Posted on 05/23/2005 8:07:42 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Darwinism still can't explain the sudden diversity or complexity of the creatures of the pre-Cambrian explosion.So, simply slay the proponent of a theory who hadn't yet put all the pieces together, hasn't adequate knowledge of other areas of science not knowledge of the environment as it has changed over millions of years.
Next ...
I knew the topic and was prepared for error; however, I thought that it being a classic and all, I would chuckle amiably at the error and just sit back and enjoy the movie.
Well, I only made it thru the first 45 minutes. I thought the old movies were almost always harmless but this one was BAD, BAD, BAD!!
Shame on Spencer Tracy. I've never looked at him the same way since.
Not an A-10 reference - its origin is lost somewhere in my spent youth.
I said Darwinism, not evolution.
I would submit that the changes in Inherit the Wind are far more like the portrayals of Yankees, Blacks and the Klan in Birth of a Nation or the change stage companies made to Uncle Tom's Cabin that turned Tom from a brave and righteous man to a sellout house slave, then they are like anything in the movies you listed.
Darwinism denies the intervention of God into the universe and insists on random chance as the mechanism driving evolutionary change.
Here something I think is of interest about Scope's trial.
The text used by Scopes, Hunter's Civic Biology, was primarily a biology textbook. However, it also reflected some of the concerns that drove the Tennessee legislature to enact the law. In support of white supremacy and a policy of eugenics against the "genetically inferior", it noted: Biology is the science of life (from the Greek words bios = life and logos = reasoned account). ... Textbooks are defined as a manual of instruction, a standard book in any branch of study. They are further defined by both the age of the person who is to study the text and the classification of the subject matter itself. ... White supremacy is the variety of white nationalism that believes the white race should rule over other races. ...
"Although anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage, yet there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man … . At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." (pp. 195–196)[3] (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt195.htm)
"… if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways of preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country." (pp. 263–265).
The basis of the trial was the allegation that Scopes had used the textbook, and was charged with violating the Butler Act.
The vast majority of Americans are as ignorant of history as they are of science, and this film has no great bearing in either case. I am concerned about it, but there's not much I can do about it.
As for your other points, the very first line of the op-ed frames this commentary within the evolution-creationism debate.
Darwinism denies the intervention of God into the universeWhere's your 'cite' on that claim!
Don't you mean atheism?
***WARNING***
Darwinists who interpret the following as fatuous "Evolutionists just want to have lots of sex" argumentation will be blasted, and then flogged with a wet noodle. Warning ends.
You know, I wonder if he was drawn to the protrayal of these religionists as full bore nutjobs because of his lifestyle. He banged the heck out of Katherine Hepburn just about the whole time he was married to another woman.
No "cite" other than The Origin of Species, the most unread great work in the canon of Western Literature.
No "cite" other than The Origin of Species,This ought to be easy, since you're so sure of yourself - I need the page where you saw that, 'cause, I don't have all night to read that particular text ...
To put it bluntly, I think you 'assume' that it's in there, on account of the bombastic chorus of others ...
I guess that because Tracy wasn't a good christian himself, he felt a need to make caricatures of other christians in a movie.
I would submit that a supporter of evolution could have written that same line and remained totally consistent, so you are grasping at straws.
I am concerned about it, but there's not much I can do about it.
Forgive me if I'm skeptical. When I come across a grievous wrong committed against those who I disagree with, I focus on the wrong and ways to right it, rather than using it as a stepping stone to make a point about my own views. Somebody did a Birth of a Nation treatment of the Scopes Trial and you're first instinct is to say, "no bearing on evolution, nope, none at all." Not terribly impressive.
I wonder what you'd say if someone made a movie portraying Darwin as a sex fiend desperate to break the hold of Victorian mores?
You assume an awful lot with that condescending tripe, having no idea where I stand on this issue.
My comment had little to do with Darwin himself, ID, or any other extant theory. NO ONE can explain the pre-Cambrian explosion (although there have been attempts to broaden the definitions of phyla to accomplish such). The simple lack of soft-bodied transitional species leaves that series of events locked in ignorance.
Nobody knows how the pre-Cambrian explosion happened for a simple lack of evidence. The Burgess is the best we've got. Evolution sure as hell hasn't made a satisfactory explanation. ID may be a satisfactory explanation in concept, but there is no direct evidence by which to take it as scientific theory. The transition from pre-eukariotic to eukaryotic cells similarly lacks an adequate explanation. Unlike you, I am perfectly happy having competing ideas to explain the unexplained. Such motivates people to examine evidence from a variety of perspectives, which stands to yield better science in the long run than any comfortable orthodoxy.
Next.
True, but just a couple of them--The Patriot and Braveheart. From what I hear, the liberties taken in We Were Soldiers were not that great..with the main change being the assault on the mountain HQ at the end of the battle.
That said...when's the last time you heard of a major newspaper referencing the church-burning scene in The Patriot when discussing relations with Britain?
For those of you who will use classic arguments that can easily be debunked to "prove" Darwinism go here:
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
If all of you Darwinists actually believe that Evolution is true, why don't you put your money where your mouth is?
There is a $250,000 reward for anyone who can provide empirical evidence for macro evolution.
http://www.drdino.com:8080/Ministry/250k/index.jsp
***NOTE TO ALL*** Please support your position with facts other than statements like "To say evolution is false is denying reality, the end, I'm right." or "Creation is correct, you're wrong."
Well, first that would depend on whether or not Darwin was a sex fiend desperate to break the hold of Victorian mores. I don't know the answer to that although I would assume that if Charles Darwin were a verified sex fiend I would've heard about that at some point - since it would surely be a foremost weapon in the armory of the creationist vanguard.
Whatever the case may be, what I do about it is all that I can do about it, which is to advocate for a better education system and to correct fallacy wherever I identify it. But, this thread wasn't posted for the discussion of education reform, but rather for the discussion of evolution & creationism, so that's what I chose to comment about.
PS. Even the title of the op-ed frames this in the context of evolution/creationism, and moreover implicates the film directly with regard to the validity of evolution.
PPS. And it's also worth noting that I haven't seen the film and therefore cannot remark on the accuracy of its depiction. My comment was a neutral comment that just as easily could've been written by a creationist who was more interested in reason than in rhetoric .. if such a creature exists.
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.