Difference between revisions of "Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Including Criticism: Thanks Ed, sorry for the mistake!) |
(Opposing views?) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST) | :See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST) | ||
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST) | ::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Counterarguments== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 21:30, March 4, 2008
There is already a page on Expelled. Merge the categories over here? DanH 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Including Criticism
I have to disagree with this edit. While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-MexMax 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)
- See strawman fallacy. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as suppressing discussion of whether there can be any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --Ed Poor Talk 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
- Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-MexMax 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)
Counterarguments
Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --Ed Poor Talk 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)