The logic behind Intelligent Design? Or the logic behind the point of the movie? Because as far as the former, there isn’t much to see, in my opinion. I haven’t seen the movie, so I can’t really comment on it, but I’ve heard others say that the makers weren’t exactly straightforward with the scientists they interviewed.
And of course most scientists, whatever their religious persuasions, don’t like the film much, because almost all of them consider ID to be a scientifically untenable position. It’s not even a controversial issue, like global warming, where respected scientists have questioned the orthodox attitudes toward, and even some who support it, like physicist Freeman Dyson, among the most highle yregarded scientists alive today, have criticized the AGW advocates fr their approach.
WIth Intelligent design, even that isn’t the case. If a scientist were to walk into any major biology department in the country and apply for a job, and say, oh, by the way, I don’t believe in evolution, it is true that they would not likely get a job. Would that constitute discrimination? Perhaps, but it’s kind of like trying to get a job teaching chemistry while not believing in electrons. Employers, including universities, have to discriminate between the qualifed and the unqualified. Not to say that universities don’t discriminate unfairly in some ways, but getting more creationists onto the faculties of university science departments isn’t exactly something I support.