The film "Expelled" makes significant errors and misrepresenations.

I thank con for the timely posting of his R3.Burden/DropsCon raised no objections to my BoP in R3. My burden is finding two or more errors or misrepresentations that cast doubt on or undermine the message of the film. Con dropped his arguments regarding what the message of the film is and that any of my arguments were off-topic, so please consider all my arguments.As I will not be able to rebut any new arguments Con chooses to raise on these issues, please consider them fixed and ignore new arguments from Con regarding them.Academic FreedomEgnorCon makes most of my arguments for me regarding Egnor. As Con said in R2 regarding the Egnor segment, “The whole point was to show that anyone who threatens the indoctrination of future generations, will be ostracized.” Con emphasized this again in R3, saying “Actually, the film shows two instances, Egnor and Caroline Crocker, who was basically blackballed.” Con also agrees that the film marked Egnor as expelled, saying it’s only for dramatic purposes.It’s a dramatic misrepresentation and error. Egnor was not expelled, ostracized or blackballed and the film is in error when it says he was. Con recognizes that this what the film is trying to show, but agrees, “No claims are made, by the film, except that he was criticized and ridiculed, by Darwinists, that's it.”Con did not address my impact analysis showing that it was significant in undercutting the ‘persecuted ID’er” narrative, so please extend that. This is error and misrepresentation.SternbergTo restate: the 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” (1).However, Con acknowledges that his resignation as editor had nothing to do this paper and does not dispute that he was offered an additional position at the institute after his current one expired. Con’s only attempt to show that Sternberg was actually exiled and his life was actually almost ruined is that Sternberg claims he was moved to a different office for his ID beliefs and that his supervisor said mean things about him.However, like his resignation from the editorship, the move was planned well before the publication of the article. As part of a general reorganization of 17 employees and 20 offices, Sternberg asked for the office in a different part of the museum (2). As far as his boss badmouthing him, we have only his word for that, and it strains credibility that the department chair would actually offer someone they viewed as an ‘intellectual terrorist’ an additional position, but even if both these claims were true, it’s a long way from “I have an office I don’t like” and “my boss doesn’t like me” to “exile” and “life was almost ruined.” The exile and ruined life claims are in error and misrepresent the situation. GonzalezThe film claims that Gonzalez was a “stellar researcher” and as such his denial of tenure must have been due to his ID beliefs.This was in error as Gonzalez was not a stellar researcher, and in previous rounds I have given evidence that his output had severely declined while at ISU, that his articles were rarely cited, and that he was outclassed by his peers.Con responds that tenure could possibly be earned in other ways and an unsourced and therefore unconsiderable claim that ISU uses a textbook he wrote. Neither of these claims is relevant to the issue, as other methods regarding tenure and textbook writing skills are not in question. The film claimed that he was a stellar researcher. He was not. This was an error. Therefore, the further claim that his denial of tenure must be linked to ID is a misrepresentation. Evolution DarwinCon tries to argue that the film isn’t really trying to link Darwin and the theory of evolution to Nazi eugenics by quoting the part of his speech that sounds like he supports it and omitting the part that condemns it, but merely warning of the dangers of misinterpretation.This is transparently self-serving and obviously false. The film quotes Berlinski, “the correspondence between Darwinian ideas and Nazi ideas just leaps from the page” (3). They’re drawing a link.Quoting Darwin’s actual position at the end of that passage would not tie in to the films message of evolution as an evil-Nazi-eugenicist movement, and thus was omitted. Darwin’s views were presented erroneously and he was misrepresented. Dishonestly smearing your opponents by linking them to Nazis destroys credibility and is significant.DawkinsDawkins was quoted giving anti-ID quotes throughout the film. At the end, Stein asked him what the possibility was that intelligent design could explain the origin of life. Dawkins gave a description of a panspermia-esque theory of how it could work, never expressed any belief in it himself, merely described the theory. The film then used voiceover narration to state that Dawkins had no objection to intelligent design itself, thought that it might be a legitimate pursuit but merely was anti-god. Not only is this contradictory to almost every other quote given by Dawkins in the film, but obviously false to anyone who’s ever googled “Dawkins on ID” and found that he believes it to be creationism, unscientific, unevidenced, and not a legitimate scientific pursuit (4). The film is in error regarding Dawkins’s beliefs and it misrepresents them in such a blatant and heavy-handed manner as to cast aside all doubt that it’s dishonest propaganda. Pro-IdThis debate had an 8000 character limit. Debaters are constrained to using that many characters to make their arguments. Con used an additional 1600+ characters in the comments section to make his argument. This is a violation of the standards of the debate and an abuse of the rules to gain advantage. Please consider these points conceded by Con and do not allow further argumentation on them in the last round.Extend my arguments on those points, significant errors and misrepresentations, giving Pro the two issues needed to earn your vote.I will still make arguments here, if only to show it could be done in the space allotted.CreationismID is simply mislabeled creationism and the film is in error when it uses that label. Con misses the point and argues that many people in the sciences think ID is possible, that I’m trying to stifle science, and that judges can’t decide what’s worth researching.None of these arguments has clash. Creationism=ID. It’s barely hidden in the film. To Stein, stopping research into ID is putting a barrier up to touching God (5). You can take the same textbook, switch the names, and the meaning’s the same. It’s been done. ResearchCon’s only defense against my claims of misrepresentation/error in cancer research is that the film doesn’t make those claims. I apologize, as I did give an incorrect reference to the film for the quote, and I further apologize that I don’t have time to rewatch the film to find the correct reference before I move and lose internet access for the near future. However the quote is “Jonathan Wells is also making progress using intelligent design theory in his research on cancer” as cited in various sources easily found through google (6). The claim was made and it was made in error, misrepresenting the status of cancer research.ConclusionPro needs two winning arguments to earn your vote. The easiest vote is for the argumemts illegitimatly opposed in comments. Otherwise please evaluate the other 5 arguments. Thank you to my opponent and to the readers.(1) http://tinyurl.com... ~5:53(2) http://pandasthumb.org...(3) http://tinyurl.com... ~7:24(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk...(5) http://tinyurl.com... ~5:32(6) http://www.google.com...