Fundamentalism! FMOB! Can humans evolve any further?

#1
This from the New York Times:

A New Screen Test for Imax: It's the Bible vs. the Volcano
By CORNELIA DEAN

Published: March 19, 2005


The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.

Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.

The number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer, most in the South. But because only a few dozen Imax theaters routinely show science documentaries, the decisions of a few can have a big impact on a film's bottom line - or a producer's decision to make a documentary in the first place.

People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.

"Volcanoes," released in 2003 and sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation and Rutgers University, has been turned down at about a dozen science centers, mostly in the South, said Dr. Richard Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer who was chief scientist for the film. He said theater officials rejected the film because of its brief references to evolution, in particular to the possibility that life on Earth originated at the undersea vents.

Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."

In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."

On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass.

"If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she said, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to show it.

In interviews, officials at other Imax theaters said they had similarly decided against the film for fear of offending some audiences.

"We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public," said Lisa Buzzelli, who directs the Charleston Imax Theater in South Carolina, a commercial theater next to the Charleston Aquarium. Her theater had not ruled out ever showing "Volcanoes," Ms. Buzzelli said, "but being in the Bible Belt, the movie does have a lot to do with evolution, and we weigh that carefully."

Pietro Serapiglia, who handles distribution for the producer Stephen Low of Montreal, whose company made the film, said officials at other theaters told him they could not book the movie "for religious reasons," because it had "evolutionary overtones" or "would not go well with the Christian community" or because "the evolution stuff is a problem."

Hyman Field, who as a science foundation official had a role in the financing of "Volcanoes," said he understood that theaters must be responsive to their audiences. But Dr. Field he said he was "furious" that a science museum would decide not to show a scientifically accurate documentary like "Volcanoes" because it mentioned evolution.

"It's very alarming," he said, "all of this pressure being put on a lot of the public institutions by the fundamentalists."


Is it just my imagination or are the Spams trying to climb back into the womb? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Makes me look at 'Whacko' Jacko in and entirely new light; comparative sanity! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
#2
Won't everyone look silly when someone proves creationism and evolution walk hand in hand.
 
#3
No, because the only people who could possibly prove it either way are the dead, and they aren't very talkative.

It is ironic that god-botherers have no compunction about ramming through their own unprovable theories as fact but object to anything that might possibly suggest an alternative. Mind you, the medieval church used to say "An open mind is the Devil's playground". It's always nice to see that the right people left on the Mayflower.

I really don't see how these places can call themselves "Science" museums if they won't even consider the most likely scientific explanation . Science should be about examining the evidence and arriving at an independant theory, not rehashing the creation myths of ancient nomads.

Finally, anyone who believes in creation or intelligent design should study equine anatomy because if god "designed" horses he wants the sack.
 
#4
No, science is no more capable of definitively "proving" any of the theories put forward by Scientists.

It takes faith on both sides of the argument.

You'll know for sure when you are dead.
 
#5
I personally have no faith in evolution, to do so would be bad science, but it is the theory of best fit and the most useful theory for understanding the biological sciences. The problem that many religious types have is getting it out of their heads that humanity (and therefore themselves) is not the be all and end all of the universe, I think that they find the idea that they are not "special" difficult to cope with.
 
#6
Bladensburg said:
I really don't see how these places can call themselves "Science" museums if they won't even consider the most likely scientific explanation . Science should be about examining the evidence and arriving at an independant theory, not rehashing the creation myths of ancient nomads.
Mind you - an Imax screen is a very big and expensive target and the likely objectors would do more than just cook the family bunny
 
#7
Evolution applies to ideas just as much as it does to species.

If you just sit there thinking 'I'm right; they're wrong!' then don't be too surprised if something taps you on the shoulder and says,
'Move over, mate; I'm taking over!', whether it's a superior set of genes or a micro-organism.

I know that there are going to be screams of outrage, when I say what I am about to, but consider this:-

Once you start to keep people alive, in the face of conditions, that would otherwise have killed them before they were old enough to reproduce, then you put a brake on the natural evolution of the species.

I know that people will do everything thay can to keep a premature baby alive; who can blame them for that?

I know that some will point to an individual, like Stephen Hawking, and say that 'Look what he has managed to do, despite his condition?' and this too is undeniable.

However, if the conditions that cause babies to be born prematurely and the condition that has crippled Stephen Hawking were able to be detected and corrected, before ever they were conceived, then you will have removed that misery from their lives.

If, however, you declare a moratorium on stem-cell research and genetic 'surgery' (manipulation in other words), which when successful would eventually lead to the elimination of such disorders, you are in effect condemning the human race to a dead-end future where the misery of preventable disease and deformity is the norm.

The fundamentalists/creationists throw in hysterical and emotive red-herrings, such as 'designer babies' and work on the fears of largely impressionable and ignorant people.

Me? I'd rather see a human race full of healthy, happy people who don't have to worry about sticking a needle into their arms twice a day to boost their insulin levels; who don't have to watch their children sucking on asthma inhalers.

I'd like to save people having to watch their premature baby's chest being battered by a respirator to keep it breathing. Believe me, it's a bloody brutal sight and I would cheerfully have redesigned that baby, just to save my step-daughter all that misery before the poor little beggar died!

God's will?

If that's the God of the fundamentalist/creationist crowd, then they can take him and shove him up their collective fundamentalist fundaments!

They'll be welcome to their God!

Thank Darwin he's not my God!
 
#8
If creation is so bl00dy brilliant then why is our breathing orifices above our lungs. It means that any untreated ENT infection leads to a lun infection. If it was below our lungs they would be self draining! Could it be because we evolved from four legged animals?

T0ssers the lot of them!
 
#9
What do you mean the earth is round !"!!

Don't be so proposterous. The only thing that is round is the sun and that revolves around the earth just so that we may sleep in the dark.
 
#11
Don't forget, IMAX theatres are businesses. They aren't going to book movies that people in the community they are located in aren't going to pay to see. So they have test audiences to determine the financial feasibilty.
That's all it comes down to.
 
#12
OldAdam said:
Evolution applies to ideas just as much as it does to species.

If you just sit there thinking 'I'm right; they're wrong!' then don't be too surprised if something taps you on the shoulder and says,
'Move over, mate; I'm taking over!', whether it's a superior set of genes or a micro-organism.
The idea of the evolution of thought or ideas is described as the 'meme' nominally a unit of cultural inheritance. first used as a thought experiment to explain how human culture is independant of the humans that carry it, as a corollary to the life of the gene being independant of the life of the organism.

OldAdam also said:
Once you start to keep people alive, in the face of conditions, that would otherwise have killed them before they were old enough to reproduce, then you put a brake on the natural evolution of the species.

The amount of evolutionary pressure, or the speed of evolutionary change can be measured (quite aptly it's unit is the 'Darwin'). where the enviorment is harsh, or where few individuals survive to reproduce evolution is, on a geologic scale, swift.

Where as above, almost all individuals survive to reproductive age, and the environment is benign, there is still pressure and evolution still continues. a brake yes, but not a stop.
 
#13
AndyPipkin said:
'The Da Vinci Code' and 'The Davinci Code Decoded' should be required reading for any Christian fundamentalist.
Why? Six of one and half a dozen of the other IMO. It's never going to change anyone's mind. That's just two belief systems, both of which have their points. Do you honestly belief that if every Christian fundamentalist read 'The Da Vinci Code' they would stop banner waving outside your local IMAX and go:

"Blimey, Jesus got married, I'm off home to smoke pot and have sex with my gerbil" ?

The Da Vinci code outlines a side issue, not an underlying principle.
 
#14
the da vinci Code is a NOVEL shock horror but if it annoys god bothers better order half a dozen :twisted: .
roll on space colonys we can leave these fools behind :twisted:
 
#15
DVC is a novel but contains many interesting facts. DVC Decoded is entirely factual.

'The Life of Brian' is actually a good deal closer to the truth about Jesus than the New Testament.
 
#16
AndyPipkin said:
'The Life of Brian' is actually a good deal closer to the truth about Jesus than the New Testament.
And is fecking funny to boot!! One of the funniest films ever made IMHO
 
#17
Techtechtech said:
OldAdam said:
Evolution applies to ideas just as much as it does to species.

If you just sit there thinking 'I'm right; they're wrong!' then don't be too surprised if something taps you on the shoulder and says,
'Move over, mate; I'm taking over!', whether it's a superior set of genes or a micro-organism.
The idea of the evolution of thought or ideas is described as the 'meme' nominally a unit of cultural inheritance. first used as a thought experiment to explain how human culture is independant of the humans that carry it, as a corollary to the life of the gene being independant of the life of the organism.


OldAdam also said:
Once you start to keep people alive, in the face of conditions, that would otherwise have killed them before they were old enough to reproduce, then you put a brake on the natural evolution of the species.

The amount of evolutionary pressure, or the speed of evolutionary change can be measured (quite aptly it's unit is the 'Darwin'). where the enviorment is harsh, or where few individuals survive to reproduce evolution is, on a geologic scale, swift.

Where as above, almost all individuals survive to reproductive age, and the environment is benign, there is still pressure and evolution still continues. a brake yes, but not a stop.
Quite so and thanks for putting me right; I bow to your superior wisdom on the subject :wink:

However, given all the above, my argument is that the so-called Christian fundamentalists (and their Islamic counterparts) would rather have innocents suffer needlessly, simply to conform with a set of ideas that were formulated within an archaic nomadic tribal society.

The beliefs of those nomads evolved under different cultural mores, in a different physical environment and in a 'technological' environment that is some 3,000 years behind what we have today.

The inability to cure what are now preventable conditions would inevitably lead to a fatalistic view; 'God's will', a concept reinforced by the priests and shamans in order to keep the whip hand over the faithful and keep the priestly tributes coming in. To admit to a failure of 'God' would mean the sack at best and the need for a fast donkey to avoid the lynch mob!

That some parts of the Christian faith still peddle the concept of 'God's will', to protect a belief system that is demonstrably failing its constituency, is quite beyond my ability to comprehend.

To say that such suffering is 'God's will' ignores the corollary that, if God placed us upon this Earth and supposedly made us in His image, He also gave us our brains and the ability to use them.

Therefore, what greater gift could God give us than the fruits of that accumulated 3,000 years of intellectual property to make our lives better. A celebration of wisdom that is God given?

To then deny that gift of God; to prevent the alleviation of suffering, seems to me to be the ultimate blasphemy...

The paradox behind this is that, to my mind, the Christian church doesn't believe in God enough to accept the gifts that have been given to us... Perhaps too many priests and shamans would find themselves out of a job! :lol:


What's the Christian equivalent of a fatwa? :lol:

...But, of course, I'm already damned; I post on ARRSE! :twisted:
 
#18
Funny. The only zealots I read in this thread are those who bash so-called "God botherers"

The only "God botheres" who have ever "bothered" be about their beliefs are the JWs who knock on the door occasionally, and those "anti-god botherers" who want me to know how wrong it is for anyone to believe in a God.
 
#19
RCSignals said:
Funny. The only zealots I read in this thread are those who bash so-called "God botherers"

The only "God botheres" who have ever "bothered" be about their beliefs are the JWs who knock on the door occasionally, and those "anti-god botherers" who want me to know how wrong it is for anyone to believe in a God.
Have you ever met a 'devout' person with an open mind?
 
#20
OldAdam said:
What's the Christian equivalent of a fatwa? :lol:
ANATHEMA MARANATHA first pronounced on me when I was 15 for crossing a fundamentalist picket line at a cinema to see .........................yes,honestly folks JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR!!!
 

Similar threads

Top