'Expelled ', the movie , debuts Friday the 18th - the largest US.opening of a documentary - updated

Smaller Trailer:


The thought police are active on our campuses. This movie is at Franklin Park cinema on Friday.

On April 18, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," will boast the largest U.S. opening of any documentary film ever.

Scheduled for release in 1,000 theatres, "Expelled" will be hotter than "Farenheit 9/11," which debuted on 868 screens, and much more convenient to see than "An Inconvenient Truth," which I was surprised to find opened on only four screens nationwide despite all the hype, peaking at 587 before its appeal melted.

What's "Expelled" about? Synopsizes CNS News:

"Expelled" calls attention to the plight of highly credentialed scholars who have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they proposed Intelligent Design as a possible alternative to Charles Darwin's 150-year-old theories about the origins of life.
Instead of entertaining a debate on the merits of competing theories, the scientific establishment has moved to suppress the ID movement in a "systematic and ruthless" way at odds with America's founding principles, the film asserts.
On March 20, two Darwinian defenders, who accepted payment to talk on the film, tried to bust into a private screening in Minnesota.

"PZ" Myers, a University of Minnesota biology professor and proprietor of the popular atheist blog Pharyngula, was quickly expelled, much as he condones expelling professors who deviate from the monkey line, as he wrote on The Panda's Thumb blog:

The only appropriate responses [to Intelligent Design proponents] should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians." ~ Comment #35130, PZ Myers, June 14, 2005
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford who wrote the book "The God Delusion," gained entry only by foregoing his evolved surname for the formal, Clinton.

Myers then disrupted an "Expelled" conference call with reporters the next day.

These uncivilized spectacles caused a liberal mass meltdown. According to an "Expelled" press release, the "Expelled" controversy held the No. 1 slot in the blogosphere all day March 24, as registered by Nielson's BlogPulse, and garnered over 800 Technorati results.

If we are seeing this meltdown on the left even before "Expelled" officially opens, expect a Big Bang on April 18.

"This is not a scientific battle; this is a worldview battle," "Expelled" producer Mark Mathis told me. Mathis has encountered unbridled hostility from the scientific establishment, i.e., avowed Darwinists, at previews.

"Expelled" connects atheism and Darwinism with no missing link, one of the film's two major flashpoints.

Darwinism is a specific evolutionary theory that excludes everything but material processes in the design of all life forms. No Intelligent Design allowed.

"What's driving it is Darwinism is a foundational principle – scientific validation of secularism, atheism, liberalism – and that it strikes at the core of who they are," said Mathis.

"Secondarily, these scientists are the high priests of the biggest question ever asked. They have all the authority, knowledge, power, funding," continued Mathis. "This is ground they own exclusively. They look down their elitist noses at the unwashed ignorant religious masses and scoff. That's why they respond with such extreme hostility. They are very concerned that if this monolith cracks, then the whole thing could crash."

Indeed, "Expelled" is already making a difference. Last month, Ben Stein, star of "Expelled," screened it for Florida legislators as they prepared to present a bill guaranteeing academic freedom in their schools. It looks ready to pass.

Last week, Stein screened "Expelled" to Missouri lawmakers followed by a press conference promoting three academic freedom bills germinating there.

Not only is Darwinism foundational to atheism, it is foundational to eugenics, the other reason for the left's apoplexy against "Expelled," according to Mathis. They cannot tolerate the connection "Expelled" draws between Darwinism and Adolf Hitler.

Or Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

"Planned Parenthood is a direct outgrowth of Darwinism," said Mathis. "Sanger was an open proponent of eugenics, and Darwinism is an idea that naturally leads to eugenics, which they are denying," said Mathis. "But they are compatible."

That Hitler and Nazism drew from Darwinism is irrefutable. "Hitler said genocide of Jews was doing good, cleansing the world of 'useless eaters' and strengthening formation of an 'Aryan' race of super-humans," said Mathis.

One complaint Darwinist scientists interviewed for "Expelled" have not lodged is that the filmmakers applied Michael Moore cut-and-paste editing to make them look bad. The film includes many of their long, uninterrupted thoughts.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Hey, Chuck, I agree with you that the world is flat, the sun and stars revolve around the earth, and your great-grandparents were around with the dinosaurs. (smile!) Let's be honest here: intelligent design is a smoke screen for creationism and Biblical fundamentalism. The gist of your article is full of religious "elitism" itself. The "highly credentialed scholars" you mentioned are neither identified by name, department or institution so that we can look at their credentials and see who they are. They are "highly credentialed" and "scholars" only on the say-so of the writer of the article you cited. Poor scholarship, indeed! But I guess that should be expected of the ID people.

Don't let things like facts get in your way Pete. The creationists don't. BTW everyone...the Earth is over 6000 years old.

Sensor, I hope you realize my opening remarks were facetious.

Sorry - I was jumping on your band wagon...

Wow, there are so many things wrong with that post. Suffice it to say ID is not a competing theory with evolution. ID is not a scientific theory at all.

After reading the entire book "Origin of the Species" by C. Darwin, he never says how life originally started, only how it evolved . It wasn't until several years later that he came up with what we now call the "promordial ooze" idea.

But, when the BBC and Cambridge University tried to test Darwins "theory" of life beginning in a 'warm little pond' here is what they concluded from the experiments.

"The results are surprising and in some ways disappointing. It seems that hot acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into 'pioneer organisms.'"

Professor Deamer said that amino acids and DNA, the "building blocks" for life, and phosphate, another essential ingredient, clung to the surfaces of clay particles in the volcanic pools.

"The reason this is significant is that it has been proposed that clay promotes interesting chemical reactions relating to the origin of life," he explained.

"However," he added, "in our experiments, the organic compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they could not undergo any further chemical reactions."


Bottom line....
Apparently Darwins Theory CANNOT be proven scientifically and is in fact DIS-PROVEN using the scientific process.

It is highly probable that his "natural selection" theory is correct, but he does NOT explain where life came from and THAT theory has been scientifically proven to be bunk.

So now what?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

Hey BlowMe....and what did the scientific studies on ID prove?

Thought so.

Wow - since scientists today, can't reproduce how life began a billion or two years ago, so Darwin was wrong? That’s the most fucked up piece of logic I’ve heard today. (It’s early and Fred’s on the radio, so I’m sure more is coming).

The best minds in science could produce an airplane 200 years ago; does that prove we couldn’t fly?

It’s this fucked up logic that really makes me fear for our public schools. BlowMe is there product? Now he and Mail Sack want to dumb down our kids even further.

It makes my head hurt.

I'll tell you why you CAN'T show me PROOF of Darwins theory, BECAUSE IT IS A THEORY.

And apparently, like a good little Liberal, YOUR theory is the only right theory therefore you cannot and will not even entertain any other thoughts.

No wonder it is so easy for Democrats to control your little minds. Now shut up and go vote for Hillary like your lord and master, Howard Dean TELLS YOU TO.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

What does this have to do with Democrats? I think your confusion has to do with the word "theory". It doesn't mean what you think it means in the scientific world. Evolution happens---that's a fact. How it happens is a scientific theory. Think--theory of gravitation---or do not believe in gravity? But here's further explanation on the use of the word "theory" when it comes to evolution, via Scientific American: (I don't think S.A. is funded by George Soros, but you may want to check)

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Btw--when you find those scientific studies on ID, let me know!

Blowme, evolution has been proven. The mutation and evolution of life has been shown many times. Did you know that there are different species of snails in Hawaii because they are separated by mountain ranges just a couple of miles from each other? Did you know that we can see the mutations of generations of fruit flies over the course of a month that turn them into different types of flies from the original flies? Do you like dogs? What kind do you own? I'll bet you like him, don't you? Well, dogs all come from WOLVES. That's evolution.

there is no evidence that one species has changed into another(macro) . There is much change within species' (micro)

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:


A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.


On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

that is from

and this is from me -
You guys can believe in random happenings if you want .
Our DNA, and systems of our human body are far too complex and unique to have just happened . Things evolve from better to worse . If you put a 747 in a junk yard , it will rust away and break down . Same with evolution . YOu don'
t get order and good engineering from chance.

There is plenty of evidence. The family of animals Elephantidae containing the individual species of mastodons, mammoths, modern Asian and African elephants are undeniably related and show adaptation (natural selection) to their environments over the course of millenia. The modern species also do NOT easily interbreed, one of the criteria for determining whether a species has set off on its own path. The members of the modern cat family, felidae, (tigers, lions, cougars, lynxes, etc.) are undeniably related not only among their species, but also related to extinct species (saber tooths, smilodon, etc.). Same thing with the family Equidae containing the species horses, donkeys, zebras, onagers, and others. All related, all different species. All showing that they evolved from a common ancestor and adapted via natural selection to their environments.

I won't touch the evolutionary evidence for the species homo sapiens being related to others of the primate order for fear of sending your blood pressure through the ceiling. Go back to reading your Bible.

FYI, the classification system goes like this:
Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
The whole system is based on increasing degrees of (genetic) relatedness as it moves toward a more specific species.

Our DNA, and systems of our human body are far too complex and unique to have just happened

Exactly. That's why they didn't just "happen". Evolution is far from random. The only thing random about it are mutations. Some mutations turns out to be favorable (meaning there's a greater chance for outcompeting your rivals and passing on your genes). Natural selection is a very detailed process. It's wrong to think about it a randomness. Richard Dawkins does a fine job in The Blind Watchmaker of detailing a long detailed process of how the human eye evolved. It didn't just "happen".

One good example--long ago our ancestors had much stronger and larger jawbones, which extended higher up in the skull. (I believe it was a jawbone--the way I heard it). No doubt to be able to chew thru raw meat a little easier. Then--mutation, a smaller jawbone occurs in one of the humans. Well, this smaller jawbone meant that there was more room in the human skull for the brain to grow larger. This larger brain allowed this "mutant" to out-think his competitors. Because of this, the "mutant" was able to outlive some of his competitors and passed on his genes. His offspring then had larger brains as well, etc. I may not have the details exactly right, but this is a good example of how evolution would work.

It is the opposite of randomness.

Actually, one of the main theses of the movie has more to do with "open and honest inquiry" and free speech than it has to do with origins itself. Science is not being called into question per se, rather it is the naturalistic worldview of "scientism" which has "Expelled" from its community any and all open and honest discussion.

Real science has always been about looking at all of the data, except in this case of the reasonable possibility that the cause for the design and order of nature was caused by an intelligent designer.

One of the foundational principles of real science has always been about theories must always correspond to the facts and data, and when they don't, one jettisons the theory instead of trying to force the facts and data to fit a theory..

Ben Stein in his interview with RC Sproul on You Tube said just how high the stakes are in this debate which is why he agreed to do the movie and that is the principle that the U.S. was founded upon: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

If there is no Creator, because the founding fathers got it wrong, then we are not endowed with those rights and neither are our rights inalienable.

Equality, liberty and the pursuit of happines becomes a farce leading to a life of despair. If the gov't is the one who gives us our rights, then it is the gov't who can take them away. Isn't that what we are seeing right now?

Of course, that quote is from the Declaration of Independence but just about every Preamble of every State Contitution mentions a Creator in some way--even Massachussetts.

If there is no Creator, then man and ultimately the State becomes the "measure of all things" and an individual or gov't can do whatever he or it wants since justice and morality then becomes arbitary, including the murdering of 6 million Jews . Justice and morality then become relative to whatever any given society or culture wants it to be.

The bottom line here is that there are only two alternatives to explain the existence of the universe: (a.) that matter is eternal, impersonal, amoral, unintellegent, without purpose or reason, and that the universe and life created itself merely by random chance, or (b) that the universe is not a closed system, that an eternal, self-existent, personal, moral, transcendent. supernatural being created all matter and life out of nothing.

Engraved on Thomas Jefferson's memorial is his quote: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”

That is a logical fallacy. It is commonly said that if you don't believe in a God, then lawlessness, rape, and murder are allowed. NOT SO! First of all, it isn't a valid logical proposition to say that if there is no God, man will be lawless. Lawlessness does not logically follow from the lack of a God.

Second, it's not even human nature for people to go hogwild if there is no God. There are many atheists and agnostics around who lead perfectly normal lives. It's called self-interest. It is not in the interests of most people to lead lawless lives. It is human nature to nurture their young and protect them. It is not human nature to kill wontonly and rape and pillage as individuals (though I guess it's o.k. if you're part of a state organization). For one thing, it's dangerous to be a marauder: lots of people will want to kill you. It's not in one's self-interest to live outside the pale of civilization. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God.

Third, there are logical reasons for living without harming others. Read Immanuel Kant's Metaphysics of Morals. Kant's categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid; they are good in and of themselves; they must be obeyed in all situations. It's called duty and, in a nutshell, is a kind of golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Not believing in God does NOT imply what you are suggesting, Jayott. If all that is keeping the God-fearing folk from killing, cheating, and law-breaking, then I would truly be afraid of believers. Their morality doesn't go very deep.

Real science has always been about looking at all of the data, except in this case of the reasonable possibility that the cause for the design and order of nature was caused by an intelligent designer.

One of the foundational principles of real science has always been about theories must always correspond to the facts and data, and when they don't, one jettisons the theory instead of trying to force the facts and data to fit a theory..

Ok.....so how is ID tested? What are the facts and data that support ID? This is my problem with creationists. They try to pick apart the science behind evolution (and that's fine, we should question it--it ultimately leads us closer to the truth via further testing), but creationists offer no science at all for their claims. The burden of proof lies with those making the "creator" claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Btw, the founders gave us a secular government.

There seems to be a vast disconnect and agenda on all sides.

Is it possible, that the creator, made all that we know and see, and let them loose and let the process of life take over.

Some die and some take the place and so on and so forth, all part of the grand scheme of the creator, or are we so vain and full of knowledge that we think we know what the greater plan is.

We did not simply appear one day and set up shop, there are historical records and archaeological records.

I had seen some scientists that were quite content to believe in a creator god and yet wanted to unwrap the mystery of life, in a scientific way and not a faith based way.

hopefully we can get tickets Friday.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.


First off, what is this movie? Expelled claims to be a documentary showing the persecution of those supporting Intelligent Design in the academic community.

In reality, it's nothing less than a distorted propaganda piece.

In order to produce the film, the producers knowingly lied to the evolution supporters it interviewed regarding the nature and purpose of the film.

An edited propaganda piece, that people will believe, just like they believe anything Michael Moore says - it's all in the editing, but it's still propaganda.

This is a topic that's gone around the block here a few times already - and the buffoons who claim that Earth is 6,000 years old have lost any credibility with me right off that bat - the earth is what? 65 billion years old? mailmanchuck also likes to believe (and promote & mis-educate kids with) that dinosaurs & the cave man existed peacefully alongside Biblical characters. Just that statement that the earth is 6,000 years old - shows how Creationists distort & lie just in the hopes of making it 'fit' into their belief system. I asked before & never got an answer - so I ask again - mailmanchuck - IF what you say is true, that the earth is 6,000 years old, then how do you explain the Iceman & Sue the dinosaur?

Ötzi the Iceman (pronounced [ˈœtsi] (help·info)), Frozen Fritz, and Similaun Man are modern nicknames of a well-preserved natural mummy of a man from about 3300 BC (53 centuries ago),[1] found in 1991 in the Schnalstal glacier in the Ötztal Alps, near Hauslabjoch on the border between Austria and Italy. The nickname comes from Ötztal, the region in which he was discovered. He is Europe's oldest natural human mummy, and has offered an unprecedented view of Chalcolithic (Copper Age) .

Catalog number FMNH PR2081
Common name Sue
Species Tyrannosaurus rex
Age between 67 and 65.5 million years
Place discovered Cheyenne River Indian Reservation, South Dakota
Date discovered 1990
Discovered by Susan Hendrickson

Science can prove the world is billions of years old, simply by going thru the strata of the continents. Religion says it's 6,000 years and to take that on faith.

How do Creationists account for this?
Dinosaurs were the dominant vertebrate animals of the terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) to the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago). They are divided into a number of subgroups, the largest two being based on the structure of the hip. Saurischians retained the lizard-like hips of their ancestors, and included theropods like Tyrannosaurus and sauropodomorphs like Diplodocus. Ornithischians were herbivores with bird-like hips, and included such groups as armored, horned, bone-headed, and duck-billed dinosaurs. These groups evolved a variety of adaptations and occupied diverse niches as the Earth and its environments changed during the Mesozoic Era, but (with the exception of birds; see below), perished in the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event approximately 65 million years ago.

Just because Thomas Jefferson (or anybody) said something decades ago, does not mean they were right, or had the first clue what they were spouting off about. It was a very puritanical time back then - almost everybody was religious - you just blindly believed. Those folks back then also said some pretty stupid things too. I hold T. Jefferson in fairly high regard - not as much as others, but I fail to see why he'd have supreme knowledge about God & creation. He spoke of what he learned as he grew up - that was his truth, through his eyes. But it doesnt' mean it's true.

ALSO - Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion - several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. ~Mark Twain

There are three religious truths: 1) Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. 2) Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith. 3) Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters. ~Author Unknown

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!" ~Author Unknown

On the sixth day God created man. On the seventh day, man returned the favor. ~Author Unknown

Here is a great response to Expelled by the National Center for Science Education, a national organization that fights for the teaching of evolution in classrooms around America. Some great scoop on various 'truths' unearthed in the film, and exaggerated claims of attacks on ID proponents.


I don't get why folks defend the tactics of this movie by using "well, Michael Moore does the same thing" as a legitimate rationale. Debate those tactics on their own merits, not on who else uses 'em.

Wow. Linking evolutionary theory to Nazi Germany as a strike against evolution. Blame evolution? I don't see anyone linking together Christianity, or the belief in God in general, with being a major cause behind Nazi Germany (or a host of other incomprehensible atrocities committed through time), although that connection is probably much stronger....And grossly inaccurate. It is the improper adoption of various doctrines designed to justify reprehensible actions, and to whip the people into a frenzy to follow your cause.

Although mentioning the idea of eugenics in this conversation does make me mull over a thought. Bringing ID or creationism into a science classroom as a valid alternative scientific theory might be considered akin to bringing eugenics in the science classroom, or other unsupported scientific theories. Not similar in content, of course, but in a laxness about teaching science not just as a field of knowledge, but also as a way of thinking and process of examining the world. When you really start to open the door on what is considered science, you open up a slippery slope of wild ideas and unsupported claims.

BTW - do you know what the Nazis put in their cars to make them run? Gas! Oh my God! Gas is evil too!

I hadn't thought of that!

Neither Stephan Meyer nor Richard Sternberg (the two mentioned in the trailer film) would have gotten into hot water with their peers if they had not tried to pass themselves off as scientists. If they want to preach ID, why don't they get a job and write papers in the Department of Religion? Why do they attempt to say they are working on science? Science propounds theories that can be tested and experimented on with tangible and measurable results, those results can be duplicated by others, and those theories can be used to make future predictions about phenomena. ID can do none of those things and, therefore, it is not science. ID is a deadend regarding testing, experimenting, and the rest. It is a BELIEF system, not an inquiry system.


"Science propounds theories that can be tested and experimented on with tangible and measurable results, those results can be duplicated by others, and those theories can be used to make future predictions about phenomena."


That's just just false, John Frame argues:  "Science is more than observation and experiment. . . .

As many of the abovementioned thinkers point out, scientists do not simply gather data. They also propose hypotheses for investigation. Then they must deduce consequences from those hypotheses. Observation and experiment seek these consequences in order to verify or falsify the hypothesis. But the hypothesis itself is not necessarily the result of observation or experimentation. Einstein, for example, did not develop his theories of relativity on the basis of observation or experiment. Rather, his ideas initially came from “thought experiments,” imagining how things are likely to be. Many of his hypotheses have subsequently been verified by observation and experiment. Einstein was not himself an experimental scientist. But no one would deny that he was a scientist of the first order. The work of science, then, is not only observational and experimental, but also imaginative and logical. The scientist must use his imagination to determine significant hypotheses, and his logic to determine what it would take to verify or falsify these hypotheses and whether an experiment has, in fact, verified or falsified it. People often complain that ID is not science, because it is not based on observation and experiment. This charge is false, because ID writers rely on research already done by others. And some ID writers like Behe have done and published significant research. (Some other ID writers have done the same, but have had trouble publishing their findings because, they claim, of bias.) But the main contribution of ID to the discussion is logical: to evaluate what is required to verify evolutionary theory, to judge whether the evidence establishes it, and if not, what changes must be made to evolutionary theory to make it credible. ID primarily interprets data, rather than accumulating it. But that doesn’t make ID unscientific. Most neo-Darwinism today is explicitly anti-theistic. Neo-Darwinists believe that they have established a naturalistic basis for the origin and development of life. ID denies that they have established this and brings up evidence to the contrary. Why should the denial of theism be considered science, while the affirmation of it is considered “religion?” It is no less scientific to deduce intelligent design from the data than to deduce an unintelligent origin. So Darwinism, in some senses, is religious, and ID is scientific.

I wish you would give references when you quote somebody, Jayott. It's only courtesy. And I really wish you would give your own thoughts instead of just quoting somebody else's words as rebuttal. You make me think maybe you don't understand what the guy is saying.

But, o.k.. You make it sound as if scientists go around thinking up ideas without any basis in reality. You (or rather John Frame) cites Einstein as an example of someone who conducted thought experiments and who was not himself an experimental scientist. But what you have not noted is that Einstein was building on several centuries of close observation and experimentation on everything from falling bodies and laws of motion (Galileo and Newton), to electromagnetism (Faraday), and many other areas of physics and mathematics. Einstein did not just go out and start dreaming up far-out theories. They were based on the observational and experimental work of centuries of other people. Stephan Hawkins is not an experimental scientist, either, since he can't even talk anymore. But his work doesn't just pop out of his head. All these gentlemen are supremely grounded in the scientific work of their predecessors and their contemporaries, who were and are observers and experimenters, as well as theoreticians.

Of course, those scientists all use "imagination to determine significant hypotheses" and "logic to determine what it would take to verify". Without imagination and intelligence, we would all still be foraging in the forests for food. They use their imagination and intelligence to put all the available data about red line shifts and relativity and what the latest data from the atom smashers is into a reasonable portrait of what reality is or might be. Doesn't mean it can't change tomorrow with a new set of data. But they are ALL working from the latest set of data derived from experiments and observations. Maybe they're wrong and we'll get a new theory tomorrow. Depends on the observations.

But when you contrast ID with science and say, "People often complain that ID is not science, because it is not based on observation and experiment. This charge is false, because ID writers rely on research already done by others."
I have to wonder who you are talking about. Moses? Jesus? Noah? There is NO reputable research about ID unless you want to count the Bible as research. And HOW do you perform experiments and observations about an intelligent designer, i.e., God? This is the crux of the ID problem: you cannot perform experiments and observations on a deity that we can't see or hear or measure in any way. It is impossible to prove or disprove an intelligent designer. And that is why Intelligent Design IS NOT SCIENCE.

What the whole ID argument comes down to is this: the world is so beautiful and complex that it just couldn't have come about by itself. Well, here's news for you, Jayott, IT DIDN"T just come about by itself. It came about because of the laws of physics. Those are the same laws that scientists over many centuries have been laboring to codify and understand. And it's been done through observation, not through belief.

Did you all read the review of "Expelled" in the Blade's Peach section a day or two ago? Got horrible reviews (one star out of five) - a bombs, everywhere. And, "Expelled" refused entrance to see this film to the people that were interviewed IN THE FILM. (below).

There is no reason why intelligent design proponents cannot follow in the footsteps of these distinguished scientists who overcame sometimes considerable opposition, sometimes for a very long time, before their scientific views prevailed. Unlike ID advocates, these researchers didn’t skip past the research phase to try to influence the public before they had scientific support. None of them formed groups to lobby school boards to teach their views in the public schools; they just buckled down and did the work. None of them drafted model legislation or penned op-eds in newspapers and magazines decrying the supposed persecution they suffered at the hands of The Establishment; they just buckled down and did the work. None of them hired former Nixon speechwriters or game-show hosts to compare their opponents to Hitler; they just buckled down and did the work.

The difference between what scientists do and what intelligent design proponents do is that when scientists question aspects of evolution they do it with science, while intelligent design proponents do it with dishonest movies, tired slogans, and slick marketing.
ovie review: Propaganda piece "Expelled" flunks
Last update: April 17, 2008 - 5:18 PM
1/2 out of four stars

Unrated; includes concentration camp footage

According to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," the source of all evil in the modern world is Darwinism, a philosophy that, the film posits, is responsible for everything from atheism to abortion, euthanasia to the Holocaust.

A hard-core, fundamentalist bit of right-wing propaganda, "Expelled" slyly appropriates its style from liberal and left-wing sources, sending Ben Stein out to do deadpan interviews of a grab-bag of experts and wack jobs, while intercutting old movies, new animation and newsreel footage.

Typical of all propaganda, it also distorts language. The narration talks of "Darwinism" -- not evolution -- to make it sound like a dangerously secular cult; creationism is replaced by the more scientific-sounding "intelligent design." After an hour and a half, my faith in Darwin was shaken because, judging by what was on screen, we haven't evolved one blessed bit.
March 20, 2008 11:42PM
Dawkins Crashes 'Expelled' Party
Noted Darwinist shows up at screening of Intelligent Design documentary.

Expelled, a new documentary that argues the case for Intelligent Design from a Judeo-Christian perspective, has been in the headlines lately, prior to its April 18 theatrical release.

The film, hosted and narrated by Ben Stein, has been screened to invitation-only audiences at churches and for various Christian groups. But several critics have worked their way in to some of the screenings, most notably Roger Moore of The Orlando Sentinel, who recently trashed the movie in his blog.

A critic of another kind "crashed" a screening in Minnesota on Thursday night--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and arguably the most outspoken critic of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Dawkins himself appears in the documentary--but claims he was duped into believing it was going to be an objective account of Darwinism vs. ID.
A late night quick one
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 21, 2008 3:09 AM, by PZ Myers

People are asking me to tell them more about the movie, Expelled. I can't! I was thrown out!

Let me clarify a few things. This was a private screening with no admission charge, and you had to reserve seats ahead of time; you also had to sign a promise that you wouldn't record the movie while you were there, and they were checking ID. Everyone in my family reserved seats under our own names, myself included. There was no attempt to "sneak in", although apparently the producer, Mark Mathis, accused me of doing so in the Q&A afterwards (Mathis, of course, is a contemptible liar). We followed the procedures they set up, every step of the way, and were completely above board in all our dealings.

Mark Mathis was there at the screening, and apparently spotted me and gave instructions to the guard to throw me out. I asked the guard why I was being evicted, and he explained directly that the producer had given him that instruction.

They were well within their rights to exclude anyone. When I was told I would not be allowed in and threatened with arrest, I told the security guard that I would not cause any trouble. I stopped to talk with my family when they came over with a theater manager to evict me; again, I left peacefully. Apparently, the guards were talking about carrying out further measures when they saw me standing outside the theater, and speculated that I was going to harass other attendees. This was not true; I'd just had to leave my friends and family behind, and all I really wanted to do was tell them where I'd be. The last thing I wanted to do was spend two hours hanging around a movie theater.

This account is a complete fabrication. I was not disturbing anyone, was not trying to make a scene, and was only standing quietly in line. When I was taken aside by the guard, it was a complete surprise.

I was the only person evicted. The people I was with, which included my wife, my daughter Skatje, her boyfriend Collin, Richard Dawkins, and the entire staff of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, were overlooked. I was the lucky one.

Afterwards, we went out to eat and have a beer or two, which is why I didn't give you all a more complete summary right away. We laughed over the movie, which I hear 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.

There are plans afoot for rebuttals. It's hard to come up with much motivation to do so after discovering how bad this movie is, but yeah, both NCSE and the RDF will be doing something. Dawkins is going to mention it at least briefly in his talk tomorrow. He may write up a review, too, although I don't think he considers it a high priority (did I mention what a piece of dreck this movie is?).

The RDF crew are a fine bunch of people and we had a good time after the crappy movie. Which I have not seen. Apparently, I've been given a fair amount of time in the movie, too.

This outcome so far has been absolutely perfect, as far as I'm concerned. The hypocrisy of the Expelled makers has been exposed by their expulsion of one of the people they filmed (final lovely irony: I'm also thanked for my contributions in the credits), they've revealed their incompetence by throwing me out when Richard Dawkins was right next to me, and I didn't have to waste two hours on a bad movie.

I've also got a story to tell: when the creationists saw me and Dawkins in a lineup, I am the one that had them so frightened that they had to call for the guards. I feel mighty.
Irony 101 - Expelled from the Expelled the Movie
PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at University of Minnesota, Morris was Expelled from an invite-only screening of the documentary Expelled — No Intelligence Allowed on Thursday night at the Mall of America in Bloomington, MN. He, along with his family and his distinguished guest had registered online for the event and had received email confirmations. While standing in line, PZ Myers (who appears in the film) was recognized and informed by security that he would not be allowed inside the theater. A bemused Myers agreed to leave the theater without further incident, while his family and guest were allowed to remain in line and eventually preview the movie. Myer's guest was non-other than, esteemed biologist and critic of Intelligent Design, Richard Dawkins, who also appears in the movie Expelled. While they watched the film with a handful of preselected ID-friendly critics and guests, PZ Myers went down to the Apple Store and wrote about the event on his blog at ScienceBlogs: Pharyngula. Later that night, he posted a follow-up that explained the details of his Expulsion from the documentary Expelled."
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 20, 2008 8:26 PM, by PZ Myers

There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.

I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.

I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.

I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.

You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.

I'm a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.

He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.

Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism?
Posted on Feb 1, 2008 9:21:24 AM

How do you re-package that tried and untrue, untested and untestable faith-without-facts warhorse, "Creationism" after its nearly-annual beat-down by an increasingly exasperated scientific community?

After you've tried renaming it "Intelligent Design," I mean.

With comedy. Mock your "Darwinist" foes the way comics, thinkers, scientists and educated people everywhere have been mocking creationism since Scopes took that monkey off our back.

Tuck into them the way Michael Moore would, with a documentary hosted by a funny Don Quixote willing to tilt at science the way MM has gone after the gun culture, corporate cold-heartedness, George W. Bush and Big Health Care.

Get droll funnyman and ex-Nixon speech writer Ben Stein to host it, to be the on-camera jester-interviewer.

And re-cast this argument about what people chose to believe vs. what others can prove as fact as a fight for "Freedom."

That's the mnemonic device Stein came back to, time and again, last night in an Orlando screening of his new documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It's a rabble-rouser of a doc that uses all manner of loaded images, loaded rhetoric, few if any facts, dubious ID "experts" and mockery of hand-picked "weirdo" legit scientists to attack those who, Stein claims, are stifling the Religious Right's efforts to inject intelligent design into science courses, science curricula and the national debate.

He was showing the movie to what he and the producers hoped would be a friendly, receptive audience of conservative Christian ministers at a conference at the Northland mega-church next to the dog track up in Longwood. They're marketing this movie, which they had said, earlier, they'd open in Feb. (now April) the same way other studios pitched The Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia, said Paul Lauer of Motive Entertainment, who introduced Stein.

In other words, 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. Friendly words in the press only.

They postered the Orlando Sentinel with email invitations, then tried to withdraw the one they sent to me. No dice. They also passed out non-disclosure "statement of confidentiality" agreements for people to sign. I didn't.

What are they hiding from you? Straight propaganda, to be sure. But again, if Michael Moore or Robert Greenwald can do it, why not Ben Stein?

It's a movie that uses animation, archival documentary footage, interviews with outraged "people of science" who want ID on the table, and "atheists" (scientists) who see all this as a step backward, all freighted to back up the argument that it stifled "freedom" when you refuse to consider the work of a supernatural being in America's science classes.

It just isn't particularly funny. Or the least bit convincing.

I lost track of the number of times Stalin's image hit the screen, and in the ways the movie equated science with Darwinism with atheism with Hitler or Stalin. Subtle, it's not.

Stein (he co-wrote it) builds his movie on classic Big Tobacco Tactics. Create just a sliver of doubt about evolution by pitching this argument in terms of academic freedom. "Legitimate" learned scientists are being silenced by the Darwinian cabal of thought police. Says Stein.

He uses anecdotes from a few Fox-over-publicized cases of third-rate academics who claim to have lost tenure/their jobs/their position in the scientific world for daring to suggest the hand of a supernatural being in the creation of life. He hasn't a scintilla of proof of, well, anything. Then he has the audacity to whine, "Where's the data" when questioning cellular biologists and other real scientists who build their lives around doubt, and finding testable, legitimate answers to those doubts. Where's YOUR data, Ben?

He uses "straw man" tactics to attack, mainly The Origin of the Species, as Darwin wrote it in 1859. That's like a music critic reviewing "the latest" by only referring to Edison's wax cylinders. He sets up false theses that "the other side" must hold (classic Limbaugh, putting lies in the other fellow's mouth, then calling him a liar) and knocks those straw men down. Citing scientific research as recent as 1953, he can't understand why no peer-reviewed scientist thinks his "fairytale" version of the emergence of life is worth his or her time. No, not having a definitive answer about the moment life began...YET...is damning enough for Ben.

Most despicably, Stein, a Jew, invokes the Holocaust, making the Hitler-was-a-Darwinist argument, this AFTER he's used the Holocaust denier's favorite trick, probabilities, "math," to show how remote the chances are that life was created by natural, not supernatural processes. There were plenty of reasons eugenics caught on as an idea among certain nationalist-conservative and even scientific circles in the early 20th century, and most of them have nothing to do with Darwin.

Animation, similar to that used in Bowling for Columbine, makes its mock points about how science comes to conclusions and how the culture is structured to accept them. Snippets of The Wizard of Oz, Inherit the Wind and other films (if this polished, credited, scored film is indeed "unfinished," it may be from unresolved rights-clearance issues) to make his points funny. Not really. The Stalin and Soviet and Nazi clips are used in a not-quite-subliminal seduction way to demonize the people who might hold a contrary view.

But all the creative editing in the world only appears to let Stein hold his own with noted British scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins, whose words can be twisted to suggest that "aliens" seeded life on Earth, or at least that's more likely than anything in the Bible being literally true about creation. And that's still a more rational explanation than any Stein, being a veteran Republican persuader/operator, offers. Does he really believe the blather he tosses out here? Introducing the movie at the church screening I attended, he had to trot out some nonsense about living in Malibu but not among "the stars. The REAL stars are fighting and dying for our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Ok. Know your audience, if you're a speech-writer (He used to work in the Nixon White House). Pander, baby, pander.

I remember stumbling across, at a bookstore, one of the more shrill and lunatic "Bill Clinton had people KILLED in Arkansas" books that came out during the 90s. I open it at the B. Dalton, and lo and behold, there's Ben Stein writing the foreward. I had no idea...

Before that, he was just the guy giving away money on Comedy Central, the ever-droning teacher of TV shows and movies ("Bueller. Bueller.").

The PBS NOVA series did a terrific piece on the court battle over intelligent design as fought in the courts in Pennsylvania, a lacerating film of finely honed facts and dagger-sharp arguments that should be shown in every school district with intel. design-dreamers running for the school board. This isn't about freedom. It's about freedom from imposed religious dogma, dogma that flies in the face of facts and scientific understanding that we need to make the world a better place.

ID is "creation science" is "creationism" is "God dun it." Teaching that as something provable beyond faith in a science curriculum is a big reason future Nobel winners will pour out of China and India, and not Kansas. Or Florida. That's the reason a consensus of the world's scientists fret so much over the time they have to waste on this non-debate. Stein found a Pole and the infamous Discovery Institute to back up his attacks, even though they offer no counter theories that they can back up. He goes up against intellectuals with nincompoops who prey on the gullible and get their financing from fanatics, just like Al Qaeda. That might be a good description of Ben Stein, come to think of it.

Expelled might have made 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 meaningless and silly as that transcendental metaphysical hooey of a couple of years back, What the Bleep Do We Know?

In Stein's case, you really do wonder what he knows, or what he's willing to claim he believes just to make a buck off the Scopes deniers.

Oh, and keeping your movie from the public because you're afraid of ridicule is just gutless. Put it out there, let people have time to chew on your arguments. Your fans will buy tickets. And plenty of folks will emerge to tear it apart. Even Michael Moore has the courage to do that.

Maybe Stein will repackage himself as the new face of creationism. The new face of cynicism is more like it. But as Nixon must've reminded him, there's a sucker born every minute. And a lot of them vote.

enough reviews on it to conclude it's a heaping-high pile of junk.

The guy from Christianity Today apparently likes it, though, shockingly enough (snicker):


-for the links and synopsis, starling and McCaskey...Made my day!

Church groups across the country were giving away tickets to this sham. ( Ceder Creek).

They are hoping for the same tidal shift Al Gore got and I bet are hoping to introduce the film into schools just like An Inconvenient Truth.

Man I'd hope they dont want to introduce it into schools just like "an inconvenient truth" considering how much a sham that movie's turning out to be!

You all do realize that this movie is not about ID vs Evolution , but the DEBATE about ID vs Evolution,dont you??

Personally I cant wait to see it - Especially the part where Richard Dawkins says he has no idea where life began, but says perhaps it was delivered by highly evolved aliens.

What a hoot! (and if you think about it, wouldnt that be - intelligent design??)

What I don't understand---is how the storytellers (ID'ers) feel as though they're being denied an opportunity to debate (is that what this movie is about?). I mean afterall, how are they being silenced? Don't they have access to the internet? Don't they have the ability to write books? How exactly are they being silenced?

Pink Slip

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.