Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intelligent Design

Aimee Herd : Apr 18, 2008
BCN exclusive interview

"We want to break that open so these [scientists] feel safe enough to come out and express their disbelief, or at least their questions, about Darwinism without having their careers crushed. I'm hoping this film will be a catalyst to help drive that. We've got a long way to go, but the goal here is freedom in science…when people can freely discuss ideas, the truth will come."

The following is an exclusive interview with Mark Mathis, Associate Producer for the film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

Mark, how did you originally become involved with this film? What was it that made you want to work on it?

I was contacted by one of the executive producers. They needed someone with my experience, who could line up interviews, then one thing led to another and before I knew it I was right in the middle of the whole deal.

You're a 'media veteran'… Author of the book Feeding the Media Beast, you've been a consultant to such companies as AOL, the NFL and last year you played an ABC News reporter in the movie The Astronaut Farmer. As you consider your most recent experience—with the film Expelled—was it a different 'animal,' working on that, especially considering how the subject matter was received? And did you and Ben [Stein] expect a derogatory reaction?

Yes, we fully expected that the mainstream press would be very antagonistic to the film, but I was a little surprised at the level of animosity and hostility towards us. The thing that has surprised me is the number of journalists who really don't even want to pretend that their trying to maintain a balance—they've so given over themselves to their own biases and their own worldview that they really just come after you.

Why such an intense reaction against the movie?

Well, it strikes at their core belief system, and this is why we're getting the same reaction out of the elite scientific establishment. What our film exposes is that there really is a debate about science, and it certainly is not a debate as the elitists portray it—science vs. religion. This is a 'world view' battle, and that's why the responses are so negative, so hostile. We're challenging the foundational principle of an entire belief system. Darwinism is the scientific validation of atheism….

Mark, talk about the film, is it truly a documentary that explores both sides?

It definitely explores both sides, but more than anything, it's a 'pro-freedom' film. What we're saying is that Darwin had some compelling insights into what we see in life, but by no means is it the entire picture. When you really take an honest look at the science, and you look at some of the issues that are conveniently ignored by the established Darwinists [there is much more to consider]. Such as the cosmos; we've got hundreds of components that have to be absolutely perfectly finely-tuned, and if even one of them is out of sync by only a little bit, then life's not even possible. The size of the earth, the tilt of the earth on its axis, the composition of its core, the size of our moon, the positioning of our moon to our planet, and of our planet to the sun, or of the solar system to the galaxy; all of these have to be perfect in order for life to exist, is that plausible to think that this all happened by accident? But really, the bigger question—ignored in Darwinism and most biology—is how did life come from non-life? Darwinism begins with the cell, but the cell is enormously complex—beyond even what we can comprehend—so how did we get from an inanimate substance like mud, to the cell…with no guidance, no programming, just sheer accidental mutation and selection? It defies reason! And yet they persecute and expel any scientist who even talks about the possibility of design, and that is wholly dishonest, immoral, and unscientific. We're arguing that the possibility that we can scientifically detect design in the universe should be allowed to be discussed freely and openly, which is good for science.

When you first went into this project, did you land on one side or the other?

Well, I came to the debate with a belief system, I am a Christian. But I didn't really have any depth of knowledge about the subject [of Darwinism] itself. So it was very interesting to travel the United States and the world, interviewing scientists and talking to them about these issues, seeing the logic and reasoning applied, and seeing my own view—as well as others on the crew—change a little and move in one direction. A lot of these scientists that we interviewed, the Darwinists, are very likable people, and they're very convinced that they're right. But I don't think their argument is anywhere near as solid as they might think. They don't seem to realize it's their philosophy that's driving them.

Well, Intelligent Design connotes accountability on some level, which they don't want to be a part of.

Right, it's that, and it's also ego. [Darwinists] are the "high priests" of "origins." Everybody defers to them; they control the data, the power, they have all the money, and they like this favored position where no competition to their idea is allowed. And of course, if you're an atheist, the worst thing you could imagine is having to have accountability to a Higher Power.

Talk about Ben Stein, was this your first time working with him?

It was my first time working with Ben, and the reason he got involved was that he saw this as a "freedom" issue. It's not good when societies become less free, and it's certainly not good for science. Having that completely unnecessary restriction in science appalled him. It was very interesting working with Ben, we went to London and Berlin, and different places around the U.S. Ben would sit down and interview these scientists—he's kind like a Colombo character—he would ask very basic and straightforward questions, playing kind of dumb to a degree. [In that way] he would get people to reveal what was really going on. He is a lawyer, so he plays that role pretty well.

What can the public do—the average person—to help facilitate even just the discussion of Intelligent Design?

Well, I hope the first thing they will do is to go out this weekend and watch the film, because they're going to get a tremendous amount of information about what's really going on in this controversy. They'll see how important it is to our culture and directly to their lives. This is not just an academic issue, [Darwinism] validates all kinds of social issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, or eugenics. These are the kinds of things that people should be thinking about, and why the scientific validation of a naturalistic, materialistic world has a very real impact on our culture and society.

So, the first thing I would encourage people to do is to go see the movie. And then I would encourage them to start discussions among themselves, and then start talking to people who are like-minded about the way that we can break this grip in science that is held by the elitist establishment that denies the existence of anything outside of human intelligence. One thing we're seeing now is academic freedom bills that are being discussed and pushed through in legislatures, in Missouri, in Florida, South Carolina, and Texas, where we can provide some legal protection for university professors and teachers to be allowed to at least acknowledge that the idea of Intelligent Design exists. Because these university professors are being villainized, losing their jobs and getting pushed out, simply for disagreeing with the establishment view. If Darwinism was such a strong and compelling idea, why is it that there is such a fear in the establishment that they cannot allow any challenge to exist?

I think the general public have the view that there are only a handful of Intelligent Design-oriented scientists out there, but in fact there are many more than we are aware of, is that true?

Many, many more. Anecdotally, I can tell you this… because the atmosphere is so hostile [toward Intelligent Design] it really gets broken down into three categories. First you have the elitists—who really run the show and the big science organizations along with the people who hold the power within the university system—who are absolutely committed Darwinists, they think that anybody who believes in God or in ID is stupid. Then you have a second group of people, who haven't really studied Darwinism to the degree that they would really know [the inconsistencies], and they say, "I don't know, but I think the [Darwinists] have it all figured out. Then you have a third group, which is much, much larger than the scientific establishment is willing to admit to itself, (perhaps tens of thousands of scientists in critical areas like geology, anthropology, and biology) who've looked at this theory, and say, "I don't believe that this Darwinian theory accounts for all that we see. I believe there is intelligence in this universe outside of ourselves." A lot of these people believe that intelligence is God, but they're keeping quiet because they've seen what happens to anyone who dares to step out of line. They don't want to have their career destroyed, so for now, they're staying quiet. I think that is a very large group of scientists.

We want to break that open so these people feel safe enough to come out and express their disbelief or at least their questions about Darwinism, without having their careers crushed. I'm hoping this film will be a catalyst to help drive that. We've got a long way to go, but the goal here is freedom in science…when people can freely discuss ideas, the truth will come.

Find out more about the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," featuring Ben Stein, by using the link provided. There is also a tool on the website to see where the film is being shown in your area. "Expelled" opens in theaters across the U.S. on Friday, April 18th.