Please watch this movie before making comments on this thread. That is only being fair to the movie.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Find theater near you

Several weeks ago, the Answers in Genesis (AiG) staff was treated to a viewing of the director’s cut of the already-controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.1 Expected to release April 18, Expelled is a hard-hitting, yet often humorous, documentary that chronicles how Darwin-dissenters have been ruthlessly expelled, or otherwise persecuted, in their professions. It is hosted by the very entertaining civil rights activist/economist/presidential speechwriter/cultural icon (actor and quiz-show host), Ben Stein, whom filmmakers follow as he goes on a personal quest to examine the origins question.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has become controversial not only because it exposes those academicians who persecute people who have a belief in the appearance of “design” in nature, but also because the film is already generating a negative reaction (including from some of the film’s subjects who come off in a highly unflattering way, including famed atheist-scientist Richard Dawkins).

As a demonstration of how the evolution police can mete out injustice, the film’s first “persecutee” is an evolutionist himself: Richard Sternberg. He does not doubt evolution, yet Sternberg’s very act of allowing a peer-reviewed research paper that presented evidence for intelligent design to be published in a science journal (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington) led to his forced resignation and a career “ruined.” Sternberg, with two PhDs, was the target of the anti-creationist group National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution (where Sternberg was a researcher), as these groups orchestrated an effort to have him expelled from his position.

In another segment, Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptics Society, described Intelligent Design (ID) as mostly nonsense and would not come to the defense of fellow-evolutionist Sternberg. Shermer bizarrely contends that Sternberg must have done something wrong to have been forced out (even though Shermer admits on camera that he did not know what that might have been).

An hour and thirty minutes later, we watch atheist Dawkins sniff that evolution is a “fact” and “securely” so, and thus dissenters are either not sane or are stupid—or (somewhat more charitably) ignorant. In keeping with the film’s ongoing Cold War metaphors of freedom under attack, Dawkins, earlier in the film, describes the origins debate as a “skirmish” and a “war.”

The arch anti-creationist William Provine is seen as incorrectly stating that it was illegal to teach evolution in Tennessee’s schools during the time of the 1925 Scopes trial. Actually, the state allowed an instructor to teach evolution, unless an instructor said that humans evolved from an ape-like creature. Then there is the stubborn and impatient Michael Ruse, who insists on presenting a non-answer to the question of how the first living cell could have originated; he repeatedly states that it occurred on the “backs of crystals.”

At film’s end, Dawkins makes a remarkable concession—probably jaw-dropping for those who have read his books or watched his media interviews. When pressed by Stein, Dawkins allows for the possibility that life’s apparent design could have been produced by intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe—who themselves had evolved and then brought life here!

Between Sternberg and Dawkins, the film is punctuated by examples of shameful mistreatment (e.g., the highly qualified Guillermo Gonzalez, denied tenure at Iowa State University), expulsion (e.g., Caroline Crocker from George Mason University), and silliness (e.g., protestors outside AiG’s Creation Museum on opening day last May).

Other ID-sympathetic academics give accounts of their persecution in silhouette to maintain their anonymity; these segments bring back memories of the dissenting authors of Soviet Russia who wrote under pen names to avoid being expelled (usually to a frozen Siberia).

In the second half of the film, Expelled settles into a very serious tone, especially in those scenes when Stein visits World War II death camps and explores the connection between the Nazi worldview and Darwinian thinking. Stein is brilliant in these scenes as he goes with the flow of the story as it unfolds in front of him and as he carefully listens to the answers he receives—and then follows up with penetrating questions. He is obviously not working from a tight script.

Yet there are some bright lights and moments of sanity in this penetrating documentary. John Lennox of Oxford correctly points out that all scientists have biases and worldviews that they bring to their research—and then to the conclusions they draw from evidence. Also, David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher, sits down with Stein and eloquently brings up the problems with evolution (comparing it to a “room full of smoke”).

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, despite its subtitle, is not an intelligent design movement promo, per se.2 Also, some IDers, such as Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute, admit on film that ID is not a Christian movement and that people of various faiths are involved. Another IDer, Paul Nelson, though a friend of biblical, young-earth creationists, regrettably offers a wrong definition of creationism. He declares that it is a movement of taking the Bible and fitting it into science. To the contrary, creationists do not “fit” the Scriptures into science. If they did, creationists would be engaged in taking man’s fallible interpretations of science and somehow trying to conform them to the Bible. God’s Word is a book of real history. Using this as our starting point, we can build a correct way of thinking and truly understand the universe. The Bible explains all that is in the universe.3

Although not an ID film, Expelled does present a scientific defense of the idea of intelligent design (one that AiG would largely accept). The incredible complexity seen in a molecule like DNA is shown on the screen (though viewers uninterested in science may have their eyes glaze over during this animated section). Expelled asks the question often posed by creation scientists: where does the new genetic information come from as a mechanism to drive molecules-to-man evolution? Natural selection cannot explain the rise of new genetic information.

Overall, the film is more about exposing the fear of evolutionists in allowing free speech in scientific inquiry (and their accompanying tyrannical behavior) than it is an anti-evolution piece. Stein discovers an elitist scientific establishment that has exchanged science’s supposed quest for open-minded inquiry for harsh dogmatism. Freedom, “the essence of America” says Stein (a former civil rights lawyer), is easily taken away at universities, with qualified scientists expelled for not embracing evolution.

In one of the many ironic and hypocritical moments seen in the film, a Baptist university, Baylor University in Texas, is documented as persecuting one of its professors because he questioned evolution. The façade of a Baylor building then comes on the screen, and we see an inscription of a verse from Colossians 1. It declares that “in God, all things were created by Him.”

So, how will hard-core evolutionists attack this documentary? It is likely they will attack it on at least two major fronts by:4

1. objecting to how the film equates the behavior of the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia to the actions of Darwin-defenders who squash freedom
2. attacking the film’s claim that there is a link between evolution and racism

Regarding the latter, we wish to point out that from his own words, Charles Darwin can be shown to be a racist (even though he advocated abolition). On the last page of his The Descent of Man, Darwin said he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a “savage.” Furthermore, he called those with dark skin “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.” Also, the subtitle of Darwin’s main work On the Origin of the Species happens to be: “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” [emphasis added]. This is not at all surprising, for, as AiG president Ken Ham points out in the new book Darwin’s Plantation, Darwinian evolution claims that humans descended from ape-like ancestors, and this logically implies that certain “races” are closer to the apes than others.5
Conclusion

In summarizing Expelled’s ultimate goal, Stein declares that he wants to see a world where “scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. It’s anti-the whole concept of learning.”6

AiG has not been sanguine about elements of the intelligent design movement and some of its well-intentioned activists. But having watched the movie twice now, we note that the film is not about trying to push ID on society, much less argue that ID should be mandated in schools (which AiG would not support).7 Also, the film makes it clear that the ID movement is not a Christian one (although many evangelicals are part of it). More than anything, the documentary seeks to expose the ruthlessness of radical atheists and evolutionists and their attempt to erode freedom in order to protect their own worldview. In its goal, Expelled has marvelously succeeded.

I'm looking forward to seeing this.

The movie is provocative. It starts out with scenes of the communists building the Berlin wall. Intelligent design is the thrust of the movie. It does a fair job of distinguishing intelligent design from creationism. It ties communism, Nazism, abortion and euthanasia to Darwinism. It also shows a clear link from Darwinism to atheism or agnosticism.

Getting into the science of DNA it really shows the complexity of life and how unlikely molecules-to-man man evolution is. It also addresses the issue of natural selection's inability to add genetic material to existing species. Natural selection allows existing genetic material to mutate to form new forms of a species but there is no known mechanism to add genetic material to a species and thus cause it to mutate into another species.

Again, please go see the movie before commenting on it. If the reader hasn't seen the movie and wants to comment on something in someone else's comments about it, please start another thread dealing with the issue of interest. Otherwise this thread could get highjacked very quickly.

Done (the 'New genetic information' thread).

I should note that it may be some time before the movie is released in Australia so I won't be able to contribute to this discussion for a while.

I've seen it.

After reading Shane's review, I feel like I saw an entirely different movie.

The movie I saw seemed intent on illustrating how unfair it is that the scientific community refuses to consider intelligent design science, punishing any mention of it with job loss or lack of tenure. Certainly, it clumsily attempted to link what they call Darwinism with the Holocaust and communism.

Bravus, count yourself fortunate. I found myself trying to stay awake several times during the movie.

For more on the ID scientists targeted by the scientific establishment, be sure to read Expelled Exposed.

I expect many "Expelled Exposed" websites and TV programs to be coming up. Naturalists (aka evolutionists) have a lot to lose. In fact, I suspect many high school teachers will want to play this movie in their classrooms to stimulate discussion and naturalists will do anything, go to any lengths to stop that.

The influence of Darwinism on Nazism has long been demonstrated by creationists. The influence of Darwinism on Communism is even clearer. This movie spends more time on Nazism likely because Ben Stein is Jewish. While many lives have been lost in the name of religion, Ben Stein demonstrates powerfully how Darwinism has its own path of human blood in a way that leaves quite an emotional impact.

The movie also illustrates how the conflict between religion and science isn't one of the evidence rather one of worldviews. It supports what I have always said, that the issue is philosophical and not scientific. In my opinion, anyone that approaches the subject of origins from a purely scientific perspective, cannot do the subject justice. Science plays its role in the discipline, but it involves so much more, and this movie touches on that.

I can only imagine the movie being boring to someone that has already made up their mind to what truth is and not finding the movie to be supporting their preconceived ideas, finds themselves bored. The movie is wonderfully done and far from a boring lecture. It is so wonderfully done, I thought to myself many times, 'this is provocative'. To the point that many viewing the movie are likely to get angry maybe even walk out and definitely lose sleep over it.

This is to evolution what "Fahrenheit 9/11" was to the Bush Administration. Just as "Fahrenheit 9/11" brought out a powerful, emotional response from Bush supporters, I expect an even greater response from the naturalist community.

Most certainly, if anyone thought the debate about origins in this country was settling down with evolution appearing to be the winner, well... it isn't over yet. Things just heated up - a lot!

*cough*Godwin's Law*cough*

I've often wondered why (or even if) Hitler needed Darwin. Hitler certainly didn't create anti-Semitism, and he was neither the first nor the last ruler to use genocide to further his nefarious plans. He wasn't even the most destructive.

For the record, there's quite a bit that I don't know, and there's a lot that isn't yet settled in my mind. I found the movie boring and far from provocative. It stretched and distorted the truth at several turns, not all of which were visible onscreen. It was never entertaining, which is a shame--any movie that's trying to persuade me of something should at least be entertaining.

Nazism has been connected to Darwinism ever since 1945 when the Allied troops went into Germany. It is not anything thing that some radical thought up as an afterthought as a way to criticize Darwinism. Ben Stein, being Jewish, admits that one of the things that interested him in doing the film is because he is Jewish and has long tied Darwinism to the Holocaust.

Jews have been killed in the name of religion throughout the centuries. Comparing how religion has influenced people to do evil and how science has influenced people to do evil put the two on the same ground. That is a the point of the movie. That point is that the controversy is about worldviews, not scientific evidence.

Excellent point, Bravus. Somehow I missed it last night.

As a point of interest I might add that I think the movie did spend too much time on the Nazi issue but I think that is because of the host being Jewish. Nonetheless, the movie was to be entertaining, make some money and keep the evolution debate alive and going. I think it will accomplish those goals.

I guess it didn't do too bad this weekend. It ranked 9th and earned $3,153,000 playing at only 1,052 theaters. Not nearly as much as Fahrenheit 9/11's $23,920,637 but this weekend's number 1 movie "The Forbidden Kingdom" didn't hit that mark either falling short at $20,870,000.