Roger Ebert on "Creation"
Rodjk #613
Creation
BY ROGER EBERT / February 17, 2010
Darwin, it is generally agreed, had the most important idea in the
history of science. Thinkers had been feeling their way toward it for
decades, but it took Darwin to begin with an evident truth and arrive
at its evident conclusion: Over the passage of many years, more
successful organisms survive better than the less successful. The
result is the improvement of future generations. This process he
called "natural selection."
It worked for bugs, birds and bees. It worked for plants, fish and
trees. In 1859, when he published On the Origin of Species, it
explained a great many things. Later, we would discover it even
explained the workings of the cosmos. But -- and here was the question
even Darwin himself hesitated to ask -- did it explain Man?
Emma Darwin, his wife, didn't think so. She was a committed Christian
who believed with her church that God alone was the author of Man. And
for her it wasn't God as a general concept, but the specific God of
Genesis, and he created Man exactly as the Old Testament said he did.
He did it fairly recently, too, no matter that Darwin's fossils seemed
to indicate otherwise.
"Creation" is a film about the way this disagreement played out in
Darwin's marriage. Charles and Emma were married from 1830 until his
death in 1882. They had 10 children, seven of whom survived to beget
descendants who even today have reunions. They loved one another
greatly. Darwin at first avoided spelling out the implications for Man
in the Theory of Evolution so as not to disturb her. But his readers
could draw the obvious conclusion, and so could Emma: If God created
Man, he did it in the way Darwin discovered, and not in the way a
4,000-year-old legend prescribed.
The problems this created in the Darwin marriage were of interest
primarily to Emma and Charles, probably their children, and few others
except in the movie business, which seldom encounters an idea it can't
dramatize in terms of romance. It helps to know going in that
"Creation" will give you an idea of the lives and times of the
Darwins, but unless you bring your knowledge of evolution to the
movie, you may not leave with much of one.
The film stars the real-life couple Paul Bettany and Jennifer
Connelly, as Charles and Emma, who a few years before the publication
of Origins are grieving the death of their 10-year-old, Annie (Martha
West). This loss has destroyed Darwin's remaining faith in God and
reinforced his wife's. But it is to Charles that Annie reappears
through the film, in visions, memories and perhaps hallucinations.
The film suggests that Darwin was forced almost helplessly toward the
implications of his theory. He had no particular desire to stir up
religious turmoil, particularly with himself as its target. He
famously delayed publication of his theories as long as he could. In
the film, two close friends tell him he owes it to himself to publish,
and Thomas Huxley, who called himself "Darwin's bulldog," tells him:
"Congratulations, sir! You've killed God!"
Not every believer in evolution, including the pope, would agree. But
Huxley's words are precisely those Darwin feared the most. Consider
that he had no idea in the 1850s how irrefutably correct his theory
was, and how useful it would be in virtually every hard science. Emma
and their clergyman, Rev. Innes (Jeremy Northam), try to dissuade him
from publishing, but his wife finally tells him to go ahead because he
must. If he hadn't, someone would have: The Theory of Evolution was a
fruit hanging ripe from the tree.
Jon Amiel, the film's director, tells his story with respect and some
restraint, showing how sad and weakened Charles is and yet not
ratcheting up his grief into unseemly melodrama. One beautiful device
Amiel uses is a series of digressions into the natural world, in which
we observe everyday applications of the survival of the fittest.
What's often misunderstood is that Darwin was essentially speaking of
the survival of the fittest genes, not the individual members of a
species. This process took millions of years, and wasn't a case of
humans slugging it out with dinosaurs.
Both Darwins understood and agreed about the role that inheritance
(later to be known as genetics) played in health. As first cousins,
they wondered if Annie's life expectancy had been compromised. She
died of complications from scarlet fever, which wasn't their fault --
but did they know and believe that?
I have a feeling the loss of their child and the state of their
marriage were what most interested the backers of this film. They must
have wanted to make a film about Darwin the man, not Darwin the
scientist. The filmmakers do their best to keep Darwin's theory in the
picture, but it sadly isn't fit enough to struggle against the
dominant species of Hollywood executives.
VoiceOfReason
> http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100217/REVIEWS/100219978
<...>
I saw the film (had to download via torrent since it's not around). I
was a little disappointed -- I wish it had been more about the
scientist and less about the family relationship. But I still think
it should come to US theaters, if for no other reason than the fundies
would have a shitfit about it. :-)
*Hemidactylus*
stuff I never got to see at the movies has been found there. I've never
messed with Netflix. I'm not into the torrent scene (my only experience
being a Mandriva ISO).
--
~it ends here~
*Hemidactylus*
Fiery
> http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100217/RE...
>
> Creation
> BY ROGER EBERT / February 17, 2010
>
> Darwin, it is generally agreed, had the most important idea in the
> history of science. Thinkers had been feeling their way toward it for
> decades, but it took Darwin to begin with an evident truth and arrive
> at its evident conclusion: Over the passage of many years, more
> successful organisms survive better than the less successful. The
> result is the improvement of future generations. This process he
> called "natural selection."
> It worked for bugs, birds and bees. It worked for plants, fish and
> trees. In 1859, when he published On the Origin of Species, it
> explained a great many things. Later, we would discover it even
> explained the workings of the cosmos.
What the..?
<snip film description>
Steven L.
news:66b23e6f-599e-40bf...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
Too bad.
The ancestral species of Hollywood executive used to make movies about
the science as well as the scientists:
"The Story of Louis Pasteur"
"Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet"
"The Story of Alexander Graham Bell"
"Edison the Man"
"Freud"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYJ0myFIbL0
Those were all fine movies. (Though even back then, the plots were
romanticized--and let's face it, the actresses playing their wives were
prettier than the real wives had been.)
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Paul Ciszek
In article <YO2dneyBxNNcb-DW...@earthlink.com>,
Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Too bad.
>
>The ancestral species of Hollywood executive used to make movies about
>the science as well as the scientists:
>
>"The Story of Louis Pasteur"
>"Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet"
>"The Story of Alexander Graham Bell"
>"Edison the Man"
>"Freud"
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYJ0myFIbL0
>
>Those were all fine movies. (Though even back then, the plots were
>romanticized--and let's face it, the actresses playing their wives were
>prettier than the real wives had been.)
Hollywood used to be able to make complex, downer movies like Midnight
Cowboy that could never be made today.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek
In article <huidnSZGfcVxe-DW...@giganews.com>,
Once upon a time, Blockbuster was known for pandering to moral watchdogs,
both by not carrying certain titles, and by carrying censored versions
of some R movies. Did that stop?
--
Please reply to: | "The anti-regulation business ethos is based on
pciszek at panix dot com | the charmingly naive notion that people will not
Autoreply is disabled | do unspeakable things for money." -Dana Carpender
Desertphile
<rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100217/REVIEWS/100219978
>
> Creation
> BY ROGER EBERT / February 17, 2010
>
> Darwin, it is generally agreed, had the most important idea in the
> history of science.
"Generally agreed" by whom? The most important idea in the history
of science is, arguably, the notion that "the supernatural" does
not exist, and that notion is over 3,000 years old.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
TomS
<ocgtn5do4erjl837r...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."
>
>On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:39:47 -0800 (PST), "Rodjk #613"
><rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100217/REVIEWS/100219978
>>
>> Creation
>> BY ROGER EBERT / February 17, 2010
>>
>> Darwin, it is generally agreed, had the most important idea in the
>> history of science.
>
>"Generally agreed" by whom? The most important idea in the history
>of science is, arguably, the notion that "the supernatural" does
>not exist, and that notion is over 3,000 years old.
>
>
Undoubtedly, he is alluding to Daniel Dennett, in "Darwin's
Dangerous Idea" (page 21) "If I were to give an award for the single
best idea anyone has ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of
Newton and Einstein."
I suggest that the most important idea in the history of science is
that nature is regular and predictable. This dates to prehistoric
times, in the knowledge of the motions of the heavens and the
recurrence of the seasons.
--
---Tom S.
Be not ashamed to inform the unwise and foolish, and the extreme aged that
contendeth with those that are young: thus shalt thou be truly learned, and
approved of all men living.: Sirach 42:8
Steven L.
news:hlkuei$lt0$2...@reader2.panix.com:
> In article <YO2dneyBxNNcb-DW...@earthlink.com>,
> Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >Too bad.
> >
> >The ancestral species of Hollywood executive used to make movies about
> >the science as well as the scientists:
> >
> >"The Story of Louis Pasteur"
> >"Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet"
> >"The Story of Alexander Graham Bell"
> >"Edison the Man"
> >"Freud"
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYJ0myFIbL0
> >
> >Those were all fine movies. (Though even back then, the plots were
> >romanticized--and let's face it, the actresses playing their wives were
> >prettier than the real wives had been.)
>
> Hollywood used to be able to make complex, downer movies like Midnight
> Cowboy that could never be made today.
Movies about science shouldn't be downers.
It's quite the reverse.
Hollywood seems incapable of glorifying real heroes in movies anymore.
And that includes the heroic struggle of scientists to figure out our
universe.
The Hollywood culture is suffused with a pervasive cynicism and
hand-wringing despair about our civilization.
Some of the movies I mentioned were made in the period 1930-1940, during
the Great Depression. But they still had an idealism to them that's
just gone now.
*Hemidactylus*
> In article<huidnSZGfcVxe-DW...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus*<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/18/2010 01:58 PM, VoiceOfReason wrote:
>>> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>>>
>> http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100217/REVIEWS/100219978
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>> I saw the film (had to download via torrent since it's not around). I
>>> was a little disappointed -- I wish it had been more about the
>>> scientist and less about the family relationship. But I still think
>>> it should come to US theaters, if for no other reason than the fundies
>>> would have a shitfit about it. :-)
>>>
>> I wonder if it will ever find its way to Blockbuster's shelves. Lot's of
>> stuff I never got to see at the movies has been found there. I've never
>> messed with Netflix. I'm not into the torrent scene (my only experience
>> being a Mandriva ISO).
>
> Once upon a time, Blockbuster was known for pandering to moral watchdogs,
> both by not carrying certain titles, and by carrying censored versions
> of some R movies. Did that stop?
I never realized this. I've found some documentary stuff at Blockbuster
that wasn't too bad.
UC
> "Paul Ciszek" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hlkuei$lt0$2...@reader2.panix.com:
>
>
>
> Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Hollywood is dominated by degenerates, drug-addled sycophants, and
idiots. And those are the better ones...
John Wilkins
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:52:49 -0700, in article
> <ocgtn5do4erjl837r...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."
> >
> >On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:39:47 -0800 (PST), "Rodjk #613"
> ><rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >>>>http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100217/REVIEWS
> >>/100219978
> >>
> >> Creation
> >> BY ROGER EBERT / February 17, 2010
> >>
> >> Darwin, it is generally agreed, had the most important idea in the
> >> history of science.
> >
> >"Generally agreed" by whom? The most important idea in the history
> >of science is, arguably, the notion that "the supernatural" does
> >not exist, and that notion is over 3,000 years old.
> >
> >
>
> Undoubtedly, he is alluding to Daniel Dennett, in "Darwin's
> Dangerous Idea" (page 21) "If I were to give an award for the single
> best idea anyone has ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of
> Newton and Einstein."
>
> I suggest that the most important idea in the history of science is
> that nature is regular and predictable. This dates to prehistoric
> times, in the knowledge of the motions of the heavens and the
> recurrence of the seasons.
IMPORTANT IDEAS IN SCIENCE
=================
A subjective list...
1. The Milesians held that things had a nature that determined how they
behaved, without the whims of gods.
2. The Empiricists held that we should attend to observations to
identify natures. Aristotle did a whole lot of observation, including
dissections.
3. Some early medievals held that things were real and classes were
just names. This nominalism influenced empirical observation of
particulars.
4. Some late medievals, criticising Ptolemaic astronomy and
Aristotelian physics, held that we should do actual experiments to test
ideas.
5. Renaissance alchemists held to the principle that "as above, so
below", thus making the heavens objects of scientific study,
inadvertently. This enabled Galileo to make the argument that the
heavens were of the same kind of material that the earth was, rather
than a "fifth essence".
6. Dalton made atomism work. Previously this had been dismissed as
irreligious Epicureanism. Now the properties (natures) of things were
to be explained in terms of what they were made of, and not what form
they had had imposed upon them.
7. Neo-Pythagoreanism in the 17th century allowed Newton to develop the
idea that the universe could be explained using mathematics. This
enabled him further to suggest that a mathematical quantity, G, could
explain the behaviours of things in the heavens.
8. Linnean classification allowed both communication of biologists
between each other, and also the idea to develop that these
classifications actually meant something about the natural world, and
were not just conventions or fictive schemes.
9. Harvey introduced the idea that the biological body was a form of
machine. This led the Cartesians to introduce mechanism into scientific
explanations of complex phenomena.
10. Adam Smith and James Hutton introduced the idea that complex
interactions by individuals might have unintended global equilibria.
This led to natural selection.
11. Charles Darwin introduces the idea of common descent, or descent
with modification as he called it.
12. Ernst Mach raises the question whether time and space are absolute.
13. Erwin Schr�dinger suggests that inheritance might be due to an
"aperiodic crystal", kicking off the research program that led to the
discovery of DNA.
Cloughie
>
> Hollywood seems incapable of glorifying real heroes in movies anymore.
> And that includes the heroic struggle of scientists to figure out our
> universe.
>
> The Hollywood culture is suffused with a pervasive cynicism and
> hand-wringing despair about our civilization.
Blah, blah, cynicism, blah, left-wing values, blah, ashamed of real heroism,
blah, blah, hatred of western civilisation, blah, fashionable nihilism,
blah, liberal elite dominating the industry, blah, blah...
>
> Some of the movies I mentioned were made in the period 1930-1940,
> during the Great Depression. But they still had an idealism to them
> that's just gone now.
It must have been all that *union activism* making a difference...
Doesn't a nation of cattle get the fodder it deserves...?
HC.
TomS
<200220100951484203%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
I'd mention the construction of a formal system: Aristotle's logic,
Panini's grammar, and Euclid's geometry. This has got to be one of the
best ideas of all time.
The discovery of the difference when exchanging the order of quantifiers:
For all X there is a Y is different from: There is a Y such that for all X.
I'd generalize your number 5 into the idea of unifying: That positive and
negative electricity are the same; That electricity and magnetism are the
same; That organic and inorganic are the same; ...
John McKendry
> 13. Erwin Schrödinger suggests that inheritance might be due to an
> "aperiodic crystal", kicking off the research program that led to the
> discovery of DNA.
I suggest that Faraday's idea of fields of force belongs on that list.
John
John Wilkins
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
All that follows from Pythagoras I think. And its influence in science
is largely via Newton.
>
> The discovery of the difference when exchanging the order of quantifiers:
> For all X there is a Y is different from: There is a Y such that for all X.
That is Jevons, I also think.
>
> I'd generalize your number 5 into the idea of unifying: That positive and
> negative electricity are the same; That electricity and magnetism are the
> same; That organic and inorganic are the same; ...
That follows on from the "discovery" that the universe is all one
substance. I'll stick with the way I expressed it, he said, stubbornly.
Ray Martinez
> http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100217/RE...
>
Ebert does not understand that evolution is not a creation theory.
Ray
TomS
<210220100155447245%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."[...snip...]
>> I'd mention the construction of a formal system: Aristotle's logic,
>> Panini's grammar, and Euclid's geometry. This has got to be one of the
>> best ideas of all time.
>
>All that follows from Pythagoras I think. And its influence in science
>is largely via Newton.
All that? Including Panini?
John Wilkins
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:55:44 +1000, in article
> <210220100155447245%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
> >
> >In article <276674851.000...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS
> ><TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> [...snip...]
> >> I'd mention the construction of a formal system: Aristotle's logic,
> >> Panini's grammar, and Euclid's geometry. This has got to be one of the
> >> best ideas of all time.
> >
> >All that follows from Pythagoras I think. And its influence in science
> >is largely via Newton.
> [...snip...]
>
> All that? Including Panini?
In terms of introducing the ideas into science, yes. I doubt anyone in
the scientific tradition ever heard of Panini in science until the 19th
century, whatever his indirect influence was on grammarians in the
middle ages.
Euclid follows from Pythagoras' school. And while I have enormous
respect for Aristotle's logic, I think Chrysippus' was the more
influential in the day, and it had almost no impact on modern science
that I can tell.
TomS
<210220101037558289%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
I wonder how much influence Panini had on the mathematics of India.
Frank J
Do you mean "evolution" by your definition or ours?
If by yours, you simply *define* it not to be a "creation theory," so
your point is trivial.
If by ours, it is neither a "creation theory" *or* one that denies
"creation". If some atheists and their strange fundamentalist theist
bedfellows interpret it that way, that's their opinion. Others
interpret it the opposite, or are undecided.
As you have been told many times, evolution only denies certain
*accounts* of "creation" such as the more common *mutually
contradictory* literal interpretations of Genesis. Heck, even St.
Augustine suspected that Genesis shoudn't be taken literally, and he
never even heard of evolution.
And as you have been told many times, though unfortunately mostly by
me, you are free to support *your* account, and a theory to explain it
if you have one, on its own merits, without the same old
misrepresenting and redefining of "evolution." But so far you have
refused, and are even retreating from what few hints you provided in
the past. Can you tell us why you keep running away from your own
"theory"? And can you do that *without* referring to evolution,
atheism, etc.?
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -