Friday
Sep252009
Friday, September 25, 2009 at 10:24AM Darwin Bio-pic 'Creation' Finally Finds a Distributor
Last week, we told you that American distributors were keeping their distance from the new film about Charles Darwin, the father of Evolution. Strangely enough, the film is called Creation and perhaps even more strangely (to some), the film has finally been picked up by the same distributor that released The Passion of the Christ.
"We at Newmarket pride ourselves in getting behind important films that help open the door for discussion and conversation, as is the case with Creation. While Darwin's name has come to symbolize one side of a debate between the scientific and the theological, Creation personifies the debate, with both sides contending, sometimes violently, within the man. In that sense, we believe that the film will appeal both to people of faith and people of science."Producer Jeremy Thomas also discussed what has to be an obvious talking point, the fact that the same company that released the highest-grossing religious film in history is also taking a chance on a film about a man whose work questioned that supreme authority.
"Every producer wants to share his belief in a film with a distributor, and in Newmarket I have found a group who are passionate about reaching a wide audience with Creation. I think back to what they did with The Passion of The Christ, a very different film but one that also challenged people's ideas, and am happy to be working with people who can achieve this. We hope the debate doesn't get in the way of what is a human story, with bigger issues at its core."Indeed, this is not a movie about Evolution but rather how the man who changed the course of science came to terms with the implications of his discovery. And if you're among those who believes Darwin was wrong, don't discount the movie out of hand; treat it as fiction.
Reader Comments (22)
The Pope has told Catholics that we're allowed to believe in the theory of evolution, that while the story about Adam & Eve may not be literal truth, it's still a symbolic description of divine inspiration. I saw the Creation trailer (on this site) & the movie looks good. In fact I never saw The Passion of the Christ because I can't stomach a lot of violence. Anyway it'll be interesting to see if there's any backlash to this movie.
Your idea to release the movie in conjunction with the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species would have been a good tie-in. Wonder why the distributors didn't think of that?
GREAT posting marvelous posting Colin...
Im very excited about this news, its great honestly, and I didnt even know that Newmarket Films was still around let alone PICK UP THE FILM!!!
Those people over there sure know how to pick em, right?
Now we need to see some sort of AMAZING PUSH for the film, marketing, advertising, and publicity everywhere, because I mean Passion of the Christ made BUCKET LOADS OF MONEY and Creation can follow in it's footsteps, in my opinion...
If these movie is actually good, I hope millions will see it, I mean no matter what my opinions are about the subject, I feel like its always good to hear both sides....
GOOD IDEA WITH THE RELEASE
DAMNIT SOMEBODY GIVE COLIN A RAISE OR A STUDIO EXEC JOB!!!!
right Colin lol
why is it always good to hear both sides of the story? If you're set in your beliefs and you live a life content on not just believing, but knowing what is right and true, why tempt yourself in possibly letting things in to change your mind? Why cause a conflict in your brain and let creative writers spew propaganda and false facts to try and change your beliefs and thoughts?
And as for the Pope, that's the Catholics. Most, not all, other Christian based religions understand and know that the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally and is true. There's not so many who follow in the Gap Theory that they believed happened in Genesis. So as for taking into any part of evolution would not be correct.
And yeah treat it as fiction, because his beliefs are fiction, but why bother understanding and learning about a man who has certainly lead a ton of people to not understand and gain salvation, and basically end up in hell for eternity? I mean, seriously, this crap is taught in schools these days. If anyone actually looked into it, it's beyond clear how wrong it is and that they'll never find proof because there is none. There is not one single thing for evolution that can back it up to say it's right, not one, yet so many people think it's real and learn it in schools for crying out loud.
And now it's gonna get even more widespread then it already was due to do this garbage movie.
doesntlikeprettymuchallofSEANsposts, you're the like the poster boy for religious disdain for science and progress. I won't debate your points here because this is a cinema blog not a religion one, but I will say this: Darwin's ideas were already proven to be right countless times, and while some of his specific theories were disproved thanks to advancements made in technology that allowed scientists test aspects Darwin never imagined, his general theory of Evolution and survival of the fittest stands strong. His theory of evolution was mostly strengthened after the discovery of DNA in the 1950's. Go to a bloody natural history museum. On the other hand, religions have no evidence to support their stories. And on every occasion where religion and science clashed, science came up on top. Even in a religious country as the USA, courts have ruled in favor of science (specifically, evolution) every time.
There is far more evidence of Evolution than the Adam and Eve story. In fact, there's as much evidence of Xenu as there is of Adam and Eve: It's written down in a book. This is not a knock on people of faith, simply a line you've probably heard before, that people who lived during biblical times had no way of knowing these things. Floods aren't caused by an angry god; they're caused by weather conditions we can predict today.That doesn't make those who believe in and wrote Bible any less sincere, but the rightful advancement of science will necessarily call into question events as they were originally documented.
But let's be honest: The Earth has been around longer than a few thousand years, and the universe is nearly 14 billion years old. We know that by being able to measure light. If the Bible were truly a historical document, there'd be at least one mention of the Chinese, who had already domesticated pets and produced silk by 5,000 BC, roughly 1,000 years before "Adam." What's the argument against the Chinese? That they wanted to pervert Christian culture into thinking they were here before the events of the Bible and, beginning in the 1200s (when they first encountered Marco Polo), began systematically planting millions of artifacts and fossils, burying them deeper in reverse order of their technological advancement in an effort to predict archaeology, which wouldn't even be practiced for 100 years after Marco Polo?
As for proof, simply because we haven't found the "missing link" in the 150 years of evolutionary biology doesn't mean that science hasn't discovered instances of evolution all around us. Evolution is not merely the assertion that man and apes are cousins, but rather the advancement of genetic material from one generation to the next. It's far from shocking and far from fiction. Maybe that's why the Kingsolveretal database lists almost 1,600 observed, measured, chronicled, and proven instances of natural selection in various species...since the mid-1980s. Evolution is not just concerned with connecting man to apes. Read anything about immunology, genetics, and Google "phlyogenics" or "trilobites."
The flu virus evolves, and we see it happen all the time. In fact, it happens so rapidly that it's hard to stay one step ahead of its evolution, which is why we have outbreaks all the time.The case of the peppered moth in England, studied for well over a century, is a textbook example of how species adapt (or don't) to their new environment. I know a guy who's 6'6" and his parents, believe it or not, are also quite tall. What are the odds? Pretty good, because, you see, genetics plays a major role in things like that, and genetic changes are at the root of evolutionary biology. It is, simply, a primary reason we are the way we are.
The common argument that it's called the "theory" of Evolution because it hasn't been proven is a semantics argument; the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around is the Heliocentric Theory. But we also know that's true.
The Creationist school of thought, which now goes by Intelligent Design to sound scientific, is predicated on a concept that is deeply flawed: Irreducible Complexitly - the idea that some things in nature are too complex to have evolved from something less complex - has been laughed out of courts and schools, and generally any evolved (ha!) conversation on the subject. The problem is that ID wrongheadedly believes Evolutionists operate under the assumption that everything around us is random chance and that Evolution can't possibly explain all the changes required to go from single-cell organism to sentient human beings.
Problem 1: Evolutionists think it all started somewhere and somehow though a highly improbable set of circumstances, and not accidentally at all after that. Indeed, and this year, Dr. John Sutherland, after careful calculations, recreated the origins of life with nucleotides. So there's that.
Problem 2: Imagine that you are the end result of a billion three-way light switches. You can go one direction, the other direction, or stop in the middle. Obviously, ID believers have no problem with this, because they think the sum is too complicated to be anything but designed as is. However, Evolution in no way presumes that a billion light switches have to be flipped at the same time to give us the final product. It's the opposite: Flipping one switch at a time over millions and millions of years. Some switches go up, some go down, some even stay the same. But each switch flipped creates a new line of a billion light switches, and the process repeats itself.
And think about this: You're not even the finished product. You're just another flipped switch. Generations from now, your descendants won't look a thing like you, because they are, like everything else here, simply evolving from one plane to the next.
Now...very little of that is in the new Charles Darwin movie, which anyone should want to watch because Paul Bettany is such a good actor.
Floods are controlled by weather, good observation. Weather cant be controlled by God? It's just all a random crazy system that somehow keeps us all alive here everyday, and just so happens to never just destroy our world. With how awesome, destructive and insane our weather is, it could take us out in any given day. And we can predict it really? Is that why they cant even tell whether its gonna rain 3 hours from now, only a percentage that really is only a guess. You can't tell what God has planned besides what he's told us, and the way the weather is these days is exactly how He told us it will be. There's more proof of the great flood then anything in evolution. Rock formations, fossil records, tons of information that you may not be aware of to show the differences in the two and how it did for sure happen.
How do you measure light? How do you prove it's billions of years old? Have you seen these studies and proven them yourself? It's doubtful, therefore what do you base your beliefs on with their findings? Books, writings from people.....What then is the difference from the Bible? My point being is that they're both written and all you have to go on is your faith in one of those directions, which you choose to believe in. Except the Bible is said to be the Word of God. These theories with science and such are written by man with no claim of an omnipotent God giving them the words to be written. You can't say anything these scientists say is true and proven, cause all you have to base it on is what they have written. Same with the Bible. Not saying all scientists are wrong in every aspect, far from it. Only showing how no matter which way you're leaning it's based on your faith in the person, or in my case a God inspired Word, and whether the information you receive is correct or not.
Where do you even get this arguement of the chinese? No one even knows when Adam and Eve were alive and here, so how can you put a time frame on the chinese producing silk before their time? I'm just gonna toss that whole idea out, it has no value.
Fossil records show that evolution is not happening the way you'd think. Just because evolutionary scientists would prefer to keep all information from you on the subject doesn't mean it's correct. And what stuff have they "proven"? Micro-evolution or macro-evolution? Micro-evolution ok, they might see how some species have changed somewhat to adapt to their habitat, but no research has ever found for any species to have gone beyond its boundaries of change. Each species has always stayed the same species to it's specific limitations. Flu virus has evolved mmk. Has the flu virus evolved into something else ever beside just another flu? Doubtful. Dogs may have changed to other kinda dogs to fit into their surroundings. But do you really think at some point a dog has changed to a duck or mouse to fit in?
Not just "the missing link" alone, have they ever found any in-between species of anything, ever? If they can find dinosaur bones that are supposedly billions of years old, why is that they can't find any in-betweens of any species, of the millions that are on this earth? Not one has ever been discovered, yet it's so believable to think we all evolved into each other. We esentially all came from the same start then, whatever original bacteria or whatever it may have been. Then we're related to dogs, insects, trees, potatoes, anything living. Your "lightswitches" are so improbable that it basically makes it impossible.
The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that even one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zero - far less than 1 in 10(450). To appreciate the magnitude of 10(450), realize that the visible universe is about 10(28) inches in diameter.
From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a “simple” form of life, such as bacteria. Next, suppose we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all their atoms, then let them form new links. If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would even one bacterium of any type reemerge? The chances are much less than one in 10(99,999,999,873). Your chances of randomly drawing one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms are about one chance in 10(112) - much better.
And as for religion and creation being laughed out of courts and such, separation of church and state. They don't consider it to be scientific, when in all reality it's as scientific as evolution, and evolution is just as much of a religion as say Christianity or Buddhism. Science needs to be able to be tested and observed, as to which creationism nor evolution can be. Just as the Bible says, it's based on your faith. You have a choice to believe something that has claim of being inspired by God or to believe what sinful man has to say. Do you not believe in Jesus Christ then? Over 500 witnesses saw him to be resurrected, and most of who claimed to have seen him alive again went through punishment, torture, being imprisoned, and even death. If they knew themselves that it didn't happen, why would all of them go through it? Why go through torture and death for something you know yourself is not true. Maybe just one of them, but it wasn't. It was every one of them who were threatened with these punishments. No one denied what they saw and died for the truth.
ha ha ha.
Don't you just love ignorant religious ramblings!
Some of my favourite bits:
"There's more proof of the great flood then anything in evolution"
"Books, writings from people.....What then is the difference from the Bible?"
"But do you really think at some point a dog has changed to a duck or mouse to fit in?"
"evolution is just as much of a religion as say Christianity or Buddhism"
Why do people with so little knowledge of evolutionary theory feel the need to write this nonsense? Why not read some real books on evolution rather than spout out all the nonsense you've been drip fed at bible camp?
lol
what are you even talking about? do you even have any idea about the theory of evolution? have you looked into it yourself beside the crap you've been fed in school and other random people? it's garbage, nothings but proven, and you don't have all the information you think you might know. I know more then enough about evolution, I've read up on plenty of it for the past 10 years. I don't just write and respond to things because I don't know, that would be stupid of me. So when it comes to me being ignorant on the subject, it's the complete opposite. You're ill informed of your information, and the ignorance is on you. Thanks for the attack though, really classy. Can't talk like human beings, just gotta be sarcastic and rude because your information you think it right over mine. Good for you.