[3][8] Although intelligent design is a pseudoscientific religious idea, the film presents it as science-based, without giving a detailed definition of the concept or attempting to explain it on a scientific level.
It does so using stock footage film clips of Nazi concentration camp laboratories,[9] as well as statements of sociologist Uta George, director of the Hadamar killing centre's Memorial Museum.
[18] In the film, the president of the Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman, denied that teaching intelligent design in science classes is an attempt to sneak religion into public schools.
[21] Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education stated that the filmmakers were exploiting Americans' sense of fairness as a way to sell their religious views and that she feared that the film would portray "the scientific community as intolerant, as close-minded, and as persecuting those who disagree with them.
[26] In its review, the Waco Tribune-Herald said "That's the real issue of Expelled — atheist scientists versus God — even though it wholly undercuts statements by intelligent design researchers early in the film that ID has nothing to do with religion."
[27] Defending the film, the producer, Walt Ruloff, said that scientists like prominent geneticist Francis Collins keep their religion and science separate because they are "toeing the party line".
[30] Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in his MSNBC column that the film is a "frighteningly immoral narrative", including "a toxic mishmash of persecution fantasies, disconnected and inappropriate references to fallen communist regimes and their leaders and a very repugnant form of Holocaust denial from the monotone big mouth Ben Stein".
"[31] In an April 7, 2008, interview with Paul Crouch, Jr., on the Trinity Broadcasting Network about the film, Stein said that science had led to the Nazi murder of children, and stated that "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place.
"[34] The film portrays several people including Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker as victims of persecution by major scientific organizations and academia for their promotion of intelligent design and for questioning Darwinism.
The film says his life was "nearly ruined" after he published an article by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer in 2004, allegedly causing him to lose his office, to be pressured to resign, and to become the subject of an investigation into his political and religious views.
Sternberg defended his decision, stating that intelligent design was not the overall subject of the paper (being mentioned only at the end) and that he was attempting merely to present questions ID proponents had raised as a topic for discussion.
"[39] Although in the film Stein says the paper "suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began", it discussed the much later development of phyla during the Cambrian explosion and deviated from the journal's topic of systematics to introduce previously discredited claims about bioinformatics.
[38][39] Sternberg, contrary to the impression given by the film, was not an employee, but an unpaid Research Associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, a post which ran for a limited period.
In the film Stein states, "After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at the ... [u]niversity, Caroline Crocker's sterling academic career came to an abrupt end", and she was blacklisted.
The Post's article stated she claimed "that the scientific establishment was perpetrating fraud, hunting down critics of evolution to ruin them and disguising an atheistic view of life in the garb of science".
Michael Egnor, a neurosurgery professor at Stony Brook University, is presented in the film as the subject of persecution after writing a letter to high school students asserting that doctors did not need to learn evolution to practice their trade.
The research in question was for the Evolutionary Informatics Lab which Marks formed with Discovery Institute fellow William A. Dembski,[48][49] and which made use of the university's servers to host the website.
Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist who had been an assistant professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University until May 2008, is interviewed by Stein, who claims that despite a "stellar" research record that led to the discovery of new planets, Gonzalez was denied tenure in April 2007 because his book The Privileged Planet (2004), co-authored with analytic philosopher and intelligent design advocate Jay W. Richards, argued that the universe is intelligently designed.
"[55]After a break and small talk the interview resumed, but the questions continued to follow a similar vein: Stein finally asked my opinion on people being fired for endorsing Intelligent Design.
[28] Dawkins responded that in the case of the "highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett)".
[28][59] The film has been criticized by those interviewees who are critics of intelligent design (PZ Myers, Dawkins,[60] Shermer,[23] and Eugenie Scott), who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion, and were directed to a blurb implying an approach to the documentary crediting Darwin with "the answer" to how humanity developed:[61][62][63] It has been the central question of humanity through the ages: How in the world did we get here?
And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can't question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you'll lose your job, and you'll be publicly humiliated.
[66] Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association wrote a letter to the editor of The New York Times, writing, "If one needs to believe in a god to be moral, why are we seeing yet another case of dishonesty by the devout?
"[67] In support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin's 1871 book The Descent of Man: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated.
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.
The young Earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis reported that its leader, Ken Ham, met Ben Stein beforehand to discuss promoting the film.
[58] The issue was revived in 2009 when Florida Senator Stephen R. Wise cited the film as one reason that he is sponsoring plans to introduce a bill requiring biology teachers to present the idea of intelligent design.
[93] The promoters targeted primarily religious audiences, providing sweepstakes and rewards to churches selling the most tickets, and offered sums of up to $10,000 to schools that sent their students to watch the film.
[106] Vue Weekly called it an "anti-science propaganda masquerading as a Michael Moore-ish fool's journey, full of disingenuous ploys, cheap tricks, and outright mendacity".
[3][4][109] The Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor)",[110][111] while The New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike".