Support NeoGAF

[ReplacementPelican]

depends on the type of creationism. For the most part though the basic definition of evolution is universally accepted (change of allelic frequencies in a population over subsequent generations). They either have qualms with its use in explaining the diversity of life, or that it is not a sufficient explanation by itself. Others believe evolution once started is sufficient to explain life's diversity, but have a problem with abiogenesis (really only the non supernatural kind if you want to be pedantic) and that instead there were two or more acts of special creation that started the process (one for humans, one or more for everything else).

Right, Jesus. Do these lines get crossed then? Is there a sort of middle-brand of creationists who just don't understand science enough and get mistaken between the two as this movie seems to do? I mean they say it in the movie 'evolution is used to explain the origins of life' which to me just seems laughable that nobody would call bullshit on that somewhere in the production of the film or just politely note to the screenwriter that it's factually incorrect, even if only to save the film some level of credibility.

So, the first group you mention usually take umbrage to the notion that humans evolved form australopithecines? Or is that okay because they were bipedal?

Sorry for asking so many questions but, being English, I haven't come across many creationists and nor do they really get their opinion out. I wasn't even aware there was creationism in the United Kingdom until BBC3 did a show on it called 'Creationist Roadtrip' in which they allowed each member of the road trip to make a claim and then took them across America to be disproven.

For example, one asserted that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's Flood, something that is/was so painfully debunked that I felt sorry for the Geologist who had to explain to them how water flows as if he were talking to children.

It's a funny show if anyone here has a spare hour, here is a link to it

 

[Loxley]

Sigh. If hardcore creationists are going to decry the theory of evolution, at least get your facts straight. It's doesn't theorize that humans evolved from apes, it theorizes that humans and apes shared a common ancestor which we both evolved from.

That misinformation has permiated into the popular culture way too much. Hence, "WHY WE GOT MONKEYS???".

 

[Hilbert]

Why aren't there atheist movies where a professor turns a kid away from God?

Not exactly your premise, but I was a little surprised by how blatantly atheist the movie "The Invention of Lying" was.

 

[Deified Data]

This reminds me of the Warning label that my Alabama high school biology book had in it:

I agree that all school materials should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. But somehow I don't think they're asking kids to do what's written on the label.

 

[Mengy]

Why does this keep happening.

Because religion is a business, and it has lots of money and power, and it's sole purpose is to spread itself as far as possible in order to increase that money and power. Science and education are the enemy of this industry, hence all of the propaganda and movies lately to combat the tide.

 

[Lionel Mandrake]

I'm in a waiting room right now and can't watch.

Can I get a cast listing of what b-list star(s) they inevitably got for this?

Please tell me Stephen Baldwin makes an appearance.

 

[NullPointer]

Why does this keep happening.

Repetition catapults the propaganda.

 

[happypup]

My favorite part is the Professors passionate delivery of, "if it was written by man how can it be the word of God." You tell him Prof.

Spoiler

because the only support for evolution is to convince people God doesn't exist

 

[Pelydr]

I'm in a waiting room right now and can't watch.

Can I get a cast listing of what b-list star(s) they inevitably got for this?

Please tell me Stephen Baldwin makes an appearance.

Harry Anderson is the only recognizable person in the movie.

 

[Minigo]

The key is that black man that claims to be out of the game, he's going to show at the final scene where the debate is taking place ala Pacino's "scent of a woman" exactly when creationists think they lost and he is going to drop the christian equivalent of the "Chewbacca Defense" and everybody will insta-convert to people of faith, hug and kiss.

 

[Dennis]

Anyone else think the daughter was wearing an unchristian amount of eye makeup?

 

[WhereAreMahDragonz]

Could that not have been God's plan all along? I mean, he's God, he can see the end game.

God knows how Game of Thrones ends.

 

[N.Domixis]

Evolution is Fact, deal with it.

 

[adj_noun]

Not exactly your premise, but I was a little surprised by how blatantly atheist the movie "The Invention of Lying" was.

Heck yeah it was. Absolutely no hint of it in the marketing either.

I thought it dealt with the origins of belief in an afterlife in a surprisingly tender yet tragic fashion. It stuck with me.

 

[Oppo]

well to be fair, if a structure was found in nature that couldn't have evolved, then evolution couldn't be used to explain it.

I don't think there are any examples though. Things that have been often bandied about as irreducibly complex have turned out to simply not be irreducible.

The classic stone arch example. A stone arch is irreducibly complex, technically – take one stone out and it falls. We add scaffolding while we build it and then take it away.

Also someone should make a spoof film of this called Faith in Matter

 

[Borgnine]

I saw Harry Anderson at Canter's Deli one time. True story.

 

[J-Roderton]

These just keep coming.

 

[winjet81]

I'm surprised that Harry Anderson, a well-respected magician, is part of this kind of movie.

 

[NekoFever]

God knows how Game of Thrones ends.

That's because he's going to end it by taking GRRM before he finishes the last book.

 

[stufte]

I'm surprised that Harry Anderson, a well-respected magician, is part of this kind of movie.

Work is work.

 

[Tugatrix]

God knows how Game of Thrones ends.

I'm gonna pray him to send me the final two books or tv show remaining seasons

 

[Omegasquash]

I'm surprised that Harry Anderson, a well-respected magician, is part of this kind of movie.

Man I loved Night Court....

 

[Zona]

'uses Evolution to determine the origin of life'...

Evolutionary biology teaches the origins of life as opposed to the diversity and constant change of life? Even the supposed experts in this films don't know jack shit.

Okay then.

Wait. All of this time have creationists really been angry at Abiogenesis and not Evolution?

AHHHHH! That's bloody Abiogenesis ! Evolution dose not concern itself with the origin of life! It explains how life changes over time and species arise. The first cause doesn't matter! Abiogenesis, God, Aliens, His Noodlyness, Eris goddess of Chaos, or all of the above make no difference to the applicability of Evolution by natural selection.

 

[solidefy]

I'm surprised that Harry Anderson, a well-respected magician, is part of this kind of movie.

This comment annihilated me, thank you.

 

[Makai]

Hey, they made the antagonist likable!

 

[Freezie KO]

These just keep coming.

We're witnessing the death throes of faith.

 

[TimeEffect]

So are there any other films like this?

I enjoy seeing how bad these are:

God's Not Dead
A Matter of Faith

???

What else we got?

 

[Hilbert]

Heck yeah it was. Absolutely no hint of it in the marketing either.

I thought it dealt with the origins of belief in an afterlife in a surprisingly tender yet tragic fashion. It stuck with me.

Oh yea. It was well done in that respect. But like you said, it had no marketing to that effect, and I was rather surprised when I saw it like that in the theater.

Unrelated, I think a lot of threads on GAF about creationism miss the point. Of course it isn't supported by science, and is based on a lot of garbage, and a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is. But constant recitation of facts and mocking isn't helping much. Like a belief in an afterlife, WHY do people cling to creationist beliefs is a lot more interesting to me, and I think a better way to begin to understand how to effectively move people away from these beliefs.

 

[happypup]

Right, Jesus. Do these lines get crossed then? Is there a sort of middle-brand of creationists who just don't understand science enough and get mistaken between the two as this movie seems to do? I mean they say it in the movie 'evolution is used to explain the origins of life' which to me just seems laughable that nobody would call bullshit on that somewhere in the production of the film or just politely note to the screenwriter that it's factually incorrect, even if only to save the film some level of credibility.

So, the first group you mention usually take umbrage to the notion that humans evolved form australopithecines? Or is that okay because they were bipedal?

Sorry for asking so many questions but, being English, I haven't come across many creationists and nor do they really get their opinion out. I wasn't even aware there was creationism in the United Kingdom until BBC3 did a show on it called 'Creationist Roadtrip' in which they allowed each member of the road trip to make a claim and then took them across America to be disproven.

For example, one asserted that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's Flood, something that is/was so painfully debunked that I felt sorry for the Geologist who had to explain to them how water flows as if he were talking to children.

It's a funny show if anyone here has a spare hour, here is a link to it

thanks for the link I will check it out. As far as the lines being crossed. The common idea that I hear from creationists is that evolution is bigger than what it actually is. they take the more general definition of evolution which is gradual change and then do a series of bait and switches, if you will. So they talk about stellar evolution (the formation of stars and the higher elements), chemical evolution (abiogenesis), and biological Macro-evolution (which they define as one kind of organism becoming a different kind of organism) and micro-evolution (which is biological evolution). They want to discuss all of this as evolution, so no matter what point they don't agree with it is still evolution they don't agree with.

As far as australopithecines, there are plenty of ideas there too. Some think of it as a different kind of organism (an ape kind), others think it is just a deformed human, there really is no consensus, which makes sense because the logical option is that it is a transitional form, which they must deny the existence of. Most creationism holds to the idea that humans were made separately from the rest of the animals (though some forms only ask that a special act be included in the evolutionary process, you know to separate us from the rest).

I think it is so telling that creationism has followed the path of religious doctrines, in that it splits apart, creating multiple types, where the theory of evolution began in multiple forms, across multiple disciplines, and has become more and more unified.

 

[Tugatrix]

Right, Jesus. Do these lines get crossed then? Is there a sort of middle-brand of creationists who just don't understand science enough and get mistaken between the two as this movie seems to do? I mean they say it in the movie 'evolution is used to explain the origins of life' which to me just seems laughable that nobody would call bullshit on that somewhere in the production of the film or just politely note to the screenwriter that it's factually incorrect, even if only to save the film some level of credibility.

So, the first group you mention usually take umbrage to the notion that humans evolved form australopithecines? Or is that okay because they were bipedal?

Sorry for asking so many questions but, being English, I haven't come across many creationists and nor do they really get their opinion out. I wasn't even aware there was creationism in the United Kingdom until BBC3 did a show on it called 'Creationist Roadtrip' in which they allowed each member of the road trip to make a claim and then took them across America to be disproven.

For example, one asserted that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's Flood, something that is/was so painfully debunked that I felt sorry for the Geologist who had to explain to them how water flows as if he were talking to children.

It's a funny show if anyone here has a spare hour, here is a link to it

I'm loving the show, oh man the geologist kill them with the bucket of water

 

[FStop7]

Washed up "star"sitcom actor.

Terrible lighting.

Terrible makeup.

Low production values.

Pretty much what you'd expect.

 

[Shiv47]

I'm surprised that Harry Anderson, a well-respected magician, is part of this kind of movie.

You can only hope he's doing it ironically, given his schtick in his magic act used to be taking suckers for a ride.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

AHHHHH! That's bloody Abiogenesis ! Evolution dose not concern itself with the origin of life! It explains how life changes over time and species arise. The first cause doesn't matter! Abiogenesis, God, Aliens, His Noodlyness, Eris goddess of Chaos, or all of the above make no difference to the applicability of Evolution by natural selection.

Yeah, it really bugs me when people mix up evolution with abiogenesis. It's like they can't be bothered to do the tiniest bit of research into what they're opposing.

 

[Kinyou]

haha, the old guy "I'm out of the game"

Wonder if the Prof gets killed in this one as well

So are there any other films like this?

I enjoy seeing how bad these are:

God's Not Dead
A Matter of Faith

???

What else we got?

Alone yet not alone should fit the mold.

Edit: then again, that's not focused on evolution vs creationism

 

[Karkador]

this is the creepiest bowl-cut chin-strap combo on a guy... ever.

Party on the bottom, prepubescence on the top

 

[gutterboy44]

Cool. We have ipecac when we need to induce vomiting, and now this trailer for when we need to induce brain hemorrhaging.

I am so embarrassed for my country.

 

[Mainstreamer(1up)]

Anyone else think the daughter was wearing an unchristian amount of eye makeup?

Jesus doesn't care about appearence, He cares about what's inside your heart.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Teach the Controversy!

"A Rich Christiano Film"

Okay this has got to be a parody...

 

[Mike M]

Sometimes I think I could make a fortune writing some Dan Brown-esque pop-Christian novel about a conspiracy by evolutionists to hide the fact that evolution is false, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

 

[happypup]

I don't think there are any examples though. Things that have been often bandied about as irreducibly complex have turned out to simply not be irreducible.

The classic stone arch example. A stone arch is irreducibly complex, technically – take one stone out and it falls. We add scaffolding while we build it and then take it away.

Also someone should make a spoof film of this called Faith in Matter

No, every proposed example has been shown to be evolvable so far. The meat on the icing (am I saying that right?) though is that even if we find a feature that could not have evolved, that doesn't mean that no other as of yet unknown natural mechanism didn't form it.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Washed up "star"sitcom actor.

Terrible lighting.

Terrible makeup.

Low production values.

Pretty much what you'd expect.

And it will make a ton of money.

The people who make these know exactly what they're doing.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Kid's terrible chin beard thing... So caucasian...

 

[xbhaskarx]

Evolution is Fact, deal with it.

Faith is a fact!

 

[Zona]

Yeah, it really bugs me when people mix up evolution with abiogenesis. It's like they can't be bothered to do the tiniest bit of research into what they're opposing.

I feel like you see it crop up every time. The arguments behind Irreducible Complexity may have been knocked down more then a sand castle in a wave pool, but at least it's related to the subject being argued.

 

[Effnine]

Sometimes I think I could make a fortune writing some Dan Brown-esque pop-Christian novel about a conspiracy by evolutionists to hide the fact that evolution is false, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

I'm pretty sure that's what most of these people making money off this stuff are doing anyway ... It's hard to believe any semi-rational person could believe in this nonsense ... I think it's the same with a lot of right-wing pundits/radio personalities ... there's a lot of money to be made from an ignorant and gullible segment of the population ...

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

Oh wow, this movie stars the black ranger from Walker, Texas Ranger.

 

[Mesousa]

That jordan chick is hot.

"I'm out of the game!"

 

[ZealousD]

Creationists have to invent fictional debates where they win since they never win the real ones.

 

[Ferrio]

Oh wow, this movie stars the black ranger from Walker, Texas Ranger.

Surprised chuck norris isn't in it himself.

 

[CrimsonCommie]

I agree that all school materials should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. But somehow I don't think they're asking kids to do what's written on the label.

I also agree with that but it definitely was not what they were asking us to do.