Do you prefer the loony left's depiction of President Bush?
Posted on 09/12/2009 7:34:09 PM PDT by Borges
Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.
However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.
Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Imagine that, a closet liberal with a cover story that leaks like a sieve on Free Republic.
Do you prefer the loony left's depiction of President Bush?
The terms mean essentially the same thing. If one knows something, they believe it. Perhaps what you're referring to is the difference and contrast between beliefs based on evidence and beliefs based solely on what someone says. Beliefs based on the latter are classed as faith. Faith is a belief based not on evidence that the knowledge is true, but only some knowledge of the person presenting some claim of truth and a lack of evidence the claim is false.
It serves no constructive purpose, and using apes to represent a black man and his wife may well (falsely I hope) be intepreted as being a racial attack on blacks by perhaps an majority of Americans who see it.
I'm all for satire, but only if it makes a clever and honest point, instead of just looking shallow and cruel.
There's nothing racial anywhere here.
Then again, there's this well known preacher...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo&NR=1
Yup. We do the right thing...
And this is what we get in return...
This country is being destroyed. It's under siege, and we're fed up with wishy washy, thin skinned, cowards who bury their heads in the sand, wishing the other party will stop raping this Republic.
We're in a friggin' WAR with fascist, marxist, racist liberals.
Yes, but Marx read Origin of Species after its' publication in 1859 and was a big fan of Darwin. In fact Karl Marx sent a letter to Darwin asking if it would be O.K. for him to dedicate his new book "Das Kapital" to Darwin. Darwin refused but both Marx and Engels writings after 1859 were significantly influenced by Darwins 'Origin of Species'.
Darwin did start a cult following no doubt about that. And we have elected a man who intends to enforce by law that scientific methodology.
Imagine that, a closet liberal with a cover story that leaks like a sieve on Free Republic.
Yes. We must cleanse first FreeRepublic, and then the conservative movement at large, and then the Republican Party, and finally the nation, of all who would defend evolutionary biology as scientifically sound.
Thank God the theistic evolutionist William Buckley has passed on, so we don't have to deal with the unseemly necessity of expelling him from the movement he largely created. But of course clear evolutionists like Charles Krauthammer must go. Likewise Bill Kristol, Karl Rove (not on the record as to evolution, but apparently an atheist or agnostic), Richard Brookhiser, James Taranto, Jonah Goldberg and many, many others.
You'd think most of those guys were solid conservatives, but the fact that they accept evolutionary biology proves otherwise.
Of what group must we purge conservatism next, Dear Leader?
Long believed to be true, but not.
It turns out the declined dedication request was not for "Das Kapital," and not from Marx. It was from Marx's son-in-law, Edward Aveling, for an ultimately obscure book he wrote in 1881 called, "The Student's Darwin". The denouement of this myth is related here.
BTW, although he did give superficial props and kudos to Darwin, anytime Marx dealt substantively with evolution, he revealed himself to be a Lammarkian rather than a Darwinian evolutionist.
As I noted previously, this was generally true of leftists until fairly late in the 20th century.
The implicit individualism of Darwinism, it's non-historicist contingency, the obvious analogies of natural selection to capitalist competition, Darwinism's Malthusian appeal to superfecundity and consequent population effects, were all inimical to the tendencies of socialism in general and communism in particular.
Although communists and other radical leftists often celebrated the name of Charles Darwin, and sometimes even called themselves "Darwinists," they usually rejected the substance of his theory and it's uniquely Darwinian elements, again in favor of Lammarkian versions of evolution.
That is a point of quite a bit of confusion on the evo side. There are way too many people who equate religious association or affiliation with having actual faith, claiming that being a member of a denomination is equivalent to being a Christian.
Being a Christian is a matter of faith as a follower of Christ depending on His death and resurrection, not of faith as a follower of a church, depending on ceremony, membership, or opinion.
Sure you did, or you wouldn't have posted it in such a contemptuous way.
The meaning is clear.
Shall we look at people like Mother Theresa, Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Dr. Livingston. These people are just a few who are representative of doing things in the name of the Bible and Christianity, and yet no evos ever reference them when wanting to associate people with Christianity. How inconvenient would that be, providing examples of what people can do in the name of the Bible and Christianity?
I mean, where would the ammunition come from for the God haters to blast religion with otherwise?
Why is that?
Now show me people who have made such self-sacrifice and done such good for the world who were atheists and evolutionists.
Evolution is NOT the basis for a whole series of fields of science.
If it was, there would have been no science done before the ToE came into existence and was widely accepted, (which it wasn't at first).
How does that explain the development of the scientific method by Newton hundreds of years before Darwin? And the foundation of genetics laid down my Mendel, without, apparently, any influence from Darwin's writings?
Even in the fields which evos might have some claim in the TOE being significant, much of the basis of those fields was done before the influence of Darwin and the ToE.
Where’s that picture of obama walking on ahead while a colleague helps in infirm associate down the steps behind him?
Here's the contrast.
Sure you did, or you wouldn't have posted it in such a contemptuous way.
The meaning is clear.
Lurkers are free to reach their own conclusions, but it's clear enough to me:
Your fellow antievolutionists are being typically divisive, nasty and histrionic in this thread, and you're a little desperate to attribute something, anything, comparable to the other "side".
My swipe was not at the antievolutionist film, which I haven't yet seen. As you will note -- or, rather, as you purposely failed to note -- I said that it looked potentially interesting and worthy, and that I would pay to see it in a theater.
My swipe was at GodGunsGuts, who immediately and gratuitously adopted a contemptuous attitude to the "Creation" film.
I am (at least at this point having seen neither) welcoming to both movies.
I would think about 10 minutes of prime-time tube would put an end to that theory.
To be intellectually honest one must distinguish between the times that religion and government were intertwined and realize that the political desires very, very often overruled the religious principles when it came to war and other violent actions.
If you make that distinction - not including theocracies in the mass murder count - then you have a much better way to compare these things.
In the case of secular governments that kill there is no need to subtract the religious element because that kind of govt sets out specifically to kill as a tool and doesn't agonize over ethics a religious person would.
So you end up with three categories when considering this "mass murder" issue: theocracies, secular govts and religious individuals or groups. The third group, I would suggest, is not involved in mass murder. Only the first two. The Bible is only relevant in the third group, also, except to label the first group as hypocrites.
You’re right! Sorry!
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.