Postblink

There seems to be two problems here. One lies with the faulty pathological science these leaders in their fields are being accused of. Pathological science is a term used when scientists overlook facts due to wishful thinking or carefree, or even a lack thereof adequate experiments. I think this is what you’re arguing.

However, the second problem lies with the stage we are given. We’ll never know for a fact, short of the hand of god, that intelligent design is a myth or a reality. While it’s impossible to prove or disprove, we already have ample evidence showing evolution of the hominids and other species I’ve forgotten since last semester.

P.S. I was actually kind of hoping you were going to be discussing religion and politics, but I guess that’s for another day… or a big phone/msn conversation.

Expelled begins with a deception. The opening scene of the movie is a fraud. It purports to show Mr. Stein giving a lecture to an adoring crowd of students at Pepperdine University. But the production company for the movie literally bought the audience: there were very few students there, the audience having been created from what is known in movie jargon as “extras.” What a way to start a “documentary”, the purpose of which is to supposedly unmask deceptions and conspiracies.

It doesn’t get better. The films’ main thesis, that anyone in the science community who believes in God, or is a Darwin dissenter is being “expelled” is false at its core.

In a New York Times interview, Walter Ruloff (producer of Expelled) said that researchers, who had studied cellular mechanisms, made findings suggestive of an intelligent designer. “But they are afraid to report them”.
Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”, explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Mr. Ruloff said that Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line”.

That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=2

Similarly, Dr. Ken Miller is a professed Christian who wrote “Finding Darwin’s God” (which I suggest you read). Dr. Miller has not been “expelled” in any fashion for his belief in God.

The movie tries to make the case that “Big Science” is nothing but a huge atheist conspiracy out to silence believers, but only presents a very one-sided look at some Discovery Institute “martyrs”.

Carolyn Crocker “expelled”? - No.
Her annual teaching contract was not renewed. Was she “fired” for daring to bring God into research? - No. She was hired to teach Biology, and she decided to ignore the schools’ curriculum and substitute her own curriculum.

http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/ode-to-caroline-crocker/

Guillermo Gonzalez “expelled”? - No.
He was not granted tenure. The film doesn’t bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he had only brought in only a miniscule amount of grant money. Nor does it bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he failed to mentor a single student through to their PhD. Nor does it mention that in his career at ISU, his previous excellent record of publication had dropped precipitously.

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/gg2.jpg

Richard von Sternberg “expelled”? - No.
Sternberg continued to work for NIH in the same capacity. Of course the movie doesn’t bring up his underhanded tactics in getting Meyers work published.

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/rtp/other_opps/intern/associates04.html

This movie attempts to influence it’s viewers with dishonesty, half-truths, and by a completely one-sided presentation of the facts.

If a scientists’ research is not accepted by the scientific community, it isn’t because the scientist either believes or doesn’t believe in God, it is usually because they are producing bad science.

Benjamin Franklin

Okay - I just need to bring this point up…

When trying to list a number of things listeners would associate Stein with, they used his correspondence with a Faux News program - as if that shows some sort of credibility. . .

Also, if you’re up for some laughs then check this article out.

Wow Craig,

I thought my opening with how they completely faked the first scene of the movie would give me total credibility. Oh well, back to lawyerin’ school.

I don’t deny that my post is one-sided, Expelled claims that the movie is a fair and balanced portrayal of the situation. I am merely trying to point out what they don’t.

The problem is that Expelled claims that there is some sort of pogrom by “BIg Science” to silence anyone who brings God into the equation, but that is just hyperbole. I think it was summed up best by a review by Dan Whipple at Colorado Confidential when he said that it was really just some academican pissing matches.

Expelled claims that there are “thousands” who have suffered retribution and are too afraid to voice their views. If that is the case, there could have been a lot more, and a lot clearer examples shown in the movie.

You can get more information about it at http://www.expelledexposed.com

You can also read some of the reviews that just came out at Scientific American- they do a much better job of pointing out the deceptions than I do.

One final note for tonight that might give me a higher character standing than the producers of expelled - They are now being sued for copyright infringment on a vieo in the movie showing the function of a cell. It is alleged that they pirated with slight modification an animation done by a company for Harvard, and have been served with a cease and desist to take the footage out of the movie before it opens.

also read the review at foxnews.com, yes, thats foxnews - they think the movie sucks.

Craig- here is some additional information regarding von Sternberg - compare these facts to the fables he tells in the movie. For info on the other people who claim persecutions, go to http://www.expelledexposed.com

Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.

The Claim
“The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began.” (Ben Stein, Expelled)

The Facts
Expelled doesn’t even get the paper’s subject right. The paper was not about how life began; it was about the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about three billion years later. The greater error is claiming that the discussion of ID generated the controversy. There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal. The argument presented in the Meyer paper had previously been reviewed and rejected by scientists. Seeing this shoddy science in their journal indeed “ignited a firestorm”, but not for the reasons given in Expelled. For more on why the paper was bad science, see the review published on the Panda’s Thumb blog and the review in the Palaeontological Society Newsletter.

The first question asked by PBSW members was “how did this paper ever get published?” According to the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg failed to follow proper procedure in publishing the paper: “Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.” The BSW withdrew the paper in embarrassment, emphasizing that the paper was substandard science. It commented that the society endorsed “a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”

Though Sternberg claimed that he was the best qualified to handle the review process, science blogger Ed Brayton notes that this is not the case:

Systematics (the study of taxonomy) is the subject of the PBSW and it is the subject of Sternberg’s expertise, but it is not the subject of Meyer’s paper. The primary subject of the paper is the Cambrian explosion and, ostensibly, bioinformatics as it pertains to the origin of the higher phyla. This is not the focus of Sternberg’s research, nor does it have much of anything to do with systematics other than an obligatory discussion of how many phyla and sub-phyla originated during the Cambrian. The most appropriate reviewers, then, would be paleontologists. Among the associate editors at the time (and still today) was Gale Bishop, an expert in invertebrate paleontology. There were three other specialists on invertebrates among the associate editors as well, including current PBSW editor Stephen Gardiner, Christopher Boyko and Janet Reid, all specialists in invertebrate zoology (the Cambrian fauna was almost entirely made up of invertebrates). Yet Sternberg felt no need to let any of those people, all more qualified than him on the subject, even look at the paper, or even make them aware of its existence. He may not have been under any formal obligation to send the article to someone with a specialty in Cambrian paleontology, but that is both the professional and the ethical thing to do.

The fact that Sternberg published the Meyer paper in his second-to-last scheduled issue as editor, and that he didn’t follow normal procedure, suggests that he knew that his actions and the paper would be seen as objectionable by his fellow scientists.

The Claim
“In October, as the OSC complaint recounts, [Sternberg’s supervisor] Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs.” (Wall Street Journal editorial, linked from Expelled website)

The Facts
According to Coddington in a January 2005 communication, “Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.”

The Smithsonian wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal, observing, “Dr. Sternberg’s characterization of his work conditions and treatment at the Smithsonian is incorrect. He was never denied office space, keys or access to the collections.”

In a January 30, 2006, letter responding to Sternberg’s concerns, Smithsonian Deputy Secretary & Chief Operating Officer Sheila Burke explained:

“As you know, as part of an effort to enhance security at the Museum, all researchers were asked to return their keys in 2004, and were issued coded identification badges to provide access to non-public areas. The badge you were issued, which provides general access to doors and elevators, is still operative. If you have any problems gaining access to conduct your research, however please contact the Security office at NMNH. In accordance with NMNH policy, please return your old keys as soon as possible to your sponsor, Dr. Vari.”

In short, Sternberg has turned two bits of bureaucratic minutiae affecting an entire division of the museum – a switch from keys to ID badges and a routine shuffling of office space – into a conspiracy to undermine him personally.

The Claim
“Congressman Mark Souder… uncovered a massive conspiracy within the Smithsonian to destroy Dr. Sternberg’s career [and was] continually stonewalled in his efforts to hold them accountable.”(Ben Stein, Expelled)

The Facts
The conclusions drawn in Souder’s report seem to be independent of the documents on which it is supposedly based. Blogger Ed Brayton examined the documents in detail and concluded, “They have put out a report that simply is not supported by the evidence and was designed, intelligently or otherwise, to support the disingenuous PR campaign that includes the attempt to position themselves as victims of discrimination.”

We encourage you to read Brayton’s carefully documented discussion, and the appendix of allegedly supporting materials. You will learn, for example, how shocked Smithsonian Institution staff were at the publication of the Meyer paper: “All of us here at NMNH are appalled by the Meyer paper published in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the BSW. I could not believe my eyes when I read it, and immediately resigned from the BSW,” wrote one scientist (Sues to Scott, 8/26/04). You will learn that this was not the first time that Sternberg published a paper in PBSW under suspicious and controversial circumstances (Ferrari to Sues, 9/8/04). You will learn that NCSE’s Eugenie C. Scott advised the scientists at the SI: “First, above all, we believe strongly that the discussion should not be a referendum on Dr. von Sternberg’s personal scientific beliefs, even though they clearly fall outside of the normal scientific mainstream. Obviously Dr. von Sternberg’s religious beliefs are also off the table. The focus should be on the fact that he allowed into the pages of PBSW a paper that was inappropriate for the journal in both content and quality” (Scott to Sues, 8/26/04, emphasis added). That the embarrassing publication of a shoddy research paper was the issue – not Sternberg’s religious orientation – is echoed by many other SI scientists, although you would not learn this from the producers of Expelled.

Also in those files, you will see that Sternberg violated standard rules users of museum collections must follow. A letter from the Chair of the Entomology department chides him first over missing library books (Coddington to Sternberg, 2/15/05):

At the request of SI Libraries, we recently attempted to find and return your more than 50 overdue library books, but several dozen apparently are still missing. If, perchance, you have removed those from the building, please return them immediately as we insist that all SI library books remain on the premises. If not, where are they? We have already checked WG 9 and Brian’s old office. You are welcome to check books out from our libraries, but they should remain in your designated work space.

He is also criticized for mishandling museum specimens. Such specimens are irreplaceable relics, and mismanaging them is a cardinal sin in the museum world:

My only other concern is that your old IZ work area seems to contain specimens from other institutions (Univ. Miami?), but we have no records of an incoming loan in your name. For obvious reasons, we like to be aware of non-SI material in the building, so please clarify the status of these specimens with Marilyn and/or Vic. If they do belong to another institution, the transaction should be recorded in our transaction management system.

The Claim
Sternberg’s “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.” (Expelled)

The Facts
As stated above, Sternberg did not lose his office or his access to collections, he did not lose his job, he was not “fired” from the (unpaid) editorship of the journal (he had resigned six months before the publication of the Meyer article), and from the e-mails in the appendix to the Souder report, it appears that his colleagues were civil in their communications with him. The Smithsonian renewed his Research Collaborator status for another three years in 2006. It seems, then, that the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost every person, it’s hard to see how this could be construed as “life ruining”. There is no evidence of any material harm done to Sternberg as a result of the publication of the Meyer article. And any damage done to his reputation would seem to have been self-inflicted.