Here

"Dr. Owen Gingerich is Senior Astronomer at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory…."

Gingerich writes:
"Nevertheless, just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, so I believe that the Book of Nature, with its astonishing details-the blade of grass, the Conus geographus (with its lethal harpoon), or the resonance levels of the carbon atom-also suggests a God of purpose and a God of design. And I think my belief makes me no less a scientist."

Yep, seems a Wedgie sleeper (an operative who remains hidden) has been at work in the Smithsonian.

That so many critics have chosen to fight this battle is illuminating. I have not read the book or seen the movie. But from what I can tell, it's essentially the fine-tuning argument.

It's the fine-tuning argument, with an added twist that takes it a bit further: Gonzales and Richards argue that the laws of the universe are set up such that those areas that are most ideal for habitability (however many there are) also happen to be the ones most ideal for scientific investigation. That is to say, even if it were possible for us to survive someplace like, say, Europa, we couldn't learn as much about the history and the workings of the universe from there. I haven't read it either, but it's apparently very example-heavy.

The book has gotten good reviews and endorsements from a lot of big-name scientists, and of course the anthropic argument and its surrounding issues is hardly on the fringe in modern cosmology. It has generally been regarded as well-researched and well-argued by those who have read it, even when they don't agree with the conclusion. As Krauze pointed out, Gonzales's work has been featured in Scientific American. And like you said, it doesn't talk about biological evolution, much less natural selection.

So, like you, I was rather surprised that many (most?) critics decided to make such a huge deal of this. It seems to cut through a lot of their own previous rationales to reveal nothing more than a basic philosophical discomfort with the possibility of even considering teleology at any level.

There is no scientific question about the fact that if features of the solar system and universe did not have a certain degree of fine tuning, we wouldn't be here. Probably only 6 minutes of the movie dealt with philosophical issues, and there were featured eminent physicists and scholars like Robert Jastrow and Paul Davies commenting on fine tuning.

Even the most ardent anti-IDist who showed up that day at UVa, professor Mark Whittle, confessed that fine tuning poses a challenge. Fine tuning is an inescapable fact, and from a purely theoretical standpoint, it is fair to say we live in on a Privileged Planet. What one makes of that philosophically is one's choice, but the facts are there….

But would the smithsonian get flak for showing Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" where he is heard proclaiming "the cosmos is all there is". Such a statement by Sagan is at variance with many people's religious beliefs. Such books are sold at the Smithsonian's Space Museum. Is not the promotion of such direct atheism at a taxpayer funded institution inappropriate? If so, there is a double standard being practiced.

"I looked at the trailer, I sure hope the documentary is more sophisticated in its argument, because that looks downright silly."

Besides the obvious implications that he hasn't seen it, contrast his characterization with the following excerpt of a review of the book in Astronomy:

"This ambitious, multi-disciplinary approach paints an inspiring portrait of the delicate balance needed to sustain life. At the very least, the book's poetic praise of Earth's pristine measurability will leave readers much to ponder."

Which one of these is the reasonable perspective? These 'critics' don't care about level-headed debate, their trademark is insults and abusive demeanor; a stampede of wild boars with the only intent to do as much damage, to what they perceive as a serious threat, as possible.

This tells us that, for the critics, the debate is not about evolution.

If he already wasn't one before, he seems to have evolved into a just-plain-mean anti-Christian, dogmatic materialist. "Skeptic" indeed…

I mean, imagine what would happen to the Smithsonian's public image if they cancelled the showing of a film because of the complaints of some guy (and his followers) who comes out and announces on the Internet that they should be "alarmed and militant" about it, and who actually tries to buy them off. Would you want to be publicly seen as beholden to a group of self-professed alarmed militants who resort to bribery? Perhaps this sort of behavior is therapeutic, but it surely isn't very sensible.

Have these people no shame?

It's patently absurd having to witness all the vitriol, with people suggesting the film promotes creationism, is garbage, etc. even though none of them probably have seen it!

I, like others, am still waiting for a single claim on your part that rises above the level of pure insinuation and conspiracy theory. If anybody is supposed to take you seriously, you need something more than your own political credulity to ground these kinds of accusations. I'm pointing this out for your own good. Conspiracy theorists who make wild accusations without backing them up tend to get taken for lunatics, and we wouldn't want people thinking you were a lunatic, would we?

Question: considering the recent uproar and ensuing witchhunt at the Smithsonian over a single ID article, where are the infuriated whistleblowers you would expect to be there if Rick Santorum had arm-twisted them into showing an ID presentation? Did Rick Santorum threaten their families too, in order to silence them?

…considering the politicization of the Smithsonian over the past decade, yes, it's reasonable to assume politicians put pressure on the board. It would not be the first time"”but then, since when do you guys pay any attention at all to history?

Excellent, here's your chance fill us in then, since you have a superior grasp on Smithsonian history. Recount a few instances over the past decade where politicians have pressured the Smithsonian into appeasing IDists. And once again for your own good (we don't want you looking crazy after all): It's best if you use actual examples instead of insinuations about what could have happened. Backing up insinuations with more insinuations gets us nowhere, of course.