At one point in the movie (49:27 – 49:36), Richard Dawkins
says, “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.” A statement like this might
make one wonder how a movie with the intent of discrediting evolution got an evolutionist
to be so candid. One might wonder what superpower they had to make him open up
to the opposing side like that, and on film for that matter? In fact, there
were no superpowers involved, just simple deception. The evolutionists in the
movie were told that they were being interviewed for a much more even and
balanced piece.
At least four different evolutionists who were interviewed
for this movie have expressed their displeasure at being duped by the
production staff. They claim that the producers invited them to be interviewed
for a movie called “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion,”
never mentioning that the purpose of the movie was to claim the scientific
community was closed to any opposing ideas. In an interview about the movie
with World Magazine, Ben Stein casually dismissed these criticisms:
WORLD: Some of the evolution
experts you interviewed in Expelled are now telling the press
that they were misrepresented. How do you respond to that?
STEIN: I don't think we took
anything out of context. I know a number of the people we interviewed are
complaining that we spoke to them without their knowing what the movie was
about, but that really is not accurate. We told everyone involved that it was
about the intersection of evolution and religion, and I think those who are now
saying they didn't know that are sort of whistling Dixie. I think they're just
unhappy that the movie came out as persuasive and powerful as it did.[4]
I guess Ben Stein doesn’t need to be in front of a camera to
misrepresent evolutionists. As I mentioned, “the intersection of evolution and
religion” is basically the same as the subtitle of their false-flag name for
the movie (except he conflates “evolution” with “science;” isn’t that
interesting?), so it seems ludicrous to claim that these people were
complaining that they didn’t even know that much. I’ve read four different
accounts of interviewees discussing their sense of betrayal, and what Stein claims
they were “saying they didn’t know” is not even remotely accurate. They all
knew it was going to be about the intersection of science and religion, because
that’s exactly what the producers told them; what they did not know (because the
producers seemed to be willfully hiding the fact) was that it was their
intention all along to frame evolution as a dogma that’s enforced by silencing
any professional or academic dissent.
For the producers to be willfully hiding their intentions,
two things would have to be true:
1) How the
movie’s intentions were described to the interviewees was different from how
the movie ended up.
2) How the
movie ended up was already their intention when the interviews were conducted.
If both of those statements are accurate, then I believe it
presents a very strong case that the makers of Expelled willfully deceived the
evolutionists participating in the interviews.
One of the interviewees, PZ Myers, sheds a lot of light on
that first statement. In a post on his blog (after the news came out about what
the movie really was), he posted a transcription of the letter he received from
producer Mark Mathis:
Hello Mr. Myers,
My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently
in production of the documentary film, “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science
and Religion.”
At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to
see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview
would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of
our equipment.
We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy
that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent
Design movement.
Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at
your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews
and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time. I look forward
to speaking with you soon.
Sincerely,
Myers also said that he went to Rampant Films’ website, and
he posted an image of the blurb which the website displayed for this mythical
“Crossroads” movie:
 |
Crossroads – The Intersection of Science and Religion
It’s been the central question of humanity throughout the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859, Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, “The Origin of Species.” In the century and a half since, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin’s idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. This conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms and town halls across America and beyond.
|
This description of the mythical movie-that-never-was gives
a very strong indication that the people who wrote the blurb accepted evolution
as real science (or were trying to make someone think they did). It says Darwin
“provided the answer” to the question, “how in the world did we get here?” and
even talks about the “vast amount of research” that scientists in a variety of
fields have contributed to the theory. That certainly doesn’t seem like a movie
trying to accuse the evolutionist community of dogmatically accepting a theory
with no real factual support.
Interviewee Michael Shermer doesn’t delve as much as Myers into
how he got invited to participate, but he does say, “Ben Stein came to my
office to interview me about what I was told was a film about "the
intersection of science and religion" called Crossroads (yet
another deception).”[6] More on this quote later.
Interviewee Eugenie Scott (director of the National Center
for Science Education), had this to say in a podcast interview:
Steve: What was your experience as an interviewee?
Scott: Well, I was just totally bamboozled. I got a call from Mark
Mathis in April, a very—well, actually technically speaking [it] was an
e-mail—but I got a contact which was very much in the ordinary. I get lots of
calls from documentary makers who want to do something about creation and
evolution and make a film.
Steve: This was April 2007?
Scott: Correct. And most of them don't pan out, but I'm always very
helpful because it is to my advantage for people to get their story right. So,
Mark called and he had kind of a vague idea about this movie that he was going
to make called Crossroads. He identified himself as being from a
film company called Rampant Films and Crossroads was sort of a
generic science and religion, evolution and creationism looking at the
controversy in American society. And fine, all those are there in the dozens.[7]
In Richard Dawkins’ blog post about the movie, he spends
most of his time telling a story about how PZ Myers was forcibly removed from a
screening of Expelled (way to stand up from freedom of expression there), on
the grounds that he didn’t have a ticket (even though it was a free screening),
while Dawkins himself walked in unrecognized. After the screening was complete,
Mathis took questions from the audience. This is the only point when Dawkins
makes any reference to how he got involved with the project, saying this:
And Kristine asked Mathis to explain
what had become of a film called Crossroads
which had mysteriously morphed itself into Expelled. The import of
her question was the widely known fact, which I have already mentioned, that PZ
and I had been tricked into participating in Crossroads without
ever being told that the true purpose of the film was the one conveyed by the
later title Expelled -- the alleged expulsion of creationists
from universities. Mathis said that it was common practice for films under
production to have working titles, which later change in the final version.[8]
Further evidence that the producers didn’t explain their
true motivations to the interviewees is the fact that Dawkins does not conduct
interviews with creationists:
Some time in the 1980s when I was
on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate
between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I
telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't
do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the
debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them,
it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We
don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough
that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There
must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to
debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation
you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs.
But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the
oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.
I have followed his advice ever since…[9]
I have followed his advice ever since…[9]
That’s the word of four different interviewees from their
own accounts of the proceedings. Add to that the following excerpt from a New
York Times article on the same subject:
A few months ago, the evolutionary
biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant
Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called “Crossroads.”
The film, with Ben Stein, the
actor, economist and freelance columnist, as its host, is described on
Rampant’s Web site as an examination of the intersection of science and
religion. Dr. Dawkins was an obvious choice. An eminent scientist who teaches
at Oxford University in England, he is also an outspoken atheist who
has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect.
But now, Dr. Dawkins and other
scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some
cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a
new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological
cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has
a different producer, Premise Media.
[…]
If he had known the film’s
premise, Dr. Dawkins said in an e-mail message, he would never have appeared in
it. “At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a
creationist front,” he said.
Eugenie C. Scott, a physical
anthropologist who heads the National Center for Science Education, said she
agreed to be filmed after receiving what she described as a deceptive
invitation.
“I have certainly been taped by
people and appeared in productions where people’s views are different than
mine, and that’s fine,” Dr. Scott said, adding that she would have appeared in
the film anyway. “I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t.”[10]
With all those accounts put together, I think there’s a very
strong case that the first statement to indicate deception is correct, that the
interviewees were sold on a different concept of the movie than what was
ultimately released. But, as I said, it’s only indicative of willful deception
if the producers went into those interviews already having the intention to
make the type of movie that they eventually presented.
As evidence for that claim, blogger Wesley Elsberry discovered
that “the producers registered the URL "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007 —more
than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the scientists were
interviewed.[11] The
producers never registered the URL “crossroadsthemovie.com.” In case you find
that too circumstantial, all the necessary proof that the movie was always
meant as an attack on evolution, rather than a balanced examination, can be
found by going back to that World Magazine interview with Ben Stein, and
looking at the very first question:
WORLD: How did you get
involved with Expelled?
STEIN: I was approached a
couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central
issue of Expelled, which was about Darwinism and why it has such a
lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. 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. As they
sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic
about participating.[4]
By Stein’s own testimony, the project had never been
presented to him as a simple look at the intersection between science and
religion. Whether it had ever been called Crossroads or not, it was always
presented to him as being precisely about the message that was presented in the
finished film. That indicates that the “Expelled” concept was already
determined before Stein came on board. If, therefore, Stein himself were
involved with the interviews (as he was with both Shermer and Dawkins), then those
interviews must have been conducted
after the anti-evolution focus of the movie had been decided.
Shermer’s account makes it clear that the purpose of the
interview with him was confrontational from the beginning. Here’s the further
context of the single sentence I quoted before:
Ben Stein came to my office to
interview me about what I was told was a film about “the intersection of
science and religion” called Crossroads (yet
another deception). I knew something was afoot when his first question to me
was on whether or not I think someone should be fired for expressing dissenting
views. I pressed Stein for specifics: Who is being fired for what, when and
where? In my experience, people are usually fired for reasons having to do with
budgetary constraints, incompetence or not fulfilling the terms of a contract. Stein
finally asked my opinion on people being fired for endorsing intelligent
design. I replied that I know of no instance where such a firing has happened.[6]
Dawkins, in his account, implies an even more insidious plot
to deceive, claiming that Mathis let Dawkins think that he was also an
evolutionist. He said:
Could Mathis have been sincere
when he originally told PZ and me the film was an honest attempt to examine
evolution and intelligent design? The evidence that they had already purchased
the Expelled domain
name argues against this. Certainly Mathis' friendly demeanour disarmed me into
cooperating with him -- indeed, I went out of my way to HELP him on his visit
to Britain -- in a way that I never would have if I had had the slightest
suspicion that his outfit was in fact a creationist front. I may have
misremembered the details of our exchanges, by eMail and by telephone, but I
vividly remember his reassuring me, over the telephone, that he was on the side
of science, and he made no attempt to distance himself from my sarcastic jokes
about 'Intelligent Design'. I am reluctantly driven to wonder whether he is an
inveterate liar, as well as a dreadful film-maker. Yet another example of Lying
for Jesus?[8]
You could say that Shermer and Dawkins might have a reason
to fabricate a false story about their experiences, but their accounts are
corroborated by Stein’s admission that the “expelled” version of the movie was
the one that was presented to him, from the very beginning. The people making
the movie did already intend for it to be an exposé of evolutionary bias in the scientific community before at least those
interviews involving Stein had been conducted. In addition, the
previously-cited New York Times article went on to say, of producer Walt
Ruloff:
Mr. Ruloff, a Canadian who lives in British Columbia, said he turned to
filmmaking after selling his software company in the 1990s. He said he decided
to make “Expelled,” his first project, after he became interested in genomics
and biotechnology but discovered “there are certain questions you are just not
allowed to ask and certain approaches you are just not allowed to take.”[10]
