Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Scientific American's Take

John Rennie, Michael Shermer and Steve Mirsky all watched Ben Stein's new antievolution movie. Here's what they had to say about its design flaws.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

You wouldn't expect Scientific American to take a particularly positive view of a movie that espouses intelligent design over evolutionary biology. Then again, you wouldn’t expect the producers of said film—in this case, Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed—to offer the editors of said magazine a private screening.

Associate producer Mark Mathis showed up at our offices with a preview of Expelled in hand. That's right, the unexpected screening happened. The unexpected positive reviews did not.

As part of this special package of reviews and commentary, our Skeptic columnist, Michael Shermer, who appears in Expelled, starts with his own links to the film—in the 1970s he was a student at Pepperdine University, where the movie begins—but ends up dumbfounded by the movie's dishonesty. (Shermer caught a screening at the National Religious Broadcasters's convention.)

Also, this week's Science Talk podcast features Steve Mirsky interviewing Rennie and Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education. Scott says she was "bamboozled" into appearing in Expelled. In another clip, you can hear how Mathis responded to a number of questions from Scientific American staffers.

Finally, SciAm editor in chief, John Rennie, writes that the movie's attempts to link the theory of evolution to the Holocaust are shameful, and is joined by Steve Mirsky in summing up "Six Things in Expelled that Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know".

Have your own review? Leave a comment on any part of this feature. Check back frequently—we hope this generates a lot of light along with the heat.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American