That's the sad part. The movie is NOT anti-science. It's anti-dogma. It's anti-totalitarian. It's even anti-censorship. It never disagrees with science on any one point. He does leave Dawkins and others in the dust when he asks them where the first single celled creature came from. That's kinda funny.
Come on Pete you know better than this... Science is about doing science and testing theories. ID has done none of that... which is why they need a propaganda movie to try to sneak their ideas in as "freedom".
There is no place in science for ideas that can not be tested. It's not against "academic freedom" to not hire a person for a science position that they are unqualified for because they don't do any science.
Look who sponsored the web site? The NCSE! Now why would the NCSE have a dog in this fight?
Because as the National Center for Science Education they have a dog in any fight to introduce pseudo-science into the US Educational system. Sounds like the perfect reason to me.
They were pointed out in the film as the peeps behind it all. Can you find someone with no agenda to do the same?
Pete you are starting to sound a little conspiracy theory here. Do you really believe that there is a secret cabal of scientists behind Evolution?
This is like reading (and listening) to Shrub's rebuttal of why we went into Iraq. So, what was Ben's purpose in making the film? Distortion? Perhaps he is seeing precisely what I am seeing. Science which is trying to meddle in religion rather than concentrate on pure science. How sad.
Once ID actually does some science rather than keep producing pop-pseudo-scientific drivel then they can actually have a leg to stand on.
The point Pete, is that Intelligent Design is not a theory, it's barely a hypothesis and they have done zero experimentation and zero justification for teaching it.
Astrologers have more "evidence". Holocaust deniers have more "evidence".
Do we give them the "academic freedom" to teach in high school?
wa:do