So you're saying you don't support teaching evolution in the classroom?
Sorry, just messing with you.  I couldn't resist.  

Back to the OP I would agree that it's probably an inappropriate setting for that video.  I personally wouldn't be "outraged" any more than I would be if someone were really pushing an evolutionary only theory.

I'm fascinated by the topic as a whole.  I'm a christian and I believe in ID, but I also love science and want to understand it so I don't roundly discredit anything evolution because it's not "creation".

Thought this was fitting to this discussion:

The way we are going to solve our problems now and in the future is by having an educated population. So the issue is not just about whether or not butterflies evolved - it is about having a basic understanding of one of the most well accepted and well-defined processes in biology. I am assuming (so it may be mistaken) that the primary target audience was children. Who are the ones in the future who will be expected to be able to use enough scientific reasoning to solve the problems facing them.

Sorry for not reading the whole thing.

Is the refuge publicly or privately funded?

Ok here's my off the cuff answer - the word "theory" doesn't mean "best guess" like it does in casual conversation. It's a scientific framework to which all known evidence must fit. Ie, as soon as someone can disprove it it's no good. This is why it's called the theory of gravitation - you can't prove gravity but the theory fits and explains every experiment involving gravity and how it should work. You can predict what will happen before it does. Evolution falls into this area.

Creationism is nothing like that - it can be disproved by anyone with access to carbon dating. Or by taking the dimensions of the Ark and trying to explain how every species of animal could physically fit in something even 100x as large. You might as well say the Sun orbits around the Earth or the Earth is flat.

But as for wrecking Intelligent Design, you always have the option that ID created evolution as a mechanism for human advancement. ID created the big bang and that's how we came to be. Or not. ID is fine to believe in, but don't tell my kids that gravity is actually some guy underground with really big magnet (eat more iron kid and you'll get heavier, etc). That's how bad creationism is.

I can agree with a lot of that.  I don't know of any way to prove creation is real from a scientific standpoint so I tend to agree with you in that regard.  That's where the argument gets a little crazy is when people say "creation is fact" because its in the bible, but from a scientific standpoint that doesn't mean anything.  Creation is a faith thing based on what's in the Bible (or insert religion)

I tend to fall into your last paragraph (minus the underground gravity guy) where I think that there was a creator that set things in motion whether that be through a long process of evolution, or some other manner (something quicker).

Even as a Christian I've had issues with the Noah story.  I know the bible speaks of it as fact and worldwide, but the logical nerd in me has issues with that.  in my mind I've reconciled it as a local story passed down for generations.  In that time a person's "entire world" was not a very big area so there "could have been" a great localized flood (from God or natural) that spawned the stories.  Ultimately I'm a Christian and not a Noahan so it doesn't effect my belief structure at all.  I just chalk it up to something that I don't understand.

ROFL!  Oh man that was funny.  Thank you!

See I'm sort of the opposite of you. I was the 6 year old kid who didn't believe in Santa. I even managed to convince all my friends I was right when I still got presents. I don't believe in a God and am a strong believer in evolution (did you know they found astro-sugars similar to RNA, floating around in space recently?). I have come to accept though that the big bang just happening is equally as likely as a god-like figure starting the big bang. Both have an element of "magic" in that no one knows how either could possibly happen.

Science is just the modern term for sorcery. 

I consider myself to be a "libertarian believer".  In that I won't attack your beliefs and tell you that you're wrong and you afford me the same courtesy in return.  In general it has worked out pretty well for me.  If asked about my faith I will talk with anyone about it, but I'm not here to force it down anyones throat.  I find it works well for the most part. 

I'm a big live and let live type of guy. 

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -Albert Einstein

I agree with the eminent scientist and chemist and Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick, who discovered the double helix of DNA, and his theory of Directed Panspermia.

Crick believed that the complexity of DNA could not have evolved naturally. (In full disclosure later in life he retreats from this position, but in his 1972 paper "Directed Panspermia" co-authored by L.E. Orgel they argue the possibility of directed panspermia and argue that it cannot be discounted)

I point this out only to express that contrary to what is often asserted and taught, there are eminent and well qualified scientists that don't hold to the entirity of Evolutionary Theory.  That all life on Earth evolved from primordial goo.  (I'm not asserting that these scientists are religious in any way.  I'm just saying that the assertion that there is consensus amoungst science may be an over statement, and likewise the statement that only crack pots could disagree with every single aspect of evolution is likewise an over statement)

Likewise there are numerous examples of eminent scientists that believe in creationism, Richard Smalley for one.

but regarding the OP I do agree that given the forum you should have been warned about the content of the DVD, at the very least it would have given you the opportunity to decide to attend or not attend.

No one held him there against his will, he could have left at anytime

This was an interesting article about Math and God. Re: the Fibonacci Sequence.

Of God and Math and Other Things I Discuss with 12-Year-Olds… Volume II

 By day, I’m the guy you used to love to hate: I teach math. I work at a Catholic school just outside of Boston, where every day I try to convince a gaggle of 12- and 13-year-olds that Pre-Algebra is actually far, far cooler than One Direction.

In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator.

Note the State that this ruling occurred. It is not science, it's faith. There are no credible scientists that can possibly believe in creationism because it flies in the face of every scientific principle. That's not to say that scientists can't have faith - because again, anything can always be brought down from ID. 

I PRAY more Christians will stand up for THEIR rights.