·  News ·  Travel ·  Food ·  Arts ·  Science ·  Sports ·  Advice ·  Religion ·  Life ·  Greensboro · 

Creation (the movie) Review

by A Person | Published on February 6th, 2010, 5:43 pm | Arts
If you hadn't planned on seeing Creation, the movie of Darwin's life, this 'Christian review' might persuade you

Content: (what the ratings mean)
(HHH, AbAbAb, EvEvEv, V, S, N, M) Very strong humanist, pro-evolution, Anti-Christian worldview about Charles Darwin writing his racist tract THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES; no foul language; violence in nature as fox eats rabbit and mother bird pushes baby bird out of nest and bird falls to its death; implied sexual relations between married couple; upper male nudity and brief partial rear male nudity; no alcohol use; no smoking; and, negative parental figure
...

In Brief:
CREATION is the story of Charles Darwin and his struggle to write the book that presented his theory of evolution. Charles and his wife Emma are opposites, and the story centers on their marriage. Charles believes that nature created itself over millions of years. Emma is a believer in God, however. Her husband’s ideas cause strife and struggle in their marriage. Darwin suffers from ill health because he believes there is no God and knows that, if he publishes the book, he will “kill God.” Charles decides to finish the book, even turning his wife into a convert for evolution.

CREATION is a beautifully made, poignant movie that is very emotionally moving. With a tragic loss of his eldest daughter and suffering from poor health, Darwin becomes an underdog for whom viewers are supposed to root. The fact that the movie is so well done is what makes it very dangerous. Manure, nicely wrapped with a bow, is still manure. A lie that there is no God and that somehow we have randomly shown up here on Earth as an accident is still a lie, even if it’s well written and acted.


I love the 'implied sexual relations between married couple'! Yes Darwin had 10 children which impled they had sex at least 10 times - maybe more!
 
 
Hey that's a pretty good review for someone whom might consider it blasphemy!
This is our chance to change things, this is our destiny.
February 6th, 2010, 6:11 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Any guesses to which film this review is referring to
Content: (what the ratings mean)
(Pa, H, OO, BB, C, V, A, M) Light pagan, mixed worldview with light humanist element where characters believe in working hard and relying only on themselves to achieve their dreams, along with strong occult elements where voodoo witchdoctor communicates with the dead (possibly the devil), conjures up scary, demon shadowy figures (who seem to be able to be killed by light, which could have biblical connotations), tries to tempt main characters into making a deal with him by showing them the futures that they desire, and also engages in spells and occult practices such as tarot cards, charms, potions, a talisman, etc., also, one main character makes a deal with the voodoo witchdoctor because he wants to achieve his goals the “easy” way but there are consequences to his actions, and, instead of turning to God for help, the main characters wish on a star and ask for help from Mama Odie (a “good” voodoo practitioner/fairy godmother of sorts, but does not use it for personal gain) who fights off the demons with her light and shows the main characters in a vision in her gumbo-filled bathtub how they can turn themselves back into humans, plus some strong moral, light redemptive elements include the message there is no easy way to achieve your dreams and that hard work and sacrifice are worth it in the end, characters love each other to the point of being willing to make personal sacrifices, one character gives up his life for his friends, character sings song about how “there’s been trials and tribulations, but we’ve climbed mountains,” marriage is extolled in the end, one character is in love with a star whom he calls Evangeline (which means “good news”) and this character is the most loving and optimistic of the them all, and there is an emphasis concerning the dangers of greed and riches and that no amount of money can make a person happy; no foul language; some animated, comic violence includes frog gets squashed by a book two times, human characters accidentally hit each other with sticks in an effort to squash the frogs, frogs get chased by hungry crocodiles, firefly gets stepped on by bad character, voodoo witchdoctor takes blood from main character, gunshots are fired but nobody is injured, firefly gets spewed out of man’s nose and is covered in snot, crocodile character gets himself stuck with a bunch of briars on his lower backside, characters are chased and apprehended by scary, demon-looking shadows; no sex scenes but frogs get tangled up together with their long tongues, firefly character makes some light humorous comments about his lower backside, character kisses her snake, and main characters share kiss at the end of the movie; no nudity but animated women characters wear dresses with revealing cleavage; characters drink wine at a masquerade ball; no smoking or drug use; and, characters initially lie to each other to get what they want but this is resolved, white female character is presented as being a bit of a flighty and spoiled girl, prince character starts out as a selfish playboy cut off from his parents’ fortune for leeching off of them and is always looking for the easy way out so he won’t have to do any real work and his philosophy of life is that we are on this earth to have some fun but this changes in the end, bad character is very greedy for money and tries to tempt other characters so he can get what he wants, voodoo character says that “real power isn’t magic, it’s money,” characters get their futures told to them by voodoo witchdoctor and strike a deal with him but there are bad consequences to their decision, character makes the statement that “what you give is what you get,” and Mama Odie points out that what a person wants is different than what they need and that riches don’t make a person happy because it has no soul or heart, and a firefly turns into a star when he dies.


678 words in what must be the longest run-on sentence I have ever read.

Some hilarity in there though: "no sex scenes but frogs get tangled up together with their long tongues"

"mixed worldview with light humanist element where characters believe in working hard and relying only on themselves to achieve their dreams" - What a radical concept :lol:

Anyway it's the "Princess and the frog" with the subversive message of working har and relying on yourself.
February 6th, 2010, 7:28 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
I was going for "Water Boy"
February 6th, 2010, 7:45 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Summary:
CREATION is the story of evolution’s founding father Charles Darwin and his struggle to write the book that presented his theory. While the movie is well made, it is merely a one-sided, ultimately emotional propaganda piece that has a lie nicely presented.


Hmmm...Yeah, really makes me want to go out and see it..... NOT
nice try...
Peace
February 6th, 2010, 8:10 pm
deepshade
 
"The Origin of Species"... a racist book? I admit that I haven't read all the way through it yet... but so far, all I've read in it is facts about pigeons, flowers, farm animals and fish. I wonder what chapter has the "racist" stuff?

What gets me is that this presents the theory of evolution as "a lie," yet what they say about the theory itself is incorrect -- in other words, "a lie." Now, of course, they are only repeating what they've read about the theory from people they trust. So they feel they have some sort of moral "shielding" against the charge of be liars. But the book itself is not very hard to read or understand. At best, they are losers who are too lazy to learn better. I figure that they've been in the religion game long enough to have been told that they have their statements incorrect. Not bothering to correct such things makes them liars, outright.
February 6th, 2010, 8:14 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
oops, maybe you should really start thinking...There are alternate hypothisis

The Issue:
The freedom to legitimately challenge “Big Science’s” orthodoxy…without persecution.

The debate over evolution is confusing and to some, bewildering: “Wasn’t this all settled years ago?” The answer to that question is equally troubling: “Yes…and no.”

The truth is that a staggering amount of new scientific evidence has emerged since Darwin’s 150-year-old theory of life’s origins. Darwin had no concept of DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or of the human genome.


Hmm.. you there yet?


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Have fun.

Peace
February 6th, 2010, 8:24 pm
deepshade
 
Ah but the sub-title is "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" so he MUST have been racist.

They are relying on their audience not actually actually reading it - or ever learning about Darwin's vocal and vehement opposition to slavery.
February 6th, 2010, 8:28 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Intelligent design is "an alternate hypothesis"? :lol:

I laugh, because in fact I'm currently reading a rather interesting book called "Unintelligent Design."

I haven't gotten to the point where I could give a good overview of the entire critique of the ID "hypothesis" and its proponents, but I have read enough to see that it is a pretty thorough tearing down of the whole pathetic, shoddy facade. Just so you know -- ANY mention of ID and the ridiculous efforts to shoehorn it into the realm of science will be met with gales of derisive laughter. Really... do yourself a favor and be content with your fairy tales and stop trying to compete with science. It won't work.
February 6th, 2010, 8:32 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
deepshade wrote:Darwin had no concept of DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or of the human genome.


The Big Bang and Relativity have nothing to do with evolution, but yes, Darwin knew nothing of genes or DNA. That was a perfect test of his theory. Genetics and DNA could have blown his theory out of the water. But of course it didn't. Genetics confirmed evolution in every respect.

Expelled was a nasty little polemic with no respect for honesty.
February 6th, 2010, 8:36 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:Ah but the sub-title is "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" so he MUST have been racist.

Indeed. No need to look up the definitions of such words as they were used at the time of publication -- FAR too much work. :roll:

Such is the frailty of the method of communication called "language."
They are relying on their audience not actually actually reading it - or ever learning about Darwin's vocal and vehement opposition to slavery.

Ignorance hurts everyone in one way or another. Which makes it a thing EVERYONE should want to fight against. Sadly, too many refuse.
February 6th, 2010, 8:37 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
oh my gosh... you really don't understand the history of science... are you really entrenched in this one sided view of the world? Fairy tales? the propaganda continues. yikes...... good luck.
February 6th, 2010, 8:39 pm
deepshade
 
deepshade wrote:oh my gosh... you really don't understand the history of science.

I suspect that I know a bit more about the history of science than most folks.

What part of this history are you accusing me of missing out on?
.. are you really entrenched in this one sided view of the world?

One sided? I try to conform my views to what the facts point at. I know that the facts that humans know is an incomplete subset of all possible knowledge, but what we do know is actually pretty reliable for most uses. What other "side" would you recommend, and what makes it worth considering?
Fairy tales?

Yes. Fairy tales. Just because a billion people consider a book "holy" does not affect its state as a collection of myths.
the propaganda continues. yikes...... good luck.

<SPROING!!!>
And yet another irony-meter bites the dust. You owe me, dude.
February 6th, 2010, 8:47 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
deepshade wrote:oh my gosh... you really don't understand the history of science.

I suspect that I know a bit more about the history of science than most folks.

What part of this history are you accusing me of missing out on?
.. are you really entrenched in this one sided view of the world?

One sided? I try to conform my views to what the facts point at. I know that the facts that humans know is an incomplete subset of all possible knowledge, but what we do know is actually pretty reliable for most uses. What other "side" would you recommend, and what makes it worth considering?
Fairy tales?

Yes. Fairy tales. Just because a billion people consider a book "holy" does not affect its state as a collection of myths.
the propaganda continues. yikes...... good luck.

<SPROING!!!>
And yet another irony-meter bites the dust. You owe me, dude.


SPROING!!!!
LOL.... oh yeah, I forgot, you guys know it all... let's see, where did I mention "holy"..... knee jerk reaction again... yep... pretty much... You guys have a good night... it appears your blood pressure is up enough.
Have fun and Peace.
February 6th, 2010, 8:56 pm
deepshade
 
deepshade wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
deepshade wrote:Fairy tales?

Yes. Fairy tales. Just because a billion people consider a book "holy" does not affect its state as a collection of myths.

LOL.... oh yeah, I forgot, you guys know it all... let's see, where did I mention "holy"..... knee jerk reaction again... yep... pretty much...

Hm. Let's wade through the ellipseseses again. :mrgreen:
You didn't have to use the word "holy." I considered it a valid connection. Really if you were to take a little time to actually just come out and explain your tiny, virtually information-free quips, an actual conversation might break out. I can see how that might be unsettling to you, but I would urge you to try it some time. I find such things pleasant and stimulating in the rare instances where I can engage in them.

Just a suggestion, of course. :think:
February 6th, 2010, 9:09 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote: Really if you were to take a little time to actually just come out and explain your tiny, virtually information-free quips, an actual conversation might break out
I concur. I really would like to hear what he meant by
deepshade wrote:oh my gosh... you really don't understand the history of science

but I expect it will come down to how science is inflexible, never changes, worships patriarchs and persecutes people
February 6th, 2010, 9:50 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:"The Origin of Species"... a racist book? I admit that I haven't read all the way through it yet... but so far, all I've read in it is facts about pigeons, flowers, farm animals and fish. I wonder what chapter has the "racist" stuff?


Perhaps if you quoted the original title of the book it might shed some light on its racial bias.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
February 7th, 2010, 12:49 am
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
A Person wrote:Ah but the sub-title is "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" so he MUST have been racist.

They are relying on their audience not actually actually reading it - or ever learning about Darwin's vocal and vehement opposition to slavery.


Just because a person opposes slavery doesn't mean they can't be racist.
February 7th, 2010, 12:51 am
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:Perhaps if you quoted the original title of the book it might shed some light on its racial bias.
See, told ya.

BecauseHeLives wrote:Just because a person opposes slavery doesn't mean they can't be racist.

Given the culture of the time it's a very good indicator.
February 7th, 2010, 2:27 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
You know, I asked about this charge of "racism" because I thought it might be worth discussing the subject of race (human physical variation) in light of Darwin's actual theory. Because his theory -- particularly in light of his work studying finches in the Galapagos -- does have something to say about obvious human variations around the world. That being that these many variations very likely arose in response to differing environmental effects on each population, making humans in each part of the globe where they live better able to live with their environment. And of course, having nothing at all to do with supporting the notion that any variation is somehow "superior" to another.

But no, the point about the definition of the word "races" is ignored, and the whole discussion of human evolution simply dies on the vine, because certain people have no interest in learning about ways their beliefs might be off-base or actual lies that they picked up without understanding they were wrong. The lies are too comforting to consider dropping. For people who natter on incessantly about "Capital 'T' truth," this is rather ironic.

As always.
February 7th, 2010, 7:18 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
It is worth noting that Darwin did think some races were superior than others - it was the universal view at the time and thought to be self-evident. It's not something he mentioned in Origin where he does not talk about human evolution, but he does in The Descent of Man. To call him racist is simply to say he lived in the 1800's. By the standards of his day he was a racial moderate, vehemently opposed to slavery.

We can apply this test to any historical figure;
Abraham Lincoln wrote:I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of N*groes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race.


Jefferson of course kept slaves and had children by them. Franklin and Washington were also slave owners.

Now no doubt we'll hear from BHL that a man can own slaves and not be a racist
February 7th, 2010, 11:46 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:It is worth noting that Darwin did think some races were superior than others - it was the universal view at the time and thought to be self-evident. It's not something he mentioned in Origin where he does not talk about human evolution, but he does in The Descent of Man.

Well, I have heard that regarding the Descent of Man. And in those early days, in that society, misconceptions of that sort are hardly surprising. However, strictly speaking regarding the theory of evolution, it really can't be used to support racism. For one thing, the theory only addresses the cause of variations and how those variations lead to the development of separate species. It's about adaptation to local conditions in order to better ensure survival of progeny.

And of course, the second, more important point is that the theory can't be used to support the notion that humans, let alone any particular variety, is "the best" or some sort of "pinnacle" of evolution. The process of evolution is carrying on at all times so long as life exists.
February 7th, 2010, 3:17 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Darwin's family - and his wife's, the Wedgewoods - had a history of campaigning against slavery

Image
Wedgewood porcelain abolitionist medallion

Darwin himself learned bird taxidermy from John, a freed slave from British Guyana
Charles Darwin Autobiography wrote:A negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man.


After witnessing slavery first hand, he had this to say

“I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against slavery. -What a proud thing for England, if she is the first Europaean nation which utterly abolishes it. – I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. – It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly towards him…”.


At the time there were two views regarding the origin of human “races” polygenism and monogenism. Polygenism was the prevailing view which held that the “races” were created separately and represented separate species. This was the position of the defenders of slavery and had some strong scientific authorities behind it - notably Harvard professor of zoology and geology Louis Aggasiz, who promoted the view that there were eight primordial human species, each created in a different geographic zone. This was very popular with and used by the defenders of slavery as scientific justification of the superiority of the white race. Darwin on the other hand promoted monogenism and that, far from being separate species, the races belonged to the same human species and that slavery could therefore not be tolerated. So his thesis as laid out in 'Descent of Man' was in opposition to the prevailing view that attempted to justify slavery. Although Darwin did not have access to genetics, modern genetics confirms his theory. The claim that Darwin provided racism with a scientifc rationale is clearly bogus, he argued against the prevailing rationale.
February 7th, 2010, 6:47 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North

Return to Arts