Darwin film 'too controversial for religious US'

[djhooker]

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.

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.

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.

The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".

Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after On The Origin of Species was published.

"That's what we're up against. In 2009. It's amazing," he said.

"The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up.

"It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America. There's still a great belief that He made the world in six days. It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.




YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[conspicioastrum]

Evolution is highly accepted in the states... more so than the Christian faith these days.

Movie looks interesting though. I'd like to see it. :)

[djhooker]

someone should tell that to the people who distribute films in the US!

does look good, jennifer connelly is fiinnneee!!!

[elysiumfire]

The hypocrisy of the religious in America is incredibly galling, and only highlights that country's divisive cracks and fractures. It beggars and staggers the mind that in such a highly technological country, mediaeval mindsets still run rampant in the 21st century.

It hurts humanity, it genuinely does. It harms our future and that of our future generations, for all it does is to pass on the neck and ankle shackles of the past to our children, and our children's children, and mires them deep into a slavery of freedomless thinking.

If we cannot produce a 'spirituality' free of dogma and creed, if we cannot undress it of the uniform of divisive religions, then as a sentient and (supposedly) intelligent reasoning species, we doom ourselves to a repetition of dying at the root, when we should be flowering into the light of scientific gnosis. Of course, science in itself will not be our saviour, nor should we substitute it against religions, but come to understand the essential requirement of a evolving sentient intelligence...that for all its technological prowess, a spirituality based on intrinsic and altruistic principles, devoid of dogma and creed, in fact transparent to either antagonistic camp, is what is needed to take us further into the expansion of not only our consciousness, but into that of our most important requirement...an understanding of our world and ultimately, of ourselves.

[djhooker]

^what he said^

[grenadene]

Evolution v Creation?

I always think that's framing the debate somewhat :)

[harry_88]

A lot of Americans are more aware of the flaws in Darwins THEORY than in other parts of the world.
Much of this awareness can be attributed to Dr. Michael Behe.
Michael Behe- Intelligent Design - YouTube

Interview
http://calitreview.com/260

[bluegrazz]

Yes, too many flaws in Darwins theory- Also a huge difference between Macro and Micro evolution.

Anyhow, it does make more sense than a dude made of clay and a chick made of his rib- But that doesnt make it correct.

[antace000]

The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".


I take it creationists have a plethora of evidence for their wack job theory? :rolleyes:

Perhaps distributors in the US could market it as a comedy for Christians :D

[bowtiedaddy]

evolution is just an ass backwards way of looking at genetics with a eugenics driving force.

[anthony65]

Yes, too many flaws in Darwins theory- Also a huge difference between Macro and Micro evolution.

Anyhow, it does make more sense than a dude made of clay and a chick made of his rib- But that doesnt make it correct.

There are fanatics on both sides of the argument.

The bible is not meant to be taken literally. There is a lot of wisdom in there (as well as in other ancient scriptures from other cultures and religions) that has only become understandable in the past decades... DNA for example.

Creation is possible, but not in 6 * 24 hour days.

And no by an old man with a beard.

I accept that evolution takes place, but it does not provide all of the answers.

There is room for both theories.

The possibility of "creation" at some stage in our history is very much a possibility.

The missing link is still missing as far as I can see.

When you consider the incredible advances made in areas such as DNA, cloning, etc. in the past decades who can rule out the possibility of creation taking place in the past.

Another interesting aspect of the darwin debate is to consider his background, his influences, his backers... and the question of what they believed... what esoteric beliefs did they hold?

Were the masses switched from an oversimplified creation theory to an oversimplified evolution theory?

I would say yes.

[bluegrazz]

There are fanatics on both sides of the argument.

The bible is not meant to be taken literally. There is a lot of wisdom in there (as well as in other ancient scriptures from other cultures and religions) that has only become understandable in the past decades... DNA for example.

Creation is possible, but not in 6 * 24 hour days.

And no by an old man with a beard.

I accept that evolution takes place, but it does not provide all of the answers.

There is room for both theories.

The possibility of "creation" at some stage in our history is very much a possibility.

The missing link is still missing as far as I can see.

When you consider the incredible advances made in areas such as DNA, cloning, etc. in the past decades who can rule out the possibility of creation taking place in the past.

Another interesting aspect of the darwin debate is to consider his background, his influences, his backers... and the question of what they believed... what esoteric beliefs did they hold?

Were the masses switched from an oversimplified creation theory to an oversimplified evolution theory?

I would say yes.

I agree 100% with what you said- 100%.

Thank you for finding the words I could not-

[anthony65]

I agree 100% with what you said- 100%.

Thank you for finding the words I could not-

Thanks bluegrazz! :)

Setting aside dogma and genuinely questioning everything is sooooooo rewarding!

[disorder2k8]

I really liked that actor when he played a similar role in Master and Commander, and it looks like Jennifer Connelly is in it. I like her too

Jolly good show

[dolores1]

There are fanatics on both sides of the argument.

The bible is not meant to be taken literally. There is a lot of wisdom in there (as well as in other ancient scriptures from other cultures and religions) that has only become understandable in the past decades... DNA for example.

Creation is possible, but not in 6 * 24 hour days.

And no by an old man with a beard.

I accept that evolution takes place, but it does not provide all of the answers.

There is room for both theories.

The possibility of "creation" at some stage in our history is very much a possibility.

The missing link is still missing as far as I can see.

When you consider the incredible advances made in areas such as DNA, cloning, etc. in the past decades who can rule out the possibility of creation taking place in the past.

Another interesting aspect of the darwin debate is to consider his background, his influences, his backers... and the question of what they believed... what esoteric beliefs did they hold?

Were the masses switched from an oversimplified creation theory to an oversimplified evolution theory?

I would say yes.

I agree, our knowledge is still wanting, we have so much to learn. The field is wide open. Only arrogance stops the seekers from searching out truth. But while we admit our ignorance we are still capable of great strides.

The last word has not yet been spoken.

[motleyhoo]

A lot of Americans are more aware of the flaws in Darwins THEORY than in other parts of the world.


That may be true, but throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the answer. Just because Darwin did not get everything right should not mean his body of work should be dismissed. He was not a God. Science itself is evolutionary and very rarely is any thesis on a new discovery or scientific idea totally correct. They are corrected or added to over time as knowledge and technology also progress. The only thing that doesn't seem to progress is religious dogma, and anyone with half a working brain can find way more flaws in the Bible than in Darwin's work.

.