But science doesn’t require one to suppress emotions. It does help if one doesn’t get too attached to one’s theories, but one can certainly get excited about experimentation or searching for new things or the process of research in general. Spock is an interesting Star Trek character, but he is a poor representative of how scientists work.

I think the problem is deeply rooted in our society. Forty years ago, bad language on the athletic field would get you kicked off the team, if not disbarred from the sport. Now, it’s an essential motivational tool. I see this transformation of society from the more reasonable to the more visceral in lots of other places besides sports. And I’m not too happy about it. For this reason, I worry that a Richard Dawkins does more harm than good, because the tone and tenor of his arguments permit the opponents to say “See? Same as you!” And reply in kind. Which they love, ’cause they’re better and more experienced at it, and aren’t starting with a philosophical / methodological disconnect between their sales pitch and their real modus operandi.

I’m afraid the switch to a more reasoned approach to life will take the same “generations” that the switch to today’s oooga-oooga has taken. I hope we have the time.

You’re also overstating some of the other cases. GG most certainly had some original research in his papers. The issue was the quick dropoff after being set to work under his own power.

I did see the movie and it raised a lot of questions and revealed a lot of academic persecution in the schools and scientific circles

There’s a lot of academic persecution in the schools, alright, but none of it made it into Expelled.

You won’t find anything about Christine Comer, who was fired from her job as Director of Science for the Texas Education Agency for passing on one single email announcing a lecture critical of the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Strategy.

You won’t find anything about Steve Bitterman, who was fired from his professorship at a community college at the age of 60 for refusing to teach the literal interpretation of Genesis.

You won’t find anything about Paul Mirecki, the chair of religious studies at the University of Kansas, who for offering - not teaching, offering! - a course critical of intelligent design was stalked and beaten so badly he required hospitalization, and was compensated by the university stripping him of the chairmanship.

Expelled also did not present any of the alleged “persecutions” accurately.

Sternberg still retains an office of his own choosing at the Smithsonian, which he has not returned to but can at any time, and tendered his resignation as editor of the journal six months prior to attempting to publish a paper with no peer or associate review.

Guillermo Gonzales was not denied tenure for championing intelligent design of the cosmos but for spending his entire probationary period doing so and bringing in almost no funding from any sources. What publications he did produce during that period were literature reviews and contained no original research.

Caroline Crocker was employed on a course-by-course “at will” basis, as are about 40% of US college professors, and after being “blacklisted” by George Mason University she retained her associate professorship at a community college and was hired as a researcher at another university. She has since opted to give lectures on behalf of an intelligent design foundation full time, but this is by her own will, not because of any conspiracy.

Robert Marks’ standing at Baylor University has not changed in any way. He remains a distinguished professor of engineering and continues to teach courses and conduct research. The only “slight” against him by the university was shutting down a web page for a “laboratory” which did not actually exist anywhere on campus.

Pamela Winnick remained employed full-time by the Post-Gazette for two years after her “blacklisting”. She continues to have her articles published in the Post-Gazette, has published a book, and has branched out into writing opinion pieces for the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal.

Michael Egnor’s “persecution” consisted of being criticized on the Internet. His employment did not suffer in any way and he received no threats, physical or otherwise. Considering you can be criticized on the Internet for stating in an open forum that the sky is blue, his experiences are not particularly anomalous.

And what sense does it make to call it not “mainstream” compared to The Visitor and Shine a Light? Did either of those films have the marketing or screen distribution that Expelled had? Were either of them airing commercials in heavily rotation during the Daily Show? Part of what you get out of box office is what you put in. Being amongst the top 15 documentaries becomes less of an accomplishment when you look and see how little money for promotion, advertising, and wide release most documentary projects have. These guys had a ton of money that they threw around.

I think just about the only thing one can say for sure is that it was very far from the blowout one would expect and was promised from supposedly pent-up rage over the accusations made in the film.

And, as I said, I would expect that its boxoffice will last a lot longer than normal, instead of folding up quickly as one might expect after an opening like this.