The more that the producers of Expelled talk, the more they demonstrate their abject idiocy. Chris Heard transcribes part of producer Mark Mathis’s discussion with Scientific American:
[SciAm editor] Mirsky: Why not also include comments from somebody like Ken Miller—
Mirsky: who is famously religious—
Mathis: well— [Laughs.]
Mirsky: and an evolutionary biologist.
Mathis: I would tell you this. And this is keeping in mind who you’re talking to is an associate producer. I don’t make decisions about who gets interviewed, and, and I don’t make decisions about if they’re interviewed, what makes it into the film.
[SciAm editor] Rennie: Mm-hmm, sure.
Mathis: But I would tell you from a, my personal standpoint as somebody who’s worked on this project, that Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily. I don’t agree with Ken Miller. I think that you, I think that when you look at this issue and this debate, that really there’s, there’s one side of the line or the other, and you, it’s, it’s hard to stay, I don’t think you can intellectually, honestly, honestly intellectually stand on a line that I don’t think exists—
Rennie: I mean, I think, listen—
Rennie: there are, there are obviously plenty of people, I mean as you mentioned, P.Z. Myers, Dawkins himself, a lot of them would make exactly that same argument—
Mathis: Mm-hmm, yeah.
Rennie: that somebody like Ken Miller is wrong. But I mean, you say he would have, his presence would have “confused the film.” The point is what, it would actually had, I mean, it would have, it would have considerably undercut the major point that is made, that really that belief in, in evolution obliges you not to believe in God, and to—
Mathis: No, I don’t think so, because, uh, the form of Catholicism that Ken Miller accepts and practices is, is nowhere near the form of Catholicism that is followed by Catholics who are members of the Catholic church, who believe in Catholic doctrine. What he believes is certainly out of—
[There are a few seconds here that are garbled as several people speak at once.—RCH]
In short, they only interviewed atheist scientists because they think that theistic scientists who oppose creationism aren’t really theists, perhaps reinventing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. To dismiss theistic scientists who oppose ID creationism (including many members of the American Scientific Affiliation, a group of evangelical scientists) because they “confuse” things is either a demonstration of a very low threshold for confusion on the part of the producers, or the very low opinion they have of their audience. People can handle the idea that there are theistic opponents of (ID) creationism, and there could have been real value in exploring the reasons why theists would oppose treating theology as a scientific endeavor.
Instead, the producers are reduced now to belittling the religious belief of scientists, and hiding an important part of this social debate merely because they find it inconvenient.
(N.B.: Ken Miller has discussed his take on evolution and creationism with Catholic bishops, etc., and they agree that his view is entirely concordant with Catholic teaching. As Chris Heard notes: “Agreeing with two popes is hardly an aberrant in Catholicism.”)