“Expelled” – Exposing Scientific Intolerance


It’s about time! Finally someone is making a movie that exposes the radical fundamentalism of the scientific left. None other than the brilliant financial funnyman (“Bueller”) Ben Stein is making a movie called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” to be released in February 2008.

What’s it about? It exposes how the scientific community blackballs scientists who question the dubious theories of Darwinism, global warming, etc., and especially those who dare to even think that “intelligent design” might have credence. We’ve heard about this kind of thing happening for years, but no one has come along to tell the story in large form like this.

It never surprises me to see Hollywood produce the kind of leftist propaganda that Michael Moore is known for, but it IS surprising to see something like this come out of there. Prepare for an onslaught of detractors – especially those who while yelling the loudest for academic freedom and ideological tolerance, are militant in squelching any voices that dare dissent with liberal ideology or current scientific dogma.

Click the image to view the trailer.

(HT: Tom Ascol)


20 Responses to “Expelled” – Exposing Scientific Intolerance

  1. jonolan says:

    I find the idea of “intelligent design” – as it is preached at least – to be utterly stupid ond nonsensical, BUT I deplore the leftists who will not “allow” research into areas that contradict their idealogies. If the tables were turned, oh how they would cry!

    So strangly enough, you have an ally amoungst the secular community.

  2. Jason says:

    I’m really looking forward to seeing what Ben Stein comes up with on the topic.

  3. PB and J says:

    no matter where one stands on the question of darwin’s theories, i think this is a good thing. if darwin is right, then only good, balanced discussion will demonstrate it more clearly. if darwin was wrong, then we would want to find another theory that works better.


  4. Dan says:

    “BUT I deplore the leftists who will not “allow” research into areas that contradict their idealogies”

    Were you angry when teachers marked answers wrong on your tests in school, too? It sure seems that Ben Stein was!

  5. PB and J says:

    actually, i got good marks in school, even when i disagreed with the “established” view on science.


  6. Matt says:

    The problem is, however, that Intelligent Design is not science, so of course it can’t be investigated scientifically or taught in science classes. It provides no mechanism, creates more questions than it answers and there is simply no evidence for it which has not already been fully refuted (such as irreducible complexity).

    So it would seem this upcoming film will be an opinion piece much like those of Michael Moore, just from the other end of spectrum. And will almost certainly be equally as daft.

  7. jonolan says:


    That depended on why they marked them wrong. I spent some years in a religious school and they “discouraged” certain osrts of answers. I dislike people who limit lines of research that contradict their own position – no matter who those people are or what positions are involved.

    And yes, there’s a good chance this film will just be a another opinion piece.

  8. narziss says:

    I wonder if you’ve read about Pantheism– it’s a beautiful theory, which does not debunk a single fact of science, including Big bang theory and Darwin’s evolution; and yet provides such marvellous logic to our existence.

  9. Scott W. Kay says:

    It still amazes me the level of faith that is required to view the theory of evolution as a fact. As if it took less faith than it does to hold to intelligent design. Both sides of the debate appeal to scientific data to demonstrate the plausibility of their view. Neither view is provable by science, they can only show examples that demonstrate the viability of the theory. Darwinists need to quit fooling themselves that there aren’t massive holes scientifically in their theory, and quit treating it as an already-concluded fact. This is what leads to the scientific intolerance that Stein is set to point out in his movie. There should be a great deal of openness afforded to scientists to be able to construct more plausible explanations for things than the problematic ones that science now clings so desperately to, particularly in regard to origins. Pantheism, on the other hand, doesn’t solve anything logically, theologically, or scientifically, it only tries to (unsuccessfully) syncretize a handful of theories.

  10. Matt says:

    The Theory of Evolution is the best theory or even hypothesis around that fits the available data, therefore it’s the one that currently makes the best sense. Is it possible new evidence will come to light that will blow the Scientific Theory clear out of the water? Yes, but it would have to be something completely out of left field that has not already been anticipated and accommodated into the Theory. (seriously, pretty much everything has been covered … yet people keep bringing up that idiotic ‘eyeball’ argument).

    ID, OTOH, offers nothing new. To look at it simply, it is a bunch of people looking at Evolution and saying “God … oops, I mean an ‘unknown intelligence’ did it.” when there is so far not one piece of evidence to support said creating intelligence existing.

    The vast majority of people who don’t support the Theory of Evolution are simply ignorant of it and the overwhelming amounts of evidence that support it.

  11. Scott W. Kay says:


    While I very much appreciate your feedback, I have no desire to argue in circles with you. You are obviously a smart and opinionated guy, as I am (well, at least I’m opinionated!). I disagree that “The vast majority of people who don’t support the Theory of Evolution are simply ignorant of it and the overwhelming amounts of evidence that support it.” Rather, they simply disagree with it because the evidence is not convincing to them and/or they actually believe in divine creation. Again, both sides take a large measure of faith.

  12. psuche says:

    Well, this is a mixed bag of responses. But the one from Matt is, I think, and unfortunately, speaking for many deluded people. The Theory Of Evolution, contrary to his statement, isn’t supported by any of the available data. Not one skeleton, not one bone-nada, nothing! Any one who wishes to understand that must undertake a brief study and actually read some of the available arguments against evolution. Notice I say, “against evolution,” nor for ID. Few have have done that. Thats why they can’t argue well for their position–they don’t understand the opposition. And more to the point, they don’t understand the weaknesses in their position.

    Here is a good starting point: 1) Total Truth, Nancy Pearcy, Crossway Books, ISBN 1-58134-458-9 2) Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing, ISBN 0-89526-200-2

    There are others, but both of these books examine the claims of evolutionary “evidence” and present solid arguments against the evidence. “Know your enemy,” Darwinists!

  13. Dan says:

    Haven’t read Nancy Pearcy’s book, but if it’s anything like Wells’ Icons, you can save your breath for those fools out there that’ll believe anything.

    Read TalkOrigin’s repository of reviews if you like, or just Wells’ own account of why he got into science in the first place (because Rev. Moon commanded him to make it his life’s purpose to make up things to discredit real biologists).

  14. psuche says:

    I guess one can find skeletons anywhere. But note that one of the most celebrated anti-Darwinist, micro-biologist Michael Behe, endorses Wells’ book. I don’t know what Wells’ connection to Moon might be, but he got his degree in religious studies at Yale (Ph.D), and a second Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology at Berkley. He seems credible enough.

  15. Dan says:

    Behe isn’t much better, although maybe he’s a little bit more respectable. Case in point: Behe’s poor resume as a scientist (publishing more editorials than scientific papers), his failure to respond to criticisms from other scientists, and the fact that he’s only ‘celebrated’ by other religious apologists.

    Wells’ connection to Rev. Moon is something he’s openly acknowledged, and is in fact proud of, being one of his followers.

  16. Dan says:

    Behe is a biochemist, not a microbiologist. He himself got tenure, and then mostly stopped doing scientific research. As such, his colleagues at Lehigh are forced to respect his academic freedom (which comes with tenure), so now he gets away with using his authority to make unsupported claims – and religious apologetics eat it up without stopping to question whether his ideas match the available scientific literature (they don’t).

  17. Matt says:

    Behe’s credibility is almost non-existent, he poor performance as a scientist were clearly demonstrated at the Dover trial where he demonstrated that he didn’t even understand the fundamental definition of science, did not research his own field properly, was unaware or didn’t bother to read large amounts of research papers into the field he claimed to be an expert on and so on. His pet theory of irreducible complexity was also demolished at roughly the same time.

  18. psuche says:

    Hogwash! You “cite” without citing. You make allegations. In ant event, none of what you say negates the reasoned logic of their positions. Like all liberals, you resort to personal attacks. Real or imagined.

    Now, I’m leaving on a jet plane . . . for New Jersey. See ya later.

  19. Dan says:

    Um, no psuche, everything mentioned so far is a matter of public record, and can be looked up online. Neither Matt nor myself mentioned anything that is untrue.

  20. This is one of many most amazing blogs Ive study inside a very extended time.

    The amount of information in here is stunning, like you practically wrote the book
    on the subject. Your blog is great for everyone who wants to understand this subject
    a lot more. Great stuff; please keep it up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: