Evolution Movies

[Dudester]

Recently, we discussed Creation here, the movie about Darwin that was having trouble finding an American distributor (which, BTW, it finally did). As we speak, Fred Thompson and Brian Dennehy are on location, shooting yet another version of the Scopes Monkey trial.

For the uninitiated the trial occured because a 1920's teacher was arrested for teaching evolution (it was then against the law). The ACLU became involved and the teacher was eventually found guilty and fined 100 American.


Hollyweird seems to be suddenly interested in Darwin, or slamming evolution down everyone's throats, or sticking their thumb in the eyes of creationists.



So, which do you think it is? Discuss, and remember to keep it civil.

[JackBNimble]

These things tend to run in cycles. It's been awhile since there was a movie on the topic and I'm betting that less than 10% of people under the age of 30 could even tell you what the Scopes trial was...some will no doubt think it was a mouthwash comparison!
I wouldn't take it so much that anyone is trying to push a particular political agenda. As we discussed previously, there's got to be a market for it to have any chance at distribution. That said, I think people under the age of 40 tend to find the topic of evolution to be much less inflammatory and view it as science fact not the hypothetical theory that others would prefer.

Brian Dennehy and Fred Thompson are great actors (and Thompson a former US Senator as well) so I would imagine it will be very good. They've both reached a stage in their careers where they wouldn't do the project unless it was being well written and directed.

[tresmojito]

You think a movie about creationism would run into as much trouble? They wouldn't have to cast someone as God, but Morgan Freeman's got plenty of experience with it.

[binglebongo]

Something from the Science channel really made me think.

In Darwin's day, they made fun of him saying how can you say a man and chimpanzee are related when they're so different?

With the latest DNA analysis, the question has turned. As similar as the man and chimpanzee are genetically, why are they so different?

[ShinChan]

well, you genetically like 97% similar to almost every creature on earth, from Rats to Horses to Whales. They only reason people concentrate on the monkey aspect is because we have a common history with them. Most of the DNA that makes us similar is inactive, kinda like our appendix, it is there, just not doing anything.

[d_keaton]

i'm tempted to say its an American thing. i doubt here in the UK that a film about Darwin would struggle to be made. As to why there has been a big push for evolution recently i would say there is probably some anniversary or something coming up. Either that or it is an issue in the public eye recently with people like Richard Dawkins becoming famous and well discussed.
i'm currently training to be a science teacher and some of the stories I read about American schools actually scares me. America often leads the way in science and i wonder what will happen when the generation of children learning that intelligent design is a legitimate theory grow up.

[espana]

America can be a very unwelcoming place once out of metropolitan areas people being far more intolerant of non belivers or members of non christian faiths. This intolerance only rears its head when you stay a while most tourists or visitors never notice as there never in a situation where religon or belives are discussed. Chalenging christian faith can raise tempretures rapidly in some places.

Darwin has at times been described to me as a follower of Satan an anti christ and commie by extremley lovley and in other ways tolerant people, but challenge intelligent design and foam appears in the corners of there mouths . funny but those same people get just as irate when talking about European social health care

[Brigit Astar]

Anti-Darwinism by Christians is enormously overblown and exaggerated in this country.. Sure, there is prejudice in this country, but at least we don't go around beheading people because they don't believe in the dominate religion.

[frankuk]

When Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" was first published the only really outspoken critics in the U.K. were a handful of academics who were deeply religious or were outraged by the thought that man could be related to any lower species such as other primates. The established churches made no criticism of his findings mainly because they had already accepted that the story of the creation was in effect a way for ancient man to explain his place in the world. Even the Catholic church today accepts the theory of evolution and some of the foremost researchers of the subject are high ranking clerics in the Vatican. This does not mean that they deny the existence of God (although like more and more people today I do) but that they believe it proves the wonders of his works.
Many of the general public were also shocked by Darwin's findings, not because he questioned creationism but because in the victorian era it was believed that nature was beautiful and and all creatures lived in perfect harmony (hence such hymns as "All Creatures Great and Small, the lord god loves them all) whereas of course he showed that nature was in fact cruel and harsh and that it was a constant battle for survival where most creatures would kill to eat or be killed and eaten.
I've heard many say that Darwin was himself an aethiest but this is untrue. He was in fact a deeply religious man but the more he discovered about how raw in tooth and claw nature was the less he could reconcile it with the teachings of christianity which basically taught the doctrine of a merciful and loving god. When his beautiful daughter died at the age of 12 he gave up christianity all together because to him a loving god would not be so cruel as to take the life of a young child who was so deeply loved. However his belief in god never wained but it was a belief in the judgemental and often cruel god of the old testament.

[Marlene38EE]

My take on Creationism and Evolution is a bit of a side-step. I've had a lot of conversations with hubby, John and others including some well-respected Professors at the Unirversity (privately) and a few troublesome burrs come up.
Namely time-spans.
Evolutionarily, Humanity made a sudden 'leap', all across the board. Physically, mentally and in terms of civilization.
So, that point is one where many theories of off-world entities modifying Humanity arise.
It wouldn't be much of a trick for some advanced offworlders to arrive, and decide the most economical way of mining and doing other work they wanted done would be by modifying the local primate stock into something 'usefully intelligent'.
Impress on them a genetic modifier in their thought processes to make them easier to dominate, a 'religion gene' to coin a phrase, and you have one workforce you don't have to pay, that will police itself, and work tirelessly for their 'gods'.
When you've got what you came for, leave them, who knows, you might need them again someday and it'll make an interesting long-term experiment to see what they do.

Just a theory, but there's a lot of tiny bits of anecdotal evidence across history to support it somewhat.
And in a Galaxy this big?? Plausible.

[frankuk]

Interesting thought Marlene but the fossils and remains of early humans dating back almost 4,000,000 years does in fact support Darwin's theory of natural selection. It is now known that during those 4,000,00 years many different species of humans existed but only the most successful survived until about 10,000 years ago when only 2 remained, Neanderthal and Homo Sapien. The common thought that Neanderthals were some sort of apeman has also now been proved to be wrong. In fact they were intelligent, and extremely artistic and their fine fashioning of tools and weapons from flint, bone or wood was not achieved by homo sapiens until 10,000 years ago. So why did they become extinct? It's believed that their way of life was inferior and that they were unable to adapt to the changes in climate and when the last ice struck many homo sapiens being nomadic made their way south to escape the the advancing ice sheets whereas the neanderthals tried to stick it out and perished. However recent advances in DNA sampling shows that most homo sapiens today have some traces of neanderthal DNA so it's possible that cross breeding took place in those areas where the 2 species co-existed and from that the modern human has evolved.

[Marlene38EE]

I'll concede your points but I have to mention the 'blank spots' that some of the U of A Profs are struggling with.
There's spans in Human evolution where massive leaps occured without precursor-influence, they just happened, like someone turning on a light switch. It's the massive 'leaps' that has these Profs so fascinated, and the genetic changes along with them, slight changes, but nonetheless there.

[lookinforward]

In the United States there are people that very strongly believe that Darwinism is nothing but lies. Fossil evidence, scientific dating, DNA, all mean nothing to some of these people. Knowing this, its not surprising that some people will object to a movie that portrays just these ideas.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm a very interesting poll here.

[Brigit Astar]

Darwinism, creationism, intelligent design, the big bang theory, relativity--they are all theories. There is no way to prove that they are absolutely true and factual. That's why they are still referred to as theories. Some theories have more evidence that they are fact than others, but that doen't prove they are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.