'wikipedia benstein bullshit controversial creationism discrimination documentary earth evidence evolution film fundamentalist god intelligence intelligentdesign interesting life mar'08 movies moviestowatch pastafarianism philosophy religion science singularity srw tv video 위키피디아 필름

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Official poster
Directed by	Nathan Frankowski
Produced by	Logan Craft Walt Ruloff John Sullivan
Written by	Kevin Miller Ben Stein Walt Ruloff
Starring	Ben Stein
Music by	Andy Hunter° Robbie Bronnimann
Editing by	Simon Tondeur
Distributed by	Rocky Mountain Pictures
Release date(s)	April 18, 2008[1]
Running time	97 min.
Country	United States
Language	English
Budget	$3.5 million
Gross revenue	$7.7 million

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 independent documentary film, directed by Nathan Frankowski and hosted by Ben Stein.^[2][3] The film contends that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticise evidence supporting evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis, the theory explaining this evidence.^[4][5] The scientific theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to fascism, the Nazi Holocaust, communism, atheism, abortion and eugenics.^[6][7] The film portrays intelligent design as motivated by science, rather than religion, though it does not give a detailed definition of the phrase or attempt to explain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity, Expelled examines it as a political issue.^[8][6]

Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters, more than any other documentary before it,^[9] and grossed over $2,900,000 in its first weekend, the third biggest opening for a documentary.^[10] As of May 13, 2008 it had earned over $7 million, making it the twelfth-highest-grossing documentary film in the United States in nominal dollars, from 1982 to that date.^[9] In July, the movie was re-released allowing groups of 300 to book private screenings in theaters.^[11]

The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable. It received an 8% meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda.^[7][12][13] The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor),"^[14] while the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."^[7] One of the few positive reviews appeared in Christianity Today.^[15]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms.^[16] The film has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills (bills designed to introduce criticism of evolution into school science classes).^[17]

Contents 1 Overview 1.1 Promotion of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution 1.2 Claims that intelligent design advocates are persecuted 1.3 Portrayal of science as atheistic 1.4 Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution 2 People presented in the film 3 The "Expelled" 3.1 Richard Sternberg 3.2 Caroline Crocker 3.3 Michael Egnor 3.4 Robert J. Marks II 3.5 Guillermo Gonzalez 4 Evolutionary scientists 4.1 Michael Shermer 4.2 Richard Dawkins 5 Claims that film producers misled interviewees 6 Charles Darwin quotation issue 7 Copyright controversies 8 Academic Freedom bills 9 Reaction 9.1 Box office 10 Promotion 10.1 The "Expelled Challenge" 10.2 Press conferences 10.3 Promotional efforts by others 11 Pre-release screenings 11.1 Conservative Christian groups 11.2 PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins at Minnesota pre-release screening 11.3 Reports of false cancellation notices for screenings 12 Home video release 13 See also 14 References 15 External links 15.1 Supportive sites 15.2 Critical sites

Overview

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a film described by its promoters as a controversial new satirical documentary.^[2] It makes considerable use of vintage film clips to convey its message, and opens with scenes of the Berlin Wall being constructed, used to symbolize what it alleges are barriers to intelligent design being accepted as science.^[18] Ben Stein provides narrative commentary throughout the film in which he is depicted as visiting a sequence of universities to question scientists and professors on both sides of the debate between evolution and intelligent design. He interviews those claiming to have been victimized, and several scientists supporting evolution who are also atheists. The film takes aim at a few scientific origin of life hypotheses, and presents a short animation portraying the inner workings of the cell as raising the question of how such complexity could arise from spontaneous mutations, to favor the idea of irreducible complexity.^[8] The intelligent design proponents shown include David Berlinski, who raises the claim that Darwinism influenced the Nazis.^[19] The film also attempts to associate Hitler's ambitions of a master race and the holocaust to Darwinian ideas of survival of the fittest through stock footage film clips such as filmed images of Nazi concentration camp laboratories.^[8]

The film addresses the concept of intelligent design itself only superficially, focusing on how it is treated in academia rather than on issues involving the concept itself. It makes almost no attempt to show scientific evidence for, or even define, intelligent design, and deals with the subject almost entirely from a political, rather than scientific, viewpoint. Similarly, it critiques evolution without defining it or giving a basic explanation of evolutionary theory.^[8][6]

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 says would be 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."^[20] 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, or claims susceptible to scientific testing.^[20] In a review of the film, Scientific American editor John Rennie summarizes intelligent design 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."^[21]

In a scene in the film, Stein interviews Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, and accepts his assurance that its support for teaching of intelligent design in science classes was not an attempt to sneak religion into public schools.^[21] 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.^[22] The trial resulted when a public school district mandated the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution, and the court concluded following testimony from design proponents and others that intelligent design was not science but a strategy to circumvent previous rulings that have found the teaching of creationism in public school to violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence that the policy was itself unconstitutional for the same reasons.^{[23][24][25][26][21][27][25][28][29]}

Claims that intelligent design advocates are persecuted

The film's producers contend that those opposing intelligent design "don't like the very idea of an intelligent cause because they don't like the idea of allowing even the possibility of the existence of an intelligent 'designer.' That might lead to scientific evidence in support of the unthinkable, i.e. G-O-D." The film recounts a series of incidents to show that scientists are not free to work within the framework of believing there is a god.^[26] One reviewer describes the events as four or five examples of "ordinary academic backbiting."^[6] However, the film goes on to contend that the incidents show a widespread persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, and a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms.^[4][5] In the film, Stein says, "It's not just the scientists who are in on it. The media is in on it, the courts, the educational system, everyone is after them." Stein further accuses academia of having a dogmatic commitment to Darwinism, comparing it to the party line of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, which cannot be questioned without severe consequences. Michael Shermer, a renowned skeptic and one of the interviewees for the film, addressed this accusation in an article in Scientific American, stating "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."^[30]

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.^[31]

Amanda Gefter responded to these contentions in New Scientist:

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!"^[19]

Portrayal of science as atheistic

The film alleges that scientists and the scientific enterprise are dogmatically committed to atheism,^[32][33] and that a commitment to materialism in the scientific establishment is behind the claimed suppression of intelligent design.^[20] John Rennie responds that the film fails to say why religious explanations are considered inconsistent with the scientific method, that its basic precept of methodological naturalism excludes all explanations that cannot be tested or empirically validated.^[33]

Stein contends that "There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch a higher power, and it can’t possibly touch God." The National Center for Science Education criticizes the film for representing scientists who are atheists as representative of all scientists, without discussing the many prominent scientists who are religious, and thus creates a false dichotomy between science and religion.^[32] In an interview with Scientific American, the associate producer of the film Mark Mathis said they had excluded scientists who are religious, such as Roman Catholic biologist Kenneth R. Miller, because their views would have "confused the film unnecessarily." Mathis also questioned the intellectual honesty of a Catholic accepting evolution.^[34] Miller later noted that 40% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science profess belief in a personal god.^[35]

In its review, the Waco Tribune-Herald said "That’s the real issue of Expelled — atheist scientists versus God — even though it wholly undercuts statements by intelligent design researchers early in the film that ID has nothing to do with religion." It described the "failure to cover how Christian evolutionists reconcile faith and science" as "perhaps the film's most glaring and telling omission," and said that the film rather "quickly dismissed [such proponents of theistic evolution] by a chain of quotes that brand them as liberal Christians duped by militant atheists in their efforts to get religion out of the classroom."^[36] 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."^[4]

In an interview about the film Stein gave on the Trinity Broadcast Network, he took this science/religion dichotomy even further, stating that "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people." ^[35]

Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution

The film portrays evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, abortion and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust.^[6][22] Film critic Jeffrey Overstreet, writing for Christianity Today stated that "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."^[37] Richard Weikart, a DI fellow and historian, appears in the movie asserting that Charles Darwin's work influenced Adolf Hitler. He argues that Darwin's perception of humans not being qualitatively different from animals, with qualities such as morality arising from natural processes, undermines what Weikart calls the "Judeo-Christian conception of the sanctity of human life".^[38] Nazi gas chambers and concentration camps^[39] figure highly in the narrative of the movie. In the film, intelligent design proponent David Berlinski says that Darwinism was a "necessary though not sufficient" cause for the Holocaust, and Stein presses the message of evolutionary biology being responsible.

The film's and Weikart's arguments have been criticized by historians who see them as highlighting a weak putative connection while ignoring the important influence on Nazism of Christian anti-Semitism in Germany from Martin Luther onwards, along with other more direct causes such as the economic ruin of Germany after World War I and the racism and antisemitism dating back over seven centuries before Charles Darwin.^{[21][40][41][42]} Bret Carroll, Weikart's colleague in the Stanislaus history department, adds that the movie "misuses Weikart's research by mistakenly implying that Darwin led inevitably to Hitler. In fact, scientific theories, even those like Darwin's that address organic life, are morally neutral."^[43]

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.^[44]

The film refers to evolution as "Darwinism", a term which has been long abandoned by most biologists,^{[citation needed]} and despite the extensive advancements in evolutionary biology since Darwin's time. John Rennie writes in Scientific American that this is an attempt to portray evolution not as evidence-based science, but as a dogmatic ideology.^[45]

Arthur Caplan, Hart Professor of Bioethics and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his MSNBC column that the movie is a "frighteningly immoral narrative," including "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."^[46] Caplan sharply criticized what he described as Stein's willingness "to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end. Expelled indeed."^[46]

The Anti-Defamation League issued the following statement condemning the film's use of the Holocaust:

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.^[47]

Vancouver Sun writer Peter McKnight asked for Stein to comment on the Anti-Defamation League's statement, to which Stein replied, "It's none of their f---ing business."^[48]

After watching the film, one Jewish viewer wrote an angry letter to interviewee Michael Shermer, which Shermer forwarded to fellow interviewee Richard Dawkins. This prompted Dawkins to write, as a response, "Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda".^[49]

People presented in the film

The film portrays several people including Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker as victims of persecution by major scientific organizations and academia for their promotion of intelligent design and for questioning Darwinism. Other intelligent design supporters such as David Berlinski, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Pamela Winnick, and Gerald Schroeder appear in the film as well. Expelled additionally briefly features numerous anonymous people, their faces darkened to make them unrecognizable, who claim their jobs in the sciences would be jeopardized if their belief in intelligent design were made public, one of whom states that he believes most scientists equate intelligent design with creationism, the religious right, and theocracy.

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. Those interviewed include PZ Myers, William Provine, Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse, Michael Shermer, and Eugenie Scott.

The "Expelled"

Richard Sternberg

Expelled features excerpts from an interview Stein conducted with Richard Sternberg, described as an evolutionary biologist and a former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution. The film claims his life was "nearly ruined" after he published an article by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer, causing him to lose his office, to be pressured to resign, and to become the subject of an investigation into his political and religious views. Sternberg defended his decision, stating that Intelligent Design was not the overall subject of the paper (being mentioned only at the end) and that he was attempting merely to present questions ID proponents had raised as a topic for discussion. He presented himself and Meyer as targets of religious and political persecution, claiming the chairman of his department referred to him as an "intellectual terrorist". Stein states that the paper "ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began," and goes beyond the findings of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to claim that Sternberg was "terrorized".^[33] Stein further alleges that Congressman Mark Souder uncovered a campaign by the Smithsonian and the NCSE to destroy Sternberg's credibility, though he does not provide any details.

Sternberg, a staff scientist for the National Center for Biotechnology Information and himself a fellow of the intelligent design advocacy group ISCID, had in fact resigned his position at the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington six months before publication of the Meyers paper. He circumvented the journal's standard reviewing process to include the controversial paper,^[50] which argued that the development of phyla during the Cambrian explosion was not fully explained by evolution. The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.^[51][52] Sternberg, contrary to the film's claims, was not an employee, but an unpaid "Research Associate" at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. Also contrary to the film's claims, Sternberg still retains this position.^[53] While Stein claims it was the "most egregious" case and "He lost his job,"^[54], the NCSE noted "the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost every person, it’s hard to see how this could be construed as 'life ruining'."^[51]

Caroline Crocker

Expelled profiles Dr. Caroline Crocker, a former part-time cell biology lecturer at George Mason University who became the center of controversy over Intelligent Design. In the film Stein states, "After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt end," making further claims that she was blacklisted. Crocker tells Stein that before the incident she was routinely offered jobs on the spot following an interview, but afterwards she was unable to find a position in academia.

According to the National Center for Science Education, Crocker was not fired, rather her position was non-tenure track and her employment was on a course-by-course basis. She taught to the end of her contract, which was not renewed. A George Mason University spokesman said this was 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.'"^[55]

The NCSE also points out that she did more than merely mention intelligent design, but in fact posed many refuted creationist arguments.^[56] Crocker also did find a position at Northern Virginia Community College, where she was later profiled by the Washington Post. The Post's article stated she claimed "that the scientific establishment was perpetrating fraud, hunting down critics of evolution to ruin them and disguising an atheistic view of life in the garb of science."^[55] Her lecture, which she claimed was the same she taught at George Mason, taught students creationist claims about evolution and promoted intelligent design in a biology class, telling them that Nazi atrocities were based on Darwin's ideas and on science.^[55]

Crocker subsequently had a postdoctoral year at the Uniformed Services University, and currently has a full time post as executive director of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center which promotes intelligent design clubs at high schools and universities.^[56]

Michael Egnor

Michael Egnor is presented in the film as a neurosurgeon who was the subject of persecution after writing an essay to high school students asserting that doctors did not need to learn evolution to practice their trade. Egnor, who is a signatory to the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism, presents himself as the victim of online smears and a campaign to get his university to force him into retirement, following his letter. When a citizen's group in Virginia sponsored an essay contest for high school students on the topic "Why I would want my doctor to have studied evolution," Egnor responded by posting an essay on an intelligent design blog claiming that evolution was irrelevant to medicine. His essay was met with considerable criticism by medical professionals, professors and researchers.

In the film, Stein describes this as "Darwinists were quick to try and exterminate this new threat," and Egnor says he was shocked by the "baseness and viciousness" of the critical response he received.^[57] As soon as Egnor makes this statement in the film, the camera zooms in on a photo of him that is immediately stamped with "EXPELLED," implying that in the "extermination attempt," Egnor experienced more than the common, Internet vitriol when he engaged in an online controversy. In fact, in 1991, Egnor joined the faculty of SUNY at Stony Brook, where today he holds the rank of Professor.^[58]

Robert J. Marks II

Robert Marks is presented as a professor at Baylor University who had his research website shut down by the University and was forced to return grant money when it was discovered his work had a link to intelligent design. The film, through footage, compares Marks to the protagonist in the film Planet of the Apes.

The research in question was for the Evolutionary Informatics Lab which Marks formed with Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski,^[59][60] and which made use of the University's servers to host the website. The university removed the website after receiving complaints that it appeared to be endorsed by the university. Baylor officials later allowed the website back on their server but required changes be made to the website so that it did not appear to be endorsed by the University.^[61] Evolutionary Informatics Lab was reestablished independently of Baylor University.

Guillermo Gonzalez

Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist who had been an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University, is interviewed by Stein, who claims that despite a "stellar" research record that led to the discovery of new planets, Gonzalez was denied tenure because his book The Privileged Planet argued that the universe is intelligently designed. Gonzalez claims that, prior to his tenure review, he was the subject of a campaign on campus to "poison the atmosphere" against him, and that he would almost certainly have been granted tenure had he not been an advocate for intelligent design.

According to the University, after the normal review of his qualifications, such as his record of scientific publications (which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty),^[62][63] 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.^[64]

Evolutionary scientists

Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer is an author, science historian, 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 to get his take on intelligent design and evolution. Shermer describes intelligent design as "three quarters of the way to nonsense", and voices skepticism at the claims that numerous academics were fired for advocating it.

Shermer, in an online column coinciding with the release of Expelled, 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, but the questions continued to follow a similar vein.

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.^[44]

Shermer has stated that he believes that the film is effective in delivering its message to its target audience.^[65]

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist and popular science writer. Dawkins is portrayed as one of the leading members of the scientific establishment. Dawkins' admission that his study of evolution aided his move towards atheism is used by the film to draw a positive connection between them. 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.^[19]

In Dawkins' interview, the director focused on when Stein asked Dawkins under what circumstances intelligent design could have occurred.^[66] Dawkins responded with Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel's 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)."^[66][67] Dawkins' website features a parody video "Sexpelled: No intercourse allowed" in which Dawkins plays himself being interviewed.^[68]

Claims that film producers misled interviewees

The movie has been criticized by those interviewees who are critics of intelligent design (P.Z. Myers, Dawkins,^[69] Shermer,^[33] 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," and were directed to a blurb implying an approach to the documentary crediting Darwin with "the answer" to how humanity developed:^[70][71][72]

It has been the central question of humanity through the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, The Origin of Species. In the century and a half since, geologists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin's idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. The conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across America and beyond.

– Defunct Rampant Films site for Crossroads^[73]

But before the interviewees were approached,^[70][74] the movie had already been pitched to Stein as an anti-Darwinist 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.

– Ben Stein, "Mocked and Belittled", World Magazine^[74]

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."^[70] 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."^[4]

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."^[75][76]

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times, writing, "If one needs to believe in a god to be moral, why are we seeing yet another case of dishonesty by the devout? Why were leading scientists deceived as to the intentions of a religious group of filmmakers?"^[77]

Charles Darwin quotation issue

In support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin's book The Descent of Man:^[33]

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Stein stops there, then names Darwin as the author in a way that suggests that Darwin provided a rationale for the activities of the Nazis. However, the original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) (words that Stein omitted shown in bold) and the very next sentences in the book state:^[33][78]

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.^[79]

According to John Moore writing in the National Post:

Stein quotes from a passage in Darwin's writing that appears to endorse the notion that for a species to thrive the infirm must be culled. He omits the part where Darwin insists this would be "evil" and that man's care for the weak is "the noblest part of our nature." When I asked Stein about this on my radio show he deadpanned, "If any Darwin fans are listening and we have misquoted him, we are sorry; we don't mean to diss Darwin."^[80]

The Expelled Exposed website also points out that the same misleading selective quotation from this passage was used by anti-evolutionist William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 Scopes Trial, but the full passage makes it clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics. The eugenics movement relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity, and by the 1920s evolutionary biologists were criticizing eugenics. Clarence Darrow, who defended the teaching of human evolution in the Scopes trial, wrote a scathing repudiation of eugenics.^[40]

Copyright controversies

Wikinews has related news: 'Expelled' producers accused of copyright violations

Resource DVDs distributed in pre-release promotions of the film included animation sequences portraying the internal functioning of cells that were seen to resemble a video from Harvard University entitled The Inner Life of the Cell produced by XVIVO. XVIVO issued a demand letter to the film's producers on April 9, 2008, alleging infringement of copyright and asserting further legal remedies would be pursued unless the infringed segments from the Inner Life video were removed prior to the film's distribution.^[81] Expelled's producers then filed a legal complaint for declaratory judgment, asking the court to rule XVIVO had no ownership claim to The Inner Life of the Cell and that the producers did not violate copyright law in either its resource DVD or the film itself. The complaint stated the animation sequences in its resource DVD were different from those used in the final film.^[82] Other animation segments appearing in the film have also raised questions.^[83]

Wikinews has related news: 'Expelled' fair use upheld

In April 2008, the copyright holders to John Lennon's song "Imagine," Yoko Ono, Julian and Sean Lennon, filed a legal complaint in the Southern District of New York against Premise Media and Rocky Mountain Pictures alleging copyright and trademark infringement over the use of a portion of the song in the film.^[84] Ono's lawyer stated that the film had failed to license its use of the song, while the film's producers responded by claiming protection under the fair use doctrine.^[85] Following a motion to show cause filed by the plaintiffs on April 30, 2008, in conference with the presiding judge Sidney H. Stein both parties consented to a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the distribution of additional copies of the film in theaters, and from distribution of DVDs of the film, pending a hearing on May 19. On that date the court heard oral argument on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction against the film, and the TRO was continued pending the judge's ruling on the motion. On June 2, 2008, the judge ruled against the preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs had failed to show the balance of hardships tipped in their favor and that the defendants' claim of fair use would likely succeed in a full trial.^[84] On October 8 Yoko Ono announced she would not pursue a lawsuit ^[86]. Nevertheless, the DVD of the film, released in Oct. 2008, does not contain the song segment.^[87]

A song by The Killers is used in the film under a license which the band's manager said was obtained by misleading them about the film.^[88]

Academic Freedom bills

Expelled was given pre-release screenings for Florida and Missouri legislators in support of Academic Freedom bills in those states.^[17] Such bills, often viewed as attacks on the teaching of evolution, have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States since 2004, based on the claims by the Discovery Institute that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection.^[89] The Florida screening, held in the IMAX Theater of the Challenger Learning Center of Tallahassee on March 12, 2008, was restricted to legislators, their spouses, and their legislative aides, with the press and public excluded. Under the Florida sunshine law they had to watch the film without discussing the issue or arranging any future votes.^[90] Commenting on this, and the controversy over Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel viewing the film despite attempts by the promoters to withdraw the invitation they had given him,^[91] House Democratic leader Dan Gelber of Miami Beach stated, "It's kind of an irony: The public is expelled from a movie called Expelled."^[92] The screening was attended by about 100 people, but few were legislators,^[93] and the majority of legislators stayed away.^[3][94]

Shortly before the film's general release, its producer Walt Ruloff held a press conference at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. on April 15, and announced his plans to use the film as part of a campaign to pass academic freedom bills in a variety of American states.^[95] At least one Discovery Institute press conference on the bills has included a screening of Expelled.^[19] The issue was revived in 2009 when Florida Senator Stephen R. Wise cited the film as one reason that he is sponsoring plans to introduce a bill requiring biology teachers to present the idea of intelligent design.^[96]

Reaction

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was not screened in advance for film critics,^[97] and when the film was released it received generally negative reviews. As of April 26, 2008, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that only 10% of its 33 top film critics gave it a positive review.^[98] Metacritic reported the film had an average score of 20 out of 100, based on 13 reviews.^[99]

Response to the movie from conservative Christian groups and the Discovery Institute has been mostly (but not exclusively^[18]) positive, largely praising the movie for its humor and for focusing on what they perceive as a serious issue.^{[100][101][102]}

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,^{[6][91][103][104]} but the film was widely considered unamusing and unsubtle,^[80] boring, poorly made,^[105] unconvincing,^[91][103] insulting,^[7][106] and offensive to the religious.^[107]

In Canada, The Globe & Mail's film review gave the film a score of 0 and called "an appallingly unscrupulous example of hack propaganda".^[108] Vue Weekly called it an "anti-science propaganda masquerading as a Michael Moore-ish fool's journey, full of disingenuous ploys, cheap tricks, and outright mendacity."^[109]

On April 18, 2008, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a statement about Expelled. The AAAS was "especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called 'Expelled' are inappropriately pitting science against religion." ^[16] The statement "further decries the profound dishonesty and lack of civility demonstrated by this effort," and said the movie "seeks to force religious viewpoints into science class – despite court decisions that have struck down efforts to bring creationism and intelligent design into schools." ^[110]

Stein received the Freedom of Expression Award for Expelled on 24 June 2008 from the Home Entertainment Awards at Entertainment Merchants Association's Home Media Expo 2008.^[111][112]

Box office

As of May 13, 2008, Expelled had grossed over $7 million and was ranked twelfth-highest-grossing in the documentary film genre in the United States from 1982 to that date. (Figures not adjusted for inflation, and as of October 19, 2008, it had been pushed into thirteenth place by the release of Religulous.) ^[9] Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters (the most ever for a documentary),^[19] earning $2,970,848 for its opening weekend with a $2,824 theater average.^[113] Subsequently, in the second weekend it earned $1,394,940 at 1,041 theaters ($1,340 per theater), in the third weekend it earned $678,304 at 656 theaters ($1,034 per theater), its fourth weekend it earned $328,836 at 402 theaters ($818 per theater).^[114][115] 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."^[116] Reviewing Expelled's opening box office figures, Nikki Finke of the LA 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."^[117] Referring to its opening weekend, Joshua Rich of Entertainment Weekly said the movie "was a solid top-10 contender" and "[t]hat's a very respectable total for a documentary, although non-fiction fare rarely opens in 1,052 theaters."^[118] In contrast, Lew Irwin (StudioBriefing) wrote that the film "flopped," and "failed to bring out church groups in big numbers."^[119] In Canada the film opened on June 27, 2008 in only 36 theaters^[120], grossing $24,374, putting it in 20th place for the weekend.^[121]

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.^[122] A total of four public relations firms have been hired.^[123] 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 says that the modern American scientific establishment is "a new anti-religious dogmatism." The letter says that Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein based their work and discoveries on creationist assumptions, and that they would not be allowed to pursue their science in the anti-religious scientific atmosphere that exists today.^[49]

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.^[124]

To publicize the film, Ben Stein appeared once on the cable television show The O'Reilly Factor, and also twice on Glenn Beck — 10 August^[125] and 23 August,^[126] 2008.

Stein told Beck, "Expelled is a documentary. I believe it is the most beautifully [sic] documentary ever made. It's incredibly gorgeous and filled with great music and great visuals and it's – It's a very, very expensive documentary as documentaries go. I think the producer was telling me yesterday that it is possibly the most expensive documentary for its length ever made." Stein went on to equate college professors with Stalin and said the only documentaries Americans see are "Michael Moore saying what a racist pig nasty country this is."^[125]

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?"^[26] 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.^[27][127]

In advance of the film's release, executive director Walt Ruloff, and producers Mark Mathis and Logan Craft provided interviews to various Christian media outlets, explaining what they thought of the movie, why people should see the movie, and why it would have an impact on the evolution debate.^{[128][129][130][131][132]}

Producers also gave away a free, limited edition Ben Stein bobblehead doll to anyone who brought 25 people to see the movie.^[116]

The "Expelled Challenge"

In order to promote the film, the website "GetExpelled.com"^[133] launched "The Expelled Challenge"^[134] 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.^[135]

The program also recommends a "school-wide mandatory field trip" as "the best way to maximize your school's earning potential."^[135][136] Wesley Elsberry criticized the promotion as a call to "take children away from classrooms, fill their heads with obnoxiously delivered misinformation, and profit off of it."^[137]

A similar program called the "Adopt-A-Theater Campaign" was announced in March 2008. The goal was to produce a competition among church groups and other organizations to see which could generate the largest group sale of movie theater tickets to see the film. The five largest groups to register and attend a screening were to be awarded $1,000.^[138]

Press conferences

Stein and the producers held a 50-minute telephone press conference in late January 2008. Dan Whipple of Colorado Confidential reported that journalists had to submit their questions by email in advance for screening, and at the conference "softball" questions were posed by Paul Lauer, a representative of the film's public relations firm. Only four outside questions were used, all from Christian organizations with only two of them from "the press." Questions came from the policy/lobbying groups Focus on the Family and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Christian program Listen Up TV, and the Colorado Catholic Herald. Whipple described Expelled as appearing to be anti-rational, and cited Stein describing problems with Darwin's Theory of Evolution as being the unanswered questions "Where did life come from?... How did the cell get so complex? ... Assuming it all did happen by Random Mutation and Natural Selection, where did the laws of gravity come from? Where did the laws of thermodynamics come from? Where did the laws of motion and, of heat come from?"^[139]

Producer Walt Ruloff said that they had interviewed "hundreds and hundreds of scientists who wouldn't even talk" because of their fears for their career prospects if they strayed from the current orthodoxy or from a "Darwinian position." Whipple contrasted this with his own experience of interviewing many scientists holding very unorthodox ideas who were "forthright, diligent and feverishly eager to promote their ideas," and not finding any refusing to defend their research.^[139]

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 said that Myers was dishonestly listening to the telephone conference, and Myers was asked to leave the conference call. He did so, after first providing the press with an email address where he could be contacted.^[140][141]

On March 28, 2008, many members of the staff at Scientific American were invited to view the film. After which, they began an interview with Mark Mathis which was recorded and is hosted on their website.^[142] In the interview, Mathis says the overt use of Nazi imagery and quote-mining of scientists was not his decision, but that of his superiors. He concedes that the cases of the scientists shown in the film are inflated (again, not his decision) and makes erroneous claims regarding the Dover vs. Kitzmiller case which the editors factcheck on the same page.

Promotional efforts by others

The film was promoted by some Christian media outlets^[143] and by organizations affiliated with the Discovery Institute.^{[144][145][146]} As part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns claiming discrimination one of the organization's websites, Intelligent Design the Future, said that Expelled "reveals the stark truth: Darwinists have been conspiring to keep design out of classrooms, out of journals, and out of public discourse."^[145] The Discovery Institute published more than twenty articles featuring on its evolutionnews.org website and blog, tying its promotion of Expelled in with its effort to pass the "Academic Freedom Bill" in Florida.^[147]

Ray Bohlin, head of Probe Ministries and fellow at the Discovery Institute, also wrote about the upcoming film on his website.^[148] He also stated that it was possible to doubt Darwin in biology graduate school in the 1980s, but it is no longer possible because of increasing restriction of academic freedom.^[148] Kent Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism ministry has also promoted the film on its website as well as selling Expelled resource material.^[149]

In April 2008, Betsy Hart of the National Review podcast It Takes a Parent interview Expelled producer Mark Mathis, who offered background on the film and his opinions on critically thinking about creation and evolution.^[150]

Pre-release screenings

As part of the pre-release marketing for the film, a web-based RSVP system page was publicized, offering free private movie screenings.^[151] 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.^[152][153] The producers also held invitation only screenings for religious organizations and government officials, including screenings for legislators to promote anti-evolution Academic Freedom bills.^[17]

Conservative Christian groups

In advance of release, the film was shown at private screenings to various Christian conservative leaders, including James Dobson.^[154] 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.^[155]

PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins at Minnesota pre-release screening

Expelled interviewee PZ Myers followed the online procedure to reserve seats for himself and guests under his own name to attend a showing at the Mall of America in Minnesota on March 20, 2008, but shortly before the film started, a security guard told him that the assistant producer Mark Mathis had instructed that Myers be removed from the premises.^[156] 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."^[157] Dawkins described the event as "a gift" and that "we could not ask for anything better."^[158]

One blog said that Myers had gatecrashed the showing. Jeffrey Overstreet, a film critic for Christianity Today, cited an e-mail from a college student who was at the screening. The student assumed that Dawkins and Myers had not been invited, and suggested that Myers had been "hustling and bothering" invited guests. The student subsequently stated that Myers "didn't cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out."^{[156][159][160]} However, Mathis 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.^[161]

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.^[162] In an email to another blog, Mathis stated that "I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more."^[163]

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."^[164] 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.^[165] All attendees had to show identification, and Dawkins had used his British passport, which shows both of his forenames, giving his full name as "Clinton Richard Dawkins."^[158]

Reports of false cancellation notices for screenings

Arizona State University professor John M. Lynch (who blogs at "Stranger Fruit" on the ScienceBlogs network) reported that he and several others received an email stating that the screening he was to attend had been moved one hour earlier.^[166] He and others later received an email^[167] stating that the screening had been cancelled. One of the other individuals to receive this email phoned the theater, which revealed that the screening was not cancelled. He attended, and found that his name was no longer on the guest list, but after some negotiation (presenting his confirmation email and stating he was not representing any organization) he was allowed to view the movie.

Home video release

Expelled was released on October 21 by Vivendi Visual Entertainment on Blu-ray and DVD.^[168] John Lennon's song Imagine was removed from the DVD version of the movie, due to a lawsuit by copyright owner Yoko Ono. The lawsuit was later dropped after a judge, agreeing with the film's producers claims of fair use, overturned a preliminary injunction preventing distribution of film versions including the song. However, this decision came too late to allow the song to appear in the DVD.^[169] It received $1,850,000 in total DVD sales.^[170]

See also

• Creation-evolution controversy
• Flock of Dodos, a documentary contrasting the debate between intelligent design proponents and the scientific establishment that supports evolution.
• Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, a NOVA documentary about intelligent design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
• Copyright controversies of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
• Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

References

External links

• Official website
• Premise Media homepage
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at the Internet Movie Database
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at Rotten Tomatoes
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at Metacritic
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at Box Office Mojo
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at Allmovie

Supportive sites

• Expelled Resources – A list of articles, multimedia resources from Access Research Network, a creationism and intelligent design advocacy group.
• Expelled Resources – A list of articles, multimedia resources from Discovery Institute, an intelligent design advocacy group.

Critical sites

• Expelled Exposed – A National Center for Science Education site debunking various claims made in the movie and examining the actions of its producers.
• "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Scientific American's Take:". Scientific American. April 9, 2008. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled.  – Package of reviews and commentary including Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know.
• Expelling all Reason – Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
• Win Ben Stein's mind – A December 3, 2008 entry at Roger Ebert's Journal that examines and disputes the film's claims