It seems to me that Stein, his film (which I’ve not seen yet), and reactions to it, are of secondary importance. Most important is freedom of thought, investigation, and expression in our society, and particulary academia/science - and, however you paint it, it does seem certain that, in the West, Big Science (as this author calls it) is too powerful, too dedicated to upholding one worldview, and generally respressive of the questioning of dogma - the spirit of Copernicus & Galileo, and of the Medieval Church, have switched places while no one was looking. This is a deplorable situation; we know all scientists are not culpable, or all academics, but surely many are, and the power all lies with them. Only by breaking the stranglehold (of materialism) on the rulership of our (Western) world, is there any possibility of securing freedom and preventing the creeping fascism or totalitarianism which is definitely coming upon us. If Stein etc. are taking action that might help this prevention, then they are doing everyone a service - particularly science.
Sonsoles de Lacalle refers to various evolutionists who believe in God: but this - theistic evolutionism/evolutionary theism - has long been with us; its validity/invalidity is a big question in itself, not capable of addressing in a short comment or article.

I haven’t seen it yet, but my question is—what’s the film’s intent? Does it intend to be a critique of Darwinism, or is it simply an exposure of the fact that modern-day academia leaves little room for dissent? If it’s the former, then it sounds like it failed. But if it’s the latter, then I don’t know why anyone would be looking for the former in it. And from what I’ve heard from the producers and Mr. Stein on media conference calls, the latter is what they were looking for, not the former.

I would certainly have to watch the movie myself before accepting that it does a disservice to Creationism. At first glance I think it is a good production for society by showing the bigotry of conventional science education; and I know that conventional science is dead set against ID and creationism. I do not subscribe to the ideals of ID, but do think that science should be allowed to speak for itself and not twisted by our educational and scientific community. I am working on a doctorate in creation vs. evolution, and am ashamed at the stupidity of godless, unscientific facts that our children are fed.

Thank you Sonsoles for this fine review.  I had a feeling that there was something wrong with this flick.  We can’t be afraid of the truth, the whole truth.  And it seems that this movie does not serve the interests of those who really want to get to the truth about life, beauty, freedom, and love, with balanced judgement, not sensationalist arguments.  It may be somewhat helpful in pointing out a fundamental bias in contemporary culture that works against the pursuit of truth.

Re: “Big Science” allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution
Since when?
If facts were brought up tomorrow discrediting the theory of evolution, “Big Science” would abandon it.
That is the scientific process!
But then, facts, proveable ones, would be required.
That is the difference between science and religion, or pseudo-sciences such as ID or creationism.
And that is the confusion that proponents of such pseudo-sciences cultivate when stating that “Big Science” allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution or exposes “the fact that modern-day academia leaves little room for dissent.”

Yes, it is a pity it can’t do both, question the weaknesses of the pure Darwinian explanation (with all of its appeals to random interactions) and exposing the rigidity of scientific materialism and its advocates.  It’s also a pity it couldn’t expose the appalling ignorance of the creationists.  (How old do you actually think the universe is?  Doesn’t the speed of light and the size of the Milky Way (not to mention other galaxies) kind of imply that it’s a tad older than that?)

Unfortunately, putting forth a more serious position would require assuming a viewership with a much better scientific background than can reasonably be supposed.

Thanks for writing this simply yet comprehensive overview of Expelled!

First, I have seen the documentary in a private screening and I’d say – as a biologist – that the movie DOES a disservice to Christian biologists.  I walked out of the movie with the strong impression that if I thought that Darwin was right, eventually I’d lose my faith.  As many scientists can testify this is not accurate as Dr. de Lacalle states.
Second, the movie portrays a serious claim: lack of freedom of speech in academia in the US. However, I think there is plenty here as quite a few academics with outrageous views have demonstrated (i.e. r Richard J. Herrnstein from the Bell curve and check the IgNobel prize shows every year) without being expelled...though I grant that there are some exceptions: Jim Watson got into such serious trouble, that it cost him his position (http://www.slate.com/id/2176709/).  Nobody defended him, because his position was scientifically indefensible!
Third, the movie deals with the controversy that purportedly cost these people their jobs (read: belief in God, which I disagree, will cost someone their job, at least in biology departments). It never deals with WHY or WHAT their fellow academicians thought about their science, which eventually lead them to vote against ID faculty.  Expelled does not explain the poor science behind intelligent design, but tries to make victims of them.
Fourth, more importantly is what they themselves tell you in their website.  If you go and download their guide (http://www.getexpelled.com/leaders.php) you will read a lot of material defending intelligent design, attacking Darwin, etc. So, is the movie about a controversial set of expulsions or about ID? As a consumer, I will say they are selling me ID, not freedom of speech!

Absolutely false to say that ‘Big Science’ makes room for facts that disprove evolution. ‘Big Science’ is the religion of atheists, it is not scientific. Science, (knowledge) means testing and evaluating knowledge; there are some facts of science that cannot be evaluated. The founders of sceince have almost all been good Christian scientists:Leonardo da Vinci-considered feal founder of modern science; Kepler-founder of physical astronomy;Bacon-responsible for the formulation and establishment of the so called “scientific method.” Pascal-father of hydrodstatics and one of founders of hydrodynamics;Boyle-father of modern chemistry; John Ray-father of English natural history; N Steno (Nils Stennsen)developed principles of stratigraphical interpretation; T. Burnet one of the first geologists; others like Kircher, Wilkins, Charleton, Petty, Barrow, Mather, Grew, Newton, and many more, were all religious men who opened the way for us to enjoy science today. There is no dicotomy between science and biblical religion; the dicotomy is in the heads of atheists! This is just a sampling of beginnings.

The purpose of Expelled as I understand it, is not to discuss science, but to show that those who hold views against darwinism are actually expelled from their posts or jobs. I know this. I am working on this right now in a doctoral dissertation. One may say what one likes, but if one disagrees with Darwin and shows why to students the whole educational establishment is against that person. The scientist who demonstrated chemical evolution, and whose books are foundation books for students has been attacked and belittled because he now subscribes to ID!! The entire educational establishment is against teaching an alternative view of evolution. Creation is religion they say, yet the teach children lies like nothing brought forth life; inorganic matter brought forth organic matter. So preposteous that one sounds foolish even repeating it. The real, truthful scientists would tell you that the reason why they teach evolution is that the alternative would be to accept that God created; but since they cannot accept God, they choose to accept naturalism. You an find this in some of their books.

I’ve just finished reading an interview with Mark Mathis, associate producer of Expelled and founder of Mathis Media, by Carl Olson, and while I haven’t seen the film, Mathis makes some telling points regarding the hostility his documentary has generated.
He indicates that many of the scientists interviewed were given the questions about which they were asked to comment in advance and that there was no attempt to misrepresent them. On the contrary, Mathis states that “ these scientists say the same thing to Expelled that they say in articles, other films,on blogs and in their books. Nothing is out of context, there is no deceptive editing..”. He then goes on to contend that their objection is that these scientist “ do not want to defend their ideas in any forum that challenges them.”
I must say I found the example of Guillermo Gonzales, a distinguished astronomer, author of ‘The Priveleged Planet’ and of 68 peer reviewed scientific articles, being denied tenure at Iowa State, disturbing.

Re: “Absolutely false to say that ‘Big Science’ makes room for facts that disprove evolution” (Ron Henderson)

Please substantiate.
Which “facts” does “Big Science” reject that would disprove evolution?

That God created life is a matter of theology.  How God created life is a matter open to scientific investigation.  Those who subscribe to natural selection as a complete explanation have a lot of work to do to explain the fossil record (which includes many “bursts” of change as well as long periods of relative stability).  The question of how life began is also of scientific interest, but requires more than natural selection to explain.

None of these scientific questions require hypothesizing independent acts of creation by God, although that remains a theoretical possibility.  In theological terms, we would term such acts “miracles.”

It is also possible, and I believe, more likely, that God’s original design of the universe, itself, included randomly driven mechanisms for the emergence of life and of subsequent successful mutations.  The fact that science is a long way from verifying that the laws of physics (and, therefore, of chemistry) entail such mechanisms is no reason to discount it.  If it turns out to be true, one would have to describe the laws of physics as miraculous, but, from a theological perspective, the “miracle” as such would be the creation of the universe.

As De Lacalle points out, there are scientists who come down squarely in favor of evolutionary biology AND squarely in favor of Christianity - and as demonstrated by Father Gearheart’s posts, there are priests who do as well. They likely credit themselves with a certain open-minded sophistication which permits them to simultaneously find a home in both camps, but it is ultimately a dodge. Darwinian evolution does not hold that there was a long sequence of events that were put in motion long ago, like so many dominoes falling onto each other - in fact, the theory of evolution (as taught in colleges today) explicitly rejects any preconceived structures, processes, or goals. Rather, all life as we know it is purely an artifact of random, undirected events. By contrast, Christianity explicitly posits that God knew each of us as individuals before the beginning of the World. Anyone who wants to claim (as Father Gearheart did, and as the “Christian evolutionists” cited by De Lacalle presumably do) that evolution and Christianity can coexist because God “designed” the universe to “randomly” create the spectrum of life that He had in mind is in denial - not about science or Christianity, but about language itself. Randomness and Design have inconveniently opposite meanings which cannot be reconciled even by the most Christian scientists (or the most scientific Christians).

There are many instances of ‘Big science’ refusing to give an ear to creationism. The educational media refuses to allow creationism a chance to teach the children an alternate theory of origins. They speak strongly against it because the scientists are against it. The evolution scientists resisted strongly the states that designated evolution as ‘one of the theories of origins.’ They present evolution as a fact and not as a theory; any other theory is fanciful they claim. Those evolution scientists (Behe, Denton,etc.) who propose a new look at evolution in light of ID are shunned. Schools have been teaching that the human foetus goes through various animal stages before becoming human, creationists have shown this to be nonsense; but the texts still carry the diagram and some educators refuse to remove it. Montreal and Europe wish to ban creation from schools. There is much more of the resistance of scientists who do not believe in God to viewing creation arguments in schools that can be demonstrated, but that is open for all to see so I need not say much more on this.