Scientific IMAX films too controversial for the South

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.

 

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.

 

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:

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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?

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?

 

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

from the article:

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.

 

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.

 

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.