I beg to differ. There’s a whole field dedicated to the study of the origin of life, and there are many different theories for how life on Earth came to be. Stein’s movie mentioned one which he laughed at: crystals. The hard part about the origin of life question is that it’s very difficult to come up with satisfactory experiments to prove theories. Life had billions of years to come about, on a planet whose atmospheric conditions we can only make educated guesses about. Scientists today have a few years in a lab to reproduce a billion years on a planet.

It’s certainly a difficult problem, and not one that scientists have a solid answer for, but there are plenty of hypotheses, waiting to be tested by the scientific process of experimentation.

How is intelligent design theory tested by experimentation?

“If evolution was such a ‘perfect’ and ‘complete’ theory, then why would this debate continue?”

Evolution is, primarily, the study of biogenesis, or the production of living organisms from living organisms. The fact that the origin of life question has not yet been satisfactorily answered does not discredit the entire theory of evolution.

To add to what Nick mentioned, almost in passing, farmers do see profits rise if they drop what they are doing and turn to corn crops for ethanol. My former roommate, who left last week to return to the soybean farm in Kansas, mentioned that while soybeans are doing great right now in the event of a drop off he would have to turn to corn because of the government grants and subsidiaries he could get from the government.

What we need to do is pretty simple, to execute the plan is most difficult. Bring industry jobs home, stop dumping money into the pit of alternative energies like wind, solar, and corn ethanol, and of course focus on much more viable sources like hydrogen cells and nuclear power (obviously the later does not apply to vehicles yet).

Again, you can certainly dispute the formal necessity of including that stuff in the film; hell, I would. But if you want to consider Stein’s central thesis in the documentary as more holistic than a mere defense of ID and rather a critique of the whole inquisitive process behind the origin of man, then certainly the inclusion of these examples is not only valid, but quite useful and persuasive. Then again, I laughed out loud when Stein said the Urey-Miller experiment was a complete failure, along with some other inaccuracies that raised eyebrows. But again, I saw the movie more as an observation of an extremely problematic approach to a scientific question rather than a defense of any one theory at the expense of another. I don’t doubt Stein is an ID supporter, but he seemed far more concerned with the intellectual conflict going on rather than the science behind it, as clearly evidenced by his layman’s perspective shown in almost all of his interviews.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/state_toplines/ohio/ohio_general_election_toplines_april_8_2008

As for the Eugenics aspect of Planned Parenthood, its true. While not aimed at the disabled it is applied to low income families. They would rather kill the child then let it grow up in a poor environment.

As for the scene in the Hadamar T-4 center, Stein was reenforcing an underlying problem in our world. Darwinism does not grant people free will or any of virtue of religion. It instills the notion that we are only here becuase of some insanely minute chance that cells lined up and we rode in on the backs of crystals as that one Darwinist claims.

Both Nazi Germany and arbortion proponents are guilty of embracing Darwinist pillars of natural selection and killing off those deemed inferior. The entire philosophy rejects respect for human life and human capabilities. That is something we should all find disturbing.