the film. Starring Ben Stein, the film is due to be released in February 2008.

The film describes four or five ordinary academic disputes as persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, and claims there is a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. However, in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and that its promotion in public school science classes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of things conservatives consider to be societal ills, from Communism to Planned Parenthood, while failing to define or explain either evolution or its supposed alternative, intelligent design. The evidence that evolution is responsible for social problems does not exist and within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus and intelligent design is not considered to be valid science, but is viewed as creationism.

Although not yet released, the film is being promoted by Christian media and by organizations affiliated with the Discovery Institute, the hub and source of the intelligent design movement. 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." However, the Discovery Institute has been critical of some of the statements made in promotion for the film, such as Bill O'Reilly equating intelligent design with creationism.

Claims presented in the film

The film alleges "that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions." It is claimed to show that educators and scientists who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have been unfairly ridiculed, presenting cases such as an application to be granted tenure being refused and a biology teacher having to leave the university, and describes this as due to a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. The trailer shows Ben Stein stating that his intention is to unmask "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God."

The press release for the film alleges that Stein discovers "an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma" and allows no dissent from what it calls "Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection." However, at this time, intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth. Contrary to charges that evolution is equivalent to atheism (or associated with atheism) by many promoters of intelligent design and creationism,scientists commonly hold religious faiths, while using the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which looks to nature to answer questions about nature and ignores supernatural explanations which are by definition “not within the scope or abilities of science.” Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community, it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God, but because it is not scientific and instead is just a creationist pseudoscience. and therefore the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science, but as creationism. This was confirmed in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, when a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that claims by proponents have been "refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

The film implies that Darwin's theory of evolution was responsible for the Holocaust, a part of an ongoing Discovery Institute campaign, and a frequently-used and oft-discredited creationist charge. Stein repeatedly claims that evolution is responsible for the Holocaust in interviews promoting the film and on his blog on the film's website.

People presented in the film

The film is described by its promoters as citing several people as victims of persecution. Those named have featured in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.

Richard Sternberg 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.

The astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University, co-wrote the book The Privileged Planet promoting intelligent design claims. After the normal review of aspects 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 Discovery Institute then launched a campaign portraying Gonzalez as a victim of discrimination.

Biologist Caroline Crocker was barred by George Mason University from teaching a Cell Biology class over her introduction of intelligent design into it, and her contract at that university was not renewed.

The film also includes interviews with scientists who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.

Claims that film producers misled interviewees

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and NCSE 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.

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." Richard Dawkins said "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front"; and Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, said "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t."

Mark Mathis (one of the film's producers who set up the interviews for Expelled) 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 September 27, 2007 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?"

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".

Promotion

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 suggests 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 long format "super trailer" implies that this film is so controversial that some people who watch it may lose their jobs, and states "if you're a scientist with any hope of a future, I suggest you leave right now." The trailer also implies that the content of this film is so dangerous that teachers, legislators and journalists should not view it either. It promotes the intelligent design explanation for the species observed on planet earth and their behavior, and implies there is no evidence for the mainstream scientifically-accepted understanding of the origins of species. The trailer and other promotional materials often refer to evolution as "Darwinism", a term that has acquired negative connotations because it is used by creationists and intelligent design supporters to connote atheism and other unpopular beliefs. The trailer states that the science is in "the era of Darwin," and that scientific publications questioning Darwinism would have been welcomed in the time of Galileo or Einstein, but no longer are possible. The trailer claims that the courts, schools and the media are also involved in attacking intelligent design proponents.

The website also 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.

The press release for the movie asks, "Were we designed or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?" It claims that several scientists who found evidence for design have been censored in various ways. The press release asserts that "Big Science" does not allow dissent from "Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection." It suggests that there is no evidence for evolution.

To publicise the film, Ben Stein featured on 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 God. 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 at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Many others in the Christian and creationist community are anxiously anticipating this movie. For example, Dr. 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 do not rely on human reason, but instead on the Bible 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 lead to tenured faculty being fired. 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.

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 disciminating against religious scientists, discouraging any of our "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 supressed and were essentially "shelved" (particularly in RNA synthesis, and Ruloff claimed this percentage is growing). He was shocked to learn 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 to get Nathan Frankowski, who had previously been second unit director for the controversial ABC television movie, The Path to 9/11.

Reviews

Dan Whipple of Colorado Confidential, a self-described "award-winning independently-produced political news daily featuring original and investigative reporting", 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. 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.

Tom Magnuson posted a statement on the Access Research Network blog, which is associated with the Discovery Institute, after he saw a private screening of the film. Magnuson stated that, "This is definitely a film that Darwinists will not want you to see." Magnuson gave the film a rating of "Four Stars".

On December 27, 2007, Concerned Women for America (CWA) 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 and funny and shocking. They look forward to it being profound and controversial. They felt this movie presented an extremely credible case.

See also

• Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns‎

External links

• Expelled homepage
• Filll/expelledtest at IMDb