Changes

A number of members of the scientific community have criticized the film for portraying intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution; they claim that intelligent design lacks scientific credibility and is a form of [[creationism]].<ref>[http://www.hnn.us/articles/45776.html Is the Theory of Evolution Really a Matter of Faith?], Leonard and Charles Steinhorn, George Mason University, 31 December 2007</ref><ref name=IDiscreationism>"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a [[creationist]] [[pseudoscience]]." ([http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf ''Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design''], David Mu, [http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/ Harvard Science Review], Volume 19, Issue 1, Autumn 2005)</ref> They highlight the fact that a large majority of scientists endorse evolution.<ref name=NIHrecord> [http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf ''Finding the Evolution in Medicine''], Cynthia Delgado, [[National Institutes of Health]],  July 28, 2006.</ref> However, advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a legitimate scientific theory and is distinct from the concept of [[creationism]].

A number of members of the scientific community have criticized the film for portraying intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution; they claim that intelligent design lacks scientific credibility and is a form of [[creationism]].<ref>[http://www.hnn.us/articles/45776.html Is the Theory of Evolution Really a Matter of Faith?], Leonard and Charles Steinhorn, George Mason University, 31 December 2007</ref><ref name=IDiscreationism>"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a [[creationist]] [[pseudoscience]]." ([http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf ''Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design''], David Mu, [http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/ Harvard Science Review], Volume 19, Issue 1, Autumn 2005)</ref> They highlight the fact that a large majority of scientists endorse evolution.<ref name=NIHrecord> [http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/pdfs/2006/07282006Record.pdf ''Finding the Evolution in Medicine''], Cynthia Delgado, [[National Institutes of Health]],  July 28, 2006.</ref> However, advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a legitimate scientific theory and is distinct from the concept of [[creationism]].

Some of the scientists interviewed in the film, notably [[Richard Dawkins]], claim that they were deceived as to the film's purpose and title, and would not have agreed to participate in it had they known of its pro-intelligent design message.<ref name="nyt"/> See [[Liberal deceit]].

Some of the scientists interviewed in the film, notably [[Richard Dawkins]], claim that they were deceived as to the film's purpose and title, and would not have agreed to participate in it had they known of its pro-intelligent design message<ref name="nyt"/> (see [[deceit]]).

== See also ==

== See also ==