This movie follows a really simple approach: Confuse people with some "philosophical" questions they don't expect and capitalize on their missing knowledge or interest.
These interviewed people, mostly college students, didn't really put much thought into these issues in the past; they weren't prepared for the questions they were asked. Therefore they didn't know the perfect response and had to surrender to the interviewer at some point. These people are totally useless to prove a point, since we have a prepared interviewer questioning unprepared college students.
The only two people with important and informed opinions in this movie, are Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss.
Lawrence Krauss gave good Answers to the few questions he was asked but then was cut off to (wrongfully) explain why he (Krauss) is wrong. He was only asked the questions from the first 10 minutes of the movie though, and not all of the questions the students were asked.
Richard Dawkins wasn't even interviewed, they just showed some archive footage where he was laughed at by the audience because of a statement. This was nothing but mockery.
It's funny that they asked Krauss - a theoretical physicist and cosmologist - mainly about evolution and Dawkins - an evolutionary biologist - was mocked for his statements about the Big Bang. It's like asking a catholic priest about Scientology.
The movie was basically over after 15 minutes, because after the interview with Krauss, they just continued the interviews with the students for 45 minutes.
--------------
The interviewer was comparing DNA with a book all the time with the argument that the book wouldn't write itself. DNA didn't write itself though, it developed over time. When we randomly generate a book, there will be some existing words in it. When we now proceed to regenerate all contents that don't make sense, we'll end up with a book that makes sense after a (long) while. That's how natural selection works: if your genetic mutations help you to survive, you'll reproduce, passing the good genes to the next generation; if not, you'll not survive. It's as simple as that.
Also it seems strange to the interviewer that something arose from nothing, so something arose from God makes more sense to him. The question where God arose from is not even asked though - I guess it makes total sense that God always existed.
He furthermore was impressed by the world and how the conditions seem to be perfect for life to happen; I would honestly be more impressed if we were alive in conditions that don't allow life to happen. Of course we have those good conditions, otherwise life wouldn't have developed.
--------------
This movie has absolutely no value. All you get from it, is uninformed opinions. The 5 minutes the movie takes to talk to someone who is an expert on that matter, don't really save the remaining 55 minutes.
These interviewed people, mostly college students, didn't really put much thought into these issues in the past; they weren't prepared for the questions they were asked. Therefore they didn't know the perfect response and had to surrender to the interviewer at some point. These people are totally useless to prove a point, since we have a prepared interviewer questioning unprepared college students.
The only two people with important and informed opinions in this movie, are Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss.
Lawrence Krauss gave good Answers to the few questions he was asked but then was cut off to (wrongfully) explain why he (Krauss) is wrong. He was only asked the questions from the first 10 minutes of the movie though, and not all of the questions the students were asked.
Richard Dawkins wasn't even interviewed, they just showed some archive footage where he was laughed at by the audience because of a statement. This was nothing but mockery.
It's funny that they asked Krauss - a theoretical physicist and cosmologist - mainly about evolution and Dawkins - an evolutionary biologist - was mocked for his statements about the Big Bang. It's like asking a catholic priest about Scientology.
The movie was basically over after 15 minutes, because after the interview with Krauss, they just continued the interviews with the students for 45 minutes.
--------------
The interviewer was comparing DNA with a book all the time with the argument that the book wouldn't write itself. DNA didn't write itself though, it developed over time. When we randomly generate a book, there will be some existing words in it. When we now proceed to regenerate all contents that don't make sense, we'll end up with a book that makes sense after a (long) while. That's how natural selection works: if your genetic mutations help you to survive, you'll reproduce, passing the good genes to the next generation; if not, you'll not survive. It's as simple as that.
Also it seems strange to the interviewer that something arose from nothing, so something arose from God makes more sense to him. The question where God arose from is not even asked though - I guess it makes total sense that God always existed.
He furthermore was impressed by the world and how the conditions seem to be perfect for life to happen; I would honestly be more impressed if we were alive in conditions that don't allow life to happen. Of course we have those good conditions, otherwise life wouldn't have developed.
--------------
This movie has absolutely no value. All you get from it, is uninformed opinions. The 5 minutes the movie takes to talk to someone who is an expert on that matter, don't really save the remaining 55 minutes.