User Score
3.6

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 201 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 74 out of 201
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 5, 2010
    1
    Despite your religious or social beliefs this is a horrible documentary. The first half of the movie is a failure because intelligent design theories SIMPLY CANNOT BE EQUATED TO SCIENTIFIC ONES; They're not science. The second half is an academic embarrassment because it's blatant rhetoric without substance. I gave it a 1 because I enjoyed hating it.
  2. JayH.
    Oct 16, 2008
    4
    Well it sounded like it might be good, but I just didn't find it convincing at all. It wasn't well researched and it doesn't flow well. I generally love documentaries, but this one was boring.
  3. Dec 13, 2011
    0
    'Vile propaganda' summarizes this perfectly. No scientific value. No entertainment value. Instead of traveling the globe over several years, the creator of this movie would have been better off attending middle-school again.
  4. Jul 1, 2011
    0
    Oh boy, I can't stand watching this piece of religious fundamentalist propaganda tripe for even a minute. Let me use of of those ID proponents' tactics. Ben Stein is an ignorant, dishonest cretin who has a slurred voice, sounds like he has some neurological disorder.
  5. TomB.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    Vile propaganda.
  6. SueM.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    Wow, can't believe these folks actually subtitled their film "No intelligence allowed." That's as unintentionally apropos as Michael Jackson calling his album "Bad." If you're going to whine about people losing their jobs (in academia, where your job is based on your ability to reason), then at least make the case! Don't tell me why Darwinism is bad. There's 150 Wow, can't believe these folks actually subtitled their film "No intelligence allowed." That's as unintentionally apropos as Michael Jackson calling his album "Bad." If you're going to whine about people losing their jobs (in academia, where your job is based on your ability to reason), then at least make the case! Don't tell me why Darwinism is bad. There's 150 years worth of evidence supporting it - you're not going to get very far with that argument. Tell me why intelligent design is better. Show me the data! Expand
  7. MarkN.
    Dec 14, 2009
    0
    Absolutely ghastly movie. The people giving it high scores must be high on crack. This movie doesn't stimulate discussion - it lies to the audience!! Sternberg was not fired - He was an unpaid research associate whose three year term as editor was up and he ahd already handed in his papers when he published the article. For Ben Stein not to mention this in the movie is dishonest and Absolutely ghastly movie. The people giving it high scores must be high on crack. This movie doesn't stimulate discussion - it lies to the audience!! Sternberg was not fired - He was an unpaid research associate whose three year term as editor was up and he ahd already handed in his papers when he published the article. For Ben Stein not to mention this in the movie is dishonest and unethical. Expand
  8. May 18, 2014
    0
    Not only is it insultingly stupid, it's not even HONEST. Check elsewhere for documentation of the sleazy tactics employed by the producers, misleading the interviewees about the nature of the movie, relentlessly quote mining their interviews to make it look like they said things they didn't mean, et al. If there weren't an army of fundamentalist idiots in the U.S. who distrust all ofNot only is it insultingly stupid, it's not even HONEST. Check elsewhere for documentation of the sleazy tactics employed by the producers, misleading the interviewees about the nature of the movie, relentlessly quote mining their interviews to make it look like they said things they didn't mean, et al. If there weren't an army of fundamentalist idiots in the U.S. who distrust all of science for the sole reason that some of it doesn't sit well with their religious beliefs, NO ONE would even have wasted their money to go see this movie. Expand
  9. BillW.
    Apr 22, 2008
    8
    As a scientist and physician i thought it was an enjoyable and entertaining way to look at the issue. That there anger for anyone questioning evolution is something I have witnessed over the last 25 years of my education. It is apparent in the biased reviews other users are giving the film (0/10? maybe a 2 or 3 if you really think it is that bad). I would say watch the film and judge for As a scientist and physician i thought it was an enjoyable and entertaining way to look at the issue. That there anger for anyone questioning evolution is something I have witnessed over the last 25 years of my education. It is apparent in the biased reviews other users are giving the film (0/10? maybe a 2 or 3 if you really think it is that bad). I would say watch the film and judge for yourself. Neither young earth creationists or those who choose evolution as their religion will likely enjoy the film as much as someone who can be objective. Expand
  10. KathyT.
    Apr 20, 2008
    10
    Of course the major newspapers give this film a low grade, their afraid the minority intelligensia would 'expel' their subscriptions, at the very least !
  11. CraigB
    Sep 11, 2009
    10
    Great subject matter, wry humour, thought provoking, entertaining and fair/balanced treatment, a breath of fresh air ...no wonder the film is doing so well despite the '0' reviewers. Well worth watching.
  12. ToddF
    Dec 6, 2008
    3
    People like Jim P and others of the religious right will obviously give a "documentary" like this a 10, but as regular people who do not have a religious agenda will see, this movie is such hilarious propaganda that I encourage all people to see it as I would encourage people to see Battlefield Earth. It is definitely good for a laugh. this is the only reason I give it a 3. Watch it with friends!
  13. JasonA.
    Jan 16, 2010
    10
    I think every science student should watch this movie at some time in their studies. They should see it at some time when they are still open minded enough to really comprehend its message. I don't think most of the reviewers actually "watched" this movie. They reviewed the movie they feared it would be, some creationist treatise or scientific condemnation by morons. Instead the I think every science student should watch this movie at some time in their studies. They should see it at some time when they are still open minded enough to really comprehend its message. I don't think most of the reviewers actually "watched" this movie. They reviewed the movie they feared it would be, some creationist treatise or scientific condemnation by morons. Instead the actual film is one man pleading for a scientific community that doesn't favor chaos theories, crystal backs and alien origins over any ideas that include an intelligent designer. Ben is only trying to make a case for presenting both sides in open discussion and look at the controversy he stirred up. Imagine if he had actually endorsed a pro intelligent design position or something. Expand
  14. Aug 22, 2010
    0
    When I saw the movie, every single bit of respect I had ever had for Ben Stein went right down the drain. Not only was I slightly offended over the course of the movie, but I literally wanted to get up, find Mr. Stein, and punch him in the mouth for almost completely misinforming any young open minds that happen to stumble across this piece of garbage. To top it off, I've heard that itWhen I saw the movie, every single bit of respect I had ever had for Ben Stein went right down the drain. Not only was I slightly offended over the course of the movie, but I literally wanted to get up, find Mr. Stein, and punch him in the mouth for almost completely misinforming any young open minds that happen to stumble across this piece of garbage. To top it off, I've heard that it portrays an open-minded view, yet it does the exact opposite and criminalizes anyone that believes anything different than (non)intelligent design. Expand
  15. Apr 22, 2012
    10
    People don't like admitting they are wrong that's why the ratings are so low. It IS a great documentary
  16. MarkkuY.
    Apr 20, 2008
    1
    Utterly amateurish and dishonest. Undoubtedly those who desperately wish to believe Charles Darwin had horns on his head will give it high marks. Creationist propaganda of the very worst kind, it fails purely on cinematic terms as well. Louts like Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore at least have the decency to entertain while cramming their messages down our unwilling throats. If you must, Utterly amateurish and dishonest. Undoubtedly those who desperately wish to believe Charles Darwin had horns on his head will give it high marks. Creationist propaganda of the very worst kind, it fails purely on cinematic terms as well. Louts like Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore at least have the decency to entertain while cramming their messages down our unwilling throats. If you must, give money to churches and charities instead of wasting them on this film. Expand
  17. GennadyK.
    Apr 20, 2008
    9
    A good movie for our times. Without the "over-the-top" , "in-your-face" attitude driven modern cinema. It asks compelling questions about freedom, society, academia, journalism, scientific grants etc. Strangely, reading the reviews from journalists (newspapers) seems to bear out one of the movie's premise. Attack after attack on the movie seems to be made based on non-objective A good movie for our times. Without the "over-the-top" , "in-your-face" attitude driven modern cinema. It asks compelling questions about freedom, society, academia, journalism, scientific grants etc. Strangely, reading the reviews from journalists (newspapers) seems to bear out one of the movie's premise. Attack after attack on the movie seems to be made based on non-objective criteria and hysteria. (ex. "propaganda", "creationist", "loony" etc.) One popular movie review page actually described it as "christian"!!! HHmmm??? The questions that Mr. Stien actually asks, remain ignored and unraised by the press, academia, students, etc. Having lived on the other side of "The Wall" (USSR) I can vouch for the accuracy of symbolism used in the movie. Go see it and them form your own opinion. Expand
  18. RobG
    May 1, 2008
    9
    While far from perfect, this movie at least presents the other side of a debate that has been far too long dominated by one side.
  19. Christian
    May 24, 2008
    0
    I am an activist for ID and I thought this movie was a bit distasteful and if people really take this movie and think that it represents all people who want to debate about ID then I fear we have been set back. It was such obvious propaganda. *Sigh*
  20. Max
    Apr 19, 2008
    8
    This movie is mainly about freedom, not biology (funny how the movie reviewers are all experts on biology). It shows that the scientists in the movie are really being silenced not because of bad science, but because they don't have an atheistic world view.
  21. MartinK.h
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    What a worthless piece of dreck. Putting aside the message, it is a bad movie, sloppily made and unappealing to watch. Beyond that, it is terrible propaganda - attempting to conflate science and the Holocaust. Somehow not teaching alternatives to science is wrong. So let's have both astronomy AND astrology taught in schools. Teach chemistry AND alchemy. In history, should we give What a worthless piece of dreck. Putting aside the message, it is a bad movie, sloppily made and unappealing to watch. Beyond that, it is terrible propaganda - attempting to conflate science and the Holocaust. Somehow not teaching alternatives to science is wrong. So let's have both astronomy AND astrology taught in schools. Teach chemistry AND alchemy. In history, should we give Holocaust deniers equal time? It would have been nice if the movie attempted to give a short, accurate explanation of ecolution. And intelligent design for that matter. ID is neither intelligent nor science. Why should it be taught in science class? A short snippet of Ben Stein may be amusing. 90 minutes of him is grating. Expand
  22. Ken
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    A total embarrassment. Debunkings are going on all over the web. It turns out that almost no elements of this film are accurate. A propaganda piece of the worst sort. I mean, come on, evolutionary theory led to Hitler? Please. Check out expelled exposed dot com to learn the real facts that this film misrepresents.
  23. StaceyB
    Apr 19, 2008
    2
    I was invited to this movie, and I'm happy the ticket price didn't come out of my pocket. I gave it a 2 because I think Ben Stein deserves at least a couple points for the guts it took to make and release the film, but that's all. They obviously went into making this film with a heavy bias and made no effort to appear fair or even-handed with the opposing side of the I was invited to this movie, and I'm happy the ticket price didn't come out of my pocket. I gave it a 2 because I think Ben Stein deserves at least a couple points for the guts it took to make and release the film, but that's all. They obviously went into making this film with a heavy bias and made no effort to appear fair or even-handed with the opposing side of the debate. I was reminded often of Michael Moore's "documentaries" and his style of interviewing. This film was insulting to the audience's intelligence, evolutionists and creationists alike. Expand
  24. DonL.
    Apr 19, 2008
    2
    Went to see the movie with a couple of friends. We brought flyers advertising the web page expelled exposed dot com so that viewers of the film could see the other side of the argument, if they were interested. The movie theater management tried to "expell" us. The film was as expected, an illogical attempt to equate Darwinism to atheism to Naziism to Holocost. The sympathetic scientists Went to see the movie with a couple of friends. We brought flyers advertising the web page expelled exposed dot com so that viewers of the film could see the other side of the argument, if they were interested. The movie theater management tried to "expell" us. The film was as expected, an illogical attempt to equate Darwinism to atheism to Naziism to Holocost. The sympathetic scientists that were "expelled" were interviewed and given their say. Darwin was quoted from his book "Descent of Man" but not fairly. A paragraph was taken out of context which would seem to indicate the man was bent on culling genetically inferior humans out of the gene pool, like Hitler. The next paragraph in the book where he decries any semblence of that was not mentioned leaving the viewer with the wrong impression of Darwin. The partisan crowd seemed to laugh at all the right spots but I found little humor in the movie. The most glaring logical flaw in the presentation was the lack of compelling evidence that supported completely discarding Darwin's theory. There were no examples of where the theory falls short just a lot of puffing and crowing from a few well spoken philosophers. Science is about our best effort to explan our observations in nature. The computer graphics of the working of the cell was impressive and did a fairly good job showing a complicated mechanism. It as the cell is the designer would have to be infinitley more complicated...who or what designed it? From what I saw of Ben Stein in Expelled I've come to the conclusion that he's not an intelligent man...but he plays one on TV Expand
  25. HollyG.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    Offensive - sat through just to appease some creationist friends - now ex-friends.
  26. SteveO
    Apr 21, 2008
    10
    Let me start off by saying whether I was a Neo-Darwinist or a Christian, this documentary was still incredibly great. Not only that, but the excellent points Stein brought up. Intelligent Design is NOT the same as Creationism. Whoever thinks that is mislead. Intelligent Design simply says something "intelligent" designed the world. We didn't just come around by chance... Human life Let me start off by saying whether I was a Neo-Darwinist or a Christian, this documentary was still incredibly great. Not only that, but the excellent points Stein brought up. Intelligent Design is NOT the same as Creationism. Whoever thinks that is mislead. Intelligent Design simply says something "intelligent" designed the world. We didn't just come around by chance... Human life IS valuable. I can't even BELIEVE that people are ignorant enough to believe that human life has no value. As for the movie, it was great and i walked out moved. Congratulations to Stein for finally making a movie that explains the truth to all of those mislead, stubborn Evolutionists, Darwinists, and Neo-Darwinists. and P.S. I am a 10th grade student at Scottsdale Christian Academy... google it. Expand
  27. FrankH.
    Apr 20, 2008
    1
    Fails as both a film and as an argument. As a film: Is there an editor in the house? Some shots are held much too long, and the film drags as a whole. Where is the development, climax, denouement? They just beat on the same point over and over. Lighting, contrast, tone? Too eclectic here. Finally, the heavy-handed music is just over the top. We grew out of that after our first couple of Fails as both a film and as an argument. As a film: Is there an editor in the house? Some shots are held much too long, and the film drags as a whole. Where is the development, climax, denouement? They just beat on the same point over and over. Lighting, contrast, tone? Too eclectic here. Finally, the heavy-handed music is just over the top. We grew out of that after our first couple of assignments in film school. And the Holocaust parallels, while offensive, are simply too commonly used now in such political propaganda to have any shock value. As an argument: Let's see, if I'm an astronomer (even pre-1969, before we visited), and I claimed the moon might be made of cheese, should I have been let go from my academic position? Hmmm... maybe that would actually be a good idea... The filmmakers ought to realize that science requires data. Their argument provides no supporting data. Criticizing Darwinism doesn't translate to support for ID - the onus is on them to come up with a better argument to replace it - i.e. one that more of the data support, something they clearly fail to do. And where are the holes in Darwinism? Note to Ben Stein: simply repeating an argument without specifics doesn't make it so. Seems the biggest potential argument against Darwinism is "irreducible complexity," which has now been fundamentally discredited (see recent Nova special on the Dover trial). Another note to Ben Stein: Social Darwinism and scientific Darwinism are not the same thing, and actually have little to do with one another (one is a flawed philosophy, the other a well-supported biological framework). In the end, despite the protestations of the filmmakers, free speech is obviously not being squelched, or this movie wouldn't have been released. They simply don't understand what science is, and why ID is not science. If a "scientist" promotes an idea and fails to find/provide supporting data that's fine (happens all the time). But if that person then fails to change their argument in the absence of solid experimental evidence, they aren't really a scientist after all, and they ought to be fired or let go from their academic position. Expand
  28. EmilyO.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    Utter drivel.
  29. TonyD.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    I don't think Marc N, understands the slightest thing about science. This film regurgitates every creationist/ID canard in the book. You can't scream "SUPPRESION!" if you don't generate any actual research to suppress.
  30. ZirradW.
    Apr 21, 2008
    1
    A dishonest propaganda piece intended to aid the efforts to get creationism (rebranded as intelligent design) into our school systems. It's full of lies and mis-representations.
  31. GregJ.
    Apr 22, 2008
    0
    Bill W., you are no scientist. If you are one then why did you misspell there? If you're a scientist then you would know that you should have used their when referring to their anger. Also, Tom R. if you actually think that Dawkins thinks aliens could have created life on earth then you have been hoodwinked. Read his column in the LA Times. You'll learn a little bit more about Bill W., you are no scientist. If you are one then why did you misspell there? If you're a scientist then you would know that you should have used their when referring to their anger. Also, Tom R. if you actually think that Dawkins thinks aliens could have created life on earth then you have been hoodwinked. Read his column in the LA Times. You'll learn a little bit more about what he really thinks about aliens creating life on earth. Expand
  32. BobL.
    Apr 22, 2008
    0
    Lame propaganda insulting to the intelligence of anyone who passed and half way understood high school biology.
  33. JohnG.
    Apr 23, 2008
    0
    This film is a propaganda piece as big in scale, ambition, and lies as anything produced in WWII Germany. If I had come into it with no knowledge of the issue, I might have left convinced that Darwin was the grandmaster of the Holocaust, and that Sternberg was a hero. The film gives us an old story of conspiracy, rebellion, and heroism and it's all very appealing and very untrue. This film is a propaganda piece as big in scale, ambition, and lies as anything produced in WWII Germany. If I had come into it with no knowledge of the issue, I might have left convinced that Darwin was the grandmaster of the Holocaust, and that Sternberg was a hero. The film gives us an old story of conspiracy, rebellion, and heroism and it's all very appealing and very untrue. Sadly, people will be duped by their own sense of objectivity. Expand
  34. KathyL.
    Apr 24, 2008
    10
    It is the best movie I have seen in years. Funny, great use of video, and so full of true facts that the science community is in an uproar. They keep lowering the standards for science education hoping people won't see through the shams they present as "real science." We don't buy it!
  35. KellyW.
    Apr 28, 2008
    8
    This was an interesting movie. Regardless of which side of this debate you are on we should be able to discuss it intelligently. I was saddened by the lack of open discussion on this topic in America. The debate seems very one-sided.
  36. JoeS.
    May 10, 2008
    0
    Did they really have to sink so low as to abuse the holocaust to try and force people into following their way of thinking? This movie is insulting to anyone that watches it.
  37. nellis
    May 1, 2008
    8
    Whether or not these men were "expelled" because of their interest in ID as the movie wants us to think, I do sense a lot of resistance to open discussion about the ID theory in comparison to the theory of evolution. Both have some strengths and weaknesses. If evolutionists are so right, then why won't they debate these theories and provide evidences for their claims. Perhaps it is Whether or not these men were "expelled" because of their interest in ID as the movie wants us to think, I do sense a lot of resistance to open discussion about the ID theory in comparison to the theory of evolution. Both have some strengths and weaknesses. If evolutionists are so right, then why won't they debate these theories and provide evidences for their claims. Perhaps it is like the ID theory... there are no real evidences, just hypothesis which cannot be reproduced and tested. I guess we will never know the truth (unless ID is correct and a creator reveals it to us someday - or maybe he already has and we just don't believe it?) Expand
  38. ClarkC
    May 12, 2008
    10
    David S this movie makes you "ashamed" to be an American? grow up! The debate IS one sided and intelligent design and creationism are 2 totally different things... this movie is great and eyeopening... i think I'm going to look further into this... people, grow up and stop pushing this debate aside because it's as real as anything else.
  39. GeorgeN.
    May 12, 2008
    0
    Once again the religious right can't make a foothold in a secular society in which scientific theory is accepted for it's logic and reason.
  40. DonI.
    May 1, 2008
    8
    An admittedly biased film that very nearly does itself in early by cutting in clip footage from everything from educational films to the Wizard of Oz and The Bride Of Frankenstein in a flippant and smugly amusing fashion, the film finds it's legs halfway through and lays some very sobering and not to mention chilling facts on the table. So much so in fact that some of it's more An admittedly biased film that very nearly does itself in early by cutting in clip footage from everything from educational films to the Wizard of Oz and The Bride Of Frankenstein in a flippant and smugly amusing fashion, the film finds it's legs halfway through and lays some very sobering and not to mention chilling facts on the table. So much so in fact that some of it's more unsubstantiated claims that follow later seem quite plausible. But considering the fact that the media itself is very biased, you have to ask where else you would even hope to get a whiff of the other side of this very divisive issue. Both sides are presented, although the pro I.D. opinions are given more screen time, to be sure. Calling this a cheap Michael Moore ripoff could not be farther from the truth. Every person that claims to be Christian should see this film. It needs to be seen. Don't believe the reviews. Decide for yourself. Expand
  41. TomM.
    May 2, 2008
    8
    When belief in creation was the conventional opinion atheism was looked down on. Now that atheism seems dominant in the scientific community even entertaining intelligent design is lookied down on. Regardless of ones stance, human nature is prejudice towards those they disagree with. Nothing ever seems to change.
  42. markr
    May 2, 2008
    9
    The links Ben Stein makes between rabid (devout?) Darwinism and Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, eugenics, and abortion (Planned Parenthood) by themselves are worth viewing the movie. The analogy of the Berlin Wall is powerful indeed.
  43. bmarsh
    May 28, 2008
    10
    I think this show justs points out how liberally biased the critics on metacritc are. Michael Medved, one of the most famous movie critics of all time, and yes, a conservative, gave this movie 4 out of 5 stars, which would equate to about a 90 score on metacritic. But the HIGHEST score on metacritic is 50! Metacritic, if your business model is to appeal only to liberals then you are right I think this show justs points out how liberally biased the critics on metacritc are. Michael Medved, one of the most famous movie critics of all time, and yes, a conservative, gave this movie 4 out of 5 stars, which would equate to about a 90 score on metacritic. But the HIGHEST score on metacritic is 50! Metacritic, if your business model is to appeal only to liberals then you are right on track. Expand
  44. JimJ.
    May 4, 2008
    0
    They lied to everyone in pre-production and they are lying to everyone now. Stein should be ashamed of himself for his part in furthering the Intelligent Design (ID) agenda. This movie made dishonest references to the holocaust, misrepresented the scientific community,made false claims of persecution and did nothing but showed ID proponents to be hypocritical and academically challenged.
  45. AshleyT
    May 5, 2008
    9
    I wonder if yet anyone has looked at everyones comments and has seen how it just enforces the whole point of the movie, people get so frustrated at something that challenges what they've always been taught to believe and can't open their minds even a minuscule amount to see that the point of the movie is not to enforce a religious ideal but to promote the now a days "crazy" idea I wonder if yet anyone has looked at everyones comments and has seen how it just enforces the whole point of the movie, people get so frustrated at something that challenges what they've always been taught to believe and can't open their minds even a minuscule amount to see that the point of the movie is not to enforce a religious ideal but to promote the now a days "crazy" idea of a fair academic society where you can follow the evidence and facts to where it takes you and not have to worry about manipulating your findings to fit into the omnipotent heads of sciences "ideal". oh and David S. I'm pretty sure if you have a doctorate in the natural sciences that makes you a scientist (I know its very shocking!)...but then again unlike most of these people i can admit I may be wrong. Expand
  46. JonathanB.
    May 9, 2008
    9
    Very well-done movie. Asks a couple of good questions, and searches for their answers. It does not say "ID good, evolution bad" but rather "free inquiry good, closed inquiry bad", and points out that there is no reason to limit inquiry into subjects like evolution and the origin of life.
  47. JoshP.
    Jun 3, 2008
    10
    Amazing how pissy you guys get when you're the ones under the microscope!
  48. MattB
    Jan 22, 2009
    9
    hmm a suspiciously low metascore in my opinion. This is an extremely well put together film that presents a compelling case. Playing the Hitler card was sure to rouse many, but the evidences of Darwinian motivation are clear enough from Hitler's own writings and the question deserves to be asked. The near unanimous critical dismissal of this film seems congruous with a world that has hmm a suspiciously low metascore in my opinion. This is an extremely well put together film that presents a compelling case. Playing the Hitler card was sure to rouse many, but the evidences of Darwinian motivation are clear enough from Hitler's own writings and the question deserves to be asked. The near unanimous critical dismissal of this film seems congruous with a world that has made up its mind. How scientific is that? Freedom of thought is the only victim here. Ben Stein's laid back, sarcastic style evidently stokes the fire a little too hard, and his ominous presentation of Darwin's home doesn't do his cause any favors either. But if people can't handle someone deeply challenging (or even having a bit of fun with) the subject, religious dogmatism may just fall both sides of the fence after all. I'm in awe of how many people have called this film a 'propaganda piece'. Ridiculous. Give it a go, this is important viewing, and it's also very entertaining! Expand
  49. CharlieB
    Feb 8, 2009
    0
    This movie attempts to blame the Holocaust and WWII on the theory of evolution. Honestly, this is one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard in my life, yet it remains as the movie's main theme from the very start to the very end. Even if it were true that the theory of evolution caused WWII (which it obviously did not) that doesn't necessarily mean the theory is This movie attempts to blame the Holocaust and WWII on the theory of evolution. Honestly, this is one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard in my life, yet it remains as the movie's main theme from the very start to the very end. Even if it were true that the theory of evolution caused WWII (which it obviously did not) that doesn't necessarily mean the theory is incorrect. This is the most hardcore piece of republican propaganda I have ever seen. If you have a proper high school diploma, this movie is sure to insult your intelligence. Expand
  50. AdamJ.
    Nov 3, 2008
    9
    I can assure you that many ,if not most, of the users who gave this a zero have not even seen the movie. Stop calling it propaganda! This movie merely presents the other, largely unseen, side of an extremely one-sided debate. We are fed liberal/darwinian propaganda every time we turn on the television or walk into a classroom! I'm a college student, believe me I know. Oh, and the I can assure you that many ,if not most, of the users who gave this a zero have not even seen the movie. Stop calling it propaganda! This movie merely presents the other, largely unseen, side of an extremely one-sided debate. We are fed liberal/darwinian propaganda every time we turn on the television or walk into a classroom! I'm a college student, believe me I know. Oh, and the Stein never claims that darwinism and nazi germany are intricately connected!! He even states that that's not the case. What he does do is show what the possibilities are if the ideals propogated by evolutionary theory are followed to the letter. Now I am a Christian but I do believe that the evolutionary theory is valid, but I also believe that there is a time and a place for it. When a theory which explains slight, eventual changes to species(not actual species change) is applied to specie's origins, things just get ridiculous. Watch the movie, you'll see what I mean. Come on!! Riding on the backs of crystals?!! If that's the best that these people can come up with than I am more than happy on my side of the wall. Expand
  51. DavidF.
    Oct 17, 2008
    8
    Naturally, reviews for this film break along political lines, so all the mainstream critics hate it, along with several readers who wouldn't be caught dead seeing the film, but give it a zero nonetheless. This was a good documentary, and while slightly overreaching, exposes the hypocrisy of the "evolution only" pundits, who would rather believe we're decended from mystic Naturally, reviews for this film break along political lines, so all the mainstream critics hate it, along with several readers who wouldn't be caught dead seeing the film, but give it a zero nonetheless. This was a good documentary, and while slightly overreaching, exposes the hypocrisy of the "evolution only" pundits, who would rather believe we're decended from mystic crystals (yes, they said that) than any outside intelligence. Expand
  52. PatS
    Nov 9, 2008
    1
    Funny movie, it gets the point for stein's audacity going against his own belief to make a buck. Movies are made to make money and this movie will thanks to religious apologists who thought the Earth was flat, Burned ugly women at the stake, and sent us to war in Ira. Hitler arguement is not valid Hitler himself says hes doing God's work at the end of chapter 2 in in his Funny movie, it gets the point for stein's audacity going against his own belief to make a buck. Movies are made to make money and this movie will thanks to religious apologists who thought the Earth was flat, Burned ugly women at the stake, and sent us to war in Ira. Hitler arguement is not valid Hitler himself says hes doing God's work at the end of chapter 2 in in his sickining autobiography. I hope that someday a belief in GOd whatever form she may be is not a prerequisite for knowledge. Science is indeed in it's infancy, but relgion is old decreped and will die off when human beings refuse to be scared of death. Expand
  53. StevenC.
    Oct 21, 2008
    1
    Ben's been a Nixon speech writer, eye drop pitchman, charactor actor and now a Creationists! How very amusing... the film , itself, lacks intelligent design.
  54. CalA.
    Oct 24, 2008
    10
    Great movie...Amazing how angry and bitter the liberal media gets unless its Michael Moore spewing their views. Plain fact, this movie brings up the ONLY tolerance NOT allowed in this country anymore. You've got to see it to understand just the beginning of this problem. I'm a public school teacher and deal with this one-sided problem to often.
  55. MarcN.
    Apr 17, 2008
    9
    The Intelligent Design - NeoDarwinist debate has long been viewed as an argument between science and religion. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed takes the debate out of the marginalized places it normally appears and brings it to life on the big screen. The film exposes the NeoDarwinist lock on American academia, and how it maintains its position by systematically silencing its opponents The Intelligent Design - NeoDarwinist debate has long been viewed as an argument between science and religion. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed takes the debate out of the marginalized places it normally appears and brings it to life on the big screen. The film exposes the NeoDarwinist lock on American academia, and how it maintains its position by systematically silencing its opponents (regardless of how well-regarded they are as scientists before their unforgivable sin of recognizing that the world might, just might, look like it was designed). Exposed also demonstrates the philosophical agenda of academic Big Science -- and how utterly unprepared these scientists are to meet, head to head, in a real philosophical debate with anyone other than the 18-22-year olds they regularly see, and whose academic future they hold in their hands, in their classes. This film is an eye-opener. I have seen it twice in screenings, and once you watch it you will understand why NeoDarwinists are pulling out all the stops to keep you from seeing it. Take a stand for free speech and freedom of inquiry and catch this film this weekend. Expand
  56. JakeD.
    Apr 18, 2008
    0
    Check out the Scientific American articles on this movie (and yes I mean "movie" in the pejorative sense). Oh, and listen to the hour and a half long interview with the associate producer. Does intellectual honesty have no place in the religio-political etherworld that 30% of the nation seems to be trying to blanket the entire country with? Really, what is going through these Check out the Scientific American articles on this movie (and yes I mean "movie" in the pejorative sense). Oh, and listen to the hour and a half long interview with the associate producer. Does intellectual honesty have no place in the religio-political etherworld that 30% of the nation seems to be trying to blanket the entire country with? Really, what is going through these people's minds? To paraphrase a headline from a British newspaper, "how can 300 million people be so dumb?" Expand
  57. RobS.
    Apr 18, 2008
    0
    Contemptible and transparently mendacious trash. Ben Stein is a shameless fool.
  58. JeffS.
    Apr 19, 2008
    10
    Perhaps the most important movie this year, because it's about who we are both as human beings, as thinking beings, and as freedom loving beings.
  59. JexT.
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    Ben Stein is the funniest former Nixon lawyer and speech writer EVAH! (That's right, Tricky Dick 'I Am Not A Crook' Nixon) With a background in economics, law, and crooked politics, I can see why he feels qualified to present "Intelligent Design" (=Christian Creation myth) as Real Science. But hey! This religious propaganda packaged as comedy? Oh, what a hoot! What a Ben Stein is the funniest former Nixon lawyer and speech writer EVAH! (That's right, Tricky Dick 'I Am Not A Crook' Nixon) With a background in economics, law, and crooked politics, I can see why he feels qualified to present "Intelligent Design" (=Christian Creation myth) as Real Science. But hey! This religious propaganda packaged as comedy? Oh, what a hoot! What a knee-slapper!! High-jinks galore!!!1! (What a tool...) Expand
  60. NickJ.
    Apr 19, 2008
    1
    The only thing this movie accomplishes is reinforcing the concept that those who advocate intelligent design or creationism do it out of a perverted sense of religious indignity rather than genuine scientific pursuit. Ben Stein was the absolute wrong choice for narrator, not because of his nasally voice and annoying patterns of speech, but due to his well known bias for intelligent The only thing this movie accomplishes is reinforcing the concept that those who advocate intelligent design or creationism do it out of a perverted sense of religious indignity rather than genuine scientific pursuit. Ben Stein was the absolute wrong choice for narrator, not because of his nasally voice and annoying patterns of speech, but due to his well known bias for intelligent design. It offers no scientific argument that can hold it's own and instead seeks to demonize Darwinists to gain some cheap ground. Not to mention blatantly stealing the cell animation without proper attribution, banning PZ Meyers from the prescreening, and insinuating that Richard Dawkins believes in aliens. This movie fails as cinematography and should be seen by everyone who is still on the fence about evolution, if only to give them an idea of what ID theorists advocate. Expand
  61. KevinH.
    Apr 19, 2008
    0
    Stein's not a good enough actor to be playing this dumb. Sadly, that leaves the obvious conclusion: he has abdicated reason and made the classic ought-is mistake. Don't let him take you with him.
  62. SkepC.
    Apr 19, 2008
    1
    Marc N. says "watch it you will understand why NeoDarwinists are pulling out all the stops to keep you from seeing it." I say watch it and you will understand how intellectually bankrupt this film in particular and the creationist arguments in general are.
  63. RebeccaM.
    Apr 20, 2008
    10
    Very simple to understand, with no convoluted arguments. Uses pure logic without resorting to the dogma of religious texts.
  64. WarrenP.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    Offensive to me both as a scientist and a Jew.
  65. MattD.
    Apr 21, 2008
    10
    Extremely thoughtful and very well done.
  66. AlexN.
    Apr 20, 2008
    10
    Finally a film that speaks out against censorship of ideas. It's obvious that those who rated this a 0 never bothered to view this otherwise they would have commented on Ben Stein's premise that we are punishing those who venture to seek alternative solutions.
  67. RobE.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    A complete waste of time.
  68. JS.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    This film assumes that science is done from some kind of philosophical standpoint, and works purely from that premise. It refuses to acknowledge the thousands of researchers that have no problem reconciling a belief in the supernatural with the study of testable natural phenomena, as this would completely undermine its position. This films shows itself to be propaganda and nothing else, This film assumes that science is done from some kind of philosophical standpoint, and works purely from that premise. It refuses to acknowledge the thousands of researchers that have no problem reconciling a belief in the supernatural with the study of testable natural phenomena, as this would completely undermine its position. This films shows itself to be propaganda and nothing else, an attempt to create an artificial division for cynical purposes. Expand
  69. StevenN.
    Apr 20, 2008
    8
    Despite what the critics said this movie brought to light an important debate and insight into the world of American Science. However, the movie is far from perfect, and I feel the DVD will probably include more of each interview and more depth on the all the subjects touched in the movie. Ben Stein follows the story as an independent thinker just trying to find the answer to what is Despite what the critics said this movie brought to light an important debate and insight into the world of American Science. However, the movie is far from perfect, and I feel the DVD will probably include more of each interview and more depth on the all the subjects touched in the movie. Ben Stein follows the story as an independent thinker just trying to find the answer to what is Intelligent Design and why ID is being blacklisted from the scientific debate. What the Mr Stein discovers is that ID is not creationism, but the simple admission that when you look at the design of life, and the evidence of evolution there must be something more to explain life than chance. There must be a sort of intelligence within the creation of life. Granted there is no means to test this theory, but what this movie exposes is that the Theory of Evolution has no explanation of the origin of life either...and their personal exotic theories can not be tested and rely on as much faith as it does science. But, moving from the discussion of ID and Evolution this movie brings to light the organized nature of the scientific community and the means in which it can and DOES lock up actual scientific debate on controversial or politically incorrect theories/discussion. Although the movie does not go into the discussion of Global Climate Change the same type tactics of firing and blacklisting scientists that do not follow the consensus. Expand
  70. JaneM.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    Extraordinarily evil movie - equating evolution with the Holocaust.
  71. RobertoM.
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    Real scientists interviewed for this movie were deceived by the producers, they were told the interviewed was for "crossroads" a documentary of science and religion, and also the interviews you will see are edited to benefit the Intelligent Design movement. Not scientific, no evidences, just a bunch of religious nuts !
  72. MattB.
    Apr 21, 2008
    0
    Stein should have retired from movies after Bueller.
  73. JimD.
    Apr 22, 2008
    0
    Intelligent Design IS rooted in creationism. Google "cdesign propotentists."
  74. Fry
    Apr 20, 2008
    0
    Between dry exposition that all of established science is a grand conspiracy, quote mining, and explaining how those who follow the evidence and reject superstitious dogma are equal to Nazis; we have the highly suspect tales of victims of this shadow conspiracy. instead of addressing science you have appeals to emotion and reducto ad-hitlerum star men. Overall a horrible piece of propaganda.
  75. TomR.
    Apr 22, 2008
    8
    Pretty good. I was a bit skeptical and curious at first but now that I've seen it I think I'm starting to understand what all the fuss is about over evolution. It's definately worth while seeing. You probably will even walk away illuminated cos personally I now actually suspect this issue is more than what most people make it out to be. Design does not necessarily imply God Pretty good. I was a bit skeptical and curious at first but now that I've seen it I think I'm starting to understand what all the fuss is about over evolution. It's definately worth while seeing. You probably will even walk away illuminated cos personally I now actually suspect this issue is more than what most people make it out to be. Design does not necessarily imply God - like Dawkins comment shows (it could be alien life forms) - thus it makes sense that design is liable for consideration since the complexity shows that maybe some intelligent input was involved in nature if a natural explanation appears to be hard to come by because of the complexity of living things. I recommend it cos this will probably prompt your thinking in this area and encourage further casual research it certainly did with me and I'm seriously starting to think that this issue is not one sided as many would have me believe - there really seems to be other views that deserve to be brought up whether some like to think so or not and these ideas as far as I can tell are not so crack pot (as has been claimed) when one approaches this debate with an open mind. I'm beginning to think that bias could be clouding the judgment of those on the evolution side. That's my opinion. Could be wrong but the documentary raised some good points. Trust me this one will get you thinking. It may even keep you up at night. Expand
  76. DQS.
    Apr 22, 2008
    1
    The editing's not bad. Other than that... This is not so much a film as it is a con job on the financial backers for it. Somewhere Bialystock & Bloom are counting their money on a beach. Springtime for Creationism!
  77. TimD.
    Apr 22, 2008
    0
    Wow -- exploiting the Holocaust to make a right-wing political point? That's breathtaking! This film is a new low for the Christian Right.
  78. AaronS
    Apr 23, 2008
    0
    A worthless piece of garbage. Appalling right wing propaganda masquerading as an insightful documentary. The only insight this lame stunt provides is just how twisted the minds of the Christian Right can be. Oh the irony of the film's very title. Pathetic and the absolute worst film of 2008.
  79. BJK
    Apr 23, 2008
    0
    Pure rubbish, insulting garbage. When asked about those scientists (such as myself) who both study evolution and have strong faith, the makers of this movie said that including those people would "muddle the issue." All this movie does is create unnecessary tension between religion and science. There is no contradiction there.
  80. RegisP.
    Apr 25, 2008
    0
    The easily lead are easily mislead. Quite simply, the movie is filled with lies. Sternberg never worked for the Smithsonian, he was an unpaid Research Associate. The Smithsonian renewed his Research Collaborator status for 3 more years in 2006 (and this is expelled?). He resigned from his unpaid editor position at the PBSW 6 months before the Meyer article was published. The story is The easily lead are easily mislead. Quite simply, the movie is filled with lies. Sternberg never worked for the Smithsonian, he was an unpaid Research Associate. The Smithsonian renewed his Research Collaborator status for 3 more years in 2006 (and this is expelled?). He resigned from his unpaid editor position at the PBSW 6 months before the Meyer article was published. The story is similar for all those who were supposedly "expelled" This movie is a perfect example of lying for Christianity. Please don't accept lies just to justify a religious worldview. Expand
  81. SeanM
    Apr 25, 2008
    9
    This movie was flippant at times, but it is most certainly not a "20" as its Metacritic score currently stands. This movie challenges the media establishment. Is it any wonder they don't like it? As the movie states, "questions not fully answered, do not go away."
  82. WilliamB.
    Apr 27, 2008
    7
    Not as bad as everyone says. The point of the movie is conveyed clearly. You might not jump out of your seat but it is worth a watch.
  83. CharlesV.
    Apr 28, 2008
    0
    Pure propaganda. They link the Holocaust to evolution, and actually try to use that as a legitimate argument. That should tell you something.
  84. JayS.
    Apr 28, 2008
    0
    "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." A little reading on the Intelligent Design movement makes it painfully clear that facts have no bearing on ID. It is a political movement to "introduce Jesus," into scientific culture. A movie based on this agenda is destined to fail horribly when watched by anyone with a critical "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." A little reading on the Intelligent Design movement makes it painfully clear that facts have no bearing on ID. It is a political movement to "introduce Jesus," into scientific culture. A movie based on this agenda is destined to fail horribly when watched by anyone with a critical mind. All quotes from the founder of Intelligent Design, Phillip E Johnson. Expand
  85. DavidS.
    Apr 29, 2008
    0
    The idea that these "scientists" were "expelled" for pursuing research in intelligent design is not just inaccurate, it is a fabrication. The degree of dishonesty that religious fundamentalists will go through in order to brainwash people into believing what they want them to believe is nothing short of astonishing. If we allow these zealots to infiltrate our scientific institutions, then The idea that these "scientists" were "expelled" for pursuing research in intelligent design is not just inaccurate, it is a fabrication. The degree of dishonesty that religious fundamentalists will go through in order to brainwash people into believing what they want them to believe is nothing short of astonishing. If we allow these zealots to infiltrate our scientific institutions, then we have all but relegated the United States back into the dark ages while the rest of the developed nations become the new leaders in scientific study. It makes me ashamed to be an American. Expand
  86. KatherineK.
    Apr 30, 2008
    9
    My family works in this area of academic science, and it's all true. It's been frustrating as a scientist to see the facts being pushed aside. I'm glad someone was brave enough to make it public.
  87. SalS.
    May 11, 2008
    0
    According to Ben Stein, evolution is exactly like the holocaust, and he uses some nice shots of the Dachau cramatoria to drive that point home. Classy.
  88. ZorgonM.
    May 15, 2008
    1
    The religious right in the US is trying to co-opt the vocabulary of liberalism and science to promote their agenda. This is not a film, as many reviewers have posted, that is about freedom. It
  89. JamesM.
    May 21, 2008
    8
    I thought this movie was better produced than I ever would have guessed going in, and handled itself well. Kept me interested throughout, and raised some great questions. The last five minutes are priceless: listening to Dawkins explain that as long as an alien is the hand behind evolution, and not God, that he can buy in.
  90. RN.
    May 2, 2008
    0
    Let's see...who to believe? On one hand we have: A Nixon speech writer and apologist (no dishonesty there), game show host, flailing economist, unfunny comedian, turncoat Jew misappropriating the Holocaust along with his systematically dishonest producers who are marketing trumped up and deceitful charges of "expulsion" and conspiracy to an utterly ignorant audience of Let's see...who to believe? On one hand we have: A Nixon speech writer and apologist (no dishonesty there), game show host, flailing economist, unfunny comedian, turncoat Jew misappropriating the Holocaust along with his systematically dishonest producers who are marketing trumped up and deceitful charges of "expulsion" and conspiracy to an utterly ignorant audience of fundamentalist sheep. On the other hand: 99.99% of the world's scientists (agnostic, atheistic and piously religious) who have spent the majority of their lives pursuing the truth and beauty around them and sharing that knowledge with each other and the world. If there existed a word whose meaning was viler than vile, it would most definitely apply to this so-called "documentary" and no other. What an obscene, insulting waste of my time and $7. Expand
  91. LoriG.
    May 23, 2008
    1
    So I take it Yesman that you'd give high marks to Leni Riefenstahl's films even though they were blatant Nazi propaganda (though well edited, shot, written, etc.)? For me the message is part of the overall package. If it doesn't entertain or inform, but rather obfuscates, it's a bad film. So 9s and 10s, this is about free speech (not evolution)? What gave you the idea So I take it Yesman that you'd give high marks to Leni Riefenstahl's films even though they were blatant Nazi propaganda (though well edited, shot, written, etc.)? For me the message is part of the overall package. If it doesn't entertain or inform, but rather obfuscates, it's a bad film. So 9s and 10s, this is about free speech (not evolution)? What gave you the idea we have free speech in this country? There are words you can't say on TV. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't say libelous things. Speech is free in its appropriate context, and rightfully so. Who's preventing the filmmakers from releasing this film? Or you from commenting about it? I don't imagine it will be used in a biology class, though, except to point out the inanity of the non-scientific opinion. (But I can certainly anticipate that many right-wing churches will buy hundreds of copies of the DVD to indoctrinate their children). A scientist who continues to espouse an unsupported view SHOULD be fired, let go, denied tenure, or in the case of some of the "injured" interviewees in this film, simply not have their volunteer status renewed. Just as someone teaching a comparative religion class who continued to insist that there was no creation story in Christian religions, despite any historical or literary evidence, should be let go. That's not stifling free speech, that simply framing the view correctly in its context. And to those who argue that ID is not creationism (another point this film adds confusion to), you're right. They're not exactly the same thing. They're simply very nearly the same thing. ID is just a straightforward extension of creationism (and the term was substituted for "creationism" in the IDers own literature, so even they thought of them as remarkably similar). So, it could be space aliens in addition to "God"? Then where is your evidence for space aliens, or flying spaghetti monsters, etc.? ID is fundamentally similar to creationism in that it is a religious point of view (i.e. relies on belief, not hard data). It is therefore not science, and doesn't belong in the context of a science class. Period. This movie sheds no new light (data) on that view and therefore doesn't have a leg to stand on. Therefore a "1" from my perspective (yeah, at least they tried - probably not the cameraman's fault this is a fundamentally flawed piece of tripe). Expand
  92. MarkG
    May 6, 2008
    3
    Stupid film. Biased and one-sided. This is a response to the pop-science broadsides aimed at Religion in recent times, and to be honest they're just as bad. Neither side has any will to understand the other and open their eyes to the SCREAMINGLY obvious fact that Science and Religion serve completely different roles in society and the psyche. It's a never ending point scoring Stupid film. Biased and one-sided. This is a response to the pop-science broadsides aimed at Religion in recent times, and to be honest they're just as bad. Neither side has any will to understand the other and open their eyes to the SCREAMINGLY obvious fact that Science and Religion serve completely different roles in society and the psyche. It's a never ending point scoring exercise and it's never been more exasperating than it is now, at least to people who have grown up. Expand
  93. AndrewP.
    Jun 2, 2008
    8
    Not an easy film to watch, but important. And Stein is quite correct; it's hard to understand why so many people cannot see it. One does not have to agree with ID's claims to see that free inquiry is widely squelched. The emotions this brings out (evidenced by, for example, the people who give the film a "0" rating) leave me scratching my head.
  94. AlexT.
    Jun 27, 2008
    0
    I love the use of the term "liberal" to refer to anyone who takes umbrage with the anti-academic crusade of the Christian fundamentalists who made this schlock. If academic discourse, critical thought, and intellectual nuance are left wing, then you can start making my uniform for Team Liberal today.
  95. ScottL
    Oct 19, 2009
    1
    Stein completely lost the plot here within the first 30 minutes. Once he went from a rather interpreting and well-thought out discussion of I.D. versus Darwinian evolution to attacking the scientific community the "documentary" lost all credibility. Intelligent design is not science, it cannot be tested even if there was a hypothesis in there to test. I sure wouldn't want my tuition Stein completely lost the plot here within the first 30 minutes. Once he went from a rather interpreting and well-thought out discussion of I.D. versus Darwinian evolution to attacking the scientific community the "documentary" lost all credibility. Intelligent design is not science, it cannot be tested even if there was a hypothesis in there to test. I sure wouldn't want my tuition and taxes going to grants to pay for these academics' experiments. Stein raised some good points then dropped them before really getting to the point where there's enough meat for people digest. Skip this if you're looking for a balanced discussion of the ID/Darwin debate. Expand
  96. carlj
    Feb 10, 2009
    0
    Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away two of the wrong answers. Now you are faced with two choices: (A) Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or (B) Intelligent Design. Because this is a special edition of the program, you can use a Hotline to telephone every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer (A). A million bucks hangs in the balance. The clock is ticking. You could use the money. Which do you choose? You, a firm believer in the Constitution, are not intimidated and exercise your freedom of speech. You choose (B). Squaaawk!!! The klaxon horn sounds. You have lost. Outraged, you file suit against the program, charging it is biased and has denied a hearing for your belief. Your suit argues that the "correct" answer was chosen because of a prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, despite the fact that .025 of one percent of all scientists support it. You call for (B) to be discussed in schools as an alternative theory to (A). Your rights have been violated. You're at wit's end. You think perhaps the field of Indie Documentaries offers you hope. You accept a position at the Institute of Undocumented Documentaries in Dallas, Texas. This Institute teaches that the rules of the "$64,000 Question" are the only valid game show rules. All later game shows must follow them literally. The "$64,000 Question" came into existence in 1955. False evidence for earlier game shows has been refuted by scientists at the Institute. Expand
  97. JeffC
    Aug 7, 2009
    0
    I just love these comments from religious zealots thinking that the media has some kind of conspiracy against intelligent design. Let me take a moment and describe what you're arguing here. Intelligent design is simply not science. It is not testable. You can't do an experiment to test for the presence of God, or some designer of the universe. The idea is laughable. Also, this I just love these comments from religious zealots thinking that the media has some kind of conspiracy against intelligent design. Let me take a moment and describe what you're arguing here. Intelligent design is simply not science. It is not testable. You can't do an experiment to test for the presence of God, or some designer of the universe. The idea is laughable. Also, this is not some squelching of free speech. Science doesn't care about opinions, it cares about what is TRUE. This argument is the same as saying "I think that grasshoppers make rainbows happen. You should teach this theory too, it's only fair." And now you wonder why a scientist would get fired for such a thing. It's not a conspiracy, it's a weak theory that ruins the scientific credibility of anyone that supports it. All of intelligent design is an attempt to include religion in the science classroom. Don't believe me? Name me one supporter of intelligent design that isn't a Christian. Anyone that supports this crackpot theory is biased by faith and has absolutely no interest in what is actually true or not. Expand
  98. SteveS.
    Oct 17, 2008
    9
    To everyone who feels that "Expelled" was wrong in connecting Darwinism with the Holocaust, read Hitler's biography "Mein Kampf" - a book filled with evolutionary racism. Hitler was trying to hurry human evolution along to his so-called master race. And today's most outspoken evolutionist - Richard Dawkins (seen in the film "Expelled") - has said this regarding Hitler:
  99. JimP.
    Dec 1, 2008
    10
    The fact that this got such low ratings from the "critics" proves the point of the movie. This documentary succeeds in being entertaining, it is well produced, and it asks a number of thought provoking questions. For anyone that loves to think, there is absolutely zero reason to give it a negative rating, UNLESS you are closed minded and see this as some sort of threat to the religion of The fact that this got such low ratings from the "critics" proves the point of the movie. This documentary succeeds in being entertaining, it is well produced, and it asks a number of thought provoking questions. For anyone that loves to think, there is absolutely zero reason to give it a negative rating, UNLESS you are closed minded and see this as some sort of threat to the religion of Darwinian evolution. The bottom line is that discussion has always brought humans to a higher understanding of issues. In the past it was sometimes the church vs science, today it appears that science has become a religion and it is just as filled with propaganda and attempts to silence opposition as any cult. Darwinian evolution has some serious flaws. It doesn't mean that it doesn't have some things right, but just as our understanding of physics has changed drastically over the years from newton, to einstein, to Planck, to string theory it has evolved with the times. Darwinism has not, and we owe it to ourselves to have an open discussion. Slamming and crushing dissent doesn't help anyone, and those who aid and abet in this do a disservice to our quest for knowledge. This isn't about religion, this is about real questions that aren't being answered because there are those in the debate that WON'T Debate. Expand
  100. AlexM.
    Dec 26, 2008
    1
    Funny how people suggest that Darwinism is a religion. It's not a religion...it's a scientific theory that has ample evidence to support it, and although it may be incorrect, it is generally viewed as one of the most likely explanations of our existence. You can believe in Darwin's theory and still believe in God...they are not mutually exclusive. But attackers of Darwinism Funny how people suggest that Darwinism is a religion. It's not a religion...it's a scientific theory that has ample evidence to support it, and although it may be incorrect, it is generally viewed as one of the most likely explanations of our existence. You can believe in Darwin's theory and still believe in God...they are not mutually exclusive. But attackers of Darwinism say that it's followers are as close-minded as religious zealots. Well, maybe so, but if that's the case, is gravity a religion? Newton's Laws are still only theories...I guess everyone who refuses to jump off a cliff for fear of falling is a Gravity Fundamentalist. Expand
Metascore
20

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 13 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 13
  2. Negative: 11 out of 13
  1. Reviewed by: Justin Chang
    50
    While roving interviewer Ben Stein extracts some choice soundbites from scientists on both sides of the creation-vs.-evolution debate, the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals.
  2. Reviewed by: Vadim Rizov
    30
    Bizarre and hysterical.
  3. Reviewed by: Adam Markovitz
    25
    Regardless of your personal views, Expelled's heavy-handed bias (a visit to Darwin's home gets the same eerie music as a tour of Dachau) is exasperating.