The film "Expelled" makes significant errors and misrepresenations.

BopAlthough I misunderstood pro's intent, I did concede and for sake of argument, on this point, agree to pro's conditions. EgnorAs I stated earlier, the "Expelled" stamp is simply for dramatic effect, and if we don't allow for some dramatic effect, all films especially documentaries, would be extremely dull. In a sense he was "expelled" from the community of "respected" scientists, who conform to the Darwinist theory. The important thing to look at is the claims made about Egnor, by the film, and whether they are true. It's clear, from a google search that he was ridiculed and criticized, and that is all that the film claims. Therefore, there is no misrepresentation. SternbergSternberg wasn't offered another position. He held the positions of editor and researcher simultaneously. When he resigned from the editorial position, he still held his position as researcher, and should have been allowed to stay in his office, as it was not related to his position as editor. Pro's only proof is again, just an article written by a third party. This article would never suffice as proof of anything, if I were to use it, that's why I haven't posted any, other than the one's showing the quote from Dr. Haupman. Pro offers no acceptable proof that this move was planned in advance. Stating that he agreed to take a certain office, also doesn't prove that he didn't lose his original office because of his beliefs. Obviously, he had to move so he had no choice but to agree. Pro's attempts to downplay the significance, of this incident, and the lasting effects, in Sternberg's life and professional career, completely ignore the hostile work environment that must have existed, and the limitations he now has for future employment. The burden of proof is on pro, to disprove the claims made in the film. He has not met that burden, therefore this can not be assumed to be a misrepresentation. GonzalezPro continues his assertion that Gonzalez is not a "stellar" researcher. His only point of reference, thus his only argument, is the number of articles written. The handbook that I posted a link to, shows that other qualifications can be used to gain tenure, besides written articles. Pro wants the voters to focus on the number of articles written, because that is his only argument against Gonzalez. However, if there are other ways of gaining tenure, besides writing articles, that must be considered in any fair assessment, of this situation. Pro also asserts that Gonzalez was rarely cited, but offers no proof, therefore this should be ignored as just an assertion. I didn't even look for a link to show the book Gonzalez help write was used at ISU because, odds are it is no longer used there. In the quote I showed, John Haupman, a professor at ISU verifies that Gonzalez is an excellent teacher and scientist, and also claims that he voted no on Gonzalez' tenure, simply because of his beliefs on ID. It is not on me to prove Gonzalez' credentials, the BoP is on my opponent to disprove the claims made in the film. He has not done that, so once again, I say that there is no proven misrepresentation here. As to significance, none of these cases even if proven, would undermine the message of restricted academic freedom, as there are other instances given in the film, that weren't even contested, by my opponent. Therefore, the films' claim of restricted freedom, is verified. DarwinAs I said in rd 3, even if he is trying to link darwinism to eugenics and the actions of the nazis, so what. It's an opinion, and he gave good reason for that opinion, and it is shared by many others. Darwinism deprivileges human life, and makes us nothing more than natural processes. In a psycho's mind, that takes away any sense of objective morality, and rationalizes inserting his own. Pro has not proven an intentional significant misrepresentation here. Dawkins--"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. " --He gave credibility to it by saying that it is an intriguing theory. Further, he even said that we might find evidence for the theory by looking in the molecular biology. His words, in no way, attempt to discredit the theory, and he did not deny it's legitimacy in any way, therefore, Stein's statements are an accurate assessment, of what Dawkins said. Pro goes on to argue about what Dawkins has said outside the film, but that is totally irrelevant. His words on the film, are the only thing relevant to this debate, and simply watching the interview is all that's needed to verify Stein's statements. Dawkins' beliefs are not in doubt, but what he said in the film is the only thing that need be considered, when assessing a misrepresentation. Again, this fails to show a misrepresentation, by the film. Pro-IDI have seen other debates where arguments were continued into the comments section, but if pro wants to claim victory on a technicality, rather than substance, I can't stop the voter from making that choice. Everyone who has tried knows that it takes more space to defend something, than it does to make a claim, especially when bombarded with multiple issues. I apologize but if pro wanted me to address those issues, I had no choice. There is no "rule" that says we can't extend our remarks into the comments section. If anyone is gaining unfair advantage here, it's pro, by arguing against giving me room to answer all his complaints. I would never make that argument, in order to try to win a debate, especially if I had raised numerous issues for my opponent to answer to. I will continue my arguments and let the voters decide. CreationismPro is simply applying his understanding of the ID movement, to his definition. There are many creationists, the AIG Ministries and the ICR are two groups, that oppose the ID movement because it does not seek to link the designer with the Bible. Creationists are intent on fitting science to the Bible, ID'ers agree to follow the science where it is proven to go, though they usually do have a belief in God. This is just an argument over definitions, and does not create a misrepresentation. ResearchPro's apology should be accepted, it's easy to make a mistake, but I do not see that particular quote, in the film. Even if it is in there, in order to claim a misrepresentation, pro must be able to disprove Wells' research, which he didn't even attempt to do. He simply asserted that it misrepresented "the status of cancer research". This assertion disproves nothing, and therefore there is no misrepresentation. ClosingI believe that I've shown that pro has not met his burden of proof, to show that these are misrepresentations, and that he has not proven that his claims significantly undermine the message of the film. Even if my comments on the last two points in round 3 are ignored, on a technicality, pro has not proven them to be false claims, simply imposing his definition, or asserting something does not suffice as proof.