Expelled Victims

Here’s an interesting account of three scientists featured in the movie Expelled. As I have posted earlier, the movie is about alleged prejudice experienced by scientists and professors who either support Intelligent Design, or fail to support evolutionary theory.

The article was written by Dr. Ray Bohlin, holder of MS and PhD degrees in molecular biology from the University of Texas at Dallas. Here’s a brief intro on the three scientists he writes about:

Richard Sternberg has a double PhD in evolutionary biology. As editor of a scientific journal, he oversaw the publication of an article promoting Intelligent Design and critical of evolution. As a result, he was harassed and falsely accused of improper peer review. He has been blacklisted.

Caroline Crocker is a a PhD with degrees in pharmacology and microbiology. A research scientist who taught introductory biology, she made the mistake of including questions about evolution contained in science journals. She was accused of teaching creationism and eventually lost her job, and has been unable to find work ever since.

Finally, Guillermo Gonzalez is a well published astronomer who has accumulated over sixty peer-reviewed publications in various science and astronomy journals. In addition, he has presented over twenty papers at scientific conferences, and his work has been featured in such respected publications as Science, Nature, and Scientific American. He has been denied tenure because he supports Intelligent Design.

…Trust me, you’ll find it hard to believe what you read.

Check out the article here.

You can find more data on the article’s writer, Dr. Bohlin, as well as the other speakers and writers of Probe Ministries.here.

..

..
Related post:

EXPELLED! No Intelligence Allowed!
..

..

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. Sadly, your source doesn’t seem to actually know the facts.

    Sternberg claimed he was an employee of the Smithsonian Institute when he had but research privileges … which he still retains. All that happened was that he chucked a bit of a hissy fit when he was asked to move his office (which every other research associate was asked to do as well). He was retiring as editor of the publication and snuck in an article which would have never otherwise been approved for publication – usually all articles have to be approved by a board of various people which Sternberg failed to do. He was called on for not following due procedure and then running away. In short, Sternberg lied.

    Crocker. Well, examples of her work were leaked onto the internet (see TinyFrog’s blog for them) and well … anyone would have been fired for producing and using such garbage. It wouldn’t matter what their beliefs were, anyone who was that blatantly incompetent would not get their contracts renewed, as happened to Crocker.

    Gonzalez … well, it just keeps on with the incompetence theme. His time at his then University consisted of him bringing in pretty much no grants or funding to his department, none of his students managed to pass their thesis course and he published, while there, a grand total of one article and wrote one book. Which is, to say the least, far below the high academic standard which people expect of those applying for tenure. You also have to recall that the majority of people who applied for tenure failed to achieve it.

    [Deleted for objectionable content.]

  2. Hi, Matt.

    Welcome to the site, and thanks for the information you provided.

    Dr. Bohlin does say in the article that Dr. Sternberg was not a Smithsonian employee. And he does provide references in hyperlinked footnotes to back up his statements (the most interesting of which would probably be a Washington Post article on Dr. Crocker’s “adventures”, plus Darwin, Dawkins, ID; etc.).

    If Dr. Bohlin needs to be corrected, may I suggest that you also post your corrections at the Probe Ministries site, aside from here.

    May I also suggest that you provide references for your claims regarding the incompetence of people you criticize. That would be only fair, wouldn’t it? We wouldn’t want to use the freedom of the Internet to cast accusations and destroy other people’s reputations unfairly, would we? After all, we do have to give the benefit of the doubt to more than seven hundred PhD trained scientists who support each other, don’t we? (this group of >700 is cited in the article which I assume you read before claiming that my source didn’t know his facts) I don’t have a PhD in the sciences myself, but these 700+ scientists would know if a fellow professor or researcher really were incompetent or not, don’t you think?

    Finally, may I further suggest that you be less rude in the future? I have deleted your last sentence, which I have deemed too rude and objectionable.

    Still, I do appreciate your providing information which would balance that which I’ve provided from Probe Ministries. Just, please, tone down the hostility, OK 😉 ?

    Thanks again.

  3. One should look below the surface of the Dissenters from Dawinism list. I am a Ph. D. in science and accept evolutionary science and yet would have little trouble supporting the statement:
    “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

    The problem is that the statement is being used to imply opposition to evolutionary science – which it doesn’t really as all scientists a skeptical – its part of their job. (see Dissenters from Darwinism in context). The list is therefore effectively dishonest.

    My analysis of this list indicates that almost all had religious, not scientific, motives for adding their names (see Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”?).

    The list is very small compared with those who support evolutionary science. For example the Project Steve list contains about 900 scientists supporting evolutionary science and named Steve. The “dissenters list” contains just 8 Steves.

  4. It is evident that the critics of Expelled obtain their “evidence” against it from atheist websites. You don’t see their garbage spewed from academic source (except those who are threatened by a design perspective). Rather, I think it’s evident that commenter Matt has not actually seen the documentary Expelled, and is letting biased atheist website do his thinking for him.
    A note regarding Matt’s comment on Caroline Crocker..It’s nothing more than an ad hominem attack, taking her words out of context.
    Regarding Matt’s comment on Guillermo Gonzalez… Evidently, Matt doesn’t know that the amount of funding a prospective tenure applicant has received is not a prerequisite for obtaining tenure. In other words, bringing it up is simply a straw man. Rather, Matt would do well to read Guillermo Gonzalez’ book “The Privileged Planet” or watch the video.
    It is evident, that at least some who are critical of ID and of the documentary Expelled are the ones being personally and intellectually dishonest.

    I’m an American, living in the Philippines, an ID supporter. Anyone who wishes to have more information about ID can visit my blog and contact me there.

    http://my.opera.com/bantay/blog/

  5. Rather, I think it’s evident that commenter Matt has not actually seen the documentary Expelled, and is letting biased atheist website do his thinking for him.

    Bzzt. Wrong. I have seen it, I caught it on DVD.
    It was a truly bad piece of journalism, much like shows here in Australia such as ‘Today Tonight’ and ‘A Current Affair’.
    Please don’t make assumptions, [rest of the sentence edited]

    A note regarding Matt’s comment on Caroline Crocker..It’s nothing more than an ad hominem attack, taking her words out of context.

    How so? Examples of what she was presenting to students surfaced and were clearly false. Any teacher who performed such things, which was directly against the set curriculum, would get shown the door. Do you want special disposition for ID proponents or something, where they don’t have to meet teaching standards?

    Evidently, Matt doesn’t know that the amount of funding a prospective tenure applicant has received is not a prerequisite for obtaining tenure.

    It’s an indicator of how someone is going in their role.
    And that is just one of the many indicators Gonzalez had going against him. No wonder he did not get tenure, the man’s academic record while there was really rather poor.

    You will need to do much better than that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: