Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FeloniousMonk (talk | contribs) at 04:41, 18 December 2007 (restore original properly sourced and attributed second paragraph, recent change lacked sources, was weasely and unfocused). 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 is a controversial film which presents the case for the creationist idea of intelligent design. Starring Ben Stein, it is due to be released in February 2008. 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."

However, the consensus of the scientific community is that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus and that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science, but as creationism. In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial 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."

Although not yet released, the film is being promoted by a Christian movie site, 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." The Discovery Institute has been critical of some of the statements made in promotion for the film, issuing a disclaimer that intelligent design is not 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 cited for the Sternberg peer review controversy which arose when, having served as editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and giving in 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 Discovery Institute then launched a campaign portraying Gonzalez as a victim of discrimination.

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.

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 of deception by interviewees

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who were 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) described such criticism as hypocritical: "I've never seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites in my life...I 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 lady (and gentleman) doth protest too much, methinks." The film's proponents point to Dawkins himself having participated in the BBC Horizon documentary "A War on Science", which they allege is an attack on Intelligent Design. That documentary features intelligent design proponents Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer and William A. Dembski, and proponents of Expelled allege that the producers of the BBC documentary presented themselves to the Discovery Institute as objective filmmakers and then portrayed the organization as religiously-motivated and anti-scientific.

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".

Promotion

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 suggests 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 long format "super trailer" implies that this film is so controversial that any scientist who watches the film will be summarily fired from his or her job, and suggests that the content of this film is so dangerous that teachers, legislators and journalists should not view it either. It promotes the intelligent design explanation for the species observed on planet earth and their behavior, and implies there is no evidence for the mainstream scientifically-accepted understanding of the origins of species. The trailer and other promotional materials often refer to evolution as "Darwinism", a term that has acquired negative connotations because it is used by creationists and intelligent design supporters to connote atheism and other unpopular beliefs. The trailer states that the current era of "Darwinism" began after Einstein's career ended (in 1955), and that therefore scientific publications questioning Darwinism would have been welcomed until the last few decades, but no longer are possible. The trailer also claims that there is a conspiracy of Darwinists, the courts, schools and the media to squelch all discussion of intelligent design.

The website also 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.

The press release for the movie asks, "Were we designed or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?" It claims that several scientists who found evidence for design have been censored in various ways. The press release asserts that "Big Science" does not allow dissent from "Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection." It suggests that there is no evidence for evolution.

To publicise the film, Ben Stein featured on 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 at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

See also

• Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns‎

References

1. ^ Dean, Cordelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-28.
2. 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.
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)
4. "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Finding the Evolution in Medicine National Institutes of Health
5. Kitzmiller v. Dover page 82-3
6. 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 A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. 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, Cordelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-28.
7. "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}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 932 (help)
8. "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
9. Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.
10. 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
11. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.
12. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling.
13. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 64
14. "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". ChristianCinema.com. 2007-09-23. Retrieved 2007-09-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
15. "In the News - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". ARN. 2007-09-24. Retrieved 2007-09-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
16. ^ "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)
17. ^ 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.
18. "Council Statement". The Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-12-16.
19. "News Service: Iowa State University". Statement from Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy. Iowa State University. June 1, 2007. Retrieved 2007-12-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
20. "Iowa Citizens for Science - Gonzalez, Discovery Institute seek to replace science with politics, religion". Retrieved 2007-12-16.
21. Darwin Goes to Church, Henry G. Brinton, Washington Post, September 18, 2005
22. ""Crossroads" synopsis". Rampant Films. Retrieved 2007-12-12., under "Properties" menu, select "Crossroads" icon
23. ^ PZ Myers (2007-08-22). "I'm gonna be a ☆ MOVIE STAR ☆". Pharyngula. Scienceblogs. Retrieved 2007-09-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
24. PZ Myers (2007-08-28). "Expelled producer seems to be embarrassed about his sneaky tactics". Pharyngula. Scienceblogs. Retrieved 2007-09-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
25. ^ Cornelia Dean (2007-09-27). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
26. ^ LifeSiteNews.com (2007-10-05). "Atheist Scientists in Uproar". LifeSiteNews.com. Retrieved 2007-10-05. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
27. Ben Stein's Introductory Blog, Ben Stein, August 21, 2007.
28. Expelled Movie trailers
29. MOVIE CONTEST Premise Media Corporation, Accessed Novemeber 2007
30. PZ Myers (October 24, 2007). "Pharyngula: Official denial, unofficial endorsement". Pharyngula. Retrieved 2007-12-16.
31. Cite error: The named reference Kscience was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

External links

• Expelled homepage
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at IMDb

• 2008 films
• Intelligent design controversies
• American films
• Discovery Institute campaigns