Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:24, 22 March 2008

Template:Future film

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film which claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of “design” in nature. It claims that “Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and blames the theory for a range of alleged societal ills. Starring Ben Stein, the film is due to be released on April 18, 2008.

The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, a form of creationism. The Discovery Institute which is at the center of promoting intelligent design, claims that it is a serious scientific research approach, and not creationism. However, Stein claims that the film presents evidence that scientists do not have the freedom to work within the framework of believing there is a God. What a reviewer describes as four or five examples of ordinary academic back-biting are presented in the film. It alleges that they are evidence of widespread persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, and of a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.

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

Although not yet released, the film is being promoted by Christian media and by organizations affiliated with the Discovery Institute, the hub and source of the intelligent design movement. As part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns claiming discrimination one of the institute's websites, Intelligent Design the Future, makes the claim that Expelled "reveals the stark truth: Darwinists have been conspiring to keep design out of classrooms, out of journals, and out of public discourse." However, the Discovery Institute has been critical of some of the statements made in promotion of the film, such as American television personality and social commentator Bill O'Reilly equating intelligent design with creationism.

People presented in the film

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

Richard Sternberg is the prominent figure in the Sternberg peer review controversy which arose when, having served as editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and submitting his resignation in the previous year, he arranged for his last issue to include publication of a paper by leading intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer. The review procedure was questioned and the journal subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.

The astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University, co-wrote the book The Privileged Planet promoting intelligent design claims. After the normal review of aspects such as his record of scientific publications which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty, he was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." In the previous decade, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the department were not granted tenure. The Expelled roadshow portrays Gonzalez as a victim of religious discrimination and the Discovery Institute campaign asserts that his intelligent design writings should not have been considered in the review, a view that was contradicted by Gonzalez himself, when he listed The Privileged Planet as part of his tenure review file, thus requesting that it be considered, and by their claim that intelligent design is not religion but science, which would entitle his department to judge his work in that field. Dr. Gregory Tinkler of Iowa Citizens for Science stated that "Being a religious scientist is perfectly normal and acceptable, but scientists are supposed to be able to separate science from non-science, and good research from bad. Academic freedom protects a scientist’s ability to do science, not to pass off a political or religious crusade as science.”

Biologist Caroline Crocker claims to have been barred by George Mason University from teaching a Cell Biology class because her lecture promoted intelligent design, including statements that macroevolution was not established (such as "No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory"), that many scientists believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer, that experiments that she said were supposed to prove evolution had been found to be false, and that anti-Semitism, eugenics and death camps in Nazi Germany had had been based on Darwin's ideas and on science. Her contract as a part-time faculty member at that university was not renewed. A 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."

Baylor University distinguished professor of engineering Robert Marks also appears in the film. The Baylor administration asked Marks to return an intelligent design research grant. Marks' collaborator, Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski, also appears in the film.

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

Claims presented in the film

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

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

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

The film has been criticized for adding fuel to a media-driven manufactured controversy, demonizing "Big Science" and claiming nonexistent scientific credibility for intelligent design to lend plausibility to the argument that evolution is a matter of faith, rather than a large set of observations and data showing that evolution occurs, and a scientific theory explaining why evolution occurs.

Claims that film producers misled interviewees

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and NCSE head Eugenie Scott, who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion", with a blurb which described the strong support that had been accumulated for evolution, and contrasted this with the religious who rejected it, and the controversy this caused.

On learning of the pro-intelligent design stance of the real film, Myers said "not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest." Richard Dawkins said "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front"; and Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, said "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t."

Mark Mathis (one of the film's producers who set up the interviews for Expelled) called Myers, Dawkins and Scott a "bunch of hypocrites" and said that he "went over all of the questions with these folks before the interviews and I e-mailed the questions to many of them days in advance". The film's proponents point out that Dawkins participated in the BBC Horizon documentary "A War on Science", whose producers they allege presented themselves to the Discovery Institute as objective filmmakers and then portrayed the organization as religiously-motivated and anti-scientific.

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times September 27, 2007 complaining about the deception. Speckhardt wrote, "If one needs to believe in a god to be moral, why are we seeing yet another case of dishonesty by the devout? Why were leading scientists deceived as to the intentions of a religious group of filmmakers?"

Defending the movie, the producer, Walt Ruloff, said that scientists like prominent geneticist Francis Collins keep their religion and science separate only because they are "toeing the party line". Collins, who was not asked to be interviewed for the film in any of its incarnations, said that Ruloff's claims were "ludicrous".

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. The film's website includes trailers, additional material, press articles, and a blog. The blog's first entry was an open letter from Ben Stein which explains his personal premise for the movie. Stein utilizes arguments based on freedom of inquiry, teleology and the beliefs of historically prominent scientists. He also accuses the modern American scientific establishment as being "a new anti-religious dogmatism". The letter claims that Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein based their work and discoveries on creationist assumptions, and that they would not be allowed to pursue their science in the anti-religious scientific atmosphere that exists today.

The film's website asks for submissions of personal stories of discrimination against students for suggesting design or questioning Darwinian theory, with the enticement that a winning story, or stories, will be featured in the film.

To publicise the film, Ben Stein appeared on the cable television show The O'Reilly Factor. Intelligent design was described by Bill O'Reilly as the idea that "a deity created life", and Stein stated that "There's no doubt about it. We have lots and lots of evidence of it in the movie. And you know Einstein worked within the framework of believing there was a God. Newton worked within the framework of believing there was a God. For gosh sakes Darwin worked within the framework of believing there was a God. And yet, somehow, today you're not allowed to believe it. Why can't we have as much freedom as Darwin had?" The Discovery Institute quickly issued a statement that when Bill O'Reilly conflated intelligent design with creationism he was mistakenly defining it as an attempt to find a divine designer, and regretting that "Ben referred to the 'gaps' in Darwin's theory, as if those are the only issues that intelligent design theory addresses." It went on to assert that "intelligent design also provides a robust positive case, and a serious scientific research approach", a claim that had been explicitly refuted in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case.

Ruloff predicted in an interview at the end of August, 2007 with the Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin that the movie would open on Darwin Day, February 12, 2008. However in an interview in mid-January, 2008, Mathis used a later date for the movie's release, saying he hoped it would open the first or second week of April, 2008.

The "Expelled Challenge"

In order to promote the film, the website "GetExpelled.com" launched "The Expelled Challenge" which offers to pay schools up to US $10,000 to send students to see the movie. In what Wesley R. Elsberry described as "a kickback to school administrators", the programme offers between $5 and $10 for every ticket stub submitted by the school within the first two weeks of the release of the film. Elsberry noted that at the upper end of the range, the value of the reward is probably greater than the actual ticket price.

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

Promotional interviews with producers

Walt Ruloff, executive director of the film, was interviewed on the Discovery Institute's ID the Future podcast. Ruloff said that "Ben Stein obviously a great intellect, considered one of the smartest people as far as a Hollywood personality in the United States." Ruloff said that the dominant "Darwinist orthodoxy" was unfairly discriminating against religious scientists, discouraging any of the "future great minds" coming from the 85% of the American public that are religious. He felt Darwinism was preventing scientists from thinking outside the box, and therefore hurting science and innovation. He said he was surprised how widespread and entrenched the suppression of intelligent design is. Ruloff said that the emphasis on Darwinism was also preventing scientific advances with implications for health care, since scientists told him off-camera that as much as 30% of their scientific results had to be suppressed and were essentially "shelved" (particularly in RNA synthesis, and Ruloff claimed this percentage is growing). He was shocked to learn that the standard response in genomics and molecular biology for most questions is "no you can't do that" because the ideas violated Darwinism, so Darwinism is a science-stopper. Ruloff described the team he had assembled to make the film, and said he was glad that for the director, he had managed to hire Nathan Frankowski, who had previously been second unit director for the controversial ABC television movie, The Path to 9/11. Ruloff said he was looking forward to the film opening on Darwin Day, February 12th, 2007.

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

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

Press conference

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

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

Promotional efforts by others

The Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement, has been a leading supporter of the film, with over twenty articles featuring on it's evolutionnews.org website and blog, tying its promotion of Expelled in with it's effort to pass the "Academic Freedom Bill" in Florida.

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

Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries also wrote about the upcoming film on the Probe Ministries website. Bohlin claims that the persecution of scientists who question Darwinism has led to the dismissal of tenured faculty. He also states that it was possible to doubt Darwin in biology graduate school in the 1980s, but it is no longer possible because of increasing restriction of academic freedom.

Screenings

In advance of release, the film was shown at private screenings to various Christian conservative leaders such as James Dobson. On March 11, 2008, a preview screening was held in Nashville for attendees at the annual convention of the National Religious Broadcasters. The young Earth creationist organisation Answers in Genesis reported that its leader Ken Ham met Ben Stein beforehand to discuss ways that the film can have a major impact on the creation/evolution debate. 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.

A showing at the Mall of America in Minnesota on March 20 , 2008, was provided by email invitation only to subscribers of the Expelled web site. American biology professor, and writer of the blog Pharyngula, PZ Myers openly accepted the invitation and arrived with his guests, but shortly before the film started was barred from entry. He 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 Richard Dawkins who asked in a question and answer session at the end of the film why Myers, who featured in the film, had been excluded. Dawkins later said that "if anyone had a right to see the film, it was him. The incompetence, on a public relations level, is beyond belief." Dawkins described the event as "a gift" and that "e could not ask for anything better".

Florida legislators

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

The invitation was restricted to legislators, their spouses, and their legislative aides. The press and public were excluded, and when the House general counsel was asked if that was legal under the Florida sunshine law he stated that it was technically legal as long as they just watched the film without discussing the issue or arranging any future votes. Commenting on this, and the controversy over Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel managing to view the film against the wishes of the film company, House Democratic leader Dan Gelber of Miami Beach stated, It's kind of an irony: The public is expelled from a movie called Expelled.

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

See also

• Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns‎

References

1. ^ Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler (March 13, 2008). "Politics: State: New legislation to keep debate on evolution alive". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-15.
2. ^ Cornelia Dean (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
3. ^ Lesley Burbridge-Bates (2007-08-22). "Expelled [[Press Release]]" (PDF). Premise Media. Retrieved 2007-09-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help)
4. Tatania Siegel (February 15, 2008). "New mutation in Darwin debate - Entertainment News, Weekly, Media - Variety". Variety (magazine). Retrieved 2008-02-24.
5. "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling.
6. "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." "This argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., Ruling, p. 24.
7. Forrest, Barbara (May, 2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., retrieved 2007-08-06 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link).
8. In her article about the film for the New York Times, environmental journalist Cornelia Dean describes intelligent design as "an ideological cousin of creationism" and later as a "creationist idea".
   At the the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial it was concluded on the basis of expert testimony and the testimony of leading intelligent design proponents that An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism.
9. ^ Robert Crowther (October 24, 2007). "Evolution News & Views: Intelligent Design is Not Creationism (No Matter What Bill O'Reilly Thinks)". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-12-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
10. Proponents of intelligent design assert that it is not creationism: "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism.' He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability...", from Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski, Robert T. Pennock, p. 645–667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Robert T. Pennock (editor), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0262661241.
11. ^ PZ Myers (October 24, 2007). "Pharyngula: Official denial, unofficial endorsement". Pharyngula. Retrieved 2007-12-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
12. ^ Dan Whipple (December 16, 2007). "Colorado Confidential:: Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies". Colorado Confidential. Retrieved 2008-02-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
13. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III
14. Paul, GS (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion & Society. 7. Retrieved 2007-03-24. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |journal= (help)
    The paper was criticized by Moreno-Riaño, Smith, and Mach in a published article in the same journal because " methodological problems do not allow for any conclusive statement to be advanced regarding the various hypotheses Paul seeks to demonstrate or falsify." Of course, correlation does not imply causality, and Paul does not produce any speculations about the cause of these correlations.
15. ^ "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" according to Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, National Institutes of Health, July 28, 2006.
16. Kitzmiller v. Dover page 82-3
17. ^ See:
    1. List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
    2. Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
    3. The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day petition called "A Scientific Support for Darwinism" gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. (4) The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID
    4. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes
    5. There are many scientific professional organizations that have issued statements on the unscientific status of intelligent design and other forms of creationism
    6. According to the New York Times "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth." (Dean, Cornelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help))
18. "Teachernet, Document bank". Creationism teaching guidance. UK Department for Children, Schools and Families. September 18, 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-01. The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.
    Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |publisher= and |work= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 964 (help)
19. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." (Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005).
    • "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." (Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001).
    • Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Dec. 20, 2005
    •Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.
    •Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323.
    • The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.
    • The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, National Center for Science Education, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16–17, 23–25, July/August, 1999.
    •Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0520246500
    •Forrest, Barbara (May, 2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., retrieved 2007-08-22 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
    •Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 224 p., ISBN 0195157427
    • Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 440 p.
    •Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., 1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism.
20. "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". ChristianCinema.com. 2007-09-23. Retrieved 2007-09-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help).
    • Ben Stein to battle Darwin in major film: Actor-commentator stars in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, WorldNetDaily, September 28, 2007.
    • Ben Stein Confronts Dominance of Darwinian Thought in New Film: Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism, Katherine T. Phan, Christian Post, September 28, 2007.
    • Ben Stein exposes the frightening agenda of the Darwinian Machine in new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Christian Today, Australian edition, September 23, 2007.
    • "Expelled" Live Lecture Webcast at 11:00AM EST, Family Research Council blog, November 28, 2007.
    • New documentary to expose academic punishment for those against Big Bang Theory, Catholic News Agency, August 29, 2007.
21. "In the News - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Access Research Network. 2007-09-24. Retrieved 2007-09-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
22. ^ "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed the new film on the ID controversy". ID the future. 2007-09-22. Retrieved 2007-09-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
23. What Happened to Freedom of Speech? Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Premise Media, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute, August 22, 2007
24. "Council Statement". The Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-12-16. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
25. Gregory Geoffrey (June 1, 2007). "Statement from Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy". News Service: Iowa State University. Iowa State University. Retrieved 2007-12-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |author= and |work= (help)
26. Wesley R. Elsberry (December 12, 2007). "Iowa Citizens for Science Press Release on Gonzalez Case - The Panda's Thumb". The Panda's Thumb. Retrieved 2008-03-05.
27. "Iowa Citizens for Science - Gonzalez, Discovery Institute seek to replace science with politics, religion". Retrieved 2007-12-16.
28. Shankar Vedantam (February 5, 2006). "Eden and Evolution". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-02-16.
29. Baptist professors featured in new film, Jerry Pierce, Southern Baptist Texan, January 28, 2008
30. Q&A: ‘Expelled’s’ Robert Marks, Jerry Pierce, Southern Baptist Texan, January 28, 2008
31. "What is Darwinism? It is Atheism", on page 177 of What is Darwinism?, Charles Hodge, Scribner, Armstrong and Company, 1874.
    •Evolution Supports Atheism: A response to Tom Ribe, John Baumgardner, The Los Alamos Monitor, September 4, 1996.
    • Scientific Creationism, Henry M. Morris, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1985, p. 215.
    • The Other Side of Evolution, Jon Gary Williams, Williams Brothers Publishers, LaVergne, TN, Seventh Printing 1996.
    • "Evolution is atheism in a straight jacket," said Jim Jenkins, president of the Republican Leadership Council of Montgomery County (EVOLUTION: What It Is and What It Isn't: A Public Symposium, September 24, 2003, Montgomery County College, Montgomery County, Texas, Steven Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science website).
    •"Evolution is atheism", from The End of Darwinism. Not Change but Persistence is Characteristic of Life. Every Change is a Persistence; Only what Persists Can Change, Alfred P. Schultz, Monticello, Sullivan County, ca. 1911, as reported in a review by Gordon M. Russell, Cranford, N.J., Princeton Theological Review, Princeton University Press, 1911.
32. One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.85% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science. As reported by Newsweek, "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." (Keeping God out of the Classroom, Washington and bureau reports, Larry Martz and Ann McDaniel, Newsweek, CIX (26): 23-24, June 29, 1987, ISSN 00289604)
33. Kitzmiller v. Dover page 82-3
34. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling.
35. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 64
36. Expelled Movie trailers
37. Ben Stein to battle `anti-religious dogmatism`, Bill Berkowitz, Top Scoops, Scoop Independent News, 11 September 2007.
38. New book by Discovery Institute Fellow shows influence of Darwinian principles on Hitler's Nazi regime, Discovery Institute.
39. Kent Hovind (2006). The Dangers of Evolution (DVD). USA: Creation Science Evangelism. {{cite AV media}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= and |title= (help)
40. This creationist claim is repeated over and over in creationist literature. For example:
    • Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust, Jerry Bergman, CEN Technical Journal, 13(2):101–111, 1999.
    • The Holocaust and evolution, Jonathan Sarfati, Creation 22(1):4, December 1999.
    • Darwin's Deadly Legacy: The Chilling Impact of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries, 2007
    • From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Richard Weikart, Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
41. Talkorigins Claim CA006.1: Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide, Index to Creationist Claims, Talkorigins, created April 29, 2001, modified July 1, 2005, © 2006
42. Avalos, HCreationists for Genocide, and Flank, L (©1999) Creationists, Hitler and Evolution Accessed 2008 from Talkreason website
43. When Stein was interviewed by The New York Times, "He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called 'From Darwin to Hitler'" (Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin, Cornelia Dean, The New York Times, September 27, 2007).
44. The evolution of creationism: After their notorious legal defeat, intelligent design proponents are resurfacing with insidious new assaults on science, Gordy Slack, Salon, November 13, 2007.
45. Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?, Ben Stein, Blog on Film official website, October 31, 2007.
46. Leonard Steinhorn (December 31, 2007). "Is the Theory of Evolution Really a Matter of Faith?". History News Network. George Mason University. Retrieved 2008-01-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
47. MacAskill, Ewen (September 28, 2007). "Dawkins rails at 'creationist front' for duping him into film role". Guardian Unlimited. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
48. ""Crossroads" synopsis". Rampant Films. Retrieved 2007-12-12., under "Properties" menu, select "Crossroads" icon
49. ^ PZ Myers (2007-08-22). "I'm gonna be a ☆ MOVIE STAR ☆". Pharyngula. Scienceblogs, Seed Media Group. Retrieved 2007-09-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
50. PZ Myers (2007-08-28). "Expelled producer seems to be embarrassed about his sneaky tactics". Pharyngula. Scienceblogs, Seed Media Group. Retrieved 2007-09-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
51. Scientists Say Intelligent-Design Movie's Producers Deceived Them Into Participating, Richard Monastersky, News Blog, The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 27, 2007.
52. ^ LifeSiteNews.com (2007-10-05). "Atheist Scientists in Uproar". LifeSiteNews.com. Retrieved 2007-10-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
53. Atheist Scientists in Uproar over Movie: EXPELLED, PR Newswire, Los Angeles, October 4, 2007
54. Expelled Producers Deny Deceiving Scientists to Appear in Film, Katherine T. Phan, Christian Post, October 08, 2007
55. EXPELLED makes front page of NYTimes, William Dembski, Uncommondescent blog, September 27, 2007
56. Humanists vs. Evangelicals, Roy Speckhardt, New York Times, September 27, 2007, Published: October 4, 2007.
57. soapblox (July 3, 2006). "Colorado Confidential:: About". Colorado Confidential. Retrieved 2008-02-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
58. ^ Dan Whipple (February 15, 2008). "Colorado Confidential:: The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'". Colorado Confidential. Retrieved 2008-02-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
59. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Four Stars, Tom Magnuson, Access Research Network blog, December 6, 2007.
60. ^ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, including podcast, Culture and Family Issues, Concerned Women for America website, December 27, 2007
61. ^ Disinvited to a Screening, a Critic Ends Up in a Faith-Based Crossfire, John Metcalfe, New York Times, March 10, 2008.
62. ^ Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism?, Roger Moore, Frankly My Dear... Movies with Roger Moore, The Orlando Sentinel, February 1, 2008
63. Expelled gets more bad press PZ Myers. Pharyngula, March 11, 2008
64. PZ Myers (2008-02-27). "Media alert!". Pharyngula. Scienceblogs, Seed Media Group. Retrieved 2008-03-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
65. Recent Projects, Motive Marketing website
66. Ben Stein's Introductory Blog, Ben Stein, August 21, 2007.
67. MOVIE CONTEST Premise Media Corporation, Accessed November 2007
68. Kitzmiller v. Dover:4. Whether ID is Science
69. ^ Expelling Dogma: Executive Producer Walt Ruloff and Expelled (Part I), ID the Future podcast, August 27, 2007.
70. ^ Nothing Up His Sleeve: Executive Producer Walt Ruloff and Expelled (Part II), ID the Future podcast, August 27, 2007.
71. ^ Interview with Mark Mathis, producer of "Expelled" with Ben Stein, Bill Greene Show, January 11, 2008
72. A website "specifically designed for students, teachers, pastors, youth leaders and organizations to provide useful tools and resources to promote the ideas surrounding "
73. Take the Expelled Challenge: Raise money for your school!
74. ^ Elsberry, Wesley R. (16 January 2008). "Flunked, Not Expelled: Gaming the Movie Ratings". The Austringer. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
75. ^ Expelled Challenge FAQ page
76. Q: What’s the best way to get our school families to come out to the movies?
    A: In speaking with Christian Schools, we’ve found that hosting a school-wide “mandatory” field trip is the best way to maximize your school’s earning potential. Send a field trip home with your middle school and high school students, have each child pay for their own ticket, then collect the stubs at the door once you get to the movie theater. With this model, you also will be able to benefit from the ticket stubs purchased by parents who choose to come as well.Expelled Challenge FAQ page
77. Behind the Scenes with Expelled Associate Producer, ID the Future podcast, February 4, 2008.
78. ^ Q&A: ‘Expelled’ producer Logan Craft, Jerry Pierce, Southern Baptist Texan, January 28, 2008
79. ^ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Georgia Purdom, AiG–U.S., Answers in Genesis website, December 17, 2007.
80. ^ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ray Bohlin, Probe Ministries website
81. Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–U.S (March 13, 2008). "A Meeting of Minds - Answers in Genesis". Retrieved 2008-03-15.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
82. Jeffery Overstreet, ""Richard Dawkins crashes the party at screening of Expelled, The Looking Closer Journal, Retrieved March 21, 2008
83. Mark Moring, "Dawkins crashes Expelled party",Christianity Today Blog, Retrieved March 21, 2008
84. E.E. Flynn, "Atheist author draws impassioned crowd", Austin-American Statesman, Retrieved March 21, 2008
85. Chris Hewitt (03/21/2008). "Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled' - TwinCities.com". The Pioneer Press. Retrieved 2008-03-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
86. Dean, Cornelia (2008-03-21). "No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-21.
87. "Session :Bills : flsenate.gov". Retrieved 2008-03-10.
88. "Pharyngula: It's a propaganda film!". Retrieved 2008-03-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
89. . Retrieved 2008-03-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); replacement character in |title= at position 30 (help)
90. ^ Marc Caputo (March 10, 2008). "Ben Stein weighs in on evolution fight - 03/10/2008 - MiamiHerald.com". Miami Herald. Retrieved 2008-03-11.
91. LesliePostal (Mar 10, 2008). "Orlando Sentinel - Academic freedom, evolution and Ben Stein's Expelled movie --the Florida House may consider them all". Retrieved 2008-03-12.
92. "Legislature invited to movie about creationism debate : news-press.com : The News-Press". Retrieved 2008-03-13.
93. "Lawmakers attend Tallahassee screening of movie by Ben Stein : tallahassee.com : Tallahassee Democrat". Retrieved 2008-03-14.
94. "Eyes wide open : tallahassee.com : Tallahassee Democrat". Retrieved 2008-03-14.
95. Marc Caputo (March 15, 2008). "Intelligent Design could slip into science class - 03/13/2008 - MiamiHerald.com". Miami Herald. Retrieved 2008-03-15.
96. Wesley R. Elsberry (14 March 2008). "The Austringer » Florida: John West Spins Wildly to Cover Luskin's Back". Retrieved 2008-03-16.

External links

• Expelled homepage
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at IMDb
• Expelled Exposed — critical reviews and news coverage of the movie

• 2008 films
• Intelligent design controversies
• American documentary films
• Discovery Institute campaigns
• Future events
• Independent films
• Documentaries about science
• Documentaries about education
• Documentaries about religion