I’ll believe it when it shows up on his web site.

I have to agree with GalapagosPete: I think the video is a fraud.

Science doesn’t look for proof, it looks for evidence. And there are many fossil transitional forms that have been found. How about a partial list:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

Many things may never be empirically confirmed. In fact, science operates with the philosophy that many or most things never will be. Science is provisional. However, when the evidence is as strong as the evidence for evolution is, it becomes unreasonable not to accept it, unless you can show that it’s wrong. And even if you do (unlikely given the amount of evidence in favor) you still have to establish your own idea as valid scientifically. It’s not like, “Ooooo, yours was wrong, so mine wins.”

Paraphrasing Isaac Asimov, if we discovered tomorrow that all our ideas about human reproduction were wrong, it would not automatically follow therefore that babies are brought by storks.

I find it impossible to believe that the NCSE would ignore his request to remove his name, if he ever even made such a request. Nor do I find it likely that he would baldly state that there is no empirical raw data for evolution, at least not without explaining how he can take that position in the face of what he has to know is overwhelming scientific evidence. He would also know that random chance is not a part of the theory of evolution, just as he would know that life “evolving from nonliving matter” isn’t either. These are creationist straw men. Regardless of his opinion, he would not make such basic errors. And if he had other ideas, he would state them. That’s what scientists do.

But here’s the kicker: When Antony Flew converted to a weak deism there were articles all over the place in real publications, not just creationist web sites. Creationists, of course, were beside themselves with glee. Do you, for one moment, really, truly imagine that Stephen Hawking could actually come out this strongly against the theory of evolution and it wouldn’t be everywhere? The networks would be all over it.

I’ll believe it when it shows up on his web site.

For example, consider the calculation by astronomer Fred Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one (Hoyle, 1981). This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics.

Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics (Victor J. Stenger)

And a critique….

Nova’s [page here: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Discovery Institute’s counterpoint: NOVA Program on Intelligent Design Biased, Not by Chance but Because They Designed It That Way

Here’s a more thoroughgoing investigation into Dover: Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision (DI Press, 2006)

All of this means that your comment may not appear on the site for a little while.

“”People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale,” said Ruloff.”

One can hardly argue with that. Just look at how many people go along with feminisms claims about domestic violence and women’s oppression. It is a very simple fact that 50% of the population – unconfined to Americans – are modestly endowed with intelligence, when not pretty thick. Of the remaining 50%, a sizable crowd are beset by some very strange positions.

As for the unfortunate Professor, he is in good company. Newton had quite bizarre ideas about alchemy and I very much doubt the Principia Mathematica would cut it in the citations game today. The urge to discredit, even punish scientists who step out of orthodox line has a sound history. The Russians were particularly good at it.

Burn the guy at the stake. That would make a good film.

Intelligent design, however, is nothing more than poorly cobbled together pseudoscience.

So they keep telling me.

But declaring something “pseudoscience” so you don’t have to bother answering any questions is just too easy.

The breathless charges of “pseudoscience” are founded on the fact that some of the best possible scientific explanations are currently UNTESTABLE and therefore outside the realm of the scientific method. Two examples of this in modern physical cosmology are the theory of the multiverse, and the Anthropic Principle.

Some of the most reputable scientists in the world — including John Wheeler, Richard Feynman, David Deutsch, and Stephen Hawking — have concluded that the Mulitverse offers a good explanation for the state of things. But since the concept is inherently untestable, anyone — ANYONE — can dismiss it as “pseudoscience”.

In my view The Anthropic Principle — a concept well accepted in the fields of physics and cosmology — could well be applicable to the Theory of Evolution.

But again, how can you TEST such a concept, regardless of how well the idea may fit with the available evidence? Therefore — it’s “pseudoscience”. How convenient for the cozy lilied fields of Biology.

There is nothing incompatible between evolution/natural selection and belief in God.

Intelligent design, however, is nothing more than poorly cobbled together pseudoscience.

But also, I have to wonder if this particular film is really going to provide an interesting and worthwhile perspective. It’s one thing to question evolution, but if it’s done in an Al Gore hype, get some politics going by defining the enemy kind of way – it’s of no value to me; possibly a film of negative value. It is the opinion of some that the film is a trick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnbEgOFGbJ4