Creationist Production Company Behind “Expelled” Goes Bankrupt
Posted by mattusmaximus on June 15, 2011
You may recall that a few years ago, there was a major “documentary” (and I use that word in its loosest possible sense) released about creationism and evolution ironically titled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. The movie starred actor Ben Stein, who in my view totally jumped the shark by attaching himself to this film, and argued – among other things – that Darwin’s theory of evolution was responsible for Nazism and the Holocaust. The implication was, of course, that modern proponents of evolutionary science are somehow the moral descendents of Hitler and the Nazis – nice… I’ve heard of Godwinning an argument, but having an entire frakkin’ movie dedicated to a Godwin is a first.
Of course, this film was nothing short of a creationist oriented propaganda hit-piece against evolution, long on paranoid conspiracy mongering and short on pretty much anything factual. (**Aside: for more info on the myriad flaws in this movie, see the Expelled Exposed website)
I recall that at the time numerous creationist outlets (most notably the Discovery Institute) were feverishly promoting the movie, claiming that it was going to be another “death knell for evolution”.
Well, two things are now clear: evolutionary science is still very much alive and kicking, and the legacy of Expelled and those behind it is looking rather grim. That’s because the production company behind the film, Premise Media, is going bankrupt. Here’s more news on this…
Sad legacy for Ben Stein’s failed creationist screed
The production company behind Ben Stein’s shaggy god story ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ has a sequel to its intellectual bankruptcy: financial bankruptcy. Premise Media has filed for Chapter 7 and is selling off any asset it can find. The fact that somebody still thinks this movie is an asset could be a clue to what went wrong. Survival of the fittest is a bitch for the unfit.
Critics far and wide trashed the film, with Time magazine stating that he “makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution,” and the New York Times (Stein’s former employer) calling the film “one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time…a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.”
But what really drew the ire of critics and scientists was Stein’s claim that Darwin’s theory of natural selection could be the cause of “euthanasia, abortion, eugenics and—wait for it—Nazism,” according to Time. But perhaps the most notorious pan came from noted film critic Roger Ebert:
“Stein…takes a field trip to visit one ‘result’ of Darwinism: Nazi concentration camps. ‘As a Jew,’ he says, ‘I wanted to see for myself.’ We see footage of gaunt, skeletal prisoners. Pathetic children. A mound of naked Jewish corpses. ‘It’s difficult to describe how it felt to walk through such a haunting place,’ he says. Oh, go ahead, Ben Stein. Describe. It filled you with hatred for Charles Darwin and his followers, who represent the overwhelming majority of educated people in every nation on earth. It is not difficult for me to describe how you made me feel by exploiting the deaths of millions of Jews in support of your argument for a peripheral Christian belief. It fills me with contempt.”
But, if I know anything about the mindset of some of these creationist organizations, they’ll find a way to rationalize their spectacular failure. My guess is, in keeping with their conspiracy-minded worldview, their rationalization will somehow involve blaming “Darwinists” for the company’s downfall. In short, they’ll go back to their old standby:
The Skeptical Teacher 
DataJack said
Freaking wonderful news! Another win for the reality based community.
Craig said
Did you watch this movie? The Nazi issue was really a sidebar presented at the end – not the main point of the film- but it was obviously the most offensive to viewers and should have been left out. The film was actually intended to show how unwilling the academic world is to allow any skepticism or criticism of evolution. If you don’t believe without doubt, you are a kook and a moron and “expelled” from academia. I would say your own attitudes toward creationists certainly support this notion.
mattusmaximus said
Yes, I did see it.
And if whining about creationists being “expelled” is the best you’ve got, Craig, it is no wonder the scientific community doesn’t take folks like you seriously. There are plenty of scientists who are making real, substantive critiques of various aspects of evolutionary science. You just choose to ignore this fact because those same scientists don’t conclude that “creationism is true!”
Try doing some real science sometime, as opposed to hanging yourself up on a cross in an attempt to martyr yourselves – that’s my advice to you and your creationist ilk.
Craig said
I don’t think my comment should be characterized as whining – I was just commenting on the intended message of the film – I don’t see how that warrants your ridicule. I didn’t make the film.
To answer your accusations, I have never ignored the fact that there are scientists making critiques of evolutionary science – although I would like to know what or who determines if they are “real, substantive critiques.” Does this mean criticism is accepted as long as it assumes the basic premise of evolution and stops short of believing in a creator?
My own criticisms of evolution have more to do with improper application of the scientific method and skipping of logical steps to arrive at conclusions prematurely than they have to do with religion. Belief in evolution and belief in a creator are not necessarily incompatible in my mind.
Also, please tell me what you consider “real science?” I have a bachelors degree in Physics, a masters in Industrial Engineering, and I am currently employed as an analyst, using mathematics, logic, and deductive reasoning to solve problems. I don’t spend much time hanging on crosses.
mattusmaximus said
Craig said:
Some of the real, substantive critiques of the mechanisms of evolutionary science (specifically, criticism of natural selection and gradualism) include ideas such as horizontal gene transfer. HGT has become a credible criticism of (though perhaps not a complete replacement of) natural selection as the sole mechanism in evolutionary processes. In fact, there is a strong and robust debate within the biological sciences on the role of HGT and what it means for evolution in general – more info here. My guess is that this is the first time that you’ve even heard of this, but that wouldn’t surprise me as most creationists are so hung up on Darwin that they’ve essentially ignored how biology and evolutionary science have developed over the last century – this is one reason why scientists scoff at creationists: because they are still having long-settled arguments from the 19th century while scientists are having 21st century arguments.
Craig said:
Ah, the creationists’ false dichotomy, once again: “accepting evolution means you cannot believe in God”. Of course, you neglect the fact that accepting the scientific premises of evolution in no way, shape, or form prevents someone from believing in God (or “a creator”). The fact that there are numerous prominent evolutionary scientists who are harsh critics of creationism, yet who are also deeply religious, is evidence that your false dichotomy (which is, btw, the same false dichotomy implied in “Expelled”) is without merit. Some examples of such scientists include Francis Collins (an evangelical Christian) and Ken Miller (a Catholic). Also, I personally know a good number of people who both believe in God but who also accept all of the premises of evolutionary science. Again, the fact that these people exist shows just how vacuous your arguments are.
Craig said:
I have to say that your criticisms of evolution are woefully inadequate, because you don’t even know about things like HGT, for instance. Try actually reading up on the science, then try critiquing it. Otherwise, you just look like an uninformed fool.
And, for the record, I don’t think acceptance of evolution and belief in a god are necessarily incompatible. I know plenty of people who have made the two work: for instance, I know many people who believe that God created through the process of evolution as outlined by Darwin. What makes their particular religious belief any less true than your particular religious belief?
Craig said:
Specifically, I meant peer-reviewed scientific research, in particular in the biological sciences. You may know physics, you may be able to do math, but that doesn’t mean you know squat about evolutionary science (which is obvious based upon your general lack of knowledge on the topic).
As for hanging on crosses, I shared your comment this morning with a very religious friend of mine, and he thought my response was highly appropriate. He and other religious people I show your comments to are actually quite offended by your (and other creationists’) attempts to use your religious beliefs as a way to infiltrate science. In fact, they are particularly offended when folks like you get called out on your attempts to infiltrate science and subsequently start moaning on and on about how “you’re being discriminated against because of your religious beliefs and those big, mean, atheistic scientists just cannot handle the Truth.” In short, stuff like the “Expelled” film pisses them off, because it not only misrepresents and distorts science but they believe it is an insult to their religious beliefs as well.
If you cannot handle my criticism (and that of my religious friends, whose criticism I’ve often incorporated into these replies), then I suggest not posting here anymore. Otherwise, man up, post away, and be ready for criticism.
Craig said
I do not accept your criticism, because it is full of straw men and false assumptions about me. You are arguing against things I have never said, and accusing me of a level of ignorance that is not accurate. If you could keep from reading so much into what I say, we might be able to have an intelligent and civil debate.
mattusmaximus said
Craig said:
This is pretty much the problem with arguing with creationists (and pseudoscientists in general): they simply do not accept criticism. I have been in numerous venues over the years – on message boards, on blogs, at public lectures, debates, etc – with creationists, and one of the common themes is that they pretty much universally dismiss any and all criticism. Unfortunately, one cannot expect to simply ignore criticism and then turn around and take part in the scientific process. Criticism is a critical part of the scientific process, and over the last 150+ years it has become pretty clear that evolutionary science can stand up to the criticism whereas creationism (and its proponents) simply “do not accept the criticism” yet, hypocritically, they expect to have their ideas be given scientific validity.
And creationists wonder why scientists get so frustrated with them…
Craig said
You’re kidding me right? You are taking these 6 words completely out of context, and making false assumptions about me again – as if no one reading this blog will notice what my actual comment says directly above. I would be happy to address your criticisms if any of them actually applied to me.
mattusmaximus said
My guess is that you’ll “refuse to accept” this criticism as well…
Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution
Guess the ‘Darwinists’ got to him, too!
Craig said
Again, you haven’t been listening. I clearly said “Belief in evolution and belief in a creator are not necessarily incompatible in my mind. ” You’re still arguing against someone else.
mattusmaximus said
I notice you didn’t bother to respond to the actual substance of the article which stated that Christianity requires acceptance of evolution. Especially since this article seems to be completely at odds with the entire premise of ‘Expelled’ – a premise which, by your numerous comments on this blog over the years, you seem to agree with: that religious believers “are not welcome” in science and academia. Nice dodge, Craig.
Please, continue moaning about how awful it is to be a Christian in the scientific community. I await your crocodile tears…
Craig said
I read the article – according to your own definition above, this is not “real science.” Since this article is in the realm of philosophy, it should suffice for me to say, “I disagree.” Do you want to discuss what it takes to be a Christian, or do you want to talk about science?
mattusmaximus said
I’d like to see you defend your view of creationism versus the theistic evolution outlined in the article. This would force you to go beyond the standard boilerplate of the ‘Expelled’ propaganda machine: that it’s good, honest religious folk against those evil, nasty atheistic scientists. You now have to respond to a religious critic (another evangelical Christian, no less!), and – sorry – “I disagree” won’t cut it. WHY don’t you agree?
You seem more interested in philosophy than science anyway, seeing as how you have pretty much ignored all of the scientific evidence I’ve posted over the years regarding evolution. Specifically, I recall how I posted all the info from Talk Origins which you summarily misrepresented (I believe you stated that those pages didn’t contain any tests of evolution – they did… numerous numerous experimental tests which outlined the specific hypotheses being tested. And look – here are more tests!) and you just keep spewing nonsense about how “the science doesn’t support evolution”. Never mind the nagging fact that we use the predictive science of evolution all the time when making new vaccines and antibiotics, and let’s not even get started on the various agricultural applications of evolutionary science – for example, all of the research outlined at this link. Evolution clearly works, yet you continue to maintain standard creationist talking points like “oh, that’s just microevolution” and similar balderdash.
If you seriously maintain that evolution isn’t supported by science, then I suggest you stop taking modern drugs and eating modern foods which were developed as a result of evolutionary science. Which brings me to an interesting question: exactly what sort of real-world applications and technologies has creationism/ID led to?
Oh yeah, that’s right – you don’t want to talk about creationism/ID as science, because you know that you cannot possibly defend it as science (I don’t blame you – it’s embarrassing to even try). You just want to play the usual creationist game of attempting to spin lies and cast dispersions on well-established and useful evolutionary science because you think that if people start to question evolution (are deceived into questioning it, is more accurate) that they’ll go with door #2: Jesus!
But then you run into a big problem when someone from your religious camp criticizes you for that very action. And then you dodge, running away from such criticism.
Can’t say I’m surprised, Craig. I’ve seen all of this behavior before from creationists, and sadly you are no different in this regard.
Craig said
I would not argue that religious believers are not welcome in academia – merely anyone who does not agree with the “consensus,” for whatever reason. Before you bring up your point about HGT again (which I am familiar with btw), I am not saying that minor criticisms are not welcome or debate about aspects of the process – but that the general concept of evolution is untouchable.
I have said on numerous occasions that my beef with evolution is not a matter of religion – and for the record I would not call myself a “religious” person (this could be an entire discussion in itself).
You tend to view people as one dimensional, which leads you to premature conclusions about them. To date, I have never met anyone without at least 4 dimensions.
Craig said
btw – I do not believe consensus has a place in science. I want to see something akin to a mathematical proof – if x then y then z – rock solid. Maybe this and maybe that doesn’t cut it for me.
mattusmaximus said
Another artful dodge, Craig. Try responding to my most recent criticism above. Or claim, once again, that you “don’t accept my criticism.” I suppose I can understand ignoring the criticism from an atheist, but from a fellow evangelical Christian? That’s poor form.
Btw, if you knew anything about science and how it worked, you would know that a mathematical proof is not the same thing as experimental evidence. Oops, that’s another one of my criticisms that you “won’t accept”.
Craig said
I understand experimental evidence – but more often than not, experimental evidence in inconclusive. It may seem to support the hypothesis, but supporting and proving are two different things. The same evidence may support more than one hypothesis. Generally, experimental evidence may prove a very small piece of a puzzle, and it takes many of these pieces to finish the puzzle. Science today still has a lot of pieces missing in a lot of puzzles that we are already declaring to be complete.
mattusmaximus said
Once again, this is another standard tactic employed by creationists: “the science on evolution isn’t settled, it is inconclusive” – bullshit.
This is total and complete bullshit, and it is a cynical ploy to play off of misconceptions about the science of evolution in order to unduly cast doubt on it. For example, what Craig said above is just a variation of the “evolution is just a theory, it hasn’t been proven” talking point. Here is why this is just a vacuous argument – of course, Craig won’t stop to address the argument. He’ll use my frustrated tone as an excuse to cry “Boo-hoo, you’re being so mean to me!” and run away, implying that because I’m such a big meanie that I must therefore be incorrect. Well, can’t help fools.
Incidentally, for something that it “just a theory”, evolution has done a pretty damn good job of providing useful applications to our everyday lives: allowing us to make modern vaccines and antibiotics, myriad agricultural applications, and ecological conservation. Not bad for “just a theory”, eh?
Craig said
I also think you have a greatly distorted view off Christianity in general. Do you realize that there are as many different definitions of Christianity as there are types of sandwiches? Not everyone who professes to be a Christian is of the same “camp.” Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not mean he and I have to agree on what a person “must” believe or not believe to be a “real Christian”
I must also say that I do not think casting aspersions on science would be a viable method for evangelism, and I have never tried using this approach.
mattusmaximus said
I know about the different varieties of Christianity (I am an informal student of religion & philosophy, having studied it so much that if I did so formally I’d have degrees in both by now). I also know about the many different forms of Christian creationism – of which there are at least ten different kinds, most of which do not agree with each other.
What I find ironic is that many creationists keep going on about how we need to criticize evolution and have open discussion, yet when I point out that there are other Christians criticizing your stance on evolution – and doing so from a religious viewpoint – you clam up. Suddenly you “just disagree” – what happened to criticism? What happened to debate? Why don’t you outline WHY it is that you are disagreeing with the writer of the Huffington Post article I posted? WHY don’t you agree with religious scientists such as Francis Collins and Ken Miller when they state, unequivocally, that evolution is solid science? WHY do you not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, Craig? Do you ever even bother to have these arguments with your fellow Christians?
And, again, “I just disagree” is a cop-out and an appeal to intellectual laziness.
And, for the record, you might be surprised to know the number of Christians I have as friends who are close to me. And you might also be equally surprised to know of the variety of beliefs among those same folk – it is definitely interesting. How many atheist friends do you have?
Craig said
Matt – this will be my last post on this thread, because I cannot handle your ADD style of debate. I have been trying to keep my responses brief to stay on point, but you continue to raise accusations, insults, and ridiculous assumptions; and I simply do not have time to respond to them all.
I do have atheist friends, as well as agnostic, buddhist, and hindu (there may be others, but these come to mind rather quickly). None of them treat me with the disdain that you do. We have conversations about our differences often. The next time you are in BG on a Saturday night, you are welcome to come to our fellowship and see exactly what I mean.
If you really want all the details of what I believe about God and the Bible and why, I would be happy to share this with you, but I will not boil it down to a post on a blog. When I give a short answer you blow it out of proportion, and there is no point in me giving you more fuel for your mockery just because you demand it. I came here to make a simple comment about a film and the message it intended to convey (not my message but the message of the film).
Call this another cop-out if you must – I’m out for now.
mattusmaximus said
I have treated you harshly Craig, but that is because for the last couple of years you have come to this blog, repeatedly, and made these inane posts on my articles concerning evolution. You first demanded to see the experimental evidence in support of evolution, and I showed you a vast wealth of well-confirmed evidence… and you subsequently move the goalposts and say “that’s not enough.”
Then you fall back on implications that creationists are ‘expelled’ from academia unjustly, spinning the usual conspiracy mongering garbage espoused by many creationists when they are backed into a corner. Then, when I hit you with a lot of tough questions, you respond: “I do not accept your criticism.” Your repeated attempts to refuse to discuss the issue in an honest manner (by ignoring and misrepresenting the science of evolution) and your constant attitude of playing the victim has grown tiresome. I have not the patience for it any longer, so if you ever return you had better be prepared for more of the same.
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Phil said
Mattusmaximus, Do you believe that God created the heavens and the earth? Do you believe that God created man and breathed the breath of life into his lungs (not from a slime pit)? Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God who came to earth through a miracle birth? Do you believe that God sent His Son Jesus to die on a cross for our sins and God raised Him back to life? Do you believe that Jesus ascended to heaven and is now seated at the right hand of God?
Just wondering.
If you are BOLD enough, a simple yes or no answer to each question is sufficient. Anything more, or less, to me, represents weakness and insecurity.
Evolutionist don’t want creation taught in schools, mentioned in government, recognized in museums and on and on. When creation is brought up, most evolutionist become angry and insist that creation is wrong. Why is that? Creation = Creator, maybe that is why evolutionist are looked at as not believing in a God.
You mentioned that the movie was “creationist oriented propaganda hit-piece against evolution” It’s a free country, creationist can make movies just like you have the freedom for this one sided blog. How come the evolutionist can create propaganda against creationist and creationist are expected to lay down and die? In my opinion, evolutionist are the ones that cry when someone defends creation.
It seems to me that the only way you seem to “defend” yourself is with attacks and threats. Can you REALLY explain the way the universe was created? Where you there? So, what if there was a big bang? Who made it happen? Was it caused by an other universe? Where did that come from? Where did God come from? I don’t know either, perhaps we can ask God when we see him. No one can fathom the mystery of God and His creation. I believe that God set things in motion from the beginning of time when He said “let there be light”. And I believe that he created humans, “In the image of God”, I don’t believe that the human race came from slime in a pond… well, some humans have, but that is another topic. Well, time to move on, I have wasted enough of my evolutionary life writing this comment… hey look, I can’t move my little toe, I must be evolving back into a Tiktaalik roseae. Now, go ahead, unleash all of your attacks. By the way… I don’t recall doors being on blog sights. Maybe they haven’t evolved yet.
mattusmaximus said
Welcome to the blog, Phil.
Phil said:
The answer to all of the above questions is “no”.
As I’ve mentioned on this blog many times before, I am an atheist. To be more specific, I am an atheistic agnostic: I see no evidence for the existence of God (assuming “God” means the standard monotheistic god of the Abrahamic religions) so my default setting is that I don’t believe in that god. This is the same reasoning process as regards my position on the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. Now, if you define “God” some other way, then that changes the question and we have to get into a deeper philosophical discussion.
Bold enough for you?
Phil said:
First of all, creationism can be taught in public schools, so long as it is in the proper context, such as in a philosophy or comparative religion class (that’s what the school where I teach does, and I have no problem with it). The problem is when creationists want it taught as science, because it isn’t science (or, at best, it is a very old, outdated, and spectacularly failed science). If we are going to “teach all views” in science class and thus allow creationism in the door there, why not astrology in earth science/astronomy class or various New Age beliefs in physics class? Would you be comfortable with Islamic creationism being taught in biology classes? What about having Scientology taught in psychology courses? The list goes on…
And, as I’ve stated many times before, folks like you are creating a false dichotomy when you imply that those who accept evolution must reject a belief in God. Just because I, for philosophical reasons, don’t believe in God and also accept evolutionary science doesn’t mean that others who do believe in God cannot accept evolutionary science. I have numerous friends, from a variety of Christian and non-Christian religious backgrounds, who accept all aspects of modern evolutionary science. The mere fact that these people exist proves your assertion to be a falsehood.
Incidentally, when you speak of “creationism”, which version of creationism are you referencing? Did you know that even within Christian beliefs there are almost a dozen different forms of creationism, most of which do not agree with each other? Why is it that these various interpretations of Christian creationism exist, and if more than one claim absolute Biblical truth (which many do) then how do you determine the correct version? Take a look at my blog post – “Creationism Is True!” — Okay, Which Version of Creationism? – on this for more details.
Phil said:
As you said, it is a free country. You are free to make a movie which doesn’t fit with the facts of science and history, and I’m free to criticize it. If you don’t like the criticism, too bad. You could always move to a country where they don’t have freedom of speech if you don’t want people criticizing you.
Phil said:
My serious response to your questions is this: no, I cannot explain exactly how the universe came into being, because I wasn’t there. But then, neither were you. So that line of argumentation is a wash.
As for your other questions regarding the big bang, there are a lot of ideas floating around in the scientific realm on these questions, but we don’t have an answer yet. Incidentally, I have done a blog post on these and related topics titled Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? Science May Now Have An Answer.
My facetious response to your questions is to say that a Flying Spaghetti Monster did it all. Go on, prove me wrong 😉
Help TalkOrigins Bid for the Rights to “Expelled” « The Skeptical Teacher said
[…] of the Loch Ness Monster? Hardly…Know Nukes: The Japanese Earthquake & Anti-Nuclear HysteriaCreationist Production Company Behind "Expelled" Goes BankruptA Skeptical Investigation of the Montana Vortex & House of MysteryTextbook stickers for all your […]
Mark said
I am new to your site and therefore do not have the background knowledge to assess your stance very well, however your comments on this issue seem to be ironically what this movie was trying to reveal. I found this by looking for discussion on the movie news. So far I am not finding many discussions on the intellectual freedom issue.
[…]The implication was, of course, that modern proponents of evolutionary science are somehow the moral descendents of Hitler and the Nazis – nice… I’ve heard of Godwinning an argument, but having an entire frakkin’ movie dedicated to a Godwin is a first.[…] This was certainly not what the movie was about.
[…]I recall that at the time numerous creationist outlets (most notably the Discovery Institute) were feverishly promoting the movie, claiming that it was going to be another “death knell for evolution”.[…] Using Discovery Institute as your lone example of a creationist outlet is either a purposeful misdirection or revealing that you are simply unaware of anything about the organization. It is perfectly fine to disagree with what they do stand for, but dismissing them with an incorrect label is not very intellectually stimulating.