Posting in Cities
'Creation' director says film is bound to offend both creationists and Darwinophiles.
“I think we’ll offend a number of creationists,” he said. “I think we will also offend Darwinophiles,” because the Charles Darwin portrayed in Creation is “anything but the lofty scientist on the ivory tower.”
But it didn’t offend those of us who were eager to see an unfamiliar side of Darwin. According to the movie (the content of which is largely supported by correspondence and diaries), this was a man who not only listened to Chopin, read poetry and wept openly, but tormented himself, family and colleagues over his theories and his groundbreaking work--On the Origin of Species.
The movie is loosely based on the biography Annie’s Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution by Randal Keynes, a descendant of Darwin. Keynes used thousands of letters and papers to write about Darwin’s private life, especially the enduring grief over the death of his 10-year-old daughter Annie. The movie portrays Darwin, played by Paul Bettany, as a man who was fighting for his life—against both physical illness and an anguished psyche. He seemed to be endlessly tortured by the conflict between religion and his thirst for science. We see only flashback glimpses of Darwin’s better-known life (i.e. aboard the H.M.S. Beagle), but we see plenty of his devout wife, played by Bettany’s real-life wife, Jennifer Connelly.
Amiel, who is British, said he initially had no interest in making a movie about Darwin. “I admired him,” he said, “[in the same way that] I admire Mt. Rushmore. But I hate biopics. The fact that someone led an interesting life does not an interesting movie make.” But he read Keynes’s book and Darwin’s letters and diaries, and “to my enormous surprise, I found myself liking the man.” He said along with discovering an exquisitely emotional man, he found an astonishing marriage between Charles and Emma that holds lessons for all of us in tolerance. Yet in the film, it is the drama surrounding Darwin’s theory of evolution and the existence of God that seems to eclipse all others.
Creation is being distributed by Newmarket Films, which released The Passion of the Christ. But before they signed on, Amiel had trouble finding a company to back a film with so much inherent controversy.
“America came this close to not seeing this movie at all,” he said at the screening.
Creation had its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in September and opened in Britain in October. It opens in select U.S. cities on Friday.
Jan 19, 2010
Informative article, precisely what I wanted.
John The second post of mine was an answer to loponce and his question. I did not intend to engage in a bun fight with a professed Christian A There are a fundamental differences in Gen one and two, no reasonable person can logically assert that they are different versions of the same event. Most in my country (Australia) "believe" that the Bible declares "Adam was the first man" The Bible does not declare so! . Popular religion of the "Christian" variety has fostered the idea that the Bible declares it is so. Respectfully I suggest you research the true meaning of Christ. Christ in plain English means -anointed- the name we know as Jesus Christ is literally Jesus "anointed " this is the Bible definition and the dictionary's, the fact that modern society uses it as a "proper name" does not in way detract from the context of its original meaning, " how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost...." the anointing was and still must, be Divine and supernatural, as it was to the early disciples, church, Wesley, Luther, Finny et al, The "Church" of my parents i was born into had no knowledge of, nor any experience of this Christianity. Most Christians today also have know idea whatsoever of what this anointing - christianizing means, instead they have substituted the sprinkling and confirmation of men. Most people today will tell you they are "sick of religion. Do not talk to me about the Bible or religion " they say. (This is the essence of loponce's question) They may be surprised to find that God says luke warm Christianity also makes Him sick "I will spue you out of my mouth...." My purpose was to give Ioponce a chance to see scripture from a new (to him/her ) perspective rather than from the late night party comment "Of course the Bible says... .. followed by derisive laughter)! .I did not mention Judaism nor Muslims as popular religion but intended to relate to the Christian variety. Forgive me this error. "Now, of course, if you're fool enough to take Genesis or, in fact, any part of the Bible literally as history be my guest and do that" No Flood, No Abraham , No Jesus, No Herod, No Pilate, No Joseph (Old Test) do you expect me to take you seriously ? Is that what you learn as an Anglican High Church.member? Either the Bible is the Word of God and therefore ought to be obeyed, or it is myth-fable from the mind of man If the latter then surely it can be totally discarded as of no more value than a Mills and Boon . I do admit there is parable and metaphor Jesus spake to the multitudes in parable ".. and without a parable spake he not unto them" but that fact does not in any way detract from the historical value of the Bible story. Jesus spoke of the day of Jonah as fact.Are you telling me He was a fool so to do? He also said "before Abraham was I AM." Are you telling me Abraham was not a historical figure? to say nothing of the Assyrian, Babylonian kings, prophecies concerning Tyre etc etc etc. Jesus quoted Old Testament profusely to refute the religious leaders of His day - the same thing would occur today . When once i was discussing with an elderly Methodist lady, reminding her some of the details of Wesley and his ministry she remonstrated "Of course, ...but that was primitive Christianity .. we have advanced since then!" I would rather paraphrase Wesley "The grand reason we do not see the supernatural (spiritual) gifts (anointing) in the Churches to day is not as some men vulgarly suppose that all the world has become Christian and we no longer need them .. the truth is that Christians have become pagan again, and have no more of the Spirit of God in them than the pagans they profess to convert" My question to anyone professing to be Christian would be the same as Paul asked the Ephesians "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" Genesis 2 does not dwell on creation because it is finishedat the end of chap one. Adam is clearly a a new man, one man, who has a relationship with his maker . fmade from the dust of the earth on the seventh "day" Midrash has nothing to offer or add neither does the commentary - opinion of many of called Biblical scholars - they were wrong in Jesus day and are just as wrong today In fact Jesus said they were dead wrong because they knew not the scriptures nor the power of God ..and referred to them as snakes. As to Evolution - By what process is it supposed to have occurred? Natural selection of randomly mutated DNA? Test this on a scientific basis at http://www.randommutation.com/ We can argue to the cows come home, but no science, scientist, has ever proven, observed or demonstrated evolution except in their thinking. A theory only and a poor one at that,. its acceptance requires a measure of faith. and a quantum leap in imagination. A recent meeting of atheist evolutionary scientists concluded that "life must have arrived on earth from a distant planet by some unknown means" One of them made the comment "Do we mean aliens" their reason fot this conclusion accepted age of earth dioes not allow the massive time span required for for any evolution to occur. But again the popular "Sunday science media" has always lagged behing the latest scientific findings . Evolutionists are fast become Dodo,s for a modern example of a Christian Church please look at http://www.rci.org.au You will find me there among the contact list. Michael
A. Gen 1 is an earlier creation story than Gen 2. Not a bad stab at evolution for 3000 years ago, either, eh? Still it is the oldest of the two main creation stories contained in Genesis along with remnants of at least two others.The link of humanity to God is that we were part of creation on the 6th day. B. Gen 2 is more concerned with man's relationship with God than Gen 1 is and establishing the male is closer to God than female silliness. Gen 2 doesn't dwell at all on the rest of creation but simply assumes it's already there. C. If you're speaking of the Tree of Life restriction then you're missing that the story is an early parable. (You're not the first or only person Jew, non-Jew or otherwise to make that mistake.) You can also look at it as an allegory, if you want. D Gen 4 14-17. Your assertion that "religion" insists that after the murder of Abel that Adam, Eve and Cain are the only humans left I suggest you reread it. It makes no such assertion, in fact it comments neither one way or the other. Still, nice try to link Judaism, Christianity and Islam with all other world religions but it doesn't quite work that way. Now, of course, if you're fool enough to take Genesis or, in fact, any part of the Bible literally as history be my guest and do that. Doing so misses the point as it wasn't written and later assembled as history in the modern sense but, rather; a story of the people we would later come to know as Hebrews and Jews (Jews being residents of Judiah, in case you wondered). Incidentally the Gospel's aren't biography in any modern sense so don't go looking there for biographical details. Back to the Old Testament. If you're going to launch an anti-Jewish anti-Christian anti-religion on general screed please have the decency to study the topic beyond the the cheery picking, missing the point biblical literalists who want to pass themselves off as biblical scholars. In fact, try a bit of midrash on for size. As has been mentioned there are no fundamental disagreements between Christianity and the theory?of evolution. Never have been, Bishop Wilberforce to the contrary. If the movie offends creationists so be it. A lot of them deserve to be offended with the bunk they claim to find in the pages of the Bible. I doubt for other Christians or Jews the entire topic and the alleged problems between all science and religion is a tired old and false story as it has, mostly, always been. Truth be known, what mostly offended the prim Victorians was that humans were somehow related to apes and it continues to offend creationists. Too bad, cause as God created humans and apes then, along with all life, we are closely or distantly related to it all. For me all evolution does is remind me of the wonder of creation and our imperative to care for it. A devout Anglican (High Church) ttfn John
Ioponce Simple, reasonable, question, more people should ask it! The answer from the Bible :- Do not believe what popular religion tells you, read Gen 1 2 3 4 for yourself - it is a fairly long read. but proves your question is soundly based and has an answer that i think leaves religion floundering. You may judge for yourself . A Adam and Eve where not the first people on the Planet (religion says they were) Chapter one describes a pre Adamic (six day man) told to populate the whole earth, could eat any fruit, created male and female together told to expand, subdue the earth, populate, no relationship with God mentioned.. B Capter 2 Adam created alone (seven day man just a male-no female 'till later) placed in a specialy prepared "garden" only animals for constant company his only "job was to "garden the garden" did not poulate untell after he and his wife were kicked out, had a relationship with God C Animals not enough company for Adam so Eve created, restriction on what they could eat. (Religion claims six day (male and female together) and (seven day Adam - man only) are in fact one and the same man!) I think you are too intelligent to agree with them. D after the murder of Abel chap 4 14 Cain says "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me." (Who and where are all these "every one" that will kill him?) 15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. (If at that time, as religion asserts, Adam, Eve and Cain were the only people on earth Who was Cain afraid of ? His parents? As the next verse says he was no longer in Eden but in another land "Nod" also his parents surely knew him, and would not need a mark to identify him. Adam and Eve at this time have no other children - religeon as your qestiion implies, is looking somewhat stupid!) 16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. (If what religion claims is true. then as you point out who was Cain's wife? His sister?!) It seems logical to propose that she was a woman from Nod. Of the pre Adamic (six day creation which could have been increasing in population for an unspecified time) If you read some more of Chapter 4 you will discover that Cain builds a city, has two wife's and a number of children - but no way enough to justify a city! Adam and eve have another son Seth, but it is after Seth that they finally have daughters and more sons. so Cain's two wives could not have been his sisters. So there you have it! Take it or leave it. But religion says you are stupid to even ask that question It Asserts that that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that there was no pre-Adamic race prior to 6,000 years ago - . Or they put up a feeble argument that Adam and Eve never existed except as metaphors. Michael
Tell me creationists. If Adan an Eve had two sons, how did the human race developed if there were no more women around except Eve?
IT IS GOOD TO BE ALIVE: CHRISTIANITY ANSWERS ALL QUESTIONS, SPIRITUAL, MORAL AND SCIENTIFIC Our understanding and knowledge of Biblical principles, patterns of thinking, and instructive processes, should result in applying them to problems and questions of Science that adherents to the Theory of Evolution cannot resolve. We must begin where God began, and continue through our existence in this Universe, with the end-in-view of reconciling moral living with scientific creativity. How did Sin enter human society and how did Entropy enter the physical cosmos and the Earth? Disobedience in Heaven and disobedience on the Earth ? in Heaven, Satan rebelled directly against God; and on the Earth, Adam and Eve indirectly rebelled against God due to Satan?s deception. But Satan, alias the Devil, Lucifer caused the upheavals in both Heaven and Earth. The Bible states that Satan, in the form of a crawling serpent, caused Man to sin against our Creator. And since then, imperfection and mortality became man?s lot, and apparent randomness and natural chaos became characteristics of the cosmos, Nature and the Earth. Thus, what does that mean for us, in our predestination to live on the Earth as sinful, mortal, and imperfect human beings on the one hand, and on the other, having to face a physical universal and earthly environment that is also imperfect, apparently random, seemingly chaotic at times, and yet from which we obtain all resources and materials needed for our living existence? Well, in scientific terms, these principles regarding human sin and Nature?s imperfect processes are encapsulated in The Laws of Thermodynamics, the first of which being Conservation, and the second being Entropy. Conservation means there is continuum, stability, preservation, structure, constancy, while Entropy means that in Time, things decay and degrade because their qualitative endowments get used up via wear and tear, fatigue, stress, gradual utilization, periodic consumption, and finally exhaustion. Consequent to the Laws of Thermodynamics therefore, there is also the need for replenishment, restoration, rejuvenation, renewal, rebuilding, restart, reinvigoration, re-supply, and rebirth. From the above analysis then, for purposes of understanding, we might say that we end up with two imperfect systems that are so interrelated in theory and practice ? the imperfect human system and the imperfect earthly system ? that The Laws of Thermodynamics can be summed up in terms of, first, Spiritual Thermodynamics that addresses Human imperfection, or as we refer to it as ?the human condition,? and Physical Thermodynamics that addresses imperfections in Nature, the Earth and the Cosmos. What is the connection between Spiritual Thermodynamics and Physical Thermodynamics? I say it is good to be alive because God in Christ Jesus has made a permanent way for us to face both human imperfection and Nature?s physical imperfections by applying our conscious knowledge of Biblical principles regarding sinful human nature on the one hand, and by applying Biblical patterns of thinking and scientific inquiry to Nature?s apparent chaos and randomness; from the one we obtain good moral behavior, and from the other, technological solutions. In fact that?s exactly what human history continues to prove. Regarding Spiritual Thermodynamics, to ameliorate our moral behavior, God made provisions for us by redeeming us from the law of sin and death, by giving us opportunities to repent, by forgiving us, and by allowing us to begin again, to start anew, with spiritual rebirth and moral revival, hence replenishing our love for ourselves and our capacity to express love and compassion towards our fellow human beings in order to improve the human condition. We learn to pray, to give praise to, to honor and to worship our Creator through freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. It is from these constructive commandments of living that we have learned the principles of law, liberty, freedom, justice, honor, commitment, resolve, compassion, love, generosity, charity, hope, faith, trust, righteousness, prosperity, creativity, etc. Regarding Physical Thermodynamics, such as the apparent chaos in Nature and our imperfect ability to control its seeming randomness, God endowed us with the scientific capacity for creative invention. Thinking a problem through by application of the scientific method yields technologies that solve problems and fulfills needs. So we witness that God made provisions for both our spiritual and moral condition, and our need to live from the environmental resources he equipped the Earth with for our existence thereupon. Thus, spiritual living for moral behavior goes hand in hand with logical thinking for scientific productivity. Corrective mechanisms of sense-making understanding can restore both moral rectitude and creative productivity by relying on well-known Biblical moral commandments and methods of logical thinking. "Spiritual Thermodynamics" is a way of expressing a complex problem in understanding ourselves and the obstacles we commonly face as human beings living in this universe and on the Earth, where even in the direst moments of despair, we can regain hope, faith and trust in our God-endowed capacity to begin again, renew and rejuvenate ourselves in countering sin and imperfection in human nature, as well as neutralizing entropy and decay in physical Nature. The Theory of Evolution professes that human beings are the descendants of apes. Of course, it is beyond its doctrines to have explanations for these most complex spiritual, moral, and living problems that we encounter in the Universe and on the Earth. No human being with an "ape mentality" is ready to solve complex moral human problems. To the contrary, evolutionists teach "intractability of human nature," and deadly struggle for open-ended results, even the extinction of the Family of Man so that apes can "reign" over the Earth, and thus, resignation to the human condition due to assumptions of fate, randomness, chance and statistical probability. Therefore, the Judaeo-Christian worldview is the most salient, logical and scientifically applicable to the human condition, from which we always have hope and faith in our ability to recover from the mistakes and disasters that afflict us. We live in a great nation whose Judaeo-Christian constitutional foundation bears the imprint of our Creator, by whose wise counsel its living application to modern problems ought to inspire us with thanksgiving, appreciation, courage, fortitude, strength, and foresight in building the American society which we all can be proud of as we enjoy the blessings of God-given liberty that are already secured to ourselves and our posterity. Therefore, it is indeed good to be alive. It is uplifting to know and understand the relationship between morality and science, between real spiritual characteristics and physical fulfillment of material needs, between the foundation for moral living and the just means of lawful prosperity. God gave us an awesome representative foundation that would inspire the world with upbuilding innovations in lawful governance to enshrine constructive freedom with opportunities for prosperity and economic development.
Religion is nothing but pure fiction, invented by the super EGO human begin. In other words, religion is pure LIE and untrue.
Some people have mentioned the Big Bang Theory. This theory was first proposed by Monsignor Georges Lema?tre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest. Monsignor Lema?tre didn't see any conflict between science and religion. As to Micheal's comments about the Nazis, and the Pope; there is quite a diverstiy of views about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. All you have to do is a Google search on the terms "Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust" to find a wide assortment of views on the subject.
The Rig Veda is considered the most holy of all Hindu texts and it puts a creator outside of time and space. Creation Hymn The non-existent was not; the existent was not at that time. The atmosphere was not nor the heavens which are beyond. What was concealed? Where? In whose protection? Was it water? An unfathomable abyss? There was neither death nor immortality then. There was not distinction of day or night. That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else. Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was an indistinguishable sea. That which becomes, that which was enveloped by the void, that alone was born through the power of heat. Upon that desire arose in the beginning. This was the first discharge of thought. Sages discovered this link of the existent to the nonexistent, having searched in the heart with wisdom. Their line [of vision] was extended across; what was below, what was above? There were impregnators, there were powers: inherent power below, impulses above. Who knows truly? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this. Who, then, knows whence it has come into being? Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not.
I have rarely seen anyone put into words more succinctly what I personally believe to be so obvious. I believe its obvious to anyone with the ability to elevate their beliefs above the dogma of their beliefs origins that the principles of creationism, Darwinism and big bang theory do not contradict in the slightest. In fact I think they very much reinforce each other. The arguing points so many people fall upon seem to always be the dogmas of their beliefs or the beliefs of those they are arguing with. And even more disappointing is when arguing points are based on incorrect assumptions of their perceived opposition. Many create a fallacy of a god in their minds and then point to the fallacies to prove how illogical gods existence is. Or bend the truth of science to contradict their religious beliefs so they may then argue with it. I think it's truly a silly and vain exercise and does no one justice. If a scientific mind extrapolates a possible vector where in the human race continues to exist for an eternity then its easy to imagine a point where be become indistinguishable from the definition of a god, hence the existence of god is probable on an infinite time line, however this mere exercise of thought could be blasphemous to many professing belief in modern religions. However considering the god described in the bible, his described capacity for emotion and his described relationship to time, this paints a picture in my mind, not of a being who is literally unchanging but had a period of evolution and perhaps has entered a state where further change would violate his defined set of principles. "Perfect". Allowing ones self to see the bizarrely similar parallels in Genesis and Stephan Hawkins descriptions of the big bang is freeing for those struggling to unite their religious beliefs and modern theory on the origins of the universe. Science is not perfect, to state science as absolute is a fallacy far worse than a person believing in the religious traditions of their fathers. Analyzing and questioning all is the best way I've found to test the validity of any belief, and that journey should never be considered over during our lives. As much as I believe in the validity of modern theories of evolution, I must accept the possibility that they are completely wrong just as I must accept that my understanding of God is completely wrong. But I still believe them as far as I understand them. "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws." - Stephen Hawking
In reply to Morsing: In humans, co-operation is a trait handed down through generations and it is a trait which has made us fitter to survive.
I do not profess to being a scientist however i am very interested in science which is observation. I have been a student of the Bible for 55 years and i do have an older brother who is now emeritus professor with a phd and a string of universities to his name U.K. U.S. Au. Germany, where he both studied and lectured, Over the years i have had informative end interesting discussions with him. These have helped broaden my understanding enormously. through the internet i am able to research the writing of theologians of all colours. i would now confidently stake my life on the following 1 Any person who quotes the Catholic Churches as an authority on Christianity or science is sadly ignorant of of both those subjects plus history. (Nazi germany (with the sanction of the Pope) 6 million - Catholic system only about 50 million) no organization whatever can stake any claim to Christianity whilst being responsible for the slaughter - torture of pagan or christian christianity in the new testament, without any shadow of a doubt, is totally passive, and will not avenge it self on any person. whatever however "brethren AVENGE NOT yourselves" Nations do it, individuals do, it and make false claims about their supposed faith. 2 Any person who claims Darwinian theory as the last word is ignorant of the Albert Einstein and the papers of his wife to whom must go the credit of a lot o work for which he has received the credit. 3 Any person who supports the 6x 24 hour day creationists is ignorant of both scripture and science. 4 For any one who is truly interested in the subject they must clear their mind of the extreme prejudice and rhetoric coming from both 6 day creationist and the Darwinians. There is nothing factual out there to support either camp. Modern science (cosmology is the most factual and proved science of them all) tells us before the moment of the "big bang" time and space did not exist, the Bible is the only peace of literature that puts a creator outside of time and space. Science being observation must always define the place of the observer The Bible puts the observer at sea level on earth hence no sun or moon observable 'till the fourth day ( note the english word day is translated from the Hebrew word "Yom " which can mean 12 hours 24 hours or unspecified time) http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html#7BJnfTf28En1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5488284265590289530# http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ http://www.rci.org Michael
Evolution and religion - specifically Christianity, since I doubt many Kemetics are up in arms - do not contradict each other. Though, as an aside, I do wonder what people see in the "survival of the fittest" explanation. I myself prefer "survival of the most cooperative" for various reasons, not the least because a human can't build a house quickly enough to survive in the Rockies without help.
Religion and the theory of evolution do not contradict each other. The Catholic church has accepted evolution as well as a lot of other religious sects. Most of the ones who do not accept it are those who believe words written thousands of years ago trump any discovered facts.