Clips
	Opening Credits http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jmhbbnu/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_opening_credits/ ____________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jbbnuh2mm/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_opening_credits_part_2
	Ben Stein Interviews Richard Dawkins Interview. YouTube: http://youtu.be/GlZtEjtlirc _____________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7juJ4bnhbJmm/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_interview/ Hello, professor dawkins. How are you? I'm ben stein, i'm so sorry to keep you waiting. how are you? fine, thank you. You have-- you have written That god is a psychotic delinquent Invented by mad, deluded people. No, I didn't say quite that. I said something rather better than that. Oh, well, please tell us what you said. Well, I would have to read it from the book. No, please. "the god of the old testament "is arguably the most unpleasant character "in all fiction-- "jealous and proud of it, "a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, "a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, "a misogynistic, homophobic, "racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, "pestilential, megalomaniacal, "sadomasochistic, Capriciously malevolent bully." so that's what you think of god. yeah. How about if people believed in a god Of infinite lovingness and kindness And forgiveness and generosity, Sort of like the modern-day god. Why spoil it for them? oh, um-- why not just let them have their fun and enjoy it? I don't want to spoil anything for anybody. I write a book. People can read it if they want to. I believe that it is a liberating thing To free yourself from primitive superstition. So religion's a primitive superstition? Oh, I think it is, yes. So, uh, you believe it's liberating To tell people that there is no god. I think a lot of people, when they give up god, Feel a great sense of release and freedom. Why do you think that? you're a scientist. What's your data? well, I... Well, i've had a lot of letters saying that. There're eight billion people in the world, dr. Dawkins. Yeah, I know, I know... How many letters have you had? No, I-- that's quite true. Professor dawkins seemed so convinced that god doesn't exist That I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it. Well, it's hard to put a figure on it, ______ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7ju2tbnhbbJt/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_interview_part_2/ But i'd put it as something like, You know, 99% against or something-- Well, how do you know it's 99% and not, say, 97%? I don't. You asked me to put a figure on it, And i'm not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it's-- I just think it's very unlikely. But you couldn't put a number on it. No, of course not. So it could be 49%. Well, it would be-- I mean, I think it's unlikely, And it's quite far from 50%. How do you know? I don't know. I mean, I put an argument in the book. Then who did create the heavens and the earth? Why do you use the word "who?" You see, you immediately beg the question By using the word "who." Then how did it get created? Well, um... By a very slow process. Well, how did it start? Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must've been. We know the sort of event that must've happened for the origin of life. what was that? It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule. Right, and how did that happen? I've told you, we don't know. So you have no idea how it started? No, no. Nor has anybody. Nor has anyone else. What do you think is the possibility That intelligent design Might turn out to be The answer to some issues in genetics Or in evolution? It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, Somewhere in the universe, A civilization evolved By probably some kind of darwinian means To a very, very high level of technology And designed a form of life That they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility, And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that. If you look at the detail-- __________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7ju4n42hbbJt/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_interview_part_3/ Details of biochemistry, molecular biology, You might find a signature of some sort of designer. Wait a second. Richard dawkins thought intelligent design Might be a legitimate pursuit? And that designer could well be a higher intelligence From elsewhere in the universe. well-- but that higher intelligence Would itself have had to have come about By some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point. So professor dawkins was not against intelligent design, Just certain types of designers, Such as god. So the hebrew god, The god of the old testament-- He doesn't exist in your view? Uh, certainly. I mean, that would be a very unpleasant prospect. And the holy trinity of the new testament-- No, nothing like that. Do you believe in any of the hindu gods? like vishnu? how can you ask such a question? you don't, right? how could I? I mean, why would I, Given that I don't believe in any others? You don't believe in the moslem god. No. Why do you even need to ask? I just wanted to be sure. So you don't believe in any god anywhere. Any god anywhere would be completely incompatible With--with anything that i've said in-- I assumed, I just wanted to make sure You don't believe in any god anywhere. no. what if after you died, you ran into god. He said, "what have you been doing, richard? "I mean, what have you been doing? "i've been trying to be nice to you. "I gave you a multimillion-dollar paycheck "over and over again with your book, And look what you did." Bertram russell had that point put to him, And he said something like, "sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?" (more)
	Fired People http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jttuJhbJmm/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_fired_people/ Egnor: there's nothing to be learned in neurosurgery By assuming an accidental origin For the parts of the brain that we work on. Stein: it wasn't just biologists Who were feeling the darwinist wrath. When neurosurgeon michael egnor Wrote an essay to high school students Saying doctors didn't need to study evolution In order to practice medicine, The darwinists were quick To try and exterminate this new threat. A lot of people in a lot of blogs Called me unprintable names that were printed. There were a lot of very, very nasty comments. Other people suggested That people call the university I work at And suggest that perhaps it's time for me to retire. I realized when I kind of went public With my doubts about the adequacy of darwin's theory, You know, that I would encounter criticism. What has amazed me is the viciousness And the sort of baseness of it. I'm an old guy. I have tenure. I'm academically safe. But the young people And what is happening to them in america right now Because of this scientism gulag Is really terrible. Apparently professor marks Was not as safe as he thought. A few months after this interview, Baylor university shut down his research web site And forced him to return grant money Once they discovered a link Between his work and intelligent design. In order to attract grants, you have to market yourself. So you put up sites and call yourself "labs" and "groups" and things like that In order to get visibility. And in my entire experience in academia I never went to any superior And asked them any permission To put up any of these labs. So the fact that this was singled out, Let alone shut down, is jaw-dropping. It's astonishing. I have never been treated like this in my-- About 30 years in academia. Shut up, you freak! I said shut up! _________________________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jn7uJhbmmu/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_fired_people_part_2/ it's a madhouse! If you peel back the onion, I think that there's no doubt That the center of this is my work In what some would call intelligent design. Dr. Gonzalez: people really get emotional about this. Whenever you say "intelligent design" in a room of academics, Them's fighting words. Creationists! Astronomer guillermo gonzalez Found himself in a fierce shootout With iowa state university, Following the publication of his book Arguing that the universe is intelligently designed. Despite a stellar research record That has led to the discovery of several planets, His application for tenure was denied, Putting his career in jeopardy. I worried about my tenure a little bit in 2005 When the petition was being circulated Because I viewed that as a strategy Of hector avalos and his associates To try to poison the atmosphere on campus against me Because he knew I wasn't tenured yet And I was very vulnerable. I have little doubt that I would have tenure now If I hadn't done any professional work on intelligent design. Dr. Gonzalez had this advice for scientists Who might be thinking about following his example. If they value their careers-- they should keep quiet About their intelligent design views. We know there are times and places to be quiet And other times and places When we can make noise if we want to. filmstrip narrator: will you show us? of course. Boys and girls, How would you like to show Some of the ways we know of being quiet?
	Lefty http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j2474Yh42t/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_some_guy/ I'm actually a person of the left, And not even a particularly religious person. I think of myself as kind of humanist. And I think it's sending a very bad message To religious people who are interested in science That in some sense, In order to do science credibly, They have to leave their religious beliefs at the door. The founders of early modern science-- Sir isaac newton, robert boyle, Johannes kepler, galileo-- Most of these early scientists All not only believed in god, But they thought their belief in god Actually made it easier to do science. You can be religiously motivated And you can do good science, And they have more often gone together Than not gone together. Admitting our biases Is the best way towards rational discussion,I'm actually a person of the left, And not even a particularly religious person. I think of myself as kind of humanist. And I think it's sending a very bad message To religious people who are interested in science That in some sense, In order to do science credibly, They have to leave their religious beliefs at the door. The founders of early modern science-- Sir isaac newton, robert boyle, Johannes kepler, galileo-- Most of these early scientists All not only believed in god, But they thought their belief in god Actually made it easier to do science. You can be religiously motivated And you can do good science, And they have more often gone together Than not gone together. Admitting our biases Is the best way towards rational discussion,
	Confront http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j47YtYhbJmm/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_confront/ The darwinian establishment Is so massive and so entrenched It appears impenetrable. I couldn't bring it down myself, But I could at least confront Those who'd expelled the scientists i'd met. What would you say if you had eugenie scott sitting next to you? What would you say to her? I would ask her by what authority Does she and those like her Presume to declare What is and is not science. He's sort of made himself martyr of the day. They've gotten a lot of mileage out of, You know, poor rick sternberg. And we got lip service From the leadership of the smithsonian, But I didn't feel they ever followed through. We went into the smithsonian looking for answers, But we ran into the same stone wall as congressman souder. You're not authorized to do this here, so stop. He said, "nonetheless, you have to be disciplined," And I lost my job. We did get an interview With a spokesman from george mason, But it was impossible to knock him off his script. Her contract was not renewed. It was simply, um, not renewing her contract, Which she satisfied. Her contract was not renewed. It had nothing to do with the controversy Of that topic of intelligent design. I have never been treated like this in my-- About 30 years in academia. We received a similar reception at baylor university. They refused to admit That what had happened to dr. Marks Had anything to do with id. Certainly the conversations i've had, this has not-- The intelligent design situation Has not been the thrust of the conversation. It was a procedural issue, And that's the way we dealt with it. Funny, that's not how dean kelley put things __________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jumbtYh777/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_confront_part_2/ In his original e-mail to dr. Marks. I'm not mixing my religion with my science. The questions that I ask In my intelligent design research Are perfectly legitimate scientific questions. At least the top guns at iowa state Were willing to own up to their actions. What we wanted to stop is the use of the name of isu To validate intelligent design. And we did succeed. I really think a lot of guillermo. He's a great guy. So that's why i'm kind of disappointed. He should've just left this alone, In my opinion, should've just left it alone. Dr. Hauptman elaborated further On his great regard for gonzalez. Man: uh, this is quoting an e-mail from you to mr. Avalos. You say, "sometimes it is just best to ignore idiots," In reference to guillermo. And then, "the religious nutcases Should be challenged at every opportunity." Yeah, because, for example, You-- In that case, i'm thinking more of, Say, the creationist crowd, who claims that god Put all the animals on an ark, and that's it. That's where all of our animals came from today. That's crazy, okay? You shouldn't be insulting Even children with that kind of thing. So these are the idiots, all right? They've always been around. They've always been around. Going after the perpetrators in each of these cases Wasn't getting me anywhere.
	Stephen Myer http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jb42JmhbJmm/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_dr_meyer/ But I still suspected id was nothing but reheated creationism. My next stop didn't seem like It was going to alleviate those fears. Male country singer: � didn't crawl out of the ocean � � I didn't come from no monkey � � but science tends to forget � � evolution's just a theory � � they present it in the textbooks � � and on animal tv � � like it's fact � � but tell me were you there � � 12 million b.C.? � Evolution is a-- from an intelligent design perspective, Is perfectly acceptable if the sense is that "how did the design get implemented?" The issue is, is there a real design there And are these material mechanisms, Like natural selection, Are these adequate to account for everything We see in biology? And our argument is no, it's not. But darwin produced all this evidence From his travels and his studies at the galapagos That evolution explained things. If you look at the history of science, People often have a good idea, And then they decide just to run with it. And they say, "we're going to apply this everywhere." So darwin takes his idea of natural selection And says, "i'm going to explain all of life with it. Physics used to be newtonian physics. Newton was physics. And then you gotta look to einstein, general relativity. It's not newton is enough. I think, likewise, what we're finding with darwin Is that he had some valid insights, But it's not the whole picture. Okay, darwinism may not be the complete picture, But what made these guys think They had the missing pieces? I put this question to dr. Stephen meyer, Author of the paper that originally got Dr. Sternberg in so much trouble. Stein: it's hard to believe that this little town Is the headquarters of giant microsoft, Which enabled mr. Gates to become fantastically rich. Maybe that's what steve meyer's doing here. Maybe this is somehow going to make him fantastically rich. We'll pin him down Like a butterfly on a butterfly board-- ________________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jbuuJmh7t7/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_dr_meyer_part_2/ A butterfly on a killing board. Coffee shop straight ahead. Stein: newton is buried in the genius's corner At westminster abbey, right? That's correct, yeah. Darwin is also buried in westminster abbey. Right. And so is darwin. right, right. right near each other. And you're here in redmond In a little building without a sign, right? And you're obviously an incredibly smart guy, But how dare you challenge Someone who's buried in the genius's corner Next to newton at westminster abbey. Well, it may seem a little cheeky, But it's what scientists are supposed to do. When I was in cambridge, One of my supervisors often advised us To beware the sound of one hand clapping, Which was a way of saying if there's an argument on one side, There's bound to be an argument on the other. What I found in studying the structure Of the argument in the origin of species Is that for every evidence-based argument For one of darwin's two key propositions, There is an evidence-based counterargument. Well, but--is it a debate? There's just you and a couple of other guys In a dinky little office downtown, say, on one side, And there's the faculties of all The great universities in the world on the other side. Speaking with a great, uniform, and authoritative voice. Yes, right. Well, in any case, the debate Really isn't going to be settled by numbers. It's going to be settled by the evidence and the arguments.
	Dr. Wells http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jbt44nh2YY/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_dr_wells/ What kind of names do they call you? uh, creationist. what do you say back to them When they say you're a creationist? Well, I usually don't get the opportunity. What's at stake for you, personally? First of all, I love science. I think the way darwinism Corrupts the evidence, distorts the evidence, Is bad for science. Well, the other scientists will tell you To just shut up if you love science, okay? Because you're sort of being a bomb thrower into science. I am upsetting the applecart. I think it deserves to be upset in this case. Why? Because the evidence is being distorted To prop up a theory that I think doesn't fit it.
	Evolution As a Fact http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7junmt7h7um/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_conclusion_part_2/ Well, he didn't know. And, in fact, nobody knows. So darwinism, strictly defined, Starts after the origin of life And deals only with living things. How can there be a theory about life Without a theory about how life began? Well, a grand, overarching evolutionary story, Of course, does include the origin of life. Darwin's theory doesn't begin Until you have the first cell. Does someone have a theory about how life began?
	Demonization of Character http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j2Jnt2hbJmm/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_demonization_of_character/ To attacking religion, in what they see as a bid To stamp out intelligent design at the source. Richard dawkins is the best example of this. His recent book, the god delusion, Has sold over one million copies worldwide. The god delusion Is my long-expected, long-worked-on, Full-frontal attack on religion. To me, science is about trying to explain existence, And religion is about trying to explain existence. It's just that religion gets the wrong answer. But is dawkins correct? Are science and religion really at war? For an appraisal of this continuing and protracted conflict, We can go to a reporter Who has watched the growing conflict With the perception of a trained military observer. Oxford professor alister mcgrath, Author of the dawkins delusion, Seemed like the ideal person to answer my question. Mcgrath: richard dawkins has a charming And very, I think, interesting view Of the relationship between science and religion. They're at war with each other, And in the end, one's got to win. And it's going to be science. It's a very naive view. It's based on a complete historical misrepresentation Of the way science and religion have interacted. Dawkins seems to think that scientific description Is an anti-religious argument. Describing how something happens scientifically Somehow explains it away. It doesn't. But the questions of purpose, intentionality, The question why, Still remain there on the table. I think it was just a catastrophic mistake To have someone like dawkins address himself To profound issues of theology, The existence of god, the nature of life. He hasn't committed himself to Disciplined study in any relevant area of inquiry. He's a crummy philosopher. He doesn't have the rudimentary skills To meticulously assess his own arguments. Genius guy, though. Very smart guy. Little bit of a reptile, but very smart guy. The opposing point of view in this conflict _______________________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j22Yt2h774/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_demonization_of_character_part_2/ Rests on a fundamentally different vision of man. If you have two distinguished scientists-- And, in fact, you can range many more on each side, as you know-- Saying exactly opposite things, That's telling me that the conflict Is not between science and belief in god. Otherwise you'd expect all scientists to be atheists. But it's a worldview conflict. It's between scientists who have different worldviews. You've got two competing explanations of the evidence. One says design, one says undirected processes. Both of them have larger philosophical or religious Or anti-religious implications. So you can't say that one of those two theories is scientific And the other is unscientific Simply because they have implications. Both have implications. People who tell you, For example, that science tells you All you need to know about the world Or that science tells you that religion is all wrong Or science tells you there is no god, Those people aren't telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things, And they have to defend their positions For metaphysical reasons. What is being presented to the public is First comes the science, And then comes the worldview. I would want to argue that that may not be the case, That it may actually be the other way 'round, That the worldview comes first And is influencing the interpretation of science. My deep regret is some people Are so deeply entrenched in their own worldviews That they will simply not countenance alternatives. _
	Graveyard http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j474nJh4Yt/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_grave_yard/ America didn't become the great nation that it is By suppressing ideas. It progressed by allowing freedom of speech And freedom of inquiry. Thomas jefferson got it right when he wrote, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, "that all men are created equal, "that they are endowed by their creator "with certain unalienable rights, "that among these are life, liberty, And the pursuit of happiness." Hundreds of thousands of americans Have given their lives to protect these values, But now they're under threat once again. It wasn't just scientists who were being expelled. It was freedom itself, The very foundation of the american dream, The very foundation of america. If we allowed freedom to be expelled in science, Where would it end?
	Natural Selection, Genetic Mutations and Information - (Good talk about information) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840/natural_selection_genetic_mutations_and_information_expelled/
	I Information : http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jJ47tuhbbtu/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_source_of_information/ The cell really is like nothing we've ever seen in the physical world. That's got to be firmly grasped. That's not something we can just say, "oh, well, it's just a little bit more of the same old, same old. It's not the same old, same old. What we are finding is that there's information That's in the cell that cannot be accounted for In terms of these undirected material causes, And so there's some other-- So there has to be an information source. So one of the key questions faced by modern biology Is where do you get information from? Well, darwin assumed That the increase in information Comes from natural selection. But natural selection reduces genetic information, And we know this from all the genetic manipulation studies that we have. Where is the new genetic information gonna come from? Well, that's the big question. So when we find information in the dna molecule, The most likely explanation Is that it, too, had an intelligent source. We need engineering principles To understand these systems, okay? It's only because of our advancements in nanotechnology That we can even begin to appreciate these systems. But using intelligent design Didn't seem to stop the scientists I spoke with. So why all the controversy? Suppose we find, simply as a matter of fact, That our scientific inquiries point in one direction. Which is that there is an intelligent creator. Why should we eliminate that from discussion? Streng verboten? How come? Why? Streng verboten. Very good. What does streng verboten mean, "strongly forbidden"? Strongly forbidden. You've got two possible hypotheses. You've got a wall through the middle-- Through your brain, in effect-- through your thinking. You say, well, you can't consider anything on this side of the wall. Only hypotheses on this side of the wall Are permissible for consideration. What about academic freedom? I mean, can't we just talk about this? _____________________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jbnYtYh2mb/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_paris_part_2/ And mathematical physics lacks all the rigor One expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent Down the level of intelligibility Until we reach evolutionary biology. We don't even know what a species is, for heaven's sakes. So his theory is smoke, but elegant smoke. There's a certain elegance to it, But I think einstein had the appropriate remark: He preferred to leave elegance to his tailor. A room full of smoke? That certainly wasn't what I was hearing From prominent darwinists like richard dawkins. _____________________________
	How Life Began http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jbY4tnhbJmm/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_how_life_began/ Man: this is the story of a small planet in space Called earth. Stein: for a typical darwinian explanation Of how life originated, Dr. Wells directed me toward this documentary. Man: the chemical elements essential for life-- Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen-- Were now in place. What was needed was a way of combining them. Perhaps the energy came from lightning. whatever it was-- Stein: excuse me? man: whatever it was, Energy managed to arrange these chemical ingredients In just the right way. Stein: "whatever it was"? I was hoping for something a little more scientific. The most popular idea Has been that life emerged spontaneously From primordial soup. In 1953, stanley miller Mixed water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen To simulate the early earth's atmosphere. Then he ran electricity through it In an attempt to jump-start life. It's alive! It's alive! It's alive! It didn't work. While the initial results seemed promising, 50 years later most serious scientists Have abandoned this approach In favor of alternate theories. Prominent darwinist michael ruse Attempted to explain one of them to me. He wasn't kidding. How did we get from an inorganic world To the world of the cell? Well, one popular theory is that it Might have started off on the backs of crystals. My crystal ball. Molecules piggybacked on the back of crystals forming, And that this led to more and more complex-- But of course the nice thing about crystals Is that every now and then you get mistakes--mutations-- And that this opens the way for natural selection.
	Looking for Discovery Institute http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jbmJYthYJY/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_looking_for_discovery_institute/ John paul young: � love is in the air � � everywhere I look around � � love is in the air � � every sight and every sound � Stein: love was in the air, all right, But none of it was directed toward intelligent design. There seemed to be a lot to hate about id, And nearly all of that hatred was focused on one place. The people in the-- from the discovery institute-- The people who are doing the intelligent design-- They're all varnish and no product. The discovery institute is a propaganda mill. It's a-- it's an institution Designed to suck in money from religious investors And turn it into a sanitized, somewhat secular version Of the creation story to get it into the schools. If they have a way of understanding nature That's superior to the one that we all Are making lots of discoveries using, great. bring it on. We are really, really lost. I think it's on third. I think it's on third. I think it's down there. I have no idea where this place is. I guess I just keep walking. Do you have any idea where the discovery institute is? Have you ever heard of that? never heard of it. stein: okay, thank you. man: hey, ben. ______________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jbbJJ4h2mb/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_looking_for_discovery_institute_part_2/ man: hey, ben. how are you, sir? man: i'm good. Yourself? good. Do you have any idea where the discovery institute is? not a clue. discovery institute? thank you, it's very kind of you to offer-- welcome to seattle. Thank you, sir. It's gotta be this whole building. Yes, where is the discovery institute, please? Discovery institute-- on the eighth floor, suite 808. � when I die and they lay me to rest � � gonna go to the place that's the best � Okay, very good. � when I lay me down to die � ___________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jbbuJthbmtt/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_discovery_institute/ � goin' up to the spirit in the sky � Aha, success at last. � goin' up to the spirit in the sky � Aha, we found you. Are you bruce chapman? I am. how are you? I'm ben stein. welcome. kind of you to have me here. Delighted to meet you. Can I look around and see your offices? Absolutely. Do you just have this floor, Or do you have several other floors as well? chapman: no, this is it. this is it? You've made an awful lot of trouble For being such a small office. I thought it was going to be like the pentagon. We're like the little boy that said the emperor has no clothes. And he didn't have a big organization either. When you go around and raise funds, Your people are not saying to them, "by the way, we're going to get "all these scientists out of the classroom And put christ back in the classroom?" Well, I don't know that christ Has ever been in the science classroom. This is not a religious argument. This is something that people-- We have fellows who are jewish or agnostic Or various other things. There are--there are moslem scientists. There are people of all kinds of backgrounds Who agree that darwin's theory has failed. So why would you bring religion into it? You don't need religion. This is a red herring, ben. People who don't have an argument Are reduced to throwing sand in your eyes. If the discovery institute Could get its wish about this subject, What would your wish be? Well, on this subject, as on others, We'd like people to be able to have A robust dialogue and even a debate Where the best evidence-- In this case the best scientific evidence-- Is made available to people. Surely no one questions there should be a debate. Oh, yes, they do. they do? they say the debate has been settled, that the issue's settled. when was the debate settled? Ben, i'd like you to talk to the scientists. You don't want to get your science from me.
	Anonymous Fired People http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j77utht24/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_anonymous_fired_people/ Man #1: it's the kind of thing where you just learn to keep your mouth shut. Stein: in addition to those scientists Who were willing to appear on camera, We encountered many more who didn't dare show their face For fear of losing their jobs. Man #2: you use an intelligent design perspective To get the research done, But you're not allowed to talk about it in public. Man #3: and so there is definitely incentive, if you think about it, For people to remain within the mainstream. Man #4: you know, "what's he up to? What is he thinking? Is he one of them?" that kind of thing. Man #5: if I write "intelligent design," They hear "creationism," They hear "religious right," they hear "theocracy." So it appears mr. Shermer, the self-styled skeptic, Was wrong on this one. Intelligent design was being suppressed In a systematic and ruthless fashion. But maybe intelligent design should be suppressed. I didn't like what was happening to these scientists, But on the other hand, We don't want our kids being taught That the earth is flat Or the the holocaust never happened. It was time to ask the scientific establishment What was so bad about intelligent design.
	Dr. Nelson http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jb2nY2huJ7/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_dr_nelson_part_2/ To mean the common descent of all life on earth From a single ancestor Via undirected mutation and natural selection-- That's textbook definition of neo-darwinism-- Biologists of the first rank have real questions. But the modern theory of intelligent design Is just microwaved creationism. I don't think that's the case. Creationism, properly understood, Begins with the bible and says, "how can I fit the bible into the data of science?" Intelligent design doesn't do that. Intelligent design is the study of patterns in nature That are best explained as a result of intelligence. So intelligent designers believe that god is the designer. Not necessarily. Intelligent design is a minimal commitment, Scientifically, to the possibility Of detecting intelligent causation. Dr. Nelson didn't sound like a crazy person,
	Religion and Science http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j2n2mJhbJmm/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_religion_and_science/ Biologist p.Z. Myers, Who runs the pro-darwin, anti-religion blog pharyngula, Says science eroded his faith as well. I never hated religion. I found religion quite comfortable, And I liked the people in it. What led to the atheism was learning more about science, Learning more about the natural world, And seeing these horrible conflicts with religion. And it was then, when I discovered evolution, When I discovered darwinism, That I realized there's this magnificently elegant, Stunningly elegant explanation-- Which I didn't quite understand to begin with-- But when I did understand it, Then that finally killed off my remaining religious faith. After hearing these stories, I was not surprised to discover That most evolutionary biologists Share professor dawkins' views. It appears darwinism does lead to atheism Despite what eugenie scott would have us believe. And if you separate out the ethical message from religion, What have you got left? You've got a bunch of fairy tales, right? I think that god is about as unlikely As fairies, angels, hobgoblins, etc. Religion--I mean, it's just fantasy, basically. It's completely empty of any explanatory content... And is evil as well. Half the people in this country think that drugs Is what you have to regulate to make us safer, And half the people think guns-- That's what you gotta regulate to make us safer. But I always think that if you're going to regulate One thing that has the most potential To cause death and destruction-- religion. You gotta start with religion. Religion is an idea that gives some people comfort, And we don't want to take it away from them. It's like knitting. People like to knit. We're not going to take their knitting needles away. ________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j27umJht24/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_religion_and_science_part_2/ We're not going to take away their churches. But what we have to do is get it to a place Where religion is treated At the level it should be treated. That is, something fun That people get together and do on the weekend And really doesn't affect their life As much as it has been so far. Stein: so what would the world look like If dr. Meyers got his wish? Greater science literacy, Which is going to lead to the erosion of religion, And then we'll get this nice positive feedback mechanism going, Where as religion slowly fades away, We get more and more science to replace it. And that will displace more and more religion, Which will allow more and more science in, And we'll eventually get to that point Where religion has taken that appropriate place As a side dish rather than the main course. Stein: but will eradicating religion Really lead to a modern utopia? Hmm. Let me try to imagine that. And let's let history be our guide.
	Source of Information http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jJtmJYh2mb/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_source_of_information_part_2/ Their reply is that science is not a democratic process. Oh, really? And that there is a consensus view And that we are to subscribe to the consensual view. Wait a second. Darwin challenged the consensus view, And that's how we got darwinism. If darwin wanted to challenge the consensus today, How would he do it? Science isn't a hobby for rich aristocrats anymore. It's a multibillion-dollar industry. And if you want a piece of the pie, You've got to be a "good comrade."
	Crystals http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jJmttnhtnu/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_how_life_began_part_2/ But--but at one point there was not a living thing, And then there was a living thing. How did that happen? Well, that's just a-- i've just told you. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't go From very simple to more and more complex to more and more complex-- I don't either. But I don't know how you get from mud To a living cell. That's my question. Yes, well, i've told you. I'll try one more time. You think it was on the backs of crystals. On the backs of crystals is at least one hypothesis, yes. So that's your theory, and you think that is more likely And less far-fetched than intelligent design. I think it is. I wouldn't put ben stein's money On dr. Ruse's joyriding crystals, But it did make me wonder What were the chances of life arising on its own? Bradley: it's been speculated that probably There would have to be A minimum of about 250 proteins To provide minimal life function. Um, if that's really true, Then I think it's almost inconceivable That life could've happened In some simple, step-by-step way. Okay, so the simplest form of life Requires at least 250 proteins to function. What's so difficult about that?
	Nazi Solution http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j4bbmYhYmt/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_handicapped_camp_part_2/ Patients were led down this hallway To nazi doctors, Who decided who would live and who would die. They were accompanied by 15, um, 15 nurses. nurses. nurses. Male and female nurses. So nurses were helping lead them to their doom. Yes. So, were the prisoners told they were taking a shower? Yes, they were taking a shower, And here was one or two showers. So, how many people were brought into this room? Sixty to seventy. So, what is this? This is the dissection table. Do you ever think to yourself The sane ones were the ones Lying here having their brains removed-- The insane one was dr. Gorgass and all the other people--? No, no, I don't think that Because I think those people who killed here, They were very sane because they had their purposes. They had purposes? Yes. I don't think they were insane. __________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j44Ynnh2mb/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_dachau_part_2/ Before leaving dachau, I stopped by the memorial Commemorating the thousands of jews Who were killed there in excruciating conditions. I know that darwinism Does not automatically equate to nazism. But if darwinism inspired and justified Such horrific events in the past, Could it be used to rationalize
	Religon http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j2t47uh7bu/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_religeon_part_2/ If you believe in evolution, You can't hope for there being any free will. There's no hope whatsoever Of there being any deep meaning in human life. We live, we die, and we're gone. We're absolutely gone when we die. Dr. Provine is no stranger to the prospect of death. Nearly a decade ago, He was diagnosed with a large brain tumor. Let's suppose my tumor comes back, As it almost certainly will. Well, i'm not going to sit around Like my older brother did last year. And he was dying of als, lou gehrig's disease. He wanted desperately to die, but we couldn't help him die. I don't want to die like that. I'm going to shoot myself in the head long before then. I'm going to do something different. I hope these are empty words From my friend dr. Provine, Because shortly after this interview was recorded He learned his brain tumor had returned. Provine: I don't feel one bit bad About holding the views that I do. There's not anything in the views I hold That makes me, "oh, I wish I had free will," Or "oh, I wish there were a god." I don't ever, ever wish for that. Dr. Provine's de-conversion story Was typical amongst the darwinists we interviewed.
	Jeffrey Schwartz http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j2Jmt4htYn/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_courts_part_2/ The evolution debate Does seem to run much deeper than the courts, Much deeper even than science. To generate this level of hostility, Id must threaten something at the very core Of the darwinian establishment. Filmstrip narrator: the entire globe Is today the site of a momentous conflict. It is the challenge of ideas. I'm edward r. Murrow. For a little while, I would like to review with you The great conflict of our times, One which demands and must get The attention and the involvement Of each one of us. This conflict Over the principles of evolution Has become a religious war. It really is no longer about scientific investigation. It is total competition with an antagonist Who is putting into it Everything within his capability. The situation has reached a point Where many of evolution's top apologists Have switched from defending darwinism
	More National History Museum http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j242uhYJ4/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_natural_history_museum/ Your office was over there? That's correct. This here is the west wing. Directly ahead of us is the west wing Of the natural history museum. So now you're not there anymore Because you were a bad boy. No, i'm not. No, I was exiled. You were a bad boy. You questioned the powers that be. What was dr. Sternberg's crime? He dared to publish an article by dr. Stephen meyer, One of the leading lights Of the intelligent design movement. The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy Merely because it suggested intelligent design Might be able to explain how life began. As a result, dr. Sternberg lost his office, His political and religious beliefs were investigated, And he was pressured to resign. The questioning of darwinism Was a bridge too far for many. The mentioning of intelligent design That occurs at the end of the paper was over the top. And I think the intelligent design proponents Have raised a number of very important questions. And you wanted to get those questions Brought up and discussed. placed on the table. placed on the table. People were so upset about it. They were so upset that you could see their-- They had a physical emotional reaction. Wow. They were saying That stephen c. Meyer is a well-known christian, That stephen c. Meyer is an intelligent design proponent, ______________________________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j4n44nhnbu/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_darwin_museum_part_2/ ____________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j42u7h2mb/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_natural_history_museum_part_2/ That stephen c. Meyer is a republican. It was all couched in terms of Religion, politics, and sociology. The way the chair of the department put it Is that I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist. Terrorist? Because of giving the topic Of intelligent design some modicum of credibility. What happened to dr. Sternberg was terrible, http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7j4tJbhbb2Y/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_skeptic/ What happened to dr. Sternberg was terrible, But surely it was just an isolated case. I was still pretty skeptical, So naturally I checked in with the head Of the skeptics society, michael shermer. So I can't prove there is no god, Or yahweh in your case, Any more than I can prove there is no isis, zeus, Apollo, brahma, ganesha, mithras, allah, Or for that matter, the flying spaghetti monster. And think about just one thing: Why would the aliens look like this? these are bipedal-- king: who drew that? Shermer: skepticism... It's not a position you take. It's just an approach to claims. This one's called the borderlands of science: where sense meets nonsense. Is intelligent design nonsense? Well, it's unproven, So in that sense it's nonsense. So I would put it in the sort of shaded areas Between good, solid science and total nonsense. You know, it's sort of three quarters of the way toward the nonsense side. Stein: but you think, nevertheless, People should be allowed to speak about And publish papers about it. They are free to write and publish and be heard In public forums and go to conferences Just like everybody else does. What if a person published something, say, at the smithsonian In favor of intelligent design and lost his job over it? I mean, it had been peer-reviewed and published And then he lost his job over it anyway. What about that situation? Well...I think that particular situation, There was something else going on. what was going on? I don't know. I mean, I don't know because I don't know, But I think there had to be something. People don't get fired over something like that. You roll up your sleeves, you get to work, You do the research, you get your grants, You get your data, you publish, And you work your butt off, And that's how you get your theories taught-- What if you try and try and roll up your sleeves And go to work and work your butt off, And they say, "we're going to fire you If you even mention the word intelligent design"? I don't think that's happened. Where is that happening?
	A Cell http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jJ2Y7uh77b/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_a_cell_part_2/ I'm finally just beginning to grasp The complexity of the cell. Are there systems within the cell That go well beyond darwinian evolution, Some type of cellular technology That drives adaptation, replication, Quality control, and repair? What if these new mechanisms Have massive design implications? Well, I say so be it.
	Fear of Unraveling http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jJn42uh2mb/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_fear_of_unraveling_part_2/ Who are you? Oh, uh-- I am the great and powerful... ...Wizard of oz. I interviewed dozens and dozens of scientists, And when they're amongst each other Or talking to a journalist who they trust, They'll speak about, Um, you know, "it's incredibly complex," Or "molecular biology's in a crisis." But publicly they can't say that. Man: keeping a keen eye on the academy Are various watchdog organizations.
	Media Coverage http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jJ7uu2hbJmm/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_media_coverage/ And eugenie scott says, "well, welcome over." There's a kind of science defense lobby Or an evolution defense lobby, in particular. They are mostly atheists, But they are wanting to-- desperately wanting To be friendly to mainstream, sensible, religious people. And the way you do that is to tell them That there's no incompatibility between science and religion. But is there really an incompatibility? Can't we believe in god and darwin? Implicit in most evolutionary theory Is that either there's no god, Or god can't have any role in it. So, naturally, as many evolutionists will say, It's the strongest engine for atheism. If they called me as a witness, And a lawyer said, "dr. Dawkins, has your belief in evolution-- Has your study of evolution turned you towards atheism?" I would have to say yes. And that's the worst possible thing I could say For winning that-- that court case. So people like me are bad news For the science lobby, the evolution lobby. By the way, i'm being a hell of a lot More frank and honest in this interview Than many people in this field would be. Man: working hard to keep ideas in check Are our friends in the media. Morning paper! Paper, mister? The tendency of the media is to side with the establishment Because they inherently agree with the establishment. Abrams: eugenie scott, my understanding is That there is not a single peer-reviewed article out there That supports intelligent design. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. You are correct. I believe that we get coverage, But we always get coverage like we're the outsider, Not like it's an even debate. Filmstrip narrator: but instead of merely reporting news, He analyzes it, often expressing his personal opinions. We constantly deal with reporters _______________________ http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jJYnu2hbbbJ/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_media_coverage_part_2/ Who refuse even to report The correct definition of intelligent design. They, over and over again, talk about "life is so complex, god must've done it." meyer: let me explain-- abrams: admit it, it's religion. it's very simple. you can't--it's religion. It's a wanton distortion of our position. City desk. I've got a hot story here. You can look at associated press stories, And the same sentence will appear in those stories for 10 years: "intelligent design says that life is too complex." It's called a boilerplate. And the reporter never reports any more Or gets any new ways to say it, So the public understanding never advances. But what happens if a reporter Decides to take a more balanced approach to intelligent design? There might be remarkable pressure on that reporter Not to side against the evolutionists. I thought I told you to kill that story. Few reporters have learned this better Than author and journalist pamela winnick. When she refused to take sides In an article she wrote about intelligent design, The darwinists found a new favorite target. Number one-- I wasn't christian, I was jewish. Number two-- I wasn't religious. Number three-- I was not taking A position in favor of creationism. I was writing about intelligent design. And it didn't matter. After I wrote that one piece, Everything I wrote on the subject was scrutinized. There were hate letters coming into the newspaper. If you give any credence to it whatsoever, Which means just writing about it, You are just finished as a journalist. Other journalists we spoke with Told similar stories but didn't dare appear on camera. Filmstrip narrator: and now the presses are ready to roll. Man: when all other checkpoints fail, There's always the courts.
	Freedom http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7jJ24Yhbm7t/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_freedom/ Ben stein: thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, gangstas. Thank you very, very much. Freedom is the essence of america. We're talking about freedom of speech, Freedom of assembly, Freedom from fear, freedom of religion. Martin luther king said, "america is essentially a dream," And he said it is a dream of freedom and equality. Freedom is the way to equality. And america simply would not be america without freedom. In every turning point in our history, The decision has always been about freedom. freedom is what makes this country great. Freedom has allowed us to create, to explore, To overcome every challenge we have faced as a nation. But imagine if these freedoms were taken away. Where would we be? What would we lose? Well, unfortunately, I no longer need to imagine. It's happening. We are losing our freedom In one of the most important sectors of society-- Science. I have always assumed That scientists were free to ask any question, To pursue any line of inquiry Without fear of reprisal, But recently i've been alarmed to discover That this is not the case. It all began when I met Evolutionary biologist richard sternberg In washington, d.C. His life was nearly ruined When he strayed from the party line While serving as editor of a scientific journal Affiliated with the prestigious Smithsonian museum of natural history.
	Conclusion http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-TK7juu7t7hbJmm/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed_2008_conclusion/ But if the intelligent design people are right, God isn't hidden. We may even be able to encounter god through science If we have the freedom to go there. What could be more intriguing than that? we take freedom for granted Here in the United States. Freedom is what this country is all about. And a huge part of freedom is freedom of inquiry. But now, i'm sorry to say, Freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed. Behind me stands a wall That encircles the free sectors of this city, Part of a vast system of barriers. There are people out there Who want to keep science in a little box Where it can't possibly touch a higher power, Cannot possibly touch god. Those barriers cut across germany In a gash of barbed wire, Concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. If you believe in god And you believe that there is An intrinsic order in the universe And you believe that it's the role of science To try to pursue and understand better that order, You will be ostracized. I'm frightened by this, But i'm not going to let it stop me From investigating or from speaking. The wall cannot withstand freedom. What i'm asking for is the freedom To follow the evidence wherever it leads. My hope is that there'll be enough Independent-thinking scientists Who don't like to be told what to think. People on both sides of the argument Being prepared to talk and listen, And, above all, a willingness To keep these dialogues open. It might allow a lot of very good scientists To be scientists, Who aren't allowed to be scientists right now. I don't care what they end up as being.   I don't care if they end up being religious Or young-earth creationists. If they have thought their way Through the issues and get there, I'm all for them. And why do I think we're going to win in this struggle? Because truth crushed to earth will rise again. To find out what's true has a value all of its own. If it has additional good consequences, so be it. Because no lie can live forever. I believe that science gives us one perspective on the world, And our religious insight gives us another perspective on the world. By putting the two together, Then we'll see more deeply and more truly. And if we will stand up for freedom... Freedom is the victor. If we all do that, we will overcome. � all these things that i've done � � yeah, you're gonna bring yourself down � � yeah, you're gonna bring yourself down � I've taken a first step By speaking out on this issue. But if the wall is to come down, We all have to do our part. Some of you will pay a heavy price for speaking out. You may even lose your job. I guarantee you you'll get hate e-mail. But if you don't get involved, Will anyone be left to carry on the struggle? I don't care if they end up being religious Or young-earth creationists. If they have thought their way Through the issues and get there, I'm all for them. And why do I think we're going to win in this struggle? Because truth crushed to earth will rise again. To find out what's true has a value all of its own. If it has additional good consequences, so be it. Because no lie can live forever. I believe that science gives us one perspective on the world, And our religious insight gives us another perspective on the world. By putting the two together, Then we'll see more deeply and more truly. And if we will stand up for freedom... Freedom is the victor. If we all do that, we will overcome. � all these things that i've done � � yeah, you're gonna bring yourself down � � yeah, you're gonna bring yourself down � I've taken a first step By speaking out on this issue. But if the wall is to come down, We all have to do our part. Some of you will pay a heavy price for speaking out. You may even lose your job. I guarantee you you'll get hate e-mail. But if you don't get involved, Will anyone be left to carry on the struggle?

[ TRAILERS | The Movie on Line | Media | Clips & Partial Transcript Excerpts ]