In the movie caption area/description there is a linked list of all of the sections of the documentary; they're about 9-10 minutes apiece. (These were posted back when YouTube had a 10 minute limit on films, which they've done away with a few years ago.) The third and forth 'movies' are the most convincing sections of the intelligent design argument in my opinion. It's a building argument, though, so make sure you watch the whole show and not just a few parts. The scope of the argument will leave you awestruck and then dumbfounded as to why exactly we're still arguing about this with all our technological prowess today.
The scientists interviewed acknowledge there are religious implications for intelligent design but they don't dwell on it or try to beat you over the head with it. They're concerned with the study of molecular biology and the origin of the simplest forms of it.
The source code for DNA is a given difficulty for those Darwinians who want to state a simple view that it all just arranged itself through chance or some built in(who built it??) magnetism. But 'irreducible reductionism' is really the very heart of the issue. Darwinians want to say that things are 'borrowed' from other sections or previously existing varieties of the type of machine present today in the cell. But where did those previous machinations come from? Who told them to change? If something happens slowly then how does it survive in the meantime with a changed environment which is demanding those changes for survival now? You can only break components of a machine's parts down so far before the argument is moot. You can't build something out of nothing! And I think that last part is what makes Darwinian's crazed. They want to say you can put a bowl full of mud with all the basic amino acids and proteins, add ... something(?!)... and voila! There will be life. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked, and it'll never work. People have tried zapping mud with electricity quite a few times.
This is the most simple break down of the argument in it's all it's complexity:
"Without DNA there is no self replication. But without self replication there is no natural selection. So you can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing you're trying to explain." ~Stephen C. Meyer
This is why David Hawkins will never move beyond anything but screeching at the masses about how 'illogical' the God theory is: The burden of the theory of origin lies with the previously existing machine, not the one we have today. We don't know where the previous one came from but surely that one had a progenitor with the same parts somewhere in it's makeup. We think. We're pretty sure. We're not even sure where 95% of those other parts came from but.. whatever. Oh and the nucleus? The first cells probably didn't have them or need them. (I think my brain just did a 180 and came to a screeching halt with that asshat argument. With no instructions then who or what tells the cell to make changes?!)
Yeah, it's a pretty narrow lensed scope Darwinians are looking through. If it doesn't fit, toss it! But that's how they say natural selection occurred. If that's the case then where did all those billions upon billions of potential choices come from? Something inside the cell decided these things. What is it?
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down." ~Charles DarwinHoly cow. Really? Isn't that rather ironic in the context of the argument being given about something as simple as the bacterial flagellum(tail/propeller) which is necessary for all life on our planet?
I ask the following question for all those in education or who have children being educated: why are we still teaching this?