Fantastic!

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It never ceases to amaze me how evolutionists posture themselves as the great intellectual victims in America. Hey, wake up, you won! In fact, YOU WON BIG, so stop whining. Forget for a moment that you are crusading for a theory which has scant little verifiable evidence for where its advocates want to take it, or as a general explanation of the development of life on earth. It's like one of the great scams of the last century. In the home of the free and the land of the brave you get to teach unimpeded and unquestioned a theory with gaping holes and little actual factual support as an explanation for the development of life. Congratulations!And what the school district wanted to do in the Dover case was so insignificant, that is, inform kids that another theory existed. Oh my goodness, what happened to the opportunity to form your own opinion? If John Scopes were alive today he'd be fired for teaching that Darwinism might just not be right. Heresy!! It's like the Dark Ages all over again, except this time the left is in control. Isn't the free expression of reasoned belief and opinion what PBS and the ACLU are supposed to stand for, or does that only apply to beliefs without Christian support? The only thing I agree with Bush on (and I voted Dem the last two presidential elections) is that both theories have some factual basis, neither have complete validation, and both are appropriate for the classroom where neither can scientifically prove itself to be the definitive answer. This movie and the even more intellectually dishonest NOVA "documentary" (I gag at the use of that word with the NOVA "effort", my tax dollars at work) assume that Darwin's theories have been conclusively proved to be correct as an explanation for the development of life on earth, and that if you were just smart enough and didn't let your mind be clouded by the religious nonsense you'd see the truth too. Unfortunately, that just AIN'T TRUE. The Inconvenient Truth (ignored by these position papers) is that there are as many issues with Darwin's theories as there are with the intelligent design theory. The dishonesty of this movie (and the NOVA "effort") in appearing to show the creationist view, but simply as a set up to the Darwinist response, is so contrived as to suggest the weakness of the Darwinist position. This one does the intellectual dishonesty in a particularly coy, pseudo self-effacing manner, making it in its own way even more dishonest. And they always have to throw in the personal stuff, just to show how all the creationists are Nazis and the anti-creationists just humble little folks (who nonetheless would like to impress their unsupported beliefs on your kids). I'm sure there are personal issues both ways, but you won't see it here or on NOVA. Let's have an intelligent debate on this issue, not the propaganda machine. Be professional journalists and grow up guys.For an interesting counterpoint to this position piece check out http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html.

I enjoyed watching this documentary.The filmmaker, Randy Olson, seems like a pretty down to earth kind of guy. His documentary, Flock of Dodos, could pretty much be summed up the same way.I wouldn't consider myself to be in either the intelligent design or the evolutionists' camp. Honestly, I'm not even sure it really matters which camp a person finds themselves in when it comes to their spirituality. This brings me to my point: Randy, though I found his documentary enjoyable, failed to ask an obvious question that I feel strikes directly at the heart of the current debate. That question being - do the evolutionists that were seated around the poker table feel that the theory/fact that they have devoted their lives to leaves no place for a creator...no place for a designer? Though beyond the empirical realm, this question was never opened for consideration. Yes, the evolution guys attacked the credibility of the ID guys, but they were never directly asked about whether they felt that evolution and the possibility of design were mutually exclusive ideas.Most of the educated ID guys didn't discount that evolution has occurred. They just seemed to discount the idea that it occurred unassisted. I would have liked to have heard some equally candid thoughts from the evolution camp about whether or not they felt that the theory/fact removes the possibility of a designer.A side note: Several of the reviewers, who I assume fall into the ID camp, seemed to feel that Randy treated the ID side unfairly. Let me just say that I don't think that he did this on purpose. Randy, like the rest of us, is subject to the knowledge and experience in his possession. He has his own set of biases. When those biases go unchallenged it logically results in the appearance of bias, i.e. the faulty red state/blue state construct as well as other indications of bias that again are probably more the result of a lack of knowledge than a malicious attempt at arrogance. To me, at least, Randy seemed like a pretty open-minded sort of guy.Just my two cents. Fun doc to watch.

I think the problem with this film is that it goes into the Darwinism/Intelligent Design debate with its mind already made up.It does recognize that the ID side is a lot better at connecting with people. It attributes this to the fact that they've gotten slick public relations firms, not that they actually make legitimate points that the Darwinist side is unable to answer.It does engage in some chicanery. For instance, it attacks Dr. Wells "Icons of Evolution" on the dispute over Haeckel's embryos. THe problem is that Haeckel's embryos are frequently included in a lot of textbooks. They engage in misdirection by pointing out they aren't in advanced embryology textbooks. Well, most people aren't going to take advanced embryology, they are going to maybe take High School biology.It criticizes the ID side for using catchphrases, while repeating catchphrases of the Darwinist side- such as 'God of the gaps". It's a clever phrase, but it doesn't really address the problem - that there are some huge gaping holes in Evolutionary theory- how did life evolve from chemicals, why are there so few transitional fossils in the records, how would a complex structure like an eye evolve.It also engages in "guilt by association". The Discovery institute uses the same public relation firm as the Swift Vets who attacked Kerry, that makes them evil. Sorry, the Swift Vets had a legitimate point, Kerry was presenting himself as something he wasn't.It also presents it as a "blue state/red state" issue. Again, wrong. I know a LOT of liberal democrats who believe that God had something to do with the origin of life in the world.In all, it tries to be fair, but really isn't.

I love science. I am not a scientist, but when it comes to books, magazines, etc., I am more likely to pick up something about science than anything else. I also love movies, so when a movie about Science comes along, I will see it.I am not anti-religion. If it helps you get through life, then I am all for it. I prefer Effexor myself, but whatever floats your boat is OK with me as long as you don't try to teach my children your fantasies.This is what it's all about. The fantasy of Creationism versus the facts of Evolution. This film makes it simple to understand even for the uneducated dodos that let others do their talking and thinking for them. It is even-handed and gives time to both sides of this non-debate.The Creationists want to promote "teaching the controversy." This film is perfect for that and should be shown in all schools and all classes.