If you would like to see the scientific community united in a way that all competing theories work together despite their inconsistencies toward truth and fact, particularly in the field of the origin of life, then you agree with the point of this movie, and would find it worth its salt. If you don't like being made to think or hearing an opinion that could contradict your own, you may want to save your ten bucks.
Now I realize that I may very well be the only person to peg this movie right in the middle, where I think it belongs. I have seen this movie twice, once after reading these reviews, and having several conversations with viewers on both sides of the fence, Darwinian Naturalists and "Intelligent Design-ers", and I think this comment should help.
Most importantly, your reaction to this movie will be dependent on what you expect. If you want a blockbuster, go see 21; if you want a comedy, see Harold and Kumar. If you want some food for thought, however, check it out. The movie will likely make you dizzy from the amount of times it cuts scenes to emphasize what is being said, such as a man being pushed around and punched as the discussion focuses on the treatment of scientists who believe they've been denied tenure and even fired for their support or attention given to ID. THIS MOVIE IS ATTEMPTING TO bring the debate into the realm of "popular science", what is dumbed down enough for most common, non-scientists to watch/read and understand. The debate is Darwinian Naturalism vs. Intelligent Design: which explains the origin of human life? Is there bias in this movie? Sure. On both sides. What do you expect from a documentary? Its impossible to completely hide ones' opinions, but I concede that Stein could've done a better job. There is bias from the creators; they've been said to have been misleading, and having edited the footage of the interviews. But there is also bias represented throughout the movie and is present in the focus of the movie; Naturalists like Dawkins and Myers are starting with a theoretical assumption (God cannot exist) and gathering evidence that falls on their side of the stonewall and analyzing and incorporating only that. Anything that fails to fit that theory is set aside as a "we don't know yet" pile to be answered later, if it even can be.
THE POINT OF THE FLICK: what is being taught to children in school and the majority of views represented as science to the public is a theory unable to stand up and offer an honest description of itself - we don't have all the answers. In the movie, its point is made - that both of these, and all theories, deserve attention and a voice, and that Intelligent Design-ers only intend to contribute to the goal of all science - following where the evidence leads.
THE REST OF THIS REVIEW (except the bottommost paragraph, a disclaimer)IS FOR PEOPLE LOOKING FOR RESOURCES ON THE TOPIC OF ORIGIN TO FURTHER CRITIQUE/LEARN:
Don't mix your terms up: Darwinian Naturalism is not equivalent to Evolution, and Intelligent Design is not equivalent to Creationism. As the movie says, Evolution can refer to the change of species over time (also known as micro-evolution, which virtually no scientist rejects) or can refer to the origin of life long ago, (aka macro-evolution). Where Creationism refers to a biblical account of Creation and finding any evidence that supports that, Intelligent Design theorizes that what we know of life and its origins does not flawlessly or, by any means, substantially, support any theory besides that SOMETHING intelligent played an important role in...us.
If you want evidence for Intelligent Design, you have to be willing to read. A good book that a lot of Naturalists I know struggle with is "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel, ex-award winning journalist and ex-atheist. This book is very easy to read and quite informative, and is structured as a journalist grilling leading scientists in the fields of astronomy, physics, biology (and much more) about the evidence for ID. As someone else has noted on these boards, the Discover Institute's website would probably also be helpful.
TO THE CRITICS OF THIS CRITIQUE, AND OTHERS REVIEWING THIS FILM: how many of you read anything but popular science before spewing subjective venom or praise about this movie? How many of you read the peer reviewed articles (not novels) of academia from the experts in the fields of science that deal with Origin before forming your opinions? Please critique the movie, not its content. Most comments were unhelpful, as they resulted to mudslinging, a tactic usually employed when someone runs out of intelligent objections to the opponent's argument.
Now I realize that I may very well be the only person to peg this movie right in the middle, where I think it belongs. I have seen this movie twice, once after reading these reviews, and having several conversations with viewers on both sides of the fence, Darwinian Naturalists and "Intelligent Design-ers", and I think this comment should help.
Most importantly, your reaction to this movie will be dependent on what you expect. If you want a blockbuster, go see 21; if you want a comedy, see Harold and Kumar. If you want some food for thought, however, check it out. The movie will likely make you dizzy from the amount of times it cuts scenes to emphasize what is being said, such as a man being pushed around and punched as the discussion focuses on the treatment of scientists who believe they've been denied tenure and even fired for their support or attention given to ID. THIS MOVIE IS ATTEMPTING TO bring the debate into the realm of "popular science", what is dumbed down enough for most common, non-scientists to watch/read and understand. The debate is Darwinian Naturalism vs. Intelligent Design: which explains the origin of human life? Is there bias in this movie? Sure. On both sides. What do you expect from a documentary? Its impossible to completely hide ones' opinions, but I concede that Stein could've done a better job. There is bias from the creators; they've been said to have been misleading, and having edited the footage of the interviews. But there is also bias represented throughout the movie and is present in the focus of the movie; Naturalists like Dawkins and Myers are starting with a theoretical assumption (God cannot exist) and gathering evidence that falls on their side of the stonewall and analyzing and incorporating only that. Anything that fails to fit that theory is set aside as a "we don't know yet" pile to be answered later, if it even can be.
THE POINT OF THE FLICK: what is being taught to children in school and the majority of views represented as science to the public is a theory unable to stand up and offer an honest description of itself - we don't have all the answers. In the movie, its point is made - that both of these, and all theories, deserve attention and a voice, and that Intelligent Design-ers only intend to contribute to the goal of all science - following where the evidence leads.
THE REST OF THIS REVIEW (except the bottommost paragraph, a disclaimer)IS FOR PEOPLE LOOKING FOR RESOURCES ON THE TOPIC OF ORIGIN TO FURTHER CRITIQUE/LEARN:
Don't mix your terms up: Darwinian Naturalism is not equivalent to Evolution, and Intelligent Design is not equivalent to Creationism. As the movie says, Evolution can refer to the change of species over time (also known as micro-evolution, which virtually no scientist rejects) or can refer to the origin of life long ago, (aka macro-evolution). Where Creationism refers to a biblical account of Creation and finding any evidence that supports that, Intelligent Design theorizes that what we know of life and its origins does not flawlessly or, by any means, substantially, support any theory besides that SOMETHING intelligent played an important role in...us.
If you want evidence for Intelligent Design, you have to be willing to read. A good book that a lot of Naturalists I know struggle with is "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel, ex-award winning journalist and ex-atheist. This book is very easy to read and quite informative, and is structured as a journalist grilling leading scientists in the fields of astronomy, physics, biology (and much more) about the evidence for ID. As someone else has noted on these boards, the Discover Institute's website would probably also be helpful.
TO THE CRITICS OF THIS CRITIQUE, AND OTHERS REVIEWING THIS FILM: how many of you read anything but popular science before spewing subjective venom or praise about this movie? How many of you read the peer reviewed articles (not novels) of academia from the experts in the fields of science that deal with Origin before forming your opinions? Please critique the movie, not its content. Most comments were unhelpful, as they resulted to mudslinging, a tactic usually employed when someone runs out of intelligent objections to the opponent's argument.