Creation Premiers Later This Month

| 36 Comments

Creation, the new film about Darwin featuring Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly, premieres in the United States on January 22, 2010, in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington DC, and Boston.

LA and Boston will have advance showings.

36 Comments

I presume this is a pro-Darwin movie. Fine. Freedom of advocacy and speech before as great a audience as one can get. Most movies have a evolution presumption behind them where relevant. I remember the old “incredible voyage” (I think thats it:the one about shrunk people entering a body) where one said the glory of the body showed the work of evolution and the other said a creator. since however its been one sided. Well the expelled movie did well and became famous. So why not equal time for movies with creationist advocacy agendas? Anyways no movie pushing counts as intellectual discussion. One needs both sides with equal time. This movie means to reach america so it shows if America can be educated by a movie then why not in a education institution. Its not just a moral and legal right but a great idea to have origin issues given equal time in the schools in any class.

By the way does Jennifer Connelly or Eugenia Scott know darwin said women are biologically intellectually inferior to men because of natural selection? Does it come up in the movie? When scoring movie Producers and directors by male/female rations it does seem to come up. Of coarse as a YEC we see all people as equal intellectually, in raw materials, since Adam and Eve. So Darwins wrong.

Robert Byers said:

So why not equal time for movies with creationist advocacy agendas? Anyways no movie pushing counts as intellectual discussion.

I agree. So why do you do it?

Robert Byers said:

By the way does Jennifer Connelly or Eugenia Scott know darwin said women are biologically intellectually inferior to men because of natural selection?

I doubt they know this, because it’s not true.

But even if it were true, it would be irrelevant, because Scott defends evolution, not Darwin. Many aspects of Darwin’s thought are now known to be wrong.

Robert,

Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters in the US. Creation will open in 5. When you demand equal time, are you asking for Expelled to have been in fewer theaters or Creation more?

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Robert,

Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters in the US. Creation will open in 4. When you demand equal time, are you asking for Expelled to have been in fewer theaters or Creation more?

In Robert Byers’ little head, he means that Expelled should have opened in more theaters, and that Creation should be banned from viewing altogether.

mmm Jennifer Connelly

riverrunner said:

mmm Jennifer Connelly

I was just going to say that…

Robert Byers said:

I presume this is a pro-Darwin movie. Fine. Freedom of advocacy and speech before as great a audience as one can get. Most movies have a evolution presumption behind them where relevant.

Yeah, 150 years and hundreds of thousands of peer-reveiwed journal articles reporting hypothesis-driven research sure makes us evolutionists cocky, doesn’t it?

Robert wrote:

“This movie means to reach america so it shows if America can be educated by a movie then why not in a education institution.”

well robert if an x rated movie can show explicit sex type scenes why not show that in public schools by your logics that makes lot of sensicals

if you want equal time for all creation ideas then start teaching evolution in your tax free church why not publish over one million papers on creationism in peer reviewed scientific journals if you want equal time oh wait never minds

Hey, Byers!*

Let’s be as frank, but polite, as possible: drop dead you dishonest, vain, idiot creep.

How about spending less than half of every day waiting to post your insultingly dull pigshit on every thread here?

What purpose does it serve to allow this asshat to derail EVERY thread just so’s he can imagine Jebus giving him his daily stroking?

*Please ship this to the BW, the only place where Byers (and FL) actually should be allowed to attempt their territorial pissings.

To expand upon what’s already been said, the marketing push behind Expelled was so heavy that not only was it shown in multiple theaters near me but I was allowed to see it on their dime in a preview type event.

As of now I don’t know if Creation will ever be shown near me. And yet this is still an improvement, initially it was uncertain if it would ever be shown in the US. We are, after all, the country in which science related IMAX films have been pulled from science museum theaters when the local patrons complained that the scientific concepts presented in the movies conflicted with their religious beliefs.

Of course this isn’t even a scientific film, it’s a drama about the life of a historical figure. Just a historical figure that certain groups of people have invested a great deal of time and energy in demonizing.

I eagerly await the creationist alternative to this movie in which Charles eats babies and performs occult rituals in which the devil commands him to destroy Christianity.

Along with Robert Byers, and FL, you could also ‘bathroom’ the wonderful ‘borneagain77’. He/She It, also rides under the moniker ‘borne’, ‘born’, and ‘bornagain’, I believe. This wonderfully inciteful chap gives untold referances to youtube, and more tellingly godtube as evidence for his well founded ideas. Just a heads up.

robert van bakel said:

Along with Robert Byers, and FL, you could also ‘bathroom’ the wonderful ‘borneagain77’. He/She It, also rides under the moniker ‘borne’, ‘born’, and ‘bornagain’, I believe. This wonderfully inciteful chap gives untold referances to youtube, and more tellingly godtube as evidence for his well founded ideas. Just a heads up.

Guys like that are like ingrown toenails and I wish they would be relegated to the BW. They have nothing of value to say; they are not worth responding to.

There was a special advance screening of “Creation” last night here in New York City, which, alas, I had to miss (scheduling conflict). Afterwards, there was a post-screening discussion with author Randal Keynes (great great grandson of Charles Darwin), “Creation” director Jon Amiel, and Chloe Breyer, Executive Director of the Interfaith Center of New York. Moderating this discussion was historian of science David Kohn, the director and editor of the Darwin Digital Library at the American Museum of Natural History.

If anyone from New York City was present at this event, could you share your memories of it with us please?

Bubba Byers:

One needs both sides with equal time.

So when you start planning on deciding how much time to divy up between creationism, astrology, geocentrism, dianetics, flat earth theory, moon-landing denialism, cryptozoology, alternative medicine, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Judaism, Sikhism, Bahai, Zoroastrianism, and every other religion and pseudoscience out there, get back to us and let us know how that goes.

Saw it yesterday - it’s been showing in NZ for some time. (Spoiler —) if you’re looking for a film about Darwin with the biology and science then don’t bother. It’s not in the film it’s more a film about his relationship with his wife and children esp Anne and the struggle he had knowing that when he published the storm he’d create. I enjoyed it, it showed more of Darwin the person.

Speaking of equal time, the Dishonesty Institute allows no comments on its site, particularly from anyone supporting evolution. And doesn’t Dembski himself and other DI blog sites cut off dialogue if it is contrary to the ID mantra?

Robert Byers said:

So why not equal time for movies with creationist advocacy agendas? … One needs both sides with equal time.

I wonder how this “need” will be enforced. Does Byers support a federal agency to enforce “equal time” for “both sides”?

For every movie shining a positive light on evolution, there will be mandated a movie shining a positive light on creationism.

For every movie shining a positive light on discipline, there will be mandated a movie shining a positive light on hedonism.

For every movie shining a positive light on heterosexual marriage, there will be mandated a movie shining a positive light on gay marriage.

For every movie glorifying the army, there will be mandated a movie glorifying the Peace Corps.

For every movie concluding that crime does not pay, there will be mandated a movie concluding that crime is a social grace.

byers said:

One needs both sides with equal time.

Heck, I’m OK with that. I’ll even go further, since science has been making it’s case for 150 years. I’ll even give the creationists filibuster power, they can talk until they exhaust the subject.

Of course, the the subject is not going to be “Why I hate ‘Darwinists’” but rather “The empirically verifiable evidence supporting my theory”.

Go ahead, Byers, I’ll wait. let’s see how much “equal time” you actually need.

When people ask me if I teach creationism, I tell them them that I teach ALL “theories”… in proportion to the evidence that supports them.

Robert Byers said:

I presume this is a pro-Darwin movie. Fine. Freedom of advocacy and speech before as great a audience as one can get. Most movies have a evolution presumption behind them where relevant. I remember the old “incredible voyage” (I think thats it:the one about shrunk people entering a body) where one said the glory of the body showed the work of evolution and the other said a creator. since however its been one sided. Well the expelled movie did well and became famous. So why not equal time for movies with creationist advocacy agendas? Anyways no movie pushing counts as intellectual discussion. One needs both sides with equal time. This movie means to reach america so it shows if America can be educated by a movie then why not in a education institution. Its not just a moral and legal right but a great idea to have origin issues given equal time in the schools in any class.

By the way does Jennifer Connelly or Eugenia Scott know darwin said women are biologically intellectually inferior to men because of natural selection? Does it come up in the movie? When scoring movie Producers and directors by male/female rations it does seem to come up. Of coarse as a YEC we see all people as equal intellectually, in raw materials, since Adam and Eve. So Darwins wrong.

Let’s see now, schmuck Byers apparently claims that Darwin once said that women were intellectually inferior to men. Of course he provides no evidence for such a claim, indicating that he is probably full of prunes. However, let’s assume that Darwin, indeed once made such a claim. Schmuck Byers then claims that, because Darwin was wrong about that therefore he must be wrong about evolution. Well, a German Nobel Prize winning physicist named Johannes Stark claimed that the Theory of Relativity was Jewish science and therefore bunk. Unless schmuck Byers is going to agree with this claim by Prof. Stark, then he must conclude by the same logic that the Stark Effect is bunk.

Dan said:

Robert Byers said:

So why not equal time for movies with creationist advocacy agendas? … One needs both sides with equal time.

I wonder how this “need” will be enforced. Does Byers support a federal agency to enforce “equal time” for “both sides”?

For every movie shining a positive light on evolution, there will be mandated a movie shining a positive light on creationism.

For every movie shining a positive light on discipline, there will be mandated a movie shining a positive light on hedonism.

For every movie shining a positive light on heterosexual marriage, there will be mandated a movie shining a positive light on gay marriage.

For every movie glorifying the army, there will be mandated a movie glorifying the Peace Corps.

For every movie concluding that crime does not pay, there will be mandated a movie concluding that crime is a social grace.

Sounds a lot like the boogie-man of “The Fairness Doctrine.”

They’re not the only one. BioLogos - which claims to recognize evolution as valid science - will delete the comments of anyway who dares to be “uncivil” (by pointing out the harsh, plain truth) towards the Dishonesty Institute. Both Glen Davidson and I have had our posts deleted there more than once. Regrettably, BioLogos seems to come across more as a haven for “Christian” creationists than as a website truly trying to promote the proposition that one can be a good Christian and still accept as valid science, biological evolution:

DavidK said:

Speaking of equal time, the Dishonesty Institute allows no comments on its site, particularly from anyone supporting evolution. And doesn’t Dembski himself and other DI blog sites cut off dialogue if it is contrary to the ID mantra?

btw, you’re confusing Fantastic Voyage, based on the Asimov story, with Incredible Journey, the Disney adventure of two dogs and a cat.

I was just thinking what a great cinematic mash-up that would make.

The idea is certainly more entertaining that reading Byers’ nonsense.

Shhhh, fnxtr, not so loud. If you’re not careful Disney will hear you and make this their next CGI based family movie.

Although it would probably make more sense then secret agent guinea pigs.

Just to expand on the notion of scientists being wrong, I will paraphrase Enrico Fermi who once said that a scientist who has never been wrong is a scientist who has never accomplished anything. Even the most important scientists who have ever lived have occasionally been wrong.

1. Issac Newton was wrong in claiming that a particulate theory of light could explain diffraction and interference, when, in fact a wave theory is required.

2. Charles Darwin was wrong in believing that inheritance was an analog process when, in fact, it is a digital process.

3. Albert Einstein war wrong in claiming that black holes would never be formed, despite the prediction of their occurrence from his own General Theory of Relativity.

These guys were right far more often then they were wrong and when they were right, their discoveries changed the world.

SLC said:

Let’s see now, schmuck Byers apparently claims that Darwin once said that women were intellectually inferior to men. Of course he provides no evidence for such a claim, indicating that he is probably full of prunes. However, let’s assume that Darwin, indeed once made such a claim. Schmuck Byers then claims that, because Darwin was wrong about that therefore he must be wrong about evolution. Well, a German Nobel Prize winning physicist named Johannes Stark claimed that the Theory of Relativity was Jewish science and therefore bunk. Unless schmuck Byers is going to agree with this claim by Prof. Stark, then he must conclude by the same logic that the Stark Effect is bunk.

The Fallacy Fies website (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html) calls Byers’ “reasoning” guilt by association, or the bad company fallacy. Creationists are very thorough - they employ pretty much every logical fallacy there is, and have probably invented some of their own.

Hooray! I blogged about this movie earlier, and am glad to see that those in the U.S. get to see the film.

Dan said:

Robert Byers said:

So why not equal time for movies with creationist advocacy agendas? … One needs both sides with equal time.

I wonder how this “need” will be enforced. Does Byers support a federal agency to enforce “equal time” for “both sides”?

For every movie shining a positive light on evolution, there will be mandated a movie shining a positive light on creationism.

For every movie shining a positive light on discipline, there will be mandated a movie shining a positive light on hedonism.

For every movie shining a positive light on heterosexual marriage, there will be mandated a movie shining a positive light on gay marriage.

For every movie glorifying the army, there will be mandated a movie glorifying the Peace Corps.

For every movie concluding that crime does not pay, there will be mandated a movie concluding that crime is a social grace.

I only mean in spirit and acceptance by those who put movies out. i see it like the “Passion of the Christ” which was , by bias, not accepted to do and not accepted at all by the Hollywood types or general establishment. While embracing any hostile movie to christianity. Like the movie eXPELLED I suspect the same hostility to any creationist moviepremise. I just want freedom and a spirit of equal advocacy. prejudice is a real and intervening force in all affairs of men.

SLC said:

Robert Byers said:

I presume this is a pro-Darwin movie. Fine. Freedom of advocacy and speech before as great a audience as one can get. Most movies have a evolution presumption behind them where relevant. I remember the old “incredible voyage” (I think thats it:the one about shrunk people entering a body) where one said the glory of the body showed the work of evolution and the other said a creator. since however its been one sided. Well the expelled movie did well and became famous. So why not equal time for movies with creationist advocacy agendas? Anyways no movie pushing counts as intellectual discussion. One needs both sides with equal time. This movie means to reach america so it shows if America can be educated by a movie then why not in a education institution. Its not just a moral and legal right but a great idea to have origin issues given equal time in the schools in any class.

By the way does Jennifer Connelly or Eugenia Scott know darwin said women are biologically intellectually inferior to men because of natural selection? Does it come up in the movie? When scoring movie Producers and directors by male/female rations it does seem to come up. Of coarse as a YEC we see all people as equal intellectually, in raw materials, since Adam and Eve. So Darwins wrong.

Let’s see now, schmuck Byers apparently claims that Darwin once said that women were intellectually inferior to men. Of course he provides no evidence for such a claim, indicating that he is probably full of prunes. However, let’s assume that Darwin, indeed once made such a claim. Schmuck Byers then claims that, because Darwin was wrong about that therefore he must be wrong about evolution. Well, a German Nobel Prize winning physicist named Johannes Stark claimed that the Theory of Relativity was Jewish science and therefore bunk. Unless schmuck Byers is going to agree with this claim by Prof. Stark, then he must conclude by the same logic that the Stark Effect is bunk.

I don’t understand your point about this Stark effect. I don’t know the full sense of this Schmuck tag (as its a foreign word) however I think its a insult. Why? If I turn out to be right about my claim of Darwin saying women are biologically intellectually inferior to men THEN who’s this, well never mind. Darwin said this in his book “Descent” and it makes sense that he would conclude so. He easily would see selection for females to lead to certain results just as in beauty. Yes I would say the anatomy of his error on this is a worthy line of investigation on his general processes and abilities to see beyond superficial things. It would be a good study and book for a woman biblical creationist, I.D’er, or evolutionist to address this subject. As I underastand it however opposing Darwins female inferiority ideas would be illegal in public institutions as evolution is SCIENCE. I could be wrong.

Robert wrote:

“I only mean in spirit and acceptance by those who put movies out. i see it like the “Passion of the Christ” which was , by bias, not accepted to do and not accepted at all by the Hollywood types or general establishment. While embracing any hostile movie to christianity. Like the movie eXPELLED I suspect the same hostility to any creationist moviepremise. I just want freedom and a spirit of equal advocacy. prejudice is a real and intervening force in all affairs of men.”

So now you not only have to make movies about religious lies and nonsense, but everyone has to like them as well. Is that all you want Robert? How about if you and your church friends have the right to make your own movies and show them to your friends in your tax free church and you all like them just fine and everyone else completely ignores you. That seems fair to me. Those evil Hollywood meanies didn’t like a movie, so what?

“As I underastand it however opposing Darwins female inferiority ideas would be illegal in public institutions as evolution is SCIENCE. I could be wrong.”

Exactly why is it that no real scientist accepts “female inferiority” or racial inferiority Robert. Could it be because every scientist is already free to collect any data they want and to believe whatever the data shows? Could it be because in this country we already have the freedom to reject Darwin or anyone else? Could it be because your paranoid conspiracy attitude is completely baseless? Could it be because, once again, you are completely and utterly wrong?

I think its a insult for you to implys that scientist wants ta uses the same kinda tactics that you wants ta uses for controllin peopleses mindses. Darwin wasn’t perfect, get over it.

Robert Byers said:

It would be a good study and book for a woman biblical creationist, I.D’er, or evolutionist to address this subject.

You mean like how the Bible states that a woman’s place is in her home, to be dominated by her husband, right or wrong, or how it was specifically woman’s fault for introducing sin and death into the world when Eve gave Adam the forbidden apple?

As I underastand it however opposing Darwins female inferiority ideas would be illegal in public institutions as evolution is SCIENCE. I could be wrong.

You are totally wrong about everything, dumbfuck.

Robert Byers said:

SLC said:

Robert Byers said:

I presume this is a pro-Darwin movie. Fine. Freedom of advocacy and speech before as great a audience as one can get. Most movies have a evolution presumption behind them where relevant. I remember the old “incredible voyage” (I think thats it:the one about shrunk people entering a body) where one said the glory of the body showed the work of evolution and the other said a creator. since however its been one sided. Well the expelled movie did well and became famous. So why not equal time for movies with creationist advocacy agendas? Anyways no movie pushing counts as intellectual discussion. One needs both sides with equal time. This movie means to reach america so it shows if America can be educated by a movie then why not in a education institution. Its not just a moral and legal right but a great idea to have origin issues given equal time in the schools in any class.

By the way does Jennifer Connelly or Eugenia Scott know darwin said women are biologically intellectually inferior to men because of natural selection? Does it come up in the movie? When scoring movie Producers and directors by male/female rations it does seem to come up. Of coarse as a YEC we see all people as equal intellectually, in raw materials, since Adam and Eve. So Darwins wrong.

Let’s see now, schmuck Byers apparently claims that Darwin once said that women were intellectually inferior to men. Of course he provides no evidence for such a claim, indicating that he is probably full of prunes. However, let’s assume that Darwin, indeed once made such a claim. Schmuck Byers then claims that, because Darwin was wrong about that therefore he must be wrong about evolution. Well, a German Nobel Prize winning physicist named Johannes Stark claimed that the Theory of Relativity was Jewish science and therefore bunk. Unless schmuck Byers is going to agree with this claim by Prof. Stark, then he must conclude by the same logic that the Stark Effect is bunk.

I don’t understand your point about this Stark effect. I don’t know the full sense of this Schmuck tag (as its a foreign word) however I think its a insult. Why? If I turn out to be right about my claim of Darwin saying women are biologically intellectually inferior to men THEN who’s this, well never mind. Darwin said this in his book “Descent” and it makes sense that he would conclude so. He easily would see selection for females to lead to certain results just as in beauty. Yes I would say the anatomy of his error on this is a worthy line of investigation on his general processes and abilities to see beyond superficial things. It would be a good study and book for a woman biblical creationist, I.D’er, or evolutionist to address this subject. As I underastand it however opposing Darwins female inferiority ideas would be illegal in public institutions as evolution is SCIENCE. I could be wrong.

Re Robert Byers

Mr. Byers is absolutely correct to assume that schmuck is an unflattering word when applied to someone. Just for Mr. Byers’ edification, schmuck is a German word for that part of the male phallus that is covered by the foreskin. Another way of saying that Mr. Byers is a prick.

As for his inability to understand the point about Johannes Stark, Mr. Byers claims that Darwin was wrong about the inferiority of women, assuming that he made such a statement. Therefore, according to Mr. Byers, his theory of evolution must also be wrong. Johannes Stark was wrong about the Theory of Relativity. Therefore, he must, by Mr. Byers’ thinking processes, also be wrong about the Stark Effect.

Robert Byers said:

… I could be wrong.

Congratulations! First time ever you’ve said something sensible.

Congratulations! First time ever you’ve said something sensible.

if by sensible meaning it is something that could be extrapolated into reality if broadened by an order of magnitude.

if he had said:

“I am most assuredly and intentionally, always wrong and suffer from massive Dunning Kruger effed”

i think that would actually be closer to sensible.

Sorry to interject, but this is a message for Mr Byers. Your presence is requested at www.ratskep.org and many of your old friends from RDF are waiting for you. See you there.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on January 11, 2010 7:20 PM.

Uncia uncia (Panthera uncia) was the previous entry in this blog.

How do we know that most of the species that ever lived are extinct? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter