That's a lazy response. Have YOU even seen the movie?

- some questions it did not answer for me: how is evolution responsible for the holocaust and nazism, but not laissez fair economic theory? Something Ben Stein is a big proponent of, yet is inherently based on the out-dated idea of social darwinism. Even if the theory of evolution was responsible for people doing bad things, why would it take away from the scientific validity of the theory? Isn't this the reasoning often employed by Christians: despite the occurence of the inquisition and the crusades, Christianity is not wrong in and of itself?

- why would accepting the scientific fact of evolution and the scientific theory of natural selection disbar one from holding religious thought? In other words, why did the movie employ the same methods as it's accussing the scientific community of employing: silencing opponents. Why weren't religious biologists interviewed, such as Kenneth R. Miller? Here's a person who has written extensively on the idea that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive, has been praised and awarded for his work by mainstream scientific organizations. Yet why did the producers not interview him? Because according to Mark Mathis, his belief in evolution disbars him from being a Christian, people like Miller are "towing a line" the producer doesn't think "exists". It would "have confused the film unneccessarily". In other words, it would have disproven the central thesis of the movie, which states that ID and evolution are mutually exclusive, and the scientific community only values the godless evolutionary theory.

My question to you, nanotech, why should I assume this movie has any scientific merit?