creo/evo creative movies/books/plays

quote:

---

Well, the thing is, she actually did go somewhere but had no evidence. I also think it's interesting that she didn't really expect anyone to believe her.

---

Which leads to the absolute WORST part of the movie (a movie I mostly love, for the record)... when she is being questioned by the panel the one dude asks her (PARAPHRASING BADLY HERE!) "Dr. do you expect this committe to believe you... ON FAITH?" The question is asked in such a way as to communicate bluntly to the mentally handicapped 2 year old in the audience "SEE HOW IRONIC IT IS THAT SHE IS FORCED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT SIMILAR TO MATTHEW MCCONAUGHAY? AND THAT HER CONFLICT HAS COME TO A DRAMATICALLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION?" Thankfully the moment passes quickly and Jodie Foster saves the movie. Makes me want to shoot a president, she's so good.

I thought I might reply to the mention of "Inherit the Wind"... a typical Hollywood production, this film bears little resemblance to actual history.

Actually it bears a striking resemblance to actual history. The names of the major players and the town were all changed, and of course parts of the background story were invented, but the courtroom dialogue was very consistent with the historical courtroom transcripts, which I've read. If anything, Darrow's arguments were toned down in both the play and the film. I suppose this was done in order to keep the work from seeming to condemn Christianity outright, but you're wrong if you think the historical Scopes trial was somehow kinder (for lack of a better word) to fundamentalist religion than was this picture.

Well, quite a bit of both the background and courtroom scenes were invented, actually.

• Scopes was never imprisoned, and indeed his sponsors at ACLU did not seem to care (according to Scopes himself) whether he had actually taught evolution. They only wanted him to stand trial. Nor was Scopes even a biology expert, but rather a substitute teacher.
  ​
• The transcript and film differ somewhat in their representation of William Jennings Bryan. He had prepared excellent arguments, was polite to members of the court and never went into a frenzy of religious hysteria at the end.
  ​
• He had indeed read the Origin of Species and had been a significant figure in the creation/evolution debate for some time.
  ​
• According to the newspaper man, H. L. Mencken, relations between evolutionists and creationists in the town where this took place were very amiable.
  ​
• The reverend and his daughter were completely fictional. It seems odd to portray Christians as raging intolerant fundamentalists if the movie was intended as an unbiased presentation of the facts.

All in all, if you compare the Scopes trial with Inherit the Wind it becomes clear that the latter is a vitriolic distortion of the facts.

Are you sure that you do not watch it for T'Pol in her cheesy cat suit . And you need to make that one of three people on the planet, although I have not had time to watch it over the last 3 months.As to shows that go through evolution vs creation, not that many really come to mind. There was that old Trek episode with the guys with one side black and one white, when advised that they probably evolved from a common stock one of them sneers "And you believe that you are descended from apes" showing a true creationist mindset.

---

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

quote:

---

The reverend and his daughter were completely fictional. It seems odd to portray Christians as raging intolerant fundamentalists if the movie was intended as an unbiased presentation of the facts.

---

But was the movie actually intended as an unbiased presentation of the facts?I highly doubt it.

I don't know what fundamentalists are like in New Zealand, but here in the US Deep South many (perhaps most) do display a "raging intolerance", even today. As for your other points, these are the sorts of changes that are typically made when dramatizing factual material. The play and film are not unbiased and were not meant to be. Inherit The Wind is not a documentary. It had a point to make and it made it well.From the court transcripts it's difficult to tell whether Bryan went into a "frenzy" toward the end, but he did in fact die only a week after the trial closed. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to suggest, as this work does, that the Scopes trial might have hastened his death.You should go back and read Mencken's writings on the trial. His comment about the remarkable tranquility of the town where the trial took place came very early on, perhaps even before the trial began in earnest. He made many statements later that clearly suggest that the town was in an uproar.I don't know if you've ever spent much time in the US South, but I've lived here all my life. I can tell you without any hesitation whatsoever that this picture captures beautifully the attitudes of a huge segment of our population regarding the bible. These people are just as sure today that every word of the bible is absolute truth as they were 40 years ago that white people were superior to blacks. In fact, they used to claim - with some justification - that their racism came straight from the bible. If you can find a racist here today (it isn't hard to do), there is a 99.9% chance that he or she is also a biblical fundamentalist.

Well, actually I think the Scopes Trial was in Tennessee.Bryan was also a diabetic and his doctors had admonished him to stop working so hard. This could have been a factor in his death. Another one might have been that Darrow prevented him from presenting a final statement on creation by stipulating that Scopes be found guilty.
The problem with Inherit the Wind is that, while much is fictionalised and, as you said, biased, because it refers to a real event your average man in the street would probably take it at face value.Regarding your last statement, I think people who completely follow the Bible would be opposed to racism, at least if they believed Colossians 9:9-11: Your percentage was rhetorical, wasn't it?

quote:

---

The problem with Inherit the Wind is that, while much is fictionalised and, as you said, biased, because it refers to a real event your average man in the street would probably take it at face value.

---

Then you must think that the average man on the street is a total dumbass.I mean, do you think the average person can't figure out that the account of events in a war movie like "Midway" were dramatized and weren't intended to be perfectly accurate?Or, perhaps you think that only documentaries, rather than dramatizations, should be allowed to be made when real world events are used as part of the story in a movie.

quote:

---

Regarding your last statement, I think people who completely follow the Bible would be opposed to racism, at least if they believed Colossians 9:9-11:

---

...except that it's easy to excuse the beliefs and behavior of past Christians which today's society finds repulsive or immoral.The truth is, almost anything can be justified by using the Bible, and all manner of immoral and despicable acts have been perpetrated by people who ferverently believe that they are doing God's will.Rape, war, racism, slavery, genocide, misogyny, xenophobia, murder; all these things have been done in the name of Christianity by millions of Christians over the centuries, and they all continue to this day.

I agree, people who have SAID they believe have done all manner of evil. But do I believe they truly believed in Christ Schraffy?How can I possibly believe they adhered to his words, about loving your enemy e.t.c.I as a believer, cannot and in no way think they actually believed.Nevertheless, I do think there are people who have USED a Christian position or USED a Muslim position, but they are not truly what they say they are.......if they become evil doers.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-12-2004]

Donald, where's your troosers?!!!!

Welcome back, WK.

Most of what you've said has already been responded to, but I wanted to say that yes, the trial was held in Tennessee. If you will recall, I used the phrase "US Deep South", of which Mississippi and Tennessee are integral parts. The two states share a border. This area is my home and I know it well.I would also say that yes, my percentage was rhetorical (or hyperbole, which may be more to the point).As was already pointed out, most any opinion or prejudice can find biblical sanction. Shakespeare said (I believe it was in The Merchant of Venice) that "The devil can cite scripture to his purpose", and the devil's white southern followers demonstrated the point admirably during the civil rights struggle. They did (and still do) the same when they used the bible to fight against tolerance and enlightenment.This is why I made the point that I don't know what fundamentalists are like in your part of the world. You call yourself a "fundie", but judging from the tone of your rhetoric and some of the things you've said I would say that you are quite a bit more intelligent than most US southern fundamentalists. I think I am probably a better judge of the fundamentalists who live here, and I would say that they, like those who lived in Dayton, Tennessee in the 1920s, are (largely but not entirely) uneducated, unenlightened and in no way practiced at the art of thinking for themselves. They allow their preachers/priests/pastors, etc. to do their thinking for them. They never question anything they were reared to believe UNLESS change is forced upon them, as it was in the civil rights revolution.

quote:

---

I agree, people who have SAID they believe have done all manner of evil. But do I believe they truly believed in Christ Schraffy?

---

The thing is, I am willing to bet that they truly believed in Christ.That's the whole point.It's easy to point to behavior that we now consider reprehensible and say that those people weren't "real" christians, but that is too easy.It's a way of justifying immoral acts which were performed in the name of your religion only after they become unfashionable in modern times.At the time they were performed, a great many people really and truly believed that they were doing the just and proper will of God.If fututre christians can simply wave away past atrocities simply by saying those people weren't "real Christians", then the definition of a "real christian" is pretty meaningless.

quote:

---

How can I possibly believe they adhered to his words, about loving your enemy e.t.c.

---

they just adhered to other words, such as those about smiting one's enemies.

quote:

---

I as a believer, cannot and in no way think they actually believed.

---

Then it seems to me that you are simply ignoring facts to avoid the discomfort of realizing that many scores of people who consider themselves to be "true Christians" also perform immoral acts.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, I do think there are people who have USED a Christian position or USED a Muslim position, but they are not truly what they say they are.......if they become evil doers.

---

True, some simply use the label, but others really do ferverently believe that the immoral acts they perform are God's will.If you ignore that, then you are not facing reality.

Maybe you're right and they did believe. I just cannot relate to their actions as being anything that I am - as in Christian. I am incredibly hard on myself. The fact is I am not going to make excuses for these extremists, whoever they were. But I am not going to say that they are similar to peaceful Christians . And do you associate such people with the same person who goes to church every week and panics if he/she misses giving to charity, or if he/she hasn't said a prayer for a whole morning?
People who kill, for example like 9/11 and say it's Gods will, are in my mind either mentally ill or extremely extremist, and I would not associate these people with say, the average Muslim. THAT is why it's offensive to call extremists the names normal people would call themselves, like "Christian" or "Hindu" or whatever....Christ did say that in the end he would say to some people who claim to know him: "I never knew you" -> Unless you can quote where in the NT it says do these things, in the name of Christ - then the people who do then are NOT Christian, even if they say so. Yes. I've heard this from the bias Atheist for years. I get blamed for everything, only he missed one point. I did not take part in the crusades. Or any other murderous wars or racism e.t.c. Yet he's intent on blaming this all on me, - the Christians. But then he needs to pull his head out of his bum.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-13-2004]