New Charles Darwin film is 'too controversial' for religious American audiences
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...audiences.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-America.html

On the whole, it still amazes me (to put it mildly) why so many people are so viciously opposed to a 19th century theory that is in no way contradictory to religious writing. These people simply want to argue.
It's not about 'God'. It's all about people.

Thank something or somebody I simply can make no statement about that I'm an agnostic.

Perhaps its the title of Darwins original book which gives people in the US pause.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.


I guess the supporters of Darwin think themselves 'favoured'. The book is racist if applied to Human Beings, no?

The only stink about the movie is what I read here. If one looks hard enough they'll find somebody that objects to anything, but how much of this reflects true American sentiment and how much is the producers trying to generate controversy in order to sell the movie.

Bloody fanatics, its just a movie, if you don't want to watch it don't, don't force people not to watch it.

I guess we all have the 20th century at the back of our minds with all the devastating effects of social Darwinism. That's nothing to blame the man for. We have to make a clear distinction between Darwin's idea and social Darwinism, despite the name. The latter one is what people made of it. People will always make stupid and grossly simplified deductions of great ideas and then confuse their own ideas with the original thought. In other words: They read something into these ideas that was never there. It has happened to Christianity, it has happened to Darwinism. The consequences have always been deplorable.

Castlebravo, you are being a right **** posting this tired old pratt. In the context in which races is used in that books title it means the same as species. Language usage has just changed over the years allso, you should read the damned thing so you would'nt come off quite so ignorant making claims about Darwins supposed racism. In short, I am tired of creationists and other dimwits pulling this **** trying to badmouth a naturist, because a)It is just such a cheap and low tactic and b)Even if the man was a racist it has no bearing on his theories validity. Evolution is real, the Earth is older than 10,000 years, we are in orbit around the Sun, the Earth is not flat and storks do not deliver babies. The bible/koran/torah/any other holy book is mistaken, get over it you ignorant ****s.

Rant brought to you by annoyance of blinding stupidity and slight hangover.

Only if they are really thick.
Its a book about biology, in biology race is a specific term in use at the time for taxonomic classification
Perhaps the same people who it would give pause to would read an article about zoology that used the word Legion and think it was either something to do with the Roman Army or the Demon of Gadarene

Not one answer to the question...

Yes we did, you just ignored it because it does not fit your twisted agenda.

I will try to keep this simple.

Short answer: No
Long answer: ******* No

So the book isn't racist when applied to Human Beings? Is that what you mean by no?

Look at my first post in this thread, read it and try to prove my condescending attitude wrong by bloody comprehending it.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Sorry to break it to ya, but there is only one human race.
While cretinists might have impaired cerebal functions they are still the same race.

Then when a person is called a racist it should be taken as a compliment?

And by Darwin's standard, as defined by you, the 'human race' should......

Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Ya got yourself into a mess. You know it, and are thus pwned.

Umm... arent we kinda doing that already? :hmmm:

Jesus ****ing chrst. What are you on about now?

Lets go over this **** again then, shall we?
Te title of darwins book is not racist when applied to humans in any way, shape or form unless you remove the context of the title. *******s supporting social darwinism have done so and you are walking down the same superficial path, albeit for different, yet equally silly reasons. The preservation of preferred races in context is nothing more than a way to describe natural selection in different terms. And it has already been mentioned that humanity as a whole is the same race or species. Then for some bloody reason you pull a completely irrelevant bible quote out of the air and just because you were either unable or unwilling to comprehend me claim to have pwned anyone. No, the only person pwned here is you, by your own ignorance and superficiality.

I will get back to this thread after I either get some sleep or my hangover subsides. Till that time, try to read Darwins book and see for yourself if the man was racist or not, But to be completely frank you probably will not do so, heavens forbid, you might actually learn something.

Well.. that didn't take long..


http://www.fallen-legion.eu/news/dat...leFacePalm.jpg

Wow you really have problems with the English language don't you.
Race as a term of taxonomic identification is clearly defined ,
on the other hand a racist is best defined as an idiot.
People who are unable to differentiate between two words with different meanings can also fit one of those definitions.

Errrrr....no, perhaps you could do better if you had the faintest idea what you were talking about instead of recycling garbage from a badly translated, heavily edited fragment of ancient mythology.

Absolutely. But that was given long before Darwin advocated it. Hold no misgivings, that is exactly what Darwin is saying in his book.