Yeah, the favorite retort on UD these days is some variant on "you are misrepresenting ID" or "read Dembski's books before you criticize ID". So I suspect you are right. They will whine and moan about how nobody understands ID, even though they passed up many chances to make their point during the making of this documentary.
Maybe we should have a contest to see who can pick the day that the first whining about this documentary appears on EN&V. I'll pick Oct 31 just to start the ball rolling!
A two hour representation of a forty day trial can not be anything more than propanda, just as the movie Inherit The Wind was about the Scopes trial.
Who ya kiddin?
I’ll tell you exactly who we are kidding. Young Christian boys and girls who are taught that the earth is young and that scientist are a bunch of atheist. Then, one day those children look at 300 million years of geology in a canyon in Utah and realize everything the church taught them was a lie and walk away from God all together.
The court ruling in Dover is what it is. It says intelligent design is a religious based concept that may not be taught in schools. It will have no more or less effect than laws against discrimination or murder. It does not prevent people from being prejudice or murders; it just makes it against the law.
don't feed the troll
his name suggests that he thinks the flintones is a true story as in the "creation museum". reasoning with these people is a waste of time.
There will be re-enactments of segments of the trial, based on transcripts. That will allow the DI "point" to be made, at least to the extent it was made by Behe &al.
yb: With your bumper-sticker mentality, I don't see how you in particular can complain about anything being over-simplified.
Although Discovery stonewalled NOVA's repeated requests for a spokesperson to comment for the program
How much an hour did Dembski want to not appear on this show? $200/hour? 
"Although Discovery stonewalled NOVA's repeated requests for a spokesperson to comment for the program, you can be sure you'll hear repeatedly in coming months just how unfair and one-sided the program is."
Sounds like a strategy to me. If they had allowed their views to be represented in the program then they couldn't complain about the UNFAIRNESS OF IT ALL. They are probably hard at work right now plotting their response to the program -- sight unseen, of course.
YB said, "A two hour representation of a forty day trial can not be anything more than propanda..."
Hmm, you haven't been to many jury trials, have you? Go down to your county courthouse and ask the clerk's office about upcoming trials. Or, call your local newspaper's court beat reporter. Get a nice juicy murder or a complex franchise breach action - both cases should take more than a week to try. Then go see a trial.
When you get done, I'll be very surprised if you stand by your statement. Trials can be deadly boring. Keeping jurors (and, judges!) awake can be challenging - to say the least.
Condensing a trial down to two hours - that's about right. But, go look for yourself.
Commenting by HaloScan
