Scientific IMAX films too controversial for the South

[Oski2005]

This is beyond stupid. They won't even show these films in museums. This is like going to a church and saying they can't talk about God.

A New Screen Test for Imax: It's the Bible vs. the Volcano
By CORNELIA DEAN

Published: March 19, 2005

The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.

Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.

The number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer, most in the South. But because only a few dozen Imax theaters routinely show science documentaries, the decisions of a few can have a big impact on a film's bottom line - or a producer's decision to make a documentary in the first place.

People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.

"Volcanoes," released in 2003 and sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation and Rutgers University, has been turned down at about a dozen science centers, mostly in the South, said Dr. Richard Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer who was chief scientist for the film. He said theater officials rejected the film because of its brief references to evolution, in particular to the possibility that life on Earth originated at the undersea vents.

Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."

In their written comments, she explained, they made statements 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."

On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass.

"If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she said, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to show it.

In interviews, officials at other Imax theaters said they had similarly decided against the film for fear of offending some audiences.

"We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public," said Lisa Buzzelli, who directs the Charleston Imax Theater in South Carolina, a commercial theater next to the Charleston Aquarium. Her theater had not ruled out ever showing "Volcanoes," Ms. Buzzelli said, "but being in the Bible Belt, the movie does have a lot to do with evolution, and we weigh that carefully."

Pietro Serapiglia, who handles distribution for the producer Stephen Low of Montreal, whose company made the film, said officials at other theaters told him they could not book the movie "for religious reasons," because it had "evolutionary overtones" or "would not go well with the Christian community" or because "the evolution stuff is a problem."

Hyman Field, who as a science foundation official had a role in the financing of "Volcanoes," said he understood that theaters must be responsive to their audiences. But Dr. Field he said he was "furious" that a science museum would decide not to show a scientifically accurate documentary like "Volcanoes" because it mentioned evolution.

"It's very alarming," he said, "all of this pressure being put on a lot of the public institutions by the fundamentalists."

People who follow the issue say it is more likely to arise at science centers and other public institutions than at commercial theaters. The filmmaker James Cameron, who was a producer on "Volcanoes," said the commercial film he made on the same topic, "Aliens of the Deep," had not encountered opposition, except during post-production, when "it was requested from some theaters that we change a line of dialogue" relating to sun worship by ancient Egyptians. The line remained, he said.

Mr. Cameron said he was "surprised and somewhat offended" that people were sensitive to the references to evolution in "Volcanoes."

"It seems to be a new phenomenon," he said, "obviously symptomatic of our shift away from empiricism in science to faith-based science."

Some in the industry say they fear that documentary filmmakers will steer clear of science topics likely to offend religious fundamentalists.

Large-format science documentaries "are generally not big moneymakers," said Joe DeAmicis, vice president for marketing at the California Science Center in Los Angeles and formerly the director of its Imax theater. "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.

Others who follow the issue say many institutions are not able to resist such pressure.

"They have to be extremely careful as to how they present anything relating to evolution," said Bayley Silleck, who wrote and directed "Cosmic Voyage." Mr. Silleck said he confronted religious objections to that film and predicted he would face them again with a project he is working on now, about dinosaurs.

Of course, a number of factors affect a theater manager's decision about a movie. Mr. Silleck said an Imax documentary about oil fires in Kuwait "never reached its distribution potential" because it had shots of the first Persian Gulf war. "The theaters decided their patrons would be upset at seeing the bodies," he said.

"We all have to make films for an audience that is a family audience," he went on, "when you are talking about Imax, because they are in science centers and museums."

He added, however, "there are a number of us who are concerned that there is a kind of tacit overcaution, overprotectedness of the audience on the part of theater operators."

In any event, censoring films like "Volcanoes" is not an option, said Dr. Field, who said Mr. Low, the film's producer, got in touch with him when the evolution issue arose to ask whether the film should be altered.

"I said absolutely not," recalled Dr. Field, who retired from the National Science Foundation last year.

Mr. Low said that arguments over religion and science disturbed him because of his own religious faith. In his view, he said, science is "a celebration of what nature or God has done. So for me, there's no conflict."

Dr. Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer, recalled a showing of "Volcanoes" he and Mr. Low attended at the New England Aquarium. When the movie ended, a little girl stood in the audience to challenge Mr. Low on the film's suggestion that Earth might have formed billions of years ago in the explosion of a star. "I thought God created the Earth," she said.

He replied, "Maybe that's how God did it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html?

Can you believe that? Caution at mentioning that the Egyptians worshipped Ra. Has it really gotten to the point that you can't talk about ancient religions in the South?

[surrender]

The facts have a liberal bias

[FranchiseBlade]

How horrible. This is ashame. This kind of censorship has no place anywhere, but especially not in the 21st century.

[KingCheetah]

LMAO ~ Underwater Volcanoes!?! That's Crazy. :D

What's next –- deep-sea fish living by these 'Underwater Volcanoes' with illuminated lures growing from their heads...

http://tinypic.com/2b1edf

:eek:

[bobrek]

Based on the following statement:

The number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer, most in the South.

For all we know, 11 theatres across the country (6 in the south) are not showing the films. It is curious as to why they don't use exact numbers since so few theatres are involved.

[Sishir Chang]

After just spending time decrying bigotry among the Chinese I now have to find out that they can't show IMAX movies in the South because they mention "evolution."

I'm running out of things to be proud of in my background. :(

[arno_ed]

Originally posted by KingCheetah
LMAO ~ Underwater Volcanoes!?! That's Crazy. :D

What's next –- deep-sea fish living by these 'Underwater Volcanoes' with illuminated lures growing from their heads...


:eek:
this is sarcasm right?(To early for me to see sarcasm).
Those underwater vulcanoes are very interesting for biologists.

[pirc1]

This is religion at its finest!:D and the reason people in many other parts of the world laugh at the US sometimes.

[MadMax]

I wish those who share my faith would stop asserting the Bible as a science text.

I can't for the life of me understand why a Christian would have a problem with the concept of the Big Bang. I find incredibly divine implications in that.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by pirc1
This is religion at its finest!:D and the reason people in many other parts of the world laugh at the US sometimes.
Maybe I'm missing something (haven't had my coffee yet) but I don't see anything in this article about Christians actually protesting anything except for this part:

and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."
Not exactly worldwide protest. Seems like the theatre owners/film makers are worried about something that hasn't really come to fruition. I agree with bobrek, this article seems to be much ado about nothing.

But then again, why waste an opportunity to bash religion.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by MadMax
I wish those who share my faith would stop asserting the Bible as a science text.

I can't for the life of me understand why a Christian would have a problem with the concept of the Big Bang. I find incredibly divine implications in that.

No kidding. The one thing that I have always asked myself WRT to the "Big Bang" is who put the matter there so that it could explode in the first place? So far, I have only come up with one answer that rings true for me.

[pirc1]

Originally posted by andymoon
No kidding. The one thing that I have always asked myself WRT to the "Big Bang" is who put the matter there so that it could explode in the first place? So far, I have only come up with one answer that rings true for me.

The reason the Big Bang theory scares many religious people is that even if the Big Bang is started by some being(God), it does not relect well on the way their particular religion believes how things started. That's why I am agnostic, there may very well be a god, but I do not believe the current religions.

This is sort of like the Church was so scared of the sun being the center of the solar system instead of earth.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Maybe I'm missing something (haven't had my coffee yet) but I don't see anything in this article about Christians actually protesting anything except for this part:

In their written comments, she explained, they made statements 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."

The Christians don't necessarily have to protest, there just needs to be such a threat, which is omnipresent when you are dealing with Christians in the South.

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k

Not exactly worldwide protest.

It was not presented as such, it was presented as a problem in the southern US, which makes up 10% of the market for IMAX documentaries.

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k

Seems like the theatre owners/film makers are worried about something that hasn't really come to fruition. I agree with bobrek, this article seems to be much ado about nothing.

You don't think there could be protests in the South if the Baptists decided a film was blasphemous? The protest does not have to "come to fruition" to have an impact, the threat of such a protest (which would affect the entire theater/museum/venue, not just the film being protested) is enough. That is the problem. Fundamentalists can't handle other theories being advanced in their presence.

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k

But then again, why waste an opportunity to bash religion.

Many religious people, in particular fundamentalists of the like that would threaten to protest an IMAX documentary, will never pass up a chance to bash secular society.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by pirc1
The reason the Big Bang theory scares many religious people is that even if the Big Bang is started by some being(God), it does not relect well on the way their particular religion believes how things started. That's why I am agnostic, there may very well be a god, but I do not believe the current religions.

This is sort of like the Church was so scared of the sun being the center of the solar system instead of earth.

Actually, if you believe in God but not religion, then you are spiritual, but not religious. Agnostic generally refers to someone who doesn't feel like they can believe until it is proven to them that God exists. I was agnostic until I woke up and "saw the light" so to speak.

I am not religious either, I am very spiritual.

[pirc1]

Originally posted by andymoon
Actually, if you believe in God but not religion, then you are spiritual, but not religious. Agnostic generally refers to someone who doen's feel like they can believe until it is proven to them that God exists. I was agnostic until I woke up and "saw the light" so to speak.

I am not religious either, I am very spiritual.

Thanks for pointing out the difference Andy, the things you learn on this BBS everyday!;)

[Oski2005]

The Passion of the Christ faced scrutiny, criticism, and outrage among other things, but still came out all over the country. If it isn't a big deal, I have to ask how that film came out with vocal protests against it while these films can't even get shown in museums. If it's much ado about nothing, then what are these theater managers scared of?

[FranchiseBlade]

I think it is definitely newsworthy. If more than 1 IMAX won't show it, it is newsworthy. This is an educated nation in the 21st century. We aren't in the dark ages where if someone mentions that the earth orbits the sun there's an outrage.

Nobody as ignorant as these folks are should be allowed to censor scientific theory. Actually nobody should be allowed to censor it at all. The desire to do so just shows an ignorance far beyond anything I would imagine in this day and age.

[wouldabeen23]

Originally posted by MadMax
I wish those who share my faith would stop asserting the Bible as a science text.

I can't for the life of me understand why a Christian would have a problem with the concept of the Big Bang. I find incredibly divine implications in that.

I can't either Max....I often thought I was the only one with those views, that science and religion should be fundemental partners that can reinforce each other.

Bottling up God into an ill-translated creation story that most likely circulated as an oral tradition for hundreads of years before it was put in writing is simply disengeneous. Why must these uber-bible thumpers focus on nothing but the Alpha and Omega??

Max, do YOU know???

I respect your religious viewpoints being that you don't ridicule those on the board who differ.

Why do hard-core, Evangelical-type Christians focus so single-mindedly on Genesis and The Revelation to John? This is an honest question BTW, not trying to be a troll....

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
But then again, why waste an opportunity to bash religion.

I don't think anyone here is bashing religion (yet). The focus is on those folks who use religion as an excuse to be intolerant - in particular those who also profess to follow the teachings of a supremely tolerant philosopher.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by wouldabeen23
Why do hard-core, Evangelical-type Christians focus so single-mindedly on Genesis and The Revelation to John? This is an honest question BTW, not trying to be a troll....

I can't take credit for this - it was posted by a friend of mine on a different board. Still, this may be a good starting point for discussion:


Fundamentalism is the belief that the Bible means what it says. That's all. There's nothing bizarre or sinister about that.

Most Christians are taught that God expects us to use our intelligence to understand the difference between a parable, an illustrative story, and the verifiable fact of how hot our coffee is. Where facts are known to be facts, we accept them as facts. Where stories are understood to be similes for higher concepts or descriptive parables, we accept them as such. And where we don't know, we accept on faith. Thus, to most Christians the Bible is full of great stories that illustrate basic truths (whether the actual events occurred or not) and facts.

Now, where do you draw the line between those two things? Each Christian decides for himself. Frankly, I admire the faith of those who truly believe the Bible can help them ascertain the exact day of the week the world was created. I draw the line in a different place. But the fact remains that we can both still claim to be fundamentalist Chrisitians. Our fundamental belief is that the Bible literally means what it says, even if we both read it to mean something a bit different.

The only problem with this is that I believe that where the Bible says one thing and science says something else, I ascribe that perceived difference to my inability to parse out when the Bible is being literal and when it's being illustrative/representational. I view science as helping me understand God's creation and Word better. I don't try to use the Word to refute provable facts. God gave me intelligence so I could try to grok the difference, not run roughshod over anything new and mysterious to me.

Some Christians, often derisively called "fundies," take a different approach. They, in my judgement, are guilty of the sin of pride. They think their faith is perfect in its current form and should never be informed by new facts. That's sad; Christians are supposed to grow in their faith, not ossify in it. I fear their hubris will be their undoing, eventually, and pray that they may be given better understanding before anybody else gets hurt.

If that makes me, in your eyes, something other than "fundamentalist," then I'm afraid you don't really know what the word means in this context.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by rhadamanthus
I don't think anyone here is bashing religion (yet). The focus is on those folks who use religion as an excuse to be intolerant - in particular those who also profess to follow the teachings of a supremely tolerant philosopher.

Many Christians use the argument that scientists present evolution as fact rather than as theory. I understand their argument.

I wonder if people would be more tolerant if you simply changed the verbiage to talk about evolution in more theoritcal terms? Or is that simply a convenient excuse to counter evolution.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Oski2005
If it's much ado about nothing, then what are these theater managers scared of?
Maybe you should ask them. The article mentions a few people saying things like "that's blasphemy" or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence." Again, no one is protesting anything. The theatre managers are the ones censoring these films. They are the ones making the decisions not to show them based on what they think might happen.

Look, I don't think these films should be censored either. I agree that it's all silly and in the long run it could be a very harmful precedent to set by not showing them. All I'm saying is that our ire should be directed at the theatre managers for setting it, not a bunch of potential protesters.

If the films are shown and protesters show up, I'll be just as ticked off as you guys, trust me.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Many Christians use the argument that scientists present evolution as fact rather than as theory. I understand their argument.

I wonder if people would be more tolerant if you simply changed the verbiage to talk about evolution in more theoritcal terms? Or is that simply a convenient excuse to counter evolution.

Evolution is not simply a "theory." It is a fact. Species exist today which did not exist in the distant past. They did not spring up from a new act of creation, but by gradual changes from species which existed before. To disprove these facts (and the incredible amount of evidence documenting them) would require absolutely extraordinary evidence, on a similar scale to proving that George Washington was never the President of the United States.

Now, on the other hand *Natural selection* is a scientific *theory* that attempts to explain the facts of evolution. In broad terms, virtually every biologist, paleontologist, biochemist, etc., believes that natural selection is primarily or completely responsible for the evolution of species. In specific terms, there is still a wide range of beliefs on the details of how natural selection occurs in detail, on what time scale a "typical" speciation event occurs, on how species become separated from each other during the process of evolution, etc.

So evolution is a fact and a theory. The fact is that evolution happened. The theory part is how that evolution happened.

A good quote:
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution."

- R. C. Lewontin

I wonder how you would respond if I asked you to describe creationism as a theory in your church service...

[TheFreak]

So a few theater managers making a business decision not to show a film = Scientific films are too controversial for the 'South'?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by TheFreak
So a few theater managers making a business decision not to show a film = Scientific films are too controversial for the 'South'?

When they are making that decision because they are afraid of protests, then yes.

[JuanValdez]

Originally posted by TheFreak
So a few theater managers making a business decision not to show a film = Scientific films are too controversial for the 'South'?

What I was thinking. Is this worth discussing? Theater managers are making decisions to keep their businesses profitable. If they think the movie won't play well, why should they show it? If they plain just don't like it, why should they show it? These are businesses making business decisions. They can -- and should -- do as they like. This isn't censorship. This is capitalism.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
What I was thinking. Is this worth discussing? Theater managers are making decisions to keep their businesses profitable. If they think the movie won't play well, why should they show it? If they plain just don't like it, why should they show it? These are businesses making business decisions. They can -- and should -- do as they like. This isn't censorship. This is capitalism. It is still censorship. It may be censorship with the purpose of making money, but it is censorship.

The fact that they feel the need to censor things like this in order to make money would make the thread title completely accurate, and gets to the point of the topic and many of the posts in here.

[JuanValdez]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
It is still censorship. It may be censorship with the purpose of making money, but it is censorship.

The fact that they feel the need to censor things like this in order to make money would make the thread title completely accurate, and gets to the point of the topic and many of the posts in here.

In one meaning of the word, this is self-censorship. But 'censorship' is a loaded word that carries a lot of moral condemnation with it. In the meaning here that it is censorship, it should be stripped of its moral implications. I couldn't really care less that there are enterprises who are catering to the desires of their clientele (as the managers perceive them). Should I be? If so, should I be upset that the local Sam's Club has stopped carrying semi-sweet chocolate (I am, but still)? How is it different?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
In one meaning of the word, this is self-censorship. But 'censorship' is a loaded word that carries a lot of moral condemnation with it. In the meaning here that it is censorship, it should be stripped of its moral implications. I couldn't really care less that there are enterprises who are catering to the desires of their clientele (as the managers perceive them). Should I be? If so, should I be upset that the local Sam's Club has stopped carrying semi-sweet chocolate (I am, but still)? How is it different? You should be concerned if people are censoring themselves in order to cater to ignorance. Not carrying semi-sweet chocolate isn't the same thing as censoring out history or science.

[JuanValdez]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
You should be concerned if people are censoring themselves in order to cater to ignorance. Not carrying semi-sweet chocolate isn't the same thing as censoring out history or science.

Again, it isn't censoring out -- the volcano movie is getting play all over the country. The information given in the movie is repeated in essays and textbooks; you can probably see it on PBS or google it on the web. If my local Imax wasn't showing the movie, I could drive to another that was. The science and the history of it is not being denied to the public, nor are the publishers being denied all outlets of speech.

And, if people are censoring themselves to cater to ignorance, I do not care. Perhaps you think I should, but I don't, and I don't see why I should. Hollywood caters to ignorance; Microsoft caters to ignorance; what's the big deal here?

[Hippieloser]

This is an odd debate. As if fundamentalists would ever be caught dead inside a science museum.

[wouldabeen23]

Originally posted by Hippieloser
This is an odd debate. As if fundamentalists would ever be caught dead inside a science museum.

HAHAHAHA!!....Great way of putting this all in perspective Hippie...that one made me laugh out loud.

[JayZ750]

When did running a science museum become about making a profit? I thought they were publicly funded, not-for-profit vehicles that are there to provide scientific evidence for a variety of things.

Certainly, the big dinosaur skeleton in the exhibition hall has just as many implications on fundamental new world religions as an IMAX about volcanoes underwater, no?

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by Hippieloser
This is an odd debate. As if fundamentalists would ever be caught dead inside a science museum.

You know, that's right! It is a sad state of affairs when this has become an issue.

Geez, if you can't talk about evolution at the Museum of Natural Science, where on green earth can you talk about evolution? Wouldn't you think that would be the one safe place in the whole world?

Somehow I don't think Christians would ban Christmas trees at church so they didn't offend any Jews.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by JayZ750
Certainly, the big dinosaur skeleton in the exhibition hall has just as many implications on fundamental new world religions as an IMAX about volcanoes underwater, no?
That reminds me of a Lewis Black joke. He said, with fingers wagging, I've got proof of evolution. It's called fossils...fossils...fossils...fossils!!! Then he said somebody approached him after the show and straight faced told him that he felt the devil put the fossils there. :)

Originally posted by JayZ750
When did running a science museum become about making a profit? I thought they were publicly funded, not-for-profit vehicles that are there to provide scientific evidence for a variety of things.
Well, they still need to recoup their costs and anticipated tickets sales is a factor. Any additional monies received probably gets funneled back into the museum itself for capital improvements and educational programs. So it still behoves them to make money.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
You should be concerned if people are censoring themselves in order to cater to ignorance.
So, is your problem with the theatre managers or the people who the theatre managers think might protest?

I really think some people (not you, FB) are missing the point of this article. NO ONE IS PROTESTING. The theatre managers are scared that people MIGHT protest so they aren't going to show the movie(s). So who is at fault here? The people who the theatre managers think MIGHT protest? :confused:

But like I said before, perception is reality (see thread title) so why waste a good opportunity to bash religion when it's just oh so hip to do so?

[bnb]

In fact, it's not even as bad as that...

from the article:

"If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she said, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to show it.

Not sure i can disagree with that logic. Not like it's some ground breaking scientific theory they're consipiring to keep secret. or that the IMAX play-list is the extent of the school curicula.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
So, is your problem with the theatre managers or the people who the theatre managers think might protest?

I really think some people (not you, FB) are missing the point of this article. NO ONE IS PROTESTING. The theatre managers are scared that people MIGHT protest so they aren't going to show the movie(s). So who is at fault here? The people who the theatre managers think MIGHT protest? :confused:

But like I said before, perception is reality (see thread title) so why waste a good opportunity to bash religion when it's just oh so hip to do so?
1. I'm upset with the managers for not showing it.

2. I'm upset that we live in a society where there is a significant number of ignorant people that anyone would have to worry about a scientific feature being protested.

3. anyone who would protest that is part of the problem.

First of all I'm that angry about it in the first place, though I do think it is ridiculous. But what concerns I have about this particular case would come in the order listed above.

[bnb]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
1. I'm upset with the managers for not showing it.

2. I'm upset that we live in a society where there is a significant number of ignorant people that anyone would have to worry about a scientific feature being protested.

3. anyone who would protest that is part of the problem.



1. The managers have to select what films they show. And don't show. They would do so primarily based on what would attract customers within their mandate. If the only buzz a film creates is a negative one...without bringing more people to see...and the film is not of particular scientific importance...i'm not surprised they pass on it. Per the article, they felt the film wouldn't generate much interest.

2 Again...the worry about protest was only part of the picture. An equally big part was that it wasn't going to draw a crowd.

3 Anyone who would protest this is just plain stupid ;).


Also...this was very few screens. Hardly a representation of the "South".....I hope. Our 24 hour media must fill the void. You have taken the bait. (me too..).

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by bnb
1. The managers have to select what films they show. And don't show. They would do so primarily based on what would attract customers within their mandate. If the only buzz a film creates is a negative one...without bringing more people to see...and the film is not of particular scientific importance...i'm not surprised they pass on it. Per the article, they felt the film wouldn't generate much interest.

2 Again...the worry about protest was only part of the picture. An equally big part was that it wasn't going to draw a crowd.

3 Anyone who would protest this is just plain stupid ;).


Also...this was very few screens. Hardly a representation of the "South".....I hope. Our 24 hour media must fill the void. You have taken the bait. (me too..).
First I agree that this is not indicitive of the South as a whole.

I see your point about the other stuff too. I understand that possible protest isn't the whole of the issue, but the fact that it matters at all is bothersome. But, in this case, it isn't that big of a deal.

[Dubious]

Hey the Pope finally acknowledged that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth. It took 400 years but that's not that long in God Time, you know, where 7 God days equals 12.5 billion people years. So really this whole Evolution/Bible thing is just a mistranslation or misinterpretation of the time scale God was talking about when he was speaking in ......Sanskrit?

Sanskrit to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German (Gutenberg?) to Old English to English. Did these people never play the "pass the whisper' game? Just say "Yep, we think God may have a different sense of time" cased closed.

(Really,I can't believe I am the the same species as people who believe the bible is the literal. I think they secretly know that their whole myth is so ludicrous that if they don't doggedly oppose any 'cracks' the entire belief system will crumble. Like the Pope and the Cardinals sit around saying, "yea this is goofy but we must maintain the myth so the poor wretched people will have some hope".)

[Mrs. Valdez]

First of all, Imax films are often incredibly boring, poorly scripted, tacky or all three. I have seen a couple I thought were good but they seemed to be the exception. If a theater manager decided it wasn't worth wasting $7 on I appreciate that.

Secondly, quite a number of Christians visit Natural Science museums all the time. Christian perspectives on evolution, natural history and science as a whole run the spectrum. I'm not sure why this thread has to turn into a Christian-bashing venue over a marketing decision that was the museums to make.

Third, from a culinary perspective I have to assert that the censorship of semi-sweet chocolate is in fact as agregious as the censorship of any history or science material. Perhaps for the same reason that Barnes and Noble is not and should not be legally required to carry every book ever published, Sam's club can freely choose what sort of chocolate to buy. Yet to shield people from the pleasures of semi-sweet and subject them instead to the childish and dulled flavor that is "milk chocolate" is objectionable if not offensive. Because a store such as Sam's Club appeals to the masses their choice of products makes a statement about quality standards in our society; they should recognize their moral obligation to raise aesthetic standards to a more acceptable level.

[MR. MEOWGI]

When is a 3d, IMAX version of The Passion coming out? Or maybe it should be a experience ride at Disney...

[rocketstrike]

Is evolution science? Something came from nothing...(My personal opinion is that evolution is a religion and shouldn't be taught in schools unless creation is taught)

[rocketstrike]

I'm not saying it's wrong to show it, but it is wrong when we are told evolution is truth when in fact it is a theory. What do you think? Peace!

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by rocketstrike
I'm not saying it's wrong to show it, but it is wrong when we are told evolution is truth when in fact it is a theory. What do you think? Peace! Evolution is fact. There is a huge problem when people use theory in the colloquial sense, when discussing scientific theory. It creates a lot of confusion. One of the posts in this very thread addresses the theory/fact confusion nicely.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by rocketstrike
Is evolution science? Something came from nothing...(My personal opinion is that evolution is a religion and shouldn't be taught in schools unless creation is taught) Evolution doesn't contend that something came from nothing. Evolution is science, backed by research, and evidence. The same can not be said of creation. Creation(or none of the creation stories that I am familiar with) does not rise to the level of scientific theory. Are you speaking of a different creation theory?

[pirc1]

It's pretty interesting how many Christians would dismiss the evolution theories when there are overwhelming evidence to support these theories.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by JayZ750

Certainly, the big dinosaur skeleton in the exhibition hall has just as many implications on fundamental new world religions as an IMAX about volcanoes underwater, no?

I once heard a creationist say with a straight face that dinosaurs and other fossils were creatures that didn't survive the great flood. Aparrently there wasn't enough room in the Ark for a brachiosaurus.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by rocketstrike
I'm not saying it's wrong to show it, but it is wrong when we are told evolution is truth when in fact it is a theory. What do you think? Peace!

See my post on page 1 of this thread. Evolution is a fact. How evolution occurs is a theory. A theory in turn, is a concept that has a mountain of evidence to support it.

Intelligent design and/or creationism has no testable hypothesis and is therefore not science. By extension it does not belong in a science classroom.

Furthermore, would you demand a science teacher say that the heliocentric theory of the solar system is "just a theory", and that there are other schools of thought, including the "epicycle" theory?

Any science teacher worth beans could not stand before a class and say that the evidence for "intelligent design" is remotely close to the evidence for evolution. If you don't realize that the evidence disparity is at that level, then you just haven't been paying attention.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Evolution is fact. There is a huge problem when people use theory in the colloquial sense, when discussing scientific theory. It creates a lot of confusion. One of the posts in this very thread addresses the theory/fact confusion nicely.

I agree its a missunderstanding of the scientific method regarding the confusion of the scientific use of the term "theory."

While creationists might bash evolution by saying its only a theory, many of the principles that allows me to transmit my thoughts to the BBS wirelessly and for you to read it are theories themselves.

I won't call evolution a fact but given the evidence and the rigorous methodology used to test it its the best idea we have for how the diversity of life came about.

[Oski2005]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k

But like I said before, perception is reality (see thread title) so why waste a good opportunity to bash religion when it's just oh so hip to do so?

How does my thread title or comments bash religion? Maybe you aren't talking about me, but the only person who actually "bashed" religion is pirc1 and you already addressed him. One person doesn't equal "some people" so I'm curious who else here was bashing religion?

Also, you were the first person to actually mention the word protest. The point of this thread was pointing out how these movies can't even make into museums in the South.

Originally posted by Mrs. Valdez

Secondly, quite a number of Christians visit Natural Science museums all the time. Christian perspectives on evolution, natural history and science as a whole run the spectrum. I'm not sure why this thread has to turn into a Christian-bashing venue over a marketing decision that was the museums to make.

That joke was about fundamentalists, not all Christians. Like you said, there is a wide spectrum and part of that spectrum doesn't believe most of the stuff you'll find in a natural history museum.


Originally posted by Mrs. Valdez

third, from a culinary perspective I have to assert that the censorship of semi-sweet chocolate is in fact as agregious as the censorship of any history or science material. Perhaps for the same reason that Barnes and Noble is not and should not be legally required to carry every book ever published, Sam's club can freely choose what sort of chocolate to buy. Yet to shield people from the pleasures of semi-sweet and subject them instead to the childish and dulled flavor that is "milk chocolate" is objectionable if not offensive. Because a store such as Sam's Club appeals to the masses their choice of products makes a statement about quality standards in our society; they should recognize their moral obligation to raise aesthetic standards to a more acceptable level.

Sorry, but this just doesn't fly. You can't compare a museum to for profit corporations. Though, I bet I could walk into a Barnes and Noble in the deep south and find plenty of books on evolution and probably lots of other blasphemous things, yet museums, the havens for science, aren't showing these films.

As for the films being boring or tacky, no one said that they have to take on all movies and certainly not be legally forced to. But the quality of the movies isn't why they aren't showing them (except partially for Volcanoes). Your analogy makes it seem like there are other movies that talk about evolution being shown. Well check out the Ft. Worth museum's site. They only have 3 films showing, none of them are about evolution, one of them is Aliens of the Deep, which the makers of were asked to remove the mentioning of the Egyptians worshipping the Sun God. If it wasn't a James Cameron movie, they probably would have had to remove it or not get to show the movie there.

Finally, I need a free sample from your bakery where semi-sweet chocolate is a main ingredient to verify your claim of it's superiority to milk chocolate.;)

[Sishir Chang]

Finally, I need a free sample from your bakery where semi-sweet chocolate is a main ingredient to verify your claim of it's superiority to milk chocolate.

Well it is only a theory not a fact that semi-sweet chocalate is superior to milk chocalate. It also diminishes the heavenly goodness of chocalate to deny the divineness of the creamy rich combination of milk, cocoa, sugar and vanilla.

[JuanValdez]

The mantra, "evolution is only a theory" has a countervailing mantra, equally disingenuous, that "scientific theory is fact." The tension between evolutionists and the creationists is philosophical in nature, not scientific. To repeatedly say evolution is scientific is to butt your head against the wall; it's irrelevant. It assumes that science is the source of all knowledge, an assumption not shared by those that evolutionists are likely arguing with. I'm not sure if this is willful ignorance or genuine, but you cannot have a philosophical argument solely on a scientific plane; it is inadequate. So talk as much as you like about how scientific evolution is, but you won't be able to win an argument with a creationist like that; you're not even talking about the same subject.

Someone's already pointed this out, but it bears repeating since Oski did it again. Don't paint the South with a broad brush. We're talking about less than a dozen theaters in the South not carrying the film. If anything, it means the South is generally welcoming of the movie since it has gotten play nearly everywhere.

Not all the Imax theaters are in Musuems, though many are. Also, non-profit entities operate like for-profit ones in many ways -- especially in providing product that sells. To say that a non-profit should ignore the bottom line and should show (in this case) a movie they think will be a loser is foolishness.

And, my wife is right about Imax movies -- the big screen is cool, but they've got some crappy-ass writers. Hopefully, the volcano flick is different.

[pirc1]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
The mantra, "evolution is only a theory" has a countervailing mantra, equally disingenuous, that "scientific theory is fact." The tension between evolutionists and the creationists is philosophical in nature, not scientific. To repeatedly say evolution is scientific is to butt your head against the wall; it's irrelevant. It assumes that science is the source of all knowledge, an assumption not shared by those that evolutionists are likely arguing with. I'm not sure if this is willful ignorance or genuine, but you cannot have a philosophical argument solely on a scientific plane; it is inadequate. So talk as much as you like about how scientific evolution is, but you won't be able to win an argument with a creationist like that; you're not even talking about the same subject.

Someone's already pointed this out, but it bears repeating since Oski did it again. Don't paint the South with a broad brush. We're talking about less than a dozen theaters in the South not carrying the film. If anything, it means the South is generally welcoming of the movie since it has gotten play nearly everywhere.

Not all the Imax theaters are in Musuems, though many are. Also, non-profit entities operate like for-profit ones in many ways -- especially in providing product that sells. To say that a non-profit should ignore the bottom line and should show (in this case) a movie they think will be a loser is foolishness.

And, my wife is right about Imax movies -- the big screen is cool, but they've got some crappy-ass writers. Hopefully, the volcano flick is different.

There is really no need to argue with someone who does not care how much evidence or support you have for your theories. If they do not believe it the scientic method, you can not make them believe, even though there are evidence all around us which shows the success of this proven method. There will just be more and more support the theory of evolution as more and more new data and evidences are revealed in the future, let the facts speak for themselves.

[JuanValdez]

Originally posted by pirc1
There is really no need to argue with someone who does not care how much evidence or support you have for your theories. If they do not believe it the scientic method, you can not make them believe, even though there are evidence all around us which shows the success of this proven method. There will just be more and more support the theory of evolution as more and more new data and evidences are revealed in the future, let the facts speak for themselves.

Is that willful or genuine?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
It assumes that science is the source of all knowledge, an assumption not shared by those that evolutionists are likely arguing with.


True in this context perhaps - but where we see the controversy occur the most is in the arena of public school science class, where school boards mess with textbooks, etc - and I think it's probably irrational to not make that (science is the source of knowledge) the base assumption in the circumstance of teaching a science class.

[JayZ750]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
And, my wife is right about Imax movies -- the big screen is cool, but they've got some crappy-ass writers. Hopefully, the volcano flick is different.

I disagree. I don't think I've ever been to an IMAX that I didn't think was worth the price of admission. Yes, sometimes the writing is bad, but they always hold my interest, visually and in regards to subject matter.

Originally posted by rocketstrike
Is evolution science? Something came from nothing...(My personal opinion is that evolution is a religion and shouldn't be taught in schools unless creation is taught)

By that logic, schools shouldn't teach gravity, mathematics, driving, history, etc., etc. Of course, you can extend this back to saying that creation shouldn't be taught either, because it is just an idea of something coming from nothing.

Originally posted by JuanValdez
I'm not sure if this is willful ignorance or genuine, but you cannot have a philosophical argument solely on a scientific plane; it is inadequate.

Which begs the question, why should it be a philosophical argument in the first place? Evolutionists / scientists don't think it is philosophical until you reach a certain point (say, the Big Bang, or even before that). I can't tell you why creationists think it is entierely a philosophical argument and not at least partly a scientific debate, given the facts, because I'm not one.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
The tension between evolutionists and the creationists is philosophical in nature, not scientific. To repeatedly say evolution is scientific is to butt your head against the wall; it's irrelevant. It assumes that science is the source of all knowledge, an assumption not shared by those that evolutionists are likely arguing with. I'm not sure if this is willful ignorance or genuine, but you cannot have a philosophical argument solely on a scientific plane; it is inadequate. So talk as much as you like about how scientific evolution is, but you won't be able to win an argument with a creationist like that; you're not even talking about the same subject.

I agree with you in general that I believe science can't tell us everything. There are just some questions that can never be answered scientifically like am I here for a purpose. Except that most evolution versus creation debates involve whether evolution should be taught in science classes.

Also many creationist don't just want to have a philosophical discussion they actually believe that evolution is false scientifically and have gone to great lengths to try to disprove it scientifically.

So while yes we're talking about philosophical mindsets it not only is adequate its absolutely necessary to confine an argument solely on the scientific plane when the subject is whether an idea is correct scientifically.

Just wanted to add one more thought. While evolution is a theory and hasn't been absolutely proven scientifically if it didn't work much of modern medicine wouldn't work since its predicated off of that. Epidemiology is essentially studying evolution on a small and rapid scale by keep track of how infectious microbes successfully adapt and spread. In tracking new diseases it also considers how random genetic mutation can cause a disease to move from one species to another or to develop new transmission abilities.

Also we as humans engage in our own form of evolution. Anytime a farmer selectively breeds livestock that right there is selection, albeit not natural, for specific traits that give that geneline an advantage. Even though its mediated by humans its essentially the same thing as genetic trait that gives a particular animal an advantage in a particular environment to the point that only animals with that trait prosper and it gets more and more pronounced to the point its different species altogether.

[MadMax]

To ease some of your minds...I'm a Christian...I'm pretty fundamentalist, I suppose. Not a literalist throughout...depends on the nature of the book within the Bible I'm reading. Much more likely to take a literalist view on the Gospels or Acts which purport to be accounts of real events. I hang out with other Christians, though certainly not exclusively! :) I don't know even one who says, "yep...Genesis is definitely the exact way it went down. 7 days, baby. Woo hoo!!" I don't know one who wouldn't accept the notion of it being metaphor, except maybe Carl Everett. Genesis is not a science text...it's a precursor to addressing the need for a savior, in Christian theology.

God created...it was good....good relationship with man...man chose his own ways and will over God's...sin enters...broken relationship...unrepairable relationship from our side...God intervenes by saving humanity through Christ. That's Christian theology in a nutshell.

I hear many of your concerns about all of this. But even as I read this article, I don't get the sense there's this mass protest from the pews for something like this. Seems like a story blown up on an otherwise slow news day.

I think an omnipotent God could have used evolution within his creation. I see no problem with that. I certainly won't deny intra-species evolution (like moths changing colors, etc). I have a harder time seeing a common ancestor for a whale and a bat.

[Oski2005]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
Someone's already pointed this out, but it bears repeating since Oski did it again. Don't paint the South with a broad brush. We're talking about less than a dozen theaters in the South not carrying the film. If anything, it means the South is generally welcoming of the movie since it has gotten play nearly everywhere.

Not all the Imax theaters are in Musuems, though many are. Also, non-profit entities operate like for-profit ones in many ways -- especially in providing product that sells. To say that a non-profit should ignore the bottom line and should show (in this case) a movie they think will be a loser is foolishness.

At what point did I accuse, attribute, or generalize the "ENTIRE" South of anything?

Also, when I started this thread, I made it clear I was talking about Museums. Also, to prevent a "museum's bottom line" retort, I made sure to point out that Volcanoes was the only one that was mentioned as being a possible "loser."

[JayZ750]

Originally posted by MadMax
I think an omnipotent God could have used evolution within his creation. I see no problem with that.

Out of curiousity, would you have a problem with the idea that God didn't set up evolution per se, just created a starting point with some material and sent it on its way, and evolution is what happened?

[MadMax]

Originally posted by JayZ750
Out of curiousity, would you have a problem with the idea that God didn't set up evolution per se, just created a starting point with some material and sent it on its way, and evolution is what happened?

on the surface, i'd say yes i have a problem with that. i'm not a deist. i think God had more than just a helping hand in creation. i don't believe you're here by accident, Jay. and, no, i can't use the scientific method to prove that up! :)

[JuanValdez]

Originally posted by Oski2005
At what point did I accuse, attribute, or generalize the "ENTIRE" South of anything?

When you gave the thread the title "Scientific IMAX films too controversial for the South." You repeated it when you said "The point of this thread was pointing out how these movies can't even make into [sic] museums in the South." Not a big deal; I'm just sensitive about characterizations of the South.

I agree with you in general that I believe science can't tell us everything. There are just some questions that can never be answered scientifically like am I here for a purpose. Except that most evolution versus creation debates involve whether evolution should be taught in science classes.

Also many creationist don't just want to have a philosophical discussion they actually believe that evolution is false scientifically and have gone to great lengths to try to disprove it scientifically.

So while yes we're talking about philosophical mindsets it not only is adequate its absolutely necessary to confine an argument solely on the scientific plane when the subject is whether an idea is correct scientifically.

Two people mentioned it, but I wasn't trying to address the creationism in science class debate. That's where it hits the news the most, but there is a broad front where this philosophical battle is taking place. I won't even argue about the school issue, mostly since I agree with you (the proper place for the 2 theories to duke it out would be a philosophy class, not a science class. Otherwise, I do think creation should be taught in school in a theology class -- not teaching kids about the religions of the world seems like a grocery-store-aisle-wide hole in their educations. But, as I've said, that's another matter and another thread.) So I understand why you'd appeal to the classroom argument since it's a winner, but it really wasn't where I was headed.

Otherwise, I don't think it's true that the argument in public discourse is conducted on scientifically proving and disproving evolution. Even here, where we have well-educated people, it's mostly assertions of "it's just a theory," and "it is well-proven." There are some who are about the business of proving (like Daniel Dennett) and challenging (Behe), but these are scholars in the business, with PhDs and tenured positions. To me, it seems that the popular discourse is actually mostly ships passing in the night, with each side ultimately resting its case on an authority the other side doesn't recognize as legitimate.

All I'm trying to argue here (and really no more, since I lean more evolutionist than creationist), is that maintaining the argument on a scientific field is a great defense, but a poor offense. By saying you must confine the argument to a scientific one, you simply reassert science as the only source of knowledge and disengage from dialogue with the opposition. You can't really have a dialogue until you've found common ground for both parties to operate.

Finally, the reason why you won't manage to convince a creationist of the scientific veracity of evolution, is because they are distrustful of scientists, and maybe the scientific process. I would say they think scientists involved in issues around evolution assume what they are trying to prove, ignore evidence that contradict what they already "know", and perhaps go so far as to fabricate evidence to make the case stronger than it is (buoyed by a couple of cases where this has actually happened). Having several members of my family doing genetics research, I don't think the distrust is without merit.

Postscript: It would be a hard-core creationist, indeed, that would deny selection of traits over time within a species -- "micro-evolution." Evolutionists seem to think that all creationists think this way, perhaps as straw-man slander. Much more common, I think, is the creationist recognizes changes in the genetic profile of a species over time but not the speciation of macro-evolution.

[FranchiseBlade]

Evolution isn't fact because it is science. It is science because it has undergone the tests and evidence to pass throught the process. The tests and evidence therefore make it a fact. Philosophy might enter into the why and how it works part, and would certainly enter into the various versions of creation.

But when comparing the two one is fact and one isn't, at least in a literal sense.

[Hippieloser]

I guess I might as well chime in here to say that I do believe in creationism in that I believe God was the beginning of everything that exists. I've never had trouble fitting evolution into this belief. In fact, it fits right in, as far as I'm concerned. Why God would want to create something like the Universe in the blink of an eye when time must be pretty meaningless to Him is beyond me.

Sure, the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, but then again it doesn't mention guinea pigs, either. Or even zebras! The Bible is about people, events and God. It's a religious text, not an encyclopedia. A religious text filled with parables, I might add.

I've never understood why evolution is seen as a threat to creationism and vice-versa. In the end, it just comes down to a choice. After all the data and reasoning, we each get to make this choice: Everything we can experience either happened for a good reason or it happened for no real reason. There's no "fact" in this area, just a blind choice. So whatever we decide, let's just go ahead and be considerate of others' choices.

I don't particularly like being associated with dumbass rednecks who somehow read the Bible only to come to the conclusion that "God Hates Fags," but it's my decision to think of myself as a Christian and live in the South, so I'd ask that people be considerate of that choice, too.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by JuanValdez


Postscript: It would be a hard-core creationist, indeed, that would deny selection of traits over time within a species -- "micro-evolution." Evolutionists seem to think that all creationists think this way, perhaps as straw-man slander. Much more common, I think, is the creationist recognizes changes in the genetic profile of a species over time but not the speciation of macro-evolution.

BINGO

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
All I'm trying to argue here (and really no more, since I lean more evolutionist than creationist), is that maintaining the argument on a scientific field is a great defense, but a poor offense. By saying you must confine the argument to a scientific one, you simply reassert science as the only source of knowledge and disengage from dialogue with the opposition. You can't really have a dialogue until you've found common ground for both parties to operate.

The problem I have with this that evolution is a scientific theory and not a faith or philosophical theory. To the extent that it is faith or philosophy is to question the whole scientific methodology that produced that it.

As I said I agree with you that there are limits to what science can teach us. I like to think of it that science can tell us the How but can't really tell us the Why. To the question of whether there is higher purpose to anything or if it is all just a causal chain arising from pure randomness is a question that I don't think could or even should be answered by science. Evolution though is merely the best explanation for how life developed and came to be as we know it. It's based and has been tested according to a rigid logical methodology designed to weed out contradiction and subjectivity. Beyond that it can't answer if there is greater purpose to life or a prime creator. All it tells us is method not reason. Therefore I don't see how there can be a philosophical debate regarding a faith idea vs. a scientific idea when they aren't even subject to the same logical rules.

Finally, the reason why you won't manage to convince a creationist of the scientific veracity of evolution, is because they are distrustful of scientists, and maybe the scientific process. I would say they think scientists involved in issues around evolution assume what they are trying to prove, ignore evidence that contradict what they already "know", and perhaps go so far as to fabricate evidence to make the case stronger than it is (buoyed by a couple of cases where this has actually happened). Having several members of my family doing genetics research, I don't think the distrust is without merit.

While yes scientists have fabricated data and falsified results before but that is the beauty of the scientific method because it builds in skepticism. Things are never truly proven in science but everything is always open to testing. That said I would say its pretty much impossible to argue some grand conspiracy of scientists and secular humanists to create false theory of evolution because so many people have sought to debunk it for almost 200 years.

The problem that creationists and other have when arguing that science is basically a faith and no more true than any other faith is that the religion of science works. You can choose to believe that science is the same as any other faith but that doesn't change that planes fly and we're communicating on the internet.

Much more common, I think, is the creationist recognizes changes in the genetic profile of a species over time but not the speciation of macro-evolution.

Again this comes down understanding the logical rules with which science is derived. As I noted before the basic mechanisms of evolution can be seen by observing mutation and selective breeding. Using inductive reasoning you can move to the idea that the differentiation of species came about from the same mechanism. With evolution its further supported by such things as the fossil record, comparative anatomy and now genetic studies. Just looking at the vast diversity of life it may seem like a stretch but as I said the same logic that supports evolution is also the same logic behind the creation of the internet.

[JuanValdez]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Evolution isn't fact because it is science. It is science because it has undergone the tests and evidence to pass throught the process. The tests and evidence therefore make it a fact. Philosophy might enter into the why and how it works part, and would certainly enter into the various versions of creation.

But when comparing the two one is fact and one isn't, at least in a literal sense.

Again, you are demonstrating what I've been talking about in this thread. You're asserting an assumption that the empirical model is the source of knowledge -- how one knows what one knows -- and dismisses all other forms. But, the person you're arguing with may not agree. It's just an assertion, and one that isn't accepted by the other party. You can follow up with something akin to "anyone who doesn't accept it is a fool," but that isn't a basis for dialogue either.

[JuanValdez]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang The problem I have with this that evolution is a scientific theory and not a faith or philosophical theory. To the extent that it is faith or philosophy is to question the whole scientific methodology that produced that it.

What's wrong with that?

As I said I agree with you that there are limits to what science can teach us. I like to think of it that science can tell us the How but can't really tell us the Why. To the question of whether there is higher purpose to anything or if it is all just a causal chain arising from pure randomness is a question that I don't think could or even should be answered by science. Evolution though is merely the best explanation for how life developed and came to be as we know it. It's based and has been tested according to a rigid logical methodology designed to weed out contradiction and subjectivity. Beyond that it can't answer if there is greater purpose to life or a prime creator. All it tells us is method not reason. Therefore I don't see how there can be a philosophical debate regarding a faith idea vs. a scientific idea when they aren't even subject to the same logical rules.

If we were comparing the mechanics of natural selection to the 6 days of creation, I'd agree there isn't much basis to compare. But, the comparison is actually, Did it happen this way or that way? We just want to know what is true. The scientific method is one tool for discovery.

It may be a better or worse tool. I would point out the quasi-religious faith many have in the inerrancy of the method (not even of those who practice, but of the method itself, which was created by man too). Are you certain it can weed out all contradiction and subjectivity (know, not in an empirical sense, but in a logical one?)? Is it really so infallible? If so, why? Can we know things empirically as certainly as we can know things logically?


While yes scientists have fabricated data and falsified results before but that is the beauty of the scientific method because it builds in skepticism. Things are never truly proven in science but everything is always open to testing. That said I would say its pretty much impossible to argue some grand conspiracy of scientists and secular humanists to create false theory of evolution because so many people have sought to debunk it for almost 200 years.

I wasn't arguing that fabrication of data was an actual problem, only that the fallibility of man undercuts somewhat the authority of science. But, I wouldn't say it was impossible to argue for a grand conspiracy; not really as a conscious planned conspiracy, but a sort of phenomenon that feeds on itself. The development of the church seems to follow a similar pattern in many ways, likewise unplanned, but complex, robust, organic, and mostly sincere.

The problem that creationists and other have when arguing that science is basically a faith and no more true than any other faith is that the religion of science works. You can choose to believe that science is the same as any other faith but that doesn't change that planes fly and we're communicating on the internet.

I don't want to go too far down this road and go beyond scope (any worse). I'd point out though that empirical study has always had its uses even before the advent of the scientific method and people have been inventing things for a very long time. The worship of the method, as opposed to its use, is a different thing again.



Again this comes down understanding the logical rules with which science is derived. As I noted before the basic mechanisms of evolution can be seen by observing mutation and selective breeding. Using inductive reasoning you can move to the idea that the differentiation of species came about from the same mechanism. With evolution its further supported by such things as the fossil record, comparative anatomy and now genetic studies. Just looking at the vast diversity of life it may seem like a stretch but as I said the same logic that supports evolution is also the same logic behind the creation of the internet.

I noticed in your jump from micro- to macro-evolution, you also jumped from empirical observation to inductive reasoning. I'm not saying there's no place for induction, but it appears to be the weak link in the chain. It's a little different from a logical deduction from a complete set of facts; it has instead some overtones of intuition. Not to say that it is unreasonable, and the robustness of the other elements are important.

[JayZ750]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
Finally, the reason why you won't manage to convince a creationist of the scientific veracity of evolution, is because they are distrustful of scientists, and maybe the scientific process. I would say they think scientists involved in issues around evolution assume what they are trying to prove, ignore evidence that contradict what they already "know", and perhaps go so far as to fabricate evidence to make the case stronger than it is (buoyed by a couple of cases where this has actually happened). Having several members of my family doing genetics research, I don't think the distrust is without merit.

Evolutionists should be wary of evolutionists for doing this. Fraud happens. If the argument is going to be that you can't trust at all because some people are lying, then it is pointless to even discuss. Fortunately, the reason for this fraud in the first place, greed, is probably as much a driver for "good" science as "bad"


Originally posted by JuanValdez
Postscript: It would be a hard-core creationist, indeed, that would deny selection of traits over time within a species -- "micro-evolution." Evolutionists seem to think that all creationists think this way, perhaps as straw-man slander. Much more common, I think, is the creationist recognizes changes in the genetic profile of a species over time but not the speciation of macro-evolution.

Why be comfortable with one and not with another? Because the implications are that humans came from monkeys? Is that the only reason?

If the evidence that exists today concluded that the speciation of macro-evolution exists (as it seems to), but not for humans (which doesn't seem to be the case from the fossil record, but for hypothetical purposes let's say it is), whom are a special case, would a creationist then be okay with macro-evolution?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
Again, you are demonstrating what I've been talking about in this thread. You're asserting an assumption that the empirical model is the source of knowledge -- how one knows what one knows -- and dismisses all other forms. But, the person you're arguing with may not agree. It's just an assertion, and one that isn't accepted by the other party. You can follow up with something akin to "anyone who doesn't accept it is a fool," but that isn't a basis for dialogue either. I don't dismiss anything. I'm actually in the camp that believes biblical creation and Evolution go hand in hand, and that the two aren't mutually exclusive of one another. I also haven't followed it up with anyone who believes differently is a fool. I don't know why you would presume that I would follow it up with calling somebody a fool.

But one is a scientific theory and the other doesn't meet that level. The theory of evolution like other scientific theories meets the same criteria. It measures up to and meets the same criteria as the theory of gravity, germ theory, etc. It has gone through the same type of proofs, with the same kind of evidence. Biblical creation has not met that criteria. It has not gone through the same type of tests, and does not have the same type of evidence supporting it.

People are free not to believe in gravity, germ theory, or evolution all they want. They can have whatever rationale they want. But without meeting the same level of scutiny, testing, evidence and proof, it won't be on the same scale.

Talking about how one knows what one knows is a philosophical question. I can understand that, and that may have been what you were getting at before, and I was too dense to get it.

I don't believe in one way of knowing what one knows at the exclusion of all others. I can sometimes know that a person hates me or likes me by how they act. It certainly isn't scientific, but sometimes I still believe I know. But, what can be proven can be proven.

Let's substitute another theory for evolution like that of gravity. I don't think it would be wrong for me to say that despite anyone who doesn't beleive in gravity, it has been proven. They are free not to believe in it, but it is wrong from preventing that knowledge getting to others who don't have the facts.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by JayZ750



Why be comfortable with one and not with another? Because the implications are that humans came from monkeys? Is that the only reason?



because i can see micro-evolution. it's pretty hard to deny. we see it within a generation. the example i always hear coming up is the moths that changed color to blend in with trees that darkened over time because of pollution in the northeast.

i still have a harder time getting to the notion that there are common ancestors of every species on the planet. that we all derived from one single cell. i think it's pretty easy to see why that's a more difficult conclusion than the first.

[JayZ750]

Originally posted by MadMax
because i can see micro-evolution. it's pretty hard to deny. we see it within a generation. the example i always hear coming up is the moths that changed color to blend in with trees that darkened over time because of pollution in the northeast.

i still have a harder time getting to the notion that there are common ancestors of every species on the planet. that we all derived from one single cell. i think it's pretty easy to see why that's a more difficult conclusion than the first.

And you can see God, much less observe him creating species....??

[MadMax]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade


Let's substitute another theory for evolution like that of gravity.

here's another problem with these discussions. someone pulls out gravity as if it can be equated in terms of general acceptance to macro-evolution. gravity is something we experience..we observe it. we don't observe macro-evolution. we look at fossil records and make best guesses. After hundreds and hundreds of years, statistical palenotology tells us we should probably already see some common ancestors for the bat and the whale....but we don't.

here's another problem for evolution...natural selection only choses systems that already work...how do you "build" an organism slowly over time in pieces? the example i've always heard is flagellum (spelling?) for bacteria...it's a tiny, tiny part but hugely complex. all parts of it have to be present for it to work at all; for it to make the bacteria move. it spins at about 10,000 rpm and requires some number of proteins to begin in the first place. eliminate one part, and it doesn't spin. how does it ever form?

i think the bigger concern for macro-evolution at this point is the complexity within single cells. darwin argued that complexity came as systems developed...that it went from simple to complex. what we've learned is that the smaller and smaller we are able to see into the cell, the more complex it is. particularly in the reproduction and transmission of DNA "message." essentially, we have mini-computers living in our cells translating language. this is the very building block of life, and it's ridiculolusly complex. a teaspoon of DNA can hald all the precise structures of all proteins in every creature ever and still have enough space to hold the information in every book ever published. if this is the beginning, then we have incredible complexity from the very beginning.

and we're still left with the doozie...how do chemicals turn into organisms?

[MadMax]

Originally posted by JayZ750
And you can see God, much less observe him creating species....??

wait a second..i never said i could prove God up to you. i'm using your own way of arguing. because JV is right...if i resort to theology, it's not persuasive with someone who isn't inclined to hear that language. i could tell you all the reasons i believe in God...maybe it would work something in you. but it's not necessarily logical. it's not logical to serve a God who says you should value others more than yourself. certainly not from the world's perspective.

in a mere comparison between micro- and macro- evolution...which was the topic at hand..you asked, why be comfortable with one and not the other. i attempted to answer that. at least from my own perspective.

[lpbman]

Originally posted by MadMax
because i can see micro-evolution. it's pretty hard to deny. we see it within a generation. the example i always hear coming up is the moths that changed color to blend in with trees that darkened over time because of pollution in the northeast.

i still have a harder time getting to the notion that there are common ancestors of every species on the planet. that we all derived from one single cell. i think it's pretty easy to see why that's a more difficult conclusion than the first.

how do you explain every living creature using DNA to perpetuate their respective spieces? There are ancient creatures still living on earth and they show that dna replication and therefore evolution has been taking place for at least 500 million years (see Elephant Shark, Coelacanth) not picking a fight or anything, just curious how you can see this as some sort of amazing coincidence

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by MadMax
because i can see micro-evolution. it's pretty hard to deny. we see it within a generation. the example i always hear coming up is the moths that changed color to blend in with trees that darkened over time because of pollution in the northeast.

i still have a harder time getting to the notion that there are common ancestors of every species on the planet. that we all derived from one single cell. i think it's pretty easy to see why that's a more difficult conclusion than the first.



All phenomena arise as causes and conditions arise; all phenomena cease as causes and conditions cease.

I can see that plainly.

[Dubious]

Wanting to believe something is fine but it's doesn't make true.
The best system we humans here on planet reality have come up with to try to advance knowledge is the scientific method. The perception of 'fact' within it can change as better information becomes available and is verified, repeated and debated but we use the information available to define the current best 'truth'.

Yes the data is empirical. That is what seperates science from philosophy and religion. If you want to be a philosopher or a religious scholar, go stand over there, get out of the science department, you are wasting our time.

[JayZ750]

Originally posted by MadMax
wait a second..i never said i could prove God up to you. i'm using your own way of arguing. because JV is right...if i resort to theology, it's not persuasive with someone who isn't inclined to hear that language.

Except you didn't resort to theology. You just said because you couldn't see it, you didn't mention anything about theology?? And I don't even know if "because you didn't see it" really was were answer, or just you "using (my) own way of arguing."

That said, if it really is your opinion, resorting to theology is fine. I find it a little rigid to resort to theology for all things that are non-observable yet nonetheless potentially right.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by JuanValdez

If we were comparing the mechanics of natural selection to the 6 days of creation, I'd agree there isn't much basis to compare. But, the comparison is actually, Did it happen this way or that way? We just want to know what is true. The scientific method is one tool for discovery.

The question is which system do you accept? Since the methodology of science and faith don't even follow the same logical constructs you can't prove one is any more true than the other if you follow their own logic and you can't prove the the truth of the one using the methodology of the other.

Truth in this case become totally subjective. I would propose an alternative that as both rational and spiritual humans it may be possible to hold two truths. Belief in evolution need not rule out belief in divine creation. What troubles me more is when one totally denies the other because they feel it degrades their beliefs or is an assault on their values or worse tries to justify one by warping the means of the other.


It may be a better or worse tool. I would point out the quasi-religious faith many have in the inerrancy of the method (not even of those who practice, but of the method itself, which was created by man too). Are you certain it can weed out all contradiction and subjectivity (know, not in an empirical sense, but in a logical one?)? Is it really so infallible? If so, why? Can we know things empirically as certainly as we can know things logically?

You argue empiracism vs logic to question the methodology of the scientific method but I think you're missing that the scientific method isn't a pure rational exercise but its meant to reconcile empiracal phenomena with logical explanations. Observation and testing are central to science to test logical hypothesis empiracally.

I don't want to go too far down this road and go beyond scope (any worse). I'd point out though that empirical study has always had its uses even before the advent of the scientific method and people have been inventing things for a very long time. The worship of the method, as opposed to its use, is a different thing again.

See above.


I noticed in your jump from micro- to macro-evolution, you also jumped from empirical observation to inductive reasoning. I'm not saying there's no place for induction, but it appears to be the weak link in the chain. It's a little different from a logical deduction from a complete set of facts; it has instead some overtones of intuition. Not to say that it is unreasonable, and the robustness of the other elements are important.

As I said before I'm not going to claim evolution as a fact merely that it is the best scientific idea that we have to explain the diversity of life that we see today. Yes there is a leap of inductive logic to develop the hypothesis of evolution but there's been plenty of supporting evidence that supports that hypothesis to the being a theory. Inductive reason is always going to be weak which is why evolution is always open to testing. So far its held up better than any other idea.

Anyway if you believe inductive reasoning and the scientific method is so weak that doesn't explain why so much of our modern technology is based on it.

I think the point is that in general we're both saying the same thing. You cannot judge one by the other. All I'm asking is don't substitute faith belief for science and don't deny science because it somehow threatens you faith. As MadMax points out you can believe both.

I'm not saying that you're doing that I'm just frustrated with the all of the people who are.

[Sishir Chang]

MadMax;

There is plenty of scientific explanations for the questions you raise but it would take a long time to go into it and am too tired to do that. I suggest you read a few books on the subject. I'm too tired to recommend some now but maybe some others here can.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI
All phenomena arise as causes and conditions arise; all phenomena cease as causes and conditions cease.

I can see that plainly.

You sir must be a Buddhist.

[Oski2005]

Well, after the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram published the NY Times article, there was a bit of public outrage and now the movie will be shown at the Fort Worth Museum. If it wasn't for said article, there's no way the people in Ft. Worth would have even known what happened. I know some thought this article was pointless and much ado about nothing, but now you see what people can do when they are informed. Hopefully, the word will spread to the other cities where this happened.

[Dubious]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
The question is which system do you accept? Since the methodology of science and faith don't even follow the same logical constructs you can't prove one is any more true than the other if you follow their own logic and you can't prove the the truth of the one using the methodology of the other.


What is the logical construct of religion? " Uh,I can't explain how we came to exist so it must have been an omnipotent anthropomorphic conciousness that created only humans in her own image, loves us , gives a code of conduct, is the father of the fallen angle of Lucifer who is responsible for al evil (since God is perfect can't be held accountable) and will condem us to an eternity of torment if we don't worship his existence?"

God who in his perfect vision set for forth life as a survival of the fittest where every weaker animal is torn apart in in terror and agony by the stronger one, where is beloved creatures are set upon by pain, sorrow, certain death, disease, insanity, torture, and war.

Yea that's a logical exercise by the perfect creator, wouldn't it have been nicer to just make a cosmic sized Disneyworld. I'm just saying, if your going to start with a totally blank palet and dream up the universe, you know everthing, you can do anything (did you not see the Lucifer thing coming?).

As far as finding life on this planet, we live in a universe of infinite possibilities, why is it so unfathomable to us that we find ourselves in an improbable situation?

[MadMax]

Originally posted by JayZ750
Except you didn't resort to theology. You just said because you couldn't see it, you didn't mention anything about theology?? And I don't even know if "because you didn't see it" really was were answer, or just you "using (my) own way of arguing."

That said, if it really is your opinion, resorting to theology is fine. I find it a little rigid to resort to theology for all things that are non-observable yet nonetheless potentially right.

this discussion is making JV look like a prophet! we're arguing 2 entirely separate things, i think.

the question you asked was how could someone have an easier time accepting micro-evolution over macro-evolution. i answered that...saying it's easier for me to accept because i can observe it.

my faith in God, on the other hand, is an entirely separate matter...it's not something i even attempt to subject to the scientific method. i'm a Jesus freak...or whatever you want to call me. it's not without a sense of my own observation. but it's not hinging on that, either. it's an entirely separate question than comparing micro and macro evolution.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Dubious


Yea that's a logical exercise by the perfect creator, wouldn't it have been nicer to just make a cosmic sized Disneyworld. I'm just saying, if your going to start with a totally blank palet and dream up the universe, you know everthing, you can do anything (did you not see the Lucifer thing coming?).


God isn't a cosmic rapist who forces himself. Free will is a bitch.

[pirc1]

Originally posted by MadMax
this discussion is making JV look like a prophet! we're arguing 2 entirely separate things, i think.

the question you asked was how could someone have an easier time accepting micro-evolution over macro-evolution. i answered that...saying it's easier for me to accept because i can observe it.

my faith in God, on the other hand, is an entirely separate matter...it's not something i even attempt to subject to the scientific method. i'm a Jesus freak...or whatever you want to call me. it's not without a sense of my own observation. but it's not hinging on that, either. it's an entirely separate question than comparing micro and macro evolution.

So I guess Max you do not accept anything you cann't observe first hand? What about all the theories in physics and other scientific fields? If we can only believe in things we can observe humans would still be in the dark ages.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
MadMax;

There is plenty of scientific explanations for the questions you raise but it would take a long time to go into it and am too tired to do that. I suggest you read a few books on the subject. I'm too tired to recommend some now but maybe some others here can.

i've read explanations. these are holes. it's a theory. i'm not saying it didn't happen. i'm saying i'm open to the possiblity it's not the way life developed.

i find a sense of faith in bridging these gaps/holes in the theory to be on par with my faith in God. that's ok, as long as people are intellectually honest about it.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by pirc1
So I guess Max you do not accept anything you cann't observe first hand? .

clearly not.

but if you're presenting competing scientific theories to me...you can show me one i know exists (micro-evolution) because we've seen it occur in my lifetime...and i'm going to be more comfortable with that proposition than i am the proposition that bats and whales had a common ancestor millions upon millions of years ago.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Oski2005
Well, after the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram published the NY Times article, there was a bit of public outrage and now the movie will be shown at the Fort Worth Museum.
So I guess the theatre managers (along with the the person who came up with the title of the article) were wrong to assume that these movies were "too controversial for the South" after all. That's really all I've been trying to say. Don't condenm a group of people for what you think they might do before they do it.

As far as my theory of Evolution goes, I think it was a very solid album but not necessarily their best. I would have to go with either Captured or Escape for my favorite Journey album.

[JayZ750]

Originally posted by MadMax
this discussion is making JV look like a prophet! we're arguing 2 entirely separate things, i think.

the question you asked was how could someone have an easier time accepting micro-evolution over macro-evolution. i answered that...saying it's easier for me to accept because i can observe it.

my faith in God, on the other hand, is an entirely separate matter...it's not something i even attempt to subject to the scientific method. i'm a Jesus freak...or whatever you want to call me. it's not without a sense of my own observation. but it's not hinging on that, either. it's an entirely separate question than comparing micro and macro evolution.

The underlying goal of what I was trying to figure out was why you arbitrarily decide at a certain point to stop uisng the scietific method and start saying it's God. Plenty of things exist that are unobservable, much with as little evidence as macro-evolution.

I'm not trying to prove evolution to anyone - I don't really care if you don't believe it and I'm certainly not the best person to try. I am just trying to figure out someone else's mindset and see if any of it makes sense.

I could be wrong, and you could help answer the question, but my feel is that many people who think like you aren't discounting macro-evolution because it is technically unobservable. But they are probably discounting it because of the implications it implies for humanity. You already mentioned you were comfortable with evolution, but not comfortable with evolution not specifically laid out by a God. If all of the same evidence for macro-evolution existed, EXCEPT for humans, where there was no historical evidence at all, and we seemed to be a "special" case, my feel is that most would agree with the theory in the same way they agree with micro-evolution and it's peppered moths.

[MadMax]

Jay --

let me say that my faith in God...and my relationship with Him...far predated any real understanding i had of evolution, be it macro- or micro-. i could talk to you about evidence of God in my life...but i realize that to many it's kooky-talk. i could go through my faith in God, but it's hard to do on a message board because it's too disconnected. much better over a beer or something.

but again...i feel like this is an entirely separate issue than the one i commented on in the first place. do you not see at all how it would be easier to understand/accept micro-evolution than macro-? i mean, even if you ultimately got to a belief in macro-, don't you see how someone might reach a conclusion on micro- first? maybe even using micro- as something more accepted to help prove up macro-?

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by MadMax
i've read explanations. these are holes. it's a theory. i'm not saying it didn't happen. i'm saying i'm open to the possiblity it's not the way life developed.

i find a sense of faith in bridging these gaps/holes in the theory to be on par with my faith in God. that's ok, as long as people are intellectually honest about it.

Even though you're a self-declared 'Jesus Freak' I think you're much more open to considering countervailing ideas. Evolution is far from perfect and is open to skepticism and testing. I would ask that you don't abandon that attitude and resort to faith to fill in the gaps.

I'm going to try to say this with due deference to your faith beliefs so I apologize in advance if this comes out as a slam.

I personally feel that it is a copout to resort to faith argument when it becomes difficult to explain holes and incongruity in a scientific explanation. The purpose of science is as much to challenge and revise previous scientific ideas as to understand the previously unexplainable. The problem I have with resorting to faith is that by its very nature it denies external logical testing. Further a traditional faith system that offers specific explanations of the empiracal world will always be limited because it was made upon the knowledge base that was available at the time those explanations were written down. Unlike science which relies upon new empirical knowledge to advance a faith system of knowledge when confronted with new empiracal evidence is in a quandry of how to deal with it. For instance finding evidence that the Earth is much much older than the Bible makes it out to be.

As I said to JV science isn't the triumph of rationality over empiracism but is inherently dependent upon empiracism. For instance one of the slams on String Theory by non String Theory physicists is that it isn't science because there is no way of testing it. For faith ideas that isn't an issue.

As I've been trying to say all along IMO science and faith can coexists but its important not to confuse the one with the other.

[JayZ750]

Originally posted by MadMax
let me say that my faith in God...and my relationship with Him...far predated any real understanding i had of evolution, be it macro- or micro-. i could talk to you about evidence of God in my life...but i realize that to many it's kooky-talk. i could go through my faith in God, but it's hard to do on a message board because it's too disconnected. much better over a beer or something.

but again...i feel like this is an entirely separate issue than the one i commented on in the first place. do you not see at all how it would be easier to understand/accept micro-evolution than macro-? i mean, even if you ultimately got to a belief in macro-, don't you see how someone might reach a conclusion on micro- first? maybe even using micro- as something more accepted to help prove up macro-?

Well, sure. Lighting storms and static electricity are related, and I can't see static electricity, but I still believe it exists. And my relationship with my parents far predated any understanding I have of chemistry, but I don't think they "invented" the periodic table.

Analogies aside (cause the ones I used probably stinks), I'm not trying to question your faith, just to understand some of the "reasons" behind it. If you tell me you believe what you believe because you do, then you do.

What do you think about the hypothetical macro-scenario I mentioned above? It'd actually make more sense to me for someone to not believe in macro-evolution because of its implications. But to not believe it because it isn't observable, when that's the case with soo many things in life, seems arbitrary. I understand it is your position, though. Don't mean to press ahead on a dead issue, its just rare to have conversation on here where religion is partly involved without some quoting the bible.

[JuanValdez]

I spent way too much time in this thread yesterday, so I'm pulling out today to do that work I'm actually paid to do. I got a bit too far from my original argument (that the term censorship was being misused) anyway.

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I also haven't followed it up with anyone who believes differently is a fool. I don't know why you would presume that I would follow it up with calling somebody a fool.

I was just responding to say I didn't mean to imply you'd be dismissive. I meant to show that one must find common ground with the opposition for dialogue. Refusing to recognize a common basis essentially means you won't talk to each other. No personal implication was meant.

And, while I'm at it, I also find it ironic the Ft Worth will not show it due to a public outcry. Is this qualitatively different from them not showing it for fear of a public outcry? If you wanted to see this as a free speech issue (which I still don't), isn't the Ft Worth museum's speech as censored by being forced to show something as when they are forced not to show something?

Sorry, going too far again. I can't stay in this thread. See you in all the others. ;)

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
Even though you're a self-declared 'Jesus Freak' I think you're much more open to considering countervailing ideas. Evolution is far from perfect and is open to skepticism and testing. I would ask that you don't abandon that attitude and resort to faith to fill in the gaps.

I'm going to try to say this with due deference to your faith beliefs so I apologize in advance if this comes out as a slam.

I personally feel that it is a copout to resort to faith argument when it becomes difficult to explain holes and incongruity in a scientific explanation. The purpose of science is as much to challenge and revise previous scientific ideas as to understand the previously unexplainable. The problem I have with resorting to faith is that by its very nature it denies external logical testing. Further a traditional faith system that offers specific explanations of the empiracal world will always be limited because it was made upon the knowledge base that was available at the time those explanations were written down. Unlike science which relies upon new empirical knowledge to advance a faith system of knowledge when confronted with new empiracal evidence is in a quandry of how to deal with it. For instance finding evidence that the Earth is much much older than the Bible makes it out to be.

As I said to JV science isn't the triumph of rationality over empiracism but is inherently dependent upon empiracism. For instance one of the slams on String Theory by non String Theory physicists is that it isn't science because there is no way of testing it. For faith ideas that isn't an issue.

As I've been trying to say all along IMO science and faith can coexists but its important not to confuse the one with the other.

1. I appreciate the way you framed this so as not to be offensive. Very cool of you.

2. I'm not using faith as a cop out. I'm not asserting that macro-evolution did not happen. I asserted there are some holes...and that I think it's intellectually dishonest to present it as anything more than theory. On one side we have many in the realm of faith who take a literalist view of Genesis and assume if it can't be accounted for in those words on those pages, it didn't happen. On the other hand, we have a seemingly intellectual crowd looking down their noses at anyone who would even question the theory of evolution. I'm saying evolution is possible. I believe God is in creation, no matter how it happened. So none of that shakes my faith.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by JayZ750
Out of curiousity, would you have a problem with the idea that God didn't set up evolution per se, just created a starting point with some material and sent it on its way, and evolution is what happened?

I don't believe this because I don't see God as constrained by time. When He was creating the universe, He was creating it all at once, meaning that He knew the direction that evolution would take place as He was doing the creation.

[JayZ750]

Originally posted by andymoon
I don't believe this because I don't see God as constrained by time. When He was creating the universe, He was creating it all at once, meaning that He knew the direction that evolution would take place as He was doing the creation.

I don't know if i believe it either just thought it was an interesting question. Clearly the answer has to be faith based at this point, especially considering how time itself is really just a scientific principal and how limited our concept of it is - thus making any kind of rational argument based on such a scientific concept relatively meaningless.

[thegary]

from thomas hardy's tess of the d'urbervilles:

His sister became abruptly still, and lapsed into a pondering silence. Abraham talked on, rather for the pleasure of utterance than for audition, so that his sister's abstraction was of no account. He leant back against the hives, and with upturned face made observations on the stars, whose cold pulses were beating amid the black hollows above, in serene dissociation from these two wisps of human life. He asked how far away those twinklers were, and whether God was on the other side of them. But ever and anon his childish prattle recurred to what impressed his imagination even more deeply than the wonders of creation. If Tess were made rich by marrying a gentleman, would she have money enough to buy a spyglass so large that it would draw the stars as near to her as Nettlecombe-Tout?

The renewed subject, which seemed to have impregnated the whole family, filled Tess with impatience.

"Never mind that now!" she exclaimed.

"Did you say the stars were worlds, Tess?"

"Yes."

"All like ours?"

"I don't know; but I think so. They sometimes seem to be like the apples on our stubbard-tree. Most of them splendid and sound--a few blighted."

"Which do we live on--a splendid one or a blighted one?"

"A blighted one."

[andymoon]

Originally posted by JayZ750
I don't know if i believe it either just thought it was an interesting question. Clearly the answer has to be faith based at this point, especially considering how time itself is really just a scientific principal and how limited our concept of it is - thus making any kind of rational argument based on such a scientific concept relatively meaningless.
<