*** 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.
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.