Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Born Today
Home / Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Year:
Duration:
USA:90 min | Germany:97 min (European Film Market)
Genres:
Documentary
IMDB rate:
3.7
Director:
Nathan Frankowski
Awards:
2 wins
Details
Country: USA
Release Date: 2008-04-18
Filming Locations: Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA
Earnings
Budget: $3,500,000
Opening Weekend: $2,970,848 (USA) (20 April 2008)
Gross: $7,598,071 (USA) (26 May 2008)
Cast
Actor
Character
Ben Stein
Himself - Host
Lili Asvar
Sara
Peter Atkins
Himself
Hector Avalos
Himself
Doug Axe
Himself
Adam Behr
Multiple animation voices (voice)
David Berlinski
Himself
Walter Bradley
Himself
Bruce Chapman
Himself
Anderson Cooper
Himself (archive footage)
Caroline Crocker
Herself
Richard Dawkins
Himself
William Dembski
Himself (as William Albert Dembski)
Daniel C. Dennett
Himself (as Daniel Dennett)
Michael Egnor
Himself
Steve Fuller
Himself
Uta George
Herself
Maciej Giertych
Himself (as Marciej Giertych)
Guillermo Gonzalez
Himself
John Hauptman
Himself
Adolf Hitler
Himself (archive footage)
Ben Kelley
Himself
John Lennox
Himself
Robert J. Marks II
Himself
Alister McGrath
Himself
Stephen C. Meyer
Himself
Paul Zachary Myers
Himself (as P. Z. Myers)
Paul Nelson
Himself
John Polkinghorne
Himself
William Provine
Himself (as Will Provine)
Toi Rose
Student (as Antonio Christina)
Laura Ruloff
(voice)
Walt Ruloff
(voice)
Michael Ruse
Himself
Margaret Sanger
Herself (archive footage)
Gerald Schroeder
Himself
Jeffrey Schwartz
Himself
Eugenie C. Scott
Herself (as Eugenie Scott)
Michael Shermer
Himself
Mark Souder
Himself
Richard Sternberg
Himself
Deano Sutter
Himself - Introductory Speaker
Witold 'Vic' Walczak
Himself (archive footage)
Daniel Walsch
Himself
Richard Weikart
Himself
Jonathan Wells
Himself
Pamela Winnick
Herself
Larry Witham
Himself
John Deonarine
School Janitor (uncredited)
Nikita Khrushchev
Himself (archive footage) (uncredited)
Dan Quayle
Himself (archive footage) (uncredited)
Ronald Reagan
Himself (archive footage) (uncredited)
Pat Robertson
Himself (archive footage) (uncredited)
Joseph Stalin
Himself (archive footage) (uncredited)
Did you know?
Trivia
The Anti-Defamation League has condemned the film for its linking of evolutionary theory and the Holocaust: "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry." Promoting the movie in Canada, Stein told the Vancouver Sun that "It's none of their [expletive] business".
Share this
The film sets up the lecture scene as if it were an actual university lecture. While filmed at Pepperdine University, the auditorium had been rented by the producers and the lecture was not an officially sanctioned event. Pepperdine officials confirmed that the audience was made up of paid extras with only "two or three" actual students attending. Pepperdine administration claims that their student body, while overwhelmingly Christian (Pepperdine is a private Christian college), accepts evolution and does not accept the concept of Intelligent Design. Ironically, Michael Shermer, one of the "Big Science" interviewees in the movie, is a Pepperdine graduate.
Share this
The movie has a complicated production history. It was originally pitched to Ben Stein as "Expelled", a documentary about "Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes" (in Stein's words). Scientific interviewees claimed, after the fact and without evidence, that the film was pitched to them as a Rampant Films production entitled "Crossroads", about how "the conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across America and beyond". When the movie began to be publicly promoted, it was back to the title "Expelled", was produced by Premise Media, and describes how "under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator". The evolutionary biologists depicted in the movie have objected to the misrepresentation of the movie, and to the inter-cutting of their interviews with footage of Hitler and Nazi stormtroopers. In response, the producers have labeled these scientists "hypocrites".
Share this
Goofs
When entering a building, a plastic/glass divider (clearly motion activated) opened for Stein, but then also spontaneously opened again for the camera man.
Share this
While walking through Paris, a camera man can be seen walking backwards in front of them holding a large black umbrella.
Share this
During an interview (at about 27 minutes), the drink on the far right is half full, and then appears completely full in the next shot.
Share this
Quotes
David Berlinski: And I think it's just a catastrophic mistake to have somebody like Dawkins address himself to profound issues of theology, the existence of God, the nature of life. He hasn't committed himself to disciplined study in any relevant area of inquiry. He's a crummy philosopher. He doesn't have the rudimentary skills to meticulously assess his own arguments.
Share this
David Berlinski: Suppose we find, simply as a matter of fact, that our scientific inquiries point in one direction: a creator. Why should we eliminate that from discussion? 'Strang verboten'? How come? Why?
Share this
Alister McGrath: Richard Dawkins has a charming, and very I think interesting view of the relationship between science and religion. They're at war with each other. And in the end, one's got to win. And it's going to be science. It's a very naive view. It's based on a complete historical misrepresentation of the way science and religion has been directed. Dawkins seems to think that scientific description is an anti-religious argument. Describing how something happens scientifically, somehow explains it away. It doesn't. But the questions of purpose, intentionality, the question why, still remain there on the table.
Share this
Faq
Q
Is "Intelligent Design" the same as "Creationism"?
A
According to Judge John Jones (2005 trial of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al):"ID is the progeny of creationism The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of intelligent design's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth-grade biology class are referred, Of Pandas and People. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work."However, to Creationists, there is a distinct difference between the two.Answers in Genesis:"However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."Creation Ministries International:"The Intelligent Design Movements motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of todays evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.""The IDMs refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions. In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.There is no philosophical answer to their opponents logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movements success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways."
Q
What is creationism?
A
Q
Did Darwin advocate eugenics?
A
No. Although Darwin's name is still used in the naming of selection processes other than "Natural" selection (the various "Darwinisms"), and he observed artificial selection in agriculture, Darwin anticipated and spoke out against eugenics and "social Darwinism" before the terms were even coined. The movie actually quotes his condemnation, although it omits most of his argument in order to make it appear that he favored eugenics:"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil"Likewise, some of the most vocal opponents of the eugenics movement in the 1900s were evolutionary biologists themselves, as eugenics is built upon gross misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.
Share this