"Expelled Exposed" Exposed - the saga continues

Here's a useful link to the response to efforts to pretend that scientists whose research convinces them that the universe shows evidence of design do not face persecution.

(I've covered the persecution for years. To say it is not happening is, to me, like saying 9-11 didn't happen. It is always possible for an ideologue to construct an alternate reality - a legend in his own mind, in which the event is not happening. He likes his alternate reality, of course.)

[Evil Disco warning]

Most of the falsehoods in circulation about the film can be traced to a website called "Expelled Exposed" set up by the pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE) as part of its PR effort to smear the documentary last year. “Expelled Exposed” alleges that Expelled made “dishonest attempts to make mountains out of molehills and to create martyrs where martyrdom does not exist.” As John West observed in response, "The basic thrust of [“Expelled Exposed”] seems to be the preposterous claim that pro-ID scientists never, ever face harassment, intimidation, or persecution. Not ever! Scientists who claim otherwise—such as biologist Richard Sternberg, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, and Baylor University engineering professor Robert Marks—must be cry-babies or worse. The NCSE's approach is otherwise known as 'blaming the victim.'"

Anyway, this is how the film is doing in DVD:

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #294 in Movies & TV (See Bestsellers in Movies & TV)

Popular in these categories: (What's this?)
#8 in Movies & TV > Documentary
#70 in Movies & TV > Comedy

#8 - that's in the Top Ten in docs. Not bad for a film that so many were determined to destroy. Even St. Yoko Ono ... wow!

Expelled movie: Discussion

Here's an interesting discussion, a friend tells me, of the Expelled movie.

I remember going to see Expelled in Toronto in June, I think, a biped lost in a huge, hostile crowd.

Hard for me to evaluate, because I had met so many of the people in the film - and had also found myself in correspondence with some of the most disgusting creeps imaginable, who hated the film.

Hey, deal, creeps: Never write to me again, and I will not mention your name or Internet handle, ever.

Expelled DVD released today, to brisk sales, more hit reviews

The Expelled DVD releases today, distributed by Vivendi. When I checked early this morning (around 3:30 am), it was doing well for a documentary about the intelligent design guys that almost every film pundit knew he had a duty to trash. So far, there are 241 reviews, and the vast majority of the ones I scrolled through are attacks, voted up by hundreds of people. But the film was also #30 in DVDs Amazon. (Note: Today, October 22, at 6:30 am EST it is #14, with 256 reviews.)

Note: A friend writes to say, I just checked and it's listed as #14 in movies and TV. HOWEVER, I looked at the listings page and a number of the top 13 are duplicates, that is, two listings for the same movie depending on format (e.g., Blu-ray or standard DVD), so Expelled is actually #8 in terms of titles. (as of 2:36 pm EST)

Clearly, Darwin's fans feel threatened, and Amazon customers are just letting them rant while they themselves buy the film and move on.

Lesley Burbridge-Bates of Motive Entertainment Partnership/L.A.B. Media, the publicity firm, tells us,

It opened in the Top 10, achieving the #5 position on a per-screen average. It has already made its place in history as the #12 Top Grossing Documentary of all time and the #1 Conservative Documentary. The initial buzz about the film was so intense that it became the #1 most popular blog on the Internet (3/24/08), the #6 Top search on Yahoo (4/8/08), and received over 2 million web hits, more than any other movie’s website during this time.

Part of that was Yoko Ono's doing, to be sure. Her lawsuit over the use of a couple of bars from the late John Lennon's song Imagine resulted in millions of people learning about the film who had never been remotely interested in the intelligent design controversy.

The biggest problem for anyone introducing a new idea is to get that kind of name recognition. The legal trouble was very expensive for the producers, but they couldn't have bought that kind of publicity at any price.

Eventually, Ono dropped the case, but meanwhile, the producers had decided not to use Imagine anyway. The producers were defended by the Stanford Fair Use Project.

Get Ben Stein's Expelled - plus new book and earlier ID films

If you are interested in the intelligent design controversy, here is a deal that's hard to beat, from Access Research Network:

The EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed DVD featuring Ben Stein can now be ordered at ARN. In addition, ARN is offering an EXPELLED Super Bundle which includes the EXPELLED DVD, Slaughter of the Dissidents book by Dr. Jerry Bergman. And for a limited time when you order this bundle we will include free copies of the three of the best selling Intelligent Design documentaries: Unlocking the Mystery of Life, Privileged Planet, and The Case for Creator. Normally this bundle would retail for $125 but for a limited time you can order this EXPELLED Super Bundle for only $50 (including shipping anywhere in the U.S).

Expelled movie's screenwriter - recently demoted from "evil" to "stupid" - regains "evil" status

Kevin Miller, the screenwriter for Expelled (the controversial documentary about the intelligent design scientists), which premiers in Canada next week, mentioned his blog to me recently. There you can find out useful information such as where it is showing. For example,

Just added new cities in Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, and BC. Please also note that Kelowna and Kamloops have a release date of July 4. The movie opens on June 27 everywhere else. For the actual theatres in each city, visit the theatre located on Expelled's official site.

He also comments on the psychology of the Internet Darwinist:

Back on March 21, for instance, when I commented on PZ Myers's expulsion from the Expelled screening, I was immediately branded as evil. I've never been called a liar so many times in my life. And I was surprisingly touched by how many people expressed sincere concern over the state of my soul, urging me to repent for breaking the ninth commandment.

After I did acknowledge and then correct one or two inadvertent factual errors in my original post, the trolls on my blog backed off on the liar comments for a while and started to assume I was deluded. Maybe Kevin isn't such a bad guy after all, they said. He's just been conned by those nasty IDiots over at the Discovery Institute. Perhaps if we discredit them, Kevin will see he's been duped.

When that strategy failed, I slipped one more notch down the scale from deluded to ignorant. I was told I don't know anything about science, philosophy or screenwriting, for that matter. Several people tried to educate me on these subjects. But when they found my responses to their arguments unsatisfactory, I finally hit bottom. So this is the real reason Kevin got involved in Expelled: He's too stupid to know any better. Poor, poor, Kevin.

But fear not! In the past couple of days, I have reason to believe my status has been elevated once again from stupid to evil. According to recent reports, when Expelled hits theaters on April 18, it will usher in a new Dark Age that will bring an end to science, medicine, the biosphere, and the ozone layer.

Kevin, the Internet Darwinist uses terms like "liar" in a way different from you or me. He may mean that there is a minor factual inaccuracy in your work but he usually means that the overall drift of your work doesn't promote Darwinism. And because Darwinism is Truth, you must by definition be lying. That is the principal thought pattern of the fanatic.

Also, the term "stupid" or "moron" denotes a person who has not wholeheartedly embraced the Cause, who can think of objections to Darwinism. That is not a difficult feat, actually, so growing numbers of North Americans are now evil morons, a fact whch frustrates the Darwinist no end.

Many a morning, when I still had a combox, I would get up in the morning and reject two or three such comments. One thing about the fanatic, it never occurs to him that non-fanatics necessarily doubt his claim that he never persecutes anyone. It would be practically impossible for him to refrain, given his mindset.

But now let's not kvetch, Kevin. The Darwin trolls are rude and noisy, but they do fill the theatres to see Expelled - and when was the last time anyone went to see a documentary about the philosophy of science? Normally, far more people would pay to get out of such a show than to get into it. Yet aren't you #5 in political documentaries?

See also:

Advance screening of Ben Sten's controversial Expelled film at the Varsity theatre in Toronto

The Expelled film (#5 in political documentaries) is coming to 50 screens in Canada, ... plus a surprise in two in store for Americans
(Expelled haters, take heed)!

Oh no, Ono!: Expelled (the film about the intelligent design guys) can still be shown

"Expelled film screens in Canada June 28 2008

To find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Advance screening of Ben Stein's controversial Expelled film at the Varsity theatre in Toronto

I have been invited to an advance screening of Expelled (the widely denounced #5 political documentary about the attempts to silence the intelligent design guys) on Thursday, June 26, at 7:00pm at The Varsity Theatre - 55 Bloor St. West in Toronto. The film opens the following Friday June 27 (or Saturday June 28) at the Cineplex Odeon.

I wonder who will picket or try to crash? (There was a big hoo-haw over the screening at the Mall of the Americas when "raving atheist" biologist PZ Myers got ejected by line producer Mark Mathis.) Perhaps I will recognize some prominent local figures strutting importantly on the sidewalk.

Picketers please note, there is a wide sidewalk, and plenty of coffee shops nearby. The restrooms in the Cumberland Terrace are usually pretty clean too.

Be reassured, picketers! The government-funded Nanny Monster is always right, and she says that neither the universe nor life forms show evidence of design, despite the evidence. And in our random universe, the biggest Monster should rule, and that is She.

She said it. You believe it. That settles it. Now get out there and give the legacy media some good photo ops, will you? Most of you are supported by my tax dollars, among other things, and I deserve something for that. Don't look too ragged, or people won't believe that you are as important as you believe yourselves to be.

Insufficiently Nannied? Then see clips from the film here.

I understand that somewhere or other, a helpline is available for anyone who - on learning information that is new to them - has Doubts. You can contact this worthy enterprise through ohjustgrowup.com

From the invite,

In the film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein examines the attempts of scientists to challenge the idea of Darwinism only to be expelled from the academic community.

More, from the presser:

Controversial feature documentary starring Ben Stein - opens across Canada - Friday, June 27, 2008

In a controversial new satirical documentary, author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing all Canadians and Americans today:

Are we still free to disagree about the meaning of life?

Or has the whole issue already been decided…
while most of us weren’t looking?

Toronto) June 3, 2008 — It’s a movie that Ferris Bueller would take the day off to go see. What freedom-loving student wouldn’t be outraged to discover that his high school science teacher is teaching a theory as indisputable fact, and that university professors oppose any fellow scientists who dare question the prevailing system of belief? This isn’t the latest Hollywood comedy; it’s a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

If you are from the legacy media and want to see the film before harrumphing that it is false, all utterly false (just like Mark Steyn "isn't" really a good writer):

Toronto Press Screenings:

Friday, June 6 10:00am Scotiabank Theatre (259 Richmond St W)
Monday, June 9 10:30am Scotiabank Theatr (259 Richmond St W)
Friday, June 13 10:00am Varsity Cinemas (55 Bloor St W, 2nd Floor)
Monday, June 16 10:30am Varsity Cinemas (55 Bloor St W, 2nd Floor)
Thursday, June 26 07:00pm Varsity Cinemas (55 Bloor St W, 2nd Floor)

I expect you should contact V Kelly & Associates 416-466-9799, info@vkpr.ca for a press pass.

See also:

The Expelled film (#5 in political documentaries) is coming to 50 screens in Canada, ... plus a surprise in two in store for Americans (Expelled haters, take heed)!

Canadian radio bureau chief: Yes, the campaign to suppress free speech in Canada does affect the United States

Oh no, Ono!: Expelled (the film about the intelligent design guys) can still be shown

"Expelled film screens in Canada June 28 2008

Recently, there was a special screening for Members of Parliament.

If you want to know why there is an intelligent design controversy, read:

Expelled film coming to Canada - fifty screens, and ... a surprise or two in store for Americans

I just talked to Kevin Miller, one of the Expelled screenwriters. Having cleared the legal hurdle created by Yoko Ono's lawsuit, the Ben Stein film about the intelligent design guys is opening on 50 screens across Canada starting June 28.

Update on screenings here (2008 06 15)

Considering the problems that dogged the production of Expelled (claims that key Darwinists were tricked into taking part, the ejection of "raving atheist" PZ Myers from a showing, accusations of copyright violation (not really substantiated), release delayed from February to April, and of course, Ono's lawsuit), it is surprising that the film is even out of the can, let alone that it is #5 in political documentaries.

Pretty remarkable given that, as Kevin points out, it is a film about the philosophy of science.

Another way of looking at that is: Anyone who thinks there is no culture war in progress should reflect on the fact that a film about the philosophy of science could be the #5 political documentary.

So it will be fascinating to watch the ritual denunciations in Canadian legacy media, and the accompanying predictions of disastrous sales.

Kevin, born in Saskatchewan but currently living in BC, also told me about two upcoming developments in the States that I can't yet reveal except to say that American harrumphologists will be plenty annoyed. Stay tuned.

Incidentally, I had been complaining about the fact that the Expelled folk wouldn't send me an advance copy, not even when the Canada release was delayed due to Ono's lawsuit. (It was supposed to be June 6.) Well, Kevin couldn't get an advance copy either, and he was the screenwriter. They took no risks, he confirmed, that the film might end up on the Internet (instead of grossing $7.5 million so far).

See also Oh no, Ono!: Expelled (the film about the intelligent design guys) can still be shown

"Expelled film screens in Canada June 28 2008

Intelligent design film: Volunteer's account of what really happened when Darwinist was kicked out of the screening

Expelled film screens in Canada June 28, 2008

See this update also: Screenwriter Kevin Miller tells me that fifty screens are confirmed. June 12, 2008


I just heard from Walt Ruloff, executive producer of the Expelled film (about the ID guys) that the film WILL be coming to Canada June 28, 2008.

There will be at least 10 theatres in Toronto, 2-3 in other key locations.

There will be press screenings, and the publicist is Virginia Kelly of Kelly & Associates.

Expelled Movie: Catholic columnist liked it, and its Jewish backbone, much better than he had feared

Columnist Christopher A. Ferrara, of New Jersey-based Catholic magazine Remnant, admits,

When I went to a local movie theatre to see “ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” during its short run, I went with very low expectations, and more out of a sense of duty than anything else. The critics had uniformly savaged this documentary exposé of the academic tyranny of the Darwinian establishment, and even allowing for their liberal bias I had expected to encounter a schlock production along the lines of other such films produced with the backing of evangelicals and fundamentalists.

But the film about the ID guys wasn't as bad as Ferrara feared.

Actually, on that score, I could have told Ferrara to fear not. The film was made by professionals, not by people who save souls by emptying theatres. Anyway, he writes,

Imagine my surprise and delight when I realized that the critical savaging of this film was probably motivated primarily by fear—fear that “Expelled” might actually succeed in tearing down what the film, in a thematic allegory, likens to a Berlin Wall in academia, behind which are confined in lonely exile the hardy few who have dared to challenge the teaching of Saint Darwin by stating the obvious: that the emergence of life in all its unimaginable and irreducible complexity can only have been the result of creation according to an intelligent design. With Ben Stein, the lawyer, former presidential speechwriter and Hollywood celebrity as its front man and narrator, “Expelled” is a lavishly mounted and brilliantly executed piece of anti-Darwinian propaganda, in the best sense of the word.

and

It hardly needs to be explained how stunning a breakthrough this film is, even despite its flaws (including a rather painful-to-watch appeal to Jeffersonian liberalism as the antidote to Darwinism). I paid three times to see “Expelled,” for the sheer pleasure of watching over and over again such an unexpected bombshell of a movie, hardly believing that Stein would have lent his name to the production, since it surely means the end of his Hollywood career.

Of course, when someone's career "ends" because he says something that so manifestly needed to be said (witness all the establishment types insisting that it ain't so, ain't so, ain't so ... ), that's because he has outlived that career.

Ferrara also notes that the film ends with "a tableau of three Jewish intellectuals: Stein (valedictorian of his class at Yale Law School), nuclear physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder (formerly of MIT and now a professor at Hebrew University), and mathematician and philosopher Dr. David Berlinski" and he then goes on to talk about David Berlinski's excellent The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.

Agnostic Berlinski is particularly hard on "Catholic evolutionists" in a Remnant interview with Berlinski in Paris (May 9, 2008), which he reproduces just below the rview of Expelled:

CF: Let’s turn to the Catholic Church, which is our focus here. Let’s talk in particular about somebody like Ken Miller who piously assures us that “as a Catholic, I have no problem reconciling the theory of evolution with my faith.” But then he’ll turn around and deny intelligent design. Now my question would be, isn’t that a disingenuous position?

DB: Well, I hesitate to talk about Ken Miller’s Catholic faith because I regard him as being disingenuous across the board…. As I understand Miller, he’s not denying intelligent design. He’s simply pushing it to a level such that it will never be an impediment to any particular dogma in the here and now. And he’s perfectly prepared to say that the cosmos is in some sense intelligently designed. He’s prepared to say that because the evidence is overwhelming that it is. He’s just determined not to see evidence of intelligent design in any process of living systems.

CF: And why?

DB: Because that would put him squarely in conflict with prevailing orthodoxy…. Like so many other people, Ken Miller wants to serve as many gods as he can.

CF: …. So that’s the issue. Where is there a place for God in the system of someone who says, at one and the same time, I am a Catholic, but life arose through a stochastic process? Where is there room for God in that system? A verbal affirmation?

DB: He [God] is very far away where he can do no trouble and interfere with no human activities, and that is exactly the point of the exercise: to retain the piety of devotion without any inconvenience of faith.

But the whole interview is worth reading, particularly when Berlinski addresses the unfruitful tautology of "survival of the fittest" (which makes few or no predictions) and compares it to the fruitful tautology of Newton's account of gravity.

Note: Blogging may be spotty for a few days because I will be teaching at Write! Canada and I have recently been apprised that I have 19 students, as of last count, in Freelance Survival 101, or whatever we are calling it this year. So I must prepare, prepare, prepare. I will likely blog, but probably only one entry at a time rather than five at once. Meanwhile, slainte and l'chaim and salaam and all that to all readers!

Note: Blogging may be spotty for a few days because I will be teaching at Write! Canada and I have just been apprised that I have 19 students, as of last count, in Freelance Survival 101, or whatever we are calling it this year. So I must prepare, prepare, prepare. I will likely blog, but probably only one entry at a time rather than five at once. Meanwhile, slainte and l'chaim and salaam and all that to all readers!

Oh no, Ono!: Expelled (the film about the intelligent design guys) can still be shown

On Monday, John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono lost her attempt to prevent the distribution of Expelled because of an excerpt from Lennon's "Imagine." Ono is appealing, and doubtless, this high-profile case will impact other copyright issues. But here's some gen for now:

From the Associated Press:

NY judge: Film can use John Lennon song By TOM HAYS

[ ... ]

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein ruled that if the case went to court, the filmmakers would probably win under the fair use doctrine.

"That doctrine provides that the fair use of a copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism and commentary is not an infringement of copyright," Stein wrote in his decision in Manhattan federal court.

[ ... ]

At a hearing last month, Falzone had argued that the segment of the song in the film — "nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too" — was central to the movie because "it represents the most popular and persuasive embodiment of this viewpoint that the world is better off without religion."

The film, he said, is "asking if John Lennon was right and it's concluding he was wrong."

Ono had countered by saying, "One of the most basic rights I control by reviewing and choosing licenses is the right to say `no.' The filmmakers simply looted me of the ability to do so."

Hmmm. It's a bit more complex than Ono is making out, because the right she is claiming undermines the opportunity to critique her late husband's work, which is NOT one of the purposes of intellectual property rights.

In fact, it's a bit like the Canadian "human rights" regime (which is why I no longer have a combox, unfortunately). If you want to know more about that, go here, but actually the worthwhile end of the Canadian blogosphere is lighting up across the board : Here, for example, are also
Jay Currie
Small Dead Animals
Mark Steyn
Free Mark Steyn
Five Feet of Fury

Back to our topic, from the BBC news: Ono loses Lennon song legal bid:

Ono, her son Sean Ono Lennon, and Julian Lennon - Lennon's son from his first marriage - had sought a preliminary injunction before the film gets a wider release.

But Mr Stein ruled that if the case went to court, the film-makers would probably win under laws allowing the use of copyrighted material for commentary or criticism.

[ ... ]

The film presents a sympathetic view of intelligent design - the theory that the universe is too complex to be explained by evolution alone.

It opened in the US in April and is set for release in Canada later this month and on DVD in October.

Note: Intelligent design does not say, strictly speaking, that the universe is too complex to be explained by evolution alone. Lots of things are very complex - like a pile of gravel, for example. A pile of gravel could evolve if someone dumped a bit more every day. What differentiates some types of complexity is that they seem to require intelligence. A good novel and life in the universe have more in common in that respect than a pile of gravel has with either of them.

From the NY Post: IMAGINE! YOKO LOSES BID TO NIX SONG By KATI CORNELL June 3, 2008 --

Oh no, Yoko.

A federal judge unplugged a bid by John Lennon's widow to stop the producers of a movie disputing Darwin's theory of evolution from using a snippet of the former Beatle's iconic song "Imagine."

Yoko Ono, 75, sued the makers of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," claiming the movie uses an excerpt of the song without her permission and wrongly suggests that she somehow authorized or sponsored the film.

But Manhattan federal Judge Sidney Stein found in favor of the film's producers, noting that the 15-second clip from "Imagine" is used for a "transformative purpose" that sets out to "criticize the song's message."

From The Press Association: Yoko loses Lennon's song court bid

Yoko Ono has lost her court case to block the use of John Lennon's song Imagine in a film challenging the theory of evolution.

Lennon's widow had sued the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, saying they used parts of the song without her permission.

Federal Judge Sidney Stein said the filmmakers were protected under the "fair use" doctrine, which permits small parts of a copyrighted work to be used without an author's permission under certain circumstances.

And at Uncommon Descent, Dave Scot writes,

Yoko Ono’s copyright infringement suit against the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for using 15 seconds of the Lennon song Imagine was thrown out of court. Of course we all knew it was no more than a nuisance suit brought because Ono didn’t approve of the film’s negative view of the philosophy expressed in Imagine.

And here's the Fair use Project (who represented Expelled):

“This case is not just about fair use, it is about free speech,” explained Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project and lead counsel on the case. “The right to use portions of copyrighted works in order to criticize them and discuss the views they represent lies at the heart of the fair use doctrine because that right is essential to the free flow of ideas, thoughts, and debate.”

What's that? Right to criticize and discuss? A stake through the heart of Darwinism!

Listen Up!: Expelled movie, not yet shown, starting to impact Canada

While offering his comments on the theme of Ben Stein’s Expelled film about the ID guys (#5 in political documentaries as I write), Canadian chemist and sci-fi novelist Peter Kazmaier links to Lorna Dueck’s Listen Up episode, "Seeking Truth," which includes an interview with Stein that you can view online. Here’s part of the intro:

Perhaps the Pope illustrates it best. At 81 years of age, most of his career was spent in the university. He was a specialist in exploring faith and reason, a fabulous teacher and author. He is welcome almost everywhere - but was recently rebuffed by academics and students. Rome's prestigious La Sapienza University protested the Pope's planned visit because they felt he had scientific views that were offensive.

His visit there was cancelled in the name of the "secular nature of science.” It’s the kind of interference that's launched a high-budget, satirical documentary that says it is just that "secular nature" that is hampering the scientific quest.

There’s been a lot of that recently. In 2005, a number of neuroscientists tried, in the name of materialism, to prevent the Dalai Lama from speaking at the neuroscience conference.

Host Dueck reflects,

Today’s program reminds me that all of us have a way of seeing the world. We each have a worldview – it’s a framework of thought and ideas that helps to arrange a person’s beliefs about how life and the world work. Today we featured a conflict between the naturalist worldview and the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview includes God - a supernatural creative force in the world. The naturalist worldview says that the Universe is the sum total of all that is – a self-contained and self-explanatory system. I’m not anti-science but there is something naturalism can’t explain – why there is something rather than nothing. And what do I do with the mystery that there are some things in my life science can’t explain. I believe we were built to respond to God, and debate over Intelligent Design is just one more tool God uses to get our attention. That’s why a Christian worldview makes sense to me.

Kazmaier concludes his thoughtful piece with,

I have listed the way in which 2008 science is even more susceptible to suppression than science in Galileo’s time. Are there any advantages on the side of those who believe they are being blocked? Yes there are. Through the democratization of knowledge, it is much easier to disseminate ideas today than in Galileo’s time. One can circumvent the journal refereeing process and publish the information directly through books, movies, or the internet.

So what are the personal messages for me to take away from this? First of all I need to understand and follow up the claims made by Expelled. Secondly, as I referee articles, I need to be aware of my own prejudices and biases and not allow them to influence my comments. Finally, at every turn I need to oppose suppression of free discussion of scientific ideas, whatever their source.

Expelled, a target of controversy from the moment it surfaced in Seattle, hasn’t even been shown yet in theatres in Canada, in part due to an injunction brought by Yoko Ono. Materialism is indeed, as Pamela Winnick has said, a “jealous god.”

Whether it is ever permitted to be shown in Canada or not, Expelled is making clear that not all Canadians worship the jealous god (the Mud that failed).

Phyllis Schlafly on the Expelled movie and the meaning of "Darwinism"

Phyllis Schlafly, the nemesis of radical feminists who is just SO not invited to Hill Clinton's inagural (which may never happen anyway, the way things are going) puts in her two cents worth on the Expelled movie about the trials of being an intelligence design theorist in an ivy league of Darwin cultists:

Stein, who serves as his own narrator in the movie, is very deadpan about it all. He doesn't try to convince the audience that Darwinism is a fraud, or that God created the world, or even that some unidentified intelligent design might have started life on Earth.

Stein merely shows the intolerance of the universities, the government, the courts, the grant-making foundations and the media, and their determination to suppress any mention of intelligent design.

Schlafly sounds like one smart gal because she picks up on a point that has eluded many columnists:

Liberals are particularly upset because the movie identifies Darwinism, rather than evolution, as the sacred word that must be isolated from criticism. But that semantic choice makes good sense because Darwinism is easily defined by Darwin's own writings, whereas the word evolution is subject to different and even contrary definitions.

Yes, exactly.

It's one thing to think that evolution happens. Most people do. It is quite another thing to believe that survival of the fittest (which Darwin said was a convenient synonym for his natural selection) acts as an immense creative force in nature. If natural selection really acted that way, it would be one stout plank in the edifice of materialism. But there is very little evidence that it ever does, as Mike Behe demonstrates in Edge of Evolution.

Some commentators believe that Phyllis Schlafly single-handedly circumvented the Equal Rights Amendment, the would-be cornerstone of American feminism. As I recall that era, the story was a bit more complicated. She was one canny lady, but the Amendment's partisans played a key role in scuppering it themselves. They made no secret of the fact that they would use it to overrule or overturn masses of legislation that enjoyed considerable support.

Anyway, amending a Constitution isn't easy - we haven't yet managed it in Canada, for example, and lots of our politicians can tell you harrowing tales of defeat.

NO ONE makes a big-budget movie about faith and science bores

Recently, some friends were upset by a faith-and-science prof who was ruminating about how that awful Expelled film was ruining his tea party.

Well, first, no one makes a movie about people like that prof. Filmmakers look for heroes and resisters, not pettifoggers and yes-men.

I wrote back to my friends to say,

I’ve covered many public controversies in my time, and here is my take on this one:

Atheists in top science posts are waging an all out war against the reality of a designed universe.

Against any scientist who knows the facts and is unwilling to keep quiet or spout the party line (or some harmless “theistic” version thereof) is a target. Anyone – especially an identified theist – who attacks that scientist will be rewarded.

That is the one and only true conflict we are witnessing. Everyone who is at all relevant sorts himself in relation to that conflict.

And – this should be no surprise - many well-meaning Christian profs are taking money, and accepting perks and plaudits, to be on the top science atheists’ side, whether they recognize it or not. It comes out in the pettifogging, belaboured style they adopt when writing about issues for which, increasingly, only NAMES are even necessary:

Sternberg. Marks. Gonzalez. Crocker.

So then what happens? Well, life is fairer than some think.

People who tell a story or make a film choose to write about the Resistance, NOT about the Accommodation.

And the average devout Christian or Muslim or Jew is far more attracted to the Resistance than to the Accommodation.

When talking to average people, here is all I say: The universe and life forms look designed. That should be no surprise because the Bible says they are. And reason tells us that we should expect to see the evidence.

Top atheists find it an embarrassment and a problem. So those Expelled scientists got in trouble for crossing them.

But what would we expect? A rose petal parade?

Still, we must stop the persecution. The film was made to help with that.

Baylor Prez Spins Expelled Worries: God of Bible is God of genome ... but not of Bob Marks's Evolutionary Informatics Lab

While Imagining no heaven, no hell, no Yoko Ono, and no delay till the Expelled DVD comes out, I note where John Lilley, Baylor’s president, has seen fit to defend his institution in the light of the unflattering portrait provided in Expelled.

Read more here.

Imagine Yoko Ono Shutting Down Showings of Expelled?

So far it is imaginary.

Ono is seeking at least $75,000 in damages and injunctive relief.

Her case turns on the use of some lines from Ono’s late husband John Lennon’s ”Imagine”*.

On April 30, 2008, a New York-based United States judge, Sidney Stein, enjoined “further distribution” of Expelled until Yoko Ono’s lawsuit for copyright infringement is heard.

A legal eagle friend has shown me a copy of the judge’s order, with hand-scrawled changes. It means that new copies of the film can’t be sent out until the hearing later this month, but so far as I can see, the current copies of the film can continue to be shown.

*While finding the link to Lennon and “Imagine” on YouTube, I noticed quite a number of attacks on Expelled. But so far no one seems to have pirated footage of the film, or at least not that they are crowing about.

I almost think that’s too bad. I am getting impatient. So many American friends have seen it, but it is not coming to Canada till at least June 6.

While we are here, how is Expelled doing after 17 days?

Well, as I write this (7:18 EST), it is #6 in political documentaries, #13 in documentaries, and #10 in Christian documentaries at MOJO. Here’s the daily calendar view. I don’t yet have more than an estimate for this weekend's box office, but it comes out to:

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES: Domestic: $6,619,000 est.

About the people who are confidently predicting doom for Expelled, a friend writes to say that they crack him up:

I believe it's #13 of all time in box office receipts after only two weekends and it's possible, if not likely, it will crack into the top ten before it's done. $6 million going into the third weekend is tanking? This person needs to check out "Where in the world is Osama Bin Laden" which came out on the same weekend as EXPELLED. I don't think Spurlock's bomb (the guy who brought you Supersize Me) has even made $300k yet. That's a poor performing film. By contrast, EXPELLED is a huge success.

By the way, I wouldn’t pay much attention to reader opinion at the MoJo site:

GRADE THIS MOVIE
Readers B- (362 votes)
Your Grade Log in
GRADE BREAKDOWN
As: 229 63.3%
Bs: 12 3.3%
Cs: 3 0.8%
Ds: 3 0.8%
Fs: 115 31.8%

In other words, what you think of Expelled depends on whether you think that scientists should be allowed to talk about evidence of design in the universe or life forms. But if you don’t think so, you were less likely than others to see the film. In fact, I have no idea what proportion of the 31.8% who failed the film did in fact see it. There would really be no need for them to do so, of course; they could always watch another film and go home and rant about Expelled anyway.

Expelled ten days later ...

According to Box Office Mojo, Expelled is estimated to have

- earned $5,282,000 in 10 days.

- it is currently ranked 6th in political documentary, 12th in Christian, and 15th in documentary.

- It is currently ranked 13 in films, but every film ranked above it was released in far more theatres.

Meanwhile, John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, is suing the Expelled filmmakers over their use of his 1971 song Imagine, ranked all time # 3 by Rolling Stone. The producers claim they cited it under fair use for commentary and criticism.

The Expelled producers replied to Ms. Ono, "Let it be," adding,

Premise did not pursue a license for the song and had no obligation to do so. Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the Imagine clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech. The brief clip - consisting of a mere 10 words - was used to contrast the messages in the documentary and was not used as an endorsement of EXPELLED.

But the irony of this lawsuit was not lost on the film's star Ben Stein, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, 'imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.'"

John P. Meyer at Pegasus News thinks, as I do, that

Frankly, it looks like the instigators of the lawsuit are playing right into the hands of the filmmakers, who're naturally (and in time-honored fashion) taking the approach that "all publicity is good publicity."

Apparently, Ms. Ono is trying to stop the distribution of Expelled, but there she certainly hasn't the advantage of originality. However, at least one group of fans has sent me a message urging that people see the film soon in case she succeeds.

In case she succeeds? I can't think of a better way to be sure that a billion people see it.

Meanwhile, if you want to hear and see Lennon's Imagine, go here, and here's Lennon with the other Beatles, in Let it be.

Expelled: Did Darwin really lead to Hitler? Better question: Did the suggestion lead to free publicity?

Bioethicist Arthur Caplan is convinced that Expelled isn't only bad, it's "immoral." and that principal character Ben Stein is guilty of "Holocaust denial." Forthat matter, Dave Springer over at Uncommon Descent has been pretty upset about it too.

Actually, it is a historical fact that the Nazis were very much influenced by Darwin. That doesn't mean Darwin or anyone else agreed with the Nazis. But people who go ballistic when his profound influence on the Nazis is discussed are just not facing reality - just as they were unable to face reality about the Finnish school shooter who was motivated by Darwinism.

Historian of Germany Richard Weikart's April 8, 2008 article in American Spectator offers:

As I show in meticulous detail in my book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, the Nazis' devaluing of human life derived from Darwinian ideology (this does not mean that all Nazi ideology came from Darwinism). There were six features of Darwinian theory that have contributed to the devaluing of human life (then and now):

1. Darwin argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals. The leading Darwinist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, attacked the "anthropocentric" view that humans are unique and special.

2. Darwin denied that humans had an immaterial soul. He and other Darwinists believed that all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes. ...

Weikart recently defended his view against Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse as well, in a debate at Stanford.

Here is my own view for what it is worth: I think the Holocaust link was a marketing ploy on the part of the producers. A film like Expelled risks being a flop d'estime, as Malcolm Muggeridge liked to say. Another worthy documentary. Yawn.

Okay, so how to avoid the death sentence of mere worthiness? Well, first, didn't some of the same marketers work on The Passion of the Christ? Some Anti-Defamation League people, among others, saw early rough cuts and spread the word that the film was anti-Semitic.

Well, after that, the lib-left commentariat guaranteed that EVERYONE knew about The Passion. Tsk. Tsk. How awful that those Christians would do this! And isn't that just like them too? You could hear the pundits gloat miles off.

And, every bit as helpful for the Passion film, lots of yer-grannies and Christianettes, male and female, obsessed in print about the film's alleged anti-Semitism.

Instant critics, many of whom had never been invited to see a cut, trotted out all kinds of alleged problems, like "We are told that Jesus speaks Latin with Pontius Pilate? Shouldn't the two speak Aramaic or Koine?" (Many are critics, few are screenwriters.)

The buzz continued until the opening, and of course the Passion was a huge success. IMDB says it had more pre-ticket sales than any other film in history. The anti-Semitism accusation, having got people's attention, faded into the ka-CHING of the box office. (Viewers saw that the Jewish leaders don't come off well in the film, but the Romans are the real creeps.)

Curiously, it later came out (2006) that Mel Gibson did have anti-Semitic tendencies (at least when tested over the limit for alcohol). Obviously, his film's critics didn't know that in 2003. Had they known, their revelations would have had a devastating impact. But years later, that all just sank out of sight. Timing isn't everything, but it's 50% of marketing.

So now, back to Arthur Caplan: I recall Caplan defending the firing of people who doubt Darwinian evolution years ago. So if he thought the film was good, he would keep quiet about it, wouldn't he? And silence from the commentariat has killed more non-materialist projects than any attacks have ever done.

So wouldn't the Expelled marketers use a surefire ploy like "Darwin leads to Hitler" to get Caplan talking about Expelled? Sure Caplan thinks it's all lies, but what else is new? No one thought he'd like it. The goal wasn't to get him to like it, but to get him to talk about it.

If he keeps it up long enough, he will earn what they didn't have to pay him.

Expelled: Kind correspondent wonders why I am not in the film

Mohammed writes to tell me that he and his friends saw Expelled recently and notes,

My friends haven't really been engaged in the ID/Neo-darwinism debate, so it did it a lot in terms of changing their impression of who the ID guys were. Essentially their impressions went from these guys are probably religious nut-cases to....wow, these guys are pretty intelligent. I imagine that was probably one of the intents of the film, to dispel the stereotypes created largely by a powerful and also often biased media. We all really enjoyed the film.

Well, some day I hope to write a book about the legacy media attempt to shape the design controversy to suit the journalists' own views.

Mohammed also wants to know why I wasn't in the film. Well, for one thing, I wasn't kicked out of anything for making the intelligent design controversy my major beat.

Oh sure, people laughed at me in 2001 when I said it would be one of the biggest stories of the decade by mid-decade. But I didn't mind because I knew I had to be correct. You see, when I first started tracking the controversy in 2001, I discovered that every six months people were saying that ID was dead. Then every four months, three months, then practically every week. If it were really dying out, the "It's dead!" trend line would be inverted from that. So in 2002, I found a publisher and started writing By Design or by Chance?.

Actually, I was interviewed extensively for the film on two separate occasions, once in Toronto in (I think) 2006 and once in Seattle in 2007. I might end up on the DVD, who knows?

In any event, I promise NEVER to claim, as Richard Dawkins has, that I was tricked into getting involved. True, I had no clear idea what producer Mark Mathis was planning to do when he interviewed me the first time, and I am not sure how clear an idea Mark had either. But I figured if I said something sensible, he could do what he liked with it.

His uncertainty didn't surprise me. When you first start researching a story for any medium, you don't know exactly what you will find. You know it's a story for the kind of reason I have given above (a "red flag" trend line, for example). After that, it's all hard digging to figure out what's generating that trend line.

Incidentally, I replied to Mohammed, saying,

I am glad your friends grasped the central point. Essentially, the universe and life forms shows evidence of intelligent design.

It is semi-accidental that most of the people who now insist that that is true are Christians.

Most North Americans are at least nominal Christians, and only a serious Christian would care enough to risk his career.

The atheists have a problem with that fact so they are looking for other solutions. (That’s no surprise.)

As the story is unfolding in the Middle East too, we will find that most of the people on the design side would be serious Muslims. Mustafa [a Turkish journalist friend] calls it like that, actually.

Reasons to Believe: Old Earth Creation ministry thumbs down on Expelled film

Politics makes strange bedfellows - and strange divorces too, to judge from Reasons to Believe's reaction to the Expelled film. Hugh Ross, a Canadian-born astronomer, founded Reasons to Believe, an old-earth creation ministry aimed at scientists, has gone out of his way to distance himself from the film and its implications: Refusing to endorse the film, the key Reasons guys say,

In Reasons To Believe's interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.
Our main concern about EXPELLED is that it paints a distorted picture. It certainly doesn't match our experience. Sadly, it may do more to alienate than to engage the scientific community, and that can only harm our mission.

- Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Jeff Zweerink, David Rogstad, and Kenneth Samples

As a matter of fact, RtB also supported the Dover anti-ID ruling and claimed that intelligent design theory is not science.

What might be going on here? A little background: I first ran into Ross a while back when I did a cover story on science and faith issues for Faith Today (Canada's evangelical glossy) (July/August 1999 - not on line yet). At the time, I was only beginning to investigate these controversies in any depth, and I did not then realize the significance of the fact that Ross was an "old earth creationist" rather than an intelligent design theorist.

Basically, old earth creationists believe that the universe and Earth are billions of years old, but they also hold that there were acts of divine creation, including the origin of life and of modern humans. (Young earth creationists interpret the first book of the Bible, Genesis, literally and believe that Earth was created in six days and is 6000 years old.)

Intelligent design theorists are not committed to any creation view as such. They say that the universe and life forms show clear evidence of design, as demonstrated by much higher levels of specified information than can be created either by the laws of physics and chemistry or by random changes since the Big Bang. Whether an aspect of the design of life required an act of direct creation is a separate question from whether it required design. Perhaps all the design was encoded at the Big Bang and thereafter it simply unfolded. But it is there and it is detectible.

Years ago, a historian of science told me that, so far as he could see, most old earth creationists were morphing into intelligent design theorists. That's easy enough to do because the ID theorists don't argue that direct creation cannot occur. It's just not the focus of their work.

Another factor is that Reasons to Believe and Answers in Genesis (the young earth creationists) have been duking it out for years, again drawing off resources in a messy sectarian struggle. All this leaves Reasons to Believe struggling to retain a reason to exist, except to oppose other groups - a common fate of groups caught in the middle.

All the same, I'm puzzled by the claim in the quotation above that they have encountered "no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect." I invited an RtB-trained speaker speaker to address my U of T course on why there is an intelligent design controversy last fall, and he talked quote openly about the persecution of ID theorists.

Not only that, but Guillermo Gonzalez is an astronomer, like Hugh Ross and, as several scientists have pointed out to me, Ross must surely know about the e-mail trail that showed that Gonzalez was refused tenure at Iowa State University on account of his sympathies for design, not his academic record. (Gonzalez has since found an assistant professorship at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, starting August 1, 2008.)

From what I know of highly politicized situations, Reasons to Believe has not encountered significant opposition largely because it is becoming irrelevant.

Update: April 28, 2008: See also my comment on the irrelevance to science of RtB's "creation model" versus the relevance of design theory.

Here's the view of ID theorist Bill Dembski on previous RtB efforts to distance itself from the ID theorist, and here's a more general comment on creationists vs. ID theorists.

Will the Expelled film turn out like Bella?

Would you go to see a film about a pregnant New York waitress from a deprived background - estranged from her family, dumped by her lover, fired for being late, and about to arrange an abortion? Really?

If you said no, you would certainly be affirmed in your decision by critics at the top Entertainment sections.

But then Bella stunned film mavens by winning the Toronto Film Festival People's Choice Award. Audiences have since made Bella a popular, award-winning - and well-rewarded - movie.

There is currently an enormous cultural divide between elite culture and popular culture in North America, and film's future rests with popular culture. To understand what will happen next for Expelled, ignore the derision of the elite; note whether people "with jobs" go see the film.

Denyse O'Leary looks at what happened with Bella here at the ID Arts site.