Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 881:
Line 881: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view source)
Revision as of 18:17, November 3, 2008
, 18:17, November 3, 2008PR of opponontes
That's why people come here to find out what's really going on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:09, 3 November 2008 (EST)
That's why people come here to find out what's really going on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:09, 3 November 2008 (EST)
==Public relations strategy of ID opponents==
We need a new section (or we need to fix up the old section) on PR strategies.
ID opponents have been trying to dismiss criticism of [[evolutionary theory]] and censor any suggestions of alternatives for decades now. The film documents this, and ironically the '''response to the film''' is of the same ilk.
Rather than saying there was a scientific flaw in the film's account of the [[cell]]'s intricacy, opponents resorted to mounting a legal attack on the film (claiming it violated copyright or something). The attack failed on legal grounds, but it did succeed in drawing attention away from the film's point, i.e., that the cell is so intricate that it could not have self-assembled: it needed a designer.
Rather than commenting on the point made by the use of the "[[Imagine]]" melody, ID opponents tried an Internet write-in campaign to the composer's widow. This failed even faster, and the film maintained its First Amendment freedom to use artistic irony: comparing the atheistic and materialistic 'idealism' of John Lennon's song with the pro-atheistic tilt and blatant pro-materialist bias of modern biology.
There's more, but that's off the top of my head. I gotta watch the movie again. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)