The film "Expelled" makes significant errors and misrepresenations.

Egnor: --"This is a misrepresentation, and it's significant because the film had the entirety of academia to choose from in building its case that ID proponents are persecuted, and the best they could come up with is a case were a professor promoted ID and people said nasty things about him on the internet. " -- Actually, the film shows two instances, Egnor and Caroline Crocker, who was basically blackballed. Stein says at the beginning of the segment on Egnor, "It's not just biologists that are feeling the wrath…". His goal was to show that even those outside the field of biology, who challenge evolutionary theory, are ridiculed and criticized. Stein only needed to show one instance, outside of biology, to satisfy the claim made in the film, and he did. My opponent is attempting to make this into a huge misrepresentation, when it isn't. No claims are made, by the film, except that he was criticized and ridiculed, by Darwinists, that's it. A simple google search for "criticism of Michael Egnor", reveals 22,300 results. He was criticized, and that's all the movie claims. . http://www.google.com... Sternberg: 1. Sternberg claims to have been exiled, Stein doesn't say it. My meaning here was that Sternberg was making the claim himself, Stein wasn't simply picking a case that he thought might make his point. This point isn't really worth arguing. 2. "My sources may or may not be factual and are tainted by being written by people who believe in evolution. " I would ask my opponent to show where I said they, "are tainted by being written by people who believe in evolution. " I made no such claim. I simply said that they are "articles that are basically commentaries and opinions, by supporters of evolution, that may, or may not be factual. " I left open the possibility, that they might be factual. The point is that just because an uninvolved party writes an article, doesn't automatically mean that it is factually accurate, nor does it mean that we are obligated to accept the writer's opinion as credible evidence. Simply listing an article, that echoes your opinion, does not suffice as "proof" of anything. --"…. but had arranged to resign his editorship before approving the article, and continued working with the Smithsonian institute after publishing the article. " -- These facts are not in dispute. In fact, on his website, Sternberg says this, "So as planned for some time, in September 2004 Dr. Banks took over as managing editor of the Proceedings. This transition had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper. " The claim made by Sternberg, and the film, is that he lost his office, as in his physical office, not his title or position. This makes perfect sense, as in the film Sternberg points to the west wing, to show where his office use to be. That office apparently had nothing to do with his position as editor. . http://www.richardsternberg.org... --"If Con believes that their bias has led them to state incorrect facts, he must demonstrate this with evidence, not merely insinuate it. " -- Again, that's not what I said. Pro is alleging the misrepresentation, and this is his source. It is his responsibility to validate it as a "proof". We can't just find an article where the author mirrors our opinion, and claim that, unless my opponent can disprove it, it's fact. --"I also find his source bias complaints disingenuous…. ." -- Fair enough, but at least it added something new to the discussion, it didn't just echo my opinion. I posted the second one as verification, to show that the quote I took from the first article wasn't just the author's opinion. One other point, as Haupman's quote favors Gonzalez, and Gonzalez has an unpopular opinion, I'm really limited in options, when looking for sources. Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything about that quote in the award winning Scientific American. 3. "There was no firestorm. Sternberg was not fired, disciplined, ostracized, exiled, or expelled. " He lost his office, was investigated, pressured to resign, and his department chair told him that he was viewed as an "intellectual terrorist for giving ID a modicum of credibility". Seems to me that that creates a pretty hostile work environment, and losing one's office certainly qualifies as discipline. Gonzalez: --"I have already given evidence that Gonzales' publication history had declined since he joined Iowa State. " -- Even if true, publication is not the only way to meet the criteria for tenure. . http://www.provost.iastate.edu... --"It is also the case that his publications since joining had minimal scientific impact and were rarely cited…"-- One of his works is an astronomy textbook that was used by ISU. ISU has released a statement about the issue, and is probably very consistent with what Gonzalez has. The release of that document has no bearing on the truth of the case, as we already know the university's position. Darwin "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. " How could Stein attempt to smear Darwin as a Nazi supporter, when Darwin died in 1882? ? I agree that Stein read from that passage, and that it was incomplete, however I don't think he was attempting to say that Darwin is directly responsible. I think his point in reading just those parts was to show how someone, like Hitler, could misconstrue Darwin's works, and use them for evil purposes. If you watch that entire section, that makes perfect sense. They had just finished talking about Hitler, and how he thought he was helping "evolution". Stein even says, "I know that Darwinism does not automatically equate to Nazism", then asks if a similar event could happen again. Then they show a couple people talking about how Darwinism essentially devalues human life, and reduces it to just natural processes. Those are perfectly valid points for discussion, and does not mean that he's trying to link the two, but even if he did, so what. If he can give a reason to support his opinion, then he has every right to make the claim. Ultimately, I agree that he didn‘t read the entire passage on film, but I don't think it's for the dastardly purpose that pro represents, it's to show how an evil mind might translate it. Dawkins Regarding the Richard Dawkins interview, pro states that Stein says, "Richard Dawkins is not against intelligent design". Here pro is guilty of the same kind of quote-mining, that he accuses Stein of. Stein's actual words were, "So Professor Dawkins is not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers, such as God. " The truth of this statement, and the justification for it, is on record, if one watches the interview. Dawkins described the possibility that some, intelligent life form evolved and designed a form of life that they seeded onto earth, he calls this an "intriguing possibility". This is not just a hypothetical statement by Dawkins, it's an actual theory, called directed panspermia, advanced by Frances Crick. He then goes so far as to say that we might find evidence for that if we look at the molecular biology, we might find a signature of some sort of designer. Stein then says, "Wait a second, Richard Dawkins thought that intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit? " Given all that Dawkins had just said, I don't see a misrepresentation there, at all. Sorry for the mess but I'm out of space. My response to the other two allegations are in the comments section.