I finally got to the film, which was only in one cinema complex in our area.
Entertaining is not the word I would use for this film, which surprised me. The very medium of film in the theatre seems to require a certain level of entertainment. The verb “to entertain” means “to get and keep one’s attention.” This would appear to be the minimum requirement for a flick, but it’s missing. The viewer has to bring a high level of interest to the film to sustain attention the entire time.
I teach college philosophy with a focus on modern movements that have dominated the academic landscape, including Freud, Darwin, Nietzche, etc. The reality is that the 20th century was a mess, and I feel queazy about relating anyone of these directly to Nazism, Stalinism, or Maoism. I don’t think that Darwin anymore allowed for the evil of eugenic experimentation of the Nazi regime than Nietszche explains Hitler. Any demagogue in any culture will find some figure to support his reign of terror.
I am much more interested in comparing philosophies in their best expressions, not in their worst misuses. For instance, when evangelicals compare their version of Christianity to Roman Catholicism, their version of RC is almost always aberrant and anecdotal. I would like to compare the two by their best expressions, say and evangelical churchman like Chuck Colson to a Neuhaus. Both visions have spawned some mutant variations that scare us all.
I think that linking Darwinism to Nazism ultimately worked to defeat the film and make it useful to the far right but not so useful to the great middle.
Yes, the point still stands that scientists who are creationists will experience opposition and injustice. I continue to wonder how much opposition and injustice. The film did not answer this.