Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

reply to post by Stylez


the childish meanderings and these so called tactics are usually reserved for ... well lets just say some should practice what they preach

IMHO, if anyone wishes to believe their earliest ancestor was a random piece of slime, then that is his or her business ...

But, in this case it seems to me the Creationists have a much better idea ...

It transpires from the article that if you make a film, and you want it shown to the general public, then for whatever reasons(s) you need a producer.

The question is who has made a bunch of private film producing companies want to this, and how have they done it?

The obvious suspect is the church, but sometimes it pays to look beyond the obvious suspects. Perhaps the American, film producing, political monopoly, is the result of private enterprise interpreting some kind of secret federal instruction?

Put it this way, stranger things have happened in the history of the government!!

A thread earlier this week dealt with the fossil record and the recovery of a skull. redrdrsunshine put up this post with a video in it that talks about the evolution of man. One of the arguments in the video was that in all the millions of years and the many sites where these fossils are found not one bone or even a fingernail exists of the 'missing link' between man and ape or chimpanzee. I would like to hear from anyone defending Darwinism on how you can accept evolution as fact without this evidence. I do know that the absence of evidence does not mean it does not exist however to have found nothing seems unlikely. The video also brings up some other interesting points such as how the missing link would have to have more than 30 iterations to come to our structure.

Edit: Typo

[edit on 12-9-2009 by GTORick]

reply to post by refuse_orders


From the looks of it, the film isn't only about the theory of evolution. The plot is basically the life story of Darwin, the death of his daughter, his loss of faith, the construction of his theory, and his struggle with his religious wife. So obviously the theory is mentioned but it's not the focus.

What this looks like to me in my honest opinion is an attempt to portray Darwin as the sympathetic hero. I have a feeling they will be omitting a lot of information about him to make him look as idealistic as possible when this simply isn't so.

I'm not going to engage in an ad hominem argument by attacking him to attack his research but the fact remains Darwin did indeed have some very racist theories and beliefs as well as some serious anti-religious beliefs that were later released in his memoirs and personal correspondence.

That may be no big deal to many readers here but keep in mind the complete title of his work was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.' He also recorded a lot of research not included in Origins to show how blacks were evolutionary throwbacks while whites were the superior race.

Also, he spent the latter part of his life attempting to appear even minded to show how religion and evolution could compliment each other. I'll withhold my opinion on that, however, it is very deceptive of him when his personal notes that were published upon his death revealed his agenda to use the theory of evolution against religion.

But I have a feeling the film will be leaving all of that out. That is what concerns me. And to those who say that is no big deal, either, that's fine. But it does make me curious why some want us to remain ignorant regarding some of Darwin's darker motivations.

[edit on 9/12/2009 by AshleyD]

Just found a review of the film on newscientist.com.

Creation: being made to feel Darwin's anguish

reply to post by visible_villain


They may have an idea that makes you feel better but is it backed by science? Can it be proven?

Well? I just would have you know that I'm an agnostic so I'm not making a value judgment about religion here. I'm just saying.

reply to post by AshleyD


From the review I have just read I think your right, like many great men I am sure Darwin had his faults. I would not for a second deny that, I'm not saying they should be excused either.

I may not agree with everything Darwin said/wrote, the importance of the man's work should not go unacknowledged though.

(spelling edit)

[edit on 12/9/09 by refuse_orders]

Originally posted by visible_villain
IMHO, if anyone wishes to believe their earliest ancestor was a random piece of slime, then that is his or her business ...

But, in this case it seems to me the Creationists have a much better idea ...

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a fine example of why that 61% doesn't believe in evolution - they don't understand it and don't want to.

I'll say this only once for Christians who actually want to educate themselves - the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does it say anything about humans coming from slime. Put simply, the theory of evolution states that living organisms get more and more complex over long periods of time. That's all!

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

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]

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.

Neither theory can be proven. Both theories begin with a hypothesis.

Evolutionists believe natural processes account for mutations that result in transformations from one species to another, and with increasing complexity.

Creation scientists begin with the hypothesis that everything is the result of an intelligent creator.

Both theories rely on the same evidence. Get that? The same evidence is used by both sides to support their hypothesis and theories. However, evolution theory is subject to numerous secondary assumptions, while creation science never has a need for secondary assumptions because everything is as it is because it was created that way.

I look at both explanations of the "same" evidences and I conclude that the creation model makes more sense. My decision is an informed decision while your decision is not. You are not informed because you are unaware that there are creation scientists. If you were informed, you would not doubt their existance and take cheap shots at the idea of there being creation scientists.

Look up the Creation Research Institute and get an education from the other side before you express doubt concerning whether indeed there are creation scientists or not.

Also, check in on OldThinker.....he would love to debate this with you.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by GeeGee


Actually, yes and no. In Darwin's research, he speculates on life originating in the primordial ooze, or VV's 'slime.' One of Darwin's theories was that lightning struck a puddle of goo and created life.

But as a whole, abiogensis is not included in the theory when it comes to modern science.

And with that, I'll excuse myself from the conversation as an 'uneducated Christian.'

Originally posted by GeeGee

Originally posted by visible_villain
IMHO, if anyone wishes to believe their earliest ancestor was a random piece of slime, then that is his or her business ...

But, in this case it seems to me the Creationists have a much better idea ...

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a fine example of why that 61% doesn't believe in evolution - they don't understand it and don't want to.

I'll say this only once for Christians who actually want to educate themselves - the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does it say anything about humans coming from slime. Put simply, the theory of evolution states that living organisms get more and more complex over long periods of time. That's all!

Ya, we know....they modified their theory a while back......but don't accuse people of not understanding evolution.....we have had it rammed down our throats in public school, on National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, Nova, the news media, etc. etc. We are all well indoctrinated with evlolutionist propaganda. So much so that a lot of people no longer think evolution is still just a theory. Many think evolution is a proven fact when it is nothing more than a theory....and a poor one!!

Take a DEEP Breath


We understand this is a heated topic, but don't let the emotions take over..


Let's keep it civil... and on topic...


This is the 2nd friendly reminder...


Thank you for your cooperation.

while i agree evolution is just a theory.. so is the creationist view.. they both use the same scientific evidence. but reach a different conclusion.. supposedly.. i think both sides need to step back from the zelotry.
i look at it this way.. creationism is a leap of faith.. the theory of evolution is the possible way it was acompished by god.. however one thing i'll never be able to swallow is the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old..

In my mind, there are absolutely no reasons for science and religion, well rather philosophy, to not get along just fine. When people start mingling the how's with the why's is were the disagreements explode exponentially.

Until science can 'prove' that some organized 'force' didn't put these things in motion, my mind still remains open though. Ironically though, science is trying to find an organized force to explain physics and all things derived from it. Unfortunately, we are microdimensionally focused beings living an a macrodimensional world. So what if those religious texts are true? Do they spell out 'how' the omniscient did what was done? Nope. Just a little text here and there saying it happened and rather appropriately written in accordance with the technological knowledge of the receivers in mind: would you explain bosons, leptons, muons, etc. to a 5 year old using that language? Nope. You simplify- talk "down" if you will, so they understand or at least come to grips with the explanation and that there is also something more to it. It's not your fault though if the child holds those beliefs and refuses to accept the more detailed description... well maybe it is your fault if you didn't follow through and build on what they were already taught.

As for the movie, I've seen more controversial movies in high school. It seems the production company is being pro-active, looking to build hype for the movie, then announce some deal with some company.

Originally posted by scorand
one thing i'll never be able to swallow is the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old..

I'm with you there dude.

Reminds me of this Bill Hicks quote i love.

“You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? "That's right." Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "Uh huh." Dinosaurs. You know the world's 12 thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the *Snip*Bible at some point. "And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus...with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big*Snip*lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.”

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/12/2009 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by scorand
while i agree evolution is just a theory.. so is the creationist view.. they both use the same scientific evidence. but reach a different conclusion..

Exactly what I have always said on ATS.

i think both sides need to step back from the zelotry.

No, this is a very good topic for debate. It's the personal attacks and insults that we need to step back from.

i look at it this way.. creationism is a leap of faith..

IMHO evolution requires an awful lot of faith in natural processes working over eons of time.

however one thing i'll never be able to swallow is the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old..

Young earth creationism is a seperate branch of creationism. Not all creation scientists believe in the young earth theory.

However, you would do well to research the evidences that young earth scientists have examined, and why they believe their findings support a much younger earth.

Originally posted by scorand...however one thing i'll never be able to swallow is the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old..

But according to theory, time is relative to the observer. Has anyone determined that an Earth year correlates to any particular other 'year' in the Universe?

I wonder if there could ever be a branch of creation science that believes:

1. that creation and evolution can coexist, and
2. that there could be/have been multiple creators of the highly numerous species on this planet

Ah, but from the reactionary Christian perspective, it always has to be just ONE Creator who, most conveniently, also happens to have had his "Only Begotten Son" being born right here on this planet in the DARK (with emphasis on "dark" when referring to human "civilization" or as we know it) outer rim hinterlands of a nondescript galaxy among infinite galaxies. What are the REAL odds of that being true? (crickets chirp)