Science is always open to new ideas. The perceived dogmatic nature of evolution comes from how there is absolutely no scientifical sound alternative. Our understanding of the details improves all the time, for example with concepts like genetic drift and gene flow getting introduced long after Darwin's death.

I suppose it could be argued that the attempts of certain groups to introduce their religious views into science has made the scientific community overly cautious, and now any suggestion that is too different gets treated with more skepticism than it deserves, but so far I've seen nothing to suggest this is happening.

Until there is valid science that disputes evolutionary theory, it should not be questioned in the educational community.

Also, this:

is not a dogma.  It is a theory.  It is based on evidence, and like all scientific theory, it is falsifiable and subject to testing.

^^then you should watch this documentary. it's got science!
This is not a religious film.
I don't think many people even heard of this movie - there was no extensive marketing.

Also, you said that you need valid science that disputes evolution theory.
Intelligent design is also a theory. Why not listen to what these scientists have to say? and why hide their research from education community?

I have read plenty on intelligent design from these so-called "scientists".  Intelligent design is not scientific in nature; it is philosophical.  Claims such as "DNA is a complex code, therefore it must have been designed by some form of intelligence" or "The interactions of matter in the universe are finely tuned by several constants, therefore an intelligent designer must have set them up that way" are not testable or falsifiable -- you can agree or disagree, but you can't back up your position with evidence that leads to a logical conclusion.  It's perfectly appropriate discussion for a class on philosophy or religion, but completely inappropriate for a class on science, unless it is used as an example of what science is not.  After all, students need to know what to look out for when evaluating the scientific merit of a new idea.  :)

^^won't argue with you because you do have great points. However, the movie points out evolution theory doesn't always work - that's all.
If intelligent design is not in science rooms then evolution theory must be presented with it's faults as well. I have no thoughts on rather intelligent design should be in science classes but having all these scientists' voices (many are not religious) muted doesn't seem fair.

btw, i'm not a scientist - maybe that's why these theories are fascinating to me.

 Thats like saying it would be unfair on a scientist who believes that the moon is made of cheese and keeps banging on about it if he got ignored. Basically anybody who pushes an agenda without scientific merit (and the current 'evidence' for intelligent design is without merit) will be ignored by the scientific community and in my opinion rightfully so.

I haven't seen the movie (and I don't plan to), but reviews have said otherwise -- that it's basically a hit piece.

This needs to be posted. Theory doesn't mean what some (alot) people think it does, and the THEORY of evolution is different from the THEORY of ID.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.