Imax Theaters Demur On Controversial Science Films 2242
circletimessquare writes "The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists. Films that are having their distribution impacted include '"Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.'"
I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Present them with an ultimatum: STFU or IMAX theaters will show films about creation. All creation myths, everybody's.
Other creation myths... (Score:5, Informative)
Just about every culture across the world has their own great flood myth [talkorigins.org]. There is some scientific evidence that there was a sudden flood in the Mediterranean region [mystae.com]
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess some religious parents might object to their young children being exposed to evolutionary thought, which is my guess as to what they are objecting to. (I didn't say it was a great argument, just my guess as to what it is)
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also think it's the parents' responsibility to make their children aware of the real world when they are mature enough to handle it. The parents will not be around forever, and it's their job to make mature, responsible adults out of these overgrown zygotes.
What use is it to shelter your children from the truth? When you die, your kid will be down in the basement waiting for his food until he starves to death.
As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that evangelical Christians, by and large, are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. They are used to being the underdog in an ideological war.
If you look at the public struggles between creationists and evolutionists, the creationists who represent the mainstream Evangelical thought are not trying to remove evolution, they would just like the teaching of evolution to acknowledge that it is not a proven fact, and that there are other schools of thought, an in particular, the possibility of intelligent design.
As a creationist, I do *not* want the teaching of religion in the public school classroom. Public school teachers have a wide variety of religious beliefs, so what would be the guarantee that they would represent the Christian belief? I rather not even go there.
Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that evangelical Christians, by and large, are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. They are used to being the underdog in an ideological war.
Buddy, you're definitely not from Tennessee.
Where I come from, Christians want to control what you see, hear, and understand in the world.
Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the problem is that that's insane. Would you also have your science teacher say that the heliocentric theory of the solar system is "just a theory", and that there are other schools of thought, including the "epicycle" theory?
A responsible science teacher could not stand before a class and say that the evidence for "intelligent design" is anything like on a par with the evidence for evolution. If you don't realize that the evidence is at that level, then you just haven't been paying attention.
--Bruce Fields
Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Teaching in a science classroom that some people believe in the principle of an "intelligent design" teaches children nothing -about science-. The evolutionary model of life has served us well as we've expanded our understanding of biology, zoology, and genetics. Approaching the world scientifically, that is, observing what's observable, formulating a hypothesis, and (to the extent possible) testing that hypothesis has dragged us, inch by inch, from the dark ages to the point in history where we could travel in space, split the atom, and begin to understand a wealth of new mysteries yet to be solved. Science teaches us that -all- our assumptions are subject to revision as new facts come to light. Some of the models we use to understand our world, such as Newtonian Physics, have already proven too simplistic to scale to the world as a whole: but ideas such as these are so time-proven on a practical level, in terms of understanding our world, that they are still good models for understanding how things work. (You don't need special relativity to model the motion of your car, for instance.)
Think about what the "Intelligent Design" idea really says. What purpose does it have other than to stroke the egos of those who favor this idea? It says that someone intentionally created the world. It doesn't get us any closer to understanding how, or why, or even who. There is nothing in the theory itself that makes it incompatible with the existing idea of evolution, but neither does it add anything to our understanding of the world when taken as an assumption. Really, it is a theory for a -Philosophy- class. That is the proper venue for discussing the implications of -why- the world exists, and other ideas that are, now and in the foreseeable future, far beyond the reach of observation and science.
Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:5, Insightful)
- "Evolution" means "the statistical distribution of alleles in a population changes over time". This is witnessed as frequently as gravity. There can be no rational doubt. Creationists dismiss this as "microevolution".
- There is the "cladistic theory of taxonomy", often called "common ancestry". It predicts that all existing species can be orginized by postulating a tree of common ancestors. All features of all species can be described this way. This theory, along with General Relativity, are the most predictive theories man has ever come up with. There are millions and millions of data points for this theory: it requires, for example, that all species with a common ancestor have the same solution to the same problem. No vertibrates with insect eyes, no mammels with feathered wings, and so on.
- The third hypothesis sometimes lumped in with evolution is the "abiotic genesis of life". Unliving chemicals sometime in the past became living chemicals. This is right up there with the hypothesis that extra-terrestrial life exists. Sure, there's no evidence anywhere that it's *not* true, and theres no logical reason that it *couldn't* be true (heck, I believe both hypotheses), but there is no actual evidence.
Yes, there are certainly questions about how speciation occurs so rapidly, and no doubt we have a lot to learn, but "macroevolution" is as strong a theory as any in science - *without* any examination of the fossil record, knowledge of genetics, or observation of speciation in microbiology. Add in those factors and it's iron clad. It would be inappropriate to teach that "evolution is just a theory" any more than Newton's Laws are just are just a theory: there are surely errors, but not of significance in most cases.In science "true" means "makes useful and accurate predictions". Perhaps that's the sticker you should slap on textbooks. Evolution is not a special case here.
Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chromosomes get duplicated all the time. If this mutation ever becomes a dominate trait (by happening often enough for both parents to have the new count, and that having some advantage) you now have a change in chromosomes with a very minor change in the organism. The duplicate chromosomes can then diverge over time.
So *many* creationist arguments are of the form "well, what about *this*, explain *this*", to appeal to the uneducated for whom *this* sounds unlikely. While biology doesn't hae all the answers, it has most of them.
Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there exists material (movies, print, etc.) that is contradictory to your believes, then you should not ignore it or ban it, but learn all you can so that you can point out its faults (if any). Trying to sweep it under the carpet only adds credibility. These zealots should see the movies that cast doubt on their beliefs so they can have valid, credible arguments to support their own beliefs in the light of the detractor.
When any group outright bans something that is contrary to their beliefs, my credence of that thing immediately doubles. Perhaps the problem is that the religous groups are doubting their own beliefs or their faith is not strong enough to survive such a test as people watching a movie.
Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was growing up as a kid, I never thought that Science and the Bible were necessarily in conflict. Most people believe that the bible represents a guide and isn't to be taken absolutely literally.
For instance, the whole "God created the Earth in seven days." Seven days could mean seven million years, or seven billion years. It's worded in a way that man can understand. Why do people reject Evolution, when it could have been God that kickstarted the whole thing?
I can't say that I believe these things anymore but if you can believe that there is an almighty being that created us, why can't you also believe that this being crafted the universe as we know it now, and all the wonders it contains that science as yet to scratch the surface on?
It's a scary time when the few people with extreme religious views can change the life of everyone to suit their needs.
Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the reason Voltaire and Swift are so fresh even today.
The only thing to hope for is that the ignorance is not sufficient to wipe out human scientific knowledge.
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, if you were consistent with your beliefs, you'd know that the power to juge guilt or innocence doesn't belong to mankind, but to God only. The only requirement upon you is to love, forgive, and show compassion to those who are too weak to be enlightened. Who do you think you are, to decide in place of the One greater than you ?
On the other hand, if you're a non-believer, anyway there's no such things as innocence or guilt, but behaviours. Some of the behaviours, without being intrinsicaly good or bad, hurt the society as a whole, some do not. Those which does (crimes) can be taken care off by removing the agent from the society, but you wouldn't kill him because truth being relative, you don't want to make a mistake, so you seek reversibility.
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
Liberals:
- no to capital Punishment
- no to war
- yes to abortion
- yes to euthanasia
Conservatives (bible thumpers):
- yes to capital Punishment
- yes to war
- no to abortion
- no to euthanasia
Both may be the opposite ends of the scale, but they both believe that sometimes its ok to kill, and sometimes its not ok to kill.
soo.. what does that make me, a person who is:
- No to capital punishment
- No to war (except in self defense(*) )
- No to abortion
- No to euthanasia
does this make me "center", as opposed to left or right wing?? Intresting...
(*) Self defense meaning, protect myself and my family from attack, as opposed to bombing the crap out of iraq.
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus, if you want to break it down over lines of whether or not it is ok to kill, then yes, both sides apear to demonstrate hipocrisy. But there is a real and possibly valid line which divides the two camps.
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
This still leaves the problem of why the USA has been the only (supposedly:-)) developed country where this has happened. There must be some factor producing this particular symptom of future shock. I don't think Japan, which has had at least as big a shake up as the US, has seen the rise of a large religiously motivated subculture. In Europe the rapid changes over the past couple of centuries have undermined religiosity in the mass of people, rather than boosting it.
Europe: the era of the individualist (Score:5, Insightful)
So were does the difference come from? The parent post explanation is way off, at least in Western Europe religions are struggling massively just to get people into the churches - most people just don't believe in churches as institutions anymore, that try to prescribe how people should live. So it's not about the content of the religion, it's about the institution that looses acceptance.
And this is a phenomenon that goes beyond religion; trade unions or any other institutions loose grip on people's lives. We live in the era of the individualist, people make their own choices for their own lives. And they assemble their own 'belief' from religions and non-religous streamings like Buddhism.
NB: European countries don't have state religions
Re:Here's my reasoning (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's truer in America than it is other places because of our high number of Fundementalist and Evangelical Christians. Neither the Catholic Church nor any of the major liberal Protestant denominations believe in inerrancy -- the idea that the Bible is perfectly and literally true.
The bible in it's basic form probably pre-dates religion, it was only later that people began to see it as something more and worship it, like present day people do with Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTRs.
Not really. Much of the Hebrew Bible dates from around or after the destruction of the first Temple, so it was absolutely composed for religious purposes. It contains traditions that are centuries older which certainly pre-date the understanding of religion that its writers had, but even those stories began as a part of religion. To call the Bible a collection of fables and stories created only for the purpose of morality is a gross distortion of the Bible's very complex literary history.
[Ok. Time to get back to writing thesis]
Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, far easier to call it a book for crackpots who refuse to grow up.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fundamentalists no more need to go to a museum to protest it, than they have to attend a mainstream film before denouncing it. They're not looking for a rational engagement using such trite things as facts; they're going for a visceral reaction based on hot-button emotionalism. Thiongs like facts and experience just slow down their game.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't religious fundamentalists who protested Mel Gibson's film before they saw it.
This is a tactic of all thought police, religious affiliation not withstanding.
LK
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa, buddy. You just spouted some grade-A bullshit.
Consider this:
Many consider it acceptable to be prejudiced against gays.
In many nations, women are repressed. Even in the US they often have to overcome rediculous and antiquated notions.
People executed in the US are disproportinately black.
Arab-Americans are more likely to be stopped at airports.
"Could it be that those screaming loudest for tolerance are in fact the least tolerant of differences?"
No. Most of the people protesting Gibson's film did so because of its extreme graphic violence. Not that they are right, of course - personally, I believe that *any* censorship is wrong (with a few notable exceptions such as child pornography). However, I also believe Gibson's film should have been given an NC-17 rating.
Re: Arab-Americans are more likely to be stopped.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, from the Arabs who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to the Arabs who plant all the car bombs in Belfast, to the many Arab revolutionary movements in South America, to the Arabs who bomb abortion clinics, to the Arabs who spray Sarin gas in Japanese subways. Nothin' but freakin' a-rabs.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or could it be that those professing to follow the teachings of a supremely tolerant philosopher are in fact supremely failing to be tolerant. After all we're responding to a an article about Christian intolerance aren't we?
To this day I've yet to come across a "Christian" - ordained or otherwise - that truly understands and practises the teachings of Jesus Christ himself - and I really am looking.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's all the rage and fashion now to ascribe to a word the very meaning it is defined by.
Denotation. All the kids are doin' it.
Why is it that prejudice against Christians is the last remaining acceptable prejudice?
This is among the more hilarious statements I've read on Slashdot. Unlike conspiracy theories alleging otherwise, uhm, who is in control of the government (all three branches thereof), and just about every major corporation? Oh yeah, Christians.
What is all the "fashion and rage" in fact, is appeasing the Christian right, what with the sudden general outrage against gay marriage, stem cells n' abortions, heathenous evolution, and boobies. Suddenly our very upright and moral members of Congress feel the best use of the might and power of the legislative branch of government is to spank the naughty boys of baseball and turn a doomed woman's life into a political football. Cuz it all plays well with the God-fearin' folk.
Early 1920s temperance movement, 1950s McCarthyism, 1980s Moral Majority, and now the post-9/11-"red state-ism." Every 30 years or so we get all high-n-mighty and take a giant step back for mankind that later proves to be a national embarrassment. Hopefully this one will pass quickly.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Notwithstanding other reasonable points you make...
Not quite. In the context of fundamentalist Christianity, you're a bit off base. Whether the beliefs are bizarre or not isn't germane. Neither is the notion that every fundamentalist believes exactly the same way in a "lock-step" fashion, a patently absurd notion.
Fundamentalism is the belief that the Bible means what it says. That's all. There's nothing bizarre or sinister about that.
Most Christians are taught that God expects us to use our intelligence to understand the difference between a parable, an illustrative story, and the verifiable fact of how hot our coffee is. Where facts are known to be facts, we accept them as facts. Where stories are understood to be similes for higher concepts or descriptive parables, we accept them as such. And where we don't know, we accept on faith. Thus, to most Christians the Bible is full of great stories that illustrate basic truths (whether the actual events occurred or not) and facts.
Now, where do you draw the line between those two things? Each Christian decides for himself. Frankly, I admire the faith of those who truly believe the Bible can help them ascertain the exact day of the week the world was created. I draw the line in a different place. But the fact remains that we can both still claim to be fundamentalist Chrisitians. Our fundamental belief is that the Bible literally means what it says, even if we both read it to mean something a bit different.
The only problem with this is that I believe that where the Bible says one thing and science says something else, I ascribe that perceived difference to my inability to parse out when the Bible is being literal and when it's being illustrative/representational. I view science as helping me understand God's creation and Word better. I don't try to use the Word to refute provable facts. God gave me intelligence so I could try to grok the difference, not run roughshod over anything new and mysterious to me.
Some Christians, often derisively called "fundies," take a different approach. They, in my judgement, are guilty of the sin of pride. They think their faith is perfect in its current form and should never be informed by new facts. That's sad; Christians are supposed to grow in their faith, not ossify in it. I fear their hubris will be their undoing, eventually, and pray that they may be given better understanding before anybody else gets hurt.
If that makes me, in your eyes, something other than "fundamentalist," then I'm afraid you don't really know what the word means in this context.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Interesting)
The frustrating thing is that when we get complaints, we still have to be *civil* to our customers, not call them idiots, respect their beliefs, and somehow still defend your decision to run such programming. And it's hard explain your side of the argument while the guy making the complaint just keeps walking out the door with the rest of the audience. It might be natural for us in the science museum profession to want to hide away from the controversy and hope it goes away, but that won't make it get any better. This is a really, sad and frightening trend.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are required to respect their right to _hold_ that belief.
You, in turn, are permitted to have the belief that their belief is an indication of idiocy. And if they have a problem with that, tell them they're not respecting your beliefs.
Re:Vatican Observatory (Score:5, Interesting)
The offended fundamentalists probably should be called idiots, often, loudly, where lots of people can here. This isn't a matter of respecting beliefs. This is a matter of setting things straight where it comes to lies and delusions.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but evolution is a fact. Well, and a theory. The fact is that evolution happened. The theory part is how that evolution happened.
A good quote:
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution."
- R. C. Lewontin
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you don't understand what scientists are talking about when they're talking about theories. A theory is a concept that has a mountain of evidence to support it. To throw that evidence out, and put forth a different idea that does not have that body of evidence supporting it would be like convicting a person of a crime without looking at any evidence at the crime scene.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
(And yes, I know it wasn't their initiative here, but still).
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it would sound a lot like a yawn. Non-indoctrinated people have traditionally been indifferent to other's beliefs, thinking it's none of their business. I am sure a lot of agnostics/atheists even enjoyed "Passion of the Christ" as good (or so I heard) historical fiction, like Troy.
Perhaps it was our mistake, considering how fundamentalists now want to force their beliefs on us, including apparently which movies we get to see. Time to show up at your neighborhood church and have a nice hissy-fit against what they ask members to do?
Science doesn't always have the answer. It might not be clear why we're against abortion.
On the contrary, it would make a fascinating scientific study. I mean how can someone stop a woman from aborting a fetus with a genetic defect and then let the child die drowning in her own saliva because they also banned stem cell research? Such a profound personality disorder got to show on MRI.
Re:I don't know what's sadder... (Score:5, Insightful)
We know that science does not produce "facts" as theories can and are supplanted as we discover more about the universe on all scales. If there is an underlying truth to the universe, at best, science will only ever be able to model it. Still, it provides the means to evaluate evidence and make predictions. Of all accounts of the universe, at any scale, it appears that "science" is the most telling and the most reliable. Actually, this is fairly much indisputable.
There is plenty of room left for faith in our personal affairs if one sees fit to model their lives that way. Yet there is no place for faith in science based on the scientific method. The first thing we must abandon when approaching any matter with a scientific mind are the preconceived notions we carry of what we think ought to be. No, we must not have faith of the outcome but instead accept it as it is and find the best explanations we currently can to try to comprehend our observations.
That said, why do people use the term "fundies"? I'm not even sure I know what it means, but I do know that it is used as an insulting and degrading moniker. Using such labeling really shows which side of the ignoranant / enlightened fence that a person sits on.
it's sad (Score:5, Insightful)
we lose out on interesting ideas and concepts because they may offend someone. it happens in all levels of education, in business, everywhere.
this is sad but not suprising.
Re:it's sad (Score:5, Interesting)
They might look like Arabs though
Re:it's sad (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that GWB murdered 120,000 people for a few oilfields. While the word "murdered" and the number "120000" are for another thread that would be far offtopic, if Iraq was all about oil, what does religious fundamentalism have to do with it? The pope opposed the war in Iraq, as did quite a few religious people, so by your own argument, the civilian deaths in Iraq have nothing to do with religious fundamentalism. Which is it? Is Bush a bible-thumping hick, or is he a master schemer serving exclusively a global oil elite?
You won't find a (reasonable) Christian minister who cheers at the sight of gruesome civilian deaths, but it's not hard to find an imam outside of the US who does cheer when a child blows up a pizzarea. People who believe that the earth is 6000 years old are simply deluding themselves, but at least they don't cheer when innocents die.
You are right that wacko fundamentalism is dangerous no matter what the variety. Perhaps I should have made this clearer in my original post, now modded Flamebait. There is a huge difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. Only a small minority of Muslims are violent, and the rest are decent people.
Re:it's sad (Score:5, Insightful)
You won't find a (reasonable) imam that does the same. There are plenty of unreasonable Christian ministers who do this; the beloved Reverend Phelps [godhatessweden.com] is just the most tragicomically extreme of this genre. And perhaps at this historical moment there are a helluva lot more unreasonable imams preaching same than there are unreasonable ministers (though look at the rhetoric spouted by such holy men during the crusades and you'll see things weren't always that way). In any case my point is that the imams who do preach that shit are unreasonable fanatics, and, as you note at the end of your post, most Muslims do not support this garbage.
Then FDR was a oil/religious wacko too ... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh BTW, your full of crap, the Iraqi oil fields are being run by the Iraqi's. As opposed to before the war when it was run by the U.N. and siphoning money back to Saddam, via the French and others. Things are far more complicated than whatever you heard in some campus rally. You really need to get past the politics, be it from the left or right, pro-US or anti-US, and do a little more research and read a little more history. Then you'll start to understand how incomprehensibly complicated things really are.
offensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
we shouldn't let a minority dictate what is right or wrong because we risk having our freedom become the same "freedom" they have in China.
Re:offensive? (Score:5, Funny)
You can see the homosexual agenda and godless science in its eyes.
Re:offensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's been postulated that the anaerobic bacteria which exist in hot, sulfurous ocean floor vents resemble the earliest life. The original life on earth, probably bacteria or similar single cell prokaryotic (lacking in nucleus) organisms, existed in an atmosphere lacking in oxygen. It was only a few billion years later that oxygen-producing organisms began to exist, and the anaerobic life had to adapt or die.
Basically any film that features this kind of life will by definition be flaunting the theory of evolution in all its glory. This, presumably, offends or threatens the creation literalists.
People are saying it's a shame that fundamentalists are attacking science in this country. I would add that it's a shame that these idiots have hijacked religion. The bible as allegory is brilliant and holds many lessons in morality with bits of history and culture sprinkled in. The bible as literal word is nonsense that flies in the face of all evidence. To deny evolutionary theory makes about as much sense as claiming the world is flat.
Re:offensive? (Score:5, Funny)
Correcting that ungodly lie is next on the agenda, as soon as we get that whole gay marriage thing sorted out.
Imagine the world being all round, we'd all fall off!
Re:offensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pretty mild as far as fundie double-think goes... if you really want to hear some convolouted logic, ask them how come "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" are not mutually contridictory.
religious fundamentalists (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they stick their heads in the holy sand all the time, why can't they just accept that people have different views and should be allowed to express them.
It makes me sick that religious wackos are given all the freedom to worship/teach/live as they please, but fuck everyone else over with their righteous bullshit.
Re:religious fundamentalists (Score:5, Informative)
Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."
In their written comments, she explained, they made statements 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."
I find it somewhat sad that several people seem to have taken your "an editor theorizes it could be because religious people might get upset at these films" as fact instead of reading the article.
Re:religious fundamentalists (Score:5, Insightful)
becoming increasingly ironic. The USA was
largely formed by persons fleeing religious
prosecution, famine, or the law. Only to have
history repeat itself yet again in this modern
day.
Populism and personal freedom is giving way to
increasingly obnoxious religious intolerance
at a time when the USA (and much of Western
society) is under attack by increasingly
obnoxious Islamic religious intolerance. Those
that are bent upon the destruction of Western
civilization have employed (wittingly or not)
fifth columnists to destroy populism and
personal freedom from within. Democracy,
rather than being a rising tide in the Middle
East, is a receding tide in the USA.
Re:religious fundamentalists (Score:5, Interesting)
(of course the same argument could be used to say that "some thought it was well done" could mean as few as two also. I'm just saying that Murray's spin on the numbers feels smarmy and manipulative to me).
Re:religious fundamentalists (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, you might just be willing to accept words written down by some anonymous person a few thousand years ago with who knows what kind of agenda (and edited and approved by various self-appointed authorities in the meantime) over the use of your own critical faculties and scientific knowledge in your understanding of the world.
Face it: people didn't design the computer you used to make your post by asking God how to do it or reading some book. Instead they relied on the experience of people who actually did the hard work to experimentally find out about the world.
Why do you believe in the Bible? Because it is the word of God? Why do you believe *that*? Because your minister told you so? That isn't intelligence. That's dogma.
Fundamentalists eagerly set the stereotype (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why is it that people insist on categorizing all fundamentalists as being the same?"
Because, by and large, the core "features" of Christian fundamentalism that they promote are the same. For example there doesn't seem to be any large debate within the fundamentalist community about the validity of evolution (and all the supporting evidence from biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, etc). It's simply rejected out of hand.
"I am a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean that I checked my intelligence at the door."
Then I wish there were far more of you, and I wish you were much louder than those who would see us enter the Dark Ages again. Given my direct personal experience with friends, relatives and associates who claim to be Christian fundamentalists, intelligence (where intelligence == rational reasoning) is the first thing checked at the door. "Fundamentalist" is generally synonymous with "bible literalist" in these folks.
I was speaking to a woman the other day who, with a straight face, told me that lions, tigers, etc. used to graze on the grass in Eden with the deer. Never killed prey or even scavenged meat. Vegetarians. That "carnivore thing" only started after "The Fall". Yes, intelligence checked at the door and the claim check thrown into the shredder.
"It makes me sick that people can't fathom the concept that within such a large group you will have people at all extremes."
Then I hope you loudly and persistently educate those in your religious circles who cannot separate Islam from terrorism, and see all Muslims as "forces of evil". I hope that makes you just as sick. Does it? And do you speak out on their behalf? If so you have my deepest, genuine gratitude. If not, your just another member of a hate group who cries out when receiving the same treatment you give others.
Also please educate me, what are the different extremes in Christian fundamentalism? And who are their leaders? Because all we hear coming from the leadership (and the door-knockers and "sudden friends" on college campuses) is the same thing. That's not flamebait, I really want to know. It'll give me some hope.
Re:Fundamentalists eagerly set the stereotype (Score:5, Informative)
"Just like another poster, I've never known any Christians that believe Muslims are evil or that people of Arab descent are automatically terrorists"
Then my I respectfully suggest that you've got your head in the sand. [religioustolerance.org] Here's a sample:
"Jerry Fallwell called the founder and revered prophet of Islam, Muhammed, a 'terrorist' on CBS's '60 Minutes' on Sunday, October 6. In so doing, Fallwell set off a firestorm in the American Muslim community to which MPAC responded. Fallwell's comments came on the heels of a slew of other vicious attacks lodged by the radical sector of the Evangelical Christian denomination...The Reverend Franklin Graham called Islam a 'very evil and wicked religion' and said the Qur'an, Islam's revealed text, 'preaches violence.' Pat Robertson said Islam is a 'monumental scam' and claimed the prophet Muhammad was 'an absolute wild-eyed fanatic...a robber and brigand...a killer.'"
Hmmmm. Nothing but tolerance there alright. How many followers do you think Fallwell, Graham and Robertson have? And that doesn't even touch on the crap I've heard directly, in person.
"I think the few responses you've received to your posts should be enough to show you that your stereotype of fundamentalist Christians ISN'T accurate."
To the contrary, the responses have shown me that you, as a community, are ignoring the rotting buffalo carcass in the living room that is the very real hate-mongering within your ranks. My interaction with Christian fundamentalism comes largely from Alabama, Texas and rural California. Lots of racism even without the religious overtones added in. Maybe that's the difference. From where do you hail?
Re:religious fundamentalists (Score:5, Insightful)
Boring (Score:5, Insightful)
Wake me up when there is something happening the US which doesn't upset a minority group which goes in search for media attention or takes it to court.
Re:Boring (Score:5, Funny)
That'll be one hell of a coma. Personally, I would just remove you feeding tube, but that may just perpetuate the problem.
Science (Score:5, Interesting)
No Animals? (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to America (Score:5, Insightful)
ChrisTaliban (Score:5, Insightful)
Overheard at Geological Imax Movie Protest (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Overheard at Geological Imax Movie Protest (Score:4, Funny)
Re:ChrisTaliban (Score:5, Insightful)
Things like this will destroy the American economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion....what is it good for...... (Score:5, Funny)
+ Christians who are against science
+ Muslims who are against the West and progress
+ Scientologists who believe a SF story
+ Mormons who believe a non-SF story
Jesus, it makes you wonder....
It's a shame... (Score:4, Insightful)
I recently met a girl who chewed me out for accepting evolutionary theory. I was at first shocked, as I thought that the issue of evoultion and religion had been worked out. Then it really bugged me that she could be so backward and regressive in her thinking. Then I finally realised that none of it mattered, I was being just as closed-minded as she was. What was more important was if I just forgot the differences and found a way to get the project we had done without making a big deal out of it.
Re:It's a shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. She's an idiot. Being true to the truth requires you to dismiss people now and then. Whereas you have observable phenomenon that have demonstrated evolution occurs, which apparently isn't good enough proof. She has a 2000 year old book with no proof, that is proof enough. Thats bullshit, and stop trying to convince yourself its not for the sake of multi-culturalism.
Worrying development (Score:5, Insightful)
While the situation isn't as bad as that Escape from LA movie from the late 80's, there certainly are aspects of that in modern American politics it seems.
this is why I dont like these kind of people.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, this is my gripe with them...
If I had a conversation with one of these people, they want you to embrace their way of thinking... OK fine.
Yet, when I try to peddle MY truth, its immediately too much to handle, so not right and so horrible they wont hear it.
I am in the south. This is how these people are.
but, then they are quick to call themselves open minded. YEAH RIGHT.
If I cant tell you my truth, and have you at least LISTEN, your not open minded. your a closed minded fool that doesnt deserve to breathe air. its that simple.
All I ask of these people, is to meet us all half way here. they dont have to like it, and they dont have to agree with it.
but saying they are 'good, understanding people' is a REAL stretch.
They DO NOT have to go see these movies....
yet, they boycott their presence. thats not open minded... that is just religion attempting world domination. their way or the highway.
Go watch the documentaries. I do.
Rebel against religious zealots.
You misunderstand what "open minded" means... (Score:5, Insightful)
You, mistakenly, thought that "open minded" meant having an open mind, and being open to new ideas.
What *they* meant by "open minded" was that they'd no longer accuse you of witchcraft for being different from your neighbors, or throw you in prison for the crime of "blasphemy", or just come by and burn down your house because you're a filthy non-believer.
The fact that they've allowed you to live, even though you're obviously some sort of eviiil horrible pagan-creationist science-worshipper, shows how open-minded that religious zealots in America have become lately.
Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing I wonder is this. If your god is omnipresent and omnicient why do you have to go through physicals gyrations in order to be heard by god? Most christians pray out loud why is that?
I suppose you would get the same reaction to praying in public that a muslim would get if they took out a prayer rug, faced east and started genuflecting or perhaps a wiccan got if they drew a diagram on the ground, lit candles and chanting (or whatever else they do)
I would sincerely like to know your answer to this question. In the same spirit I will answer a couple of your own questions.
"though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion?"
The answer to this is no. In the same way that not having a porche does not mean you have a porche or not having an ulcer does not mean you have ulcer.
"If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?"
Yes but not all belief systems are religions. This is where you seem to have tripped up. You apparently believe that any set of beliefs constitures a religion and that's just not true. For example homosexuality is not a religion although the set of people who are homosexuals believe in having sex with their own gender. Similarly utilitariansim, liberalism, conservatism, and lots of other "ism"s are not a religion even though they are belief systems.
Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have gathered in a circle at the local starbucks and are praying loud enough for other people to hear (even if barely) then there is no appreciable difference between that and opening up a prayer rug in the local starbucks and starting to genuflect.
"Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief." and "A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." (google Definitions of religion on the Web)"
If that's a definition of religion then libeterianism is a religion, basketball is a religion, weightlifting is a religion, ebay is a religion. All of those are a cause, principle or an activity that is pursued with seal or conscientious devotion.
"And Homosexuality, if I remember correctly, is a value system and life style choice..."
So is christianity or islam. All religions are lifestyle choices.
"And I didn't mention that the isms are automatically Religions. Though, one could make it his/her/it's religion."
Ok then. Athesims is not a religion. It's just another ism.
Here is the thing that really gets my goat though. Atheism, homosexuality, liberterianism, scientology, and christianity are all lifestyle choices and yet of those only scientology and christianity get constitutional protection. I think that's wrong. If homosexuality as you say could be made somebodies religion then it should have the exact same constitutional protection as christianity does. And yet it doesn't. Could you imagine what would happen if your state passed a law saying christians can't get married or serve in the military?
Another loss for American culture (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a battle on two fronts: the religious lobbyist that do things like hindering the teaching of science in schools, and the large corporations that would do anything not to offend anyone for fear of losing a few bucks.
How do they get away with it? Why don't people say "oh this is horrid, no more IMAX for me". We just can't be bothered anymore: the PC rants (if you say something controversial YOU are at fault), the lack of any real political debates (besides minor economical and odd moral-related issues) since the outlawing of Communism and any other non-majority view, and of course the the vultures of the media that keeps feeding on this whole thing (WHY show that piece about "evolution is just a theory" over and over?).
I'm an European, and I have no voice in what the American people decide to do, but it's their lack of action and ignorance of the issues at hand that makes me heed this warning: how soon until the free-flying politicians and corporations will do all they wish while you're too busy watching TV? You may have these comfy lives forever, with no blood or guilt on your own hands, but one day you may find yourselves unwilling free citizens of what you yourself would name an "evil empire" if you were on the other side.
Science (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all down hill from here (Score:5, Insightful)
All this crap about faith based this and faith based that coming out of the whitehouse and with a president who openly claims to have a mandate from God... Uhh... I was gonna talk about church and state but, am I the only one here that thinks the President is fucking batshit loco?
But it's a good thing! Really! Lets embrace our freedom to express fundamentalist Christian religion! Lets ban any science that goes "too far" into ethical grey areas for religious pundits to swallow, lets get the federal government to force a tube down a vegetable's throat... it's nice to have a "conservative" government that wants to regulate our way of life. The Founding Fathers would be proud at this emerging christian police state. And if you voted for Bush I bet you're damn proud too.
Evolution offensive? (Score:4, Informative)
from the article:
"some people said it was blasphemous."
In their written comments, she explained, they made statements 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."
organized religion is spiritual zombification (Score:5, Insightful)
likewise, you don't get spirituality from a church/ temple/ mosque.
but that is ok, because just as there are some who will never know real love due to intellectual or character issues, and therefore need whorehouses to sake their lust that would otherwise drive them insane or drive them to commit horrendous crimes on the street, so to are their spiritual pinheads in this world who need churches/ temples/ mosques to give answer to their doubts and fears, so they don't commit horrible atrocities of spiritual void.
so the lowest common denominator empty pap we call organized religion is vile, but still necessary. just like whorehouses.
we don't want ugly or crude men raping women on the streets and we don't want small-spirited people walking around without a sense of morality or a human conscience. if they don't have the spiritual backbone to decide right or wrong, or find the basic goodness in human existence on their own, well then please, let the church turn them into sheep. better sheep than demons without a sense of social responsibility or a clue as to their relationship to human society and the idea of a greater good.
however, when these spiritual pinheads band together and try to gain political power and enforce their narrowminded interpretation of human nature on everyone else, including those who are spiritually sound on their own, they need to be stopped. in many ways, the consolidation of spiritual pinheads into organized religion and then their subsequent desire to see all of humanity fall in lockstep to their blind interpretation of a given creed is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't head them off at the pass and continually deny them political power over the rest of us who are spiritually grounded all on our very own.
so organized religion should not be stopped, it is useful to the health of society by satisfying the spiritual needs of those who can't do that on their own. organized religion and the fruits of its passion is even enjoyable in the way a quaint parade in a rural backwards town is enjoyable to a tourist.
but the cost of accepting that means we must be forever and eternally vigilant that the church, the mosque, and the temple never ever enjoy political power. lest they doom the rest of us to the spiritual zombification that is organized religion.
This is good (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, these museums should be patted on the back for doing the right thing despite the obvious monetary benefits to the contrary. They bit the bullet and avoided the temptation to draw controversy, protesters, and the rise in ticket sales that such media attention brings. Then there are the side issues of overcrowding, parking, and a loss of focus on their scientific and educational mission that such things would bring.
Now we can all safely go back to teaching our children that the creatures at the sulfurous vents at the bottom of the ocean are really demons escaping from hell, souls so small that they slipped through Satan's ever present but large and chubby fingers.
And on a side note, we're all doomed.
Secularists: it's our fault. (Score:5, Insightful)
We refuse to affiliate or support organisations which champion our cause. We refuse to be sufficiently vocal about matters of importance to us. We refuse, at the very least, to put our money where our mouths are.
Let me tell you, with absolute certainty, that the religious fundamentalists are more than happy to do all these things.
So, when are we going to step up and demand an end to this nonsense?
Re:Secularists: it's our fault. (Score:5, Insightful)
We refuse to affiliate or support organisations which champion our cause. We refuse to be sufficiently vocal about matters of importance to us. We refuse, at the very least, to put our money where our mouths are.
Let me tell you, with absolute certainty, that the religious fundamentalists are more than happy to do all these things.
Part of the problem is that the people you describe tend towards a libertarian philosophy.. and by "libertarian" here I mean "people who just want to be left the fuck alone," not necessarily Libertarian Party members. And that's just it... libertarian types tend to abhor politics and abhor "getting involved" in general. Which is one reason why it's so difficult for us (and by "us" here I do mean LP members) to achieve results in elections. Many of the very people who sympathise with us, choose not to vote or otherwise involve themselves.
And in the broader sense, we get the problem you describe. People who care about what's going on, ( Libertarian or otherwise) but not enough to get involved (whether by voting, running for office, writing letters to the editor, or whatever) and act to try and correct things.
So, when are we going to step up and demand an end to this nonsense?
I wish I knew the answer to that. Maybe one day the water will get hot enough for the frog to start squirming around - before he boils to death, blissfully unaware.
Uh, no (Score:5, Insightful)
The Galapagos Islands one may offend someone, but Cosmic Voyage, unless they are not telling us something, would be objected to only by a total lunatic fringe... which is no problem because every film will be objectionable to some total lunatic fringe, no exaggeration.
I am not aware of any significant religious group in operation in the United States with any sort of organized, sigificant political clout that has a serious problem with or denies the existance of atoms or galaxies.
If the Imax documentary industry wishes to commit suicide for a dubious political point, they are welcome to. But all y'all Slashdotters would be wise to not suck it up like little lapdogs getting your world views confirmed; for those of you who would consider your world views confirmed by this story, class it in the "too good to be true" category.
The primary adjective to apply to anyone ignorant enough to protest atoms or galaxies is just ignorant, not "religious", and I assure you, a lot of very ignorant people agree with any position you care to name.
Some numbers (Score:5, Informative)
--
Want a free iPod? [freeipods.com]
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. [freegamingsystems.com] (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof [wired.com]
Vatican Observatory - Science/Religion Compatible (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v
"This is our way of finding God," said Consolmagno, author of Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist, published in February by McGraw-Hill.
The Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical institutes in the world and the only research group directly supported by the Holy See. The church funds the observatory to the tune of about $1 million a year, leaving its operation to the Jesuits, a religious order whose "charism," or special gift to the church, is scholarship.
Cosmic Voyages is awesome! (Score:5, Interesting)
Flabbergasted.
Childhood anecdote (Score:5, Interesting)
I explained him (a 10 year old, to a schoolteacher, no less) that no, we humans do not directly descend from the apes that are currently living, but that, according to current and widely accepted current scientific theories, humans and apes do share a common ancestor.
The repercussions made me lose all respect for authority.
Story may be bogus (Score:5, Informative)
The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, which supposedly didn't want to show "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea", is showing Aliens of the Deep [fwmuseum.org].
The Charleston Science Museum [charlestonimax.com] is also showing Aliens of the Deep.
"Cosmic Voyage" is from 1996. It's perhaps the biggest zoom shot of all time, starting from the quark level and zooming out to the entire universe over 35 minutes. It wasn't controversial at the time, and it doesn't seem to be that controversial now. Just dated. It's basically a remake of Powers of Ten [amazon.com], by Charles and Ray Eames.
Galapagos [imax.com] is playing at the IMAX in Fort Lauderdale, FL, along with two other IMAX theaters in the US. It's from 1999. Nobody seems to be that wound up about it.
It looks like some casual comment by the marketing guy for the museum in Fort Worth has been blown up out of proportion.
The big problem with "Volcanoes of the Deep Ocean" may be that it's "too educational". There's a teacher's guide, with quizzes and homework assignments. And really, there's a glut of undersea IMAX movies.
Notes on the NYT story and this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
2. This is perhaps the worst-modded
3. If this story is legit -- and I'm not at all sure that it is -- the villains aren't the fundies. The villains are the theater managers. TFA doesn't mention any actual protests -- just the *fear* of protests.
4. Like a few other brave souls in this discussion, I find the story pretty fishy. It reads like a pretty typical liberal alarmist, NYT view of what they *think* all those red-state yokels are like. A few of the things that raise warning flags:
* Everyone interviewed had the same point of view (there doesn't seem to be even an attempt to get a quote from "the other side");
* There is no quantification at all (how many people of the 137 in Ft Worth complained? The NYT, oddly, doesn't tell us.)
*The story notes, about the film "Volcanoes": "On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass." So that raises the question -- if it WAS good, then would she have run it? And if so, doesn't that make the whole religious angle moot?
Etc. I agree with an earlier poster -- these stories just ring true to a certain subset of
- Alaska Jack
Re:Scary (Score:5, Informative)
Keep thy religion to thyself."
It is, although not in those exact words. Matthew 6:5-6 features Jesus calling people who shout their faith from streetcorners hypocrites. It really pisses off lunatic street preachers when I mention it.
Re:Undersea volcanoes (Score:5, Insightful)
Errrr...If you recognized anything, you would recognize that the word "theory" means a very different thing in science then it does in Common parlance. For instance, Gravity is a theory. That Germs cause disease is a theory. The Earth Revolving around the sun is a theory. Basicly, anything that cannot be directly observed is a theory. Evoultion is Just as well supported as any of the above theories I mentioned(sometimes more so). If you would like to to tell us about the problems you "know" evoultion has I would be glad to address them.
I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between evolution and creation.
I thought you said you weren't a christian. Why do you half belive in Creation?
Re:Undersea volcanoes (Score:5, Informative)
2. What evidence?
3. What tests?
4. Evolution hasn't put forth any predictions that have survived real world tests.
5. Maybe."
===
1. To you, maybe so.
2. Fossil record, myriad techniques for establishing age of relics & fossils, size of the universe, temperature of the earth, background cosmic radiation, observed evolution (particularly in micro-organisms), the twin hiearchies (to name just a few pieces amongst literally millions of pieces of coroborating evidence).
3. Tests such as breeding new species of bacteria by placing them under environmental stress.
4. The major successful prediction that the original theory of evolution made was that there must exist a mechanism of inheritance whereby partents pass on their attributes to their offspring. Many years later - hey presto, DNA was discovered.
5. Definately.
Creationism is NOT science, that's why! (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was true, I'd expect to see a fossil layer populated equally and evenly with the same animals I see today. And I do not. But when I bring up this objection, I'm retorted with:
"SATAN IS TRYING TO FOOL YOU! Clearly, God is testing your faith by making the earth with the appearance of age."
This is not science. This is religion dressed up as science.
I have no faith. Otherwise, why not assume the universe was made ten minutes ago? By Satan? As a practical joke?
Re:we need another /. religion bash story (Score:5, Informative)
They don't use scientific techniques, they don't use scientific arguments, they don't use scientific observations, and they don't use scientific data.
Instead, they use the trappings of science to give a superficial credibility to their ideas, which actually have nothing new or improved to offer serious scientific inquiry. The only theories they "disprove" are strawmen of their own creation. They continue to trot out the same tired hobbyhorse "problems" that serious scientists have long moved beyond (such as the creation of organs such as the eye). Their only goal is to continue to hold their dogmatic beliefs about God and his manner of creation, even when these beliefs are in disagreement with scientifically established facts.
So the answers to your questions
What evidence do they have that can't be explained by the current evolutionary theory? None.
What are the gaps in the current theory they try to explain?. None. The gaps they mention are in their own understanding of modern biology.
Then work on solving those problems and create a more robust theory of evolution. Scientists are already working on more complete and robust understanding of evolution and of natural selection. Spending time responding to fundamentally dishonest criticism from religiously-motivated wackos is just a waste of time.
Once a theory is mature enough and has sufficient evidence, even the church can't deny it. Actually, the Catholic church no longer denies evolution by natural selection. They do use a special pleading that only humans are blessed with a soul, but they do not claim this as a scientific truth.
Re:Scientific Theory (Score:5, Insightful)
When the original poster specifically mentioned experiments, then experiments are fair game. Read the quoted text. As far as observational science goes, the fossil record provides an extremely fragmentary, internally inconsistent, and generally unhelpful view. It is reasonably well accepted (except by idiots^W americans) that this in itself does not deny evolution, it merely doesn't support it very well.
If we come to try and make judgements about long-time-scale dynamic processes from point observations, we fall into the trap of blind inductionism. And that's not (good) science.
Evolution is sufficently poorly characterised that it isn't very good at making predictions, and there aren't many new observations to test them on, so that trivial view of hypothesis doesn't work too well either.
Popper would disagree. How can a singular event be falsifiable? It's the grue/bleen problem all over again. If you're denying this, what account of science are you using?