Adding to what others have said, “Darwinism” makes it sound like a cultish belief in the views of a single man. “Evolution” sounds like a theory concerning a process. The former sounds more like something akin to religion and the latter more like something that you should teach in a science class.
Intelligent Design (as promoted by Behe) insistes that there are biological constructions that are “irreducibly complex” that could not have occurred through mutations since all the parts must exist in their basic forms to function, at all. So far, (as far as I recall), every single example of an irreducibly complex biological system identified by Behe has already been shown to have further and simpler forms,
To be fair, this is an extremely irresponsible fusion/paraphrase (parafusion?) of two separate abiogenic theories–the Miller-Urey hypothesis and Clay theory.
I wish the trailer had an image of the Head Pixie superimposed over Stein’s face wenever he appeared in the shot.
It would have made it a whole lot more fun to sit through.
ETA: and the voice of Jay Leno as the Crimson Chin for every person who spoke a word outside of the narration.
True, but in reality Behe equivocates so much that he makes politicians feel ashamed. When he writes for the Times OpEd page he says that sure he accepts evolution and an old earth. When reviewing a creationist textbook relabeled as an ID one, he signs off without apparently reading it. Do you think he’d get any real support from creationists if he were honest, and said that this and this might need ID, but man could evolve from more primitive primates without it?
ID would have died out after two papers and a few letters from lack of evidence if the creationists hadn’t thought it was a good cover.
The Raelians (remember them) had space aliens as the designers, so it well could be.
ID is not impossible at all. Dogs are basically intelligently designed, as are most of our food plants. Luther Burbank was a well known intelligent designer. The problem with Behe’s hypothesis is that there is no evidence at all of ID before we appeared on the scene, as Tom said.
Duplicate post deleted. (Damn hamsters)
Guess who’s in trouble?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/peter_irons_drafts_a_letter.php
Looks like they only reanimated the CGI Life of a Cell bit, not restructured it. It’s a different color, but the same animation, camera passes, and so on.
C&D sent, and this is probably bad timing for them.
If the film is shut down or delayed by this it will just feed into fundie “godless forces are trying to suppress the truth” paranoia and seige mentality.
Excuse me? I’d really rather not be associated with that sort of mentality at all! 
The copyright infringement lawsuit seems rather appropriate to me. Instead of investing in some original thought and thinking, they’re just using something someone else set down and, in effect, saying, “That’s the way it is.”
It is remarkable and well-worth thinking about. Ben Stein seems to be a smart guy. He has a different opinion of evolution than I do. Does that make either of us less smart?
Interesting when someone we respect makes us reconsider our opinions.
He was just on a local radio show (the Shannon Burke Show on Real Radio 104.1) and that was almost exactly how he framed things: “Darwinism is a religion, just like any other; it’s a belief system, no proof of which has been found.”
He clarified a bit later on that he recognised that evolution was proven on a micro- level, just not in general.
He also came out with some mumbo-jumbo about how Darwinism couldn’t explain gravity or the origins of the universe and was therefore flawed. 
In this case, my opinion has made me reconsider my respect for someone.
Lots of people have a different opinion of evolution than I do. I’ve known that for a long time. It will be the content of the argument, not the fact that it is Ben Stein, that makes me reconsider my opinion.
Having not seen the movie or the trailer, I cannot say whether this will make me reconsider anything. From the well described concerns raised by those who have, I’m dubious that the argument is particularly different or particularly strong.
Can you offer anything other than an appeal to the authority of a bit actor and game show host to suggest that the previous posters in this thread are incorrect about the movie or its content?
This whole debate is a big pet peeve of mine. I went to a private Christian school and learned evolution, science, biology, etc. I would be upset if my child’s private school taught “alternate theories” in science class, other than to say “some people have this other theory, but this is the evidence that backs evolution, and this is how the scientific method works, and this is why scientists agree that it is the better explanation, etc.” I don’t want them learning it as a second, equally valid theory held up for them to choose which they believe. That is not how science works. I certainly fully support parents whose children go to public schools not to learn ID in science class! If a child is taking a world religions class or something, in that context, fine.
Also, I have never understood the whole Darwin vs. God mentality that some people have, and I am convinced that it is a fringe minority that is getting a huge amount of attention. Stop telling people that you can’t believe in God and still learn science! There is NO REASON why you can’t believe in a creator God and still learn about evolution and what scientists are discovering about how life began.
The Christians I know all learned science from “regular” textbooks and I just don’t hear about people getting upset about what their kids are learning in school, and I live in an area with a large amount of private Christian schools. All of them, as far as I know, teach about evolution and Darwin, not as some kind of ideology or belief system, but as the best information backed by science that we have right now. As new facts come up (as they always do in scientific fields!) then we adjust what we know. I hate that some Christians use the fact that science changes as new things are discovered as a “gotcha” moment, as if that somehow proves everything about science is wrong and not to be trusted. Of course things change as we find out new information people, it is called learning and some of us continue to do so.
Argh.
It’s not just a different opinion, frankly, it’s a dumb opinion that he has. Denying evolution in the face of all the evidence is simply stupid or ignorant.
So yes, that makes him less smart, on least on the subject of evolution and possibly biology.
He may be vastly smarter than I on several other subjects, and on average be way smarter than me. But I’m not trying to spread my ignorance like he is via the movie.
The whole review is brutal.
Did Ted Turner buy Fox News while I wasn’t looking?
He may have enough book smarts not to give up a lot of his money on his game show, but he’s a freaking nutcake. I lost any and all respect I may have ever had for him when he said Terry Schiavo was alive and responsive and her “husband” (his use of quotes) wanted her dead so she couldn’t talk about him. Oh, and he likened the court ruling that her health care was her family’s personal business, to the Aryan Germans deciding the Jews didn’t deserve to live. Cite.
I fucking hate that moron, precisely because so many people think he’s “smart” that they believe the crap that spews out of the wrong hole of his anatomy.
I just want to note that I’ve always been wary of Stein. Remember that he was a Nixon speechwriter, along with Pat Buchanan and Bill Safire. Both Safire and Stein have the “goofy curmudgeon” thing going, which helps to downplay just how virulently right-wing they are. I have a soft spot for Stein because of his Ferris Bueller and “Win Ben Stein’s Money” work. I have a soft spot for Safire because of his long-running language column. But the spot isn’t soft enough to trust either of them not to come out for really stupid things every now and then, because I just remind myself, “They were apparatchiks in Nixon’s White House”…