Posted on 05/19/2009 6:48:25 PM PDT by Maelstorm
... Scott groused to the movie crowd that in America, unlike other countries, local curriculum content is set by - gasp - local school boards. Scott would like science curricula in every town and burg set by a national organization.
Interestingly, Scott may have been milder than some of her colleagues.
One panelist, Jon Amiel, who is currently making a movie on Darwin, compared those who deny evolution to those who deny that the Holocaust occurred.
Great. Think for yourself, and you're a Holocaust denier.
By the way, I looked up some promotional material for Amiel's movie, which is entitled, strangely enough, "Creation." It depicts the family drama between Darwin, as he became more convinced of his new set of beliefs, and his wife, who was traditionally religious, at the time when their young daughter died.
I have not seen the movie, but what strikes me as odd is its title. "Creation," of course, implies a Creator. Darwinism is the exact opposite of that.
But what about the "Inherit the Wind" movie?
Spencer Tracy, playing the character based on Clarence Darrow defending the young science teacher accused of teaching evolution, is a great actor. He is a lion in the winter of his career.
But the movie is pure propaganda. And in black-and-white, with close ups to reveal the old lion's face in his glorious last battle, it is powerful propaganda. The citizens of Hillsboro are rubes all, mindless, bigoted and unthinking. ... The movie is also an unintended parody. Most Bible believers aren't really like that. But I wonder: maybe the sophisticated Manhattan crowd really does think that Bible believers are like that. You know, close-minded.
Unlike today's elite, of course, who want students to hear only one side of the controversy between Evolution and Intelligent Design.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.nj.com ...
INTREP
Exactly. It’s funny how the people that think like that are the ones accusing us Christians of being the fascists. Me I want a moral and just society, and get angry it isn’t. I do not think that I will force anyone to do anything immoral or unethical. I know I wouldn’t.
The danger is in they do not want to debate at all. They are no different than those in the church they decry for persecuting heretics. The difference is that individuals like Galileo, Copernicus, and others never stopped being Christians, it can be argued that it was their belief in God that led to their curiosity to find order in the universe. The same can be said of Newton and many others. I’ve never had a great problem accepting the possibility of evolution but I do have a great problem accepting the overt atheism and secularist tone of it. I hear from individuals like Dawkins that it is liberating not to believe in a primitive God and then I see these same people elevating monkeys/mother nature to the status of Gods. Also they make up some of the most fantastic unscientific fables concerning a few fossilized bones. Also they seem to have a desire at minimalism towards man. Whether we are directly descended or not only a fool can fail to realize that humankind is light years ahead of apes in almost every way with the exception of physical strength. They are significantly tougher and tuned to live in a much harsher environment which is to be excepted. I think there is a real danger in blurring the line too much and there is a real danger in the likes of Dawkins and his crowd because they clearly have as a goal of twisting the science to support their religious worldview to the exclusion of all others. I think we see a result of it in modern hedonism.
Agreed.
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.