BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...

Subject: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 05:43 AM

A film about Charles Darwin's life is receiving critical acclaim all over the world ...

... but not in the USA.



       Allegedly


Is
this the kind of resistance Obama is up against?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 05:48 AM

Sorry folks,

let me try that again ...


click here

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 06:03 AM

Sadly Lox

It probably will be too much for many Bible belt denizens. In fact, many Americans (think I can poke fun, cuz I are one) in my experience have problems distinguishing a historical treatise whatever media in which it is presented from an insult to learned and held belief systems.

Scary innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 06:19 AM

Reading through the comments underneath the article it seems likely that I've fallen for a bit of advertizing hype masquerading as controversy.

Curious to know from US catters if the article is correct though.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 07:34 AM

Am I to take it, from what I have read, that this film then is about explaining Darwin's life and his works, not actually supporting evolution or trying to push what evolution is onto people. Likewise it is not an attack for/against science/religion, but simply about a one person's struggle with announcing their own findings?

In principle it is a biography of some person's life and their work?

Like it could be a film about Henry VIII and his wives and divorce, that anyone could watch, without fear of having to agree/disagree in divorce or causing some major disagreement between the various for/against divorce folk?

So there is nothing for anyone to get upset about in reality?

Do correct me if I am wrong though :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Alice
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 07:57 AM

Anything about Darwin would rile up the "creationists".

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 08:01 AM

That's why I don't own a beagle.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Mr Happy
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 09:57 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 10:28 AM

It looks like an interesting film and I'm looking forward to seeing it (but then, my training is in evolutionary biology and I'm pretty much an atheist - in the non-evangelical sense). It is directly about Darwin's personal crisis of belief resulting both from the development of his theory and the death of his eldest daughter and in the context of his wife's devout faith.

Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connally (who are married in real-life) play Darwin and his wife: Creation, the movie. (I think the producers are looking for a little controversy with that title!)

It will undoubtedly be controviersial, but I'm sure it will find a distributor -- plenty of other controversial films have gotten out there. As a talky costume drama, I wonder how it will do at the box office for other reasons... as mentioned in some of the comments. I expect to see it here at our art theater, not at the big multi-plexes, although we have one that does some of the foreign-language films and whatnot that might show it.

What I bothers me a little bit is what it might do to the legitimate argument that the concept of evolution is not necessarily incompatible with faith in God.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Alice
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 10:34 AM

I went to Catholic school and they taught us about evolution with no conflict with faith in God. Only those who take the bible literally become hung up on creation/evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:00 AM

It's that discussion that I think is important and despite the vocal presence of the evangelical atheists (i.e., Richard Dawkins), I wouldn't want everyone who walks out of the movie to think that all evolutionists argue that "God is dead". Of course, it's not clear what the conclusion of the movie is given that the trailer bits are meant to be enticing in their controversiality.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Mr Happy
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:03 AM

From the linked article

'.......according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.'


So approx 60% believe in creationism.


I wonder if a similar proportion of US mudcatters are this way inclined?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:13 AM

Also, Lox wrote "A film about Charles Darwin's life is receiving critical acclaim all over the world ...

... but not in the USA."

Not so:

Los Angeles Times
New York Times

~ B in T

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:17 AM

How the hell do you "believe" in a theory? It's a theory, not an incontrovertible truth. How do you dismiss a theory without investigating it?

Nevermind. I know. Let someone else decide for you.

If you would like to read a beautifully written explanation of Darwin's theory, try "Song Of The Dodo". Can't remember the author's name offhand. His THEORY is that islands cause unique species to develop from the same roots.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:25 AM

On the movie's Facebook page here's what looks like some deliberate provocation: the blurb is "What happens when a world-renowned scientist, crushed by the loss of his eldest daughter, conceives a book which will prove the non-existence of God. This is the story of Charles Darwin and his master-work "The Origin of Species"."

How can you "prove the non-existence of God"?

Of course, you might prove (or at least provide evidence) that the Bible can't be taken entirely literally in all cases...

~ B in T

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:34 AM

I have no faith in the polls... Believing that 60% of people believe in creationism is about as ignorant as believing in creationism itself... The right wing has had the country by the balls for 3 decades and lots of folks know exactly what answer pollsters want to hear and just go along with the game rather than turn it into some kinda confrontation... It's just isn't worth it... I beleieve that the recent elections show that to be the case...

I believe that if a poll were to be conducted where folks felt comfortable saying what they believe that the results would be much different...

Lastly, it is going to take some time to detox off the culture that the right wing has instilled in the country but the good news is that that will occur, righties kicking and screaming all the way...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:39 AM

"How the hell do you "believe" in a theory? It's a theory, not an incontrovertible truth. How do you dismiss a theory without investigating it?"

A common mistake that people make is to confuse the word "theory" with the word "hypothesis".

A scientific theory is not mere speculation to be proved or disproved, it is the accumulated knowledge on a particular subject.

Consequently, Einsteins theory of relativity, while replacing newtons theory of the laws of motion, does not debunk newtons discoveries, it is based upon them and to understand einstein you have to understand newton.

The theory of evolution is not something that was invented by Darwins imagination whilst contemplating his navel which he then went on to try and prove, it was something that he 'observed' and it is something that we 'learn' more about as our 'observations' become more detailed.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Alice
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:41 AM

ditto, what Lox wrote.

Thanks, I was just about to write about the misunderstanding of the word "theory".

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:47 AM

I think Bobez is right--the 60% figure is probably misguided and overblown.

The chain of gradual change in life forms, fueled by natural selection, sexual advantage, and a drive for survival, is not really deniable, except by pure-dee mythmongering.

Whether the ionformation behind that chain includes a spiritual element or not is an interesting question, that is still open. The core question, to my mind, is the capacity for intention, something I have never seen in a molecule. Intending and understanding are orders of magnitude more subtle, it seems to me, than any other "behavior" (a much-abused word) in physical organic systems.

The Blind Watchmake (Dawkins) and other books by the same author do a good job of unfolding the reasoning behind modern Darwinism.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Stu
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:58 AM

"I went to Catholic school and they taught us about evolution with no conflict with faith in God. Only those who take the bible literally become hung up on creation/evolution."

But here's why I believe science and religion differ (Alice - this is not personal to you but your post sort of illustrates a point I'm trying to make). How do we decide which bit is which? Let some bloke in a frock tell us on Sunday morning? Personal revelation? Profound insight? Guess? . . . perhaps cherry pick the bits that are easiest to digest and absorb into our own personal value system.

The conflict is the most fundamental foundations of each system are massively different because one relies on zero evidence and total faith and one relies on empirical evidence and zero faith. This profound difference colours every observation and any conclusion drawn from those observations; they are irreconcilable.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 12:07 PM

"I went to Catholic school and they taught us about evolution with no conflict with faith in God. Only those who take the bible literally become hung up on creation/evolution."

The thing that surprises me, and I once made this point to a group of Islamic creationists, is that someone can on the one hand believe in an all knowing all seeing all powerful God with an infinite capacity for invention and ceration and a mind so vast that it can build universes and create life ...

... yet on the other hand not give him credit for being able to design a universe that is so complex that it takes the cleverest minds to understand its most basic principles, but instead claim that he would design it in much the same way that a nursery rhyme is written.

If I was god I'd be pretty pissed off with creationists. I'd want to know if they thought I was thick or something!

I think evolution is not only compatible with God, but like all western science (which by the way has its roots in the catholic church) I think it furthers the original intent beautifully of exposing the utter wonder and beauty of our universe and the way it has developed.

Evolution is one of many incredible phenomena that make our experience here on earth unfathomably rich and rewarding.

That sounds pretty compatible with any religious persons wonder of creation.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Alice
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 12:07 PM

Well, I left religion behind when I went to college, so it didn't "stick" for me. Regarding evolution, I believed my science teachers. Faith was a separate issue, but for too many Americans, they don't know how to separate faith and science.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: mauvepink
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 12:16 PM

I have just seen the trailer on (UK) terrestrial television. It seems quite innocuous except a line where someone says "you have just killed God"! That was never Darwin's intention. His sole purpose was to report what he had observesd and found on his world travels and postulate their meaning. He never discovered or created evolution because it was already there. He simply reported it. I have no idea what anyone would fear from this biographical film unless they fear it may update their own ideas and maybe even prove interesting?

Sinsull: Probably one of the biggest evolutionary hot spots on the planet just now are the Hawaiin Islands. There is some speciation there that is occurring at such a rate, and can be shown, simply because of geographical seperation so the book you mention sounds spot on.

I, like those here who already mentioned it, cannot see why the existence of God and Evolution cannot go hand in hand or at least be complimetary rather than competitive. One explanation can feed the mind and other can feed the soul perhqaps? Evolution is so simple in its basis and yet so complex in it's expression. I am sure it is a real natural occurrence. I certainly struggle with a great deal of science that calls for 'special pleading' (which could also be called faith) so am trying to find a way to unify the two for myself. I even refer to myself as a Christian Agnostic in many ways. I would hope all people can find their own way through the mesh of life and that others can respect each other's place within creation. It will be interersting to see where this film leads the dissenters on all sides. I think Mr Dawkins is far more better when wearing his scientist's hat than when attacking people's belief systems... but that is just my opinion. I think him a brilliant mind and scientist - certainly a latter day "Darwin's Bulldog" - but even he must know faith, even if only in his own ideas :-)

Darwin would never, could never, kill God. It was not his way and it was that very respect that troubled him for so long before he published. He was a brilliant scientist, a loving husband and dedicated father. I never think of him as a bad man and if anyone has ever read of his private letters they would know he was good at heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 12:21 PM

I thought (and probably misunderstood)that creationists take the bible literally. In their minds, Genesis teaches everything was created as it is today. But Cane killed Abel and went away to find Lilith. Was she human or an animal? If human then there must have been some additional creation.

The thing I could never get past is if you believe that all humans descend directly from Adam and Eve then you have to accept incest as normal. There is no way around it.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 12:25 PM

Creationism -- like darwinism -- comes in a spectrum of flavors from "slightly off" to "rancid".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 12:41 PM

Well! I'll be a monkey's uncle, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 12:45 PM

A slightly clearer tally of the Gallup Polls' results:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 02:09 PM

The review posted by Lox includes conclusions about Darwin and his wife Emma that are not strictly true. His agnosticism was based on his observations, not to any great extent on his daughter's death. His wife's faith was not blinkered unquestioning belief.

In his autobiography, Darwin wrote in summary:
"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress [*and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who did not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine].

Mrs. Darwin annotated the passage in brackets... in her own handwriting. She writes: "I should dislike the passage in brackets to be published. It seems to me raw. Nothing can be said too severe upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment for disbelief- but very few now would call that 'Christianity,' (tho' the words are there.) There is the question of verbal inspiration comes in too. E. D." Oct. 1882.
The passage was not published.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 02:19 PM

This profound difference colours every observation and any conclusion drawn from those observations; they are irreconcilable.

Arrant nonsense!

The conflict is absolutely one sided.

Creationists totally reject evolution, and all evidence of its existence, in favour of the ridiculously inane concept of the world having been created in six days, some 6-8,000 years ago.

Evolutionists, however, embrace the Darwinian theory, and in many cases also believe in the existence of God.

Creationism can only maintain credibility if you can convince yourself that a book written more than 2000 years ago, has come down the centuries completely unaltered by the personal beliefs and agendas, not to mention the typographical errors of those who have reproduced it time and time again, a concept much less believable IMHO, than the existence of a God.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 02:20 PM

It is interesting to me how silly those surveys are, pitting a simpleminded form of spiritual theory against a simpleminded version of materialist theory. It is kind of like doing a poll on whether Batman could beat Spiderman, or whether Daisy Duck is better looking than Minnie Mouse.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 02:23 PM

The quotation from his autobiography at this website- The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online.
Darwin Autobiography

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 03:16 PM

I always wonder who takes those polls. I am rarely asked for my opinion and the few times I have it has been a telemarketer's lead in to selling some hopeless bit of crap or a magazine subscription.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 03:30 PM

Personal, non-scientific observations from our small town in Michigan:
I don't know of anyone teaching the sciences in our area who holds what is commonly called a "creationist" (young earth, literal Genesis, anti-evolution) position. Neither do I know of any of them who are avowed atheists. I do know of at least a handful of public school teachers and administrators who are "creationists".
We attend a "mainstream" protestant church. There is nothing anti-scientific coming down from the denomination. But a substantial share of our local congregation are absolute Biblical literalists. There are at least thirty churches in town, and the greater part of them are "conservative" enough to be strict literalists. Some of those churchs are very small; I really don't know what percent of the local population attends them.
Our local representative to Lansing came stumping in our church at coffee time awhile back. He personally told me he would be combatting "this evolution nonsense" in Lansing, and asked me to remember him at election time. I assured him I would remember; I didn't elaborate.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 03:45 PM

The movie is based on the book, "Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, his Daughter, and Human Evolution", written by a great-great-grandson of Darwin, Randal Keynes (in the U.K. in 2001; it was published in the U.S. in 2002 under the title, "Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution").

From that site's discussion of the book (aboutdarwin.com):

The book "...is unlike any other Darwin biography - the majority of which try to encompass the entire spectrum of Darwin's life. Annie's Box is different in that it focuses on the private life of Charles Darwin. "

"What really makes this book stand out from others on Darwin's life is that nearly all the content is previously unpublished material."

I agree with Amos's points. It seems to me, that in most cases of discussions on this topic where one side entirely negates the validity of the other, either a flawed understanding of science or a flawed understanding of theology is involved.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 04:06 PM

60% believe in creationism? Now, I didn't see that poll, and I'm not all that interested in looking it up, but I did read the entire link - which says that a quarter of Americans say they don't believe in evolution and 36% don't give a shit. That is a fer piece from "60% believe in creationism". One can always find a poll to prove just about anything. For example, the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey said that the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as "Christian" (all types) had declined from 86% to 71% since 1990, while the number of absolute nonbelievers had increased from 9% to 15%. A lot of those Christians are true Bible literalists, but a lot are also what we tend to call "Christmas and Easter Christians" - that's the only time they go to church, and it is much more of a social thing for them than anything else. The fastest growing religious identification, according to this survey, was Wiccan.

I was struck by this quote from the director of the film: "It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.   It does? Not in any part of the US that I've ever lived, and I've been all over. No, I'd suggest that the reason they can't find a distributer is that, first, most Americans could care less about Darwin and, second, most people who go to movies prefer such high-class fare as The X-Men and Teenage Ninja Cheerleaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 04:14 PM

"Teenage Ninja Cheerleaders"? Man, I gotta rent that!!; does it have good shower room scenes??!!.
I suspect artbrooks has it pegged right, if they are really having that much trouble finding a distributer.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 04:31 PM

I tend to agree with artbrooks on the reason a distributor has not stepped forward.
The subject is more suited to a BBC drama program and/or limited distribution.

For much of my working life, I was a paleontologist for a major oil company; our interpretations were based on the evolutionary succession preserved in the rocks.
Outside of the exploration groups which used our work, more interest was shown in ancient Greek (i. e., none) among the majority of employees.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: longboat (inactive)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 04:45 PM

The only place this film is having a hard time with distribution is the USA (I wonder why...?), everywhere else doesn't seem to have a problem with the film.
The Daily Telegraph of the UK has producer Jeremy Thomas on the record as saying, "It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about."
Exactly, THAT and it's a film you actually have to think about,
much like the film Amazing Grace, about the life of anti-slavery advocate, William Wilberforce

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 04:54 PM

I agree with Art that this film would not be able to compete with the likes of Ninja Cheerleaders in Waynes world etc and that that is what the marketplace is currently saturated with and what the consumer is buying.

However, I don't make the jump from that point to this one:

"The subject is more suited to a BBC drama program and/or limited distribution."

The fact is that the issues and debates surounding Darwin, evolution, creationism, intelligent design etc are big news these days, especially in America, but also in the rest of the world.

The debate is fierce in the USA and it isn't entirely unrealistic to consider that if some schools in America insist on teaching creationism alongside evolution as an alternative 'theory' (regardless of what the word theory means) and if this is sanctioned by government, then there is a realistic possibility that a film like this could run up against plenty of opposition, especially as, unlike "origin of species", it includes his loss of faith in religion and the idea of a personal God.

So if the theory if evolution is blasphemy, what is this film.

In America this film is relevant and may well be a hit despite the best efforts of those so allegedly against it.

As an aside - I enjoyed the term "american taliban" used to describe the religious right wing in the USA and it amuses me that islamist extremists and those who are so dedicated to defending the world from them hold such similar views.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 05:11 PM

Lox, I don't think that any public schools in the US are "teaching creationism alongside evolution as an alternative 'theory'". There were a couple of school boards (in Kansas and Texas, I think) in which fundamentalists temporarily captured the majority and tried such a thing, but they were stopped in the courts and turned out in the next election.   Of course, what is taught in private schools and to children who are home-schooled is something else entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 05:20 PM

Ok - I was thinking of Kansas and knew that a challenge had been made and about the stroke of Genius that was "the church of the flying spaghetti monster" but I was under the impression that it had been unsuccesful.

However, a cursory glance at
this page suggests that the issue is a sleeping dog that could do without a kick ...


Not that I am ignoring this for a second, but there appears to be no controversy over here about screening the film.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 06:21 PM

I had never heard of any controversy here, but then I don't pay much attention to movies. I expect that it will eventually hit some of the art houses and cable channels. Unfortunately, having an opening at one of the major film festivals - even Toronto - is often the kiss of death for a movie.   I really feel that it is much less the topic and much more the prospect of loosing buckets of money that is keeping the major distributors away. The presence of religiously-based controversy doesn't keep movies from coming out in first-run theaters...look at the success of The DaVinci Code, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 06:21 PM

If there's some reason the film can't get a US distributor, it probably doen't have anything to do with the attitudes of US religious conservatives. Michael Moore's films get distributed. Bill Mahr's Religulous got distributed. Kevin Smith's Dogma got distributed. Those films made money, and I doubt a single person who would call himself a religious conservative sat through a single one of them.

Most deeply religious Americans probably shun 80%+ of the films shown at their local multiplex anyway. There's enough they find offensive in most movies to cause them to stay away in droves. Most moviemakers and distributors don't look at them as part of their potential audience, so why would a distributor turn down a chance to make money off of this film just because the subject matter might offend people who don't buy movie tickets anyway?

If the film isn't being distributed, it's because no US distributor thinks the more secular, open-minded people who do buy movie tickets will pay to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 07:44 PM

Where is "everywhere else"? I can't see the film attracting audiences outside of the UK and the Christian portion of its commonwealth. China? Russia? India? Italy? Brazil?

And I think the 'fierce debate' in the U. S. mostly is on the part of the sky is falling school of broadcasting which shouts about anything and everything that might possibly attract an audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: longboat (inactive)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 07:56 PM

everywhere else , the rest of the world, you just never know where a film might be popular.
Amazing Grace, the film about the anti slavery advocate William Wilberforce did suprisingly well...I don't mean bazillions of bucks like..umm... Teenage Ninja Cheerleaders, bit it did better than expected, I'm sure the ticket sales figures are out there on the net

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 10:56 PM

PBS had an excellent mini-series on (possibly from the Beeb side of the pond) a bunch of years ago: "The Voyage Of Charles Darwin". It may pre-date Reagan and his salutary effects on the American soap opera believe-o-sphere. Anyhow, it was good, no one screamed bloody murder, and I'd happily watch it again.

Since that time there are a lot of fundys who have stunk up the air with their pseudo intellecks, and possibly this tale of controversy is an attempt to make them get even with the movie by buying tickets but not going in.

Most Americans are slightly smarter than Europeans credit.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,astro
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 01:34 AM

One thing I find interesting, is that most who mention films like the teenage whatevers and the like do so dismissively...most of my American friends and I do...so who watches them to make them so famously popular...it is the demographic that advertisers like...the very young. So, isn't it likely the "popular" films are the ones that the advertisers would like to be popular and thus they are.

Most folks go to a film to meet an expectation for that night. If it's been a particularly tough day or week, give me the action film. If I am feeling romantic, well, give me that. If I am curious, then give me a film that addresses that moment, which this film might do. Then, again, maybe it would not. I would want to see if it has too much of an agenda and has lost its story telling ability.

Our folkie friends overseas need to take what the "popular" media says over here with a certain amount of caution. Don't believe everything the 24 hour news says over here...they have an agenda. People over here are of many stripes. Some shallow, some very deep. Guess who will be shown on the popular media!

Astro...getting ready to see some mindless entertainment since I am tired of thinking...today has been long!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Rumncoke
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 04:38 AM

China Russia India Italy Brazil -

If they are not interested they should be.

There should be information on Dr Norman E. Borlaug around on the net, as he is recently deceased.

He used the principles of Evolutionary theory to interbreed and refine strains of wheat resistant to rust, to develop the short growing grain crops grown today to feed the populations of such countries as China Russia etc. and I believe many states within the USA are somewhat involved with the production of grain.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 05:28 AM

"anything and everything that might possibly attract an audience."

indeed ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 05:53 AM

Borlaug's developments of wheat with high yields is also controversial in that the strains he develped require intense weedkillers intense pestkillers intense fertilisation and high-power harvesting machinery - IE are closely tied to the petrochemical industry and accordingly are adversely implicated in loss of biodiversity and global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 10:37 AM

From a NY Times article on the situation at the Toronto Film Festival - the "Creation" movie was not suffering alone:

The festival began with a gala screening of "Creation," an ambitious, awards-type film from Britain about Charles Darwin that arrived without a United States distributor and on Monday still had none.

At the halfway mark in the 10-day gathering, the vast majority of more than 140 films that showed up in search of American distribution were in the same boat, according to a count by the Indiewire news service.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 10:41 AM

Charles Darwin was one of the great scientists and minds of the last century.
Richard Dawkins is a modern interpreter of Darwin.
Dawkins is trying to reason with religios who have forced their ideas down
the public's throat. Dawkins is a tree of reason in a desert of religious aridity.

It's another example as to how religion holds back enlightenment and clings to
ignorance.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 11:38 AM

"The pace of human evolution has been increasing at a stunning rate since our ancestors began spreading through Europe, Asia and Africa 40,000 years ago, quickening to 100 times historical levels after agriculture became widespread, according to a study published today.

By examining more than 3 million variants of DNA in 269 people, researchers identified about 1,800 genes that have been widely adopted in relatively recent times because they offer some evolutionary benefit.

Until recently, anthropologists believed that evolutionary pressure on humans eased after the transition to a more stable agrarian lifestyle. But in the last few years, they realized the opposite was true -- diseases swept through societies in which large groups lived in close quarters for a long time.

Altogether, the recent genetic changes account for 7% of the human genome, according to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The advantage of all but about 100 of the genes remains a mystery, said University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist John Hawks, who led the study. But the research team was able to conclude that infectious diseases and the introduction of new foods were the primary reasons that some genes swept through populations with such speed.

"If there were not a mismatch between the population and the environment, there wouldn't be any selection," Hawks said. "Dietary changes, disease changes -- those create circumstances where selection can happen."

One of the most famous examples is the spread of a gene that allows adults to digest milk.

Though children were able to drink milk, they typically developed lactose intolerance as they grew up. But after cattle and goats were domesticated in Europe and yaks and mares were domesticated in Asia, adults with a mutation that allowed them to digest milk had a nutritional advantage over those without.

As a result, they were more likely to have healthy offspring, prompting the mutation to spread, Hawks said.

The mechanism also explains why genetic resistance to malaria has spread among Africans -- who live where disease-carrying mosquitoes are prevalent -- but not among Europeans or Asians.

Most of the genetic changes the researchers identified were found in only one geographic group or another. Races as we know them today didn't exist until fewer than 20,000 years ago, when genes involved in skin pigmentation emerged, Hawks said. Paler skin allowed people in northern latitudes to absorb more sunlight to make vitamin D.

"As populations expanded into new environments, the pressures faced in those environments would have been different," said Noah Rosenberg, a human geneticist at the University of Michigan, who wasn't involved in the study. "So it stands to reason that in different parts of the world, different genes will appear to have experienced natural selection."..."LA Times

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 11:39 AM

Many of my fellow Americans are very scarily ignorant of reality and even more scarily wedded to biblical literalness. It is really, really scary. Only here, that I know of, is knowledge so denigrated. Is "brainiac" (someone who gets good grades) an insult in any other culture?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 11:46 AM

Swipe me thats a hot topic.

For a nation that once prided itself on academic achievement and scientific progress, the vision we now get of America is of redneck hicks digging themselves back to the 16th Century. Its pretty bad publicity, but a worse outlook - if the USA abandons science we're all going to feel the shock.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Alice
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:10 PM

As one Sarah Palin supporter said, "She talks down to our level".

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: longboat (inactive)
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:14 PM

AS Richard Bridge says IE are closely tied to the petrochemical industry.
They have an agenda and that agenda isn't eco-friendly.

China Russia India Italy and Brazil
They aren't going to be super-enthusiastic about Evolution because, Italy and Brazil are Catholic countries and the church is extremely powerful in both of those countries. The Russiian Orthodox Church's power is growing again and they have similar ideas to the Catholic Church, China is officially aetheist and look upon Darwin as reactionary. India, I admit, I have no idea how they would react, mind you their film industry makes Hollywood look like a Mom and Pop operation

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:56 PM

Evolution as not envisioned by Darwin-

Lehman Brothers goes bust, and Barclay Capital (UK) and a Japanese investment company quickly grab the assets and become large players in the capital investment field, the former launching 'Enhanced FX Algorithmic Trading'. A successful mutation for them, extinction for Lehman.

Seeking cheaper cost, Michelin Tire moves most of its production to China, but sees the U. S. apply a 35% tax on Chinese-made tires. One step forward, two steps back, on the evolutionary tree.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Rumncoke
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 07:04 PM

Remember the time when Dr Borlaug was working on the increase in yields and resistance to disease - the use of chemicals was the way of the future, once the primary problems were overcome the resulting high yeilds were protected by the use of weedkillers and artificial fertilisers.

Looking back knowing what we know now, it might seem controvertial, but back then it was the cutting edge of technology.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 09:44 PM

I did an essay on evolution in the 8th grade and was sent to the Principal's office for punishment and my parents had to have a meeting at school.

One criticism is that I said " Man and other mamalian animals..."
\I was told man is not an animal.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Rumncoke
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 08:41 AM

They were wrong.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere)
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 11:10 AM

In Britain, the term is not brainiac, but boff, from boffin, once a term of respect, if amused respect, for what we owed the eccentric and clever. It isn't just the States.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,Penny S.(elsewhere)
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 11:31 AM

Sinsull, the creationist writings I have seen on website discussions will answer the incest question about A & E's children as follows. 1. God had not yet forbidden incest so it was permissible. 2. Because they were so close to the perfection of creation, arguments about the harm of close kin breeding are invalid.

Boggle, if you will.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 11:53 AM

Three years of bible institute, and I never heard those particular rationalizations about reproduction in the earliest generations. We mostly just scorned those who were unspiritual enough to raise the question. We "realized" that "there are some things we just aren't able to understand"
I wonder whether I'm the only one hanging out here who has committed intellectual suicide and lived to tell about.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 10:44 PM

I love it when creationists attempt to couch their beliefs in logic. Why bother? If you have a story whose foundations are based entirely upon magic, why attempt to use logic to explain away its inconsistencies? Just pull in a little more magic! Adam and Eve's boys need wives? No problem! Just change a couple of nanny goats into women! Anyone who could make a woman out of a man's rib can pull that trick of easily!

To paraphrase Bill Maher in Religulous: Imagine you were to grow up without any exposure to either the Bible or fairy tales. Now, imagine you were given copies of both "Jonah and the Whale" and "Jack and the Beanstalk" to read. Now imagine that, after reading them, you were told that one tale was part of a religious belief system and was considered by millions to be literally true, while the other was a made up story intended for children. Would you be able to tell which was which?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 12:52 PM

Bee-Dubya-Ell asked, in part

imagine you were given copies of both "Jonah and the Whale" and "Jack and the Beanstalk" to read. Now imagine that, after reading them, you were told that one tale was part of a religious belief system and was considered by millions to be literally true, while the other was a made up story intended for children. Would you be able to tell which was which?

While I follow your drift, and agree, the actual answer to your question is "Yes".

One story expressly ties the action to a god; the only departure from worldly reality is the existence and power of the god. The other one does not, and its hero is a child (or at least a teenager), and it is filled with multiple free-floating marvels, such as the overnight bean "tree", the giant and giantess, the self-playing-and-singing harp, the gold-laying hen. Given the alternative choices, of connections to either a religious belief system or a children's story, the answer is obvious.

Your real point, though, is that the departure from experiential reality is great in each instance, and you are of course right in that.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 03:10 PM

for a bit of fun, best viewed in full screen

http://www.youtube.com/user/wordweaver58#play/all/uploads-all/0/9_5VpIISMRQ

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 03:51 PM

Thanks, V. Tam. My first laugh of the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 04:37 PM

I feel it is safe to say that a film distributor is going to be concerned first and foremost with profit potential.

There are plenty of Darwinians to go around, and I think there'd be a way to market the film to pretty much everybody (like getting Mel Gibson to narrate, for one thing).

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 05:45 PM

Worth watching for the insanity- I'm not convinced it's serious, maybe it's planted by an environmentalist 'false flag' operation:

the banana of God.









-Praise Bob-

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:05 PM

Robo, I wasn't sure either, but youtube brought up a follow-up video that sure seems to indicate that the one you linked was meant in all seriousness.

I wonder if the guy has thought about anything else that's perfectly shaped to fit into the human mouth?...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:49 PM

Here's the problem. Evolution is a scientific fact. (All reputable scientists unanimously agree). Christianity is not a scientific fact.

Irreconcilable difference here?

When did the world begin? Were Adam and Eve really dinosaurs?

You see the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 09:59 AM

Stringsinger said, (quite correctly):

Here's the problem. Evolution is a scientific fact. (All reputable scientists unanimously agree).

But that's confusing to some, because they don't understand the difference between "evolution" and (usually Darwin's) "theory of evolution".

A theory is an attempt at a systematic rational explanation of a complicated set of facts.   As in "the theory of torts" in the law, or "nuclear theory", or "music theory". No one conversant with those fields has any doubt of the existence of the underlying facts, but there's varying amounts of room for elaboration or fine tuning of the theories relating to those sets of facts.

To say "theory" does not mean "speculation", as is often used in the phrase "a mere theory" as so many creationists are fond of dismissively phrasing it.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Mr Happy
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 08:57 AM

Louisiana Senator's understanding of evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQObhb3veQA

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 10:05 AM

Yup, USA is definitely aomalous:

http://calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=559

click


And Song of the Dodo was written by David Quammen, and it is a brilliant recounting of the Darwin-Wallace race to publish a theory of evolution, and highlights many modern examples of evolution. Great book.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 10:06 AM

my speeling is also anmololous...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 11:00 AM

All is not hopeless in Louisiana (but it is on shaky ground when Creationists think they can vote bad thinking into schools)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 02:31 PM

Had a Freudian slip there, Tia. Thought I'd read "Calamites of nature". :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: BrendanB
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 06:09 PM

Well at least that is better than catamites of nature - I think.....