Confused Philosophy or deliberate paradox or neither?

Rating: 7/10 (12 June 2012)

I see many people have commented on this film's technical and logical failings, and while I agree the film has failings in those areas, I think some of those criticisms are unjust. Here's a couple of examples.
1) Why was the medical pod set up for a man? One person suggested that perhaps Vickers character was actually a man, but I think a more logical explanation might be that the pod was set up for her father.
2) Why did David poison Holloway? Well the philosophical core of the film revolves around the concept of creating life and the moral/spiritual questions it raises. My view is that David, clearly having had some sort of spiritual epiphany – maybe from watching Shaw's dreams – decides he wants to create life, and because he is an android the 'poisoning' of Holloway is his only viable means of impregnating another being.
3) What is the point of Charlize Theron in this film? Her purpose appears to be as counterbalance to a thread on God acting as a necessary surrogate parent figure in some people's lives. We know that Shaw's mother died when Shaw was very young and David obviously had no parents, and they both at times view the Engineers with a child like awe that the others don't appear to share. Vickers, I think, represents the other side of the equation. Her father has lived too long in her view and she actually wants him to die, she has no real interest in the mission and seems to have come along largely to make sure he snuffs it. Also she is very hot.
I must say first that I enjoyed this film but the points above are just my interpretation as the message, if there is one, is far from clear. I can't make up my mind if it is muddled nonsense or near genius or possibly trying to sell a particular brand of religion or maybe even condemn religion.
Here's what I did get.
Near the start, there is a statement on faith, presented in a positive, fluffy soft focus manner. The message is that faith is a positive influence in the life of Shaw's father. However, Shaw's faith in the Engineers, which appears to be tied to her spiritual beliefs, then leads directly to a catastrophic series of events that almost causes the destruction of the human race.
As the film delves deeper into the issue, spiritualism is repeatedly expressed as a life affirming concept, and the tone of those scenes is always positive, but the actions of the characters that are motivated by faith are either inherently negative (Impregnation of Holloway) or have extremely negative outcomes (Annihilation of humanity).
Then silliness arrives with a big bang when, having discovered that they are there to find the creators of the human race, one of the crew implies that because the Engineers can create life, Darwinism is no longer valid. Weirdly, there is no discussion and they move on which highlights another problem with the film: most of the main characters seem to be ambassadors for one viewpoint or another and it leaves very little room for any actual character or depth in the dialogue.
Later in the film when Holloway talks about how the Engineers created us, Shaw replies, 'But who created them?' The context of the scene suggests this statement refers to a spiritual creator, but since the Engineers created life with technology, extending that premise to validate the existence of a spiritual God is a conflation. Another issue is that, having been presented with proof that humanity's real creation story is not spiritual, what is the focus of her faith? It appears that she has simply shifted it to the next, as yet unknowable, creator up the chain. This raises a few questions. How many creators are there in this hierarchy? And even if there is a spiritual creator at the top of the tree why should humanity revere this being rather than their own creator? This is where David's spiritual awakening plays its part, or possibly plugs a hole. He does not revere his creators but it becomes apparent that he does share Shaw's faith. I must say at this point that I feel the use of a symbol associated with a particular religion as the primary symbol of spiritualism expresses a bias that undermines any attempt to comment generally on the nature and value of faith. As I implied at the start, at times I felt like this film was pushing Christianity. Anyone know if the writer or director have been saved? Having only seen it once I am left with the impression that if there is a deliberate message, it might be that faith is not tied to a particular mythology but if you remove the mythology from a faith exactly what do you then have faith in? What is the frame of reference? I'm not sure of the intent here but to me it presents faith as a sort of nebulous delusion that simply moves with changing conditions in order to perpetuate itself. So, is it a clever statement on the complex nature of contemporary spiritualism? Or are the paradoxes simply the result of the writers own confusion? Who knows. Watching it again might make things clearer.
The stand out moment for me is the reaction of the Engineer when David wakes it up. It looks at the humans as if they are vermin. It is established that the Engineers can and do talk to each other, but it doesn't even occur to this one to respond to David, it just looks down on him and the humans as humans would look at rats. In a film full of contradictory threads, this was an unusually clear and powerful challenge to the universally accepted notion that if we do have a creator, that creator will welcome us like lost children.