In my research and observations for the past 30 years here is what I’ve observed:

We’ll talk more about this in upcoming articles.

It’s been a week since Expelled was released into the theaters. That’s enough time for dozens of movie reviews; blogs about it; and blogs about other bloggers views, even from people who didn’t see the movie. So it’s safe to say that the movie has been successful — in getting people to talk — and ask questions.

I had been itching to see Expelled, since my friend John (from Michigan) told me about it, and Wednesday night I saw it. This morning my facebook friend John (from California) told me about Dinesh D’Souza’s (Hoover Institute – Stanford) AOL News article where DD says:

Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can’t. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can’t bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET.

ToTheSource is running a side by side comparison of viewpoints.

Terry W. Frizell says: Stein deals with the huge question, “Where did life come from?” and therefore the movie is a “must-see”.

Seldom Wrong still had not gone to the movie, but asked – Is it reasonable to think that life arose by chance?

… as noted by D’Souza, Expelled exposes Richard Dawkins’s belief that life on earth was seeded by extraterrestrials. That is genuinely as good a demonstration as one can imagine that it’s not reasonable to think that life arose by chance…

We assert further that evolutionary biology and ID are really only different in very narrow areas that have to do with these very questions: is it reasonable to think that life arose by chance, and is it reasonable to think that an intelligence designed the universe?

Mary Alice has already seen the movie twice, and gets to the heart of the matter.

Kevin Porter said the movie was “quite excellent” and Richard Dawkins reminded him of a dog chasing his tail.

Brock Gill says: A new front has been opened in the culture wars.

Universalist Steve questions the honesty, ethics and marketing techniques of the films producers.

Monado from Toronto asserts in her Science Notes that: “An invincible ignorance of science seems to be the real pre-requisite for Intelligent Design believers” — and appears comfortably ignorant of her own presuppositions.

Chris Mooney at Science Progress says the movie is a deeply dishonest piece of propaganda.

Images of Hitler and the Berlin wall frighten people. Movies are supposed to have images — moving images. That’s what movies do. Movies sell ideas with imagery to make a point. Vodka advertisements use imagery to sell products, and the pundits just don’t like a movie that mixes imagery with science, religion, ethics, epistemology, and philosophy.

But, there is more at risk than selling vodka. Absolutely, says Kevin Clark at the Charcoal Fire: “This is the most thought-provoking thing to come out of Hollywood in a long time” … Expelled Exposes Irresponsible and Irrational Scientists :

“Darwinism indeed was the philosophy that Nazi scientists held. Darwinism’s theory of natural selection was the foundation of policies and propaganda that helped build the menace of the Nazi regime. And Darwinism is today building the menace of academic totalitarianism and the abortion machine. And yes, this is the problem: Scientists have squelched philosophy as a pseudoscience, and in doing so have themselves become the philosophers.”

Daniel Wigington says in his hopefully-not-boring blog:

Stein prods the Darwinists enough that some of them — including Richard Dawkins — make some unexpected statements about the possibility of intelligence in biological design and the philosophical implications of Darwinian theory.

Expelled (the movie) was even better than I thought it would be.

Did you know that today is DNA day? “Science Progress” asks How Do We Eliminate Controversy Without Teaching It, in a short sermon meditation article entitled “Reflections on DNA Day”.

From what I understand, the film asks some hard questions about university life in the Neo-Darwinian era.

It’s interesting that the film was released in theaters yesterday (April 18, 2008) — since 126 years ago (April 19, 1882) Charles Darwin died.

Darwin had studied medicine at Edinburgh University in 1825. According to an Encyclopedia Brittanica article about Charles Darwin “Edinburgh attracted English Dissenters who were barred from graduating at the Anglican universities of Oxford and Cambridge” and “Darwin heard freethinkers deny the Divine design”. However, some speech “was officially censored” and “was considered subversive”. The EB article goes on to state that “Darwin was witnessing the social penalties of holding deviant views.”

Today, we are witnessing a kind of “reverse reactionary apartheid” and prejudice against anyone who appears to be “Anti-Darwinian”. This whole thing seems a lot more like a high-school food fight, then a mature scientific discussion. Why is inquiry being stifled? Maybe these scientists (the ones being expelled from colleges and universities) are not really “Anti-Darwinian”. Maybe they want to be like Darwin, and have the academic freedom to ask intelligent questions. Is that OK with you?

Updates:

Brent Bozell III, in a Yahoo News article on 18-Apr-2008 says:

I went into the screening bored. I came out of it stunned.

Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.

Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics — experts all — who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves “expelled” from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University).

Frank Scheck, in a film review for the Hollywood Reporter dated 21-Apr-2008 says:

… this documentary purporting to examine the issue of freedom of expression in the debate between the competing arguments of “intelligent design” and Darwinism squanders the potential fascination of its topic with its simplistic, heavy-handed approach.

Frank, I think you missed the point! How would you make a documentary that American young people will actually watch? If it wasn’t hard hitting would people even watch it? The American school system has been doing such a good job of dumbing people down, that we sometimes have to shock people to get them thinking again. The movie was supposed to be a defibrillator for the brain.

Ed Morrissey, in a Hot Air article reviewing Expelled, is amused by the debate:

Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.

A Los Angeles Times story says: “‘Expelled’ could exceed box-office forecasts”

New York Times claims its one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time.

Time Magazine says Ben Stein Dukes it Out With Darwin:

In fairness to Stein, his opponents have hardly covered themselves in glory. Evolutionary biologists and social commentators have lately taken to answering the claims of intelligent-design boosters not with clear-eyed scientific empiricism but with sneering, finger-in-the-eye atheism. Biologist P.Z. Myers, for example, tells Stein that religion ought to be seen as little more than a soothing pastime, a bit like knitting.

Shawn Barr said the movie did not live up to the criticisms thrown at it by the media:

The main focus of the movie is the question of academic freedom. By interviewing scholars who have been discriminated against because of their ID or faith views, Stein shows a form of bigotry in academia. Critics say these people had other issues affecting their job performance and scholarship. Of course that is the approach each institution representative took. How could they say anything else?

Iowa State University though actually admitted that eliminating a professor for his ID views was a part of their intent. Being an alumnus, I’m duly glad they were honest, and disappointed with their treatment of Gonzalez: a physics professor. One reason they may have been so honest is the existence of emails documenting the concern over his ID views. Whether or not there were other issues with his tenure, ID was certainly one of them.

Shawn Barr does make a good point about academic bigotry at Iowa State University in the case of Guillermo Gonzalez, and something worth investigating a little deeper. (It seems like they were singing a different song. It would be interesting to know the chronology of events.) According to a World Net Daily news article about Guillermo Gonzalez, published back on Feb. 7, 2008 (Regents reject tenure request without evidence, testimony) :

The school has continued to deny the handling of Gonzalez’ case was related to his support of ID, even though the Des Moines Register documented e-mails that confirmed Gonzalez’ colleagues wanted him flushed out of the system for that reason.

Was Gonzalez somehow derelict in publishing 350 percent more peer-reviewed publications than his own department’s stated standard for research excellence? Or in co-authoring a college astronomy textbook with Cambridge University Press? Or in having his research recognized by Science, Nature, Scientific American and other top science publications?

One of Gonzalez’ research papers had 153 citations listed; another had 139. This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure.

The big debate continues at the Discovery Institute in this article: Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists.

FaceTheReckoning says connecting the dots to Hitler is all about worldview:

“… the worldview that is shared by Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood which echo Darwin’s natural selection and survival of the fittest.”

Earl Barnett says the best part is when Richard Dawkins makes a case for Intelligent Design:

The movie seeks to ‘expose’ the bias in modern science against the concept of ‘Intelligent Design’. While the movie successfully accomplishes not only this, but also films Richard Dawkins making a case for Intelligent Design…