Customer Review

Reviewed in the United States on March 16, 2017
Alright. Was looking for something to watch as I sat on my bike spinning for my daily workout and came across what I thought would be a science documentary. It's not. It's a cover creationism / "Intelligent Design". I watched about a little over half of it and was disappointed. Now, let me say that I'm not a geologist and I would love to see one critique this. That said, even I can see the flaws in some of their arguments.

For example, in their first example, they talk about how, if the rock lay was truly made up of old river beds, then all the rocks embedded within the layer should be touching. Fact of the matter is that they're assuming that those rocks were all static to start with. Also, were I live, Eastern US, I in fact do see rock all the time were the pebbles within are all touching. This isn't to say that local, catastrophic events don't happen in a short amount of time but the authors assume an "all-or-nothing" approach to the topic.

Anyhow, while watching this, I googled the names of three of the speakers presented here. While they do appear to have relevant credentials, they are all associated with or work for groups like Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute or some other creationist organization. For those of you who don't know these groups, in order to work for them you have to typically sign statements declaring that any evidence that contradicts the bible must be assumed false and that the bible is 100% historically accurate literally in ALL cases.

It was the Discovery Institute that coined the term "Intelligent Design" when courts ruled creationism was religious teachings and, when taken to court, couldn't convince a Bush appointed, federal judge that "Intelligent Design" was a legitimate scientific theory. In fact, according to their star witness, his definition of "scientific theory", was so loose that astrology had to be considered a valid theory. (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) I mean, this video is so bad it even pulls out the "Were you there?" argument.
9 people found this helpful
0Comment Report abuse Permalink

Product Details

3.3 out of 5 stars
3.3 out of 5
106 global ratings