Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

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)

The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? Barikada 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)

You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! Philip J. Rayment 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? Barikada 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Or clean their glasses. Philip J. Rayment 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)

You're not very good with metaphors, are you? Barikada 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Hmmmm. Philip J. Rayment 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Bribery

Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? Barikada 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. Philip J. Rayment 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations certainly isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? Barikada 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)

The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for corrupt behaviour in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What could go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. Philip J. Rayment 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? Barikada 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

My problem is that it doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". Philip J. Rayment 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a description) of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are taking back what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."

So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. Barikada 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

What standard of academic dishonesty do you suggest we all avoid while collaborating here? --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Stating my reasons

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. Saksjn 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.

You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?

Philip J. Rayment 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. Saksjn 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)