[tacticalogic]

Therefore, I would state that everything opined here does not deserve equal time in an academic workplace. Who decides? Those involved in the debate. But that is not the point of the film or my point. The point I believe the film attempts to make, is that there is "censorship" of an idea within the academic community.

The people who opine things here that those involved in the debate within the academic community decide don't deserve equal time are going to tell you they still are. Some people's opinions are going to have to be excluded. The logical basis to decide which ones do and don't get considered is going to be based on who can provide evidence that their opinions have scientific merit. Until the ID proponents can at least propose some methodology to test for positive evidence of ID, that's going to be problematic.

[AndrewC]

The people who opine things here that those involved in the debate within the academic community decide don't deserve equal time are going to tell you they still are.

I can see ... "The people .... are going to tell you they still are. That sure looks like another form of slippery slope or an assertion. In any case, part of the discussion would be methodology of testing satisfactory to all sides. That cannot be done without discussing it in the first place.