The premise of the movie is a great one: a David vs. Goliath type of debate over God. While the acting was very good and could have easily achieved that goal, it got screwed by a bad script and a bad (or partisan!) director: the movie is blatantly partisan for Christianity by depicting the atheist professor ("Goliath") as an arrogant asshole while the student ("David") is playing the likable, modest, and fairly smart Christian opponent.
No professor would ever act like the one in the movie (I happen to be one of them) and hardly any one of them would be as arrogant, especially in philosophy.
On the other hand, the technically outstanding presentations of the student (using fancy animations etc.) used lame arguments, e.g. "evolution makes no jumps" citing Darwin himself. Hey, that's a 150-year old argument, long obsolete, since Darwin even didn't know about DNA or mutations (surely evolution does make jumps!).
The whole psychological argument was more or less ignored although it is the most important argument in favor of religion: it simply makes people feel good, no matter whether there is a god or not. (It did come across rather in passing though).
No professor would ever act like the one in the movie (I happen to be one of them) and hardly any one of them would be as arrogant, especially in philosophy.
On the other hand, the technically outstanding presentations of the student (using fancy animations etc.) used lame arguments, e.g. "evolution makes no jumps" citing Darwin himself. Hey, that's a 150-year old argument, long obsolete, since Darwin even didn't know about DNA or mutations (surely evolution does make jumps!).
The whole psychological argument was more or less ignored although it is the most important argument in favor of religion: it simply makes people feel good, no matter whether there is a god or not. (It did come across rather in passing though).