"Expelled", an example of dishonesty among creationists

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wow, great article, Stan. Spot on. Loved this statement and what I have been striving to argue...

"When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose."
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Wormwood said:
Wow, great article, Stan. Spot on. Loved this statement and what I have been striving to argue...
This is what all scientists should strive to be like but sadly aren't. Kudos to this professor for understanding the real issues and not avoiding them!
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
StanJ said:
Turns out Kristoff was pretty badly misrepresenting the science he claimed to be citing.

Nicholas Kristof fundamentally misread and misrepresented the research that he cited, a study by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. Because Kristof provided references and links to the paper he cited, we can read for ourselves what conclusions the study’s authors drew from their survey of American university professors...

...The scholarly work presents the data in a fundamentally different way than Kristof used in his column. For example, Gross and Simmons (2009) found 75% of university professors believe to some extent in a “higher power” or in God. Of professors who say that they are religious, fully 19% of them can be classified as “traditionalists,” which would include evangelical Christians...

...In political beliefs, the authors found that university professors are becoming more moderate over time and the main point of Gross and Simmons’ article is that conservative fears of an atheistic or Marxist professoriate are simply not borne out by the data. Kristof flippantly writes “So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.” The study authors are more sanguine, noting that the image of uniform liberalism among university professors beliefs is wrong, saying that especially in elite doctoral granting institutions, “That there is more heterogeneity of political opinion among the professoriate” than previous studies found. Almost half, 46.6% classify themselves as moderate. There are more conservatives on campus, 19.2% (again about 1-in-5), than the scary Marxist numbers Kristof quotes out of context.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Only goes to show your opinions are strictly based on being contrary not obtaining any facts. You cite a blogger to refute a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. Will the wonders of bias never cease. Oh, by the way, you are back on my ignore list.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
StanJ said:
Only goes to show your opinions are strictly based on being contrary not obtaining any facts. You cite a blogger to refute a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner.
Huh. On another thread, Wormwood complained that I "don't deal with the information, [and] just try to slander the sources". Now here you are ignoring the information and instead focusing on the source. But I'd bet my last dollar you'll get a free pass. :rolleyes:

Oh, by the way, you are back on my ignore list.
Oh yay. That means you'll now troll threads I'm in so you can tell everyone else "I have RJ on ignore!!"

Grow up Stan.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
River Jordan said:
"Expelled" is a 2008 creationist film that attempts to make the case that the scientific community actively suppresses scientists, academics, and teachers who advocate intelligent design creationism. In the film, they cite a handful of cases they claim illustrate this active conspiracy (the folks who made the movie have referred to it as a conspiracy). In this thread, I'll take a closer look at these cases, compare them to the documented facts, and see if the creationists have presented an honest, accurate picture of what happened.
Neither Kevin Miller or Ben Stein are known as creationists (they wrote and produced the film) so you've pretty much mischaracterized "Expelled" from the start.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
"Expelled" is a 2008 creationist film that attempts to make the case that the scientific community actively suppresses scientists, academics, and teachers who advocate intelligent design creationism. In the film, they cite a handful of cases they claim illustrate this active conspiracy (the folks who made the movie have referred to it as a conspiracy). In this thread, I'll take a closer look at these cases, compare them to the documented facts, and see if the creationists have presented an honest, accurate picture of what happened.

Let's start with the case of Caroline Crocker, who the film claims was fired merely because she mentioned ID creationism in a college classroom. Specifically, the narrator (Ben Stein) claims "After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt end", she claims that her supervisor said she "[had] to be disciplined", and Stein claims that she was "blacklisted and unable to find a job anywhere". Also, she claims in the movie that she "did not teach creationism".

That gives the pretty clear impression that Crocker mentioned ID creationism in a class and was immediately, or very soon thereafter, fired and her career was over. So how does that compare with the facts?

First, Crocker's position at GMU was a contract position where she taught on a course-by-course basis with no guarantee of renewal. These types of positions are very common in academia. This is evidenced by the fact that while teaching at GMU, she simultaneously taught at N. Virginia Community College. So once she had finished teaching the course, the university had the option to renew her contract or let it expire. And as is described in the WaPo article linked above, she wasn't fired, but rather her contract simply was not renewed.

So the first claim that her career "came to an abrupt end" is false. She finished out the term of her contract, which was simply not renewed.

Next is the claim that she was "blacklisted" and "unable to find a job anywhere". Yet after her contract with GMU ended, she continued to teach at North Virginia Community College (see link above) and continued to teach ID creationist talking points as well!

So the second claim that she was blacklisted to the point of not being able to work or teach is false.

Next is her claim that she didn't teach creationism. As is evidenced by the WaPo article linked above, she most definitely taught creationist talking points, such as that macroevolution = "a dog turning into a cat", the scientific community is deliberately conspiring to turn people away from God, complexity in cells means there was an intelligent designer, evolution leads to Nazism, and a host of others. Also, even though she claimed she was teaching the "strengths and weaknesses of evolution", when the reporter asked if she was ever going to teach the strengths (she's spent all her time only teaching creationist talking points), she said "no". You can see some of the slides she used HERE.

So the third claim that she didn't teach creationism is false.

In sum, despite what "Expelled" claimed, Caroline Crocker was not fired, was not blacklisted, finished her contract at GMU, continued to teach at NVCC, and taught creationism even though she was hired to teach biology.
The question is, did this institution let her contract end because of her views on creationism or ID, or because of some other reason? They probably don't have to offer an explanation whatsoever. Her claims may have foundation if the school brought this to her attention. Who knows? I just watched the movie, she seems credible; but again, who knows? The greater point of the movie seems to be why is there this so much resistance to competing theories? Why is it so heretical to posit another compelling theory that may very well have as much, if not more; explanatory power?