Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

by leavingwt 29 Replies latest social current

  • JWoods

    There were (almost forgotten now) various semi-valid scientific theories which were precursors to Darwin.

    Again, like that special on Einstein and God, this kind of speculation (Darwin doing the theory because he hated God over the death of the daughter) really cheapen his integrity as a scientist - which was in fact a great one.

    It is sad to me to see Creationists stoop to attacks on the man himself (the ad hominem) rather than meeting the ideas scientifically.

    This cheapens only Creationism, not valid scientific discovery.

  • Caedes


    The film will hopefully portray Darwin as he actually was rather than the caricuture that your fundie websites use. All of the quote mining that supports the idea that Darwin was racist has long since been discredited.


    I am a Christian that plans on watching this movie. Of course, I expect it to be completely without substance, and lacking in any historical most Hollywood treaments of history are.

  • shamus100

    mining that supports the idea that Darwin was racist has long since been discredited

    Most people were back then - so what if its true? Some U.S. presidents were racist too. Big deal. The past is past.

    No doubt the fundie morons will make some big debacle out of the issue, and boycott the distributor. That's the crux of the matter - not who did the botany when.

    Thank goodness I live in a place that isn't overrun by fundies - just marmots.

  • BurnTheShips

    THE DARWIN MOVIE’S NOT SELLING, but John Scalzi doubts those evil Creationmongers are the reason:

    A producer of Creation, the film about Charles Darwin and his wife Emma, starring Paul Bettany and his real-life wife Jennifer Connelly, is griping that the film has no distributor in the US, apparently because so many Americans are evolution-hating mouth-breathers that no one wants the touch the thing; it’s just too darn controversial.

    Well, it may be that. Alternately, and leaving aside any discussion of the actual quality of the film, it may be that a quiet story about the difficult relationship between an increasingly agnostic 19th Century British scientist and his increasingly devout wife, thrown into sharp relief by the death of their beloved 10-year-old daughter, performed by mid-list stars, is not exactly the sort of film that’s going to draw in a huge winter holiday crowd, regardless of whether that scientist happens to be Darwin or not, and that these facts are rather more pertinent, from a potential distributor’s point of view. . . . Maybe if Charles Darwin were played by Will Smith, was a gun-toting robot sent back from the future to learn how to love, and to kill the crap out of the alien baby eaters cleverly disguised as Galapagos tortoises, and then some way were contrived for Jennifer Connelly to expose her breasts to RoboDarwin two-thirds of the way through the film, and there were explosions and lasers and stunt men flying 150 feet into the air, then we might be talking wide-release from a modern major studio. Otherwise, you know, not so much. The “oh, it’s too controversial for Americans” comment is, I suspect, a bit of face-saving rationalization from a producer

  • JWoods

    I like it, BTS!!! Maybe we can get Snowbird to work it into her new novel -

    "It was a dark and stormy morning on board the Beagle...all the watersoaked timbers were creaking and groaning..."

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog


    quote mining that supports the idea that Darwin was racist has long since been discredited.

    What's the matter? You can't love him warts and all?

  • bohm

    I think you guys are really great people, but how the f#ck did you guys ever go to the moon??? ;-) .

    ps: The evolution of the eye is a very interesting story in science, and something you will hear brought up from time to time. My advice: Try to get them to commit to something quantitative, like 'evolutionists have no idea how the eye evolved", then bet a bottle of beer they are wrong. You can start here:

  • VoidEater

    An indictment against Political Correctness - we can't show it because it's divisive?

    A scourge of the The Right - we can't show it because fundies have too much control?

    A comment on the American Intellect - we can't show it because there's not enough 'splosions?

    Where's Michael Bay when you need him?

  • Caedes


    What's the matter? You can't love him warts and all?

    Darwin's personal opinions make no difference to the validity of the scientific facts he researched. So even if your allegations were true (which they are not) it would make no difference to the fact that evolution by natural selection is true. I notice you neglected to back up your allegations with anything factual, I take it that means you are conceding your allegations are entirely devoid of merit?

Share this