Just going by the blurb you posted (assuming its a blurb, since it reads like one).....
The Video:Is The Bible Right After All? The Theory of Evolution Lacks Evidence.Produced by Drei Linden,an independent film company of Berlin Germany,refutes Darwin's theory of evolution citing the overwhelming lack of evidence that simple life forms became complex organisms by mutation or other changes.
A position is not refuted if it merely lacks sufficient evidentiary support. There seems to be a leap in logic here. It would be better to mention evidence that contradicts evolution, but that is not what it stated. The word "overwhelming" is an attitudinally-charged word (that is, it expresses the authors'/filmmakers' attitude towards the evidence) that betrays the polemical or rhetorical nature of the program, especially since it is used to buttress the similarly rhetorical "refutes", and it smacks a little of wishful thinking (especially since some of evidence cited for common genetic descent, such as shared DNA sequences, is well-established).
Evolutionists have tried to suppress basic scientific facts of genetic principles in favor of their unsupported theories.
My suspicions of a polemic intent are confirmed. The word "suppress" implies a conspiracy in the scientific community, one that even hides BASIC facts from the general public. The word "tried" suggests that these conspiratorial efforts were unsuccessful, and this suppression of evidence was not complete. The claim then is that the whole science of modern genetics is fundamentally flawed, that scientists know it, and they instead promote theories that are "overwhemingly" unsupported. That's quite an accusation.
Evolutionary doctrines served as the "scientific" grounds for the racial atrocities of the Third Reich's hatred and persecution.
Wow, the polemics have been turned up a notch, yea, even several notches! The word "doctrines" expresses an attitude that evolution can be reduced to irrational religious (or anti-religious) tenants. This both reinforces the idea that evolution is wholly lacking in evidence as well as introduces the idea that it is really religious in nature. Next, we find that "scientific" is put in scare quotes, again implying that evolution is actually unscientific and has falsely been claimed as such. But the zinger is the portion linking evolution to the Holocaust, in terms of "racial atrocities" and "hatred and persecution". Here is a guilt-by-association argument, that evolutionists are walking in the footsteps of Hitler, and a more subtle suggestion that evolutionists are similarly "hateful", "racist". Now the stated purpose of the program, as revealed in the title, is that "the theory of evolution lacks evidence". A forray into the tragic and very unscientific use of social Darwinism to torture and kill others does nothing whatsoever to accomplish the stated aim of the video. For instance, nuclear theory can be used to create atomic bombs to kill people but that doesn't mean that nuclear energy doesn't exist or that nuclear theory totally lacks evidence. This argument is a straw man that distracts from the stated purpose of the program, and reveals a second agenda: to declare that the theory of evolution is immoral and bad for humanity and should be rejected on that basis.
These facts and more are dealth with on the film,leading the viewer to ponder the title question.
What is the "title question"? Namely this: "Is the Bible Right After All?" In the given context, this refers to what the Bible says about the origin of life and humankind. Even if the video was completely successful in proving that its assertions are really "facts", that evolution really is groundless, that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy of hiding evidence, and that the atrocities of Nazis are somehow relevant to the factual accuracy of evolution, it would still be an enormous leap to then conclude (without doing a similar evaluation of the factual accuracy of the Bible account and how the Bible has been used to justify atrocities) that the "Bible" is actually better ... for how do we know at all whether the Bible is "groundless" as well.
So my opinion, in just reading what you wrote, the video is obviously just a rhetorical piece without giving a real genuine scientific and dispassionate evaluation of the relevant facts.
