Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 63:
Line 63: − − The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] 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>
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view source)
Revision as of 19:32, May 2, 2008
, 19:32, May 2, 2008Dawkins "would not have appeared" statement is unrelated to the film's content - it is ITSELF a tricky statement
== Negative Reception==
== Negative Reception==
Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical".<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref>
Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical".<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref>