The film "Expelled" makes significant errors and misrepresenations.

As no new definitions were offered in Con's R1, I proceed forward with the definitions already provided. Burden of Proof:As defined in R1, I must show at least two instances of inaccuracies, incorrectness, or false representations that cast doubt on and/or undermine the message of the film. The premise of the film is first that, as the official synopsis says, there is no academic freedom when it comes to intelligent design (1). Beyond that, the film's obvious agenda is the promotion of ID, or intelligent design, and opposition to evolutionary theory. This interpretation is shared by respected film critics such as Roger Ebert (2), Claudia Puig (3), and Reece Pendleton (4). The last of whom sums up the message of the movie as, "Embracing evolutionary theory will turn you into a close-minded, God-denying Nazi. "I will obviously not be able to cover all claims in 8000 characters so I will choose a couple from each category. Academic Freedom:The cornerstone of the film's arguments on academic freedom was that a half-dozen or so intelligent design proponents were "expelled" from their institutions for intelligent design advocacy. Showing that in one or more cases these people did not suffer the consequences claimed in the film for such advocacy significantly undermines the film's argument regarding the lack of academic freedom. EgnorMichael Engor wrote an article saying that the study of evolution was unnecessary to practice medicine and was criticized for it on websites and by letters. The film calls this criticism Darwinists trying to exterminate a threat and stamps his photo with “expelled”(5). The film doesn’t even claim any negative consequences happened to him beyond criticism, but still tries to represent his as expelled. SternbergThe film claims that Richard Sternberg’s was “exiled” from the Smithsonian Institute and that his “life was nearly ruined when he strayed from the party line while serving as editor of a scientific journal affiliated with the prestigious Smithsonian Museum of Natural History” (6). Sternberg was not exiled from the Smithsonian Institute. Before he approved the pro-ID article, he had already arranged his resignation from editorial duties and the article was intended to be his last. When the time period for his unpaid research associate position ended, the Smithson Institute offered him a position as a research collaborator (7). Correspondence among museum officials shows that they were not holding his ID beliefs against him (8). This account was full of errors. In both the cases of Egnor and Sternberg, ID-supporters were not silenced and expelled despite the film’s representation. Gonzales:The film claims that Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University “despite a stellar research record” because he recently published a pro-ID book (9). The university explains that tenure is granted based heavily on “what the candidate has accomplished during his/her appointment as an independent faculty member at Iowa State” and a full third of candidates over the 10 year period ending with Gonzalez’s denial had been denied tenure (10). While the university doesn’t disclose details of tenure decisions, an examination of his publication output, the prime measure of ‘accomplishment’, shows that Gonzales, “publishes hardly any papers as primary author, whose publication list contracts once he strikes out on his own, and, perhaps most importantly, who doesn't publish with new colleagues” (11). This is not a stellar research record as the film claims, an error, and it suggests that the examples the film has chosen as its martyrs for ID had other reasons for the institutional problems beyond their ID beliefs. Anti-evolution:DarwinThe film quotes Charles Darwin as saying:“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick, thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. ”But omits the next paragraph:“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ”This misrepresents Darwin’s opinion as part of an attempt to cast his theories as support for Nazi eugenics, when in fact he expressed the opposite (12). This is completely and blatantly dishonest, and quote mining to smear your opponent as a Nazi supporter destroys the films credibility entirely. Dawkins:In an interview with Richard Dawkins, Ben Stein asked him how a possibility for intelligent design explaining the origin of life would work. Dawkins replied with a hypothetical situation about an intelligent designer as a higher intelligence. Stein then interpreted this in a voiceover, saying that “Richard Dawkins is not against intelligent design. ” (13) This, even though throughout the film Dawkins was shown giving anti-ID quotes and the most basic familiarity with his beliefs would acknowledge his anti-ID stance. This misrepresentation shows that even when the film presents the evidence fully, it misrepresents it in interpretation, casting doubt on the trustworthiness of all it’s interpretations. Pro-Id:CreationismThe film attempts to categorize ID as a scientific exploration into evolution with the possibility of discovering god (14). But the term itself is a misrepresentation, a unconvincing mask for creationism, as ID proponents found when they tried to teach it as science and had a judge rule against them in Harrisburg, Pa (15) after they simply replaced “creationism” with “intelligent design” in the textbooks (16). ResearchThe film bolsters ID claims by claiming that Jonathan Wells is discovering cancer treatments based on intelligent design (17), which is not true. His views go against the bulk of accepted science and play a role in HIV-denial (18). This is not just an error but a dangerous misrepresentation. I now pass the debate to Con and look forward to his R2. (1) . http://www.imdb.com...(2) . http://blogs.suntimes.com...(3) . http://www.usatoday.com...(4) . http://www.chicagoreader.com...(5) . http://tinyurl.com... ~1:30(6) . http://tinyurl.com... ~5:53(7) . http://www.scientificamerican.com...(8) . http://scienceblogs.com...(9) . http://tinyurl.com... ~3:56(10) . http://www.public.iastate.edu...(11) . http://scienceblogs.com...(12) . http://www.scientificamerican.com...(13) . http://tinyurl.com... ~2:05(14) . http://tinyurl.com... ~4:44(15) . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...(16) . http://www.wgal.com...(17) . http://tinyurl.com... ~7:47(18) . http://pandasthumb.org...