djarm67 | Expelled - Mark Mathis vs Scientific American 3of8 @djarm67 | Uploaded August 2008 | Updated October 2024, 1 hour ago.
Some of the editors of Scientific American watched a screening of Expelled at their offices and had a discussion with the associate producer of the film, Mark Mathis. This is the entire recording of the discussion, uncut, but with pictures I found on the internet. (so they must be true)
One point requires response here. Mathis charged that some 92 percent of the judge's decision in the Dover intelligent design trial was copied directly from papers filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). SciAm said we would follow up and find out the truth. They did. In fact, Mathis was wrong in three ways. One, even the Discovery Institute's own charge is that the judge copied 90.9 percent of ACLU material for one specific section in the judge's decision. Second, a correct statistical workup finds that the number is as low as 35 percent, depending on whether you include material filed that is not included in the decision and the length of word strings. But the most important point is one that as guessed at in the conversation. They spoke to actual legal experts who told them that when the sides in a trial file their facts, it is with the hope that they make the case strongly enough for the judge to incorporate their texts into the finding of fact section of the decision. Therefore the charges that Mathis makes against Judge Jones are both incorrect in detail and spurious in spirit.
Some of the editors of Scientific American watched a screening of Expelled at their offices and had a discussion with the associate producer of the film, Mark Mathis. This is the entire recording of the discussion, uncut, but with pictures I found on the internet. (so they must be true)
One point requires response here. Mathis charged that some 92 percent of the judge's decision in the Dover intelligent design trial was copied directly from papers filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). SciAm said we would follow up and find out the truth. They did. In fact, Mathis was wrong in three ways. One, even the Discovery Institute's own charge is that the judge copied 90.9 percent of ACLU material for one specific section in the judge's decision. Second, a correct statistical workup finds that the number is as low as 35 percent, depending on whether you include material filed that is not included in the decision and the length of word strings. But the most important point is one that as guessed at in the conversation. They spoke to actual legal experts who told them that when the sides in a trial file their facts, it is with the hope that they make the case strongly enough for the judge to incorporate their texts into the finding of fact section of the decision. Therefore the charges that Mathis makes against Judge Jones are both incorrect in detail and spurious in spirit.
