Is Genesis History?



Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 61%
IMDb Rating 4 10 1097


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 167,559 times
June 23, 2017 at 08:41 PM



720p 1080p
752.67 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 40 min
P/S 7 / 54
1.57 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 40 min
P/S 6 / 42

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Dennis Maeder 3 / 10

Young Earth Creationist propaganda

This movie has excellent production values - great panoramas of God's creation, and wonderful artistic transitions.

What it lacks is any scientifically compelling perspective (although it pretends to have one). It is riddled with straw-man arguments, nonsensical assertions, and uncritical thinking.

It's foundation is a fair and unabashed assumption that the biblical book of Genesis is without error. However, this is hammered out into an extremely literal interpretation that is used to constrain interpretation of scientific data into an incredible pseudo-science mess. This approach is not so much about Truth as propaganda, and ultimately does no service to the Creator.

Reviewed by harrisr-48952 1 / 10

Same old Creationism, not Science

There is no science in this so-called "documentary"; it is a more slick version of the same ridiculous Creationist films done years ago. The claims are those long held by Creationists, with an attempt to suggest that Genesis is just another alternative scientific theory. Of course, Biblical scholars (many of them believers) take Genesis for what it is: myth. Beautiful, poetic, compelling, yes, but myth. Not sure what a myth is? Check out Joseph Campbell online. Want to check out the pseudo-scientific claims in this program? Check out the work of Stephen Jay Gould and many others. There is no debate going on in scholarly communities about whether Genesis is "history". For discussions of the Bible as a historical source, see the works of William Dever or "The Bible Unearthed" by Neil Silbermann and Israel Finkelstein.

Reviewed by Jakob G 1 / 10

An underwhelming, misleading, wholly biased documentary, supporting bad science.

Once upon a time I used to be a fundamentalist Christian who believed in a literal six- day creation account, which I ardently defended. I no longer meet these qualifications, and have become an evolutionist. I watched the documentary expecting it to be a faith-filled defense of Genesis, despite its logline of "Presenting two view."

Here are numerous issues I discovered within the documentary:

The film only interviews literal six-day creationist scientists, and offers no rebuttal or counter-evidence from opposing beliefs. This gives the film a significant bias, with scientific opinions being founded foundationally upon subjective, religious beliefs. It creates an echo chamber for the film, where the only opinion you're told is the one you're expected to believe in.

The film is highly dichotomous. You either believe in 100% of Darwin's theory, or you believe 100% in Genesis. No room for theistic evolution, old-earth creationism, day- age, or anything. This is a further problem of the echo chamber mentioned above. One of the film's interviewees after the film's released attempted to redact some of his statements for being misconstrued as advocating this false dichotomy.

Perhaps most horrifying is how presuppositional the film is—it's bad science. Everyone interviewed in the film believes the Bible is 100% literal (except the parts that aren't), and, consequently, will not believe in evolution anyways. "Well Genesis is 100% true so anything else can't be right" seems to be the feel throughout.

What is funny about the film though, is that if you're familiar with evolution, the film helps reaffirm your position. A lot of the experts in the film clearly recognize what evolution is, but they won't admit they believe in it. They believe in specieization (that species evolve within phylum), but they won't believe it on the macro-scale. They recognize the difference between a Sea Urchin and Starfish is just a few genetic changes, but they again presume God first, and then deny the potential for evolution.

This film has beautiful cinematography and scenery, but it was not written well. It is not definitive, or even remotely helpful. It is a perpetuation of the echo-chamber of fundamentalism.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment