There is a Proverb: “He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17). I could think of little more fitting after seeing the great new film by Ben Stein, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The atheists and the hardcore evolutionists have had their fun: they have published their books, DVDs, conference speeches, more books, all bashing religion, God, Jesus, and this powerful wave in science called “intelligent design.” They have bad-mouthed, name-called, cursed, sued, and legislated against God and against His followers. They have stated their case first, and gained a hearing. Well, now Expelled is the “other man” of the Proverb, and it gives the Darwinist enterprise the critical examination it deserves.
I will avoid writing much about the particular scenes and highlights of the movie. I highly recommend the movie, and don’t want to spoil the least bit of it for you. I do want to mention a few points about it, as well as a few related comments.
One of the best points about the movie is that it has the atheist and evolutionist communities fuming, and I mean raging madly. Atheist Richard Dawkins’ website has been rolling with anti-Expelled articles for several days—before the movie even came out—the anger is visible in all corners of the site. There’s an old saying that when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. Well, this time the whole pack is howling in unison.
Having seen the movie I can understand why Dawkins is so frothing mad over it: he comes across as a stuttering buffoon when interviewed. He’s not used to this. He’s used to a well-scripted scene with canned arguments, pocketed one-liners, favorable lights, cameras, and makeup—lots of rhetorical makeup. The same is true for the entirety of the anti-intelligence squad, many of whom get their guard-down interviews in the movie. You get to see Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Ruse—all atheists or agnostics, all hostile to traditional religious faith, and all Darwinian evolutionists—each given their turn to explain their position, and explain how they view intelligent design.
To a person, they all ridicule intelligent design, but this, oddly enough, is a blessing. Each of them is interviewed in what he felt, apparently, was a “safe-zone” or at least a neutral zone where he could let his guard down and really hammer the opposition. The result is an exposé of their real feelings and true condescending attitudes toward competition.
In one example Ben Stein interviews atheist Richard Dawkins. Ben asks whether Dawkins thinks God is a terrible dictator in the sky, or some similar phrase. Dawkins delights himself, “Oh I wrote something much better than that,” and he proceeds to read his now infamous lines from his book The God Delusion, where he calls the biblical God offensive names for several lines of text, such as “bloodthirsty,” “genocidal,” etc. When he is done, he looks up at Ben with the relish of a child who has just crayoned his stick-art work and desiring smiling approval from a parental figure. He acts that proud of that work. In the end, despite all his talk, Dawkins cannot answer the most fundamental question about which he has been preaching—deriding Christians—for over thirty years. He literally stutters when pressed with the question, “How did life begin?” That alone is worth the price of the ticket. And when he begins to talk about alien life-forms, it only sweetens the deal.
Those who watched the film in the same theater when I did will have to forgive my out-loud laughter throughout the interviews.
By now many readers on the web are aware that Dawkins and his American evolutionist counterpart, “PZ” Meyers, tried to crash the premier of Expelled in Minneapolis, MN last month. I can only imagine that the producer, Mike Mathis, held this event when and where they did because the American Atheists Conference 2008 was held there at the same time. They were hoping for some headline grabbing stunt from the inevitably reactionary godless. Dawkins and Meyers lined up but were halted by security after Mathis noticed Meyer’s name on the ticket list. He was escorted out, and Dawkins was left holding the popcorn. Dawkins, however, reports that Mathis was so stupid as not to notice him—the most high-profile atheist in the world—and let him pass, and also so deceitful as to give false reasons for evicting Meyers. Our informative atheist gives all kinds of reasons why we should regard Mathis as doltish and dishonest, and yet never mentions the fact that he himself snuck-in by using his unfamiliar “real” name “Clinton” when signing in. So much for up-front honesty. Left a bit of the story out there, Clinton.
Having been sheared and left naked before the world, Dawkins and the rest of the anti-intelligence flock are bleating unendingly, trying to impugn the movie in every way possible. But perusing their comments just a bit you’ll find that they critique everything except the real argument. They don’t like how the movie was made, they call it amateurish, shoddy, second-rate; they make fun of some of the editing and the humor; and they can hardly write a paragraph without the label “creationist.” But when all is done, precious little is said of the actual point of the movie—that anyone who has an inkling of respect for intelligent design is immediately persecuted and marginalized in academia, journalism, and education.
So Dawkins’ troop is content to caricature and strain over tiny issues, certainly hoping to distract readers from the real issue under consideration. They have accused the film makers of stealing an animation of the cell from a previous effort done for Harvard University. They provide not a shred of hard evidence to back up the claim. Some of the ID spokesmen have already rebutted the idea. This story may yet develop, but the animation was clearly given its own independent citation in the movies credits, so I’m not sure why the evolutionists are pursuing the line. Perhaps they didn’t like the show enough to sit and read the credits afterward.
But the heart of the message remains: proponents of intelligent design are discriminated against, persecuted, and pressed to the fringes if not pushed out altogether. This movie has simply provided clear evidence and awareness of a trend that has been running powerfully in the undercurrents of American education for decades. This is due to the nature of evolutionary thought as a competing worldview: It will not allow any rivals. This has been known for some time. One lawyer who reviewed Darwin’s legacy wrote,
most of higher education is dogmatic and irrationally committed to affirm evolution and to suppress creation science, not on the basis of scientific evidence, but in disregard of that evidence.
The atheists now feel their worldview slipping. They have nothing to fight with except control of schools and maintaining ridicule of God. Any respectable theory that may allow room for God—and anyone who entertains such as theory—must be wiped from human consciousness, and bereft of influence. Scores of examples could be cited. The movie gives some prominent cases. There are hundreds more.
Being disarmed and helpless in the area of actual arguments, the critics of Expelled have nothing to fight with but insults. PZ Meyers, in one short article, tars intelligent design and its followers with a litany of disgust: “dimwits,” “awesomely stupid,” “clueless creationists,” “worse than inane.”
But once Meyers runs out of name-calling ammo, he has nothing to drop but an incredibly poor argument, claiming to uncover a “Simple Falsehood at the Heart of Expelled.” Like many of his fellow atheists and evolutionists, he is angry that Expelled makes a clear and explicit link between Darwinism and Hitler’s Nazi atrocities. The “simple falsehood” he alleges to refute this well-known connection is that since farmers had used selective breeding for decades, then the Nazi’s didn’t need Darwin for the idea. All Darwin did, according to Meyers, was to discover that nature, too, did her own selection in the environment. Brilliant! One might ask PZ, however, that if Hitler was merely imitating the farmers, then why exactly have countless historians and academics—in addition to “clueless creationists”—traced Hitler’s infernal ideas back to Darwin?
First, we should note that while the Darwin-Hitler relationship makes up an important part of the pro-freedom message of Expelled, it is hardly the “heart” of the movie as PZ states. Rather, the heart of the movie is about academic freedom, centering on those scholars who have suffered persecution for merely talking about ID. This is why the movie is titled Expelled, and not something like, say, Holocaust. PZ is simply upset about the movie, and thinks he has a good retort. The answer, however, to the retort—which is even more obvious and simple than PZ claims his own insight to have been—is that in Darwin, Hitler thought he had a compelling scientific justification for treating people like an animals. Cull the weak, sterilize the average, breed the select, and burn the refuse. He did this to people—something that centuries of farmers couldn’t bring themselves to do, even with their apparently “dangerous” farming techniques.
The world, after all, was not at war because Hitler culled six million chickens or gassed six million sheep. Farming practices aside, the Nazi’s applied “natural selection” to people because Darwin’s own words gave them the idea. One infamous passage reads,
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised 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 civilised 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 any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
Dawkins has written a long tedious letter trying to disavow the relation between Darwin and Hitler, but no matter how much he spins the story—“Hitler just misunderstood!” “Eugenics is just bad Darwinism!”—the simple plain facts are irrefutable. Hitler had the scientific theory to stand behind his actions. You can’t question the science! Like PZ, Dawkins, and others, Hitler apparently believed you can’t go against Darwin’s theory. Following Darwin, Hitler said, “I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.”
The message of Expelled must be taken seriously. It is fun to laugh at the liberals and atheists who have no defense against their own vices. It is fun to watch them squirm and speak bold nonsense with a straight face. But the basic message of Expelled is about academic freedom and freedom in general. We seriously need to beware when anything is forced on us under the imperative hand of “science.” We must hold such claims to the highest level of scrutiny and skepticism. Tyranny always comes in such guises as necessity, public good, and science. In contrasting the “scientific” tyrannies of modern times with the stereotypical middle ages, scholar Robert Nisbet concluded,
Anyone who believes that inquisitions went out with the triumph of secularism over religion has not paid attention to the records of foundations, federal research agencies, professional societies, and academic institutes and departments. . . . It was twentieth century science, not theology, that sought to prevent by every possible means the publication in the 1950s of Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision. The Church did not go that far with Galileo.
Expelled is exposing the same envious and dishonest forces continuing at work today—prejudice against the intelligent design scientists, persecution of believers, and the revolting history of evolutionary theory. Seeing the affect it is having in just a few days, I can’t wait until reaches millions, and then goes to DVD, and reaches millions more, for years. Maybe then our atheist bullies will silence themselves, or better yet, cease their assault on intelligence altogether and convert.
 Wendell R. Bird quoted in John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Darwin’s Leap of Faith: Exposing the False Religion of Evolution (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1998), 101.
 Quoted in Ankerberg and Weldon, Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 101–109.
 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chapter 5. (I have purposefully copied this text from the online edition found at infidels.org—an atheist website—in order to illustrate that evolutionists like PZ refuse to find the truth even when the original sources are right in front of them.
 Quoted in Ankerberg and Weldon, Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 33.
 Robert Nisbet, Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982) 195–196. See Henry H. Bauer, Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984) and Velikovsky Reconsidered(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1976).