0
   

IMAX Drops Evolutionist Films

 
 
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 05:36 pm
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43390

EVOLUTION WATCH
IMAX steers clear
of Darwin's theory
'It's not going to draw a crowd,
it is going to create controversy'
Posted: March 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Some IMAX theaters are refusing to carry movies that promote evolution, citing concerns that doing so offends their audience and creates controversy - a move that has some proponents of Darwinism alarmed over the influence of "fundamentalists."

It's a decision that affects not only the network of 240 IMAX theaters operating in 35 countries, but some science museums that show IMAX-formatted films.

IMAX, which bills itself as the "ultimate movie experience," promises to take viewers to "places you only imagined." The 8-story high screens and crystal clear images have made the theaters ideal venues for documentary science films showing the splendor of nature.

Now, however, about a dozen IMAX theaters, primarily in the South, are shunning movies that carry evolution themes, the New York Times reports. Fear of protests by those objecting to films that contradict the Biblical account of creation is cited as the reason.

A dozen science centers rejected the 2003 release, "Volcanoes," because of it speculation that life on Earth may have originated in undersea vents, says Dr. Richard Lusk, an oceanographer and chief scientist for the project.

Because a only small number of IMAX theaters show science films, a boycott by a few can reduce the potential audience to the point that producers question whether projects are financially worthwhile.

"We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public," says Lisa Buzzelli, of the Charleston, South Carolina, Imax Theater. "Being in the Bible Belt, ["Volcanoes"] does have a lot to do with evolution, and we weigh that carefully."

When the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History played the movie for a test audience, the responses were sufficiently negative for the museum to drop it from its offerings. Responses like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence" doomed the film's chances.

"Some people said it was blasphemous," says Carol Murray, the museum's director of marketing. "If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she concludes, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to screen it.

The film's distributor says other science museum officials turned him down "for religious reasons" and because "Volcanoes" had "evolutionary overtones" - a claim that makes Hyman Field, a former National Science Foundation official who played a role in its financing, "furious."

"It's very alarming," he says, "all of this pressure being put on a lot of the public institutions by the fundamentalists."

The economics of large-format science documentaries being what they are, it might not take too much pressure for filmmakers to begin avoiding Darwin.

The films "are generally not big moneymakers," notes Joe DeAmicis, former director of the IMAX theater at the California Science Center in Los Angeles. "It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them.

Bayley Silleck, who wrote and directed "Cosmic Voyage," another IMAX offering that drew religious complaints, expects to encounter criticism on his upcoming project about dinosaurs. While he's critical of "overcaution, overprotectedness" by theater operators, he recognizes that in the end, it's the audience that counts.

"We all have to make films for an audience that is a family audience," he observes, "when you are talking about IMAX, because they are in science centers and museums."

A Gallup poll, released earlier this month, reveals that 81 percent of U.S. teenagers believe God was somehow involved in human origins, with only 18 percent holding a purely secular view of evolution.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,393 • Replies: 45
No top replies

 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 05:40 pm
Quote:
A Gallup poll, released earlier this month, reveals that 81 percent of U.S. teenagers believe God was somehow involved in human origins, with only 18 percent holding a purely secular view of evolution.


would never have imagined those persentages
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 05:50 pm
A sure sign of the lack of understanding of science and technology in the US. Alas! In two generations the US will be a third world nation.

Rap
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 05:53 pm
I don't know about 3rd world, but certainly one living in a new "Dark Ages".
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 06:05 pm
More misleaking Creationist Propaganda

The Gallup poll results actually state that 38 percent of students don't believe in evolution.

A full 43% believe in evolution with God-- choosing the answer that humans "developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided."

The 18% (as stated) said that "evolution took place without God playing a role. "

By my math, 38% of kids are creationists and 61% are evolutionists.

But these poll numbers don't matter. Censorship of a mainstream scientific "theory" in face of of the controversy is simply cowardice.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 06:11 pm
Well, for all the IMAx's in the South we got huuge footage of NASCAR races.
I hope those 18% of the kids can see fit to stay home for education cause we have the elite students from around the world becoming a larger percentage of our university science and engineering departments.

Whatdya need an education for? all the cash registers in McD's have pictures of the burgers you sell, and Walmart registers recheck youre inputs and make change automatically.

Sic transit gloria mundi, Educanti publis sessila in colostomus est
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 06:48 pm
The basic reality is that Americans are better consumers than people of other nations; Americans are quicker and better at rejecting bad products including bad theories like evolutionism.

Americans had their chances to become nazis and communists in the 1920s and 30s and we didn't fall for it. I mean, one of the things I notice not being there in history books are the stories about the French and Germans and English having to come over here in 1942 and rescue Americans from Christianity...

There are something like 50 - 100 stories about miracles in the bible, both testaments. By way of contrast, evolutionism requires an endless procession of miracles, every single creature which ever walked the earth or swam in its oceans or flew in its skies being a zero-likelihood event or probabilistic miracle all the way from the first one-celled organism to our present time and most if not all requireing logical impossibilities as well as probabilistic ones. The odds against evolution are not only infinite, they might in fact be uncountably infinite, i.e. the cardinality of those odds might be that of the real numbers.

Not only would voodoo or Santaria be better than evolution, you could make up a new religion by taking the single most idiotic doctrine from each existing religion and even that would make more sense than evolution.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 07:21 pm
No no no, the first nation to reject evolution (re random mutation, survival of the fittest) was the Soviet Union. It seems that Stalin felt that Lamarckism was more in line with his socialist realpolitic. As a result Stalin purged biology and agriculture (academic, political and practical) of all of those so called evolutionists.

The result, the Soviet Union, which had been the bread basket of Europe, in the 19 ought's and teens, was starving by the thirties and forties.

As for biblical creationism, it is at best a Scientific Hypothesis without quantifiable observation or evidence (other than faith-which by definition is immeasurable).

And if creationism becomes the realpolitic of science in the theocracy required for validation, my fear is the fate of the US will be a mirror of what was Stalinist agriculture.

Rap
0 Replies
 
markr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 07:29 pm
gungasnake wrote:
The basic reality is that Americans are better consumers than people of other nations; Americans are quicker and better at rejecting bad products including bad theories like evolutionism.


Then why is Budweiser the number one beer in the US? We're not better we just consume more.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 08:09 pm
raprap wrote:
No no no, the first nation to reject evolution (re random mutation, survival of the fittest) was the Soviet Union. It seems that Stalin felt that Lamarckism was more in line with his socialist realpolitic. As a result Stalin purged biology and agriculture (academic, political and practical) of all of those so called evolutionists.

The result, the Soviet Union, which had been the bread basket of Europe, in the 19 ought's and teens, was starving by the thirties and forties....



I know you didn't get that from a book of Russian fairytales because Russian fairytales are better than that one.

If you really want to starve to death in as big a hurry as possible the first thing you want to do is kill everybody in your whole country who knows anything about farming, which is precisely what the stinking commies did, particularly in the Ukraine which by itself could feed eveybody west of the Urals, and the word for that was "razkulachivaniya" meaning the destruction of the kulak peasant farmer class comprising several millions of people.

The next thing the commies did was take hoodlums from the cities and truck them all out to the farms to make kolxhozniki (kolhoz means KOLectivnoye HOZyayctvo, or collective farm) out of them to replace all the competent farmers they'd just killed.

Guess what? Those a$$holes were used to working 9 - 5 if that much and a farm simply doesn't work that way. There are days on a farm when you don't need to be working at all and should be hunting or fishing, and other days when you need to be working 20 hours.

That's aside from the problem of lack of accountability which communism introduced in all facets of life, but you get the idea. Evolution/Creation didn't have anything to do with what happened to Russia and its food supplies.

Hitler in fact had plans for a super-guage train for hauling food out of the Ukraine. He was going to let the Ukraine feed all of Russia AND Europe and eliminate most farming in Germany and France.

I mean, starving to death in the Ukraine is like not being able to get laid in a whorehouse. No simple change in a scientific paradigm is going to do that or even come close to doing that; what does that is large-scale implementation of political theories based on non-reality.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 08:25 pm
Finding myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with both Gunga and his opponent of the moment.

Yes, famine was the result of "the destruction of the kulak peasant farmer class".

Yes, famine was the result of Stalin's purge of biology and agriculture based on his idiosyncratic embrace of Lamarckism rather than evolution.

Really no either/or question. There were some other factors as well (requisitioniong all the harvest that did still come about for transport to the cities, for example).
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 08:46 pm
Consider that the Ukraine had always been a reginoal breadbasket during all the centuries prior to Darwin. Trying to claim that banning Charles Darwin's theory caused farming to go south in the Ukraine in the 30s is like me wanting to blame Bill Clinton for bad weather.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 09:00 pm
I suppose Discovery channel will be "filtered' for the public soon, too? We'll soon be teaching that dinosaurs never existed, since the time frame doesn't fit into creation. The story of the Grand Canyon has already been changed.

As one who was raised a Christian and accepted Christ as a teen, I'm finding myself completely disgusted with the Christian Right and the turn of this nation over the past five years.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 09:02 pm
Here's some more Christian science... Evidently christians smell different! Yeah, that's what we want the kids to learn!

http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2233207p-8613419c.html
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 09:17 pm
I suggest a little review of documented history rather than your largely revisionist realpolitic. Look Here and here
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 08:15 am
raprap wrote:


Now that, my friend, is also my fear. That a theocracy of the majority takes hold and enforces the bad science known as Scientific Creationism, and drives acceptable proven scientific agriculture in this country into the dark ages and starvation with a demand that politics (in this case religion) drive science.


You're making two claims and both are wrong.

One is that Charles Darwin is somehow or other necessary to agriculture. Maybe you think that Russia only had to feed a few hundred people before Darwin was born and that the bad agriculture prior to then was only capable of feeding a few hundred. Nonetheless it's a fact of life that the population of China just prior to Genghis Khan was around 100,000,000.

How did they feed that many Chinese before Charles Darwin taught everybody how to farm?????

The other claim is that anything on Earth amounts to worse science than evolution, and that's false as well. Evolution basically stands everything we know about modern mathematics and probability theory on its head with its demands that utterly impossible things happen over and over and over again countless billions of times. You're basically just taking everything we know about mathematics and flushing it down the toilet.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 08:27 am
raprap wrote:
I won't even go into the bald faced arrogance that is required by the creationist assumption that man is the ultimate product on the evolutionary bush.


Hear, hear. Nice line, if I may say so.
0 Replies
 
Waldo2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 09:20 am
...
Quote:
Evolution basically stands everything we know about modern mathematics and probability theory on its head with its demands that utterly impossible things happen over and over and over again countless billions of times. You're basically just taking everything we know about mathematics and flushing it down the toilet.


You're kidding, right?

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the principles of evolution. You are erecting a straw man so that you can burn him to the ground. Not one of the evolutionists that I know believes that "utterly impossible things happen over and over and over again countless billions of times."

For one thing, evolutionists are generally accepting of scientific evidence. If something has happened "countless billioins of times", one should not consider that occurence to be "utterly impossible".

For another thing, evolution doesn't say that a fish magically turned into a bird, an otter, and a human -- all at once.

I was raised Southern Baptist. I routinely heard this same straw man argument growing up. The believers would say, "I know I didn't come from an ape!". Evolution doesn't claim that you came from an ape. At least attack the actual theory and not some bastardized version thereof.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 09:29 am
Nikolai Vavilov was a Russian geneticist who, argued that , unlike Darwinian limited expressions of a phenotype, the process of evolution presents a "Host" of potential solutions that can be accomodated to an environment. Trofim Lysenko, Stalins favorite ass kisser, was quick to exploit the weaknesses in vavilovs theories (which, except for the Lamarkian beliefs, were pretty much in line with present evolutionary synthesis) Lysenko was just a poor scientist who phonied his data to show that characteristics could be acquired from the enviroment. Consequently , wheat production in the Ukraine in the 1950s plummeted by huge amounts due to mis applications of non rigorous strains of grains.All this was because Stalin , buying Lysenkos points , stated that Darwinian theory was an example of bourgeoise science.
Demonstrating, once again, that to dismiss the nuances of what good science offers, in favor of some philosophical favorite worldview, just because it gives some communist leader comfort, can cost the people dearly.
Since the gradual displacement of Lysenkos "genetics", Russia has caught up in the 80s and is now a world exporter of grain.
.
Gunga would dispute gravity if there were something in the Bible that said to do so.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 11:50 am
Quote:

Evolution basically stands everything we know about modern mathematics and probability theory on its head


This does raise the question, gunga... just what do you know about modern mathematics and probability theory?

From your posts, it looks like you don't know much.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » IMAX Drops Evolutionist Films
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 02:08:34