Watch The Privileged Planet For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Science is not supposed to answer questions of "why?" Only the "what?" questions are considered acceptable grist for the scientific mill. Unfortunately for traditional science, the "why?" questions are some of the most important and intriguing. For example, Einstein was continually puzzled by the fact that humans can understand what are biologically irrelevant phenomena (e.g., black holes). Indeed, what survival value is linked to our ability to investigate and understand aspects of the universe beyond this earth? We can easily propagate this planet without knowing Earth is part of a solar system which in turn is part of a galaxy system. This ability has no evolutionary value, yet our ability to know persists and even grows. So, what's up?Richards and Gonzalez have an intriguing answer to a troubling question: Why is Earth so well-suited for complex life and observation of the universe by its inhabitants? More critically, is there evidence, scientific evidence, to suggest design-a purpose that explains more than the sheer permutations and probabilities which allow for complex life-form existence?Guillermo Gonzalez (Ph.D., Washington), Astrobiologist, and Jay W. Richards, Philosopher (Ph.D., Princeton), seem to be obsessed with finding some sort of reason behind irregular phenomena. They seem particularly obsessed with challenging some fundamental principles of scientific investigation. Not all obsessions are bad, and when coupled with premise challenges, they can be mind-boggling. Such is the case with The Privileged Planet.Copernicus discovered the Earth was not the center of the solar system, and certainly not the center of the universe. But the medicine we ingested intellectually to avoid the toxicity of anthrocentrism has had a negative side effect-we have assumed, unnecessarily according to Richards and Gonzalez, that the Earth is not special. Sagan called it a little blue dot in a vast cosmic arena. Sagan is clearly right quantitatively, but qualitatively? Perhaps there is more to the Earth than its size.Qualitatively, why is the Earth so well configured for life? Theists, of course, have a ready answer. But, science normally leans on the huge ledge of time which affords google-sized permutation possibilities. "Why?" is not a particularly popular nor socially-appropriate question to be asked by a scientist. Some fear losing their credibility by asking "Why?"Richards & Gonzalez are fearless. Challenging traditional premises, they re-examine the empirical record in biology, chemistry, astrobiology, and especially physics. A rather startling conclusion accumulatively emerges: rather than being a pale blue dot insignificantly placed in a galaxy, evidence supports a quite different conclusion-the Earth is uniquely positioned to support complex life, and-here's the real news-uniquely positioned to observe the universe. Einstein was puzzled that humans have such ability; it is a challenge for biologists as well. Just what is the survival value of being able to understand, for example, a black hole?Scientists who assumed a deity are not unusual; Newton, Pascal, Copernicus, and Einstein are just a few of the more famous. But, today is different. Deity is neither a premise nor a possibility in traditional science. And to be fair, Richards and Gonzalez are not arguing for deity, per se, but arguing that the empirical evidence of life, chemistry, astrobiology, and especially physics accumulatively suggest purpose, not random permutation.Amidst the evidence supporting a purposeful design is the rather startling precision of the relationship between the moon's mass/distance from the Earth and mass/distance from the sun. One scholar extols, "were it not for the moon, we would not be." In fact, Gonzalez discovered that the size of the moon is precisely what allows solar eclipses to be scientifically rich experiments. If it were slightly smaller, or larger, we could not observe solar flares (and starlight bending from the sun's mass, a major confirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity). Furthermore, it is the moon's precise mass that stabilizes the Earth's axis to maintain a temperate climate whereby complex life forms can exist.Richards and Gonzalez continued to reveal a variety of accumulated evidence which supports two pillars of thought: (1) the Earth is particularly well-suited for complex life forms, and (2) the Earth is particularly well-suited for observation. Specifically, Gonzalez argues that both sides of the equation must be considered; i.e., not only the number of possibilities, but also the number of factors that must be precisely "in tune" to support complex life-forms and an observational platform. Small changes in just one factor (e.g., gravity) remove all possibilities of complex life. And there are more than a score of factors which must be precisely tuned not only to a given level, but also tuned systemically with all the other factors. It turns out the probability for a well-suited environment for observing complex life-forms trumps the "other side of the equation."The debate will continue, and it should. After all, there are few questions more important than "purpose." To be driven by purpose is one definition of obsession, and Richards and Gonzalez are obsessed. Perhaps we too need to be obsessed-as scholars we have some work to do. Surely, there is more to our purpose than mere propagation.D. Thomas Porter, Ph.D., School of Mass Communications, University of South Florida (Retired))

When I first watched this, I didn't know of the anti-science organization behind this. It was quite obvious something was very wrong with the science and logic about halfway through. No legitimate science writer would be so incompetent, especially with the apparent high production values. Usually with so much money too burn you only hire the best writers and scientific advisor's. Alas when I did some research it turned out too be INTENTIONAL.Now a lot of science programs tries too replace Sagan's presence and prose with flashy graphics and music and even succeed. But one essential ingredient is the awe and wonder of accurately portrayed modern science, so predictably this fells flat, there really is no awe and wonder in mysticism and pseudo-science.Also the narration by John Rhys-Davies is quite pleasant and quite apt, he is famous for his roles in fantasy and sci-fi films, which this film is just one of many.This will get only one star if it wasn't for the eye-candy CGI and John Rhys-Davies.

This movie presents quite a lot of real science, and leaves it to the viewer to draw a conclusion, regarding whether the immensely precise laws of physics, and how they combine on the Earth to allow us to live, are best explained by intelligent design OR by one of the several theories of evolution.For one scientific point (among many), evolution cannot explain how the multiple components of the eye, which must make electro-chemical changes in picoseconds, could have evolved by minor or major mutations, since the creature is blind IF any one of those components is not present or does not function exactly as it has to. If the creature is blind, it will die, since it cannot get help to eat from another of its own kind, because they would ALL be blind, therefore that species would all die off. Even Darwin admitted that the eye cannot be explained by evolution. We now know much more about how fantastic the components of the eye are, and evolution STILL does not have an explanation for the eye. Intelligent design is the best explanation for the eye.There are a number of other irreducibly complex structures like the eye, as well as the incredibly complex electro-chemical factory in every cell, and NONE of these can be explained by evolution.Darwin also admitted that the fossil record does not support evolution; it actually supports intelligent design; but he thought that fossils of "intermediate" species would be found. With millions more fossils now found, NONE of them is an intermediate species; there are no "missing links".I suggest that, with an open mind, seeking the truth, you read "The Case for a Creator", in which a journalist talks with the experts on microbiology, astrophysics, and other sciences, and carefully examines arguments for both evolution and intelligent design.

Absolutely stunning visuals. This movie is an attempt at scientifically deciding whether or not the planet Earth is placed within not only the solar system, but the entire universe, by an intelligent force. Make sure that you watch every one of the extras on the DVD. They are just as fascinating as the main movie.Quite likely the largest issue addressed is the uniqueness of the earth's position to OBSERVE everything else in the universe based on it's position within the Milky Way in all 3 axis, x, y, & z (though not defined that way in the movie).Strong evolutionists will not enjoy this movie at all, so they shouldn't bother with it since it will just irritate them. I found it very logical in it's presentation. The movie never indicates that God created the earth or universe. Essentially, the movie presents data without any conclusions. It leaves you with questions.