You watch that? Don't spoil it for me; I'm saving it for when I'm done with this post.
So the first thing I noticed was that the professor (of FREAKING BIOLOGY) uses a "chicken vs. egg" metaphor to explain evolution, saying that the egg is a "less complex life form" than the chicken. As anybody who understands evolution knows, the egg isn't actually a different lifeform from the chicken (though the film is right that the egg did indeed did come first: fish laid eggs WELL before the chicken even hit the scene. I will be honest: I mirrored the hero's daughter's face with that one, though for a completely different reason than she had it on. OH, yeah, I need to clear this up before we continue: the kid isn't the hero. Nope, can't have a female lead for some shitty reason. I'm guessing that it's the "do not suffer a woman to teach" thing, and therefore having a set of testicles complete with tallywhacker is a requirement for debating. The hero here is her father. And he's upset that Biblical Creationism (it's a proper noun folks. It get's capitalized. It's why I capitalize "Christianity" and "Islam", but not "christian" and "muslim", which are adjectives often used as common nouns) isn't taught in a university biology course.
The trailer hits a few common tropes for this kinda thing: "life not from non-life" (no1curr when talking about evolution. that's abiogenesis, you twats), "creation is kept out" (cry some moar! creationism is religion, while evolution has been scientifically verified over and over and over and over......and over and over and over and over *GAAASP* and over and over and over......and over and over and over again, both in the lab and in the field, and has both observation and prediction under it's belt. *pant* The only thing more well attested to at this point is MAYBE gravity.), "the christian underdog" (do I really need to add something here?), etc. Honestly, it's tripe. What's really sad is how, well....shoddy it looks. I know AIG has some professional equipment, and that does show through in the trailer, but at the same time, it looks like something a high-school AV club would put together. There appear to be lighting mistakes here and there that weren't caught in post, a good number of the shots have too much empty space, and some of the angles just look...wrong. The whole thing - both the plot and the shoddy filmwork - gives me the impression that (like I said in the title) Ken Ham is butthurt over Bill Nye.
Why would I say this, you ask? Well, you remember a while back, when Bill Nye went to the Creation Museum and...I hesitate to say "debate". No, I'm NOT going to say "debate": Bill Nye SCHOOLED Ken Ham on his home turf. So bad that even CREATIONISTS called Ham out. That HAS to sting. Now, I haven't actually linked you to the trailer, as I'd rather not send AIG any clicks, but they came out with that trailer two days ago, on 4/29. The debate was posted on AIG's YouTube on 2/4. That's about three months difference. Now, it's POSSIBLE, that this has been in the works for a few years now, but - as I alluded to earlier - the trailer feels like a rushjob, as does the script.
"But why would AIG give a damn about Ken Ham?"
Because Ken Ham IS AIG. He's their president, and it's THEIR Creation museum. A blow to Ham is a blow to them. My hypothesis is that they threw this together as a way to save face after the "debate". That or they took a project that they already had been working on and tweaked it a bit so that it works like a response to the debate so they can save face. Now, obviously, I could be wrong and this little project of theirs is completely unrelated to the debate, but I doubt it.