However, the movie was actually pitched to Stein as an anti-Darwin picture:

On learning of the pro-intelligent design stance of the real film, Myers said, "not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest."^[75] Dawkins said, "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front", and Scott said, "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren't."^[4]

Mathis called Myers, Dawkins and Scott a "bunch of hypocrites", and said that he "went over all of the questions with these folks before the interviews and I e-mailed the questions to many of them days in advance".^[80][81] The film's proponents point out that Dawkins participated in the BBC Horizon documentary A War on Science, whose producers, they allege, presented themselves to the Discovery Institute as objective filmmakers and then portrayed the organization as religiously-motivated and anti-scientific.^[80][82][83]

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times, complaining about the deception. Speckhardt wrote, "If one needs to believe in a god to be moral, why are we seeing yet another case of dishonesty by the devout? Why were leading scientists deceived as to the intentions of a religious group of filmmakers?"^[84]

Expelled has been criticized for not interviewing people who accept both theism and the theory of evolution. When the editorial staff of Scientific American asked Mathis why they did not include anybody like devout Catholic and prominent biologist Kenneth R. Miller in the movie, Mathis stated that his inclusion "would have confused the film unnecessarily" and went on to question Miller's intellectual honesty and orthodoxy as a Catholic because he accepts evolution.^[88] Expelled is often criticized for setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and religion.

In a review of the film, the Waco Tribune-Herald described its "failure to cover how Christian evolutionists reconcile faith and science" as "perhaps the film’s most glaring and telling omission", and that the film rather "quickly dismissed [them] by a chain of quotes that brand them as liberal Christians and duped by militant atheists in their efforts to get religion out of the classroom."^[89]

Defending the movie, the producer, Walt Ruloff, said that scientists like prominent geneticist Francis Collins keep their religion and science separate only because they are "toeing the party line". Collins, who was not asked to be interviewed for the film in any of its incarnations, said that Ruloff's claims were "ludicrous".^[4]

He stops there, then names Darwin as the author in a way that suggests that Darwin provided a rationale for the activities of the Nazis. This selective quotation is an example of quote mining. The original paragraph (page 168) is different (words that Stein omitted shown in italics) and the very next sentences in the book falsify Stein's argument:^[86][85]

The same misleading selective quotation from this passage was used by anti-evolutionist William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 Scopes Trial but the full passage makes it clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics. The eugenics movement relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity, and by the 1920s evolutionary biologists were criticizing eugenics. Clarence Darrow who defended the teaching of human evolution in the Scopes trial wrote a scathing repudiation of eugenics.^[45]

well were your sources? So far you're telling me you're believing people who have not seen the movie by providing me with this vague links by people who are basically boycotting this movie....what are they afraid of? What are you afraid of?