Posted on 03/20/2005 12:01:05 PM PST by wagglebee
Some IMAX theaters are refusing to carry movies that promote evolution, citing concerns that doing so offends their audience and creates controversy – a move that has some proponents of Darwinism alarmed over the influence of "fundamentalists."
It's a decision that affects not only the network of 240 IMAX theaters operating in 35 countries, but some science museums that show IMAX-formatted films.
IMAX, which bills itself as the "ultimate movie experience," promises to take viewers to "places you only imagined." The 8-story high screens and crystal clear images have made the theaters ideal venues for documentary science films showing the splendor of nature.
Now, however, about a dozen IMAX theaters, primarily in the South, are shunning movies that carry evolution themes, the New York Times reports. Fear of protests by those objecting to films that contradict the Biblical account of creation is cited as the reason.
A dozen science centers rejected the 2003 release, "Volcanoes," because of it speculation that life on Earth may have originated in undersea vents, says Dr. Richard Lusk, an oceanographer and chief scientist for the project.
Because a only small number of IMAX theaters show science films, a boycott by a few can reduce the potential audience to the point that producers question whether projects are financially worthwhile.
"We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public," says Lisa Buzzelli, of the Charleston, South Carolina, Imax Theater. "Being in the Bible Belt, ["Volcanoes"] does have a lot to do with evolution, and we weigh that carefully."
When the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History played the movie for a test audience, the responses were sufficiently negative for the museum to drop it from its offerings. Responses 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" doomed the film's chances.
"Some people said it was blasphemous," says Carol Murray, the museum's director of marketing. "If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she concludes, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to screen it.
The film's distributor says other science museum officials turned him down "for religious reasons" and because "Volcanoes" had "evolutionary overtones" – a claim that makes Hyman Field, a former National Science Foundation official who played a role in its financing, "furious."
"It's very alarming," he says, "all of this pressure being put on a lot of the public institutions by the fundamentalists."
The economics of large-format science documentaries being what they are, it might not take too much pressure for filmmakers to begin avoiding Darwin.
The films "are generally not big moneymakers," notes Joe DeAmicis, former director of the IMAX theater at the California Science Center in Los Angeles. "It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them.
Bayley Silleck, who wrote and directed "Cosmic Voyage," another IMAX offering that drew religious complaints, expects to encounter criticism on his upcoming project about dinosaurs. While he's critical of "overcaution, overprotectedness" by theater operators, he recognizes that in the end, it's the audience that counts.
"We all have to make films for an audience that is a family audience," he observes, "when you are talking about IMAX, because they are in science centers and museums."
A Gallup poll, released earlier this month, reveals that 81 percent of U.S. teenagers believe God was somehow involved in human origins, with only 18 percent holding a purely secular view of evolution.
Laugh out loud, it's good for the belly!
for some of us, it makes it jiggle, too, but that's another story...
What you are posting about experiments is irrevelant. That is, unless you wish to demonstrate experiments proving evolution? Is that what you are suggesting?
In the meantime many of us will continue to push for competing theories such as intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution in the classroom. I'm not sure why I would want evolution to be taught at all other than it is sort of the incumbent theory many academians have bought into and worship etc. Although evolution will continue to die a slow death it isn't going away anytime soon.
If you think an experiment proves anything true, then you did not read my post. Nothing can be proved true, only proved false or not proved false.
...in the above mutation map, and unlike the pig/cow/mouse/rat mutation map, the mutations aren't predominantly at the "safer" third base of a codon, nor of a type that would be "safe".The DNA data you are using (or posting from), is in conflict with that of Friedman & Hughes?
No, because they're seeking to measure a different -- almost opposite -- effect from the one I was.
I was pointing out that point mutations will accumulate fastest at the third codon position, precisely because many "letter" changes at that position will be neutral (i.e. encode for the same amino acid as the unchanged codon, and thus will make no biochemical difference to the organism). In short, the third position is itself most "free" to change without affecting anything, and indeed it does change more frequently across generations than the first or second position (in codons subject to selection -- in the absence of selection, they can all change at equal rates). Or more precisely, they all change (mutate) at the same rate, but fewer changes at the first and second positions will be ultimately passed on to descendants and fix in the population, since changes there are more likely to be detrimental (as opposed to changes that are entirely neutral) and weeded out by natural selection.
The authors you cite, however, examined which of the three codon positions most *determined* how many point mutations (at any locus) were "free" to occur in a neutral manner for a *given* codon. And due to the genetic code, the answer is that the second codon position most determines whether the codon as a unit is more "locked in" or more "free to change" overall.
For example, if a codon has a "C" in the second position, if I've counted right, there are 48 different point mutations (out of 99 possible) which result in synonymous changes (that is, result in no change to the associated amino acid). But if the second position is "A", then there are only 17 different point mutations (out of 99 possible) which result in synonymous changes.
And yet in both cases, as I pointed out earlier, most of the synonymous point mutations are in the *third* codon position. In the "C" case, *all* of the 48 synonymous point mutations are in the third position -- in the "A" case, 16 out of the 17 are third-position mutations (the remaining one is a second-position mutation).
#4 Hovind: "The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed."
Quick, someone call the Pentagon. Because this grand genius Mr. Hovind tells us fission bombs cannot work.
Exactly right. This is an evolutionist tactic that is getting really old: Demand proof or evidence, then ignore it when it's presented.
No problem -- it was still a better, more informed response than I usually get on these threads. ;-)
Exactly right. This is an evolutionist tactic that is getting really old: Demand proof or evidence, then ignore it when it's presented.
Nice empty, unsupported allegation you've got there. Typical of you, though.
The astute reader will note that what has *really* happened is that the creationists on this thread (including Dataman) are making *excuses* for why they won't support their claims, instead of just supporting going ahead and supporting them.
The funny part is that they often spend more time making these excuses than it would have taken them to actually like to supporting material -- if any support actually existed.
Instead, they just bluster and whine and accuse, trying to distract the readers' attention from the fact that the evolutionists keep ASKING for evidence and support, and the creationists keep AVOIDING such requests.
Then Dataman caps it off with the dishonest implication that sometime in the (distant?) past, the creationists actually *did* deign at least once to bother to support their claims, and that (allegedly) the evolutionists "ignore" it.
(The credibility of this assertion is left as an exercise to the reader, given how often and thoroughly the evolutionists are *all over* various creationist claims and arguments...)
And thus, the creationists (and Dataman) bluster, "we don't need to show no stinkin' support!" Well hey, guys, if you want to just keep insisting that everyone take your assertions on your word alone, and that you don't need to provide any support for them, and that "creation science" is (allegedly) based on anything resembling actual science but doesn't need to provide any evidence when asked, well, go for it. Good luck with that one.
"Our Emperor has clothes, really! They're just, um, at the cleaners, and you wouldn't believe they were actual clothes even if we showed them to you, that's why we won't, so there. Yeah, that's the ticket..."
(Note: These are the same guys who want their "alternative (non)theory" taught in schools along with evolution -- yet seem awfully resistant to actually *show* us any of it...)
I love IMAX movies. However, I just realized that all of the ones that I have seen have been located in politically correct zones.
DNA could not have "built UP" but only decay.
And languages, also, are decaying from their peak 5.00 years ago. On and On...evolution didn't live up to expecations. Electron Microscopy..I could go on..
Please do go on. I'm sure that you can also provide support for your opinion, we would be interested in sharing that if you would be so kind.
Show your evidence for this.
You insist on making assertions with no backing evidence. Is this because you really don't understand the ToE at all? How can you honestly argue your point without at least a rudimentary knowledge of the subject.
If you get your information from 'Dr. Dino' you should be aware that he knows very little about anything he sells. In fact he keeps regurgitating false claims even AiG asks creationists not to use.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Oh, how unfair of you! You've seen the evidence of creation "science" -- the bogus quotes, the counts of subjunctive verbs in genuine science papers, the occasional misclassified species, the handful of fake fossils (out of millions of genuine finds), the worthless ID article that cheated its way into a science journal. If that won't convince you of the reality of Noah's Ark, then you're blind. Blind!
As you wrote; CAn matter alone organize itself from molecules to the human mind? If you don't have enough blind faith to believe that, you're an idiot creationist who lies.
Color me
Ah, labels...once the label is applied, further investigation is precluded. (sigh)
Personal experience, and the telling of same, totally
Define 'life'. Just so you know, evolution is separate from abiogenesis and is in now way considered to have occurred randomly. There is a difference between random occurrences and probabilistic occurrences.
"When you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth."
The key is deciding what is impossible. There is either
A. preexistent or eternally existent time/space/matter/life
What exactly do you mean by preexistent?
Or
B.preexistent or eternally existent and transcendent intellect
This is known as a 'false dilemma' in logic and considered an ineffectual argument. There is also the possibility that time/space/matter/life are the result of a singularity. Or a recurring cyclic phenomena (although this is growing less likely as we gain new information). It could be that there are multiple universes. Or that each universe gives birth to multiple other universes.
Please don't resort to the assertion that it is all speculation or unbelievable. Argument from incredulity is no more an argument than is a false dilemma. Nor are they harder to accept than the existence of a God.
Which do you choose, and why?
That is the ENTIRE foundation for both evolution AND creation.
This may be the entire extent of your knowledge of evolution, it is not the entire extent of the science of evolution.
What the heck do you mean? 5000 years ago, the most advanced human civilizations were barely crawling out of the stone age.
As for languages "peaking," I have no idea what that means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.