Check out the Dover case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Plaintiffs_2
(Video on Nova) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
(2nd link is an anchor to the comparison between a draft version and the published version… it gets worse than that…)
Initially they tried to tackle the case by pointing out IDT isn’t a science. While I’m sure that was educational for everyone it wasn’t bringing anyone closer to a conclusion. It’s good you mentioned that it wasn’t testable. However scientific it might be a theory is measured by its usefulness, not whether it’s good or bad or right or wrong. It’s as much a utility or technology as anything else can be and in that regard can be utilized poorly, wonderfully, for good or for evil.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
“Philip E. Johnson: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.”

I haven’t seen this film but Ben Stein isn’t entirely unfair in making an analogy between science and religion. Eugenics in particular, prior to the genetics sort i.e. at its roots, was by men sort of in search of their own religion or rather was a part of the motion of the time in which science gradually substituted parts of religion if not it wholly altogether. But to make that point in whatever way as to reveal some sort of chaotic divide is rather disingenuous if truth is actually what he’s trying to show. E.g. Darwin went from religious to agnostic to atheist, afaik he never confessed into lack of belief on the human soul, I think he said something along the lines of such a thing not being in the domain of [evolutionary] theory.

Why a war on nature versus nurture or religion versus science when the 2 are only ever in concert with each other? If they’re not then the question still stands, why a war? Again I haven’t seen the DVD but I doubt evolution or IDT were the actual issues.