Участник:AdmiralHood/Фильмешница

Изгнанный: разум запрещён
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Жанр	Документальный фильм
Режиссёр	Натан Франковски[англ.]
Продюсеры	Premise Media: Logan Craft Walt Ruloff John Sullivan
Авторы сценария	Kevin Miller Ben Stein Walt Ruloff
В главных ролях	Бен Штайн[англ.]
Композиторы	Andy Hunter° Robbie Bronnimann
Кинокомпания	Rocky Mountain Pictures
Длительность	97 мин.
Бюджет	$3,5 млн.
Сборы	$7,7 млн.
Страна	США
Язык	Английский
Год	2008

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (букв. Изгнанный: разум запрещён) — документальный фильм 2008 года режиссёра Натана Франковски^[англ.] (ведущий Бен Штайн^[англ.])^[1][2].

Основу фильма составляет конспирологическая теория о том, что руководство «официальной» науки подавляет сторонников «разумного замысла», а также критиков дарвинизма и современной синтетической теории эволюции. Это подавление является результатом заговора с целью изгнать Бога из научных и образовательных учреждений^[3][4].

Теория эволюции показывается в фильме как один из источников фашизма, Холокоста, коммунизма, атеизма и евгеники^[5][6].

Фильм утверждает, что источником «разумного замысла» является наука, а не религия, хотя и не пытается научно обосновать это утверждение. За исключением краткого упоминания о «неупрощаемой сложности»^[англ.]*, обсуждение переводится в политическую плоскость^[7][5][8][9].

Премьера фильма состоялась в 1052 кинотеатрах, что является рекордным показателем для документльных фильмов. В первый уик-энд фильм собрал более $2,9 млн.^[10], а суммарные сборы составили $7,7 млн., обеспечив фильму 18-е место среди документальных фильмов США за период с 1982 года по сей день без учёта инфляции^[10]. В июле фильм вновь вышел на экраны, были разрешены частные сеансы для групп из 300 и более человек^[11].

Общая реакция средств массовой информации на фильм была крайне неблагоприятной. В нескольких отзывах, в том числе в USA Today и Scientific American, фильм был назван пропагандой^[6][12][13]. В рейтинге Chicago Tribune фильм получил всего одну звезду, что означает «плохо»^[14]. Газета «The New York Times» отозвалась о фильме как о «напыщенных рассуждениях в стиле теории заговора, замаскированных под исследование» и «беспринципной пропаганде, оскорбляющей и верующих, и неверующих»^[6]. На сайте «Rotten Tomatoes» эксперты дали фильму оценку 11% из 100, в то время как рейтинг публики составил 66%. Один из экспертов резюмировал его следующими словами: «Полный назидательности и плохо структурированных аргументов, фильм является циничным политическим трюком под видом документалистики»^[15].

Положительный отзыв дал фильму журнал «Христианство сегодня»^{[англ.][16]}.

Американская ассоциация содействия развитию науки описала фильм как непорядочную и сеющую раздоры пропаганду, направленную на внедрение религии в общественные школы^[17].

Фильм был продемонстрирован на частном показе для законодателей в рамках кампании «Discovery Institute» по продвижению антиэволюционных законопроектов под общим названием «Законы об академической свободе»^[18].

Жанр фильма определяется его создателями как дискуссионная сатирическая документалистика^[1]. Бен Штейн даёт закадровые комментарии и на протяжении всего фильма в различных университетах берёт интервью у сторонников теории разумного замысла, которые утверждают, что стали жертвами преследований, и учёных-эволюционистов, которые представлены как атеисты. Фильм широко использует исторические кадры, в том числе сцены строительства Берлинской стены, которая выступает как метафора преграды на пути учёных к принятию идеи разумного замысла^[19].

Фильм рассказывает о некоторых научных гипотезах происхождения жизни, и представляет короткую анимацию о внутренней работы клетки в качестве введения к изложению концепции неупрощаемой сложности, которая утверждает, что такие сложные процессы не могут возникнуть в результате спонтанных мутаций^[7].

В качестве сторонника разумного замысла выступает Ричард Вейкарт, который утверждает, что дарвинизм оказал влияние на нацистов^[20]. Фильм ассоциирует идеи Гитлера о «расе господ» и Холокост с идеей Дарвина о выживании наиболее приспособленных, параллельно демонстрируя кинохронику о нацистских концлагерях^[7] и рассказы директора Мемориала Адамара, где во время Второй мировой войны были уничтожены 15 000 инвалидов^[21].

Непосредственно разумного замысла фильм касается лишь поверхностно, концентрируя внимание на отношении к нему в академических кругах. Не предпринимается никаких попыток дать определение разумному замыслу и привести какие-либо научные доказательства в его пользу. Вместо этого фильм рассматривает разумный замысел с политической, а не научной, точки зрения.

Разумный замысел представляется в фильме в качестве альтернативы эволюции и утверждается, что он заслуживает место в академических кругах.

The film depicts intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, and claims it deserves a place in academia. This "design theory" is defined in the film by the Discovery Institute's Paul Nelson as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence."[22] Stein says in the film that intelligent design is not taught or researched in academia because it is "suppressed in a systematic and ruthless fashion".

The National Center for Science Education, one of the groups discussed in the film, responds that "Intelligent design has not produced any research to suppress", and "The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested".^[22]

В фильме показан разумного замысла в качестве альтернативы теории эволюции, и утверждает, что он заслуживает места в академических кругах. Это "теории дизайна" определяется в фильме Пола Нельсона института открытия, как "изучение закономерностей в природе, которые лучше всего объясняются в результате разведки". [22] Штейн говорит в фильме, что разумного замысла не преподается или исследовал в академических кругах, поскольку она "подавлена ​​в систематическом и безжалостным образом".Национального центра научного образования, одной из групп, обсуждаемых в фильме, отвечает, что "Интеллектуальный дизайн не дало никаких исследований, чтобы подавить" и "Фундаментальная проблема с интеллектуальным дизайном, как наука в том, что интеллектуальные претензии дизайн не могут быть проверены". [22]

В федеральный суд Соединенных Штатов случае Kitzmiller В. Dover, продуманный дизайн судили упаковать версия креационизма и как таковой введения разумного замысла в общественных классах школы науки является неконституционным религиозных прав. [23] В фильме Брюса Чепмена, президент Институт Открытия, отрицал, что преподавание разумного замысла в науке классов является попыткой проникнуть религии в государственных школах. [24] Штейн, Института Открытия и изгнали в публицисты, Мотив маркетинга, все использовали фильм, чтобы заручиться поддержкой для академических счета свободы в различных государства, которые многие считают последним в серии анти-эволюционные стратегии, направленные на креационизм принести в класс. Эти законопроекты позволят педагогам в государственных школах самостоятельно ввести критику или альтернативы эволюции. [25]

In the United States federal court case Kitzmiller v. Dover, intelligent design was judged a repackaged version of creationism and as such introducing intelligent design in public school science classrooms was unconstitutional religious infringement.^[23] In the film, Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, denied that teaching intelligent design in science classes is an attempt to sneak religion into public schools.^[24] Stein, the Discovery Institute and Expelled's publicists, Motive Marketing, have all used the film to build support for Academic Freedom bills in various states, which many view as the latest in a series of anti-evolutionary strategies designed to bring creationism into the classroom. These bills would permit educators in the public schools to independently introduce criticisms of or alternatives to evolution.^[25]

The film contends that there is widespread persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, and a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms. The film contains interviews with educators and scientists in which they describe this persecution.^[3][4] In the film, Stein says, "It's not just the scientists who are in on it. The media is in on it, the courts, the educational system, everyone is after them." Stein further accuses academia of having a dogmatic commitment to Darwinism, comparing it to the party line of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. .^[26] Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education stated that "the filmmakers were exploiting Americans’ sense of fairness as a way to sell their religious views" and that she was concerned that the film would portray the "scientific community as intolerant, as close-minded, and as persecuting those who disagree with them. And this is simply wrong."^[3]

The film alleges that many scientists and the scientific enterprise are dogmatically committed to atheism,^[27][28] and that a commitment to materialism in the scientific establishment is behind the claimed suppression of intelligent design.^[22] Scientific American criticised the film for failing to note that the scientific method deals only with explanations that can be tested or empirically validated, and so logically cannot use untestable religious or "design based" explanations.^[28] William Dembski addressed the issue of design explanations in science, saying that "many fields of study involve intelligent design, including archaeology, forensics, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). An archaeologist, for example, examines the evidence—like a curiously shaped stone—to determine whether it might be the product of a human intelligence."^[29] Stein contends that "There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch a higher power, and it can’t possibly touch God."^[27]

The National Center for Science Education criticizes the film for representing scientists who are atheists as representative of all scientists, without discussing the many prominent scientists who are religious, and thus creates a false dichotomy between science and religion.^[27] The associate producer of the film Mark Mathis said that although he didn't get to decide who and what interviews made it into the film, it was his opinion that including Roman Catholic biologist Kenneth R. Miller would have "confused the film unnecessarily." Mathis also questioned the intellectual honesty of a Catholic accepting evolution.^[30] Miller later noted that 40% of the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science profess belief in a personal god.^[31]

In its review, the Waco Tribune-Herald said "That’s the real issue of Expelled — atheist scientists versus God — even though it wholly undercuts statements by intelligent design researchers early in the film that ID has nothing to do with religion." It described the "failure to cover how Christian evolutionists reconcile faith and science" as "perhaps the film's most glaring and telling omission", and said that the film rather "quickly dismissed [such proponents of theistic evolution] by a chain of quotes that brand them as liberal Christians duped by militant atheists in their efforts to get religion out of the classroom."^[32] Defending the movie, the producer, Walt Ruloff, said that scientists like prominent geneticist Francis Collins keep their religion and science separate because they are "toeing the party line." Collins, who was not asked to be interviewed for the film in any of its incarnations, said that Ruloff's claims were "ludicrous."^[3]

The film portrays evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust.^[5] Film critic Jeffrey Overstreet, writing for Christianity Today, stated that "Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany."^[33] Richard Weikart, a DI fellow and historian, appears in the movie asserting that Charles Darwin's work in the 19th century influenced Adolf Hitler. He argues that Darwin's perception of humans not being qualitatively different from animals, with qualities such as morality arising from natural processes, undermines what Weikart calls the "Judeo-Christian conception of the sanctity of human life".^[34] Nazi gas chambers and concentration camps^[35] figure highly in the narrative of the movie. In the film, David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute says that Darwinism was a "necessary though not sufficient" cause for the Holocaust, and Uta George, director of the Hadamar Memorial in Germany, says that "the Nazis … relied on Darwin".

John Rennie in his Scientific American article says the film repeatedly uses the term "Darwinism" instead of evolution to misportray science as though it were a dogmatic ideology like Marxism.^[36]

Arthur Caplan, Hart Professor of Bioethics and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his MSNBC column that the movie is a "frighteningly immoral narrative", including "a toxic mishmash of persecution fantasies, disconnected and inappropriate references to fallen communist regimes and their leaders and a very repugnant form of Holocaust denial from the monotone big mouth Ben Stein."^[37] Caplan sharply criticized what he described as Stein's willingness "to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust took place — racism — to serve his own ideological end. Expelled indeed."^[37]

The Anti-Defamation League issued the following statement condemning the film's use of the Holocaust:

In an April interview about the film, Stein had said that science had led to the Nazi murder of children, and stated that "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people."^[31] When Vancouver Sun writer Peter McKnight asked for Stein to comment on the Anti-Defamation League's statement, Stein replied, "It's none of their f---ing business."^[39]

After watching the film, one Jewish viewer wrote an angry letter to interviewee Michael Shermer, which Shermer forwarded to fellow interviewee Richard Dawkins. This prompted Dawkins to write, as a response, "Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda".^[40]

The film portrays several people including Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker as victims of persecution by major scientific organizations and academia for their promotion of intelligent design and for questioning Darwinism. Other intelligent design supporters such as William Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Pamela Winnick, and Gerald Schroeder, along with contrarian David Berlinski,^[41] appear in the film as well. Expelled additionally briefly features numerous anonymous people, their faces darkened to make them unrecognizable, who say that their jobs in the sciences would be jeopardized if their belief in intelligent design were made public, one of whom states that he believes most scientists equate intelligent design with creationism, the religious right, and theocracy.

In addition, the motion picture includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and criticize intelligent design as an attempt to bring religion into the science classroom. Those interviewed include PZ Myers, William Provine, Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse, Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens, and Eugenie Scott.

Expelled features excerpts from an interview Stein conducted with Richard Sternberg, described as an evolutionary biologist (he has two PhDs in evolutionary biology ^[42]) and a former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution. The film says his life was "nearly ruined" after he published an article by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer in 2004, allegedly causing him to lose his office, to be pressured to resign, and to become the subject of an investigation into his political and religious views. Sternberg defended his decision, stating that Intelligent Design was not the overall subject of the paper (being mentioned only at the end) and that he was attempting merely to present questions ID proponents had raised as a topic for discussion. He presented himself and Meyer as targets of religious and political persecution, claiming the chairman of his department referred to him as an "intellectual terrorist". Stein states that the paper "ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began", and goes beyond the findings of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to claim that Sternberg was "terrorized".^[28] Stein further alleges that Congressman Mark Souder uncovered a campaign by the Smithsonian and the NCSE to destroy Sternberg's credibility, though he does not provide any details.

Sternberg, a staff scientist for the National Center for Biotechnology Information and himself a fellow of the intelligent design advocacy group ISCID, had resigned his position at the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington six months before publication of the Meyers paper. The Council of the Biological Society of Washington has stated that "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process".^[43] Although in the film Stein says the paper "suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began", it discussed the much later development of phyla during the Cambrian explosion and deviated from the journal's topic of systematics to introduce previously discredited claims about bioinformatics. The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had typical editorial practices been followed.^[43][44] Sternberg, contrary to the impression given by the film, was not an employee, but an unpaid "Research Associate" at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, a post which ran for a limited period. Also contrary to the way his career was depicted in the film, Sternberg still retained this position until 2007, when he was given the offer of continuing as a research collaborator.^[28][45] He continued to have full access to research facilities at the museum as of April 2008.^[46]

Expelled profiles Dr. Caroline Crocker, a former part-time cell biology lecturer at George Mason University who became the center of controversy over Intelligent Design. In the film Stein states, "After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt end", and that she was blacklisted. Crocker tells Stein that before the incident she was routinely offered jobs on the spot following an interview, but afterwards she was unable to find a position in academia.

According to the university and the National Center for Science Education, Crocker was not fired; her position was non-tenure track and her employment was on a course-by-course basis. She taught to the end of her contract, which was not renewed. A George Mason University spokesman said this was for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design, and that although they wholeheartedly supported academic freedom, "teachers also have a responsibility to stick to subjects they were hired to teach, and intelligent design belonged in a religion class, not biology. Does academic freedom 'literally give you the right to talk about anything, whether it has anything to do with the subject matter or not? The answer is no.'"^[47]

The NCSE also stated that she did more than merely mention intelligent design, but in fact posed many refuted creationist arguments.^[48] Crocker also did find a position at Northern Virginia Community College, where she was later profiled by the Washington Post. The Post's article stated she claimed "that the scientific establishment was perpetrating fraud, hunting down critics of evolution to ruin them and disguising an atheistic view of life in the garb of science."^[47] Her lecture, which she said was the same she taught at George Mason, taught students creationist claims about evolution and promoted intelligent design in a biology class, telling them that Nazi atrocities were based on Darwin's ideas and on science.^[47]

Crocker subsequently had a postdoctoral year at the Uniformed Services University, and currently has a full time post as executive director of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center which promotes intelligent design clubs at high schools and universities.^[48]

Michael Egnor, a neurosurgery professor at SUNY at Stony Brook, is presented in the film as the subject of persecution after writing an essay to high school students asserting that doctors did not need to learn evolution to practice their trade.^[49] Egnor, who is a signatory to the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism, presents himself as the victim of online smears and a campaign to get his university to force him into retirement, following his letter. When a citizen's group in Virginia sponsored an essay contest for high school students on the topic "Why I would want my doctor to have studied evolution", Egnor responded by posting an essay on an intelligent design blog claiming that evolution was irrelevant to medicine. His essay was met with considerable criticism by medical professionals, professors and researchers.

In the film, Stein describes this as "Darwinists were quick to try and exterminate this new threat", and Egnor says he was shocked by the "baseness and viciousness" of the critical response he received.^[50] As soon as Egnor makes this statement in the film, the camera zooms in on a photo of him that is immediately stamped with "EXPELLED", implying that in the "extermination attempt" Egnor experienced more than common Internet vitriol when he engaged in an online controversy.

Robert Marks is a professor at Baylor University who had his research website shut down by the University and was forced to return grant money when it was discovered his work had a link to intelligent design. The film, through footage, compares Marks to the protagonist in the film Planet of the Apes.

The research in question was for the Evolutionary Informatics Lab which Marks formed with Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski,^[51][52] and which made use of the University's servers to host the website. The university removed the website after receiving complaints that it appeared to be endorsed by the university. Baylor officials later allowed the website back on their server but required changes be made to the website so that it did not appear to be endorsed by the University.^[53] The web site was reestablished independently of Baylor University.

Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist who had been an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University, is interviewed by Stein, who claims that despite a "stellar" research record that led to the discovery of new planets, Gonzalez was denied tenure because his book The Privileged Planet argued that the universe is intelligently designed. Gonzalez claims that, prior to his tenure review, he was the subject of a campaign on campus to "poison the atmosphere" against him, and that he would almost certainly have been granted tenure had he not been an advocate for intelligent design. The film interviewed a member of the Iowa State University faculty who stated that Gonzalez was denied tenure because the university feared that if they granted Gonzalez tenure the university would become associated with the Intelligent Design movement.

Prior to the film's release Iowa State University addressed the controversy regarding Gonzalez's tenure by saying that after the normal review of his qualifications, such as his record of scientific publications (which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty),^[54][55] he was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." Eli Rosenberg, the chairman of the Astronomy department, also noted that during Gonzalez's time at Iowa State, Gonzalez had failed to secure any form of substantial outside funding.^[56] In the previous decade, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the department were not granted tenure.^[57]

Michael Shermer is an author, science historian, founder of The Skeptics Society, and editor of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating and debunking pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. He was interviewed for the movie by Stein and assistant producer Mark Mathis to get his take on intelligent design and evolution. Shermer describes intelligent design as "three quarters of the way to nonsense", and voices skepticism at the claims that numerous academics were fired for advocating it.

Shermer, in an online column coinciding with the release of Expelled, described feeling awkward about their motives soon after the interview began.

After a break and small talk the interview resumed, but the questions continued to follow a similar vein.

Shermer has stated that he believes that the film is effective in delivering its message to its target audience.^[59]

Richard Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist and popular science writer. Dawkins is portrayed as one of the leading members of the scientific establishment. Dawkins' admission that his study of evolution aided his move towards atheism is used by the film to draw a positive connection between them. In her review of the film for New Scientist, Amanda Gefter comments on the film's presentation of Dawkins' interview, including showing him "in the make-up chair, a move calculated to demean since surely everyone else, including Stein, is powder-puffed off-camera", and describes "foreboding music" and a "low-lit room" filmed with "sinister camera angles" used as part of an appeal to "raw emotion" during his interview.^[60]

In Dawkins' interview, the director focused on Stein's question to Dawkins regarding a hypothetical scenario in which intelligent design could have occurred.^[61] Dawkins responded that in the case of the "highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themselves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett)." He later described this as being similar to Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel's "semi tongue-in-cheek" example.^[61][62]

The editing of the interview with Dawkins leads the viewer to believe that Richard Dawkins is saying that some intelligent designer (God) may be discovered when the evidence of cellular and molecular biology is examined. Dawkins is midway through a hypothetical statement, making the greater point that a designer would himself have to be designed (and this is highly unlikely), when Mr Stein's voiceover interrupts, asking, "Wait a second, Richard Dawkins is admitting that Intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?". Dawkins then delivers the final words "That designer may well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, but then that higher intelligence would itself had to of come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. He couldn't have just spontaneously jumped into existence, that's the point."

Stein states afterwards in a voiceover, "So Prof. Dawkins was not against intelligence design, just certain types of designers, such as God".

The movie has been criticized by those interviewees who are critics of intelligent design (P.Z. Myers, Dawkins,^[63] Shermer,^[28] and National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott), who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads on the "intersection of science and religion", and were directed to a blurb implying an approach to the documentary crediting Darwin with "the answer" to how humanity developed:^[64][65][66]

But before the interviewees were approached,^[64][68] the movie had already been pitched to Stein as an anti-Darwinist picture:

On learning of the pro-intelligent design stance of the real film, Myers said, "not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest."^[64] Dawkins said, "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front", and Scott said, "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren't."^[3]

Mathis called Myers, Dawkins and Scott a "bunch of hypocrites", and said that he "went over all of the questions with these folks before the interviews and I e-mailed the questions to many of them days in advance."^[69][70]

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times, writing, "If one needs to believe in a god to be moral, why are we seeing yet another case of dishonesty by the devout? Why were leading scientists deceived as to the intentions of a religious group of filmmakers?"^[71]

In support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin's book The Descent of Man:^[28]

The original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) (words that Stein omitted shown in bold) and the subsequent sentences in the book state:^[28][72]

According to John Moore writing in the National Post:

The Expelled Exposed website also points out that the same misleading selective quotation from this passage was used by anti-evolutionist William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 Scopes Trial, but the full passage makes it clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics. The eugenics movement relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity, and by the 1920s evolutionary biologists were criticizing eugenics. Clarence Darrow, who defended the teaching of human evolution in the Scopes trial, wrote a scathing repudiation of eugenics.^[75]

In a supplement to a review of Expelled, J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Research & Collections, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, cites Darwin's two paragraphs in their entirety, and says that in the context shown by the second paragraph "What we find is that Darwin’s position is diametrically opposed to what Stein intimated."^[76]

Resource DVDs distributed in pre-release promotions of the film included animation sequences portraying the internal functioning of cells that were seen to resemble a video from Harvard University entitled The Inner Life of the Cell produced by XVIVO. XVIVO issued a cease-and-desist letter, alleging infringement of copyright and asserting further legal remedies would be pursued unless the infringed segments from the Inner Life video were removed prior to the film's distribution.^[77] Expelled's producers then filed a legal complaint for declaratory judgment, asking the court to rule XVIVO had no ownership claim to The Inner Life of the Cell and that the producers did not violate copyright law in either its resource DVD or the film itself. The complaint stated the animation sequences in its resource DVD were different from those used in the final film.^[78] XVIVO, L.L.C. and Premise Media eventually reached an agreement that no copyright infringement had occurred and the complaints were dropped.^[79]

In April 2008, the copyright holders to John Lennon's song "Imagine", Yoko Ono, Julian and Sean Lennon, filed a legal complaint in the Southern District of New York against Premise Media and Rocky Mountain Pictures alleging copyright and trademark infringement over the unlicensed use of a portion of the song in the film.^[80] Ono came under attack in the blogosphere when critics of the film falsely assumed she agreed to license the song for use in a film defending intelligent design. Ono's lawyer claimed the use was unauthorized, while the film's producers claimed their use was protected under the fair use doctrine.^[81] Following a court motion filed by the plaintiffs on April 30, 2008, both parties consented during conference with presiding judge Sidney H. Stein to a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the distribution of any additional copies of the film in theaters or distribution of the film on DVD pending a hearing set for May 19. On that date the court heard oral arguments for a plaintiff motion seeking a preliminary injunction against any distribution of the film and a defense motion seeking to dismiss the case. The TRO remained in effect pending the judge's rulings on these motions. In June 2008 the judge ruled against both, while finding the plaintiffs failed to show the balance of hardships tipped in their favor and that the defendants' claim of fair use would likely succeed in a full trial.^[80] On October 8 Yoko Ono announced she would no longer pursue the lawsuit.^[82] The DVD version of the film, released in October 2008, does not contain the song segment^[83] because the decision came too late to allow the song to appear in the DVD.^[84]

As part of the pre-release marketing for the film, a web-based RSVP system page was publicized, offering free private movie screenings.^[85] Persons filling out an online entry form were sent a reservation confirmation via email which stated that no ticket was needed and that IDs would be checked against a list of names.^[86][87] The producers also held invitation-only screenings for religious organizations and government officials, including screenings for legislators to promote anti-evolution Academic Freedom bills.^[18]

In advance of release, the film was shown at private screenings to various Christian conservative leaders, including James Dobson.^[88] On March 11, 2008, a preview screening was held in Nashville for attendees at the annual convention of the National Religious Broadcasters. The young Earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis reported that its leader, Ken Ham, met Ben Stein beforehand to discuss promoting the film. It requested supporters to ask local movie theater managers to show the film, and to encourage their church leadership to buy out a local theater to show the film to as many people from that church as possible.^[89]

Expelled was given pre-release screenings for Florida and Missouri legislators in support of Academic Freedom bills in those states.^[18] Such bills, often viewed as attacks on the teaching of evolution, have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States since 2004, based on the claims by the Discovery Institute that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection.^[90] The Florida screening, held in the IMAX Theater of the Challenger Learning Center of Tallahassee on March 12, 2008, was restricted to legislators, their spouses, and their legislative aides, with the press and public excluded. Under the Florida sunshine law they had to watch the film without discussing the issue or arranging any future votes.^[91] Commenting on this, and the controversy over Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel viewing the film despite attempts by the promoters to withdraw the invitation they had given him,^[92] House Democratic leader Dan Gelber of Miami Beach stated, "It's kind of an irony: The public is expelled from a movie called Expelled."^[93] The screening was attended by about 100 people, but few were legislators,^[94] and the majority of legislators stayed away.^[2][95]

Shortly before the film's general release, its producer Walt Ruloff held a press conference at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. on April 15, and announced his plans to use the film as part of a campaign to pass academic freedom bills in a variety of American states.^[96] At least one Discovery Institute press conference on the bills has included a screening of Expelled.^[60] The issue was revived in 2009 when Florida Senator Stephen R. Wise cited the film as one reason that he is sponsoring plans to introduce a bill requiring biology teachers to present the idea of intelligent design.^[97]

Expelled interviewee PZ Myers was turned away from a pre-release screening of the film by a hired security guard as Myers, fellow interviewee Richard Dawkins, and members of Myers' family waited together in line to enter the theater. Myers said that he applied for tickets for himself and his guests on the website where the film's producers were offering free passes to the screening to the general public. Dawkins and Myers' family were allowed to attend, but Myers and Dawkins both concluded Dawkins would have been turned away as well if those promoting the film had recognized who he was.^[98]

This rejection of one of the evolution supporters prominently featured in the film created a furor as critics and supporters volleyed conflicting accounts of the incident. Myers wrote, "I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled!"^[99] Prior to this screening, Myers and Dawkins were both very public in their condemnations of the upcoming film, leading them to conclude this was the reason Myers was banned from the screening. Dawkins charged "P.Z. is in the film extensively. If anyone had a right to see the film, it was him."^[100]

Premise Media partner Walt Ruloff countered that they were using the screenings to stimulate favorable publicity for the film,^[101] and its producer Mark Mathis confirmed that he ordered Myers turned away. He wrote, "In light of Myers' untruthful blogging about Expelled I decided it was better to have him wait until April 18 and pay to see the film. Others, notable others, were permitted to see the film. At a private screening it's my call." But he went on to say, "Unlike the Darwinist establishment, we expel no one."^[99]

Critics of the film publicly ridiculed Myers' ejection as a public relations blunder. Eugenie Scott, who also appeared in the film, was quoted to say she and fellow supporters of evolution were enjoying "a horselaugh" over the episode.^[101] Myers said, "I could not imagine a better result for this. They've shown themselves to be completely dishonest and that they're trying to hide the truth about their movie, which is to my advantage. And they've shown themselves to be such flaming idiots."^[100] Dawkins described the event as "a gift" and said "we could not ask for anything better."^[101]

The promotion of the film was primarily managed by Motive Marketing, the agency that promoted the blockbuster film The Passion of the Christ, with another three public relations firms also hired. The producers spent millions on the promotion, targeted primarily to religious audiences. It provided sweepstakes and rewards to churches selling the most tickets, and offered sums of up to $10,000 to schools that sent their students to watch the film.^[102] In advance of the film's release, executive director Walt Ruloff, and producers Mark Mathis and Logan Craft provided interviews to various Christian media outlets promoting the movie and emphasizing its potential to impact the evolution debate.^[103] Motive Marketing also sent a representative to meet with religious leaders and stress the film's intelligent design creationist message, inspiring many to actively promote the film within their own religious communities.^[102] Some Christian media outlets promoted the film as well.^[104]

Organizations affiliated with the Discovery Institute helped publicize the film.^[105] It used its evolutionnews.org website and blog to publish over twenty articles tying its promotion of Expelled to its effort to pass the "Academic Freedom Bill" in Florida.^[106]

Stein appeared in the cable television programs The O'Reilly Factor and Glenn Beck to talk about the film. In his interview on O'Reilly commentator Bill O'Reilly characterized intelligent design as the idea that "a deity created life", and Stein responded that "There's no doubt about it. We have lots and lots of evidence of it in the movie."^[107] The Discovery Institute quickly issued a statement that when Bill O'Reilly conflated intelligent design with creationism he was mistakenly defining it as an attempt to find a divine designer, and lamented that "Ben referred to the 'gaps' in Darwin's theory, as if those are the only issues that intelligent design theory addresses."^[108]

Stein and the producers also hosted telephone press conference facilitated by Media Matter's representative Paul Lauer in which participating journalists were required to submit their questions in advance for screening and just two questions posed by members of the press were answered. One of the journalists participating, Dan Whipple of the Colorado Confidential, contrasted Ruloff's statement that "What we're really asking for is freedom of speech, and allowing science, and students, people in applied or theoretical research to have the freedom to go where they need to go and ask the questions" with the carefully staged and stringently controlled press conference, and called it "hypocritical in its supposed defense of 'freedom of expression'."^[109]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was not screened in advance for film critics,^[110] and when the film was released it received negative reviews. As of April 26, 2008, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 90% of its top film critics reviewed it negatively.^[111] Metacritic reported the film had an average score of 20 out of 100, based on 13 reviews.^[112]

Response to the movie from conservative Christian groups was generally positive, praising the movie for its humor and for focusing on what they perceive as a serious issue.^[113] American Spectator said that the "only complaint about Expelled, scheduled for April release, is that its ending came all too soon."^[114] Screen Rant gave Expelled 4.5 out of 5 stars, saying that "your opinion of the film will with almost complete certainty be predicted by your opinions on Darwinism vs Intelligent Design."^[115]

Response from other critics was negative, particularly from those in the science media. The film's extensive use of Michael Moore-style devices was commented upon,^[116] but the film was variously characterized as boring, exaggerated, and unconvincing.^[117] Others found it insulting and offensive to the religious.^[118] The Globe & Mail's film review gave the film a score of 0 and called it "an appallingly unscrupulous example of hack propaganda".^[119] Vue Weekly called it an "anti-science propaganda masquerading as a Michael Moore-ish fool's journey, full of disingenuous ploys, cheap tricks, and outright mendacity."^[120] While noting that the film is technically well made (with good photography and editing), Roger Ebert lambasted the content of the film:

This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.^[121]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a statement to say it was "especially disappointed to learn that the producers of an intelligent design propaganda movie called Expelled are inappropriately pitting science against religion."^[17] It went on to say the organization "further decries the profound dishonesty and lack of civility demonstrated by this effort", and said the movie "seeks to force religious viewpoints into science class – despite court decisions that have struck down efforts to bring creationism and intelligent design into schools."^[122]

Stein received the Freedom of Expression Award for his work in Expelled from the Home Entertainment Awards at Entertainment Merchants Association's Home Media Expo 2008.^[123][124]

As of September 2012, Expelled has grossed over $7.7 million and is the 20th highest-grossing documentary film of all time, and the 7th highest-grossing political documentary film of all time.^[10] Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters, earning $2,970,848 for its opening weekend with a $2,824 theater average.^[125] Prior to the film's opening Walt Ruloff, the movie's executive producer, "said the film could top the $23.9-million opening for Michael Moore's polemic against President Bush, Fahrenheit 9/11, the best launch ever for a documentary."^[126] Expelled's returns were impressive for a film in the typically low grossing documentary genre, but it was far surpassed by both Moore's Sicko and Fahrenheit 9/11.^[127]

Expelled's Blu-ray Disc and DVD releases distributed by Vivendi Visual Entertainment grossed over $1,850,000 in total sales.^[128]

In 2011, Premise Media Holdings LP, the company that produced the Expelled, declared bankruptcy and auctioned the rights to the movie.^[129] In June it was sold for $201,000 to Walt Ruloff and his associates, who were the original producers of Expelled.^[130]

Шаблон:Wikipedia books

• Creation-evolution controversy
• Flock of Dodos
• Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
• The Root of All Evil?
• The Voyage that Shook the World

• Expelled Exposed
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (англ.) на сайте Internet Movie Database
• «Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed» (англ.) на сайте Rotten Tomatoes
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (англ.) на сайте Metacritic
• «Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed» (англ.) на сайте Box Office Mojo
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (англ.) на сайте AllMovie