Uggg, I wish this movie and anyone who thinks, incorrectly, that ID is a scientific theory and should merit equal time with true scientific theory would just fade into oblivion. Look, the reason ID does not and should not "get proper time" in the scientific forum as Evolutionary theory is due to 2 things.

1) your definition of theory. The colloquially-used definition is a fallible idea that is more philosophical in nature. The scientific community starts with a theory in this manner, but after years of research years of refining the theory, years of experimentation and observation, years of...science, the theory is tested, revised, and then finally taught in order to present the results as as near fact as you can possibly get. ID, on the other hand, is philosophical in nature, as stated earlier, and not only that, it uses incorrect premises to propagate the logical debate, and furthermore is not testable. If the ID camp could put together a proposal where a committee could test their "theory," then more power to them. At that point, sure, people would test it and give it a shot against the mountains of data that evolutionary theory has going for it.

2) The other, similar theories that one could extrapolate, with similar "scientific" basis, and similarly bad logic-based arguments. This includes theories such as if an alien life seeded our planet, or the much-guffawed "flying spaghetti monster" god that created us all, or any number of other theories that could be the reason we are all here. The problem is, while science does look at possibilities, they will verily discount theories that have such a small probability as to be considered not true. No TRUE scientist will say there is no god, but any good scientist (or good thinker) would say, "While there is a possibility one exists, the probability of that being the case versus any number of perfectly logical and experimentally-provable theories and logic-based arguments is very very very very very very small. So, yes, it is a step of faith to say I don't believe in god, but it's better than taking the unrealistic leap of faith to believe in one."

There's a reason we don't teach that some people believe e=mc^3 in atomic theory classes, there's a reason that we don't say F=G*m1*m2/r^3 is a possibility in physics class. The reason is, while you might be able to get a group together and say you believe this, and while, excepting for the mathematical nature, I might not be able to disprove your theory, there is no scientific basis, and therefore I will not and should not teach it alongside the more provable theories.

Any questions?

Edit: Vagabond, sorry to overstep your theory argument with my theory argument. I started writing before i saw that.  

@Rath
I don't think ID scientists are crackpots.
@jcarrey4 Great points - I won't argue against them.
What does that mean though? that when a scientists working for an institution, through his/her research begins to believe in ID, that person should be fired? does he/she loses credibility?

What does that mean though? that when a scientists working for an institution, through his/her research begins to believe in ID, that person should be fired? does he/she loses credibility?

Thats like asking if their research starts to point to unicorns employing fairies to create new organisms, do they lose credibility? It's not a scientific theory, nor is it a testable hypothesis, even if you can get people to believe it. Once a scientist stops practicing science, yes they should lose their credibility as a scientist.

For the last time, ID is NOT a scientific theory as science treats theory. It is not a testable hypothesis, it does not make predictions. It is not science. If scientists are not practicing science, then they shouldn't be given grant money or research funds to practice non-science.

and no problem Jcarrey, yours is considerably more in depth than mine. Over step it all you like.

I saw the movie yesterday. A decent movie, though I started getting motion sick from the bad shaking from the film, that is another topic though. I was intrigued by some of the conversations Ben Stein had with a few of those scientists.

I am not here to argue for or against either side. But when you have scientists pushing the idea that life was born on the backs of crystals... Or that life could have been seeded by aliens, so long as those aliens were created by some evolutionary process, aka NO GOD... I start to think that they are living in a fantasy world themselves.

Doesn't it take more faith to believe in something that happened perfectly randomly than to believe that One Intelligent Being created life? Just saying that there are things that science can never explain, but will try regardless and will be accepted.

Also the movie was brilliant in showing the logical steps that evolutionary theory has had on history and the thinking of (wo)men. If you carry evolution out to its logical conclusion, then there is no morality, no right or wrong, no meaning, etc. Therefore the evils in the world have some reason to explain away their own guilty conscience (ie. Nazism in Germany, Eugenics, Euthanasia, and many many more).

The movie also mentioned that the old scientists believed that science and religion were not mutually exclusive like most scientists seem to believe today. If you believe in one, you cannot believe in the other in good conscience.

^^thanks, I think people who've seen the movie will know that the documentary was well made and asks and answers good questions.
Also, why are there so many movies now that shakes the camera?

1.
Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, although it fits together flawlessly with the best of our current understanding of it. There's also nothing random about it, so you might want to go through the basics again.


2.
The word you're looking for is not "logical step", but "excuse". There is nothing in "we have evolved from beasts" that says we should act like them. Darwin himself said that civilization has moved beyond survival of the fittest, although it could be argued that we have merely changed the meaning of fittest from "biggest badass predator" to "best team player", and that all of our religions and philosophies really come down to how to be the fittest in civilized society.

Loyalty, love, and compassion are all things that strengthen the community, and make complete sense from an evolutionary point of view. Does acknowleding this make me less likely to feel them? I don't believe so in the least. 

But hey, let's be hypothetical and pretend "it could be used for evil!" is a valid reason for something being bad. Better smash all our computers so they don't get used to calculate nuclear weapon trajectories, and refuse to use nuclear power because it's based on the same theories that were used to make nukes. 

Using this train of logic, I could go on for hours about how much crap religion has been used to justify, but that probably won't be necessary.     


3. It's well documented how many of the great pioneers of modern science have held some extremely questionable beliefs. For example, the legendary Newton was a huge fan of alchemy, and never thought he was inventing something new, but rather rediscovering The Wisdom of The Ancients that the prophets of the Old Testament and philosophers of ancient Greece had known.

This is going almost off-topic, but I just have to share my all-time favorite piece of early modern pseudo science. From Wikipedia:

Olaus Rudbeck (also known as Olof Rudbeck the Elder, to distinguish him from his son, and occasionally with the surname Latinized as Olaus Rudbeckius) (1630-1702), Swedish scientist and writer, professor of medicine at Uppsala University and for several periods rector magnificus of the same university.

Sounds cool, doesn't he? Apparently he was one of the greatest botanists of his age, and first discovered the lymphatic system, whatever it is.

Between 1679-1702, Rudbeck dedicated himself to contributions in historical-linguistics patriotism, writing a 3,000-page treatise in four volumes called Atlantica (Atland eller Manheim in Swedish) where he purported to prove that Sweden was Atlantis, the cradle of civilization, and Swedish the original language of Adam from which Latin and Hebrew had evolved.

Even if you don't accept belief in a god to be on the same level as belief in Atlantis or alchemy, I would say these examples pretty much disprove the whole "but people used to believe in both!" argument.

Old scientists didn't have to deal with geology, biology, cosmology and a bunch of other scientific fields directly contradicting the bible. As science has grown it has come into more conflict with religion as it becomes more evident that a literal interpretation of the bible (or most holy books) simply cannot match up with modern science.

My lack of attitude towards this Stein fellow has just gone from lack of interest to utter disrespect after reading a certain review.

Trying to mix magic into science and play the victim is one thing, but knowingly forging a good chunk of his evidence? I'm sorry, but the only way to not hate this guy is to desperately want to her what he's saying.

^^ a good read. I figure these documentary film makers have to set things up to make the film more interesting.
Ben Stein did it and so did others like Michael Moore. Still the movies they made were fun.

Yeah, but inconvient truth was backed by Futurama! I mean that commercial RULED.

Seriously though, Comedy Central?  Sure, Ben Stein had his gameshow their... but Comedy Central has to be the most liberal channel on cable.  Bad choice.