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.'"

148 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 Zottacko+WallyMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And is even sadder that this oppinion is not only common for the theatre, but for all arts and culture.
      Perhaps music and cinema are the most evident. With all that money spent on hollow and awesome FX productions that don't lead the human being to any kind of improvement. Is sad to see that the thing is to accumulate money and not to share a vision or a meaning. Is sad to see that people prefere not to think but to forget... :(

    5. 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.
    6. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Oracle+of+Bandwidth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well as a self-described fundie I don't really find anything wrong with any of the film titles/descirptions. I mean I suppose there is a slight, slight chance that they are horribly mislabled and are actually hardcore porn, but seriously, I kinda want to see these baised on those descrptions.

      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)

    7. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You'd be amazed how many fundies go straight into a planetarium show about the Hubble Space Telescope - in a SCIENCE MUSEUM - and are SHOCKED that it mentions that the Unverse is around 15 billion years old. Then there was the one who complained to the local paper that the show about the Moon mentioned lots of theories about where the Moon came from, but didn't mention how God did it.

      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.

    8. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Rooktoven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, it's enough to say they should show the religious propaganda to be fair, but is the religious propaganda made for Imax? If, not, is it a film that warrants a large screen in order to ge a better representation of its photographed content? Or is this simply showing lots of text with interludes by actors. (Please inform me.)

      By and large Imax films are those which are meant to appeal visually. On a personal note, some guy telling me he believes, that settles it and I (for not agreeing) am going to hell probably won't make for stimulating Imax viewing.

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by EricTheMad · · Score: 3, Funny

      So... someone's kidnapping children at gunpoint and making them take $20/ticket trips to the local Kidteractive Learnatorium?

      Yep. It happens everyday, all across the country. It's called a field trip.

      --
      -- Remember, we're not happy until you're not happy. -- Local FAA Inspector --
    12. 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.

    13. 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"
    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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).

    18. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by ziggy_zero · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      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

      --
      I belong to the ______ generation.
    19. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by -brazil- · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The greek one, for starters: incest, infanticide, patricide galore.

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

    20. 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"
    21. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The greek one, for starters: incest, infanticide, patricide galore.

      The biblical creation myth has incest, it's just implied rather than directly stated. After Abel is killed, Cain has a child with his "wife." So either Cain's wife is his mother, or a sister which isn't specifically mentioned, as women often weren't.

    22. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by GospelHead821 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It wouldn't surprise me at all if your guess isn't too far from the mark. I dated a fundamentalist girl once and when she took me home to meet her parents, a similar issue generated a bit of conflict between her parents and me. They were grilling me on my tolerance of public schools (they had homeschooled their three children) and insisted that my willingness to expose my [future] children to attitudes or beliefs which with I didn't necessarily agree was like throwing my children to a pack of wolves. It wasn't sufficient to be a strong influence on my children's development -- it was, in their eyes, necessary that I be the absolute arbiter of every channel of information they receive.

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
    23. 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.

    24. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by Ame-Tsuchi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not certain if this is an issue of intolerance. One doesn't choose to be tolerant or not of scientific fact. One can tolerate different lifestyles or religious choices, but truth is truth.

      Christ did advocate social reform, but at the same time He did condemn. He condemned the Jewish establishment for raising the Law up into an idol, such as in refusing to heal on the Sabbath. He condemned obeying the letter of the law without understanding the spirit of the law. Christ, through His Divinity, was fit to judge. We, in our humanity, are not. As such, we encounter a dialectic in the Bible: the divine transcendence that allows Christ to be judge, and our own fallen nature that mandates that we "love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34) and "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you" (Matthew 7:1,2). Was not the primal sin eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Do we have the pride to think that we can become gods and judge?

      As I make note of in another post, "sin" means, literally, "missing the mark." The character of humanity in the context of the Fall is that we are always missing the mark! If we were perfect, then the Church would no longer be needed to guide us with its tools, and we would be deified. But that isn't the case. The matter is that we do constantly judge, we do constantly fail to love one another, we do constantly try to play god. A young monk was once asked, "What do you do all day in the monastery?" He replied, "We fall and rise, fall and rise." As Yannaras writes: "what God really asks of man is neither individual feats nor works of merit, but a cry of trust and love from the depths." And we are called to love and forgive one another, as the father forgave his prodigal son, as we all continually miss the mark. This is not to excuse us from responsibility: we must also notch another arrow and fire again! And if our arrow should hit another, we must repent and ask for forgiveness. But yes, to look for a true Christian... you will find only sinners! That is the point of Christianity, indeed.

    25. Re:I don't know what's sadder... by dunc78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.



      Isn't one of the the foundations of evolution that all living organisms came from a "primordial soup"? If so, that violates the "fact" that you layed out above.

    26. 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.

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

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

      A lot of people have already responded that there is no prejudice against fundamentalist christians in the U.S., and that a fundi is far more likely to be pandered to than discriminated against. In general, I agree with all that. However, it is also true that there's a large contingent of liberals in the U.S. who will shamelessly bash fundamentalists, yet wouldn't dream of making fun of blacks, gays, or jews. Why is that?

      The main difference between fundis and other minority groups seems to be that fundis don't just want to be tolerated - they want to control everything and everyone around them. Gay people for the most part just want to be left alone. They don't try to make laws forcing others to be gay. Blacks, for the most part, just want to be treated equally. It's perfectly all right with black people if you don't give a damn about black culture, so long as you give them fair consideration when they apply for a job. Jews have their own distinct religious beliefs and code of ethics, but they aren't interested in forcing it on people. They're happy to tell you about their beliefs if you ask, but they respect the fact that most people aren't jewish and don't have any particular interest in (for example) only eating kosher food.

      Fundis, unlike these other "persecuted" groups, aren't content with merely being tolerated. They seem to be driven by a desire to make everyone, everywhere, just like them - whether people like it or not. For example, fundis think that nudity is bad, so they make an active effort through legislation to prevent anyone from being able to buy pornography. Jews don't try to make it illegal for anyone to eat beef with milk. Gays don't try to outlaw heterosexuality. Blacks don't try to make it mandatory for everyone to celebrate Kwanzaa. But fundis happily try to force people to comply with their belief system through laws, or any other social pressure available to them.

      To put it simply, many people don't respect fundis because fundis don't seem to respect anyone else's right to make their own decisions. Unlike other groups, fundis are an active threat to everyone's freedom.

  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 marko123 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sort of what happened in Iran when Khomeini and his religious band of merry men took over the government. Don't worry, American friends, there are many people out there who can relate, and who you can stand beside to fight this scourge.

      They might look like Arabs though :)

      --
      http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
    2. Re:it's sad by _Hellfire_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are definitely Christian wackos out there, but they are nothing compared to Islamic wackos.

      George W Bush is a Christian wacko, and he's murdered about 120,000 Iraqi civilians for a few oilfields.

      According to the US State Department, the death toll from all the actions of all the Islamic (and other) wackos from 1980-1999 is 9,255. Add on another 10,000 (generous estimate) for Sept. 11 and other outrages and we have almost 20,000 for the last 20 years.

      So we can see Bush is ahead by about 100,000. I'm sure, though that Osama bin Laden and his ilk would have killed more if they could.

      Make no mistake: wacko fundamentalism is dangerous no matter what the excuse^H^H^Hreligion.

      --
      "And then I visited Wikipedia ...and the next 8 hours are a blur..."
    3. 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
    4. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because everyone knows the fangfish is an agent of Beelzebub.

      You can see the homosexual agenda and godless science in its eyes.

    2. 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"?
    3. 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. Re:offensive? by k-0s · · Score: 3, Funny

      Here is how it's offensive..."anaerobic bacteria which exist in hot , sulfurous ocean floor vents resemble the earliest life,"...those bacteria must be sexual deviants to be getting THAT hot.

    5. Re:offensive? by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 4, Funny
      To deny evolutionary theory makes about as much sense as claiming the world is flat.

      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!

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

  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 spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the article (did you even read it?), several IMAX theatres cancelled the movie because of religious objections. So that you don't have to take my word for it, here's a quote:

      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.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    2. 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?

    3. Re:religious fundamentalists by omahajim · · Score: 4, Interesting
      But in this case, "some people thought it was blasphemous" could mean as few as two. Saying there were 137 participants in the survey, but not providing the number that objected, is IMHO a psychological trick meant to imply the number that objected was significant. If they weren't willing to disclose the number of objectors, then they shouldn't have stated the number of participants, either.

      (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).

    4. 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.

    5. Re:religious fundamentalists by rookworm · · Score: 3, Interesting
      That would be racist and prejudicial

      The difference is that people are fundamentalists because they hold certain beliefs that they can change, and it is precisely these views that are objectionable. If you're black, however, you cannot change that (unless you're Micheal Jackson), and moreover it has nothing to do with the views you might hold or any other important qualities you might have.

      --
      The toad can't burp - and for some reason can't fart either, so it swells up and eventually explodes. --Anonymous Coward
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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$ :(){ :|:&};:
    1. Re:Boring by edalytical · · Score: 5, Funny
      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.

      That'll be one hell of a coma. Personally, I would just remove you feeding tube, but that may just perpetuate the problem.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
  6. Science by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It really is sad that the documentation of the search for truth is so dangerous to some people. I understand in the need for belief and am a scientist that considers myself religious. However, I also believe that there are truths in the universe that need to be revealed and understand that those truths threaten some people and institutions. The task of the documentary film maker in many ways is similar to that of the scientist, and censorship or concealment of truth harms both of our missions. I also understand that businesses are in the business to make money, but it would be nice if businesses could have enough faith in what they do to stand up and be honest about it. That is unless money is your god, but if that is the case, be honest about it. The unfortunate truth is that money is the most important thing to some folks and they also know that if they revealed it, then they might lose business. You are known by your actions and I would encourage those potential patrons of these theaters who are refusing to show these films to boycott those IMAX theaters who are too scared to show a film that documents scientific discovery.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  7. 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.
  8. Welcome to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. Religion....what is it good for...... by Gogogoch · · Score: 5, Funny

    So we have:
    + 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....

  12. 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 FuturePastNow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a person thinks their beliefs can be harmed by a movie, they need to have a little more faith and a lot more shut the fuck up.

      Sorry. Actually, I don't think that this is about a few mere movies chalenging their beliefs. I think that extreme fundamentalists (Christians in the US, but fundies are essentially the same everywhere) have convinced themselves that the rest of us are out to get them, that we are conspiring everyday to take away their ability to worship God. They see it all around them; look, we can't put the 10 Cammandments in front of the courthouse! That's one more place where we can't pray. What's next?

      Unfortunately this combination of conspiracy theory and fundamentalism is impossible to address. There is simply no way to convince these people that we are not all out to get them, so the best thing to do is accommodate them when possible and ignore them when necessary.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    2. 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

    3. Re:It's a shame... by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 3, 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.
      Moreover, this sort of condescending tolerance creates a social atmosphere of intellectual dishonesty, a taboo around the sort of dialogue that science uses to resolve disputes over facts. This taboo is a major source of popular ignorance, because where there is no rational dialogue between disagreeing individuals, memes travel in only one direction: top-down, from TV to viewer, from propagandist to information-consumer. In such an environment, truth can never succeed over well-funded PR.
  13. 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.

  14. Overheard at Geological Imax Movie Protest by Tezkah · · Score: 3, Funny

    Fundamentalist: People said I was dumb but I proved them.

    1. Re:Overheard at Geological Imax Movie Protest by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

      The President was at the protest?!

  15. 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....

  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.

  19. Evolution offensive? by tji · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apparently some people were offended by brief mentions of evolution in the documentary about volcanoes (it covered the harsh conditions in the undersea vents, and the life there).

    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."

  20. Re:I don't see a problem. by javiercero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because one is about facts and reason and the other is about taste. Censorship by standars and mass acceptance, or perception of, is just another form of censorship.

    If we had followed the same path, we would have been eating feces long time ago, afterall if we following correctness from numbers... it is clear that 10^12 flies can't be wrong.

    A lot of what we consider today to be masterpieces happened to be rather offensive to the standards of the community where they were being created. Had they followed the classical "let the market speak" approach to acceptance of a cultural product, we would be a much poorer society w/o those works of art.

    A group which has already forced people to accept that humans come from mud and dung, which has been proven false. A group that has argued that the earth was a) flat, b) the center of the universe, and c) that its core was some sort of purgatory. Well, with such "hit rate" when it comes to factual information... I am inclined to think that this group should be nowhere allowed to force moral or cultura standards with such low accuracy when it comes to actual fact, no matter the number of followers.

  21. 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
  22. This is good by cgenman · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a good thing too. Whenever science conflicts with preconcieved notions, the only polite thing to do is hide the science. After all, offending or presenting notions contrary to popular belief is not the role of the museum curator.

    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.

  23. 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
  24. 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.

  25. Re:Scary by Legion303 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "I wish this passage was in the bible:
    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.

  26. 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 UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Most people believe that the bible represents a guide and isn't to be taken absolutely literally."

      Well you are partially right here, the bible is a guide of sorts, it's a collection of fables that are derived from stories from many cultures and believes that people created to show basic ground rules for life and good lessons, and was spiced up a bit. At this level it's pretty good. Even a non religious person can find good value in the bible as a book of fables.

      The problem is most people do not see it this way as you say. Most people unfortunately take it very literally, that's where the whole religion part comes in. 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. This wouldn't be so bad if it didn't have all the negatives that have come out of religion. It's fine to have kooky beliefs, until it involves killing and condemning.

    2. Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It's a scary time when the few people with extreme religious views can change the life of everyone to suit their needs."

      Well they control the presidency, both houses of congress, most of the press and pretty soon the supreme court.

      We kicked the taliban out of afghanistan but implemented one of our own.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    3. Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by BrynM · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I can understand seven billion years. I can't understand seven years. You will find that the intellectual contortions needed to accept the bible in any form will become more and more difficult as you learn more about science.
      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.
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    4. Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by jd · · Score: 3, Funny
      Well, the Supreme Court is pretty conservative as it stands. It really doesn't need to get much more so.


      As for kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan and implementing one of our own - if the replacement for Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist has a funny-looking beard and a strange accent, it wouldn't shock me.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by cappadocius · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Most people unfortunately take it very literally, that's where the whole religion part comes in.

      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]

      --

      omnia tua castra sunt nobis

    6. 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).
    7. Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by Anne+Honime · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The funniest part of it being that the literary evolution of the Bible is easier to "prove" (in the devoided sense fudamentalists accept it) than the Darwinian evolotution they reject, because there are many epigraphic evidences of it.

      If there is a God, He has a really weird sense of humor.

    8. Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by Snaller · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.


      Yeah, far easier to call it a book for crackpots who refuse to grow up.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    9. Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are forgetting cultural context of course. This is like translating Russian literature. Sure you might be able to get the literal translation right. However, you're still going to be faced with books litered with the equivalent of "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra".

      This context does not exist for the new testament. Between various forms of the Catholic church demanding mindless obedience and Islamic invasions, that cultural context was pretty effectively wiped out.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not as if they didn't have a word meaning "stages" back then.

      And in fact they did. Unfortunately for us several thousand years later, it was the same word that is translated as "day" in English. It means the period between sunrises, the period between sunrise and sunset, an era, or just a division of time.

      Which not only suggests that the author of Genesis had an understanding of metaphor, it also suggests that it is pretty foolish to take a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible based on an translation.

      But that's not the point. I used to wonder why fundamentalists would insist so vehemently that God created earth in exactly seven days when the billions of years of galaxies and solar systems forming seems so much more inspiring and God-like in scope. Now that I'm older I know it has nothing to do with whether God went "zap" and mammals appeared or whether God made sure lightning struck a pool of complex carbon chains at just the right time and that the background radiation level provided just the right rate of mutation.

      It's about control.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Extreme fundamentalists are ridiculous. by Drachemorder · · Score: 3, Funny
      "However, you're still going to be faced with books litered with the equivalent of "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra"."

      I don't know what's scarier --- that you referenced Star Trek in a debate about the Bible, or that I understood the reference.

  27. 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. :)

  28. 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.

  29. Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... by X43B · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "I dont like these kind of people"
    "one of these people"
    "This is how these people are"

    If the above comments/stereotypes were made against any group other than Christians this would have been -1 Flaimbait, instead it is currently +5 insightful.

  30. 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."

  31. Some numbers by PxM · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just so the rest of the world doesn't think that it's a small minority of Americans who are doing this, a set of polls on evolution vs Creationism. The majority of Americans believe that we were created by a god in 6 days 10,000 years ago. The religious right's ability to keep proper science out of the class is starting to bite us in the ass as it will get harder to aprove biotech and other "controversial sciences" for funding. The same scientific ignorance causes Americans to abhorr homosexuality as a sinful path chosen by evil people rather than realizing it's a natural mindset encoded into the brain before birth. My only hope for the science in this country is that someone in the government will realize that we should spend money on education instead of war before the median scientific knowledge of our "first world" country falls below that of "third world" countries.

    --
    Want a free iPod?
    Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
    Wired article as proof

  32. 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?

  33. Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... by Mettra · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I know what you mean. I live in the South in an ultra ULTRA-conservative area (central Mississippi). I myself am a religious person and have certain beliefs, but the audacity of some of these people is simply sickening. Their arrogance is so repulsive. They even turn me off because their job should be to witness by example, by humility and patience. But they visciously attack and demonize even the stupidest things. I can see why many people outright despise anyone associated with religion. Then again there are people that are like this with or without associations to religion.

    I'm just thankful that there are people like you that will at least be mindful that some people have differing opinions. I know a LOT of non-religious people, and many of them are my friends. If I pester them and confront them about my faith, they would probably detest me. I just respect their beliefs as they respect mine.

    Anyway, a little more on-topic, I kinda doubt that IMAX would cancel movies just because of crazy fundamentalist concerns. Even down here, businesses are not likely to throw away money for such things. There are probably other factors that are causing the cancellation of these movies. And what is the deal with the last example? I kinda sorta somewhat understand the first two.

  34. I am not surprised... by PrimeNumber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it me, or does it seem that every week that goes by, I read, hear or encounter something that makes me believe that the U.S. is turning into a increasingly dumbed down, lowest common denominator, theocratic fundamentalist society?

    We cant research stem cells because jesus doesnt like stem cells, every other person you meet has a fucking creed or "w" bumper sticker on their car. Creed also sucks but thats another issue. Forget facts, forget learning, its much easier to believe and have faith.

    The type of people that listen to screaming right wing nutcases that tell them what to think, then watch their Nascar, sports and wrestling with other people screaming at them, then on sundays go to their protestant churches to listen to yet another person scream heavily edited and faultily translated 'holy' screeds at them.

    And I am supposed to listen to these low-grade meme receptacles because they are more righteous, more holy and more american?

    Then fuck america and give me a one way ticket to France with a complimentary bag of olestra free French fries.

    P.S. to the right wing tool in the house (Rep. Bob Ney) that came up with the idiotic moniker Freedom fries, they were invented in fucking Belgium.

  35. 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.

    1. Re:Fundamentalists eagerly set the stereotype by MooseByte · · Score: 4, 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. 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?

  36. Re:Scientific Theory by the+packrat · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You can prove gravity exists. Drop something. It is accelerated towards the center of the earth.

    And that's where you've made your first mistake. You've demonstrated that the principle you describe as gravity causes something to happen under a single set of conditions. This isn't a proof, there is no set of deductions from knowledge, and you don't even have enough points for an inductive conclusion (which isn't proof either)

    They might argue about how it works, but no sane person would try to deny that there is such a thing.

    And yet noone with a grasp of scientific history should go around crowing that we 'know' it works. People are inventing invisible matter and energy to try and overcome places where it doesn't work, and you think that's fine? You can't say what 'this sort of thing' is, definitively, but you insist that anyone who denies it is insane?

    Pre-newton, it was argued that things just "belonged down," and without a better theory, that's what was accepted.)

    And after Newton we had 'things belong together', which the 'down' is merely a special case of, due to perspective. Newton himself was quite candid about his inability to explain any of his findings.

    Take Newton's Laws of Motion. They're wrong. Oops. What do we do now? What happened to those 'Laws'?

    I argue that evolution is in the same phase. It's definitely there, there's big arguments about exactly how it works, and there's lots of experiments being run to learn more about it.

    Unfortunately, this is where you're wrong. Because evolution is all about rationalising what hs already happened, we are completely unable to perform (in reasonable time) controlled experiments to check any of it. Ergo, the ability for it to make falsifiable predictions is limited making it really only borderline scientific.

    Yes, it's a useful perspective, yes, the Linnean classificationists get warm fuzzies, but 'scientific' might be a touch strong.

    --
    Nihil Illegitemi Carborvndvm
  37. Vatican Observatory - Science/Religion Compatible by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rather than respond to a bunch of similarly themed posts I would simply like to point out that Religion and Hard Science are compatible. For example:

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/va tican_observe_000716.html

    "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.

  38. 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
  39. Cosmic Voyages is awesome! by mbrother · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a professional astronomer and I teach astronomy at a state university. This ticks me off. I don't complain about The Passion of the Christ, or barge into churches to tell them what science has to say. Ignorant fundamentalists shouldn't have any power over what is available for the rest of the country to see, especially when it is educational. Cosmic Voyages is a wonderful film, and I could probably be driven to punch someone in the face if they were stopping it from being shown.

    Flabbergasted.

    --
    Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
  40. 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 R.Caley · · Score: 5, Interesting
      [Literalists] are baffled and confused by current society moving too fast for them; not just the pace, but also the pace of change.

      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.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    3. Re:Here's my reasoning by cappadocius · · Score: 3, Interesting
      This still leaves the problem of why the USA has been the only (supposedly:-)) developed country where this has happened.

      Religious Studies people and Sociologists generally attribute this to the fact that America has no state support of religion. In European countries one church is usually given a monopoly of sorts; it is state funded and presumes to count all members of the dominant ethnic group as members. Because it has this safety net, the church is protected from having to keep up with the religious needs of the populace and as a result religion in general wanes in social importance.

      In America, to the contrary, there is a thriving marketplace of religious institutions which have to keep up with the needs of their congregants. The result has been a recent wave of populist religious movements, including the so-called non-denominational "Super-Churches," Televangelists, and many Evangelical and Fundementalist denominations.

      --

      omnia tua castra sunt nobis

    4. Re:Here's my reasoning by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "irreligous progressive liberal"

      irreligious = "not controlled by religious motives or principles"

      progressive = "favoring improvement, change, progress, reform"

      liberal = "Not narrow or contracted in mind; not selfish"

      Sign me up for irreligious progressive liberal status right away, these are all the things I've always wanted to be!

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    5. Re:Here's my reasoning by adrianbaugh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The situation was interesting in Britain where, although we have a state religion, there are also a large number of other branches of Christianity, largely as a result of the roundhead victory in the Civil War. With the puritans came a wide range of nonconformist churches: Quakers, congregationalists, anabaptists, eventually methodists and so on. But these grew up in the context of the Reformation and never became significantly extreme. Whereas in America, although the founding fathers were deeply religious types who set out from Britain with the intention of founding a religious community, there was no state religion. The various sects and churches that grew up did so in far more isolation from the technological developments that, up till the 19th century, were largely centred on Europe. When technology did arrive and the USA took the lead in technological development a lot of these small churches had their world views shattered. I think they're going through what the Roman Catholic church in Europe went through with Copernicus and Galileo, and displaying much the same unhealthy response.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    6. 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.

    7. Re:Here's my reasoning by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      and there you go and highlight the BIGGEST hypocracies of BOTH the "liberal" and "conservative" movements.

      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.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    8. Re:Here's my reasoning by Ioldanach · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What's interesting about your position listings is that you can find analyse them and determine where they stem from, and that the root may not be as hypocritical as you think. Posit: Liberals value personal rights and not states rights. Conservatives value the right of the state and not personal rights. Abortion and euthanasia are personal choices one takes for one's self and one's family. War and capital punishment are rights the state takes for some greater good.

      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.

  41. Re:Vatican Observatory by mbrother · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been to Mt. Graham where the Vatican Observatory is. An astronomer is an astronomer, Jesuit or Atheist, both pursuing the truth of the magnificence of the universe.

    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.

    --
    Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
  42. 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?

  43. Sex by MatthewNewberg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have been watching the news lately and is what they have been telling me to believe is wrong with America.


    1. Sex (Too many issues to count)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_pos itions
    2. Terrosim http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 005/03/20/INGTEBON931.DTL
    3. Teen Sex http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion /oped/articles/2005/03/09/the_epidemic_of_meaningl ess_teen_sex/
    4. Gays http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150737,00.html
    4. Bad Words / Howard Stern / Media http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149000,00.html
    5. Drugs (sports and non-sports) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150800,00.html
    6. High Gas Prices http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150977,00.html
    7. Lack of Feeding Tubes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150988,00.html
    8. Abortion http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/35670.html
    9.Iraqhttp://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/ 2005/03/20/bush_says_us_victory_in_iraq_felt_from_ beirut_to_tehran/
    10. Slashdot http://slashdot.org/

    If you watched the news lately you would know that your lack of a right of a feeding tube is the most dangerous thing in America. The President even flew back a week early to sign the bill into law to secure you right, Not to mention Congress having a late session. You need to get your head screwed on straight, and look at the important things in life and stop listening to Science. Science is too busy messing with something called FACTS.

  44. 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
  45. Then FDR was a oil/religious wacko too ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Informative

    By your logic, not mine, FDR was an oil/religion wacko too. FDR often used the word 'God' in speeches and he fought a war, the Pacific Campaign against Japan, over oil too. We used our oil exports to pressure Japan over their invasion of China, they decided to invade some local oil producers and attack us since we were on the supply line home. Now that I think of it oil was pretty important in the European campaign as well, we suffered heavy casualties trying to knock out oil fields.

    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.

    1. Re:Then FDR was a oil/religious wacko too ... by _Hellfire_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh BTW, your full of crap, the Iraqi oil fields are being run by the Iraqi's.

      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.

      Ah huh... And I guess your blanket statement that the Iraqi's are running the oilwells is based on your complete understanding of the incomprehensibly complicated things right?

      Maybe you should read a bit of history. Roosevelt passed legislation in 1939 that kept the US out of the war until attacked by the Japanese in 1941.

      Oil has always been an important resource ever since we figured we could use it for machinery. Humans have always squabbled over resources, be it oil, food, land or water.

      To compare Bush and Roosevelt and say "these two are the same because oil was involved somehow in both wars" I think is a little short sighted - the world is a bit more complicated than that.

      By the way, I've never been to a campus rally. But I don't simply accept the Bush Administration's party line that Iraq deserved to be invaded because they were part of the "Axis of Evil". The reasons for the invasion are many and complicated but what it boils down to is an oil grab by the US.

      PS: I am decidedly not anti-US. Far from it, I stayed for a while in that fine country in 1996, and loved every minute of it. I am however appalled at what the Bush Administration has turned it into.

      --
      "And then I visited Wikipedia ...and the next 8 hours are a blur..."
  46. Well, you know what one of the founders said ... by j_w_d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

    These days, vigilance is lax and "democracy" seems to be more valued than liberty anyway. The religious right and the politically correct left both seem to have an intense desire to dictate how we live our lives and the current state seems to be a "compromise" where both extremes get to do their worst.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  47. Re:this is why I dont like these kind of people... by JesusCigarettes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else!

    Really? Interesting. I didn't realize that me and the other fifteen atheists in the United States were making it so hard on you hundred million or so religious folks. We'll try harder not to use our massive majority to oppress you.

    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?)

    Wow, nice. You managed to come up with a really original argument that no atheist has ever rebutted. Please feel free to read more about atheism before you start redefining it on your own terms.

    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!

    Erm... I thought we were complaining about religious wackos who think that evolution is evil and wrong influencing stupid businesses to avoid showing films that might offend their fairytale worldview, but I guess you're right, we're just 'bashing' religion with no justification. I mean, the destruction of science is no reason to complain, right?

  48. Re:we need another /. religion bash story by jaoswald · · Score: 4, Informative

    This would be a justification for "creation science" except that creation scientists are not acting in good faith.

    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.

  49. 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
  50. Re:Scientific Theory by jaoswald · · Score: 3, Informative

    Events aren't falsifiable, *theories* are.

    As an example, historians can develop theories about "the causes of the American revolution" and then they can go about examining letters, contemporary accounts, and other historical documents to test whether their theories are correct or not.

    The examination of documents is the experiment in this case.

    Now, history is not a scientific endeavor, because one can't really make testable claims about what caused people to decide to do or say what they apparently did or said.

    There is a huge amount of diversity in today's biosphere, which offers ample opportunity to find test cases for various theories of speciation, for instance. If I go and study the speciation of a hundred different types of existing snails or beetles, for instance, I can get a reasonably good basis to try to disprove one theory or another.

    To claim that laboratory experiments are so much better than biological fieldwork is really not fair.

  51. Taking things a bit too far. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For what it's worth, I consider myself a Christian. I'm happy with my faith, and I can easily see how the study of science fits in nicely with the faith.

    I love to see documentaries about science. Learning about the universe that God created fills me with wonder, and the more I see how absolutly amazing the universe is, the more I appreciate what He has given us.

    Now, there are those out there who feel that only their understanding of the Bible is correct, and chose to turn their back on any course of study which reveals how truly fantastic creation really is. I have a name for those people: Wackjobs.

    It's hard for me to even give those sorts the consideration of being misguided but well intentioned. These people come off as mean-spirited individuals who aren't interested in discovering the truth. God is truth, and turning your back on what is the truth, both spiritually and scientifically is akin to turning your back on God. The way I see it, there's only one way to deal with those types of people: Ignore them.

    The only way these people get power is to take their demands seriously. If Imax theaters refuse to show scientific films because they are afraid of offending this very small, but very vocal minority (or in this case, because a few nutjobs said they thought it might be "blasphemous" in one of those inane focus groups), they are doing a disservice to the public in refusing to educating them.

    We live in a secular country. We should all be able to celebrate our faith, regardless of what it is. But we shouldn't allow our faith to get in the way of an objective, secular science. Nor should we allow fundamentalism to ruin the education of the population as a whole.

    Now, that having been said, it would be nice if the scientific community stopped presenting evolution as the "truth", and touted it for what it is: The best scientific explanation we have right now that outlines the origins and development of life. I only say this because I sometimes think that science, in difference to religion, can be guilty of the same closed mindedness that plagues the fundamentalist movements. When something like "Intelligent Design" comes around, it's immediately dismissed as religious pseudoscience, despite the fact that there might be something to it.

    Sure, as far as our current understanding goes, evolution still makes more scientific sense, but let's not sit on our laurels and ignore studying any other ideas. In the same way, let's not succumb to the crazy idea that trying to tell the story of evolution, or of the big bang is somehow an affront to God. Or, more accurately, let's not listen to the vocal minority who wants to stymie any understanding of science which they see as a threat to their faith.

    We're fighting a global war on terrorism right now. A good number of those who are out to harm us are motivated by closed minded fundamentalism. Let's try and not give an ear to those within our own country who are motivated by the same thing.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  52. Childhood anecdote by ballpoint · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My 4th grade schoolteacher asked me personally (he was the father of one of my friends, so we talked often outside school): "Do you really believe that we, humans, descend from such an ugly animal, an ape ?"

    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.

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  53. Story may be bogus by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    There are two movies: "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea", and "Aliens of the Deep". They're both IMAX. They're both produced by James Cameron. They're both out now. "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" is the "educational" version, and "Aliens of the Deep" is the "light entertainment" version, released by Disney. Roger Ebert's review of Aliens of the Deep calls it "a convincing demonstration of Darwin's theory of evolution,". So even the "lite" version has evolution.

    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.

    The Charleston Science Museum 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, by Charles and Ray Eames.

    Galapagos 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.

  54. Re:Undersea volcanoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "1. Doesn't seem to be a very good support for evolution.

    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.

  55. Re:Scientific Theory by rdwald · · Score: 3, Informative

    *yawn*

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

    And while you're there, read more of their stuff, such as Evolution is a Fact and a Theory and Can Evolution Make Predictions?

  56. 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

  57. WTF by c0dedude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've seen "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," and it's just pretty fish swimming around. Nothing too serious and I'm suprised people are up in arms about it.

    --
    Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
  58. 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

  59. Last I checked by portwojc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them

    Last I checked you're not forced to go see a movie if you don't want too. They will potentially loose the 10% regardless if the movie is shown there or not. The theatre/museum knows it's market and their 10% is probably more like 90% of the money they make. It's a no brainer.

    Oh never mind I forgot. If you disagree with something your still suppose to support it with your hard earned money. I'm sure people will line up.

  60. +4 Interesting? Mods on crack? by orzetto · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're full of taurine excrements.

    1. Your definition of proof simply dodges any sane definition of proof. Things fall down, always have, always will as long there is a down, because there is a gravity field with gravitons merrily telling mass particles that there is other mass around. Your lame and cheap shot at playing with definition is tantamount to mental masturbation. You are looking for a why when the question is rather how.
    2. As for invisible matter: no one is forcing me or IMAX theaters to sotp talk about visible matter. It's a theory worked out by people who are trying to understand how stuff works, and they may well change their mind sometime in the future, and they will happily share their own doubts about it. It's not a holy book thing.
    3. Newton's laws of motion were an approximation good for speeds well below that of light, and are fully acceptable in most contexts, other than being simpler. You are looking for a final solution to all physics, well there is none and probably there will never be in any foreseeable future.
    4. Evolution has been observed countless times in science. Penicillin does not work anymore because bacteria have evolved on a worldwide scale. Giant crabs have taken over the Norwegian seabed replacing the previous sea fauna. 16% of humans in northern Europe have a gene that was selected by the black death and gives HIV immunity, before the black death it was just 1 human over 20,000.

    I'm fed up with this bullshit about evolution being "not proven". It is proven and is solid like a T-34 shell. As in every branch of science it's a large patchwork, it may require refining, adjustments, interpretations, contributions, but there is no way the world was created from a space fart by some nutty long-bearded prick. Dammit, genetic algorithms are regularly used in mathematics! What other proof do you morons need to understand that it works?

    And I'm puzzled why the creationist nuts don't use the most obvious argument against evolution: Americans are getting dumber and dumber.

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  61. I believe in God by jrkaisersr · · Score: 3, Funny

    I love science. I always have. I spent most of my life as an atheist who loved science. Now I spend my life as a Christian who loves science. I believe the Bible's account of creation. Do I understand it? No. Do I accept it? Yes. I do not have to understand something to accept it. I do not fully understand Einstein's theory of relativity, but I accept it on his authority. I do not fully understand Darwin or his theory, but I reject it because it directly conflicts with the account of an authority which I hold higher than Darwin. There are alot of Christian who do not understand or accept science as I do, it's alien to them, and they fight it. Of course, there are many of my athiest friends who do not know Jesus the Christ as I do, He is completely alien to them, and they fight him just as unlearned Christians fight science. One planet, One Truth, One God, billions of free minded people. Hold on kids, this is gonna get messy!

  62. Take the Bible literally and you get slavery by rlds · · Score: 3, Insightful
    A revealing debate on the inerrancy of the Bible happened around the US Civil War. Pro-slavery faction used the Bible to justify slavery, or to classify it as moral. After all, biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice. And not only in the Old Testament, but read this passage from St. Paul:

    Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

    Note that the term "servant" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid.

    Yet, slavery was defeated in the USA, or that's what rational Americans think today.

    A great reference about this is: What the Bible says about slavery

    Makes you wonder what's behind the apparent rise in America of fundamentalism and the belief that the Bible is inerrant. Some people (some, not most) are still trying to fight the civil war, it appears.

  63. Other creation myths... by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'd actually love to see more documentaries about OTHER creation myths.


    Just about every culture across the world has their own great flood myth. There is some scientific evidence that there was a sudden flood in the Mediterranean region

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  64. Re: Arab-Americans are more likely to be stopped.. by jschrod · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Truth: Damn near all terrorists are Arabs.
    Your non-existing knowledge about existing terrorism all over the world is scary. You happen to be from the US or from Israel, by chance? It would explain your restricted world view. For sure, you're neither from Europe nor from Asia or South America.
    --

    Joachim

    People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

  65. 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.
  66. Fundamentalism Isn't Bad by alucinor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... if you have the right fundamentals.

    An example of what should be fundamental to a Christian is as follows:

    "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against these things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and wants. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." (Galatians)

    The problem with Bible-thumping Christians is that they love to get fired up over the Bible's condemnations of evil, such as

    "Every morning I will put to silence all the wicked in the land; I will cut off every evildoer from the city of the Lord" (Psalms)

    without studying the Bible to understand how it defines evil. They'll cling to a verse like that, and go fight against not the true evils of the world, like greed and imcompassion, but they war against some superficial "evils" that are usually just cultural impasses.

    A great example of Christians missing the point: you know that the Bible doesn't feature the sin of Sodom and Gommorah as having anything to do with homosexuality? Here's what it says:

    "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did destable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekial 16)

    If Christians believe in the Bible, then maybe they should read all of it, and think on it, instead of lingering all their life on John 3:16 and the 10 Commandments.

    --
    random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
  67. 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.
    8. Re:As an evangelical Christian and creationist... by jc42 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Would you also have your science teacher say that the heliocentric theory of the solar system is "just a theory",

      Certainly. Part of science education should be teaching basic terminology. In this case, part of the lesson would be that anyone who uses the phrase "just a theory" is almost certainly not a scientist. This illustrates one of many cases where scientists give a word a rather precise meaning, while in general speech the word is vague and fuzzy. In this case, you want to teach the students that, to a scientist, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested and is generally accepted as valid. Saying "just a theory" doesn't make sense in scientific circles, because a theory is the best-supported sort of idea of all. Something can be "just a conjecture" or "just a hypothesis", but not "just a theory".

      ... and that there are other schools of thought, including the "epicycle" theory?

      Yeah, I remember getting this in science classes. The history of ideas should be part of the subject. It's important to teach that science changes as we learn new things. Just where epicycles should go is open to debate. It's probably best taught as an idea that was an attempt to explain the complex orbits of heavenly bodies, but which failed for several reasons. One reason was that it wasn't really testable, since no mechanism for the epicycles could be observed. Another problem was that its predictive ability wasn't good. As equipment became better, it was invariably found that the epicycle theory failed at each new level of precision. Newer and smaller cycles-on-cycles were needed, and the relative sizes of the cycles couldn't be predicted by the theory. It was complex and ad hoc, and wasn't really a proper "theory" in the scientific sense.

      Then Newton came along with a radically different theory. His equations were simpler, and their predictions kept working when new, more-precise equipment became available. Eventually, a couple centuries later, people eventually found small errors in Newton's equations, most notably in the orbit of Mercury. And that's when you get to Einstein.

      In any case, this is all useful as an illustration of a major difference between science and religion: Scientific theories are always open to revision or replacement. Epicycles were tossed entirely when a better theory came along. Newton's mechanics weren't actually replaced. They were found to be a simplified approximation of Einstein's mechanics, good enough for many purposes, but inaccurate in extreme conditions.

      It's also common to explain to students that, although we know the earth revolves around the Sun, we still often use a coordinate system with the Earth as a fixed central object. For most purposes, this is a better approach when you're dealing with travel near the Earth's surface. To someone in an auto, boat or airplane, the Earth's rotation and orbit are unnecessary complications that can be ignored under most circumstances. So, as with the Newton/Einstein difference, we use an Earth-centric or Sun-centric coordinate system, depending on which gives the best results for our immediate purposes.

      All of this is useful in getting across the idea that scientific theories are the ones that work well. Of course, that takes a bit of defining, but that should be part of the curriculum.

      It's also worth pointing out that we do know of cases of "intelligent design" in living creatures. We call it "breeding", and farmers have been doing it for around 10,000 years. We can also explain how, even if we didn't know about this (for example, we were a visiting alien observer), we could rigorously show that some of the plants and animals on Earth were designed (i.e., knowingly and intentionally modified) by humans. And in doing this, we would also show why it's unlikely that Earth life as a whole had an intelligent designer. The evidence is there, and it's pretty strong.

      Of course, there's always the possibilit

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  68. The UAM Theory... by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Humans, being primates, have instincts towards the formation of social hierarchies, and the climbing of same (so as to secure the best food, mates, etc.). We are the descendents of a long line of apes who succeeded at doing those very things. Well, it isn't hard to follow these instincts, and invent an "Ultimate Alpha Male" (UAM) to put at the top of the hierarchy. This has several advantages.
    • The UAM adds social stability. If the Alpha Male (AM) is someone susceptible to age, disease, error, or a well-placed dagger, then the AM whose favor you enjoy, or whose hind you've been kissing might be replaced, putting you in a precarious position. With an eternal UAM, the social hierarchy stabilizes, and you can make long term plans secure in the knowledge that you know where the top of the pyramid will be.
    • The UAM becomes a source of power that can't, on a whim, be power back. An AM could decide to stop supporting your cause, leaving you to swing in the wind, or even decide that your head would be best located somewhere other than at the end of your neck. The UAM can't complain when you use their authority and power as the basis of your own. Which brings us to...
    • You can claim that the UAM says whatever you want them to say so as to forward your own agenda. Unlike the AM, they can't get wind of your actions and denounce you. If there are people you don't like, or people who have things that you want, you can use the authority of the UAM to convince others to eliminate the people you don't like, and get the stuff you want from those who have it.
    • If you claim to speak for the UAM, or have some sort of special relationship with the UAM, you get to ride a gravy train along with all the others who make the same claims. People will give you resources in the hope that you'll somehow intercede between them and the UAM on their behalf.
    • The belief that the UAM exists gives comfort to those who find personal responsibility too oppressive and/or personal freedom too confusing and scary. You can just sit back and let the UAM tell you what to do and what to think... in short, you can be a carefree child once again.
    • If you just accept the word of the UAM, and the answers given, you don't have to do all the hard work of answering your own questions.
    • You can claim to be "closer" to the UAM on the hierarchy than others, making you "better" than they. This helps satisfy one's instinctual urges towards hierarchy climbing.

    --
    wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith