Unlike 99.9% of you, I saw the actual movie (Score 0, Flamebait)

The movie raises some good points and he interviews people that were fired after even mentioning ID. This is propaganda and lies? Hmmm.

Besides that, the primary point of the movie is that ID is not open for debate in the scientific community. If you doubt this and are in a position to test it, write an article or paper about ID and see what happens. Let us know how it goes. The fact is, evolutionary theory has problems, big problems, and any debate would expose such problems. Otherwise, why not debate the ID folks and send them to an early grave? The fact that evolutionary science has problems has nothing to do with ID -- those problems exists within the theory itself, therefore it cannot be debated because it cannot be fully defended.

My question: if evolution and global warming are the "consensus", why are there so many scientists devoted to these causes? Sure there should be a handful working on these topics, but there are many of them at every university around the world. Why so many for "settled science"? Fact is, there are more questions than answers on ID and global warming. How exactly is this settled science? Seems there is room for debate and alternative theories, rather than this fit-the-data-to-the-theory approach to science.

Never mind the fact that evolutionary science starts after the first cell. No one has a better answer than "God" for how that first cell came about. In the movie, Dawkins even concedes that ID is possible, by arguing that the first cells could have been "seeded" here by aliens. This is Intelligent Design, folks.

There is another "scientist" in the movie (I forget his name) that claims the first cells came about by mutations on the "backs of crystals"! This is science? This is somehow more scientific than allowing for intelligent design. Want to convert me to evolution and atheism? Grow me some cells (from nothing) on the backs of crystals!