deadmanatee
More often than not, religious films are suitable for a good laugh. "God's Not Dead" and "God's Club," for instance, were laughably bad in an enjoyable way for me. I've seen my fair share of Christian propaganda films, yet for SOME reason, "A Matter of Faith" became my most hated.The film follows the typical tropes you'd expect. Awkward dialogue, little to no knowledge of basic scientific fact, and forced running gags that lead nowhere and only serve to waste your time. It was good for a few laughs, but it all went downhill after the first half, and made me furious. The amount of misinformation and downright falsehoods this film spews about evolution is completely uncalled for, and falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.The main plot point is that the father, the creationist, wants to debate the professor, scientist, on evolution vs. creationism. The father dislikes that Rachel is learning about evolution and assumes that it teaches the origins of life.However, evolution does NOT teach the origins of life. Anyone with basic understanding of evolution will tell you that. The main idea is that living organisms evolve and adapt over millions of years through natural selection and other processes. Also, universities don't teach biblical creationism as fact because it's... well, not scientific. And, again, it has nothing to do with evolution.Thus, the main premise of the entire movie is completely pointless from the get-go.Rachel is a pitiful main character, and I honestly felt sorry for her. Actually, the movie is more about her father. She's just trying to go to class and learn biology, yet she's dragged around by her professor, dad, and a creepy guy named Evan into believing one thing or the other. In fact, she was mostly neutral and just wants to be left alone throughout the film. Instead, in the end, she (of course) reaffirms her faith and denounces evolution simply because *insert reason here*. By the end, Rachel completely changes her character and decides, "hey, I'm still a Christian and wanna date that creepy guy now."The professor is a bit condescending and seemed overly desperate to debate. The father was completely inconsiderate to his daughter's feelings on the matter. She pleaded him to stop several times, and he refused. Evan, the "good Christian boy," was just downright creepy. He was condescending to Rachel, and was unnaturally determined to help the father win the debate.And do I even need to speak about the ending? Words can't describe how cringe-inducing it was. Scientific falsehood after scientific falsehood, improper and laughably juvenile debating, resorting to feelings instead of research, etc.Plus, they assert that the Earth is only thousands of years old. Need I say more?
ironhorse_iv
Often seem, by critics, as the 'God Not Dead', knock-off, despite, both films going into production, at the same time. Rich Christino's film follows the story of an over-religious father, Stephen Whittaker (Jay Pickett) being concerned over the teaching of evolution in his daughter, Rachel (Jordan Trovillion)'s college biology. Rather than sending her to a Christian college or have her take online classes; Stephen instead, made the choice to stand up against the Professor Dr. Kaman (Harry Anderson)'s teaching; forcing the two to do a public debate on why creationism should be taught in, public science schools along with evolution. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, while, I do believe in God. I still find it pretty difficult to root for the dad and his viewpoints. First off, Stephen is presented, as overbearing father, who is suffering from entitlement issues. He goes behind his daughter's back to question her teacher, something she is incredibly embarrassed by, tries to enforce his belief into a class that has nothing to do with it, and practically guilt trips his own daughter to fully accept his religion again based on feelings rather than facts. This is not how, a good Christian, should act. The same thing, can be said, about the side characters like Evan Carlson (Chandler Macocha), a Christian student that has the hots for Rachel & a grudge against Dr. Kaman. He's a dick as well for not allowing Rachel to think for herself & choose what people, she wants to date. While Kaman is meant to be the bad guy in the movie. He's more likable than the Dad & Evan combine. He's nowhere as bad as Kevin Sorbo's character, Professor Radisson in 2014's 'God's Not Dead'. It's really hard to hate him. When Stephen tells him about his faith, Kaman is completely fine with it. Kaman also takes Stephen's requests for him to teach creationism with remarkable tolerance. Kaman even encourages Stephen to debate him so he can make his case. That's more than some atheist biologists are willing to do, when dealing with creationists. Also, I see, no fault in Kaman's decision in the past, when it comes to the other biology professor, Dr. Portland (Clarence Gilyard). It was completely reasonable for him to do so, not just because creationism is considered a pseudoscience at best, but also since Portland wouldn't have been constitutionally allowed to teach it in the first place. There is a very strong reason, why creationism can't be told in biology classes, besides the separation of church and state. It's the fact that creationism is not a science; it's faith. So, it doesn't belong in a biology class, unless you want to change the definition of 'science'. Honestly, if you look at all the creationist arguments point out in the film, you'll note a pattern, in which, the writers never point to any hard factual evidence that supports their assumptions. Instead, they only ever so point out to exploitable flaws with scientific theories where they proceed to insert god. That isn't how science works at all! Science is not based on perspective. Science is based on facts. Another reason, why creationism can't be taught in biology classes, is because biblical creation isn't the only other non-scientific means of describing the origin of Earth. Other Abrahamic religions like Islam & Judaism also have their own set of beliefs, on how the world is create. Then, there is eastern religions like Hinduism, Buddhist & Daoism, as well. -And, let's not forget, about new religious movements like Scientologist or the indigenous religions like Neopaganism. There is no way, you can teach creationism in science classes without mentioning all of that. With all this information, it would bog down, the science, way too much; as there is just too many flaws and contradicts. Also, if you look closely at the debate, you would notice that the writers goes on a tangential. The debate is supposed to be, focused on Creationism vs Evolution in biology, before quickly devolves into the idea of proving God's existence. Not once does the moderator try to get the debate back on track. It soon turns into a sermon, with the father teaming up with an ex-professor to attack Dr. Kaman, with most of their arguments, not ringing true. Some good examples are how "evolution claims life created itself out of nothing" to "evolution hasn't been observed": Evolution makes no claim about how life came into existence: that field is called abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life exists the way it does now and how it changed over time into its current state. Evolution has also been observed, not just by examining the available evidence in the fossil record, but also by observing the change of species in the present. How are these, the best arguments, they can make? They could had done better. The movie doesn't even do, a good job, arguing for Evolution, as well. Most of Dr. Kaman's statements are straw men arguments like the whole thing about athletic records today being higher than they were decades ago as a proof of evolution changing us genetically is BS. No real biology professor would use that example. Everybody knows, that there is several other factors to athletic records, such as advancements in technology, changes in rules and the differences in mentality between athletes then and now. Genetics do play a part as well, but it's nowhere near as successful as the other factors, I mention, here. Then, there is the Sigmund Freud's argument that has nothing to do with biology. What type of biologist, would uses psychoanalysis as a source!? Honestly, I think, the writers had no clue, what they were talking about. Overall: The debate wasn't the only thing, wrong with this film. There was also a lot of pointless filler, bad acting from miscast mediocre actors and huge plot-holes. In the end, this movie is still bad, regardless of who beliefs in, what & that's the gospel truth.
marianoaragunde
If there are movies like Zeitgeist, Superman, or Paranormal Activity, then I don't see a problem with this movie's topic or intention.The entire line of argument, photography, acting, and script are screaming "this is a Christian movie" from the beginning. And that's OK, it's a style. In fact, it is looking for a very specific audience.I would just say that this movie should be rated for people within the age of reason, since if you don't have enough education in your baggage, you could drink the cool aid.This shouldn't be even in science fiction. It should be classified as comedy, everything in this movie is a huge internet meme for U.S. Christianism.
