answered question
answers (8)
Q: Will the Charles Darwin movie "Creation" show in the United States?
A: Given that the movie's just a biography, which means it will probably be loaded with lots of scenes where Charles has to "struggle with himself and his beliefs", there's nothing about it that the Evangelicals should have any serious issue with, although some Baptists might complain if the film doesn't show a demon lurking in the background and waving its fingers over Darwin's head to make his eyes spin..
In fact, some evangelicals might even find in that film some key moment in Darwin's life to peg as the instant when he first steps off the path-of-light to begin his slide into darkness-thinking, to be sited and referenced as part of an evangelical morality tale.
Further, the question is not whether it will be screened in the US, because, in the US, the fasted way to bring joy to the hearts of independant theater operators as they slap reels onto their projectors as fast as they can move is to have one or more of the big distributors anounce that they won't distribute a title....
Rather, divisions of theological perspective are more likely to be along the lines of folk like Catholics and Episcopalians saying "know thy enemy", while Evangelicals and Baptists might complain that the film doesn't demonized him enough, but there's nothing there to warrent censorship, official or otherwise.
Q: Apparently Evolution is still controversial there?
A: Well... it's the televangelists who keep it stirred up... in *some* places.
The televangelists need topics to keep viewers worked up about in order to hold audience share - because fundamentally televangelism is entertainment dressed up as soft-core revivalism - and it used to be they could count on fanning the flames of opinion over atheistic-communism, abortion, homosexuality, or evolution when faced with sliding ratings, but communism's not an issue any more, and human rights organizations have been clamping down on them with legal interpretations of homo/lesbo-rants as being a form of hate-crime, and they're seeing more and more women sticking fingers in their ears going la la la when trying to stir up abortion as an issue, so that just leaves creation vs evolution.
So much of how people react to subjects like evolution vs creation is a function of where they live, and the fact that you stated your question with the rider of "Apparently Evolution is still controversial there" is really saying more about where you live than it's saying about Americans. The US is a huge society... just their states are larger than a lot of countries, and they themselves get so overwhelmed by their own scale that for a lot of them taking a trip to another state is tantamount to visiting a foriegn land, such that real foriegn lands might as well be on another planet, so you can't peg the whole country that simple...
Not like how you can generalize that in Taiwan or Holland, if a conversation meanders into the topic of human origins, then if the context of the conversation warrents a statement of perspective, one will say something like, "The Bible says it was a seven day creative process", and the other will say, "Oh, well, evolutionary theory says it took seven million years if you set the clock at when it was a chimpanzee-equivalent form", whereupon they both shrug, and carry on the conversation keeping those perspectives of each other in mind if it's necessary to communicate something that's affected by those points of view.
Nor like how if you're in the Yemeni outbacks and the topic comes up, you can know in advance that you have to be very careful about what you say or a hothead will pull out his jambiya and eviscerate you on the spot if you're sounding one iota off a strict literal interpretation of the Qu'ran.
You can't say that America has a "national opinion" on the subject... it's too big... but it *does* have heavily *regionalized* attitudes, which is a function of how Americans pay for education.
They don't collect and redistribute education money on a national or state level... rather, they do it on a county level, so if you're in a poor county, the quality of your schools and teachers can be poor, which means the quality of education can be poor, which means people become more likely to buy into simplistic and "exciting" issues of concern to evangelists and baptists, yet just 30 miles away can be a rich county with lots of money and therefore excellent schools, and in those countys people will think the whole debate of evolution vs creation is just a silly waste of time.
My point is... you can't just say, ""Apparently Evolution is still controversial *there*" when talking about the US. Where in the US? It's a big place (and everyone keeps forgetting that about the US... it's not just powerful because it chose to spend a large percentage of its GDP on military... it's powerful because it's a huge country... if they were all armed with pitchforks it would still be a considerable force...), and the county system of education makes localized attitudes about science and religion *very patchy*.
A: Given that the movie's just a biography, which means it will probably be loaded with lots of scenes where Charles has to "struggle with himself and his beliefs", there's nothing about it that the Evangelicals should have any serious issue with, although some Baptists might complain if the film doesn't show a demon lurking in the background and waving its fingers over Darwin's head to make his eyes spin..
In fact, some evangelicals might even find in that film some key moment in Darwin's life to peg as the instant when he first steps off the path-of-light to begin his slide into darkness-thinking, to be sited and referenced as part of an evangelical morality tale.
Further, the question is not whether it will be screened in the US, because, in the US, the fasted way to bring joy to the hearts of independant theater operators as they slap reels onto their projectors as fast as they can move is to have one or more of the big distributors anounce that they won't distribute a title....
Rather, divisions of theological perspective are more likely to be along the lines of folk like Catholics and Episcopalians saying "know thy enemy", while Evangelicals and Baptists might complain that the film doesn't demonized him enough, but there's nothing there to warrent censorship, official or otherwise.
Q: Apparently Evolution is still controversial there?
A: Well... it's the televangelists who keep it stirred up... in *some* places.
The televangelists need topics to keep viewers worked up about in order to hold audience share - because fundamentally televangelism is entertainment dressed up as soft-core revivalism - and it used to be they could count on fanning the flames of opinion over atheistic-communism, abortion, homosexuality, or evolution when faced with sliding ratings, but communism's not an issue any more, and human rights organizations have been clamping down on them with legal interpretations of homo/lesbo-rants as being a form of hate-crime, and they're seeing more and more women sticking fingers in their ears going la la la when trying to stir up abortion as an issue, so that just leaves creation vs evolution.
So much of how people react to subjects like evolution vs creation is a function of where they live, and the fact that you stated your question with the rider of "Apparently Evolution is still controversial there" is really saying more about where you live than it's saying about Americans. The US is a huge society... just their states are larger than a lot of countries, and they themselves get so overwhelmed by their own scale that for a lot of them taking a trip to another state is tantamount to visiting a foriegn land, such that real foriegn lands might as well be on another planet, so you can't peg the whole country that simple...
Not like how you can generalize that in Taiwan or Holland, if a conversation meanders into the topic of human origins, then if the context of the conversation warrents a statement of perspective, one will say something like, "The Bible says it was a seven day creative process", and the other will say, "Oh, well, evolutionary theory says it took seven million years if you set the clock at when it was a chimpanzee-equivalent form", whereupon they both shrug, and carry on the conversation keeping those perspectives of each other in mind if it's necessary to communicate something that's affected by those points of view.
Nor like how if you're in the Yemeni outbacks and the topic comes up, you can know in advance that you have to be very careful about what you say or a hothead will pull out his jambiya and eviscerate you on the spot if you're sounding one iota off a strict literal interpretation of the Qu'ran.
You can't say that America has a "national opinion" on the subject... it's too big... but it *does* have heavily *regionalized* attitudes, which is a function of how Americans pay for education.
They don't collect and redistribute education money on a national or state level... rather, they do it on a county level, so if you're in a poor county, the quality of your schools and teachers can be poor, which means the quality of education can be poor, which means people become more likely to buy into simplistic and "exciting" issues of concern to evangelists and baptists, yet just 30 miles away can be a rich county with lots of money and therefore excellent schools, and in those countys people will think the whole debate of evolution vs creation is just a silly waste of time.
My point is... you can't just say, ""Apparently Evolution is still controversial *there*" when talking about the US. Where in the US? It's a big place (and everyone keeps forgetting that about the US... it's not just powerful because it chose to spend a large percentage of its GDP on military... it's powerful because it's a huge country... if they were all armed with pitchforks it would still be a considerable force...), and the county system of education makes localized attitudes about science and religion *very patchy*.
Voted as best: bunnyphuphu, mysterygirl89
I'm continually surprised that the argument between creationism and evolution is still going on.
This movie will show, but it will be met with protests and complete bans in some towns. Small town theaters still have privately owned theaters and there is a good chance that some of these these owners will not accept the movie.
I think that today, this argument is less about the science of humanity and more about upholding religious values.
I like talking to religious people who acknowledge evolution as a possibility but choose to believe in creationism. It's cool for someone to believe in what they want, but humanity as a whole is expanded when we consider the possibilities. Conversations with these folks can be truly enlightening because they open my deeply rooted opinions on evolution to another view.
This movie will show, but it will be met with protests and complete bans in some towns. Small town theaters still have privately owned theaters and there is a good chance that some of these these owners will not accept the movie.
I think that today, this argument is less about the science of humanity and more about upholding religious values.
I like talking to religious people who acknowledge evolution as a possibility but choose to believe in creationism. It's cool for someone to believe in what they want, but humanity as a whole is expanded when we consider the possibilities. Conversations with these folks can be truly enlightening because they open my deeply rooted opinions on evolution to another view.
voted helpful: cheapgamer, beast1oh1
I strongly disagree that it's cool for people to believe in what they want. When people's beliefs stop being based on reality - actual testable, confirmable stuff - their beliefs can and do become wildly eccentric and counterproductive, often becoming self-blinding and violent.
"I strongly disagree that it's cool for people to believe in what they want."
This is a very interesting point and I believe it's the underlying issue of many volatile issues. From abortion to creationism to well, anything.
I don't presume to be smarter than _anyone_. I may know more about a certain subject, but I know that knowledge is made up of experiences and that I will never have experiences that are identical to anyone else.
Understanding that I'm not smarter than anyone else means that I need to be prepared to understand the beliefs of other people in order to expand my own knowledge. My experience may tell me that what they believe in is incorrect, but since I don't have their experience, I should not discount them as "wrong".
I think that if more people could step back from their own beliefs to look at whatever situation is presented to them that the world would be a better place.
This is a very interesting point and I believe it's the underlying issue of many volatile issues. From abortion to creationism to well, anything.
I don't presume to be smarter than _anyone_. I may know more about a certain subject, but I know that knowledge is made up of experiences and that I will never have experiences that are identical to anyone else.
Understanding that I'm not smarter than anyone else means that I need to be prepared to understand the beliefs of other people in order to expand my own knowledge. My experience may tell me that what they believe in is incorrect, but since I don't have their experience, I should not discount them as "wrong".
I think that if more people could step back from their own beliefs to look at whatever situation is presented to them that the world would be a better place.
It's a matter of whether your beliefs can be tested, whether they have legitimate sources. Here on Mahalo, an answer doesn't usually count for much if you are just venting your opinions and present no sources. A good answer, on Mahalo, is based on good sources as well as thought and analysis. The anti evolution folks rely on total misunderstanding of the issue, obsolete (often 19th century or earlier) sources, and just plain deliberate ignorance. It's not a matter of who is smarter. It's a matter of people not basing their beliefs on testable evidence because they have been brainwashed into thinking faith is better.
This is part of an issue that we won't be able to resolve here Albanian.
I agree with you that facts are important. Everything should be founded clear, reliable evidence. The foundation of religion itself is a belief in something that cannot be proven. This contradiction has be circled around for as long as humanity has existed.
I think that any existential issue such as the argument around creationism vs. evolution is based on the knowledge of an individual who has unique experiences. I understand what you're saying: From your perspective, the facts surrounding this issue may be outdated or completely incorrect. However, to someone who believes in creationism, your facts may be outdated or completely incorrect.
There's no right answer. There's only interpretation based on the experiences of an individual.
If you're experiences tell you that creationism is wrong... that's cool. I may even agree with you. What I don't agree with is that anyone should condemn another person for free thought.
I agree with you that facts are important. Everything should be founded clear, reliable evidence. The foundation of religion itself is a belief in something that cannot be proven. This contradiction has be circled around for as long as humanity has existed.
I think that any existential issue such as the argument around creationism vs. evolution is based on the knowledge of an individual who has unique experiences. I understand what you're saying: From your perspective, the facts surrounding this issue may be outdated or completely incorrect. However, to someone who believes in creationism, your facts may be outdated or completely incorrect.
There's no right answer. There's only interpretation based on the experiences of an individual.
If you're experiences tell you that creationism is wrong... that's cool. I may even agree with you. What I don't agree with is that anyone should condemn another person for free thought.
A recently deceased Islamic leader in Nigeria said in an interview (a few days before he was killed) that not only did his faction not believe in evolution, and not believe in a spherical earth, but it did not believe that rain was caused by evaporation from surface water and condensation in the sky. It just isn't reasonable to say that such beliefs are ok and valid because they reflect his experiences. Religions are based on faith, everyone can have their own. But science does have right and wrong, correct and mistaken. It's an important distinction that is the basis for modern civilization. The world really is spherical. You can launch satellites for telecommunications and gps's and weather photos. You can go up and look for yourself if you can afford it. It's the same for any testable science, it has real world consequences and effects. It's not just a mind game.
Albanian, I think that you and I disagree about a fundamental concept of freedom. In my tiny little ball of a world, people can believe whatever they want.
I may not take action on their beliefs nor recommend that others take action, but once understood, I will try to learn from them non-the-less.
As mentioned, this is a discussion that we won't be able to solve here. You have a viewpoint and I think that's great. Thanks for sharing it. Even if I personally don't agree - it's ok - because (again) in my tiny little ball of a world, I don't presume to be smarter than anyone else and I don't condemn anyone for believing in something I don't.
I may not take action on their beliefs nor recommend that others take action, but once understood, I will try to learn from them non-the-less.
As mentioned, this is a discussion that we won't be able to solve here. You have a viewpoint and I think that's great. Thanks for sharing it. Even if I personally don't agree - it's ok - because (again) in my tiny little ball of a world, I don't presume to be smarter than anyone else and I don't condemn anyone for believing in something I don't.
I'd like to make a few points about Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." (My favorite part of the title is possible implication that he believed some races to be favored.)
First, the idea of natural selection was not invented by Darwin (although he popularized it) and is accepted today by even 6-day creationists. What Darwin brought to the table was the idea that natural selection brought on the origin of species. Thus the title begins "Origin of Species." Of course, Evolutionists believe today that natural selection alone cannot produce new information and that beneficial mutations are necessary. So, Darwin didn't originate the idea of natural selection but merely introduced the incorrect idea that natural selection alone was enough to bring about the origin of species.
No one can scientifically prove how species originated any more than a jury can scientifically prove who murdered whom or scientists can scientifically prove how the pyramids originated. Science does not prove history. Science can tell us the height of a tree, the type of tree, the number of rings, but not who planted it and what time of day it was planted. Be careful not to elevate science to be more than it is.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm
First, the idea of natural selection was not invented by Darwin (although he popularized it) and is accepted today by even 6-day creationists. What Darwin brought to the table was the idea that natural selection brought on the origin of species. Thus the title begins "Origin of Species." Of course, Evolutionists believe today that natural selection alone cannot produce new information and that beneficial mutations are necessary. So, Darwin didn't originate the idea of natural selection but merely introduced the incorrect idea that natural selection alone was enough to bring about the origin of species.
No one can scientifically prove how species originated any more than a jury can scientifically prove who murdered whom or scientists can scientifically prove how the pyramids originated. Science does not prove history. Science can tell us the height of a tree, the type of tree, the number of rings, but not who planted it and what time of day it was planted. Be careful not to elevate science to be more than it is.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm
"I strongly disagree that it's cool for people to believe in what they want."
That's weird. How would you stop them? Got a portable mind-reader with bluetooth in your pack there?
"When people's beliefs stop being based on reality - actual testable, confirmable stuff - their beliefs can and do become wildly eccentric and counterproductive, often becoming self-blinding and violent."
Hmm... you do understand, of course, that even your interpretations of "reality" are based upon belief... right?
i.e. you understand that to say what you just said, you're saying that you believe that what you are percieving is a fair and accurate representation of something that actually exists independant of you, and that your mind is not coming from a brain in a jar in a lab being fed sensory stimuli through electrodes.
And when you say "testable", what you really mean is "repeatable", as in a repeatable experiment, which means what you're really saying is that inductive reasoning will give you deductive knowlege about facts.
Induction is like where you say, "The sun rose yesterday, therefore it will rise tomorrow", and that's the kind of reasoning you're using when repeating an experiement... in fact all of science is based on inductive reasoning, because inductive reasoning is what let's you say with conviction that the laws of physics aren't constantly changing.
And then of course there's the issue of, even if you're in a situation of interpreting experimental results and you can use deductive logic, that you know you're being logical... because the way you test your logic is by using logic, which makes for what's called an circular-argument unanswerable question type situation.
In otherwords, just to state a claim of position in science and testable experimental results to form the foundation of belief, you have to believe three things right off the bat.
In any case, I still don't see how you're going to make people *not* "believe what they want".
Make them? *MAKE* THEM?!? How? Torture?
That's weird. How would you stop them? Got a portable mind-reader with bluetooth in your pack there?
"When people's beliefs stop being based on reality - actual testable, confirmable stuff - their beliefs can and do become wildly eccentric and counterproductive, often becoming self-blinding and violent."
Hmm... you do understand, of course, that even your interpretations of "reality" are based upon belief... right?
i.e. you understand that to say what you just said, you're saying that you believe that what you are percieving is a fair and accurate representation of something that actually exists independant of you, and that your mind is not coming from a brain in a jar in a lab being fed sensory stimuli through electrodes.
And when you say "testable", what you really mean is "repeatable", as in a repeatable experiment, which means what you're really saying is that inductive reasoning will give you deductive knowlege about facts.
Induction is like where you say, "The sun rose yesterday, therefore it will rise tomorrow", and that's the kind of reasoning you're using when repeating an experiement... in fact all of science is based on inductive reasoning, because inductive reasoning is what let's you say with conviction that the laws of physics aren't constantly changing.
And then of course there's the issue of, even if you're in a situation of interpreting experimental results and you can use deductive logic, that you know you're being logical... because the way you test your logic is by using logic, which makes for what's called an circular-argument unanswerable question type situation.
In otherwords, just to state a claim of position in science and testable experimental results to form the foundation of belief, you have to believe three things right off the bat.
In any case, I still don't see how you're going to make people *not* "believe what they want".
Make them? *MAKE* THEM?!? How? Torture?
Regardless of any personal opion about 'evolution vs creation' Charles Darwin had a fascinating life which would make a great movie. The fact that he sat on his theory until asked to peer reivew Russel Wallace's work also sets up an intense situation. Which he ultimately resolved by co-publishing with Wallace.
Ultimately though there will be pickets and protests by a fringe of 'religious' people who believe they are doing the right thing by calling for the film to be banned.
And the cause will then be fought by militant Athesists, holding their copies of Dawkins and completely missing the point.
If its a good movie then both sides should go and watch it, and they should learn something. If their beliefs aren't changed thats fine, but they should leave with a greater understanding of exactly who Charles Darwin was.
I hope it will be shown in the US. I hope that (give or take a few loonies) the American public is mature enough to see this film for what it is, and not be whipped up into a frenzy by the media because its a slow news day.
Ultimately though there will be pickets and protests by a fringe of 'religious' people who believe they are doing the right thing by calling for the film to be banned.
And the cause will then be fought by militant Athesists, holding their copies of Dawkins and completely missing the point.
If its a good movie then both sides should go and watch it, and they should learn something. If their beliefs aren't changed thats fine, but they should leave with a greater understanding of exactly who Charles Darwin was.
I hope it will be shown in the US. I hope that (give or take a few loonies) the American public is mature enough to see this film for what it is, and not be whipped up into a frenzy by the media because its a slow news day.
Hopefully yes, but the film company is so far claiming it won't release the film in the US because of the cranks. Apparently it is a mainstream film that wants the normal big distributors not the little art film sites.
This is a pitiful state of affairs. I'm embarrassed by our educational failure.
In the long run what we need to do is to ban home schooling and schools run by religious organizations, and also to tax religious organizations as the for-profit gambling concerns that they really are. But it would take generations to recover from the damage that has been done even if were to start now.
This is a pitiful state of affairs. I'm embarrassed by our educational failure.
In the long run what we need to do is to ban home schooling and schools run by religious organizations, and also to tax religious organizations as the for-profit gambling concerns that they really are. But it would take generations to recover from the damage that has been done even if were to start now.
I really don’t think there will be much protest. If there is, it will be somebody with an agenda or just wanting their face stuck on television somewhere. Darwin is hardly new and people know what his views were.
Religion in the United States is under attack daily and this is just another shot being fired at it. And no I am not religious but I can see how people of faith are scorned in the United States more and more.
Religion in the United States is under attack daily and this is just another shot being fired at it. And no I am not religious but I can see how people of faith are scorned in the United States more and more.
If they were just going to pray at their temples and giving to the poor and loving their neighbors or any of that stuff they claim to do that's good, there wouldn't be any complaints. But they try to plaster their symbols everywhere, make stuff illegal, and worst of all attack education and science. That's what gets them scorned by other folks. But there are so many, especially in some parts of the country, that they are the ones on the offense, not the secularists.
If their symbols mean so little why do they offend so much? I honestly don't get that at all.
I didn't say anything about their symbols meaning little. They mean a lot to minorities with a history of being oppressed. For example, in the South a cross, especially a burning one, can be bad enough to be considered a hate crime vs blacks. But Jews are also sensitive to Christian symbols being put up in government or public owned places especially. And everyone who is not Christian can only feel that the giant crosses that Southern Christians put up everywhere are an attempt to intimidate them. It's one thing having religious symbols in your church or temple, another thing putting up 100 ft tall symbols along the highway. It's not illegal, but it sure is offensive.
Thanks that gives me something to think about.
According to The Internet Movie Database, as of yet the movie about Charles Darwin "Creation" has no release date for the United States. However, the movie does have a two working titles in the USA: "Origin" and "Untitled Charles Darwin Project". This indicates that it could be in the future.
I hope that helped. Have a nice day.
I hope that helped. Have a nice day.
voted helpful: jeffhoard
It did, thanks for providing the link too
You're very welcome Jeffhoard. I am glad I could help.
Okay..umm I was just going to answer the question but wow it really got interesting.
I hope the movie shows in the US. I'm pretty sure it will and I'm pretty sure I'll buy it as soon as it's available.
As far as other people's beliefs go, I do believe they are entitled to believe and think what they want as long as their actions cause no pain to anyone else. I also think it's arrogant of anyone to try to push their beliefs on others. The beliefs aren't the problem. The actions are.
I don't need science to prove anything to me for me to have my own belief system. To me, that's what faith is all about. That's me and will continue to be me no matter how much someone tries to shove their crap down my throat. And you can bet I won't be shoving mine down theirs. I do believe that people should worship privately instead of trying to make a display of it. That's just attention seeking behavior and can be nauseating.
My son and I both enjoy science and sadly enough, I enjoy it only because the facts entertain me and enlighten me. I do think that science is in some ways an offense to God and what He intended for us. Seriously..as far as I can tell, all we were supposed to do was ensure the survival of the species. Now, we play God ourselves because of our knowledge. It kinda makes me sick.
I hope the movie shows in the US. I'm pretty sure it will and I'm pretty sure I'll buy it as soon as it's available.
As far as other people's beliefs go, I do believe they are entitled to believe and think what they want as long as their actions cause no pain to anyone else. I also think it's arrogant of anyone to try to push their beliefs on others. The beliefs aren't the problem. The actions are.
I don't need science to prove anything to me for me to have my own belief system. To me, that's what faith is all about. That's me and will continue to be me no matter how much someone tries to shove their crap down my throat. And you can bet I won't be shoving mine down theirs. I do believe that people should worship privately instead of trying to make a display of it. That's just attention seeking behavior and can be nauseating.
My son and I both enjoy science and sadly enough, I enjoy it only because the facts entertain me and enlighten me. I do think that science is in some ways an offense to God and what He intended for us. Seriously..as far as I can tell, all we were supposed to do was ensure the survival of the species. Now, we play God ourselves because of our knowledge. It kinda makes me sick.
It should be viewed as a movie with some story.. So I think that this movie will be released anywhere in the world..
"Why Creation, the new Charles Darwin movie, needs to be shown in America "
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/lucyjones/100003210/why-creation-the-new-charles-darwin-movie-needs-to-be-shown-in-america/
"Creation, a film about the evolution of On the Origin of Species, is a period drama which will be released in Britain next week. The producers have so far been unable to secure a distribution deal in America. Why? For fear of offending creationists."
"Why Creation, the new Charles Darwin movie, needs to be shown in America "
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/lucyjones/100003210/why-creation-the-new-charles-darwin-movie-needs-to-be-shown-in-america/
"Creation, a film about the evolution of On the Origin of Species, is a period drama which will be released in Britain next week. The producers have so far been unable to secure a distribution deal in America. Why? For fear of offending creationists."
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
