Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America' , page 1

I don't believe this as the official reason for not releasing the movie here in America. I found this good explanation as to why people continue to deny evolution.

When one considers the sources of America's denial of evolution, the first thing that likely comes to mind is Christian fundamentalism. According to Michigan State University professor, Jon Miller, "American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close" (LiveScience).
Far too often, the media, and even many scientists, refuse to point the finger at religious fundamentalism. We are taught that we must respect religious beliefs, and a surprising number of scientists adopt the position that science and religion are two mutually exclusive domains which should not poach each other's subject matter.

In addition to religious fundamentalism, poor scientific literacy is a relevant contributing factor. Simply put, if the American educational system continues to turn out children who lack a solid science education, it is reasonable to expect that Americans will remain vulnerable to pseudoscience and other forms of misinformation. Facing tremendous pressure from vocal parent groups, many high schools water down their science curricula to the point where students are unlikely to learn the basics they will need.

Partisan politics appears to be yet another factor contributing to evolution denial in America. A surprising 70% of Republicans deny evolution, and the lead up to the 2008 election has revealed a number of Republican candidates willingly to publicly proclaim their rejection of evolution. If nothing else, this suggests that they do not fear being laughed out of the room for making such absurd statements.

www.atheistrev.com...

I would agree with it for the most part. I think it's mainly people who are too partisan and people who are too religious that are afraid to have anything that conflicts with their religious views that is evolution.

People just here don't want to learn the facts and this is something that makes me ashamed to be an American at times.

I believe the matter to be a partisan one where people just aren't open to science. Darin wasn't an atheist himself either. In fact he was an agnostic:

www.religioustolerance.org...

And he wasn't advocating atheism. All his theory was really advocating was that animals change over time... which I don't think anyone would deny.

Another thing, people look at humans and say oh look we're not getting more advance so we must not be evolving- evolution has nothing to do with quality! It just means CHANGE.

‘Survival of the fittest’ is a concept that is often misunderstood. It does not imply any ‘quality judgment’. In fact it is not even what Darwin said, his version was ‘survival of the best fitted’ … to their environment. The evolution of a species does not always lead to a more complicated version either - look at the barnacle parasites of crabs! These creatures evolved from shrimp-like ancestors to become parasites that look rather like blobs of jelly.

Read more: fishinsects.suite101.com...

fishinsects.suite101.com...

And last but not least, I would like to differentiate between social darwinism and evolution. This is why people hate evolution- it's because they don't understand it:

Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection.
Spencer and Social Darwinism

Herbert Spencer, the father of Social Darwinism as an ethical theory, was thinking in terms of elitist, "might makes right" sorts of views long before Darwin published his theory. However, Spencer quickly adapted Darwinian ideas to his own ethical theories. The concept of adaptation allowed him to claim that the rich and powerful were better adapted to the social and economic climate of the time, and the concept of natural selection allowed him to argue that it was natural, normal, and proper for the strong to thrive at the expense of the weak. After all, he claimed, that is exactly what goes on in nature every day.

However, Spencer did not just present his theories as placing humans on a parallel with nature. Not only was survival of the fittest natural, but it was also morally correct. Indeed, some extreme Social Darwinists argued that it was morally incorrect to assist those weaker than oneself, since that would be promoting the survival and possible reproduction of someone who was fundamentally unfit.

library.thinkquest.org...

Alright, that's all for now... I hope that clears up a few things to the anti-evolution people and to the people wondering why people are so confused about this.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Frankidealist35]