The film "Expelled" makes significant errors and misrepresenations.

"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. Just one quick point. I don't believe we had a preset number that needed to be shown. It may take several smaller errors to discredit the film, on the other hand, it may only take one major error. To begin, I'd like to say that I admit that this film IS biased. It was made to reflect Stein's belief in intelligent design, rather than evolution, and his belief that academic freedom, in this issue, is non-existent. However, it is no different than other films, or documentaries, as even shows on the history channel, or discovery channel, are biased. All filmmakers take some license in making their point. With that said, I'm probably not going to be able to clear up everything, and make this a 100% factual film, I doubt that such a creature exists. I think this is a good film, but that it barely scratches the surface of the problem. While it is pro intelligent design, I think the film's goal was to highlight the cult-like following of evolutionary theory, and the religious adherence to it, in the scientific and academic fields, in spite of so many unanswered questions. It logically follows that such rigid adherence restricts those who question, or deny evolution. I'm not sure why my opponent cited the film critic reviews. Are these people that one would normally consult, regarding the evolution/ID debate? ? I highly doubt it. After reading the reviews, I can't help but think that they were brought into this debate just to ridicule, as they add absolutely nothing credible to the discussion. If the case against the film is so strong, and airtight, why is Roger Ebert's opinion on ID needed? This is a perfect example of the kind of attitude, against anything that threatens evolution, that the film is calling attention to. I would hope that the voters don't reward this particular tactic. Egnor: The film does mark him as expelled, as that's the signature of the film, it‘s for dramatic effect only. It doesn't make any claims about his being fired, or that he lost anything, aside from respect of his peers that support evolution. Egnor claims that he was harassed, and that evolutionists were encouraging people to call the university, no other allegations were made about damage. The whole point was to show that anyone who threatens the indoctrination of future generations, will be ostracized. Sternberg: At about 5:57 in the video, Sternberg himself, not Stein, claims that he was exiled. What is offered as refutation to this, is articles that are basically commentaries and opinions, by supporters of evolution, that may, or may not be factual. The intelligent design proponent, Meyer, raised some interesting questions about evolution, in his article, that Sternberg thought should be brought to the table. For that, this firestorm of controversy broke out, when there was apparently no problems before the article was published. If these problems existed before the publishing, why weren't they dealt with, at that time? Gonzalez: Here's a comment from someone who voted on Gonzalez' tenure: "John Hauptman, Professor of Physics at ISU, explained his "no" vote: Gonzalez is an outstanding scientist and instructor, and ID is off-limits, period. " He is an outstanding scientist, well liked by his students, and has discovered two planets, yet the guy voted against him because "ID is off limits". Do we have any established criteria, such as a minimum amount of publications needed to gain tenure at ISU? ? If not, I don't see how this can be claimed as reason for denial. Pro states that quantity of output is a prime criteria, but I would suspect that universities value quality over quantity, in these publications, and we have no indication as to the quality of his work, except his peers saying that he is outstanding. To claim that he has a less than stellar record, would require more than just an assertion by my opponent. It's obvious that the direction of his work played into this decision. . http://www.thinkingchristian.net... . http://www.evolutionnews.org... Anti-evolution/ Pro-ID/ Research I am not conceding these points to my opponent, but I'm also not going to spend much time trying to justify them. At the beginning of the debate, my opponent set the definitions, and showed a synopsis of the film, that I agreed to. The synopsis is as follows: "Ben Stein examines the issue of academic freedom and decides that there is none when it comes to the debate over intelligent design. " With all due respect, we're not debating the validity of ID, or evolution. The debate is about academic freedom, and it's restriction, as represented in the film. Even if Stein just blatantly lies about these latter points, it speaks to his character. Pro may be able to find some inconsistencies, in certain areas, but those pointed to in this section are insignificant to the main point. They don't change the facts established earlier, about the restriction of academic freedom, which is the subject of this debate. I look forward to pro's response.