DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

  For example, we know Darwin's work impacted the Holocaust, even though it was indirectly and not all the ideas were applied. I think it would be fair the say it was an "awful misinterpretation", but it just shows how information can be used an abused. 

Nope Darwin nowhere even suggested what the Nazi did if you want the basis for Nazism's social Darwinism you will have look too Herbert Spencer who clearly got his more inspiration from Larmarck then Darwin and Hitler didn't even accept evolution he believed in created kinds and Darwin rejected Social Darwinism

Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.[5]

This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.[6]

 As far as the scientists thinking they were filming for a different movie, I don't see why it would matter.  If they say something they believe for one movie, why wouldn't those same statements be just as valid in something else? Unless it was assume they were supposed to be saying something they didn't believe, but did it for a fictional piece.  The  members in the auditorium are highly irrelevant. Even if every one of them was intentional, evaluation would be on what was being stated, and not the crowd, especially if it's in a video.

They lied to the people their interviewing and asked them deceptive questions and edited their answers you clearly have no clue what your talking about 

  The last two points are neither here nor there.  No religion, including atheism, is a prerequisite to scientific study and the adherence to any of them doesn't require an interest in science.

Atheism isn't a religion and Intelligent design is religion with a science veneer