Yes, it is an intelligent design film and it makes no pretenses about it. If it were trying to be deceptive or misleading, it would not be named after the book, nor would it feature the author! Production value? It was non-profit. Read the label.Yes, it has an agenda. Films with an agenda are not a bad thing! Pro-evolution films push an atheist agenda. ID films push a creationist (though not necessarily Christian) agenda. Michael Moore films push an anti-Bush agenda. Get over it; the filmmakers hold beliefs. It's within in their right to showcase them. Go make your own "Case for Cro-Magnon" if it bothers you that much.And please use spell check before posting, kids. Most everything great about the film has been highlighted by other reviewers, so I won't parrot them. Some of the animations were repeated, and the music got a bit repetitive after a while. But I'm being nit picky. It was a great educational film, made by some very intelligent people.

For the record I am a university science student (biology) so my views are clear- This movie is based on an Intelligent Design book of the same name (and thus is entirely separate from legitimate scientific films). Check the sources (authors of the book for starters). The fields Richards studied were Philosophy and Theology. Each is a member of the Discovery Institute, which is a Christian think tank, and its purpose is well know just by observing its web presence. "How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery."Regardless of your opinions, for as much as opinion matters in science, don't fool yourself into thinking the purpose here is anything but indoctrination and anti-evolution. If you agree with ID then you'll probably love this movie. If you have an interest in seeing something based on science you might like the films made by PBS such as Evolution, information is easy enough to find with a search engine.Essentially know what you're watching. Want pretty pictures, selective sound bites, and some misleading 'facts' then have at this film. If you wish to gain some understanding of what we've learned about the universe around us look elsewhere.

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.

It is a film that tries to come off as scientific, but really should just be muted and used for amazing images. Throughout the film, it tries to convince the viewer that intelligent design is more than an unscientific conjecture by making enough small leaps of logic that it sounds on the surface as plausible. Beware of the misinformation in this movie, because while it never asks you to believe in a god, it flatly rejects any real science in an effort to leave you at an intelligent design conjecture, and allows you to assume the intelligent design-er. Suggestible for a logic class however, as it would be a great exercise in circular logic and factual fallacies.