Difference between revisions of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Backlash: - fix wiki link for second name)
(→‎Backlash: Put quote in quote box, improve reference, remove accusation from 2-bit blog.)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
Three of the scientists interviewed in the film claim that they were deceived as to the film's purpose and title, and one, [[Richard Dawkins]] said that he would not have agreed to participate in it had he known the stand that it was going to take, which he deceptively describes as "creationist".  The other two, [[Eugenie C. Scott]] and [[Paul Zachary Myers|P.Z. Myers]], said that they would have appeared anyway.<ref name="nyt"/>
 
Three of the scientists interviewed in the film claim that they were deceived as to the film's purpose and title, and one, [[Richard Dawkins]] said that he would not have agreed to participate in it had he known the stand that it was going to take, which he deceptively describes as "creationist".  The other two, [[Eugenie C. Scott]] and [[Paul Zachary Myers|P.Z. Myers]], said that they would have appeared anyway.<ref name="nyt"/>
  
−
*Dawkins and others later complained that they hadn't been warned that the movie would be unsympathetic to their cause. In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be. [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759]
+
{{QuoteBox|Dawkins and others later complained that they hadn't been warned that the movie would be unsympathetic to their cause. In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>}}
−
 
 
−
The producers have been accused of trying to bribe schools into making children watch the film.<ref>[http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/producers-of-expelled-trying-to-bribe-christian-schools-into-forcing-their-students-to-see-their-movie/]</ref>
 
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==

Revision as of 02:01, March 6, 2008

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary which recounts how people supporting intelligent design theory are suppressed and persecuted within schools, universities and the scientific community.[1]

Tom Bethel wrote:

The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. [1]


The film, hosted by Ben Stein and set for release in the spring of 2008, is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” [2]

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that scientists and educators who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.[2] Examples given by the film include Richard Sternberg, a biologist and an unpaid research associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and Guillermo Gonzalez, a pro-Intelligent design astrophysicist denied tenure at Iowa State University in 2007.[3]

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."[3]

The film also implies that Darwin's theory of evolution was responsible for the Holocaust,[4][5] a view which has previously been put forward by the Discovery Institute, a scientific think tank which endorses intelligent design.[6]

Favorable response

  • "The movie isn't about what a great theory Intelligent Design is, or whether it's simply Creationism in hipper clothing, sporting a nose ring and a leather jacket. The movie is about freedom of speech within Academia, and how important it is to put ideas on the table, and debate their merits, rather than oversimplifying them and then dismissing them out of hand." [3]

Backlash

Three of the scientists interviewed in the film claim that they were deceived as to the film's purpose and title, and one, Richard Dawkins said that he would not have agreed to participate in it had he known the stand that it was going to take, which he deceptively describes as "creationist". The other two, Eugenie C. Scott and P.Z. Myers, said that they would have appeared anyway.[3]

Dawkins and others later complained that they hadn't been warned that the movie would be unsympathetic to their cause. In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.[7]

See also

References