Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

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

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.

As for this quote, I'm just astonished, who ever wrote this is insane. Does science mean nothing to these Christian nutjobs?

Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”[78]

Originally posted by Doctor G
I can really tell your ignorance. Ayup, Ayup. Y'all never read any of his books, you just go by what the propagandists say. Darwin was convinced that the dark blacks were the lowest humans and it went upwards to the light skinned Europeans.

What we know now through DNA research, archeology & other sciences tends to give the theory of evolution a poor rating. Sure there is evolving in species but Darwin had his own agenda and blew evolution way out of proportion to the facts.

Don't give America a bum rap through your inability to read & research.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Doctor G]

Originally posted by refuse_orders

Wow... Just wow...

I really don't know what to say, this is just incredible. Is the US really that messed up?

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

39%!!!!!!!!!!!! That statistic scares me a LOT, forget about evolution people, devolution is the real issue here.

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated

As for this quote, I'm just astonished, who ever wrote this is insane. Does science mean nothing to these Christian nutjobs?

To think this is only a film to... Imagine what would happen if Darwin was alive today... Scary, scary, scary.

Originally posted by muggl3z
I am officially embarrassed as a proud American.

The biggest problem in this country is ignorance, complete absence of information.

Originally posted by John Matrix
However, I would like the video to be shown here in North America so creation scientists can debunk it.



[edit on 12/9/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus


Creation... scientist.. oww the irony makes my brain bleed. There are people who call themselves creation scientists? Do they go to confession and ask forgiveness for lying to themselves and their peers when they do it?

Creation scientists.. ya and I'd like you to meet my friend the morbidly obese Olympic track coach.

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.

‘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...

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.