[tips] Creation
I've been waiting for Chris Green to post this here, as he did on the History of Psychology list, but as he doesn't seem to be going to, allow me. The "Creation" referred to is the new film about Darwin which just premiered at the Toronto Film Festival. It seems that Americans aren't going to get to see it any time soon. The reason is astounding and disturbing. I just hope that it doesn't extend to Canada as well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film- too-controversial-for-religious-America.html http://tinyurl.com/pe7pzu Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Creation
sbl...@ubishops.ca wrote: > I've been waiting for Chris Green to post this here, as he did on the History > of Psychology list, but as he doesn't seem to be going to, allow me. Believe it or not, I tried to do exactly that yesterday afternoon, but had run out of posts for the day. Here's what I attempted to post: We are all, by now, used to the idea that there are a lot of people in the US who find Darwin's theory of evolution anathema to their firmly held religious beliefs. But the new feature film about the impact that the 1851 death of Darwin's daughter, Annie, had on both his own religious beliefs and his scientific work has apparently been unable to even find a distributor in the US and, so, will probably never be seen in the major theaters there. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html (Thanks to new York grad student Eric Oosenbrug for pointing this article out to me.) I would have thought that the revenues from major coastal cities alone would have been enough to entice a distributor to pick it up, but (apparently) the anticipated backlash (boycotts, etc.), presumably against other movies or products sold by the same company, has caused them to decline one of the major releases of the year. Quizzical. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Creation
Hi Here's a piece on Pandasthumb by Eugenie Scott on "Creation" with some links to other sites. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/09/eugenie-scott-r.html#more Also, USA is just tip of anti-evolution iceberg. Many developing countries have levels of religiosity that far exceed those in USA, which does not bode well for evolution. A recent survey, for example, found that only 8% of Egyptians think there is evidence for evolution. Perhaps not surprising since only 38% had even heard of Darwin. Similarly low figures for South Africa. USA had 33% believing there is evidence for evolution, versus over 50% (depressingly low) for UK, China, and Mexico. Ironically, USA had highest figure (55%) for knowing a good/fair amount about evolution. See following or numerous other sites for results http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jul/01/evolution You can also complete a related survey at http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/survey.zgi?p=WEB229CD3MTHT5 It is too bad they are not collecting demographic information (except religiousness) in this survey (e.g., education, gender, age, ...). Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >>> "Christopher D. Green" 13-Sep-09 10:00:28 AM >>> sbl...@ubishops.ca wrote: > I've been waiting for Chris Green to post this here, as he did on the History > of Psychology list, but as he doesn't seem to be going to, allow me. Believe it or not, I tried to do exactly that yesterday afternoon, but had run out of posts for the day. Here's what I attempted to post: We are all, by now, used to the idea that there are a lot of people in the US who find Darwin's theory of evolution anathema to their firmly held religious beliefs. But the new feature film about the impact that the 1851 death of Darwin's daughter, Annie, had on both his own religious beliefs and his scientific work has apparently been unable to even find a distributor in the US and, so, will probably never be seen in the major theaters there. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html (Thanks to new York grad student Eric Oosenbrug for pointing this article out to me.) I would have thought that the revenues from major coastal cities alone would have been enough to entice a distributor to pick it up, but (apparently) the anticipated backlash (boycotts, etc.), presumably against other movies or products sold by the same company, has caused them to decline one of the major releases of the year. Quizzical. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Creation
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:00:02 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: >Stephen Black originally wrote: >> I've been waiting for Chris Green to post this here, as he did on the >> History >> of Psychology list, but as he doesn't seem to be going to, allow me. > >Believe it or not, I tried to do exactly that yesterday afternoon, but >had run out of posts for the day. One does have to keep track of the number of posts one makes, especially in those frivolous threads instead of important ones like this. :-) >Here's what I attempted to post: > >We are all, by now, used to the idea that there are a lot of people in >the US who find Darwin's theory of evolution anathema to their firmly >held religious beliefs. But the new feature film about the impact that >the 1851 death of Darwin's daughter, Annie, had on both his own >religious beliefs and his scientific work has apparently been unable to >even find a distributor in the US and, so, will probably never be seen >in the major theaters there. > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html > >(Thanks to new York grad student Eric Oosenbrug for pointing this >article out to me.) I suggest that one take a firm grip of one's opinion and not become a premature evaluator. The movie business is, surprisingly, a business and there are a lot of films that are presented at film festivals in the hope that they will find a distributor (major or minor but usually a minor distributor because, let's face it, most films presented at film festivals are not big money makers). Concerning the news article linked to above, do we need to be reminded that we should be skeptical of anything that is presented in news that cannot be independently verified? For example: |However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will |prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll |conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the |theory of evolution. A few questions: (1) What does "resolutely passed" mean? That instead of a simple "no", distributors said "NO!"? (2) "A film which will prove hugely divisive". First, this isn't logic or math, so the word "prove" is inappropriate to use in an inductive, predictive sense. Second, we are already divided on the issue of Darwin which, I think, means that people who like Darwin might go to see the movie and those who don't like Darwin might not go. The real question is can the movie make its "nut", that is, can it recover its costs of production, salaries, advertising, and such. Does anyone know how much it cost to make the movie? Does anyone know what the deal is that the producers of the movie are trying to make with distributors? Are the terms of the distribution deal likely to produce a profit or a loss? (3) Implicit in the article is the notion that this picture will be profitable yet there is no economic analysis provided to support this point, instead an argument is made that the distributors are afraid because of an anti-Darwin backlash (really? which distributors? what deals were offerred to them and what would they earn as a return?) (4) Even if a "major" distributor cannot be found in the U.S. this does not mean the movie will not be shown in the U.S. Has anyone asked which U.S. film festivals the producers have entered the movie? Eventually, the film will be available on DVD and will probably play on channels like IFC or Sundance or other "indie" film channels. Or one can just wait until the first bootleg copy is made available on the internets. >I would have thought that the revenues from major coastal cities alone >would have been enough to entice a distributor to pick it up, but >(apparently) the anticipated backlash (boycotts, etc.), presumably >against other movies or products sold by the same company, has caused >them to decline one of the major releases of the year. Quizzical. The real question is why you think this is an appropriate characterization of the situation. Again, which distributors were approached? What were the deals offered to them? Was it really fear of an anti-Darwin backlash or were the economic terms simply unworkable? Listen, if Lars von Trier can get his films shown in the U.S., pretty much anyone can (I use von Trier as an example because he is probably the quinessential "art" house type of director as well as having use the actor Paul Bettany [Darwin in "Creation"] in his movie "Dogville" which had a brief run in art house cinemas and shows up periodically on the IFC channel -- at 178 minutes one has to be a committed film lover to sit through it; see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276919/ ) Perhaps there are other fears, for example: (1) Because Paul Bettany played the kill crazy albino monk in the "The Da Vince Code", maybe distributors are afraid of a backlash by Catholics or maybe kill crazy albinos. For more on Bettany'
Re: [tips] Creation
A nice response by Mike Palij--I really don't know how he has the time. I echo Mike's caution on press releases. such as... > |However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will > |prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll > |conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the > |theory of evolution. How they can know it will be "hugely divisive" is humungously awsome. I wish I could predict the future. I haven't seen it and perhaps it is "even-handed", but that would probably be unlikely. I doubt whether the creator of the film is absolutely and completely neutral to the Darwin/Creation thing. Besides, I think if the Creation/Evolution thing is hugely divisive in America perhaps a lot of the blame lies in the "new aethiest camp". If the issue was approached with a bit of humility, and real concern over people and their beliefs then perhaps it wouldn't be so divisive (if it actually is). Say. Anyone know how come some posts are super-wide and some are not? Can the super-wide ones be forced into normal screen size? --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] Creation
The article says that "It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia." I assume that would include Canada since it is not the 51st state. I find it difficult to believe that a film would not be picked up by a US distributor because of its attack on religious belief. I doubt it would be more controversial than Religulous or Dogma or even the DaVinci Code. Controversy is generally seen as a ticket seller. What it takes for a film to be picked up by a distributor in the US is a reasonable chance of making money. I have to agree with one of the comments on the site: "The producer hasn't managed to sell his film to the distributors as they don't think it will make them enough money (nothing to do with theology!), so aims to play the religion card and generate publicity to get his film distributed in the valuable US market.Or am I cynical?" The picture on the Telegraph site may say it best: A scientist writing a book doesn't seem promising to translate into theatrical box office. His daughter dies. It doesn't promise a "love story" (by definition since the couple involved is already married). It's not a rom-com. It is not targeted at adolescent males. There is little action in it. It could well appear on the History Channel or some other TV network here but I don't think it will see the inside of many theaters. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu From: sbl...@ubishops.ca [sbl...@ubishops.ca] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:14 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Creation I've been waiting for Chris Green to post this here, as he did on the History of Psychology list, but as he doesn't seem to be going to, allow me. The "Creation" referred to is the new film about Darwin which just premiered at the Toronto Film Festival. It seems that Americans aren't going to get to see it any time soon. The reason is astounding and disturbing. I just hope that it doesn't extend to Canada as well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film- too-controversial-for-religious-America.html http://tinyurl.com/pe7pzu Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Creation
Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Department of Psychology University of Winnipeg Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 CANADA >>> Michael Smith 13-Sep-09 12:07 PM >>> Besides, I think if the Creation/Evolution thing is hugely divisive in America perhaps a lot of the blame lies in the "new aethiest camp". If the issue was approached with a bit of humility, and real concern over people and their beliefs then perhaps it wouldn't be so divisive (if it actually is). Anyone who thinks the Atheists started the war needs to look at Answers in Genesis and like websites. See in particular some of their so-called educational material, such as the slide showing Evolution as being responsible for all manner of social ills. Slide is at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20010316_2.asp This is described as "The Problem," for which AIG provides the solution (Christianity). Elements of the problem include homosexuality, abortion, and other faith-based causes. In other words, evolution has long been under attack from well-funded and influential sources. These same kind of arguments have surfaced in recent years in Turkey in the writings of Harun Yahya. See http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/9543/ONLY_TURKEY_CAN_RESCUE_THE_EUROPEAN_UNION_(EU)_FROM_THE_SWAMP_OF_MATERIALISM where evolution is blamed for materialism, communism, and terrorism. (Not to worry ... Turkey is going to rescue Europe from the swamp of materialism). As in the USA, substantial funding is behind these efforts (e.g., a volume titled "The Evolution Deceit" was circulated freely in Turkey, another volume titled "The Atlas of Creation" is purported to be widely available). Perhaps this is my week to disagree with people's view of history, but I believe the "new atheists" arose BECAUSE these attacks continued unabated despite decades of politeness and attempts to educate people (i.e., disabuse them of the numerous falsities available at sites like AIG). When another group literally hates your worldview and will do anything (scrupulous or not) to undermine that view, then I believe advocates for evolution came to realize that the time for humility and politeness may have passed ... indeed it may have passed decades ago. Take care Jim --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Creation
James Clark wrote: >but I believe the "new atheists" arose BECAUSE these attacks continued >unabated despite decades of politeness and attempts to >educate people (i.e., >disabuse them of the numerous falsities available at sites like AIG). When >another group literally hates your >worldview and will do anything (scrupulous >or not) to undermine that view, then I believe advocates for evolution came to >realize that >the time for humility and politeness may have passed ... indeed >it may have passed decades ago. I don't think so. Evolution is supposed to be a scientific theory not a worldview. And because some people reacted with vehemence against the scientific theory of evolution, does that mean that some kind of war needs to be started by the "new atheists"? Because people circulate what they think is a rebuttal of evolution, does that mean that some kind of war needs to be started by the "new atheists"? "then I believe advocates for evolution came to realize that the time for humility and politeness may have passed" It is not the right of the "new atheists" to force the theory of evolution on people who don't want to hear about it. If some people think that the theory of evolution is stupid nonsense that is their right and it is not the right of the "new atheists" to "disabuse them of the numerous falsities available" by being rude, ignorant, and vulgar (as well as childish). --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Creation
���On 13 September 2009 Jim Clark wrote: > Also, USA is just tip of anti-evolution iceberg. Many developing > countries have levels of religiosity that far exceed those in USA, > which does not bode well for evolution. A recent survey, for example, > found that only 8% of Egyptians think there is evidence for evolution… > Similarly low figures for South Africa. USA had 33% believing there > is evidence for evolution, versus over 50% (depressingly low) for UK, > China, and Mexico. Ironically, USA had highest figure (55%) for > knowing a good/fair amount about evolution. See following or >numerous other sites for results. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jul/01/evolution I'll stick to the U K here! For some reason (sometimes, but not always, to do with the way the questions are worded) polls about evolution/intelligent design, etc, have been inconsistent in the UK in recent years. Jim cites a Guardian article from 1July 2009 reporting an international poll recording that only some 51% of UK respondents agree that the scientific evidence for evolution exists. Compare that to a Guardian article of 2 March 2009 that reports on a survey that "suggests there is a widespread lack of religious sentiment across Britain. National average figures revealed that less than a third of adults see evolution as part of God's plan, 89% dismiss intelligent design and 83% reject creationism as plau sible explanations for the existence of human life." http://tinyurl.com/chev9f Again, a 2006 international poll gives a 75% figure for the acceptance of evolution in the UK: http://tinyurl.com/nmyw36 (Scroll down for international table.) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ------- Re: [tips] Creation Jim Clark Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:21:28 -0700 Hi Here's a piece on Pandasthumb by Eugenie Scott on "Creation" with some links to other sites. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/09/eugenie-scott-r.html#more Also, USA is just tip of anti-evolution iceberg. Many developing countries h ave levels of religiosity that far exceed those in USA, which does not bode well for evolution. A recent survey, for example, found that only 8% of Egyptians think there is evidence for evolution. Perhaps not surprising since only 38% had even heard of Darwin. Similarly low figures for South Africa. USA had 33% believing there is evidence for evolution, versus over 50% (depressingly low) for UK, China, and Mexico. Ironically, USA had highest figure (55%) for knowing a good/fair amount about evolution. See following or numerous other sites for results http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jul/01/evolution You can also complete a related survey at http://www.zoomerang.com/Surv ey/survey.zgi?p=WEB229CD3MTHT5 It is too bad they are not collecting demographic information (except religiousness) in this survey (e.g., education, gender, age, ...). Take care Jim James M. Clark --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
[tips] Creation science on the move
According to an editorial dated February 28 in _Nature_, "The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is considering an application by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) to grant online master's degrees in science education. And an advisory panel to the board has recommended that Texas should accept the application. The ICR accepts the Bible as literal truth on all topics. According to its website, the palaeoclimatology class covers "climates before and after the Genesis Flood". Anatomy lab includes "limited discussion of embryology and accompanying histology, specifically in regards to evolutionary theory and its alternative - the creation of fully functional major groups of animals". You can read it (and weep) at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7182/full/4511030a.html (access seems unrestricted, although you might have to register) Editorial: Lone Star vs creationism Nature 451, 1030 (28 February 2008) | doi:10.1038/4511030a; Published online 27 February 2008 Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's Universitye-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
