Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 476:
Line 476: + + + + + +
Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view source)
Revision as of 20:39, April 24, 2008
, 20:39, April 24, 2008SciAm article fools no noe
If anyone vilifies the movie, we can name them and even describe their arguments. Like, "Mr. A said the movie is dishonest because the trailer showed Ben Stein in short pants while in the movie he always wore long pants." --16:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
If anyone vilifies the movie, we can name them and even describe their arguments. Like, "Mr. A said the movie is dishonest because the trailer showed Ben Stein in short pants while in the movie he always wore long pants." --16:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
==Scientific American==
The SciAm rebuttal makes six points. Most are irrelevant or nonsensical. Take for example their admission that science '''does''' reject design out of hand. They reason they give is identical to one of the [[arguments for atheism]]. This comes right after claiming that mainstream science's rejection of design is unrelated to atheism.
I'd rather not quote SciAm uncritically. If they want to make an argument, fine. But we needn't give it credence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)