The evidence of ID lies within the writings of many ancient cultures (primarily the Sumerians), which have been ignored since the beginning of archeology. If we were all up to date on this information that has been suppressed by governments and the media, there would be no debate. It makes sense for species to evolve and adapt to their environment, but evolution does not explain the sudden and rapid increase of knowledge in homo sapiens. The question or debate should be "who created the Nephelim" (called the "Anunnaki" by the Sumerians) mentioned in the Bible and where did they go?

The great thing about having Jeff Vice as a critic, is that, had he had the opportunity to review this movie, he would have critiqued it on its merits (or lack thereof) as a *film*, not whether who's right or wrong in the creationism vs. evolution debate. One can have the strongest evidence and give the most persuasive argument on a controversial point, but that same person can still make a really crappy film.

Ther is no such thing as "Darwinism." And you can't prove ID. Not with anything generally accepted as proof, anyway.

I can prove ID but I have yet to see any proof of Darwinism. Probably because it's junk science. For those of you who don't believe in ID, well all I can say is your in for a real shocker. By the way, wasn't Darwin eventually against Darwinism.

This film did not go far enough in touching on the substantive drawbacks of evolution and Darwinism. An attempt was made to illustrate the statistical impossibility of protein order and the very complex nature of cells (unknowable to Darwin in his day and a fundamental embarrassment to his apologists today) but did not go into Entropy or the very real limits to carbon dating and the virtual impossibility of species progress through mutation and adaptation. It did not deal with the practical impossibilities of the development of complex organs such as eyes. It did not draw the contrast between the verifiable micro-evolution (natural selection) and the total lack of observable macro- evolution. It also did not deal with the shocking lack of fossilized record for whole categories of "necessary" so-called intermediate species. Instead it opted for an emotional approach that, unfortunately, tried to line up politically correct emotion on the side of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design doesn't need that kind of help. ID proponents regularly embarrass their Darwinist counterparts in substantive (non-political) debates and everyone that follows that movement knows it. ID can stand on its own two feet without using the tools of feel-good science and politically correct ignorance.

Intelligent Design is not accepted by the scientific community because it is not science. Michael Behe, it's cheif proponent admitted as much in the Dover School District Case. "As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. under cross examination, he conceded that 'there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred', and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. "Expelled" contrives that teachers are being fired out of prejudice. Should we then accept history teachers who deny the Holocaust or maintain that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery? Eugenics is artificial selection, and is thousands of years old, also known as animal husbandry. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was new and revolutionary and never mentioned by Hitler, who wanted to breed Aryans as men breed cattle. Shame on Ben Stein for misrepresenting the Holocaust

Despite what the liberal press may say about this film, it was excellent. Highly recommended!

None of the critics of Mr. Stein's film, including our current film critic and those posting here, have refuted any of Mr. Stein's points, the central one being at what point did a mineral or molecule become a living cell. The Darwinist luminaries in the film do nothing but stammer and offer up arguments such as "zapping mud" and "space aliens" - and do it with a straight face - when the question is put to them. They (and you) can sputter and dismiss and name-call all they want, but I'm still waiting for an answer.. Funny how the attitudes of the Darwinists mirror those of the Global-Warming alarmists as they pander to their patron elites. The emperor truly has no clothes.

The film was not pre-screened for local critics, as it was not in most movie markets around the country. Therefore, the Deseret News opted to run an available wire-service review. It's interesting that the makers and distributors of a film that claims to be in favor of free speech wouldn't allow any free, critical thought about it.

Being fired for holding an opinion is discriminatory, yes. Teaching or promoting that opinion as science, and being fired for that is perfectly fine.

Who's behind the ID movement? Religious fundamentalists. Who's this film's marketing targeting? Religious fundamentalists. Does the film make any attempt to explain the central tenets of ID? Nope. Not at all. It's all about criticizing anyone who criticizes them. Anyone who's been angered by Michale Moore's muckraking style of film making should be even more offended by this film's intellectually dishonest approach.

Totally worthless review. If what Moore says is true, then Stein has misrepresented Intelligent Design. A few corrections: -Intelligent Design does not deny evolution -Being fired for holding an opinion is discriminatory -Eugenics is based on the Darwinian mechanism -It is evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins who equates the two, not Ben Stein. Stein merely points to Dawkins as an example of atheists using common descent to argue against the existence of God. Dawkins has said that people who believe in God will one day be institutionalized, or so he hopes.

What, no review by a local critic? Are you guys afraid of backlash against your bias?

Pro-Darwinian bias prevents objective movie review? Say it ain't so!