Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'
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.
I'm surprised about this one. They allow all kinds O' raunchy filth in this country. Why block a movie about Darwin? I can think of a lot more offensive movies than this. There must be more to the story. I agree with LE. Perhaps a publicity stunt?
And a brand-new Gallup poll tied to Darwin's birthday finds that just 39% of Americans believe in evolution.
As expected, Gallup notes, education plays a big role here: 74% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in evolution. That's compared with only 21% of high school grads (or those with less education) who believe in the theory.
Ditto religion: 55% who don't attend church believe in evolution, versus 24% of weekly churchgoers who believe in it.
That article is completely and totally ridiculous.
The amount of people here in the US that actually believe that are so small you could almost count them on one hand.
In Western countries, the inclusion of evolution in science courses has been mostly uncontroversial, with the exception of parts of the United States. There, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional. Intelligent design has been presented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but it has also been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court.]In Western countries, the inclusion of evolution in science courses has been mostly uncontroversial, with the exception of parts of the United States. There, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional. Intelligent design has been presented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but it has also been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court.
Tony sez, "Recently, a group of paleontologists were in town for the North American Paleontological Convention at the University of Cincinnati, and decided to take a field trip to the Creation Museum just across the river, in Kentucky. My aunt went to cover it for AFP, and I had the doubly good fortune of living just a stone's throw away, so I tagged along to see what these guys were up to. It was an eyeful, to say the least. Gorgeous facilities with amazingly engaging displays and animatronics, and at least a few hundred cubic cubits of bad science and misinformation. One young lady stood, furious, and grumbled, 'It's bullshit. Bullshit pretending to be science.' Anyone who finds themselves in the Cincinnati area with a few bucks, hours, and brain cells to burn should check it out, and see what the scientific community is up against in terms of informing the public."
Boing Boing reader and Pastafarian acolyte John Duffell says,
Mike Fair, a state senator from South Carolina, has just introduced a bill that would require public schools to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution under the banner of science.
Says Fair, "Many of us -- most of us, I hope -- come from homes where children are taught by their parents that there's a reason behind it all." While the rest of us heathens wallow in the meaninglessness of existence, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint and Congressman Bob Inglis have expressed their support for Fair's bill.
Yesterday, I posted an item to Boing Boing about the growing popularity of Pastafarianism, a new religion that worships Flying Spaghetti Monster, initially created to protest the Kansas State School Board's decision to teach "Intelligent Design" in schools. A suprising number of I.D. supporters wrote in with comments like this from reader Anne Kenny:
Okay Xeni
I read your Blog about Intellegent Design and the spaghetti monster. Ridiculous. I'd like to know what you think should be taught in the schools.
Certainally not evolution considering there is not one single fact that proves it. No missing links, not even common sense. Lies are still being printed that were proven wrong in the late 1800's but they're still taught as fact.
Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.
Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.
These comments drew sharp criticism yesterday from opponents of the theory, who said there is no scientific evidence to support it and no educational basis for teaching it.
ad_icon
Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students. Opponents say that church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political channels instead of first building support through traditional scientific review.
His remarks heartened conservatives who have been asking school boards and legislatures to teach students that there are gaps in evolutionary theory and explain that life's complexity is evidence of a guiding hand.
"With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who have that position more respectable, for lack of a better phrase," said Gary L. Bauer, a Christian conservative leader who ran for president against Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. "It's not some backwater view. It's a view held by the majority of Americans."
Opponents of intelligent design, which a Kansas professor once called "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," say there is no legitimate debate. They see the case increasingly as a political battle that threatens to weaken science teaching in a nation whose students already are lagging.
"It is, of course, further indication that a fundamentalist right has really taken over much of the Republican Party," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a leading liberal lawmaker. Noting Bush's Ivy League education, Frank said, "People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."
Bush's comments were "irresponsible," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He said the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints, "doesn't understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint." Lynn said Bush showed a "low level of understanding of science," adding that he worries that Bush's comments could be followed by a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change curricula.
I am NOT surprised. We have several American teachers here from Missouri State. I have been told emphatically that the earth is only 6000 years old. That it was made with all the old stuff here, but the old stuff is only 6000 years old too.
So she told you that the earth was 6000 years old, and we all evolved in that 6000 years? How did she explain carbon dating?
Public schools: It is in the U.S. public schools that the battle between evolution and creation science has raged. It has taken many forms:
After the Scopes Trial (Tennessee, 1925) the theory of evolution gained much public support. 2 However, this did not translate into evolution being taught widely in the public schools of America.
State creationism laws were passed during the 1980's in Arkansas and Louisiana, to force the teaching of creationism in place of evolution. In a 1987 case, Edwards v. Aquillard, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that these laws were unconstitutional because they violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Creation science was seen to be a expression of religious belief. It was judged to be not a true science because it could never be falsified -- i.e., it was firmly held as a religious belief by its adherents that no amount of contradictory physical evidence could change.
With the launching of the Russian satellite Sputnik in the late 1950's, many became convinced that the country that the U.S. was falling behind in science. The National Science Foundation funded the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which was influential in returning evolution to high school biology textbooks. In the 1960's, evolution began to be widely taught.
During the mid 1990's, creation science groups started to persuade school boards to give equal time to creation science.
In recent years, the emphasis has been on encouraging teachers and students to be skeptical of the theory of evolution. Various legislatures have introduced bills to encourage teaching that the theory of evolution contains internal contradictions. These are typically called "academic freedom" bills. By the end of 2008, they had been introduced in about seven states and failed in all but Louisiana.
University Sued for Saying Earth Not Created in 6 Days
The University of California at Berkeley is being sued for statements on their Understanding Evolution Web site that some religious beliefs contradict science–like the idea that the Earth and living things were finished up in six days. The plaintiffs argue that a government-funded state university cannot claim that “some religious denominations are better than others,” though I certainly can’t find anyplace where Berkeley does so.
many also believe humans are responsible for global warming these past couple a few thousand years bibibibibi
Why on earth do men have nipples?
The Pastafarians got it right. ahahahahah
http://www.venganza.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Neil Armstrong isn't worthy of Texas textbooks?
As some readers may know, Texas State Board of Education has held meetings this week (read more) to conduct a variety of business. Fortunately they haven't engaged in their anti-science attacks on evolution, but there have been other questionable actions.
Neil_Armstrong.jpg
NASA
Remember the Alamo -- but not Neil.
As part of the process a Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills review team composed of parents and teachers has suggested removing Neil Armstrong from a "science strand" in a 5th grade social studies book.
Effectively this would remove the mention of Armstrong has a figure of historical significance from 5th grade textbooks. I asked board spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe why this change was made and she explained:
The team said they made this proposal because he was not a scientist.
What quals do you need to be a scientist in the USA? I don't think the that the review panel did its homework.
"(Neil Armstrong) received a Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering from Purdue University in 1955, and a Master of Science degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California in 1970.
CCvortex. I am not sure what part of the USA you are from, but a lot of the rest of the USA is very much Christian bible believers. As I said earlier, many of the teachers I work with believe in the 6000 yr old planet.I'm from Minnesota, but I have lived all over the U.S. literally from coast to coast to coast, and I can tell you with the utmost certainty that I have never met anyone that actually believes that Earth is anything but 4 point something billion years old.
BubbaBait is not being gullible at all.
Creationism has been twisted by the ignorant into something it is not, and that is the assumption that Creationism is a rejection of how science says the Earth (and all things) formed.
As the apparent lone supporter of responsible religion
To generalize is ignorant. Period.
I can tell you with the utmost certainty that I have never met anyone that actually believes that Earth is anything but 4 point something billion years old.
I have been (and am) a Christian since 1988 and have been to countless Bible studies.
When did I try to convince you of the existence of a God?You didn't. You can't. I never said you tried.
What I am saying is you cannot say that all Creationists are Young Earth'ers (for lack of a better term)Why not? Creationism bases it's ridiculous beliefs on the "Young Earth" premise.
associating people that believe in God with people that believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Like I said before, they are mutually exclusive--you either missed that or ignored it the first time around.They are not mutually exclusive, but they are not necessarily the same people. People, such as Creationists, surely believe in God. Other people believe in God but are not Creationists.
QuoteWhat I am saying is you cannot say that all Creationists are Young Earth'ers (for lack of a better term)Why not? Creationism bases it's ridiculous beliefs on the "Young Earth" premise.
The Creation Museum is a museum that presents an account of the origins of the universe, life, mankind, and man's early history according to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. Its exhibits reject universal common descent, along with most other central tenets of evolution, and assert that the Earth and all of its life forms were created 6000 years ago over a six-day period.
Come on guys, let's just agree that on this particular subject we can agree to disagree and leave it at that. bibibibibi
If you honestly think that a majority (or even a significant number) of Americans believe that the Earth is 6000 years old you have a very, very low opinion of my countrymen.
Sorry Schnerby - cross-posted.
As long as we don't get personal and keep it a civilised and polite debate, then I figure everyone is entitled to an opinion, evidence presentation etc.That's precisely what I wanted to say.
Wouldn't the world be a better place if there were non-religious leaders in many countries?? The level of distrust would drop pretty immediately. The separation of church and state was one of the better ideas.
Creationism, the [American] courts [have] ruled, was a form of religious belief and to teach it in American schools violated the constitutionally enshrined separation of church and state....
There is no constitutionally enshrined separation of church and state in Australia.
Around 33 per cent of Australian children now attend non-government schools - and that percentage is even higher in NSW and particularly in Victoria where around 40 per cent of year 11 and 12 students attend non-government schools.......what does it mean that among secular liberal democracies, Australia has by far the greatest proportion of children attending non-government schools, many of them faith-based ones?
Given that some faith-based schools in Australia, unlike schools in the US, teach creationism and the pseudo science of intelligent design as legitimate scientific alternatives to evolutionary theory, how many will mark the Darwin anniversaries, let alone celebrate them?
In all probability, a significant number won't. For that, John Howard can take some credit. What an irony given that this was a prime minister who was determined to roll back multiculturalism.
Acceptance of Vainamoinen and the egg creation myth as science in Finland does not happen.
This is what bugs me LE. The USA actually has the separation of church and state written into the constitution, it is law, and constitutional law is ridiculously hard to change.- quote from LD. (I used the tt function because I don't know how to make the quote box.)
Actually LD, there is nothing about separation of church and state in the Constitution.
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-constitution-faq.htm (http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-constitution-faq.htm)
It's a common error that has been perpetuated though out the years. Even our own citizens believe it. Just goes to show that if a lie is repeated enough, eventually people believe it to be true.
Actually LD, there is nothing about separation of church and state in the Constitution.
http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-constitution-faq.htm (http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-constitution-faq.htm)
It's a common error that has been perpetuated though out the years. Even our own citizens believe it. Just goes to show that if a lie is repeated enough, eventually people believe it to be true.
What do you think?
We have all sinned and deserve God's judgment. God, the Father, sent His only Son to satisfy that judgment for those who believe in Him. Jesus, the creator and eternal Son of God, who lived a sinless life, loves us so much that He died for our sins, taking the punishment that we deserve, was buried, and rose from the dead according to the Bible. If you truly believe and trust this in your heart, receiving Jesus alone as your Savior, declaring, "Jesus is Lord," you will be saved from judgment and spend eternity with God in heaven.
What is your response?
Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus
Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus
I still have questions
Aug. 2005 –“Intelligent design is not science.”--open letter to major Australian newspapers signed by 70,000 Australian scientists & science teachers: “Evolution meets all scientific criteria but Intelligent Design meets none of them.”
I do not believe as they do, but I have met in the last 30 years sufficient numbers of these people to know that it is a widespread belief.
A-Train - why do you see atheists as 'lost, searching'??
Actually LD, there is nothing about separation of church and state in the Constitution.
You can always say "Oh, I've met substantially more than that" to which I say, yeah? how many?
You would have had to of met nearly a thousand random Americans to make the judgment, and since you can only meet Americans that are in China, in an education role, you can't even say you've met a random selection of them.
This is a great thread.
but you can not possibly deny that the USA has a reasonably large and very vocal percentage of people that do believe in creationism.
Creationism refers to the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity. However the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of natural biological processes, in particular evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth (the creation-evolution controversy).
Barack Obama is stepping up his effort to correct the misconception that he's a Muslim now that the presidential campaign has hit the Bible Belt.Assoc. Press Jan 21, 2008. Newsweek also covered his beliefs in depth - as a cover story!
At a rally to kick off a weeklong campaign for the South Carolina primary, Obama tried to set the record straight from an attack circulating widely on the Internet that is designed to play into prejudices against Muslims and fears of terrorism.
"I've been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply.
For the umteenth time: you cannot equate Creationism with Young Earth theory.Seems like you can!
The Creation Museum is a museum that presents an account of the origins of the universe, life, mankind, and man's early history according to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. Its exhibits reject universal common descent, along with most other central tenets of evolution, and assert that the Earth and all of its life forms were created 6000 years ago over a six-day period. In particular, exhibits promote the claim that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted, and dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.
I never said all the people I met were from USA.
I know there are several colleges that teach 'preachers' in the USA near Canada where the children of these colleagues were sending their children.
I do not believe as they do, but I have met in the last 30 years sufficient numbers of these people to know that it is a widespread belief.
Again, unless you've met around a thousand randomly selected Americans you can't say the ones you've met are representative of an entire nation.
Especially since you have a background in science.
If this country is significantly influenced by crazies, then we have an even worse scenario than Al Qaeda waiting for us in the future.And by "crazies" I can only assume you mean people that believe in the YE theory or just creationists in general?
One quick question: is it your belief that people that believe in a God created universe are unstable, dangerous people?
Would you mock the Australian Aboriginal creation myth of the Rainbow Serpent? Would you respect it and agree that it is a reasonable alternative hypothesis to evolution? I believe you would consider it deluded and in need of replacement. Where is the difference?
Those who reject scientific evidence in favour of mythology have clearly closed their minds to any other options. If they do so when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then yes, we are entitled to call them 'crazy'.
Creationism doesn't necessarily reject scientific evidence...
Folks, At the end of the day, there is no answer to this...
Creationism doesn't necessarily reject scientific evidence...But many Creationists do.
I found this poll which I thought was pretty interesting.
http://www.reginaldbibby.com/images/PC_10_BETTER_WITH_GOD_OCT0807.pdf
Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.I find this very CLOSE to a majority, and I find it scary.
The Gallup family is a hard-core conservative, Bible-believing clan so it's pretty cool to hear you say people like that have a good reputation.then surely that would lend more weight to their findings in your eyes?
ccv, again, you did not read my post correctly. I offered TWO alternatives - if it was does this way, if it was done that way. I made NO comment on which way I thought it was done!! I even made the 'IF' capitalised to show that it was an alternative proposition!!!
Do you think the difference is in the wording (one asking about belief in evolution, one asking about belief in creation?), or the length or period sampled (26 years?), or something else? The original poll was quite recent. It is fine to post polls and all, but when the polls that we're using as "proof" start having major discrepancies, then I think it is ok to question them.
Great topic...............See what you started George!
If asked if they believe in the Creation story of Genesis, most would also say "yes". Hence, the huge industry for psychologists.
EDIT: actually, now that I re-read the entire thread I see that it was just three or four people that were being close-minded and hurtful. My apologies to anyone that may have felt slighted by that.Really, CC, you actually started this off by suggesting Bubbabait was so gullible and naive that you could easily talk him into buying a bridge!
Seems like the only time someone here says "have a sense of humor" is when they are bashing that person's nationality or religious belief.Ah! National religious jokes!
You have to turn a blind eye to huge sections of the Bible in order to be a strict Christian.Are you a strict Christian? If so, what huge sections of the Bible do you turn a blind eye to? If you're not a strict Christian, how can you make this comment?
@George: I believe that if it were a real question you would not have titled the thread "Only in America?". That title is suggesting that a crack pot theory like this could only come from my country. It is my personal feeling that you meant it to be an inflammatory and possibly degrading thread.
You've created a few of these types of threads with America in the title and they are never about good things.
You've created a few of these types of threads with America in the title and they are never about good things.
I'm sure on some level it is a natural gut reaction to feeling like people are judging a place without having firsthand experience there...
...That whole "I hate my mom, but don't you talk about my momma!" phenomenon.
I was warned, by a site administrator, no less, to not insult Australians, UK'ers, or liberals. That that would not be tolerated (by Australians, UK'ers, and liberals, I presume... no idea). So maybe you are more easily able to laugh at yourselves because you have been insulated from the worst of it.As far as I know, CC, there are only 3 site admistrators here, and they all insult Australians, etc.