The film "Expelled" makes significant errors and misrepresenations.

I thank Con for a spirited defense.Burden of ProofCon agrees with the definitions not excluding my definition of significant errors and misrepresentations as, “those that cast doubt on and/or undermine the message of the film,” but suggests that the metric used to determine whether I have met my burden of proof is that I have discredited the entire film.The goal set for my burden of proof is finding one or more errors or misrepresentations that cast doubt on or undermine the message. Given that I used the plural form in my topic title and R1, I reaffirm the standard that I must show at least two significant errors.Nothing in the resolution suggests that the film must be discredited in its entirety; merely that the problems I cite are significant enough to give pause in accepting the film’s theses.Anti-Evolution/Pro IdTo that end, I consulted the reviews of film critics to support my analysis of what those theses are. The critics share my view that the message of the film is not limited to academic freedom. Beyond the first 30 minutes of the film, the topic is sidelined.While still complaining about the treatment of ID proponents, the latter 2/3 of the film focuses on tearing down evolution and promoting ID, quite apart from questions of academic freedom or institutional bias. For example, the film spends 10 minutes around the one hour mark trying to connect evolution with Hitler, eugenics, abortion, euthanasia, etc. It spends about 10 minutes around the half hour mark giving evidence for ID and claiming weaknesses in evolutionary theory. At around the 50 minute mark, the film spends about 10 minutes discussing the superiority of ID/religion based philosophy over the evolutionary/scientific/atheist philosophy. (1) That’s a third of the film talking about ID vs evolution, apart from issues of academic freedom, and there are shorter clips outside those blocks making similar arguments.I spend so much space on this issue because out of the 7 errors/misrepresentations I identified, Con chose not to raise any direct attempts at refutation against 4 of them. For more than half the instances I pointed out, Con did not argue against my facts or reasoning in those cases, arguing instead that they were outside the scope of the debate as the synopsis of the film only mentions academic freedom. However, I have demonstrated that the message of the film goes beyond the synopsis; that the film does more than promote academic freedom, and as Con said in his R2, “It was made to reflect Stein's belief in intelligent design, rather than evolution...”The film’s intent was to promote ID and evolution in general, beyond asking for academic freedom. Thus, the 4 instances of error and misrepresentation I submitted regarding those aims are legitimate topics for debate, and the failure on Con’s part to attempt to refute them is effectively a concession. Please extend my arguments on those topics.That’s 4 instances of significant error and misrepresentation, which more than meets my burden of proof, and the resolution is affirmed at this point.Academic FreedomEgnorAs Con says, “The whole point was to show that anyone who threatens the indoctrination of future generations, will be ostracized.” However, that was not shown. All that was shown was that Egnor was criticized, not ostracized, and Con introduces no additional evidence to support the claim. The point of the movie was to represent this ostracizing, but the actual facts don’t bear it out.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.SternbergCon makes 3 arguments in defense of the treatment of Sternberg.1. Sternberg claims to have been exiled, Stein doesn’t say it.Irrelevant. The resolution that the film makes errors, not that Ben Stein made errors. Sternberg’s claim is presented in the film as factual, and forms an important part of the narrative that ID-proponents are silenced and expelled. This objection is irrelevant and should be rejected.2. My sources may or may not be factual and are tainted by being written by people who believe in evolution.My source for the claim that Sternberg was not exiled or expelled, but had arranged to resign his editorship before approving the article, and continued working with the Smithsonian institute after publishing the article, was Scientific American (2). Scientific American is a reputable magazine that won the 2011 National Magazine Award for General Excellence (3).If Con believes that their bias has led them to state incorrect facts, he must demonstrate this with evidence, not merely insinuate it. I also find his source bias complaints disingenuous, given that his only two sources in R2 were a news site run by the Pro-ID Discovery Institute (4) famous for the 1998 Wedge Document outlining its campaign to use ID as a weapon in the culture wars (5) and the blog of a Christian evangelist (6).3. There were no problems before Sternberg approved the publication of the article which suggests the “firestorm of controversy” was related to his ID beliefs.There was no firestorm. Sternberg was not fired, disciplined, ostracized, exiled, or expelled. He continued working at the Smithsonian Institute through the end of the position’s term, and then was offered an additional position. The film again makes an error and misrepresentation. It again claims that an ID proponent was persecuted, but Con does not show that Sternberg suffered any negative impacts at all. Again, if the film’s choice of persecuted ID’ers aren’t really persecuted, this undercuts the message.GonzalesCon has found a quote from one of the members of the ISU faculty that they voted based on his ID beliefs. It is insufficient. The faculty member quoted by Con is only one vote, and not necessarily representative.I have already given evidence that Gonzales’ publication history had declined since he joined Iowa State. It is also the case that his publications since joining had minimal scientific impact and were rarely cited, and his productivity was outclassed by his peers like Dr. Eric Agol and Dr. Zelijko Ivezik (7). Together, this constitutes a solid case that there was legitimate reason to reject the film’s claim of a “stellar research record” and there was a legitimate case to deny him tenure apart from his ID beliefs.Gonzales has a copy of the reasons that tenure was denied him (8), but has chosen not to reveal the contents of it. There would be no need for our current speculation if he would simply make public the official reasons for his denial and let us evaluate the truth value of them. If Gonzales was fired for ID, then it would seem that he would be eager to show the false reasons given by the university, but he has not done so. This behavior supports the idea that there were non-ID reasons for the denial.ConclusionBefore reaching the academic freedom arguments, Con failed to defend 4 of the significant problems with the film, and the resolution is affirmed at that point. When addressing the issues with the ID advocates, two of them have not been expelled or suffered any impacts at all, and the third’s denial of tenure has not been connected to his ID beliefs. All were chosen as examples of persecuted ID’ers, and it was not the case for any.(1) http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info...(2) http://www.scientificamerican.com...(3) http://www.scientificamerican.com...(4) http://www.evolutionnews.org...(5) http://www.antievolution.org...(6) http://www.thinkingchristian.net...(7) http://www.mnsci.org...(8) http://www.public.iastate.edu...