News-Record.com

Would Mr. Harrington be equally offended if film makers INCLUDED references to evolution if those references had nothing to do with the storyline of the film? Including those types of references also promote a religious point of view, namely, secular humanism and materialistic naturalism.

Also, does he have a problem with public schools and universities "squashing" scientific evidence critical of or at least questioning aspects of Darwinism?

Hee hee! "Darwinism"? I wonder if ECUMAN is aware that Darwin's theory has been changed many times since its inception by scientific inquiry. Such work has never been hindered by the academic world. It continues to this day. Surely, he's aware of that!

"Also, does he have a problem with public schools and universities 'squashing' scientific evidence critical of or at least questioning aspects of Darwinism?"

Squash it. It's garbage, not science. That has been proven over and over. Of course, facts don't matter to those who have a deep fondness for pre-Enlightenment times.

I can't believe Eric Harrington is a member of any organization with the word "Freethought" in it.

The owners of IMAX decided not to include references to Evolution. I don't think that equates to 'squashing' science. Science is about questioning things, not pretending something is a fact and shoving down people's throats. Evolution is a theory. Any scientist can tell you that. Being a theory, it is unproven.

For someone who claims to be of 'freethought', Eric seems to have his mind made up and closed.

mr t, the essence of the story is that the IMAX producers are experiencing pressure because people have complained at the inclusion of the word "evolution" in documentaries. They didn't just decide to avoid mentioning the concept on their own. Do try and keep up.

You know I heard that a state legislator in Georgia introduced a bill a couple of months ago in Atlanta, stating that science instruction should only include proven facts and no theories. Do you know what that would do to science intruction, Mr T? I suggest you learn the difference between a scientific theory and a wild guess.

"Evolution is a theory. Any scientist can tell you that. Being a theory, it is unproven."

mr t, you're putting an erroneous statement in the mouths of scientists. Scientists will tell you that evolution is fact, while the mechanisms of evolution are theoretical and subject to healthy debate. Though creationists represent "fact" and "theory" as rungs on the ladder of truth, that is incorrect. Since you agree with keeping an open mind, read Stephen Jay Gould's "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" for a thorough understanding of "fact" and "theory."

mr t, "theory" has a very specific meaning in science that is far more substantive than "wild guess" or "opinion." Put it this way: Evolution is a scientific theory in the same way gravity is a scientific theory: To the extent we can determine, it's the functional equivalent of fact. You disregard either at your intellectual, and perhaps even physical, peril.

People should understand the definitions of words before they refute their use. Too many people in this argument confuse "theory" with "hypothesis" and it just makes them sound, well, confused.

Theory

Hypothesis

Roch Webster actually indicates that theory and hypothesis are synonyms - nice try though.

Thanks guys for giving me your definition of a Theory. I appreciate your concern for my intellectual being but I must tell you that I did take science in elementary school, high school, and college. While I'm no scientists, I know exactly what a theory is. I did not call it a wild guess, assumption, or anything else. While evolution is a THEORY, it is not a LAW.

And any scientist that says Evolution is a FACT is a very irresponsible scientist.

Now, having said that... Regardless of whether you believe in the THEORY of Evolution or not, IMAX has every right to show whatever they want or don't want to show.

And for all you folks who believe in Evolution and let your ugly heads rear up every time it is mentioned. All you folks who decide to take it upon yourself to squash any other belief in the origin of the world and to treat people who disagree with things you can't even begin to understand like they are a bunch of blooming idiots, I have one last thing to say.

You are the most close minded, judgemental, elitist hypocrites. Then again, that's just my hypothesis.

Oh, and Roch 101. If your definition of a Theory is to be used, I would say Evolution falls directly under "An Assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture"

I apologize for the anger evident above. When people start tearing apart one of the major tenants of my religion and treat Christians like dummies I tend to get a little upset. I put my faith in God, not man. All the intellectual thinkers, philosophers, and scientists in the world can disagree with the Bible. It is my humble opinion that they are all wrong and that the Bible is right.

Many people who talk about religion ask for proof. I have never seen anything that would prove to me that evolution exists beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I thought Darwin was way off the mark until I spent an hour shopping Wal-Mart in Eden.

mr turner, are you here?

Evolution in the sense of humans evolving from monkey-like ancestors can't be proven, but simple evolution of an organism to adapt to its changing environment is fact and widely documented.
If people want to rant and rave about how religion ignores science, then drop the argument about evolution and start debating scientific facts such as global warming, the age of the Earth, previous human-like ancestors of ours, etc, etc, etc.
But then again a belief is just that so arguing against someones beliefs is really quite moot.

Yo, Steve, lay off the folks at Eden's Wal-Mart. On second thought, I've been there. You make a very good point.

To debate evolution vs. creationism is impossible, at least in a civl way. As Mr. T eluded to earlier, he gets very passionate about his beliefs, which is fine, passion is a good thing. However, sensible debate, regardless of your viewpoint, should operate without the unbridled passion that "faith" can inspire. It's just hard to accomplish "sensible" within this topic. This will probably be the case 100 years from now.

"When people start tearing apart one of the major tenants of my religion and treat Christians like dummies I tend to get a little upset. I put my faith in God, not man"

To my knowledge Genesis is not a tenant. As a Christian I am willing to accept that God created everything. I also cannot deny that science does have a point, boiling down to survival of the fittest. I don't think that is a theory, but rather fact. Only homo Sapians protect their weak. To accept Evoloution is NOT to deny God or God's power, but rather to make it understandable. BTW for what it's worth I don't believe in Adam and Eve but rather accept it as a parable to show that human's were never without sin. No matter what you believe I don't think anyone can deny that SOMETHING (God) started the big bang. Spontanious generation has only happend once! Since then we are limited to believe what the, God created human mind, can understand.

One point: IMAX is privately owned and thus can choose what to show and what not to show. You want to show evolution? Open your own theater and you, too, can show what you want within the limits of the law.

Freethought, huh? Apparently this only applies to those who think as you do.

Freethought implies that the ideas we believe in are derived from our observations and an objective analysis of the world. We do not depend on a book to tell us what is right and wrong, we do not search for answers given by authorities in the past. When we do refer to books and people, these sources are based on evidence, not superstition.

Everything is to be questioned. This is the essential difference between freethought and most organized religions.

Eric did not imply the IMAX had no right to do what it's doing, he said it would cause harm.

The fact that some jump to this conclusion reveals a thought process bound in chains: everything is a control issue. It's a sad way to be.

He said it would cause harm to keep what we have learned about the wonders of nature and life from the people. He provided examples and made a good case. Answer the argument and quit trying to twist it into ideas about control over what people do and think--something that religions seem to be good at.

Yeah, there's a big difference in blindly following a book called 'a Bible' and blindly following a book called 'Science 101".

Satan isn't called the great deceiver without reason.

Mr T,
You stated:

"Many people who talk about religion ask for proof. I have never seen anything that would prove to me that evolution exists beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Has something proven to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Bible is correct? And if not, why believe it and not evolution? I'm not attempting to be insulting in any way, I mean this as an honest question.

Bob,

I'm not insulted by your question in any way. I really don't feel that either the theory that human's came from slime or God have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe in the Bible mainly based on feelings in my heart that Jesus is the son of God and his words were 100% true. When I look at the universe, at all the creatures that I've witnessed that exist in it, I cannot believe that these things were created by chance or accident or even survival of the fittest. I understand that the hunch I feel may not be accepted by others because they want concrete evidence. And honestly, there are parts of the Bible that I don't understand any more than I understand certain parts of science. Those are the areas where I just have to accept that I can't understand everything.

I don't have a problem with people who believe in evolution. I can even see where certain teachings of evolution are true. But I do have a problem with people who claim that their beliefs are superior to mine when they can't prove that.

And just so I'm clear, I'm not saying that you are one of those people mentioned in my last sentence.

Mr. T.,

I commend you about your honesty with regards to gaps that exist concerning what you do and do not understand about your religion. Everyone has those gaps.

There is one aspect you may want to look at when you debate the science of evolution vs. your religion. You used the word "belief" when talking about the "others". From where I stand, it is my opinion that those that support evolution aren't being guided by "beliefs", but by scientific evidence that has been presented to them through the methods of scientific procedure. If you disagree with the science, so be it. However, this particular debate is not about belief vs. belief (religion vs. religion). This realization could help us all to "turn down the volume" a bit. I hope.

Perhaps I'm dim but I don't see why this always seems to turn into a science vs. religion dynamic. I'm comfortable with a belief in both. Science is a method of understanding the world that God created. As such, as part of the beautiful intellectual capacity that God has entrusted to us science is yet another gift to humankind to be used or misused. It has its place in everyday life and nowhere do I see it supplanting the role of God.

I personally don't believe that the Earth is 6000 or so years old. To some that makes me a heretic. There is too much scientific evidence to the contrary. If someone else does believe that the Earth is approximately 6000 years old based on biblical evidence I do not count that person a fool, but someone who has a different worldview than I do.

Where we get into trouble is when we try to pass off science as religion or religion as science. Science is a method, nothing else.

Take "intellegent design" vs. evolution. Both are unprovable in the sense that researchers can't produce replicatable results (can't create birds from reptiles etc). In evolution there is a mechanism of DNA mutation that arguably causes over time organisms to become more and more complex. The mechanics are becoming better understood and are replicatable and in that sense evolution is a theory that seems to explain how life developed on this planet and is consistant with archeological evidence.

ID is an effort to discover the fingerprint of God in the evidence. I can't deny that life and this universe is marvelous beyond all human understanding but to expect that we will find evidence of God by the scientific method exaults science and demeans God which is the opposite of what its proponents wish to accomplish I suspect. God will give us evidence on his own terms, not ours.