Feed on Posts or Comments 23 December 2014

Christianity Thomas on 14 Sep 2009 12:10 am

Sad – evolution movie can’t be shown in U.S.

Shocking. Sad. Pathetic:

Charles Darwin film ‘too controversial for religious America’

Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin’s “struggle between faith and reason” as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.

The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

28 Responses to “Sad – evolution movie can’t be shown in U.S.”

  1. on 14 Sep 2009 at 8:38 am 1.odszkodowania said …

    Interesting

  2. on 14 Sep 2009 at 9:17 pm 2.Rodney said …

    No worries. Soon, evolutionary theory will be as common as the earth orbiting the sun.

  3. on 14 Sep 2009 at 10:38 pm 3.Bishop said …

    It might be that is just won’t produce revenues. I can assure you, if it would make money, it would be here. It just isn’t entertaining.

    American buy into evolution as theory, they just don’t but into ALL of it as fact. They do buy into gravity because it is observable, macroevolution is not. Americans are critical thinkers and believe there is more to life than mere chance all evolving from nothing.

  4. on 15 Sep 2009 at 12:55 am 4.Denis Loubet said …

    The struggle for survival isn’t entertaining?

    “Americans are critical thinkers and believe there is more to life than mere chance all evolving from nothing.”

    Critical thinkers? Are you serious? Which America are you talking about, it’s not the one that has Britney Spears and Ghost Hunters is it?

    A critical thinker would question your assumption that there’s more to life than mere chance evolving from nothing. And if the critical thinker researched the subject, they would be aghast at your deliberate and petty mischaracterization of evolution.

  5. on 15 Sep 2009 at 1:19 am 5.Bishop said …

    “The struggle for survival isn’t entertaining?”

    Maybe if Clint Eastwood is on the screen. For a species, no, which is why Nova was on the tube and not at the movies.

    “Which America are you talking about?”

    Which one do you live in? Americans are not buying ALL of it because it is not logical. Something never comes from nothing….ever. Unless you do have an example?

    “they would be aghast at your deliberate and petty mischaracterization of evolution”

    Sorry, need a quote there not just some generalization you made up. Thinkers don’t buy into something just because a scientist tells them it might or could be so. Sounds a lot like religion.

  6. on 15 Sep 2009 at 5:19 pm 6.Denis Loubet said …

    “…chance all evolving from nothing.” and “Something never comes from nothing…ever.”

    Neither of these statements has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. Yet you pretending that they do. Why?

    You already granted the theory of evolution explanatory power when you offered your microevolution comment. Even if I bought into your micro-macro dichotomy, macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution, there’s no difference in mechanism.

    And if we, for some unknown reason, were to agree with your claim that “Something never comes from nothing…ever.” we would be forced to apply the same rule to the god character of the bible. I don’t think you would approve of that.

  7. on 15 Sep 2009 at 8:35 pm 7.Bishop said …

    “Neither of these statements has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. Yet you pretending that they do. Why?”

    Sure it does. How did evolution begin? Got to go to the beginning when life first supposedly formed from…

    “macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution, there’s no difference in mechanism.”

    In theory yes, in evidence no. I can swim an Olympic size poll 10 times but I cannot swim the Pacific. Same mecahnism but one I can prove the other I cannot.

    “we would be forced to apply the same rule to the god character of the bible.”

    Why are you changing the subject by bringing in religion? Is it because you are acknowldging naturilitic theories cannot provide the answer?

  8. on 15 Sep 2009 at 10:12 pm 8.STEVE-O said …

    Bishop, are you trying to say that something can’t come from nothing? If so then I have to assume you are an Creationist. Humans have come up with a “creator” to fit our needs for a explanation of our existing. The creator must’ve created itself , or are we the 1 in 1 seqtrillion chance that a recognizable life form could exist by itself. (to our limited intellect of course, our brains may not be capable of knowing all there can be in this corner of the universe)
    “Question boldly the existance of God” T Jefferson.

  9. on 16 Sep 2009 at 3:05 am 9.Denis Loubet said …

    What happened before evolution started is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution. Only when existing matter came together in a pattern that allowed for the exercise of selection to make subsequent patterns more suitable to their environment is the ToE invoked. Get that? Existing matter. Life is just a specific arrangement of existing matter. Something did not have to appear out of nothing.

    So the answer to your ellipsis is: “Go to the beginning when life supposedly evolved from…” …existing matter.

    Your argument by analogy is entertaining. Of course it’s like arguing that sure, seconds and maybe minutes can pass, but certainly not hours. Look, you can’t even see the hour hand move! It’s impossible!

    “we would be forced to apply the same rule to the god character of the bible.”
    Why are you avoiding the question? It’s not a non-sequitur since your answer will provide a measure of just how serious you are about your claim that something cannot come from nothing, ever. This claim relates directly to the issue at hand.

  10. on 16 Sep 2009 at 11:35 am 10.Bishop said …

    “Go to the beginning when life supposedly evolved from…” …existing matter.”

    See, the word supposedly in your argument. Evolution if full of that. OK, you are dancing all around the real question. First, where did this supposed “existing” matter originate? Second, since when does “Life” form from lifeless matter? Just more speculation. The question is the very foundation of macro. Nobody disputes the micro.

    “Why are you avoiding the question?”

    What question? You brought God into the argument. I’m discussing evolution and why Americans are not sold and I never stated one argument FOR God. Why the obsession to talk God and not this theory?

    “Question boldly the existance of God” T Jefferson.”

    Not just God Steve. Everything. Of course, you quote a dead-beat father who died penniless so just maybe he should have questioned his own motivations.

    “Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.” Bernhard Haisch

  11. on 16 Sep 2009 at 5:22 pm 11.STEVE-O said …

    Regarding dying penniless, didn’t he free his slaves at his death? Most slave owners were not penniless and even if he was a “horse beater” and a “swearer”,(political campaigns were soo civil then), he was a progressive president. He and that liberal socialist B. Franklin. Two of the most important of our founders would be disparaged by today’s “conservative parties”. Since when was dying rich a virtue? Camels eyes and all that. I seem to remember another famous person who died penniless and some still worship him. But that was soo B.C. Interesting comments though. Later.

  12. on 16 Sep 2009 at 9:26 pm 12.Denis Loubet said …

    Yes, we often use words like supposedly, we’re not interested in hiding our ignorance behind a show of unjustified certainty. Abiogenesis is still a matter undergoing forensic examination and we do not have all the answers.

    I’m not dancing, if you wanted to know about how the universe came to be, then you should have asked that question instead of one about evolution.

    Where did the existing matter come from? I don’t know, and neither do you. So why did you ask? That question has nothing to do with evolution.

    And when does life form from lifeless matter? You want an example of when? How about every day. I do it, you do it, everyone does it. It’s called digestion, where lifeless matter is taken into our bodies and arranged into living tissue. So OBVIOUSLY non living matter can become living matter. And even though digestion wasn’t exactly what you were looking for, it does establish without a doubt that lifeless matter can, through a natural chemical process, become living tissue.

    So, I can say, without fear of contradiction, that lifeless matter can be converted into living matter through natural chemical processes. It’s NOT speculation.

    And the question you framed has nothing to do with macro-evolution. It has to do with abiogenesis.

    And if you are unable to answer my question about your claim that something can never come from nothing, that’s ok, I didn’t really expect you to be able to.

  13. on 17 Sep 2009 at 12:44 am 13.Bishop said …

    Living systems do, of course, harness energy for this purpose, but only because the required, purposefully assembled metabolic machinery is already in place and functioning. That is not the creation of life, but rather the support thereof.

    A step futher, can you provide any proof that life originated on a lifelss planet 4.5 billiuon years ago? This is the foundation for evolution, the first step if you will.

    I’m not even arguing it did not, I am arguing there is no proof that the event did take place and the real truth is supposedly something beyond natural processes. It is not science that requires a theory of evolution but rather a prior materialist belief.

    Now your question. Are claiming there is no proof God created? I agree, just like there is no proof chance created. No argument there. I didn’t believe we had a difference of opinion there.

  14. on 17 Sep 2009 at 6:21 am 14.Denis Loubet said …

    No, digestion is the creation of living matter via the re-arrangement of dead matter. Dead matter becomes living matter. It’s irrelevant that it happens to support a living system.

    Proof with 100% certainty? Of course not. But there is evidence that points towards life originating on a lifeless planet 4.5 billion years ago. The most obvious of which is a clear progression towards simpler and simpler life forms the deeper into the past we go. From this we are justified in concluding that life arose from even simpler replicating molecular structures, to the point where simple chemistry makes their emergence almost inevitable.

    You say the real truth is supposedly beyond natural processes, but offer no evidence to support that claim. Science does not have a prior materialist belief, it simply has no reason or evidence to suggest anything else. To posit a supernatural explanation for an event would be to simply Make Something Up. That method has been tried and found wanting.

    I’m sorry but I cannot parse your last paragraph. I do not understand what you’re trying to say. If it’s about my question, my question was in response to your claim that Something Cannot Come From Nothing, Ever. I asked if you would apply that same rule to the existence of your god. I could be wrong, but I suspect that according to you, your god will receive special treatment that exempts it from your rule. Your willingness to apply the rule to your god’s existence will measure your commitment to the rule.

  15. on 17 Sep 2009 at 5:02 pm 15.Woolley said …

    I am enjoying this back and forth immensely. I can see that the first cause rational is really the debating topic. If logic can get you to claim that the ultimate first cause is unknowable, why would you then create an answer that strays from this logical progression by creating a barrier to the further pursuit of first cause logic? In other words, if one must ask what happened before there was nothing, then you can either say “I have no clue and it may be unknowable or perhaps there never was nothing” or you can say “I cannot live my life with such a question hanging over me so I will create an answer with no other basis than my own incredulity as support and then I will stop asking what came before because it makes me feel special”. Isn’t this entire issue a relic of our primitive minds inability to grasp certain things?

  16. on 17 Sep 2009 at 5:32 pm 16.T said …

    Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologists finds. Instead you find finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.”

  17. on 18 Sep 2009 at 12:29 am 17.Bishop said …

    Digestion is biochemical putrefaction of organic matter which is consequently broken down into molecules that are usable by cells. Viruses by many are not even considered life so how you can attempt to use this as an example mind numbing.

    “Proof with 100% certainty? Of course not. But there is evidence that points towards life originating on a lifeless planet 4.5 billion years ago.”

    The sun rising in the morning is not even 100% so I certainly wouldn’t expect you to go with that figure. So what would you percentage be?

    “life arose from even simpler replicating molecular structures, to the point where simple chemistry makes their emergence almost inevitable.”

    Really? Because of the fossil record? The fossil record actually is one of the weaker points in macroevolution. It does not support your speculation any more than is supports God creating in the beginning. We have those who argue both sides when in reality both are speculation.

    “You say the real truth is supposedly beyond natural processes, but offer no evidence to support that claim.”

    Really? I have the same evidence you have. How about the Big Bang which defies naturalistic explanation. Where did the matter originate? How about the very theory of macroevolution? If true, the complexity and precision from the nano to the macro defies mathematical probability. The evidence is open to interpretation.

    “Science does not have a prior materialist belief, it simply has no reason or evidence to suggest anything else.”

    Sure it does. Your answer just proved it. Science is incapable of looking at possibilities beyond the natural realm. That is the nature of the beast. Don’t sweat it, scince is searching for ETs so I suspect they believe there is more as well.

    “I asked if you would apply that same rule to the existence of your god.”

    My God? What god would that be? I think you confuse me with the wrong Bishop. Since you question is moot, yeah, sure go for it.

  18. on 18 Sep 2009 at 3:21 am 18.Denis Loubet said …

    Unless you weigh exactly the same as you did as a newborn, you have to admit that some of the putrefied organic matter you’ve eaten during your life now constitutes your living tissues. Usable by cells means incorporated into cells to become living tissue. It’s not just fuel, its mass is transformed into your living body. The dead matter becomes living tissue.

    I rate the probability quite high. Prior to 4.5 billion years, no life, after 4.5 billion years, life. That seems a pretty straightforward interpretation of the evidence that posits no additional unevidenced entities.

    “The fossil record actually is one of the weaker points in macroevolution.” No it isn’t.

    “It does not support your speculation any more than is supports God creating in the beginning.” Yes it does.

    Ordinarily I like to back my responses like those last two, but since you didn’t feel the need to back up your claims, I figure why waste the time.

    “How about the Big Bang which defies naturalistic explanation.” Prove it defies naturalistic explanation. “Where did the matter originate?” I don’t know, but I refuse to Make Something Up to hide my ignorance.

    “How about the very theory of macroevolution? If true, the complexity and precision from the nano to the macro defies mathematical probability.” No it doesn’t.

    “Sure it does.” No it doesn’t. Science is perfectly capable of looking at possibilities beyond the natural realm. To date, such examinations have never provided positive results.

    The search for extraterrestrial intelligence has a few data points that supernaturalism doesn’t have. There is an example that proves that intelligent live can live on a planet orbiting a sun. Us. A simple and obvious extrapolation from that evidence is not unjustified.

    If you are not a theist, I abjectly apologize for my assumption that you were. You correctly surmised that I misconstrued your handle for that of a theist. I hope you will forgive me.

  19. on 18 Sep 2009 at 10:50 am 19.Bishop said …

    I think my point is proven. You have forced naturlstic preconceptions on the evidence which science must do. The evidence could fit a multitude of possibilities while the propabilities of time and random chance bringing about such complexity are astronomical and improbable.

    I understand the theories need and its limits. It is the best we can do for now. I have no doubt another century from now macroevolution will be in the trash heap along with bleeding and flat earth.

  20. on 18 Sep 2009 at 3:35 pm 20.Denis Loubet said …

    “I think my point is proven.” No, your point isn’t proven.

    “You have forced naturlstic preconceptions on the evidence which science must do.” No, I have not forced a naturalistic preconception on the evidence. The fact is that no supernatural mechanism has presented itself. If we regularly observed a god creating life ex-nilio, a god would constitute a reasonable and scientific explanation. But such things have not been observed.

    We do not presume a supernatural explanation for events for the same reason we do not, for instance, assume the naturalistic explanation that gravity is due to alien gravity generators installed in the core of all planets and stars. We have not observed an alien gravity generator, and so that explanation is not on the table. That does not mean we force an anti-alien-gravity-generator preconception on the issue, because the moment we DO observe an alien gravity generator, that explanation will then be on the table.

    “…while the propabilities of time and random chance bringing about such complexity are astronomical and improbable.” Then it’s a good thing that the universe happens to be astronomical, and the time frame allows for the improbable.

    “I understand the theories need and its limits.” Is that really for you to say? You have not shown that you understand it.

    “I have no doubt another century from now macroevolution will be in the trash heap along with bleeding and flat earth.” A century from now, eh? That’s a courageous stance.

  21. on 18 Sep 2009 at 5:37 pm 21.Bishop said …

    “But such things have not been observed.”

    Really?, neither has macoeveolution but you take it as fact. That is quite a leap for something that has been observed. You don’t have a simple understanding of the observable vs. interpreted.

    “gravity is due to alien gravity generators”

    Once again you fail to understand. We study, test and observe gravity in the here and now. Huge advantage.

    “Then it’s a good thing that the universe happens to be astronomical, and the time frame allows for the improbable.”

    Oh, yes I forgot time & chance expalin all. Sounds much like “God did it” to me. Once again, mere specualtion.

    “A century from now, eh? That’s a courageous stance.”

    Why? The existing theories have no real substance. You take macroeeavolution and I’ll take the field. Is it a bet?

  22. on 18 Sep 2009 at 9:07 pm 22.Aphanes said …

    “It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.” My only real issue with this film is the depiction of Darwin as a man who created his theory as a consequence of his loss of faith in god. In reality, I suspect most western scientists were probably brought up in some form of religious environment, but rejected the god hypothesis through their own education and environmental observations. As they became more aware of science and logic, the god creator hypothesis becomes more and more improbable. As a scientist, I didn’t need the stimulus of a crisis of faith or a dramatic event for me to conclude that religions in general and gods in particular have no value in describing the universe in which I find myself. I suspect Darwin also came to his conclusions through valid observation and scientific reason. It’s a pity the film needed a dramatic enhancement to the true wonder of his actual leap forward in terms of human knowledge.

  23. on 19 Sep 2009 at 5:52 am 23.Denis Loubet said …

    “Really?, neither has macoeveolution but you take it as fact.”

    Incorrect. Macroevolution has been observed. Escherichia coli was observed to evolve an entirely new feature wherein it could utilize citrate as a carbon source. This is detailed at:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

    In addition, the observation of the fossil record is a forensic examination of the changes in populations of life forms over time. If you are prepared to abandon the entire concept of forensics, you are welcome to, but I will not follow you into that darkness.

    Indeed, technically every observation is a forensic examination. If we observe an event, it happened in the past. For instance, light takes time to travel from any event to our eyes, and be re-constructed into the image we see. It is the same with any observation to a greater or lesser extent. So the difference between a paleontological study and a crime-scene forensic examination is quantitative in nature, not qualitative. They are both a reconstruction of past events utilizing current evidence.

    “We study, test and observe gravity in the here and now. Huge advantage.” Not so! Alien technology is interfering with the studies and observations in the here and now, and forcing the results it wants! See how well Making Something Up works? It can explain anything, provide an ad-hoc rationalization for any insane idea.

    No, Time, chance, and selection explain it all. And we can observe time, chance, and selection. We can’t seem to observe a god, so we don’t use it in our explanations. The moment science does observe a god in action, it will have to accommodate and include that new entity in its explanations.

    Sorry, the courageous stance comment was a sarcastic rejoinder meant to highlight the idea that it’s pretty lame to construct a claim that guarantees you won’t be around to accept the humiliation if you’re wrong. That’s often seen as cowardly, or insincere.

  24. on 19 Sep 2009 at 7:13 pm 24.Bishop said …

    ‘Escherichia coli was observed to evolve an entirely new feature wherein it could utilize citrate as a carbon source.”

    Again, you seem to have no concept here. Plain and simple, it is still bacteria. That is called a mutation on a mico scale and is observed all the time. Great Danes vs Yorkies? I suppose lactose intolerant individuals are a new species?

    Look here, another explanation of this, not proven, that contradicts your article. More speculation…. http://creation.com/observations-of-evolution-point-to-an-ingenious-designer

    “Alien technology is interfering with the studies and observations in the here and now, and forcing the results it wants!”

    SO now you are making up a new unsupported accusation? DO you have proof? I have made up nothing, I am the skeptic..remember?

    “We can’t seem to observe a god, so we don’t use it in our explanations.”

    Way off track again. Neither have I……then again how do you know he hasn’t been observed? How would you know if he had been? What would you look for?

    “It’s pretty lame to construct a claim that guarantees you won’t be around to accept the humiliation if you’re wrong.

    Humiliation if I am wrong? C’mon I picked the Michigan Notre Dame game wrong tis past week! I don’t take this nearly as seriously as you. You get the evidence and I’ll join the rank an file. I have the field, therefore I am not too concerned.

  25. on 20 Sep 2009 at 2:07 am 25.Denis Loubet said …

    “Great Danes vs Yorkies? I suppose lactose intolerant individuals are a new species?”

    No. Great Danes and Yorkies all contain the same features, the difference being size and proportion. The issue with the e-coli is that it evolved a new feature that no e-coli possesses. Is a creature that looks like a dog, but eats aluminum, a dog? How about one that has six legs, is that creature a dog? Exactly how different do they have to be to curb your enthusiasm to move the goalposts? Are you looking for a croc-o-duck?

    “Look here, another explanation of…”

    Oh.

    Crap.

    You’re a fundamentalist Christian creationist. Damn. I have to hand it to you man, you sucked me in hook line and sinker. Well done.

    I really need to trust my instincts more, but I just have this optimistic view of human nature that makes me vulnerable to this kind of Unbiased Debater act. Plus I’m out of practice, I haven’t been arguing with theists online for years, or I would have seen through your performance right off the bat.

    But no excuses, you got me. You got me good. Kudos!

    My hat’s off to you, have fun! :-)

  26. on 20 Sep 2009 at 10:45 am 26.Bishop said …

    Wow, I knew it! I knew as soon as I put out the POV of another argument I would be credited with its origination. You are such a lemming. Anyone who is skeptical of a theory must be a creationist! No wonder the new two party system spends all their time arguing who is right.

    And look at me, I actually attempted to have a discussion with one of them I should known better, must be the age also all with reading glasses sneaking up on me.

    Denis, I never argue with any of you therefore I should have know better. I’m going back to my 3 legged dog and lactose intolerant wife.

    “I learned my lesson well, you can’t please everybody so ya got to please youself” Nelson

  27. on 20 Sep 2009 at 5:42 pm 27.Lou said …

    Denis is a guy you are better off ignoring. Check out his lame accusations on this post below. You cannot communicate with this type of individual.

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=800

  28. on 25 Sep 2009 at 4:51 pm 28.STEVE-O said …

    “Denis is a guy you are better off ignoring”, Especially for Lou. This is a Monty Python skit with two appendages already gone- is that all you got? I think Denis proves his points with your own words.
    As for Denis, have you never considered the heliocentric theory? Gravity is a myth created by pseudo scientists to explain they’re ludicrous theory that the earth rotates around the sun when the Bible clearly states that the earth is the center of the universe. Liberal scientists like Galileo tried back then to take the Bible out of the public school system and look where it’s gotten us. The truth is the earth does not rotate. The universe rotates around us and all those NASA pictures are part of the secular humanist atheistic democratic mindwahing of which you are an unknowing supplicant!

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply