If we want to be accurate, here, the real precursor to Nazism (in a scientif context) comes from Herbert Spencer, whose notions of Social Darwinism informed Nazi social theory. The problem is that, despite the name, Spencer's  Social Darwism actually predates Origin of the Species - Darwin's name was added later (I guess to give it added credibility).  Unfortunately it is also Spencer who coined the term "survival of the fittest", which is also used today as a synonym for natural selection (though some will take issue with this).

Spencer was also not truly Darwinian. Spencer believed that evolution progressed along predetermined pathways (Darwin did not), and his notions of "superiority" purely Lamarckian, not Darwinian. However Spencer was far from an evil man and would have been horrified by the Nazi program.

To push the date even further back, the seeds of eugenics can be traced alllll the way back to Plato. Sparta (of 300 fame) practiced a ruthless but primitive eugenics program that would later earn the praise of Adolf Hitler.

But the quote originated from Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi, who is most definately not a Sith.

Also the next fallacy would be hasty generalization. Which would bring you to a Non sequitur. Which means Obi-wan is not a sith.

 .....search your feellings you know it to be true.

Good read mistered. I learned a lot.
maybe the big problem is the name "intelligent design" I still don't get much of their studies - though it makes sense watching the documentary.

@mistered
you are a teacher?
What game consoles do you own?

I haven't dug deep into this movie, but if it really is propaganda and uses cheap tricks, I'd say that's part of what we ID-supporters need as a counter weapon against Dawkin's (the intelligent idiot) atheistic crusade against religion and faith.

I really hope that last post was a joke. Inferring that propaganda is a necessary tool against science.

First, Dawkin's is respected for his scientific research, but his militant atheism is not embraced by the scientific community. The vast majority of scientists would take issue with science being used to make any theological judgements.

Second, I'm fairly certain the Good Designer would not endorse the "by any means neccessary" method of spreading The Word.

Third, ID proponents claim that ID is a scientific concept. If so, there are legitimate ways to introduce the idea and confront conventional orthodoxy.  That's what I tried to illustrate in my post about Lynn Margulis. At the moment, the majority of the leaders of the ID movement are engaging in cheap hucksterism. If your goal is to put God into the science classroom, then be honest and admit it, or you are just as sinful as they are.

1. Thank you.

2. Yes - I teach HS science and chem.

3. Current generation I own a Wii and will get a 360 when they drop the price a bit.

The documentary, like most biased documentaries (see Michael Moore) makes sense because it deliberately stacks the deck in favor of it's arguments, even if it requires misrepresenting counter arguments (or pretending they do not exist).

I suggest getting another side of the story here: http://www.expelledexposed.com/ before coming to any conclusions.