No Intelligence Allowed: No Freedom of Inquiry

Documentary:  “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”  Ben Stein

To see this movie is to understand the foreshadows of tyranny in America in our time.

Interview with R.C. Sproul:

You know something is up when an entire industry has come into existence, an industry solely devoted to crushing Ben Stein and his movie.



16 Responses to No Intelligence Allowed: No Freedom of Inquiry

  1. Ryan M. says:

    *sigh* really?

    Expelled was a bad attempt to make it look like there is a debate within the scientific community on the topic of evolution. the amount of debate in the scientific community over the validity of evolution is about the same as the debate in the historical community over if the holocaust happened.

    look no one is out to crush Expelled and especially Ben Stein (the man was in Ferris Bueller’s day off for christ sake). Expelled was basically just a rehash of every argument the creationists have ever come up with. it offers nothing new and is full of inaccuracies.

    Stilled tries to make it look like the scientific community is trying to silence anyone who suggests anything other than evolution. much in the same way that 9/11 conspiracy theorists think that they are being silenced by the government.

    the real reason that scientists don’t listen to people like Ben Stein is about the same as the reason that the historical community doesn’t listen to the people who deny the holocaust, they usually haven’t done any actual research and since they aren’t doing anything useful why waist the time.

    if you want to get the full run down on Expelled go to

    as for the hole idea of teach the controversy in schools, I think that Penn Jillette said it better than I personally could:

    “You know, there’s nothing wrong with religion being taught in your home or your private school. Sure it’s going to harsh your mellow, but that’s your choice. The problem we’re having is we belong to a club (called the USA) as members we pay dues (called taxes) to support public, government-run schools, and those scools get run according to a handbook (the United States constitution) – now the constitution says our club steers clear of religion. That’s the deal we made! If we pay for it with taxes, it can’t have religion in it; that’s in the pesky bylaws. So as long as we’re all paying, no religion in school.”

  2. Allan Erickson says:


    People like Ryan prefer people take his word the work is useless.

    Stein does a good job of trying to be objective and thorough. He calmly and rationally explores the topic of evolution versus intelligent design and creationism. He interviews innumerable sources including Dawkins and professors overseas. He presents evidence professors are being systematically expelled and fired simply for having an opinion.

    The trends are chilling.

    Our universities have become indoctrination mills, not true institutions of higher learning. Classical education rooted in grammar, rhetoric and logic was the source of our Founders’ inspiration and wisdom, and those educational traditions always had a theological component.

    Ignorance leads people to believe the public education system was established without regard to moral instruction. It’s a lie. Public education was originally established to help students learn how to study the Bible correctly, among other disciplines, and the Founders knew without a virtuous people, this democratic republic would not survive.

    Since 1962 we have seen the results of declining education, poor instruction, and the removal of prayer and the Ten Commandments. We didn’t have Columbines, or epidemics of teen pregnancy and drug abuse or gang violence in a time when morality and citizenship were emphasized.

    Ryan and Penn are totally incorrect about Intelligent Design, Darwinism and Creationism, three separate and distinct schools of thought. Intelligent Design is embraced by many non-religious people. Creationism is something else altogether, and as Stein points out using the words of Darwinians themselves, the theory is full of holes, and its embrace has lead to chillling outcomes, not the least of which were Nazi justifications for promoting the super race and the resulting holocaust.

    Also, anyone caring to read the First Amendment understands the Constitution only prohibits government from ESTABLISHING a state religion (a good thing as no one wants theocracy), and the Constitutions also bans the government for interfering with the free exercise of religion, somthing the government routinely engages by regulating free speech in church today!

    Universities, and others, by limiting inquiry to only that which is politically correct, trample all over the First Amendment protection of free speech, and, they restrict academic inquiry to their tightly defined field of play, itself censorship, and a form of ESTABLISHMENT, the establishment of secular humanism and Darwinism as the overrriding world view, i.e., religion.

    Thus, if anyone is violating the Consitution it’s the secularists and the Darwinians.


    Isn’t it disturbing to see the elitists insist on allowing only one side of the story to be told? Control freaks. It is the precursor to tyranny, as Stein ably points out.

    See the film and consider. Read Bloom’s book and consider. Your freedom depends on it, and as Stein points out, America is all about freedom. If we lose freedom, we lose America.

    Ryan and Penn are blind to the threat. It will be up to the rest of us to preserve freedom, and justice, for all.

    If it is true scientists, professors, journalists and researchers are being fired simply for talking about Intelligent Design, when will the PC police come for you?

    For more information on what Intelligent Design is really all about:

    PS: It is doubtful Ryan viewed the entire R.C. Sproul interview with Stein. If he had, he would have restrained himself from certain outlandish assertions such as “Expelled” is only a rehash of creationism (absurd) and no one who promotes ID does research (LOL). Also, stop and think for a moment. Ryan says scientists no longer debate evolution. Therefore, according to Ryan, the matter is settled. Darwin is God? Stein’s film and other resources will show you some of the glaring holes in Darwininan theory. If modern science is ignoring those holes, what is the agenda. And is it true Darwin himself had doubts late in life and returned to faith?

  3. Ryan M. says:

    Allen, you make a lot of claims of how our universities have become “indoctrination mills” and how out country as whole is going down the crapper, but you offer nothing to back up your claims. yes teen pregnancies are becoming more common but those rates are the highest in good old god fearing state with high percentages of religious adherents. states like Mississippi, Texas, and New Mexico have the highest rates of teen pregnancy.

    but you know what the above argument doesn’t prove anything. neither does the your argument that since prayer has been removed from schools all these bad things have happened. Correlation does not imply causation. if i was to fallow that logic i could say that the increase in the global average temperature is directly effected by the shrinking number of pirates since the 1800’s (chart that lays out the statistics,

    also, while yes most of the original public schools did use the bible in teaching, it was mostly because teaching someone to read usually requires something for them to read. and since almost every family at the time had a bible it made sense to use readily available bible. just like now it makes sense to use the readily available classic “Hop on Pop”.

    at this time i would like to point out that it is doubtful Allen viewed the entire Expelled Exposed web site. If he had, he would have restrained himself from certain outlandish assertions such as “Darwinism” “led to” Nazism, the Holocaust, and other heinous historical events (Poppycock) and that the scientific community views Darwin as a god (lol omg lmfao rotfl 1337 noob pwnage). oh and as for the fact that evolution isn’t perfect, the scientific method acknowledges that we can never say that something is true. the scientific method only says that having done numerous experiments our theory best explains what we have observed. if at some time a new theory should come along and explain what we have observed better than the old theory, there is a scientific revolution. where you see glaring holes scientists see the future of research and a chance for discovery. modern science isn’t ignoring those holes it’s analyzing possible ways to take a step forword and cross the gap that those holes form, instead of rushing ahead and decenging into the darkness that those holes may contain.

    oh and as for the false belief that Darwin doubted evolution you need look no further than Darwin’s auto-biography,

    “By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.” (p.86)

    “Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.” (p.87)

    “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” (p. 87)

    “The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.” (p.87)

    “At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favor of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God…This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists.” (p.91)

    “Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps as inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.” (p.93)

  4. Allan Erickson says:



    Correlation is all medical science has to claim cigarettes cause cancer, so correlation is accepted as a valid indicator in various places.

    As to universities I have my own direct experience attending several over the course of many, many years both in Oregon and California. I also have the reports from many, many students throughout the country, and other sources of information including ongoing debates with graduates from my own school, all of whom were indouctrinated and have changed little in 35 years. I also have Stein’s film and tremendous numbers of articles testifying to the monolith public universities have become, not to re-mention Bloom’s book and research.

    As far as the origins of American public education, it is a good thing people do not have to rely on the undocumented and frivolous assertions of people who claim the Judeo-Christian tradition had nothing to do with any of it.

    Fun and interesting time line:

    Anyone agree most of the colleges and universities started in the U.S. were started by Christians?

    As to teen pregnancy, morality, abstinence versus condoms: you guys have good luck with that safe sex bit. It’s the road to hell. We teach our kids abstinence. Guess what, nobody ever got pregnant or contracted an STD by abstaining. Responsible adults teach abstinence. Irresponsible people put children at risk. Abstinence is always successful when practiced, and more successfully practiced when solid morality is instilled, and the most solid morality known to human kind comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Other traditions promote perversion with children and animals as you well know. Case closed.

    Without transcendent moral authority life becomes a crap shoot, a meaningless existence, no one is accountable, and people rationalize the most horrendous behaviors. Historical fact, sociological reality. Deal with it.

    Thanks for sharing Darwin atheistic confession. Atheists love being atheists. They think freedom comes from not being accountable for their actions. I for one think the majority impulse is sexual freedom. If atheists are honest, they’ll admit they choose to deny the existence of God to pave the way for self-indulgence. Huxley was on honest enough to admit this, and I believe Bertrand Russell also was candid along these lines. In any event Darwinians find struts to support their atheism, which is entirely selfish, when you boil it all down. After all, if there is no God, no meaning, no basis for morality or ethics, it’s a free for all, and you can boink whatever and whomever you like!

    Of course the problem is without God you have no restrain, and without restrain you eventually have Dachau.

    By the way, tried to visit your sterling website that claims to debunk Stein. Video never came up. Shoot man, more and more Ph.D’s are coming forward to describe the holes in Darwin’s theory. Nobody denies species mutate, but no one can verify Darwin’s claim entire new species evolve from prior ones and no one buys the absurd assertion the entire engine of life was self-created from nothingness. Well, some people believe that bilge, but you have to put hyour brain on hold to embrace it, and suspend rational, logical anlaysis.

    Here we find Darwin converted to Christ on his deathbed.

    As to proof of the claims of Christ, a fascinating and compelling work by a towering intellect might be worthy of your consideration:

    “Mere Christianity,” by C.S. Lewis.

    An atheist, Lewis began reading the New Testament specifically to disprove the claims of Christ. In the process he found he could not disprove anything, and became a believer. WARNING. Do not pick up the New Testament unless your are unafraid of the truth.

    C.S. Lewis on Christianity (40 audio presentations, only a few listed here.)

  5. Allan Erickson says:

    Especially for Ryan:

  6. Princess says:

    I saw the movie
    I love Ben Stein. He is a good man!

  7. Allan Erickson says:

    Hello Princess:

    If Stein and many of his sources are right (and I think they are) in asserting, like Hayek, that socialism means slavery, how ironic the champion of American Blacks appears the agent of the change they seek, a reactionary move back to the plantation, and an insistence we all go along for the ride, running away from the Promised Land, back to Egypt.

    The Road to Serfdom
    by F. A. Hayek

  8. Ryan M. says:

    um couple quick questions:

    1.) what set of beliefs promotes perversion with children and animals?

    2.) you do realize that bestiality is legal in, ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, Connecticut, FLORIDA, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, Nevada, New Hampshire, New jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, TEXAS, Vermont, WASHINGTON (your home state if i’m not mistaken), West Virginia and Wyoming?

    3.) how can you say that abstinence is 100% effective when your entire religion is based a virgin birth?

    4.) (this gets a little personal) did you have sex before marriage?

    if so how are you not a hypocrite?

    5.) why should it matter if you have sex before marriage or not? doesn’t you god care more about love than sex?

    6.) where in the bible does it say that birth control is a sin?

    7.) where do you get the idea that atheism leads to sexual perversion? i can say from my own personal experience that more religious girls tend to be into the kinky stuff. also i have yet to meet anyone atheist or religious who is attracted to anything outside his or her own species.

    by the way .
    i was raised Baptist. I have read both the Old and New testaments cover to cover.
    you know what turned me off to religion, the Bible. specifically the glaring holes in it and idiotic rules
    “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.”

    oh and as for the holes, was Adam created first then Eve or were they created at the same time? the Bible i read had both.

    the problem is the bible cant be taken literally. it has more holes in it than the plot of the Prestige.

    take a look

    listen i have no problem with the bible but i do have a problem with people taking it literally.

  9. Allan Erickson says:

    As to #1:

    “A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”

    From Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh”

    Their tradition of using boys and 9 year old girls is well known.

    I’m not aware of any passage concerning birth control other than what we might infer from reading Genesis 38:1-11 but even here the offense of Onan has more to do with breaking the covenant than birth control, although the two are intimately connected in this circumstance.

    As to all other questions concerning sexuality and behavior I’d refer you to a great book by a friend: “The Naked Truth about Sex, Love and Relationships,” by Lakita Garth-Wright. (She abstained by the way.)

    I think you know the answer to #3.

    If you have a problem with people taking the Bible literally, I suppose it depends upon what you mean by ‘literally.’

    Many “rules” intended literally for Jews specifically during a specific time for specific reasons do not apply to Christians today. I suspect you draw from Maher referencing the command to stone a disobedient son. Hitchens is also adroit lifting things out of context and holding them up to ridicule, as if that is useful exegesis.

    What a lot of secularists miss is the range of opinion within the Christian tradition. Some heed a 6,000 year old earth, others say they aren’t sure since Peter told us one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, to the Lord. Yes, yes…I know….Carbon 14 ….

    Your question concerning Adam and Eve is floated, I suspect, as a trip wire, but I’ll bite. Obviously, Adam was created first. How else would be be found lonely, in need of a help mate. How else could Eve come along subsequently created from Adam’s rib. Do you think God actually used Adam’s rib or just some of his DNA, and which would be the literal interpretation, one, or the other, or both? (Interesting too how God created them equal partners but subjected the woman to the headship of the man following the fall/rebellion, then later in the new covenant, had them submit one to another, restoring equal standing.)

    Consider also what Christ himself had to say about the veracity of the Scripture and I think there you will find the most useful information about literal interpretation. You cannot accuse on of circular reasoning referencing the Bible verify the Bible, since the Bible is actually 66 books written by 40 authors over the course of 1600 years, and thus, cross referencing is altogether useful and appropriate. It is also very interesting to consider the Word as written by the inspiration of God through men references the Word (i.e. the Son) which the Father spoke to bring all things into existence.

    There are rules for interpreting the Bible as you are likely aware. I’m not a theologian although I’ve attended seminary and studied on my own. Here are the essential rules. Their application will answer many of your questions.

    1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean?

    2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews.

    3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context.

    4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written.

    5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed.

    6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent.

    7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).

    8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition.

    Also, wisdom from 2 Timothy 2—

    15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. ”

    However, the central question is posed by Christ himself in John 11:26—

    25 “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

  10. Ross Robbins says:

    25 “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

    Hm….nope, don’t believe in it–just like I don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny 😉

    Sorry, but really.

  11. Allan Erickson says:

    Ebert! HA!

    “If you make people think they’re thinking, they’ll love you; but if you really make them think, they’ll hate you.” DON MARQUIS

    “Science has ‘explained’ nothing; the more we know, the more fantastic the world becomes, and the profounder the surrounding darkness.” ALDOUS HUXLEY

    “The greatest question of our time is not communism versus individualism; not Europe versus the East versus the West. It is whether men can live without God.”

    (PS: interesting most of Ebert’s comments come from people who admit they’ve not seen Stein’s movie, yet they revel in Ebert’s condemnation, thus revealing their uniformed prejudicial thinking and unwillingness to learn. I thought Stein did a great job of raising questions, outlining the controversy, and mostly, demonstrating the terrible tendency to prejudge everything according to what is politically correct, the essential foundation allowing academic tyranny and persecution of people who simply suggest consideration of intelligent design.)

    And God stands by reminding us from his Word:

    1Corinthians 8:2
    The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.

    Matthew Henry Commentary

    Chapter 8
    The danger of having a high conceit of knowledge. (1-6)

    Verses 1-6 There is no proof of ignorance more common than conceit of knowledge. Much may be known, when nothing is known to good purpose. And those who think they know any thing, and grow vain thereon, are the least likely to make good use of their knowledge. Satan hurts some as much by tempting them to be proud of mental powers, as others, by alluring to sensuality. Knowledge which puffs up the possessor, and renders him confident, is as dangerous as self-righteous pride, though what he knows may be right. Without holy affections all human knowledge is worthless. The heathens had gods of higher and lower degree; gods many, and lords many; so called, but not such in truth. Christians know better. One God made all, and has power over all. The one God, even the Father, signifies the Godhead as the sole object of all religious worship; and the Lord Jesus Christ denotes the person of Emmanuel, God manifest in the flesh, One with the Father, and with us; the appointed Mediator, and Lord of all; through whom we come to the Father, and through whom the Father sends all blessings to us, by the influence and working of the Holy Spirit. While we refuse all worship to the many who are called gods and lords, and to saints and angels, let us try whether we really come to God by faith in Christ.

  12. Ryan M. says:

    everything you need to know about evolution

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: