I dont think its so much as "creationist propaganda" (whatever that is) but more a documentary of how if a scientist dare question darwin's theory (emphasis on theory) of evolution they are ridiculed and lose their jobs. I think it's pointing out the irony that people who claim to be "open minded" are only open minded towards things that they agree with and if anyone dare question it then they are trying to create propaganda or other such bullcrap excuses.

Sure there is, the evidence he states he found.  You let him post his article in some minor scientific journals, it causes a big stir and then those who are experts in the fields he are addressing publish counter articles where they take apart his methods as faulty.

That's how it works. 

Sorry, but comments like that really bother me as a creationist. 

Cmon, seriously. Are you that immature?? You don't have to be stupid to believe in creationism, and I am truly bothered by comments like this. There are many brilliant people that believe in creationism, and many brilliant people that beileve in evolution. It's simply a difference in point of view. I concider myself to be of decent intelligence, and I'm a creationist. Your immature comment suggest, however, that I have to be unintelligent to believe in creation rather than evolution. On the contrary, there are many intelligent arguments to be made by creationists...

DNA: When scientists look for proof of intelligent life in outer space, they point their radio telescopes at the sky and search for ANY repeating, logical 'code' in the radio waves. It could even be a simple code, but science says even that would be solid evidence for intelligent life, as nature cannot produce such codes on it's own. DNA, on the other hand is the most complex code known to man, how then, is that not concidered to indicate the possiblity of intelligence behind the code?

The laws of physics:

Newton's first law of motion: This states that 'an object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion UNLESS something acts upon it. The 'big bang' theory has absolutely no way of explaining this. It claims that an infinitely small, infinitely compact ball of matter exploded WITHOUT anything acting upon it, on it's own. This is completely contradictory to this well known law of physics.

Newton's third law of motion: This states (in a nutshell) that For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for a 4000 pound load to be lifted, it would have to have a force of 4000 pounds or more pulling it upwards. Where, then is the action that caused the 'big bang' to happen?? Where did the infinite energy required to explode a stagnent object of infinite density that had been there for an infinite amount of time come from without some kind of 'creator' force?? Physics cannot answer this without the inclusion of an infinite amount of energy at one end of the formula to create the energy at the other.

The law of entropy: This law is fully accepted in the scientific community, and states that nature takes a natural course from order to disorder (stars go from burning fission reactions to dead and lifeless over time) without the introduction of an outside force (such as life, a plant turning random molecules into it's cells, or humans turning dirt into bricks into buildings). By this law, it should be impossible for life (perfect order) to come from non-living nature (pure disorder, chaos).

Entropy also states that all differences in energy will equalize themselves naturally over time, eventually becoming inert. (If you turn the heat off in your house at night, it will cool inside to the temperature outside). This makes the big bang impossible without a HUGE outside energy source that is completely independant. Since time is concidered to be infinite, the matter at the center of the 'big bang' would have to be there for an infinite amount of time before exploding. The law of entropy says that the mass would have been in complete equilibrium, no one part would have been at a different energy level/temperature than another, making a reaction or explosion impossible without outside force.

This is just a brief synopsis of the many credible arguments that can be made for intelligent design. It's not possible to 'prove' either theory, because nobody (but God if you believe in him) was there to see & document what actually happened, but reasonable arguments can be made for either belief.

But I'm apparantly stupid, just like all other 'creationists', so just keep thinking like you do. It's virtually impossible to have an intelligent, civil discussion with people who think of themselves or their group to be superior.

/rant

Edit: @Kasz216, read my post, then come back and tell me there's no 'proof' for my position. We're not just a bunch of blind morons who don't look at the evidence, we just see the evidence somewhat differently than you. The condescension is totally unneccesary.

The evidence he stated?  What was that?  Why should scientific journals need to endlessly repeat the same creationist nonsense that has been shown lacking for all these years?  How many more times does it need to be shot down?

What evidence are creationists brining to the debate? Nothing more than their own faith. If they were purely evidence based scientists, that would be fine. To try to deliberately misrepresent evolution, or try to present any current gap in our understanding as a fatal flaw... people aren't going to keep falling for that. Almost as soon as scientists started looking at the claims of ID, they were able to take them apart. There will always be some areas of uncertainty, but ID proponents have already been pushed far back from where they started. How much more attention should they be given?

HEY! *knock knock*! Anybody there?? Did you read my earlier post?? We don't just bring 'our own faith', and where's the evidence you're bringing? All I've heard so far from you people is attacks on the intelligence of creationists and bigoted notions of what 'all of us' are like. That's your fatal flaw. You don't want to debate anybody on the merits of their arguments or positions, just to group us all into one big group of blind morons and write us off without so much as using one bit of intelligent debate to do so.

I'm done with this thread, as I see there is nobody here who is willing to actually debate (not insult and demean).

Edit: @dabaus513, don't expect too much actual debate on this issue. You're right, most of the self-proclaimed 'open minded' ones are the quickest to lump people into a group and insult them in order to avoid real debate when they don't agree. Notice godf basically said we aren't even worth talking to and should be ignored. You just can't debate people like that, they have nothing of any substance to say at all. Notice that nobody has actually countered a point, but just regurgitated biased insults on the 'stupid creationists'.

First of all, I love the way he suggested Galileo and Einstien came from periods with similar views.
There is a reason why creationism is not a science and those that say evolution is not true and that it is only a theory do not realise what a theory is. Anyway, bottom line, I believe there is no God and creationism has no evidence to back it up.

I will give this film a chance though if it doesn't resort to religious BS and looks at it from a pruely scientific view.

It is possible to have a high IQ and be a creationist.

But it is stupid to believe in creationism, and the weakness of the arguments you bring up only serves to highlight this.

re DNA being a code, and a code being a sign of intelligence. Scientists have already found repeating codes in radio waves coming from space: these were naturally occurring however, and not a sign of intelligence. This is just a confusion over words: we can call DNA a 'code', and the codes we come across in our day to day life are likely to have been created by an intelligence. But our labelling of DNA as a code indicates nothing about it's likely origins.

Newtonian physics are really only an approximation as to what's really happening. But regardless, at the time of the big bang the laws of physics seem to have been operating very differently to how they do now, under massively different circumstances.

The law of entropy? When we're orbiting the sun? The energy required for a single cell organism is the least problematic part of the origin of life.

There is a very really possibility that you are quite stupid.

I don't the documentary is about proving creation and disapproving evolution.
I think it's about the science community, media, schools and their bias against creation theory.
Ben mentions in the trailer that maybe they are trying to hide something. I want to see the movie to find out if Ben actually found something that they are trying to hide.

Or maybe the movie will be just fun. like i said, I find him to be smart but very funny.
I loved his show on t.v.

There are several problems with all of that, timmah. First, no one's talking about the origins of the universe here. This is creationism insofar as it is opposed to evolution, and evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origins of life or of the universe before life began (if in fact there was such a time). All of your talk about the big bang not being explicable by modern physics is interesting, but it's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Science doesn't have a rigorous theory as to how or why the Big Bang occurred - you're not really arguing with anyone here.

Your only defense of intelligent design (of life) is your talk about DNA. You ask for a plausible nontheistic mechanism, which is somewhat surprising to me. Biologists call this mechanism 'natural selection' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection). It should be apparent how this can result in a logical order without design, but, if you'd like real-world proof of the same idea, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation.

Anyway, none of what you offer is particularly useful evidence for a theistic theory of anything.

Known facts invariably underdetermine an explanation. Knowing that the bus arrives at the corner every day at 9AM, I can't choose between a theory about a person driving the same bus in from elsewhere every morning or a theory about a deity creating new buses ex nihilo every morning.

In science, we choose between underdetermined theories by testing their predictions, which could have been otherwise. Every scientific theory that enjoys widespread support in the scientific community (including evolution) enjoys that support because the theory has successfully predicted the outcomes of many experiments.

Something like intelligent design, however, makes no useful predictions, and so no rational person can sensibly choose it over other theories which are indicated by the same set of facts. One might maintain that it is equally as likely as other theories which are equally untested, but you simply cannot maintain that it is particularly likely to be the explanation.

To clarify, let's consider the difference between the sort of predictions evolution and ID make. Evolution predicts that ecosystems which are similar will have similar sorts of animals in them and that animals will be more like each other when their habitats are geographically close. We can imagine that this would not be the case, and so each time these predictions are confirmed, evidence for evolution grows. ID, however, does not make these predictions. It is compatible with these predictions, yes, but it is equally compatible with the opposite outcomes, and so neither can be taken as evidence.

Edit: It's also worth noting that there's a difference between intelligent people and those who know what they're talking about.  Smart people can be creationists, but this is simply because many of them are not sufficiently familiar with the body of evidence.  It's telling that, almost without exception, smart biologists believe in evolution.  Intelligence doesn't count for much if your premises are wrong.

Also, as a researcher myself, it's clear to me that the main message of the movie is just absurd.  Science doesn't suppress contradictory viewpoints - scientists chase after them constantly.  Do you have any idea how famous a biologist who could produce an experiment showing serious flaws in the evolutionary theory would become?  He'd be set for life.  Everyone wants to be the next Newton, Darwin, or Einstein - completely overturning decades of scientific consensus is every scientist's dream.