Parents Read Sentencing Child's Death Kent Atheist
It's all only a theory
This film A Matter Of Religion is well-nigh a Christian father Jay Pickett who complains that the atheistic teachings of development by biology professor Harry Anderson is causing his Christian daughter to lose her faith. And then he gets suckered into a contend with Anderson on campus. It doesn't accept long for dad to realize he's in over his head. Reinforcements come in the person of Clarence Gilyard a former instructor at the school who is not that committed to atheism.
Every bit for girl Jordan Trovillion she's got other bug that college freshmen deal with including jock Barnett Carnahan trying to score and Christian child Chandler Macocha who isn't. Judge who she winds up with.
Charles Darwin said he was only postulating a theory of evolution and that's what it has remained with a few additions. Note that in this Christian film no one argued for the 7 days of Genesis. Fifty-fifty Christian film makers know where non to tread.
Creationism but means at that place is a guiding manus in all of this we telephone call life. In and of itself it's non a horrible doctrine. It'southward when all the religious dogma gets fastened to it that folks have a trouble.
A Matter Of Faith is not as well much unlike from the starting time God's Non Expressionless picture. It's non that good though and I doubtfulness it will see viewings other than church basements and TCT showings.
0 out of 5 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It doesn't really matter, what your beliefs are. This movie still kinda sucks.
Alert: Spoilers
Often seem, by critics, as the 'God Not Dead', knock-off, despite, both films going into production, at the same time. Rich Christino'southward 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 biological science. Rather than sending her to a Christian college or accept 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 motion picture, also much, I accept to say, while, I exercise believe in God. I nevertheless find it pretty difficult to root for the dad and his viewpoints. First off, Stephen is presented, as overbearing male parent, who is suffering from entitlement issues. He goes behind his girl'south dorsum to question her teacher, something she is incredibly embarrassed by, tries to enforce his belief into a class that has nothing to do with information technology, and practically guilt trips his own daughter to fully accept his religion again based on feelings rather than facts. This is not how, a skilful Christian, should human activity. The same thing, tin 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'southward a dick likewise for not assuasive Rachel to call back for herself & choose what people, she wants to date. While Kaman is meant to be the bad guy in the pic. He's more likable than the Dad & Evan combine. He'southward nowhere as bad as Kevin Sorbo's graphic symbol, Professor Radisson in 2014'due south 'God'southward Not Dead'. Information technology's actually hard to hate him. When Stephen tells him about his religion, Kaman is completely fine with it. Kaman too takes Stephen's requests for him to teach creationism with remarkable tolerance. Kaman even encourages Stephen to contend him then he can make his case. That's more than some atheist biologists are willing to do, when dealing with creationists. Also, I see, no mistake in Kaman's conclusion in the past, when it comes to the other biology professor, Dr. Portland (Clarence Gilyard). Information technology was completely reasonable for him to do and then, 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 offset place. There is a very strong reason, why creationism can't be told in biology classes, as well the separation of church and state. It'southward the fact that creationism is not a scientific discipline; it's organized religion. So, information technology doesn't belong in a biology class, unless you want to modify the definition of 'science'. Honestly, if you lot await at all the creationist arguments point out in the film, you lot'll note a pattern, in which, the writers never point to whatsoever difficult factual bear witness that supports their assumptions. Instead, they merely ever and 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. Scientific discipline is based on facts. Another reason, why creationism can't be taught in biological science classes, is considering biblical creation isn't the just other non-scientific ways of describing the origin of Earth. Other Abrahamic religions like Islam & Judaism besides have their ain set up of beliefs, on how the world is create. Then, there is eastern religions similar Hinduism, Buddhist & Daoism, besides. -And, allow's not forget, about new religious movements like Scientologist or the indigenous religions like Neopaganism. At that place is no manner, you can teach creationism in science classes without mentioning all of that. With all this data, it would bog down, the science, way also much; equally there is just too many flaws and contradicts. Too, if y'all look closely at the debate, y'all would notice that the writers goes on a tangential. The fence is supposed to be, focused on Creationism vs Evolution in biological science, before quickly devolves into the idea of proving God's existence. Non in one case does the moderator try to get the debate back on track. It soon turns into a sermon, with the father teaming upwardly with an ex-professor to attack Dr. Kaman, with most of their arguments, non ringing true. Some good examples are how "evolution claims life created itself out of naught" to "development hasn't been observed": Development makes no claim well-nigh how life came into existence: that field is called abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life exists the way information technology does now and how it inverse over fourth dimension into its current state. Evolution has besides been observed, not merely by examining the bachelor evidence in the fossil record, just likewise by observing the change of species in the present. How are these, the all-time arguments, they tin can brand? They could had washed 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 matter about athletic records today being college than they were decades agone as a proof of development changing us genetically is BS. No real biology professor would use that case. Everybody knows, that there is several other factors to athletic records, such as advancements in engineering, changes in rules and the differences in mentality between athletes and then and now. Genetics do play a part equally well, but it's nowhere near as successful as the other factors, I mention, here. Then, in that location is the Sigmund Freud'due south argument that has null to do with biology. What type of biologist, would uses psychoanalysis every bit a source!? Honestly, I think, the writers had no inkling, what they were talking about. Overall: The fence wasn't the just affair, wrong with this motion picture. In that location was also a lot of pointless filler, bad acting from miscast mediocre actors and huge plot-holes. In the finish, this motion picture is even so bad, regardless of who behavior in, what & that'south the gospel truth.
6 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the Worst Movies Ever.
A Thing of Organized religion is a frustrating propaganda piece...and thats mostly what it is. Aside from being an awful film its just Creationist propaganda. The odd thing is is that the Creationists in the film seem more like the villains of the film. The movie is about a young girl named Rachel who goes to collage and takes a Biology grade in which the professor (Kaman) played past Harry Anderson. He teaches development like in a Biology class. Rachel'southward begetter gets upset because Evolution is taught and confronts Kaman. Kaman is far more likable in this word and film. Nevertheless Rachael's father wants a creation culling taught. He wants to interrupt the school organization to support his beliefs. He wanted for his daughter to get to a Christian schoolhouse but she did non. Fine. Shes an developed. She tin can go to what school she wants. So the message of the moving picture is to not call up for yourself or is it that certain parts of science is bad?
The picture show leads into a straw man fence in which the creations really cheat and destroy the debate by switching debaters in the middle of the debate. How were these supposed to be the good guys? This is a film about a girl who goes out to the earth and getting an instruction but the movie thinks that is a bad matter. A Thing of Religion is an awful film in every way. Its a terrible propaganda film of the worst kind.
iv out of half dozen found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
God's Not Dead Rip Off Is Slightly Better, Only Skip Information technology Anyways.
Information technology'south been a long time since I last saw this, but I have thought near how similar it is to God's Not Expressionless, and so I am now non the biggest fan of this moving picture either. This is why I am rating this a 1/x, for the same reasons I rated GND 1 and two a one/10.
A Matter of Organized religion follows Racheal, a higher freshman studying to be a pharmacist. As a field of science, she must study biology in school.
Her teacher of course teaches evolution to the class, and her father doesn't like this. He privately and nicely asks him to not teach it to Racheal because he fears that information technology volition make her lose her religion. The instructor instead asks him to do a debate, and the story progresses from there.
Similar I said, this is a lot like God's Not Expressionless. Non to mention that they both came out in 2014. Both involve God debates between college professors and Christians who are associated with the public school.
One of the problems with the moving picture is this- if the Dad was so concerned with his daughter losing her organized religion in creation, why did he send her to a public school that would crave her to learn biology?
Complaining that she is learning evolution in biological science is like complaining that she is learning virtually angle degrees in Geometry! What I am saying is, if you don't want her to learn evolution, don't send her to a public schoolhouse biology course! Biola and Liberty University exists, you know.
Another thing that's odd is how early the instructor teaches development. He begins on Day 1 with no introduction or anything. I took Biological science in 10th course 5-half dozen years ago, and nosotros learned near Darwin's theory in Spring, right after leap suspension!
Why didn't she learn that "the mitchochondra is the powerhouse of the cell" before this? Oh, right. Because we have to get to the bulletin that atheists are terrible.
In one scene, a classmate makes fun of Racheal for what her Dad will practice, and another classmate named Evan asks him the classic "Does your mother await like an ape?" misconception. I'g a creationist myself, simply I know that development does not teach that monkeys directly birthed a human.
It is lies and misconceptions like this nigh evolution and college that fill the run-time. This is like a reverse Inherit The Current of air. While that pic made creationists look bad, this one demonizes evolutionists. Was this the intent? To exist the reverse Inherit The Wind? I hope not.
And while it has a expert ending, where a homo asks the crowd to brand peace with the other side, the previous elements can't make up for that.
In brusk, this movie is a Affair of Bad Storytelling, one that needs to be fixed if we want not-believers to be inspired to faith by the art of picture show.
Reverse Recommendation: See Kent Hovind'due south Seminar Series Instead. I reviewed the kickoff 3 on my page.
5 out of eight found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Does its task to please cardinal Christians...
... but won't change any opinions of whatsoever atheist who has studied even a slight bit of evolution.
I decided to see a Christian movie, even though I'grand atheist, to test my convictions. Would this exist the film to alter my life? To catechumen me? Well, no. Frankly, I was completely disgusted by the intellectual dishonesty and emotional manipulation displayed throughout the movie.
Let'south commencement with dishonesty; humans come from monkeys? No self- respecting 3rd grade biology teacher would teach that, never mind those at college level. Then that whole debate; the biology teacher sucked and staved off into abiogenesis and Big Bang and even Freud (everyone who has read even a bit on psychology knows Freud, while an interesting guy, was incorrect on lots of topics) - all of which are not role of the debate topic which was about EVOLUTION vs. creationism; I could come up with better arguments than the biology teacher and I dropped biology from my high school course. Actually, where was the debate leader to steer the father, the teacher and the ex-teacher back on topic? Because he sucked too! Then we have the emotional manipulation. The movie consistently portrays Christians as the skillful versus atheists as the evil. The girl was hardworking and studious, while her roommate and most of the students in this not-Christian environs were portrayed every bit party-goer slackers. The Christian boyfriend was protective of her, notifying her of the other explicitly non-religious dude who only wanted to get into her pants. Then at that place is the perfect family of concerned begetter and supportive diligent wifely female parent. Contrast with the egotistical self-absorbed attitude of the aforementioned biology teacher. Even the ex-teacher is portrayed every bit a sympathetic guy who only became embittered considering the evil atheist biological science teacher got him fired. Apparently, in this motion picture yous cannot be a decent person unless you're Christian.
Now, if you're a fundamental hardcore Christian, I'm sure y'all volition lick upwardly every drop of this feel-skillful movie. Because it DOES have all those warm fuzzy feelings of a family reunited in the end, an ex- instructor who gets over his bitterness, and a tentative romance. Just everyone else tin can encounter the falseness behind that sugar-coat, not to mention the -at times- cringe worthy lines the actors spoke (I mean, at times I idea 'No real person speaks like that!').
So, all in all, it does its job pandering to its fundamentalist audience, merely I remember that, instead of a flick aimed at attacking the evil atheists, Christian propaganda might have been better served with a moving picture that is more than polished, more honest, and intelllectually more than engaging than this, if it seriously wants to win new souls.
52 out of 83 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Christianity Sanitized by Hollywood
This movie, is very professionally done. Unfortunately, it follows the Hollywood formula of everything and anybody, being materially comfortable, squeaky clean and the ladies"made-up" to glamour standards. I remember, that we've grown so habituated to these standards, that information technology would be difficult for united states of america to watch, if it presented people and situations, every bit they really are in life. I'm mostly mentioning this due to the fact, that this is a "Christian" motion picture. It is distressing to me, that even people of organized religion feel, that they need to show this glamorized image of life, to discover acceptance. I believe, that the film, gives a skilful representation of both sides of the "Creationism" versus "Evolutionary" contend on life's origins, although information technology is of course told from a "Christian" perspective, and somewhat heavy-handedly at some times. Information technology shows, the rigidity of those on both sides of this question. I recall, that the acting is well done. The script, nevertheless, is quite banal and contrived. It is certainly no profound piece of work of art or ideas, which such a topic could lend itself to. I watched it for the ideas, rather, than expecting some "chef d'oeuvre" of movie theatre. I plant it mildly entertaining.
9 out of 26 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Depends on what you lot're looking for
Warning: Spoilers
+++ Alert: THERE Be SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! +++
In this limited-release movie (read "motion-picture show shown where invited") the girl Rachel goes off to college and takes a biology class with a professor who has the temerity to teach biology instead of religion in his Biological science class. Rachel is confused by knowledge; she has never heard of this story of evolution earlier.
Rachel's father Stephen is very upset that Rachel seems to be moving away from religion. He goes to see Rachel's biology professor, concerned with the brainwashing going on in the biology form and Stephen ends upwardly agreeing to debate the Professor on campus in an evolution/creation contend.
In the meantime Rachel is experiencing her own conflicts on campus with nonbelievers. Nonbelievers are universally portrayed equally insincere, egotists, treacherous, and negatively worldly. Rachel is surrounded by people she cannot trust, people who are not at they appear to exist, and boys who have a hidden agendas, unspoken sexual plans for Rachel.
Throughout Rachel'due south college struggles, the question postulated in her Biology class "which came start, the chicken or the egg?" continues to plague her. It's a truly vexing question for Rachel. Fortunately, rescuing apologist friend Evan offers Rachel a convincing solution to this conundrum. The chicken came outset. Considering, according to Evan, Life does not come from non-life...like that egg. An egg is non- life, apparently. (But later on I know that that unborn chicken will be classified every bit LIFE past the pro- Lifers.) Rachel is very comforted by this call to religion because the "call to critical thinking" was bewildering.
The film climaxes with what some people might consider a very stirring Christian sermon at the campus debate. Not a single bit of moderation of the debate, not a single fleck of actual debating, non a single chip of true scientific discipline offered by the biology teacher. And not a single mention of the fact that debating evolution and creation is an odd debate because evolution is a theory of change, non abiogenesis or the age of the globe or the big blindside. But it is, rather, an emotional, triumphant music-laden call to religion and a comforting retreat from academia.
If you lot are looking for an emotional and sweet film to support your faith you will love this film.
If yous are turned off by saccharine, simulated logic, and apologist baloney, this movie will diameter and annoy you.
xiv out of 27 plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stunning to see this movie so poorly rated
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie specially considering information technology received such a phenomenally low rating on IMDB. Most Christian movies take a lot of hits from atheists and agnostic and other pro-evolutionists, but this 1 seemed to distinguish itself with a total two points lower rating than the average Christian flick. I had to see why!
Now that I accept watched the moving picture, I am stunned -- considering it really is very skillful. Peradventure it is because it is that good information technology hits a nerve for naysayers.
It's a perfectly good motion-picture show, proficient cinematography, good screenwriting, good acting and yes, it has a purpose to show that information technology is both unscientific and just evidently wrong for schools and universities to teach evolution as if that were the just possibility. I heard someone say that it takes more faith for someone non to believe in God than it does to believe in God. That is true. Additionally, it takes more organized religion to believe in development and that humans came from apes and that trees, flowers, the sun, moon, stars, animals and humans came from nothing but an blow.
Bravo to the filmmakers. Well washed! P.South. I don't really know if this contained spoilers or not so I said yep just in case.
33 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Dull representation of Christianity
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie well-nigh a Dad who have a girl called Rachel which when off to higher and go betrayal to the globe. The girl and so have a atheist professor who cunningly teach a little evolution concepts to his students. The begetter then find out about this and approach the lecturer about the ridiculousness of evolution theory. Lesser-line, this is a father who was too adhere to his girl and uses the bible to his selfish means. The male parent becomes agitated and face up the Professor named Kaman in which an unnecessary disharmonize of fence as occur. However the acting was lame, the all-time section was when an former professor called Portland explained the proper concept from the discussion of God or Bible which was well done. Otherwise this movie was off plot past a mile. It was embarrassing and hurting pathetic .
0 out of three found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Creationism is indeed a matter of faith
Alert: Spoilers
Some creationists insists that their position is a matter of science and not faith. This movie shows that's clearly not the case.
(Spoiler alert) "A Thing of Religion" is a Hallmark Channel-esque motion picture dipped in religion. A young girl Rachel Whitaker goes off to college. She enjoys her classes and makes new friends. For what appears to be the beginning time, however, she gets exposed to science viewpoints that conflict with the beliefs she'southward been taught that the Biblical God created the universe and all life. Her biology Professor Kaman teaches that, based on testify - imagine that, life evolved over the grade of billions of years from unproblematic forms to circuitous forms. Rachel's creationist male parent isn't happy with this at all and goes to the college to confront the professor. The professor invites him to debate his side in a campus debate.
Along the mode to the debate, a creationist journalism student argues that if your parents and grandparents weren't apes, you couldn't accept evolved from apes - a laughable statement that swirled around during the Scopes Monkey trial of 1926. He likewise points out to Rachel and her father that another professor, Portland, was fired several years earlier for teaching Biblical creationism equally scientific discipline.
During the contend, Kaman explains that, according to Sigmund Freud, faith grew out of fearfulness and ignorance of the unknown and fear of death. When things become wrong or disasters strike, people consider it to be divine penalisation. When Kaman presses him to back up his position, Mr. Whitaker concedes that he has no scientific proof of the afterlife and that the Bible was written my human being. Kaman says, "So, your betting your afterlife on a book yous can't explicate about a god you lot can't evidence." The scene is almost as skilful as Henry Drummond's confrontation with Matthew Brady in "Inherit the Air current" on the holes in the Genesis story of cosmos (hence the 2 stars instead of simply one).
The old professor Portland then steps in with some worn-out creationist responses to evolution. He claims that laboratory experiments aren't enough to explain the development of circuitous organisms, that a designer was needed, that fossil records don't show the continuous development of life from one course to another, and that the Globe is not millions (much less billions) of years quondam (tipping his hat to the Immature Earthers). Portland says what amounts to a concession that creationism is all most religion and non scientific discipline, "The ane who holds to Creation has his beliefs firmly rooted in the truths contained in the Bible and a personal God who created everything." He adds, "You lot can take chances your eternity on the views of Freud and Darwin if y'all desire. I'm putting my trust in Jesus Christ who died on the cross for my sins, was cached and rose again on the third day." The debate ends with Kaman offering no responses to Portland, which is non surprising for a slanted motion-picture show similar this one.
"A Matter of Faith" is apparently a picture show for creationists. The lesson is that if your creationist viewpoint doesn't stand upwards to the mountains of scientific show supporting evolution and the iv.5 billion twelvemonth historic period of the Globe, but respond by proverb the Bible supports your position. Anyone who doesn't believe in the story of Genesis volition either laugh or blench at this picture show. The movie was released in merely 52 theaters, according to Box Part Mojo. It was and so low on the radar that it doesn't accept a Rotten Tomatoes profile. Were the producers worried that showing the motion-picture show to a wider audience might expose the weak arguments used to back up creationism to widespread ridicule?
viii out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The entire movie is the argument
Alarm: Spoilers
Well, I'm condign the atheist who watches and reviews Christian movies. Considering the hoops one must jump through to even see this moving picture, you might be surprised at how many atheists are rating and reviewing it. In case information technology's not obvious, the vast majority of them just saw the trailer and and then felt qualified to rate and review the movie, only they have yet to actually lookout it. Like with God'due south Non Dead, the trailer is deliberately corny to continue the more kittenish and airtight minded atheists away. This was an endearing movie, and though the story centers around this supposedly heated debate, there is non much of an actual debate scene in the movie. Instead, much of the picture show, itself, IS the argument. I detest to give abroad the best function, but the moving picture begins with a boy who steals a coin from a daughter. In the end, he gives the coin back, and he but didn't turn out the way yous would have expected. I'm sure the motion-picture show'southward creators hoped to achieve a few atheists, simply not exactly the youtube crowd. They were aiming more than to reach the professor Kamans of the earth. Although Kaman ultimately keeps his hope in this movie, his initial lack of concern that he might embarrass one of his students still manages to convince her that he must not have all the answers. His white lies demonstrate for her that he is more concerned about his ego than about actual ideals. Being a professor is plain not plenty to assure him that he is smart. He also needs to print his students by outwitting one of their parents, every bit publicly as mayhap (as he also needs everyone to witness it), simply he doesn't want them to know that he was the one who insisted on this fence. However, Kaman grows up a bit in this film.
25 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Love standing upwardly
Alert: Spoilers
I honey how the i dad stood up for God since he is the 1 who created the heavens and the globe and all animals and the seas . We did non come from apes and adam and eve were the 1 st he created.
0 out of four found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Information technology provides food for thought
Warning: Spoilers
A Matter of Faith is a movie that hits home with me. When I went to college one of the challenges that I faced as a Christian was the criticisms that I faced from some of the professors on the accuracy of the Bible.
I related to Rachel character's difficulty living her life as a Christian on a secular college campus that welcomed her only did not welcome her spiritual behavior. I was dissimilar from Rachel because where she was raised in the faith, I didn't become a Christian until the summer before my senior yr in high school and almost no 1 in my family unit went to church.
When I arrived at college my freshman yr I found myself rather intimidated by my new surroundings. This was where my professors confronted me with how The Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution challenge what is taught in the Bible regarding the origin of our species. At that fourth dimension I believed in both the Large Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution, I simply believed God used both of them to create the universe. However, I noticed that the Big Blindside Theory and The Theory of Evolution had one give-and-take in mutual, and that discussion is "Theory." And since they are theories it shows that they tin't evidence them as facts. If they could prove them as facts so they would call them "laws" not "theories." Since they believe the theories it shows the professors have faith in the theories. So whether you believe in The Big Bang and Development or Creationism, either way it's a thing of faith.
Every bit a Christian the only ane I signed up to take faith in is God; I never signed up to have faith in my college professors. So anytime my professors said anything that went confronting the Bible I chose to believe what the Bible said.
However, I was generally tranquility well-nigh my faith while I was in college. I never confronted a higher professor the fashion the dad in the film does. The character named Evan who is a electric current student is song about his beliefs in Creationism. Professor Portland was teaching Creationism while he was on staff at the college and information technology cost him his job. I admired their backbone and delivery to stand up up for what is right. It inspires me to do the same.
24 out of 91 plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not worth your fourth dimension!
Alarm: Spoilers
Oh boy, where practice I begin? Well as a baptist christian, I know that there are a lot of bad and also atrocious christian films, this film is no exception. The movie is about a young lady named Rachel Whitaker in late teens who is about to beginning college and her family is christian, one of these classes she takes is biology, the professor who is Marcus Kaman is obviously an atheist, he appears to kind and respectful, Rachel'south dad all the same looks him upward on the internet, become fix for this folks, he consults with his church pastor about what kaman teaches his students and the pastor tells him that all public schools and universities teach evolution(it goes to show that the erstwhile went a christian school instead) and that there are people who believe in both God and evolution, heck the dad did not even know that, he is a flipping dolt! What does he practice side by side? He goes to talk to the professor himself and tells him that he is unhappy nigh his teachings and of how it may have affected his daughter and Kaman responds by saying he respects that he is a christian and he only teaches what the textbooks say, Rachel comes in and becomes rightfully embarrassed about this situation and Mr. Whitaker and Kaman hold to do a debate on creationism vs development. Kaman announces this to his classroom and is supportive of which path Rachel chooses to follow(that has to be embarrassing for her, I felt sorry for her). Heck when Mr. Whitaker reads almost how atheists believe that humans came from apes he complains that in that location isn't anything that has to do with the supernatural(my Lord exercise you not know annihilation?!). There's another student named Evan he's slightly older than Rachel and is christian, oh he asks an atheist student a rude question "Is your mother an ape? Are whatever of your relatives apes?" That is a very rude question, I am surprised that the random student didn't slam his fist into Evan'southward confront, he could've just said I don't see any people evolving or whatsoever animals, he could've just talked about the story of Adam & Eve(well he does only he should've left the whole are your family members apes crap out). Evan is quite forceful about his religious views and tries get people to believe in them(Christians aren't suppose to force you to believe, there supposed to talk about what they believe in and permit y'all brand your ain option) and believes that Kaman is trying get rid of people's religion in God. Mr. Whitaker tries get a onetime professor named Portland for aid, he apparently has met Kaman before and lost his job because of him, jerkish Rachel'southward dad commencement calls him he says no and so he goes to his home and is basically forceful to get him to assistance him in this upcoming debate and Portland says no. Evans and then has a conversation with Rachel nigh Kaman about how he attempts to become students to secede their Christian faith(he's only trying to teach biology class, he never showed any hostility towards students). And then comes the debate, between Kaman and Mr. Whitaker, the latter well-nigh loses when Kaman gets assertive about how does faith prove that God exists until Mr. Portland happens to be watching the show and takes Whitaker's places and wins the result. Rachel comes dorsum to her Christian faith(she was on the fence of evolution and creationism during the the whole movie) she and Evan become closer, apathetic blah apathetic the end. This is one of the worst movies that I have ever seen as well as one of the well-nigh insulting, I mean come on, both religion and science tin can exist together, this propaganda film tries to teach that thinking logically or critically or making choices on your ain is a bad matter, I mean higher is supposed to exist for teaching/learning and boosting up your career choices not preaching the gospel, continue missionary trips if you desire to spread Christianity or invite people to church building, heck Christians all have their own dissimilar yet similar views on certain things(like how the earth was created and why the dinosaurs and other animals went extinct). The writing/story was atrocious, the interim for the well-nigh part was quite hallow, the characters were either uninteresting or unlikable jerks, heck the college chancellor seemed to exist portrayed as a heartless, cold person who hates Christians, this is a problem with a lot of christian films, they portray atheists as evil, unhappy, corrupted and immoral, not all atheists are evil, there a lot of them that good and well meaning, I have friends that are atheists and they were friendly and respectful. During the debate, I'g surprised that they didn't talk about historical proof of characters from the Bible. If yous want to meet this film be my invitee, but warning, it will insult your intelligence, I recommend y'all lookout man a great christian flick like The Ten Commandments or Mettlesome.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
god is good
At that place may exist those who do not like information technology, only the scripture is the give-and-take of god for all who have Jesus love.
0 out of 2 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Improve Than Expected
Warning: Spoilers
"A Matter of Faith" is entertaining and captivating. The movie starts out with Rachel (Jordan Trovillon), at about 10 years old, playing at a lake with her begetter Stephen (Jay Pickett). She finds a 50 cent piece. While she is picking up the coin, a boy comes over and takes the money away from her! Nigh 8 years later, Rachel graduates from High School and she'southward off to college. She chose this item public higher over a Christian college, because of the Biology Department's academics reputation. Her roommate Marry (Stephanie Shemanski) is dainty, and they both hit it off. Marry introduces Rachel to her friends, and they all appear to be free-spirited and fun-loving people to her.
***SPOILER*** In her biological science grade, she is captivated by Professor Kaman'southward (Harry Anderson) charisma and likable personality. Rachel struggles to discover time to written report in the dorm, because Ally keeps inviting her to parties. She begins to written report oftentimes in the college library where she meets Evan (Chandler Macocha) who works in the school news dept. Rachel soon strays abroad from her Christian organized religion which includes praying, reading her Bible and attention church.
Her friends and Professor Kaman have pushed God out of Rachel'south life. Rachel'southward male parent, Stephen realizes this, and he and Rachel'south female parent, Kimberly (Sarab Kamoo) pay a visit to Rachel at the higher campus. While Kimberly is visiting Rachel in her dorm, Stephen is visiting Professor Kaman in his office. Both men are initially respectful, but the tone changes when Professor Kaman realizes that Stephen is a Christian. All Stephen wants to practise is ask Kaman to consider other views of the world's existence, other than evolution. Professor Kaman then challenges Stephen to an upcoming debate. The topic would be Evolution vs. Creation.
Stephen initially declines because he feels inadequate, but subsequently feels he is forced into accepting when Professor Kaman asks if he is afraid to defend his organized religion? Rachel pleas with her father not to practice the contend because it would embarrass her in front of her friends and classmates. Just when Stephen thinks everyone in that college is against him, he finds help from Evan who is a Christian. Evan tells Stephen there is a old biology professor, a professor Portland (Clarence Gilyard Jr.) who used to teach at the college, and he may be able to help him set for the contend of his life! ***END SPOILER*** "A Matter of Faith" is not as predictable as one thinks. There are enough twists and turns in the moving-picture show to make it unpredictable. When it comes downward to it. Whether one believes in evolution or creation, it is really a matter of faith! I simply find creation more believable!
24 out of 89 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Some other anti-higher picture show difficult at work
Similar God'due south Not Dead that came out that same twelvemonth information technology makes college await like a bad place for Christians to get, independent idea is evil and that faith tin win in a straw homo argument. The simply divergence is that it attacks evolutionary sciences instead of disbelief. What they fail to realize is 1) people need to college to get better jobs 2) Creationism is a joke 3) Critical thinking is more relevant in today's society than faith alone & 4) Those of u.s. who actually went to college know that science (even when it has nothing to do with development) is part of General Ed requirements. Question: did the people involved with the making of this film actually go to college?
24 out of 48 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hamstrung by poor product, despite a skillful premise
Warning: Spoilers
Equally someone who firmly believes in the Bible and its cosmos stories, this film was quite a pain to sit through. The boxing between evolution and creationism has gone on e'er since Darwin invented his theory and all throughout this film I was thinking "this is such a practiced premise with such potential for heavy emotional weight". Ultimately information technology is held back past a filmic mode that was in no style immersive or interesting and what skillful moments there are just dissolve behind a myriad of painful subsequent scenes and an ending that does not feel deserved.
The characters are largely generic and ultimately not anything giving much attending for salvage for the father character and the black professor who returns to requite a little speech at the end of the fence (yeah, I can't remember the names of the characters. Large surprise). You have all the stereotypes including jocks and nerd characters. Honestly feels a lot like a student picture. Which would be fine if it was actually a student motion-picture show, all the same, this is a film fabricated by supposed professionals.
In that location are some good moments. For case some scenes genuinely made me smile and fifty-fifty laugh, similar the running gag with the professor and the stressed out pupil (again, can't remember whatsoever of their names) where the professor says "and the university will be indebted to your contributions" every fourth dimension the stressed pupil complains about his tasks. Also when the young creationist student rebukes evolutionist arguments in a cold and calculated demeanour. Sadly there are simply few of these moments and a lot of the moments where the creationist comes on top don't fifty-fifty take into consideration the stronger arguments in favour of creation. No mention of DNA mutation rates that prove humans came into being 6000 years ago - not hundreds of thousands of years ago - which perfectly lines up with the genealogies of Christ. No mention of the lack of transitional fossils, no mention of the fact that development breaks the law of biogenesis and the police of conservation. I feel similar the writers could have had a lot more to say nigh the actual science backside creation rather than having the father completely stumped during the debate? They could have easily gone the route of "The Example for Christ" - a vastly superior flick btw - but information technology has nowhere near as much weight equally that film does.
The cinematography is truly horrendous besides. Nothing simply shot/reverse shot betwixt 2 people talking about something that, for the near office, is uninteresting. Talk about going full prequel mode. The scenes themselves jump from 1 another like Legolas jumping upwards the falling bricks during the Battle of the Five Armies. And both the Legolas scene and this picture have like furnishings on the viewer: information technology ruins immersion and doesn't keep you in the motion picture. I think one scene actually lasted for less than 20 seconds before cut to a new location and new scenario. Just not really interesting in any way and I found myself skipping scenes constantly.
Overall "A Thing of Faith" is nada more than a missed opportunity. It'southward boring above everything else. Boringly shot, boringly edited, boringly paced. It doesn't even serve every bit a feel-good film for exclusively converts. I honestly don't see anyone enjoying this film besides much.
0 out of 1 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hilarious fun film, if you don't take it seriously
Warning: Spoilers
If y'all accept this as intended to exist a fence about creationism and evolution, and so yous'll be actually disappointing. It'due south horrible on the arguments on both sides.
However, if you just savour the silliness of the whole thing, it is quite funny (not intended). True information technology'southward sad to recall someone tin go off to college and have a conniption every fourth dimension the word "development" is mentioned. It can as well be funny.
If y'all take it serious, it's not really an "atheist" vs "christian" matter. My kids get to a Cosmic school and are fully and accurately taught nigh evolution, and are also taught to interpret Genesis in a way consistent with evolution.
1 out of 7 plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Opens the door for debate
In a country founded on Christian religion with it's roots in The Holy Bible it is e'er refreshing to see a moving picture that challenges the current progressive agenda which volition not be content until God is completely removed from our culture. The debate of Creation vs evolution is but effectually 150 years old, however the globe has narrowed information technology's power to be open minded. I would picket this movie for it's wholesome entreatment on a young girl entering college commencement and and then let the debate to play out in my mind and centre. Haters volition always detest because that's what they practise. Give it a chance and judge for yourself.
sixteen out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Garbage
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was surely made for stupid people. It of course deals with the evolution vs. Creationism issue, but to make creationism the more favorable school of idea, which really disgusts me. It all starts off with some carefree young woman who is starting college and she is initially on good terms with her biology professor, until her father discovers that he's didactics development. Once that happens, the war begins. Rachel (of whom I explained before) is at present disgusted with the idea that her creationist father is debating her biology professor, and she obviously doesn't want it to happen. Later a crazy donkey dude named Evan comes into the picture and he begins imposing his religious beliefs onto others, which is one of the most disgusting things one can exercise. If y'all're religious, then you best continue information technology yourself if y'all know what'due south salubrious. If you impose your beliefs onto others, and then that's clearly unacceptable. But anyway, Evan apparently loves to impose his creationist beliefs onto others, and even Rachel is disgusted by it.
Subsequently in the flick the debate happens, but to realize that it won't go down well. It all starts with the biology professor and the father. They brand their opening statements, and after it turns into a huge argument, but at least the biology professor is able to put the father in his identify, until a man named Portland comes into the picture who is played by none other than Clarence Gilyard (of Matlock and Walker Texas Ranger fame). And I'm like wow!!!. Gilyard is playing a creationist troll, and this is seriously a downfall for an actor who played rather secular roles, and I'm like I can't believe he's playing a creationist. Sometimes I wonder if Gilyard is a creationist in real life, or maybe he merely played the character to get paid.
Merely anyway, the debate then turns into a lecture and the professor loses all footing, and he'southward substantially imposing his creationist beliefs onto the audience, which clearly disgusted me. Information technology then pb to realize that this isn't fifty-fifty a contend, and the movie must of been made to piss and so many people off. And so to sum it all up, this movie is garbage and it was apparently made to adjust fundamentalist Christians who really rather cling to their irrational behavior than heed to whatever objective reality.
three out of five found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Too Preachy Little to No Substance
As a Christian, ex-rail runner, and scientist who believes in intelligent design; I would say that this flick misses on both sides of the aisle. If washed right, then this pic could have been eye-opening. However, the writers know nothing nigh evolution or intelligent design. As a result, they have devolved this motion-picture show into a preaching contest. When will the Christians that make this pic realize that self-righteous preaching does non bring people to God but turns them in the other direction?
Suffice it to say that haters (and then called scientists) who exaggerate the true scientific merit of the theory of evolution to ban the instruction of an alternative theory similar intelligent design are just as incorrect equally Christians who banned the teaching of evolution prior to Scopes-Monkey. In real scientific discipline, all theories are allowed into the arena and to stand the exam of scrutiny.
19 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
terrible
Like almost of the reviewers here, it is grand opinion that this is nothing but creationist propaganda - and terrible propaganda at that. The interim isn't as terrible as many made for Sy-Fy movies, but it's pretty bad. The portrayal of scientific discipline in this film is awful. They completely misrepresent the evolution statement (that'southward pretty mutual for creationists). It really makes one wonder just how fragile creationists remember their beliefs are that they demand to prevent other views from being taught to their children.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not evangelistic but tells of organized religion
Clearly a moving picture fabricated by believers for those of faith. Since the bulk of reviews here are from those who do not understand or knows God's love - I can see this story will non resonate with them. So, for those who have discover God's love and, hopefully, your love for Him then this be above science.
My undergrad degree is chemical science and so there is some that I disagree with, like fourth dimension/evolution presentation. For those seeking an evangelistic tool "Risen" or God'southward Not Expressionless" would exist better... The offset is a "what if" scenario and the latter presents facts. If you are witnessing to a literary person, I recommend the novel: "The Other Side Of Courage."
Oddly, an atheist friend taunted me into watching "A Matter Of Faith" and I recommend it to only those seeking inspirational entertainment. Not-believers clearly can't see or 'forgive' the concept of the story. I would have thought the film's title lonely would discourage Humanists, hence minimizing the review slams presented here.
6 out of thirteen found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2587914/reviews
0 Response to "Parents Read Sentencing Child's Death Kent Atheist"
Publicar un comentario