Charles Darwin is too controversial for the U.S.

Remove all ads!

Actually Ragusa, I don't think the recent exculpation of Galileo represents a turn toward science but how long it takes to apologize. A willingness to accept science came before that.

And I know the apology was more than late in coming but look at what % of the history/life of the USA had to pass by before the federal government apologize for slavery? How about how long do you think it'll take S. Carolina to totally take down the Confederate flag?

 

Although he probably could have worded it a bit better, it's pretty clear to me that what Snook was saying is that he doesn't believe the reason it's not being picked up is due to Americans not believing in evolution, but rather that this is a marketing ploy to generate more interest in the film in order to ensure it does get picked up. And I think he has a good point, although I'm not sure the movie would have much commercial success in the U.S. anyway.

And I bet Wiki agrees with me.

 

Tal, just pulling from the top link, apparently one survey concluded that:
53% of Americans believe Humans developed through evolution over millions of years.
66% of Americans believe Humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years.

Something in those numbers just doesn't work. Now I'll agree that Gallup looks better than some of the other polls I've seen. They do things like rotate the order of their questions, so as to avoid an order bias, include key phrases that focus thought on the purpose of the question, and, at least in the third question, even include a middle ground. I do find their definitions a little iffy, though. For example, Creationism isn't just the idea that God created the universe within the past 10,000 years. That's only Short-Day creationism. It's kind of like asking modern evolutionists if they believe in strict Darwinian Evolution. Any that know what they're talking about will say no, because a lot of stuff has changed in that theory since Darwin penned it. They still believe in evolution, though.

Personally, I would answer all those questions as "I believe in Evolution, not Creationism, as you have defined them", yet I actually believe God created the universe most certainly, and believe the theory of evolution in more of a "probably true, looks good for a scientific theory" kind of way.

You also, of course, have the classic problem of the self-selecting sample: i.e. in a voluntary (and especially phone-based) poll, only those that are bored, extremely polite, extremely opinionated, or really dumb are going to answer. And I've participated in those polls. I was bored. In the end, that leads toward an exclusion of the middle and a focus on the extremes. You may have guessed this from the frequency of single digit "Unsure" answers.

Scythesong, that's good to hear. It's encouraging, thanks.

It also bears remembering, Ragusa, that the Catholic Church is a bureocracy. I doubt that helped a speedy shift in position. On the other hand, it looks like the Protestants, as a whole, adopted Galileo's ideas rather readily.

 

I think you guys should just hug it out.

With a monkey.

 

Evolution is too controversial of a topic, but The Passion of the Christ is not? Really? Evolution is certainly a lot less graphic...

 

It's been hinted at here but I wanna say it right out -- maybe the movie is just poorly done. I doubt it, as I like old Paul Bettany, but the possibility exists. Perhaps all of the distributors looked at it and said "Good God, we have another 'Ishtar' here -- no point wasting resources on a piece of horse doots like this one!"

Then some rabble rousers (possibly the offended creators) said "that's not the REAL reason they're turning it down -- they're turning it down because they are Right Wing Loonies who deny Science! Let's try to make them look like dorks!"

I'm not saying I know for a fact that's what happened. But I throw it out there as a possibility. As some mentioned before, they showed 'Religulous', and tons of stuff offensive to various Christian sects is marketed every year. It strikes me as highly unlikely that all of the sudden a film on Darwin would suddenly become pariah on that basis. Whatever the case, I believe there's more going on here.

 

Sex? Wait. Are you suggesting that, in the movie...Charles Darwin...and the monkey...dude.

And you call this a family site, Tal. Shame on you.

One word, dude: GIGLI. One more word: GLITTER. This is America. In order to get distribution, a movie almost has to be a steamer.

 

What is GIGLI? A movie? Some kinky acronym? I is confused.

Same for GLITTER.

 

This is Gigli.

This is Glitter.

This is, evidently, your home.

 

Two words: British Drama.

Those two words will kill any box office draw in the US. British drama is only seen on PBS (there have been a few notable exception, those typically involve showing some attractive British actress naked).

 

Oh yes, I spoke about literalistic grass roots fundamentalists for a reason.

 

DR: You know that old 50s song that features a girl band singing the following lyrics:

I need a BRAVE man
I need a CAVE man

I'm the cave man! Bring on the babes who need me!

I don't see Jennifer Lopez movies or Mariah Carey movies on principle (there are several other crap actresses on this list, as well as some actors) so it's no wonder I didn't catch the references.

 

Oh, I haven't seen either one. But I at least have heard of two of the most famously-terrible movies of the decade. They both received more publicity for being horrible than most movies receive for being must-sees.

 

Y'know, up until now, I always assumed Gigli was the woman (Lopez), not the guy (Affleck).

Not that that has anything to do with the topic.

 

Me too, but I thought the Gigli was referring to J-Lo's ever-widening backside. Remember, when checking out the ladies, the rear doubles in size when bent over, so if your on the fence as to whether her arse is too wide, keep that in mind. It will always lead you down the right path. Also, check out her mother's....

 

Again, from the polls you've shown, the numbers vary wildly, from over 50% disbelieving in evolution (certainly false + probably false) to 25%. It's a sizable portion, and definitely controvercial, but to say 'majority' one way or another is iffy.

Without having talked to my wife about it (the expert), I'd guess that that actually points to a sizable number of uncertains that decided to 'guess' instead of saying 'I don't know'. Some people just can't utter those words, you know.

I take a bit of offense at the wording of that. A changing interpretation of constant evidence in science is considered an acceptable revision of the theory, while the same happening in religion is "muddying the waters"? Sounds more like double-standard FTW to me. Also, I'd just like to point out that Long-Day Creationism and the like are far from new inventions. 5th century, in fact.

But it doesn't provide a middle ground (such as the survey that mentioned God guiding a process of development over millions of years). That forces people like me to stick to one side or the other, and many Christians will slide toward the Creationism term over the Evolution term when they actually believe both/neither.

That's true for all random and voluntary surveys, yes. That's one of the big differences between something like Gallup and something like a psychology study. The psychology studies usually pay people to answer the questions, select from a captive audience (prisons), or the like to ensure a more representative sample.

If that were the case, I'd expect it to be a multi-national effect, not just a US one. We aren't the only ones with good taste, you know.

I do agree that the "Religious Right will object" excuse is BS. They've released plenty of movies that had that same problem and yet still sold well in the theaters.

To be fair, I never heard of Gigli either, and even Glitter barely scattered the bats from my belfy, much less truely ringing a bell. Then again, probably 90% of the movies that have come out this year I've seen one commercial for, decided it was stupid/chick flick/otherwise uninteresting, and promptly ignored completely.

 

To be fair...er, I thought we'd established, quite recently in fact, that you're decidedly weird in the "common knowledge" department. So not only is it OK you've never heard of Gigli, it's kind of expected, and you're likely better off because of it (as what little I have seen of Gigli does indeed live up to the hype).

I'm sure Virginia Beach is not without its caves.