Charles Darwin film too controversial for religious America

[The Kangaroo]

Another one of my favourite things is that if I were to run for president and say that I believed in evolution I'd fail epically

 

[Woodsey]

Only 39% eh? That figure makes sense.

How could the other 61% believe in it when it hasn't happened to them yet?

Seriously though, that's the stupidest thing I've heard. The theory is 150+ years old (I haven't counted back, nor am I going to) it's hardly a new idea.

It's been bloody proven (or everything but). I don't know - I guess 61% of Americans are idiots.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

Spoiler: I do not know if this has been posted yet, and make of it what you will, but I just wonder if this'll help put things in perspective. click here for an image

I think it's results of this poll compared with similar countries.

 

[kiteboy]

Only 39 percent? Where are these people?

I know that everyone in my school believes in evolution. Then again, I live in New York City. I assume most of the people who don't believe in the theory live in the south.

now i know im nitpicking here... but you dont BELIEVE in a theory. belief is what leads to this retardation in the first place. you UNDERSTAND theories.

 

[slackbheep]

Wow. I've gotta say I find this a little silly, and find it very hard to believe in that 39%. For intelligent rational people who happen to believe in god evolution is simply the lords work.

Note: I am not religious, I simply know and was raised around intelligent folk who happened to be theists.

 

[The Kangaroo]

On the other hand, this could be used pretty well as an excuse to further bash on Christians.

Every cloud has a silver lining

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think Evolution is a flawed argument (though follows the basic idea) but that's not going to stop me watching a good film.

(Before anyone asks, my problem with it is that it states "Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations" where I believe non-advantageous genetic mutations can become advantageous over the course of time and re-emerge.)

 

[dududf]

Ouch.

My poor Canadian ego @_@

Moose tastes good BTW. :3

Get over it, and go fetch me some ice creams.
(I know you will, because Canadians are unfailingly polite unless they're French.)
*snaps* Hop to it!
It's hot here, goddammit.

Rocky or plain?

And don't take advantage of my polite manners and general kindness to all things living @_@

 

[ExistentialCrisis]

And the pot stirs, bubbling forth once again...

Need I remind everyone that the only thing really happening here is just that the distributors they brought the movie to turned it down based on the distributors' own judgment calls - and, arguably, biased views of the U.S. - and nothing more. I can't blame them for being smart enough to realize that some Americans have money, lawyers, and far too much free time on their hands and will go after them for any dumb reason (up to and including boycotting a movie about a man who invented a theory they hate, thereby attacking the man not the theory...). Folks feel passionately about this stuff to the point that rationale goes out the window, but cooler heads can prevail so long as anything truly objectionable isn't thrown back in response.

This was likely not a "weeur Amer-ee-kuns an' we dun beeleev een Darween" kind of decision (unless they happened to have tried Jed's Muffler Shop, Hair Care, And Film Distribution Center of Stumppost, AL), more likely it was made with the realization that a handful of people might *****, a handful *would* see it, and the rest wouldn't care. That's all; calm down, stop flaming about religion/America/"the rest of the world"/creationists/etc.

Besides, if fundamentalists believe that Darwin is a quack, why not go and see it anyway? Treat it like a comedy about the world's biggest idiot! It might be "so bad it's good"?

 

[littlerob]

I think Evolution is a flawed argument (though follows the basic idea) but that's not going to stop me watching a good film.

(Before anyone asks, my problem with it is that it states "Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations" where I believe non-advantageous genetic mutations can become advantageous over the course of time and re-emerge.)

Natural selection acts to preserve and propagate advantageous mutations, and eliminate disadvantageous ones. If it's useless but not harmful or inimical to breeding/survival rates, then it'll stay. Like the coccyx - we don't need it, but it doesn't affect anything so breeding doesn't favour people with shorter (or longer) coccyx's.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think Evolution is a flawed argument (though follows the basic idea) but that's not going to stop me watching a good film.

(Before anyone asks, my problem with it is that it states "Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations" where I believe non-advantageous genetic mutations can become advantageous over the course of time and re-emerge.)

Natural selection acts to preserve and propagate advantageous mutatons, and eliminate disadvantageous ones. If it's useless but not harmful or inimical to breeding/survival rates, then it'll stay. Like the coccyx - we don't need it, but it doesn't affect anything so breeding doesn't favour people with shorter (or longer) coccyx's.

Eye colour tends to buck that trend though. Brown is advantageous and genetically superior, yet Blue continues to thrive. Diseases like the rhinovirus tend to show mutation battles as well.

 

[bjj hero]

39 fucking percent??!!!

I didn't think it was that low!

Thats it. Thats the last straw. I've had it with America, I'm moving to England.

Hello my friend you wanna have some crumpets and maybe a cup of tea? After that we can play some soccer or cricket. Also look at our women, they are beautiful.

Have fun in England.

Ahhh, I love English women....

[small/]such a beautiful voice[/small]

Beautiful voice you say??, just don't go to Essex or Liverpool, unless you want cheap sex and stabbing.

You missed Brummies and Yam Yams. I'd personally cut the tongue from every last one to kill those dialects. Stay away from the West midlands/Black country unless you are collecting STIs.

 

[The Kangaroo]

I think Evolution is a flawed argument (though follows the basic idea) but that's not going to stop me watching a good film.

(Before anyone asks, my problem with it is that it states "Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations" where I believe non-advantageous genetic mutations can become advantageous over the course of time and re-emerge.)

Natural selection acts to preserve and propagate advantageous mutations, and eliminate disadvantageous ones. If it's useless but not harmful or inimical to breeding/survival rates, then it'll stay. Like the coccyx - we don't need it, but it doesn't affect anything so breeding doesn't favour people with shorter (or longer) coccyx's.

You couldn't say tailbone?

 

[littlerob]

You couldn't say tailbone?

Why? It takes longer to type, and isn't actually accurate.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

38 percent?!

Are the other 62 percent fucking crazy?!

 

[wgreer25]

Only 39 percent? Where are these people?

I know that everyone in my school believes in evolution. Then again, I live in New York City. I assume most of the people who don't believe in the theory live in the south.

As much as I would love to say "hey, don't stereotype us in the south", I'm affraid you are right.

I made some saterical statement the other day and simply used the word evolution and I got a dirty look from one of my bible beating co-workers. *sigh*

 

[Megacherv]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

>A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

>only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution

well. I'am at a loss for words at the moment. ill probably edited this later after my brain starts working again. just thought you should know.

EDIT:

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.

wow. just wow. its only a movie and yet such hate and arrogance is displayed on the christian side. I'm not flamming christians but jesus they linked an 18th century naturlist to "Hitler"? goddamn.

Half-baked? Sorry, but a man walking on water, being killed, coming back to life, technically being his own dad AND a ghost at the same time, and is now everywhere inside all of us and all of life; makes more sense than evolution?

Bollocks I say, bollocks.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

That is stupid... but, then again, I think the people evolving from monkeys is about as ridiculous as everything there is in christianity...

Anyone who claims that this is the basis of evolution has as tenuous a grip on the subject as the person who wrote that first review. Let me spell this out for anyone who actually believes that this is the case.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Both species have a common ancestor, where selective pressure lead to the induction of different traits in different organisms. Humans are no more related to monkeys than I am to my 100th cousin twice removed.

All I remember from them telling us about evolution in school was evolving from monkeys, and that is really the only part of evolution that I see as stupid... I've actually heard somewhere that our bone structures are closer to those of a dog (dunno if that is true or not), and I'm guess those people who say it does exist are referring to human evolution? Because, you know, there is such a thing... look at frogs...

 

[captainwillies]

It's like this: the theory of evolution and the natural selection between species is a sound and reasonable theory which have been supported by a lot of scientific evidence over the years. So far Darwin made a good move.

Then he and some of his supporters started to dabble in a few less-than-sound theories. Like social evolution between individuals in one species. Like saying that poor people in society should blame themselves for being poor, and them being poor and starving to death is only a result of "natural selection", which is bollocks of course.

now corret me if I'm wrong but when Darwin was first hypothisizing(is that a real word?) his theory of evolution he needed a trigger he needed an explaination for "why" things changed and for that he tasked to "the theory of natural selection" but what alot of people don't know is that Darwin's " theory of natural selection" was actually inspired by "Thomas Malthus" (a British scholar) who did alot of work on social economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

so if you really want to make a "chain of blame", blame Malthus

But that doesn't mean that everything he said must be bollocks now does it?

It's like with one of my countrys famous scientists, Carl von Linnaues. He basically set out to catalogue all living species of plants by name, family, sub-species etc. etc. this would later be used on animals as well. Swedish students are being taught that he's a sort of scinetific national hero in that regard... But what is rarely mentioned is the fact that he's one of the major sources that started racial eugenics in the academic world as well. Hitler had some major influence by Carl von Linnaues, and Carl was even the one who divided human beings into different races, calling some ethnic of black people "Homo Monstrum" for instance, and tried to claim that some "races" of humans were inferior to others in matters of intellect. Meaning of course that Europeans were the "Creme de la creme" of intellectual human species while the rest of the world were somewhere below them.

It's quite easy to see where the sound scientific thinking started, and where it all went overboard into euro-centrism and hostile racism, don't you agree?

Virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.

I would also like to say that there were quite a few creationists who were much more racist than Darwin. like Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research. In the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:

"Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semite"

Does that mean that Carl von Linnaues efforts to catalouge species of plants and animals along with their characteristics and ways to recognize them? Hell no! It has been one of the most important scientific endavours ever made and it has helped in the fields of natural history, biology, medicine and all manner of scientific branches. It would be stupid to just toss all that out due to no other reason than political correctness.

It's like saying: -"Well he did write some really helpful stuff, but we have to burn it all and forget it was ever written because it has been proven that the author was also a racist bigot as well. To bad..."

So I really can't undestand what's so controversial about Darwin, even among religious people. Religion is about faith anyway, not evidence, so even if he was right about life in general it doesn't really matter if you have faith and stick to the commandments til the day you die. Being religious isn't about being right, it's about believing in an invisible man in the sky and that he means us all well. But this is something that a lot of religious people haven't realized...

yes i understand. its just that most of the religious people I know are really nice people. but damn there are some really strange people out there who have such a "deep" hate its like nothing I can comprehend. its almost like Darwin built a time machine travelled forward in time raped his mother infront of him, then jotted down all his beliefs, went back time and made theories that refutted them all!

what i want to know is why? no actually how? how do people become like that? its mind boggling to me