This is the part of the ID argument that is disingenuous.  “It’s also true that the theory (evolution) lends itself to justify atheism, abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics” –as Stein points out. Here is another quote from Mr. Stein, “Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. 

Basically, Expelled, or should I say Ben Stein, tarnishes all Darwinists and evolutionists as maniacal murderers responsible for the worst atrocities of man.  Linking Hitler and Darwinism is basically a specious argument, after all how many Christian Germans prayed to God that Hitler would triumph?  Should we equate Christianity with the Nazis too? That’s stupid and simplistic, right?  Or do we just ignore the previous two thousand years of anti-Semitism in Europe and assume it had it had no impact on the holocaust or do we blame all Christians for the camps? Again, that’s a simplistic answer or do we assume the world was a Garden of Eden before Charles Darwin?

To quote the Anti-Defamation League:  The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.  Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”

I believe that you can be a Christian and a Darwinist, too.   To me, one is science and the other is faith and they each have their place in life, one in a class room, the other in a church. If ID is truly a valid scientific theory then win the debate within the scientific journals through peer review not in the court of public opinion (and please don’t give me that nonsense that the ID proponents lost their jobs, that was basically a Michael Moore liberty if I ever saw one.) This is how science advances and why should the mechanism change just because proponents of ID have lost the debate a 100 years ago?  This is not about free speech, this is about science. To date, the arguments of irreducible complexity are not enough to allow ID to stand as a valid scientific theory.  And even if it was what can you do with it as theory?  What predictive models will come from ID other than to ask us to marvel at god’s handiwork?

Here’s a quote from my site that Jason provided from St. Augustine:

“For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]“

Erik John Bertel
Author of Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot and the Blog