Jump to content

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fairchoice (talk | contribs) at 23:26, 1 February 2008 (more logical to introduce charactors earlier in article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Future film

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Directed byNathan Frankowski
Written byKevin Miller
Walt Ruloff
Produced byWalt Ruloff
Premise Media Corp.
StarringBen Stein
Music byAndy Hunter°
Robbie Bronnimann
Distributed byRocky Mountain Pictures
Release dates
April, 2008
Running time
90 min
CountryUnited States of America
LanguageEnglish

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 in April, 2008.[1][2]

The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, a form of creationism.[3][4][5][6] The Discovery Institute which is at the center of promoting intelligent design, claims that it is a serious scientific research approach, and not creationism.[7][8] 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.[9] What a reviewer describes as four or five examples of ordinary academic back-biting[10] 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.[1][2] 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.[10][11]

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.[10] The evidence that this scientific theory is responsible for social problems does not exist[12] and within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[13] and intelligent design is not considered to be valid science,[14][15][16] but is viewed as creationism.[17]

Although not yet released, the film is being promoted by Christian media[18] and by organizations affiliated with the Discovery Institute, the hub and source of the intelligent design movement.[19][20][21] 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."[20] 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.[7]

Many others in the Christian and creationist community are anxiously anticipating this movie. For example, Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis, a young earth creationist organization, discussed the film and the promotional campaign in an article that appeared December 17, 2007 on the AiG website.[22] 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.[22]

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.[1][23]

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.[1] After the normal review of aspects such as his record of scientific publications which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty, he was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." In the previous decade, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the department were not granted tenure. The Discovery Institute then launched a campaign portraying Gonzalez as a victim of discrimination.[24][25]

Biologist Caroline Crocker was barred by George Mason University from teaching a Cell Biology class over her introduction of intelligent design into it, and her contract at that university was not renewed.[2][26]

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.[1]


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."[1][2]

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."[2] 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,[27] scientists commonly hold religious faiths,[1] 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."[1] Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community,[13][28] 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[15] and instead is pseudoscience.[17] and therefore the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science,[29] but as creationism.[17] 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",[30] and that claims by proponents have been "refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[31]

The film implies that Darwin's theory of evolution was responsible for the Holocaust,[10][32][33] a part of an ongoing Discovery Institute campaign,[34] and a frequently-used[35][36] and oft-discredited creationist charge.[37][38] Stein has repeatedly claimed that evolution is responsible for the Holocaust in interviews promoting the film[39][40] and on his blog on the film's website.[41]

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.[42]

Claims that film producers misled interviewees

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins[43] 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[44] 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.[45][46][47]

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."[45] 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."[1]

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".[48][49] 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.[48][50][51]

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?"[52]

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".[1]

Reviews

Dan Whipple of Colorado Confidential, a self-described "award-winning independently-produced political news daily featuring original and investigative reporting",[53] saw an early screening of the film at the Archdiocese of Denver in Denver, Colorado during the second week of December, 2007.[10] 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."[10] 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.[10]

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".[54]

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.[55] 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.[55]

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.[56] 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.[57]

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.[58].

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?"[9] 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.[7][59]

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.[60][61] 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 .[62]

The "Expelled Challenge"

In order to promote the film, the website "GetExpelled.com"[63] launched "The Expelled Challenge"[64] 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",[65] 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.[66] Elsberry noted that at the upper end of the range, the value of the reward is probably greater than the actual ticket price.[65]

The programme also recommends a "school-wide 'mandatory' field trip" as "the best way to maximize your school’s earning potential"[66][67] Elsberry criticises this as a call to "take children away from classrooms, fill their heads with obnoxiously delivered misinformation, and profit off of it".[65]

Promotional interviews with producers

Walt Ruloff, executive director of the film, was interviewed on the Discovery Institute's ID the Future podcast.[60][61] Ruloff said that "Ben Stein [is] obviously a great intellect, considered one of the smartest people as far as a Hollywood personality in the United States." Ruloff said that the dominant "Darwinist orthodoxy" was unfairly 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 supressed and were essentially "shelved" (particularly in RNA synthesis, and Ruloff claimed this percentage is growing). He was shocked to learn that the standard response in genomics and molecular biology for most questions is "no you can't do that" because the ideas violated Darwinism, so Darwinism is a science-stopper. Ruloff described the team he had assembled to make the film, and said he was glad 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.[60][61]

One of the producers of Expelled, Mark Mathis, was interviewed on a Victory Broadcast Service Radio program in January, 2008.[62] 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 "Colombo-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. Greene and 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.[62]

Promotional efforts by others

Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries also wrote about the upcoming film on the Probe Ministries website.[68] 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.[68]


See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j 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)
  2. ^ a b c d e 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)
  3. ^ "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.
  4. ^ "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.
  5. ^ 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).
  6. ^ 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".[1]
    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.
  7. ^ a b c 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)
  8. ^ 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.
  9. ^ a b PZ Myers (October 24, 2007). "Pharyngula: Official denial, unofficial endorsement". Pharyngula. Retrieved 2007-12-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ a b c d e f g Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies, Dan Whipple, Colorado Confidential, December 16, 2007
  11. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III
  12. ^ 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 "[Paul 's] 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.
  13. ^ a b "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.
  14. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover page 82-3
  15. ^ a b 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))
  16. ^ "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)
  17. ^ a b c "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.
  18. ^ "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.
  19. ^ "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)
  20. ^ a b "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)
  21. ^ What Happened to Freedom of Speech? Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Premise Media, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute, August 22, 2007
  22. ^ a b Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Georgia Purdom, AiG–U.S., Answers in Genesis website, December 17, 2007.
  23. ^ "Council Statement". The Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-12-16. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  24. ^ 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)
  25. ^ "Iowa Citizens for Science - Gonzalez, Discovery Institute seek to replace science with politics, religion". Retrieved 2007-12-16.
  26. ^ Darwin Goes to Church, Henry G. Brinton, Washington Post, September 18, 2005
  27. ^ "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.
  28. ^ 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)
  29. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover page 82-3
  30. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling.
  31. ^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 64
  32. ^ Expelled Movie trailers
  33. ^ Ben Stein to battle `anti-religious dogmatism`, Bill Berkowitz, Top Scoops, Scoop Independent News, 11 September 2007.
  34. ^ New book by Discovery Institute Fellow shows influence of Darwinian principles on Hitler's Nazi regime, Discovery Institute.
  35. ^ 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)
  36. ^ This creationist claim is repeated over and over in creationist literature. For example:
  37. ^ 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
  38. ^ Avalos, HCreationists for Genocide, and Flank, L (©1999) Creationists, Hitler and Evolution Accessed 2008 from Talkreason website
  39. ^ 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).
  40. ^ 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.
  41. ^ Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?, Ben Stein, Blog on Film official website, October 31, 2007.
  42. ^ 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)
  43. ^ 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)
  44. ^ ""Crossroads" synopsis". Rampant Films. Retrieved 2007-12-12., under "Properties" menu, select "Crossroads" icon
  45. ^ a b 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)
  46. ^ 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)
  47. ^ Scientists Say Intelligent-Design Movie's Producers Deceived Them Into Participating, Richard Monastersky, News Blog, The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 27, 2007.
  48. ^ a b 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)
  49. ^ Atheist Scientists in Uproar over Movie: EXPELLED, PR Newswire, Los Angeles, October 4, 2007
  50. ^ Expelled Producers Deny Deceiving Scientists to Appear in Film, Katherine T. Phan, Christian Post, October 08, 2007
  51. ^ EXPELLED makes front page of NYTimes, William Dembski, Uncommondescent blog, September 27, 2007
  52. ^ Humanists vs. Evangelicals, Roy Speckhardt, New York Times, September 27, 2007, Published: October 4, 2007.
  53. ^ "About". Colorado Confidential. July 3 2006. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  54. ^ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Four Stars, Tom Magnuson, Access Research Network blog, December 6, 2007.
  55. ^ a b Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, including podcast, Culture and Family Issues, Concerned Women for America website, December 27, 2007
  56. ^ Recent Projects, Motive Marketing website
  57. ^ Ben Stein's Introductory Blog, Ben Stein, August 21, 2007.
  58. ^ MOVIE CONTEST Premise Media Corporation, Accessed November 2007
  59. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover:4. Whether ID is Science
  60. ^ a b c Expelling Dogma: Executive Producer Walt Ruloff and Expelled (Part I), ID the Future podcast, August 27, 2007.
  61. ^ a b c Nothing Up His Sleeve: Executive Producer Walt Ruloff and Expelled (Part II), ID the Future podcast, August 27, 2007.
  62. ^ a b c Interview with Mark Mathis, producer of "Expelled" with Ben Stein, Bill Greene Show, January 11, 2008
  63. ^ A website "specifically designed for students, teachers, pastors, youth leaders and organizations to provide useful tools and resources to promote the ideas surrounding [the film]"[2]
  64. ^ Take the Expelled Challenge: Raise money for your school!
  65. ^ a b c Elsberry, Wesley R. (16 January 2008). "Flunked, Not Expelled: Gaming the Movie Ratings". The Austringer. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  66. ^ a b Expelled Challenge FAQ page
  67. ^ 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
  68. ^ a b Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ray Bohlin, Probe Ministries website
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&oldid=188486608"