Slashdot Mirror


Imax Theaters Demur On Controversial Science Films

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.'"

70 of 2,242 comments (clear)

  1. I don't know what's sadder... by FlyByPC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that the theater owners think that showing science films is too controversial or not interesting to the general public...

    ...or that they're probably right.

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    1. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Jonathan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's weirder is that IMAX theaters normally are *in* science museums. You'd think that the Fundies wouldn't set foot in such "ungodly" places and that the people who do go are those interested in science.

    2. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      They're probably whining that there's public money involved. (I say "they" but it's probably some lame-ass little group that mass-mails form-letter whines.)

      Present them with an ultimatum: STFU or IMAX theaters will show films about creation. All creation myths, everybody's.

    3. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by ZephyrXero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I honestly don't see how these science films could be "controversial" to any religious groups? At least not from the descriptions given...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    4. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by gilroy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      What's weirder is that IMAX theaters normally are *in* science museums. You'd think that the Fundies wouldn't set foot in such "ungodly" places

      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.
    5. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Lord+Kano · · 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.

      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

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    6. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by iamacat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but what kind of a hissy-fit would people be throwing if IMAX decided to show, for example, "Amazing Grace" (http://www.monergismbooks.com/amazing2112.html) or some other "fundie" film?

      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.

    7. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by xoboots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, none of those folks are "scientists", at least in the context you mention. There is no such thing as "(insert religion) science". "Science" has its own cathedral, built on reputation, publication, grants and hieracrchies of their own making. None-the-less, it also happens to have at its root a most powerful of decision guides, the scientific-method which tends to continually lead to better theories and explanations of observations. Even the conventional scientific cathedral yields to it over time.

      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.

    8. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by RodgerDodger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are not required to respect their belief.

      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.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    9. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Why is it that prejudice against Christians is the last remaining acceptable prejudice?"

      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.

    10. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Attaturk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it that prejudice against Christians is the last remaining acceptable prejudice? Could it be that those screaming loudest for tolerance are in fact the least tolerant of differences?

      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.

    11. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by NoData · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's all the rage and fashion now to ascribe to fundamentalists some sort of lock-step mindless adherence to bizarre beliefs.

      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.

    12. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Ztream · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If christians can dictate what should be shown in science museums, then scientists should be able to dictate what should be taught in church. This isn't a school textbook we're talking about.

      (And yes, I know it wasn't their initiative here, but still).

    13. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by ndogg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your job would not be so frustrating if you simply treated your theory as it is - a theory.

      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.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    14. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Notwithstanding other reasonable points you make...

      It's all the rage and fashion now to ascribe to fundamentalists some sort of lock-step mindless adherence to bizarre beliefs.

      Yes, it's all the rage and fashion now to ascribe to a word the very meaning it is defined by.

      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.

    15. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Gondola · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think parents *should* be the final arbiter of every channel of information that their children receive.

      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.

  2. it's sad by promantek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because this is epidemic of our society in america.

    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.

    1. Re:it's sad by MC68000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ever heard of the Iran-Iraq war? That's at least a million dead in a war infused with religious rhetoric. If you include governments in your argument, the death toll numbers don't stack favorably to your side.

      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.

      --
      E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
    2. Re:it's sad by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      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 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.

  3. offensive? by cRueLio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how is "an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor" offensive in any way?

    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.

    1. Re:offensive? by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This would necessarily occur when discussing the traveling time of light.
      But you're forgetting the fundie's favorite special pleading: God created the universe old as part of his mysterious divine plan. The universe can be only ~4000 years old but still have objects billions of light years away because God made it that way.

      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.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    2. Re:offensive? by yog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is it offensive?

      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.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  4. religious fundamentalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What is wrong with these people?

    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.

    1. Re:religious fundamentalists by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      religious fundamentalists

      What is wrong with these people?

      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.

      Why is it that people insist on categorizing all fundamentalists as being the same? I am a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean that I checked my intelligence at the door.

      It makes me sick that people can't fathom the concept that within such a large group you will have people at all extremes. Is it OK to assume that all black people are violent gang members and criminals because a few make the evening news for doing a drive by shooting? I didn't think so. That would be racist and prejudicial, you know assuming that every member of a particular diverse group is the same based on the actions of a few?

    2. Re:religious fundamentalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, depending on the exact meaning you intend by the term "Bible-believing," you may indeed have "checked your intelligence at the door."

      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.

    3. Re:religious fundamentalists by quarkscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find that living in these United States is
      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.

    4. Re:religious fundamentalists by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'll have to explain better how scientists "are fucking everyone else over with their self-righteous bullshit". It only makes sense if you believe that science is some sort of publicly funded alternative religion that is competing with yours for attention, money, and followers. Science is not a religion. It's simply a methodology for finding things out about the world.

    5. Re:religious fundamentalists by jaoswald · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the thousandth time on this forum evolution is NOT simply a "theory." It is a fact. Species exist today which did not exist in the distant past. They did not spring up from a new act of creation, but by gradual changes from species which existed before. To disprove these facts would require absolutely extraordinary evidence, on a similar scale to proving that George Washington was never the President of the United States.

      Now, on the other hand *Natural selection* is a scientific *theory* that attempts to explain the facts of evolution. In broad terms, virtually every biologist, paleontologist, biochemist, etc., believes that natural selection is primarily or completely responsible for the evolution of species. In specific terms, there is still a wide range of beliefs on the details of how natural selection occurs in detail, on what time scale a "typical" speciation event occurs, on how species become separated from each other during the process of evolution, etc.

      I believe these things to be generally true because practicing scientists test these ideas every day in their work, and are generally honest in their work. And also because when I read Darwin's Origin of Species, he clearly had a marvelous insight.

      Whereas the people who tell me that the Bible is 100% literally true are always looking for weak excuses to get around the fact that the Bible sure looks like it was the work of lots of different people, with lots of different motives and ideas and agendas, but without any particularly astounding insight, edited together, leaving a whole lot of loose ends and confusing bits. And, as far as their intellectual approach, the current Biblical-inerrancy fad is based on an explicit *rejection* of those who tried to study Biblical texts using the techniques of modern criticism.

      The problem with your response to Pascal's dilemma is that if #1 is true, then you have spent your entire existence believing in some fucking fairy tale rather than something like the truth. Meaning you've turned off a part of your brain, of your own free will, for the duration of your time here on earth. Pardon me if I think self-imposed stupidity is not the most noble of aims.

  5. Boring by MavEtJu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
  6. No Animals? by poopdeville · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, I get the Galapagos and Cosmic Voyage films being rejected as controversial, but why would a film about animals living in a harsh environment be controversial? Don't Creationists have enough room in their ontology for animals now?

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  7. Welcome to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welcome to America, where ignorance isn't just bliss, it's a virtue.

  8. ChrisTaliban by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who will welcome our new overlords, the ChrisTaliban turning the USA into Afghanistan West? Where are the reasonable Christians who repudiate this demented abuse of our country into a market theocracy in their name? ...tumbleweeds..

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:ChrisTaliban by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I RTFA. Imax operators in some "Bible Belt" communities got feedback from some focus groups with complaints that the science movies were "blasphemous". Those operators predictably shied away from setting off the vocal minority, so aggressive (and even murderous) in pursuing their fundamentalist agenda around the country. So, rather than stand up for the good name of your reasonable religion, you're saying that you do, in formal terms, then denying the actual threat these primitives represent. And blaming the victims: Imax is to blame, Slashdotters are to blame for being "anti-Christian", anti-religious - despite my call for religious, Chrisitan people to show they're not just a big club of anti-intellectuals. Drop the act - my post jabbed your Christian fetish nerve, and you're bending over backwards to keep your associates covered ASAP. Just watch out when they come for you, for some real or contrived apostasy that serves their own purposes more than yours.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  9. Things like this will destroy the American economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Soon enough American students will not be exposed to scientific methodologies and theory because of the complains of Christian fundamentalists. While the Religious Right will feel their children are pious and enlightened, the rest of the world will progress with our understanding of nature and science. The rest of the world will innovate and prosper, while America will be dragged down into religious strife. Christian fundamentalism will be the death of America.

  10. It's a shame... by CarlinWithers · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Religous fundamentalists who clamour against everything and anything that might cause their faith to be questioned misrepresent what religion should be about. The most impressive religious figures are the ones who help others regardless of what their judgement of those people's beliefs are.

    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.

    1. Re:It's a shame... by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I was being just as closed-minded as she was

      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.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  11. Worrying development by theolein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not American, so I can't say how much of a real impact something like this has, but I wonder if this recent rise of very conservative religious fundamentalism in the USA and efforts to stop the presentation of things that contradict their view might not lead to the USA eventually falling beind in key sciences, and, as a consquence, losing its edge in the world of technology.

    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.

  12. this is why I dont like these kind of people.... by Mark19960 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off, I am not a religious person.
    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. ....as I watch my Karma plummet....

  13. Another loss for American culture by puppyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It keeps happening! The "PC" culture of this country keeps destroying what's left of the free thought that was painfully conquered a long time ago (I'm not even going to go into free speech).

    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.

    --
    The cookie told me to.
  14. Science by panxerox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a thinking christian (as opposed to the new moronic version of christian) I really despair of this childish rejection of reality (science). Religion has lived with the reality of the world around them for a very long time. I believe now in this time of deep denial about the changing landscape of America and an uncertain future that the more unstable elements in many sects see the rejection of science as somehow bolstering there own flagging faith. A faith that if real in these people would easily be able to encompass science as a wonder of God and not a challenge to him.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
  15. It's all down hill from here by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems this neo-conservatism is nothing more than some Fanatical Religious front not unlike the Muslim Fundamentalists Washington likes to demonize as the root of Terrorism.

    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.

  16. organized religion is spiritual zombification by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you don't get love from a whorehouse.

    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.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  17. Secularists: it's our fault. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While this article discusses something limited in scope (thanks for the spin, Slashfaux), this is becoming more and more common. But who is to blame? We (secularists and freethinkers) are.

    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?

    1. Re:Secularists: it's our fault. by psykocrime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But who is to blame? We (secularists and freethinkers) are.

      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.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  18. Uh, no by Jerf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I rather strongly suspect that the NYTimes article had all of the religious comments that were recieved, not merely a sampling, or very close.

    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.

  19. Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by cbreaker · · 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.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    1. Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Remember where the people of the era where when it was "written". For them any number over a few thousand must have seemed un-knowingly huge. It's a culture where infinity was conveyed with a phrase like "seventy times seven times" (490!). In my humble opinion, the "seven days" was merely a way to convey seven stages and partition events with some reference to time. Sadly, some people fail to allow the "holy word" to be re-thought even though they are reading a translation in the first place.
      It's not as if they didn't have a word meaning "stages" back then. If you desire any semblence of accuracy in your thought you need to look at the Biblical creation story with the same detachment as you would some Indian one you're learning for the first time (or some secular fairy tale, for that matter). If you do this, you will see that the literal details of the stories typically have no significance whatever -- they are just filler, background for moral messages. Does it matter how many hands Vishnu has, exactly? No -- somebody just made that up, like the fact that Little Red Riding Hood wore a red hood. God created the world in seven days because it sounded good to put it that way -- the author wasn't trying to say anything deep or important by saying "seven days". This should be clear whether or not you believe the author was inspired by God (or was God).
  20. You misunderstand what "open minded" means... by Generalisimo+Zang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You misinterpreted what they meant by "open minded".

    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. :)

  21. It is kind of sad. by X43B · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People are constantly reminded on slashdot to keep an open mind and at the slightest bit of US centrism people are immediately flogged for not considering the other point of view. Most comments with obvious prejudice are quickly modded down. However when it comes to religion already there have been posts that get modded insightful for comparing it to mental illness, dictators who killed thousands of people, etc.

    In this "enlightened" state where everything is relative and we are to respect every viewpoint the last minority it is ok to hate is the Christian minority.

    Not every Christian has the same viewpoint or takes the same action on every social issue. The blatant and glib stereotyping that is being modded up here is sickening.

  22. Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... by Caladain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would pose your question the other way around. Living in California, if I so much as breathe a single word about God, I am immeadiately told to cease and desist. I am not talking about getting up on a soap box and preaching (not my style), but rather about praying in public. By myself or with a few friends. Not loudly either. Let the Troll begin, but I am going to stand firm. You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else! And as a matter of fact, I am open minded. Not every Christian is a bible thumping zealot..just like every atheist isn't going to shove their moral's down your throat through legislation. I have no issue watching documentaries about other religions, or lack thereof (though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?) But I do have a problem with generalization. Judge us on who we are. Listen to what we have to say, and we will listen to what you have to say. In General. Of course, on both sides you have the loud mouths, which do nothing for either side, just cause more misunderstanding and anger. I'm sure the Anti-christian /.er's are going to take this as a troll, but frankly, I'm sick of being slammed for this. You complain about people acting that way, while you yourself seem to feel free to bash the other side in the manner you just mentioned offended you! To quote someone I heard once: "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."

  23. Re:Undersea volcanoes by grung0r · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm not Christian, let alone a fundamentalist, but I recognize that there are definitely some problems with evolution. If there weren't it would be fact, and not a theory.

    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?

  24. Fundamentalists eagerly set the stereotype by MooseByte · · Score: 4, 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.

  25. Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As an atheist I have always wondered about prayer. The muslims go though an elobarate ritual of genuflecting and kneeling, the christians seem to think kneeling or bowing the head is enough.

    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.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  26. Here's my reasoning by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have relatives and friends who are fundies. I believe they all have one thing in common: they are baffled and confused by current society moving too fast for them; not just the pace, but also the pace of change. Some of these fundies, IMHO the "good" ones, have benefited from using the bible or the koran as some sort of safe haven, where, when the "hectic" and baffling changes get to them, they can find a safe place to recuperate. By "good", I mean they don't try to impose on others.

    Then there are the "bad" ones, who rage and rage about the evil society they think has grown up around them like a fungus. They cannot accept that other people are different. I mean this quite literally. They simply do not have even the concept or a word for the concept that it takes different types of personalities to make the world go round. They see everyone who behaves differently as deviant and the work of the devil. I do mean this literally. Since they haven't got even the concept of different, they are left with seeing differences as pure evil.

    These bad fundies are the ones I spit on. I have relatives like that. I have given up trying to even co-exist with them. They are not interested in co-existence with evil people like me any more than they are interested in co-existence with moldy bread or spoiled milk.

    I tell you what --- I think the rise in fundies the last few years is temporary. You look back a generation or two, that is people who had contact with the beginnings of the first rapidly changing society, with cars, airplanes, telephones, radio, TV, either personally or via stories from their grandparents. They could see the pace picking up, the gradual quickening, and so the continued quickening does not scare them. Future generations, the ones actually growing up now, see it as natural. The problem is with a generation or two in the middle, who think they have some bizarre vague false genetic memory of a time that existed only in their fantasies, where society was stable, and can only see modern society as being a corruption. They had no gradual start of changes to help them see change as good, and they didn't grow up with the rapid changes of nowadays.

    I do believe these fundies will be a shrinking minority soon, a decade or two at the most, and these frenetic attempts at getting the ten commandments into courtrooms and censoring books and movies and everything else -- they are just the tremors of a dying segment of society. Of course, dying things tend to cause havoc around them, and I'd rather they just went away now and quietly, but I console myself with the idea that they are nevertheless the last gasping tremors of a bunch of muddle headed losers who are afraid of independent thought and those who practice it.

    1. Re:Here's my reasoning by jaoswald · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't be so confident that human stupidity is going away anytime soon. Bible-thumping fundies will just be replaced by some other group of ignorant buffoons, who would rather believe any kind of comfortable fantasy rather than an uncomfortable truth.

      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.

    2. Re:Here's my reasoning by Anne+Honime · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Why kill the innocent? Why preserve the guilty?"

      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.

  27. Creationism is NOT science, that's why! by Elpacoloco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It offers an unfalsifiable account, religiously inspired, that it orders me to accept or denounces me as evil.

    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?

  28. Re:Scientific Theory by the+packrat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Scientific testing of a theory does not just mean laboratory controlled experiments. It also means careful observation of such things as the fossil record, current genetic content of various species, and field studies of current ecological systems.

    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.

    The point is that it is possible to treat singular historical events scientifically. There isn't anything "borderline" about it, anymore than there is something "borderline" about scientific cosmology.

    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?

    --
    Nihil Illegitemi Carborvndvm
  29. Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "And I suppose there is a little difference between praying aloud in a group, and everyone getting out a prayer rug and becoming an obstruction to traffic (people, cars, customers, what have you)"

    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?

    --
    evil is as evil does
  30. Notes on the NYT story and this thread by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. I'm no fundamentalist

    2. This is perhaps the worst-modded /. discussion I've ever read. Stupid little rants and gratuitous religion-bashing are being modded as "insightful" and even "informative." Come on, moderators: The system doesn't exist so you can go "Right on dude! Religion sucks!" and click "insightful."

    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 /. users, because they confirm their pre-set worldviews. The fundies are taking over! BusHitler! TalibafghanistCreationis GACK!!

    - Alaska Jack

  31. Europe: the era of the individualist by rudi_v · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Europe, we have the same growing right-wing as in the US, but it has not been incorporated by religious factions.

    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

  32. Re: Arab-Americans are more likely to be stopped.. by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Truth: Damn near all terrorists are Arabs.

    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.

    --

    I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
  33. As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They do sound interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing any of those, either, nor would I mind exposing my kids to them, so long as the programs don't outright mock what I believe. I would view it as an opportunity to discuss with my kids what I believe and why I believe it. Ultimately, my kids have to decide for themselves what they believe about the world around them.

    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.

    1. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by El+Camino+SS · · 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.

    2. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by bfields · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      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

    3. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the movie "Oh God" was released, a religous person I knew refused to see it if it was "mocking". My response was, and is today, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". I told him he should go see the movie and make his own decision. He refused to see or read anything that might shake his faith. In my opinion, he therefore had no faith.

      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.

    4. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by jdclucidly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Intelligent Design has yet to put forth a testable hypothesis. Until it does so, it's not science and by extention, not a theory. Therefore, it has no place in a science classroom.

    5. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More to the point...

      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.

    6. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful
      When the layman says "evolution" he's really lumping three theories together. Let's review:
      • "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.
      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As with most of the arguments put forward by "creation scientists" this is simply factually incorrect (not to mention obsessing on the few species that use sexual reproduction). Offspring often have more chromosomes than parents, and reproduction does not require matched chromosomes. Perhaps you've heard of the problems caused when a man is borm with multiple y chromosomes, causing hyper-agrressive behavior?

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.