Changes

they hadn't been warned that the movie would be unsympathetic to their cause
Line 21: Line 21:     
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 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 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]
    
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/>
 
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/>
Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650

edits