I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***I won't go into all the details of why this simplistic movie is just another example of the Intelligent Design (ID) camp's attempt to mislead the relatively uneducated and those who may be desperate to believe in a personal god/creator. I'll just point readers to a couple of objective information sources and then mention only one or two general fallacies in the film that are typical of the ID movement's pseudo-scientific approach.First, the biggest and most overarching flaw is the simplistic reliance on the anthropic principle: that there must be a purposeful reason why we are here to observe and contemplate the universe. Basically, anthropic reasoning says that we are here because we're special (in the eyes of God?). Whereas a more scientific approach would say that we're special because we're here. (A subtle but crucial distinction.) I.e., we could just as easily not have been here; in which case this would all be moot.For more on the anthropic principle, just Google it and read a few of the more scientific descriptions. Secondly, the ID proponents take scraps of "evidence" very selectively and then just ignore the huge amount of counter evidence that goes against their view.A couple of examples of this are their assumption that all life forms in the universe must be based on the particular combination of conditions found on earth (atmospheric composition, temperature, amount of water, carbon-based life, etc.); and the misleading commentary on how the size and distance of the moon from the earth and sun are just right to allow a total eclipse of the sun. Re: the latter point, the ID folks seem either to ignore or not even be aware of the simple fact that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth's gravitational field. It used to be much closer to earth; and it will eventually escape the earth's gravitation altogether, leaving us with no moon whatsoever. That future situation may be extremely disruptive to life on earth (no tides, on which many organisms depend, as the movie itself points out), if not totally disastrous. Ironically, survival under those future circumstances will probably depend on successful evolution of species due to natural selection pressure. So much for "intelligent" design.There's a lot more I could say. But maybe this is enough to get some of the more critical, objective proponents at least to view the movie again with a more skeptical eye next time. If you really want to take a cold, hard look at the ID arguments vs. real science when it comes to evolution specifically, I suggest you read the excellent, objective book "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer, who is famous for carefully and logically debunking lots of pseudo-science. Another excellent book is "Why Intelligent Design Fails" which also carefully dissects and debunks the ID arguments.And for more discussion about the "specialness" of our universe and how the laws of physics are tuned precisely to allow us to exist and observe it, read, in addition to the anthropic principle material, a book called "Before the Beginning" by Martin Rees, which discusses the concept of the "multiverse".Here is the key difference between the ID crowd and real science: while the latter try to remain objective and to derive and test theories based on evidence from the natural world, the former start with a religious belief about what they want to be true, and then use selective evidence and false logic to try to "prove" it. Unfortunately, those who do not have a strong education in science, logic, etc., can fall easy prey to such nonsense.

This documentary was excellent! It never ceases to amaze me how wonderfully complex and finely tuned our universe is ... and how unlikely it is that it would provide the conditions necessary in which complex life could arise. To those who reduce this documentary, as well as the Intelligent Design movement, down to nothing more than a pseudo science ... please provide your arguments AGAINST the observations/claims in this documentary ... rather than merely cutting it down in your language. The various scientists and scholars that were interviewed throughout the course of this documentary (Guillermo Gonzalez - Ph.D. in Astronomy, Jay W. Richards - Ph.D., Dennis Danielson - Ph.D., Seth Shostak - Ph.D. in Astronomy, Charles A. Beichman - Ph.D.'s in Physics and Astronomy, Bijan Nemati - Ph.D. in Physics, Kevin Grazier - Ph.D. in Physics, Don Brownlee - Ph.D. in Astronomy, Paul Davies - Ph.D. in Physics, Robin Collins - Ph.D. in Philosophy) gave scientific facts, as well as their interpretation of those scientific facts, to produce their conclusions. Please leave a detailed rebuttal to their conclusions or your empty criticisms of their conclusions will be reduced to nothing more than anger and contempt towards the possibility that the Intelligent Design movement might be right after all. Thank you.

I liked how another reviewer wrote about the "anti-science" organization behind this movie.... As I recall watching it there were interviews of people from NASA. I am sure that scientists for NASA would be really enlightened by the idea of participating in an "Anti-Scientific" film. I would respect these negative opinions more if someone gave at least 1 example of "bent" information or anything to that extent, with a cited scientific journal where they got their information. From what I have gathered the negative opinions of this film were just that, opinions, I haven't read 1 scientific argument from anything presented in this movie.

This movie presents quite a lot of real science, and leaves it to the viewer to draw a conclusion, regarding whether the immensely precise laws of physics, and how they combine on the Earth to allow us to live, are best explained by intelligent design OR by one of the several theories of evolution.For one scientific point (among many), evolution cannot explain how the multiple components of the eye, which must make electro-chemical changes in picoseconds, could have evolved by minor or major mutations, since the creature is blind IF any one of those components is not present or does not function exactly as it has to. If the creature is blind, it will die, since it cannot get help to eat from another of its own kind, because they would ALL be blind, therefore that species would all die off. Even Darwin admitted that the eye cannot be explained by evolution. We now know much more about how fantastic the components of the eye are, and evolution STILL does not have an explanation for the eye. Intelligent design is the best explanation for the eye.There are a number of other irreducibly complex structures like the eye, as well as the incredibly complex electro-chemical factory in every cell, and NONE of these can be explained by evolution.Darwin also admitted that the fossil record does not support evolution; it actually supports intelligent design; but he thought that fossils of "intermediate" species would be found. With millions more fossils now found, NONE of them is an intermediate species; there are no "missing links".I suggest that, with an open mind, seeking the truth, you read "The Case for a Creator", in which a journalist talks with the experts on microbiology, astrophysics, and other sciences, and carefully examines arguments for both evolution and intelligent design.