I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Beautiful movie!! shows that no one can supply full proof of the first existence, so that's why we choose faith!!

In a country founded on Christian faith with it's roots in The Holy Bible it is always refreshing to see a movie that challenges the current progressive agenda which will not be content until God is completely removed from our culture. The debate of Creation vs evolution is only around 150 years old, however the world has narrowed it's ability to be open minded. I would watch this movie for it's wholesome appeal on a young girl entering college first and then allow the debate to play out in my mind and heart. Haters will always hate because that's what they do. Give it a chance and judge for yourself.

Often seem, by critics, as the 'God Not Dead', knock-off, despite, both films going into production, at the same time. Rich Christino's film follows the story of an over-religious father, Stephen Whittaker (Jay Pickett) being concerned over the teaching of evolution in his daughter, Rachel (Jordan Trovillion)'s college biology. Rather than sending her to a Christian college or have her take online classes; Stephen instead, made the choice to stand up against the Professor Dr. Kaman (Harry Anderson)'s teaching; forcing the two to do a public debate on why creationism should be taught in, public science schools along with evolution. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, while, I do believe in God. I still find it pretty difficult to root for the dad and his viewpoints. First off, Stephen is presented, as overbearing father, who is suffering from entitlement issues. He goes behind his daughter's back to question her teacher, something she is incredibly embarrassed by, tries to enforce his belief into a class that has nothing to do with it, and practically guilt trips his own daughter to fully accept his religion again based on feelings rather than facts. This is not how, a good Christian, should act. The same thing, can be said, about the side characters like Evan Carlson (Chandler Macocha), a Christian student that has the hots for Rachel & a grudge against Dr. Kaman. He's a dick as well for not allowing Rachel to think for herself & choose what people, she wants to date. While Kaman is meant to be the bad guy in the movie. He's more likable than the Dad & Evan combine. He's nowhere as bad as Kevin Sorbo's character, Professor Radisson in 2014's 'God's Not Dead'. It's really hard to hate him. When Stephen tells him about his faith, Kaman is completely fine with it. Kaman also takes Stephen's requests for him to teach creationism with remarkable tolerance. Kaman even encourages Stephen to debate him so he can make his case. That's more than some atheist biologists are willing to do, when dealing with creationists. Also, I see, no fault in Kaman's decision in the past, when it comes to the other biology professor, Dr. Portland (Clarence Gilyard). It was completely reasonable for him to do so, not just because creationism is considered a pseudoscience at best, but also since Portland wouldn't have been constitutionally allowed to teach it in the first place. There is a very strong reason, why creationism can't be told in biology classes, besides the separation of church and state. It's the fact that creationism is not a science; it's faith. So, it doesn't belong in a biology class, unless you want to change the definition of 'science'. Honestly, if you look at all the creationist arguments point out in the film, you'll note a pattern, in which, the writers never point to any hard factual evidence that supports their assumptions. Instead, they only ever so point out to exploitable flaws with scientific theories where they proceed to insert god. That isn't how science works at all! Science is not based on perspective. Science is based on facts. Another reason, why creationism can't be taught in biology classes, is because biblical creation isn't the only other non-scientific means of describing the origin of Earth. Other Abrahamic religions like Islam & Judaism also have their own set of beliefs, on how the world is create. Then, there is eastern religions like Hinduism, Buddhist & Daoism, as well. -And, let's not forget, about new religious movements like Scientologist or the indigenous religions like Neopaganism. There is no way, you can teach creationism in science classes without mentioning all of that. With all this information, it would bog down, the science, way too much; as there is just too many flaws and contradicts. Also, if you look closely at the debate, you would notice that the writers goes on a tangential. The debate is supposed to be, focused on Creationism vs Evolution in biology, before quickly devolves into the idea of proving God's existence. Not once does the moderator try to get the debate back on track. It soon turns into a sermon, with the father teaming up with an ex-professor to attack Dr. Kaman, with most of their arguments, not ringing true. Some good examples are how "evolution claims life created itself out of nothing" to "evolution hasn't been observed": Evolution makes no claim about how life came into existence: that field is called abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life exists the way it does now and how it changed over time into its current state. Evolution has also been observed, not just by examining the available evidence in the fossil record, but also by observing the change of species in the present. How are these, the best arguments, they can make? They could had done better. The movie doesn't even do, a good job, arguing for Evolution, as well. Most of Dr. Kaman's statements are straw men arguments like the whole thing about athletic records today being higher than they were decades ago as a proof of evolution changing us genetically is BS. No real biology professor would use that example. Everybody knows, that there is several other factors to athletic records, such as advancements in technology, changes in rules and the differences in mentality between athletes then and now. Genetics do play a part as well, but it's nowhere near as successful as the other factors, I mention, here. Then, there is the Sigmund Freud's argument that has nothing to do with biology. What type of biologist, would uses psychoanalysis as a source!? Honestly, I think, the writers had no clue, what they were talking about. Overall: The debate wasn't the only thing, wrong with this film. There was also a lot of pointless filler, bad acting from miscast mediocre actors and huge plot-holes. In the end, this movie is still bad, regardless of who beliefs in, what & that's the gospel truth.

As a Christian student studying a Biology major I was embarrassed by this movie.Portraying people who believe in evolution as evil, and Christians as stubborn big heads is a terrible way to prove a point! I would not recommend this to anyone, and even encourage people to avoid it as this is not a fair representation of either Christians or believers of evolution. Let alone just a bad movie. Science and Christianity can co-exist, and in my opinion everything I learn about Biology and Evolution makes me appreciate his creation even more (by whatever method that may have been). Food for thought, have you ever considered that God's creation of the universe may have happened with a bang?