Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god Darwin now?
|November 2, 2009||Posted by O'Leary under Darwinism|
THE DARWIN MOVIE’S NOT SELLING, but John Scalzi doubts those evil Creationmongers are a part of the reason:
How about this: The movie is not selling because it is not believed … Huh? Maybe the story is not believable?
People now generally guess that Darwin was a materialist atheist long before his daughter died. And his whole coterie was committed to promoting the view that he lost his faith over her death , and it is still fronted today.
Fact: In North America, you cannot legally line up people at gun point and force them to watch some propaganda film worshipping Darwin – or worshipping anything – and threaten to shoot or otherwise punish them if they say they do not believe it. If that is not the law where you live, please hold a revolution now.
As a traditional Canadian, I am not a fan of revolution in general. Nature is our vast antagonist, not man. Check a map. But in some places maybe people need a revolution, to get the point across that there are some areas government must not infringe, including freedom of religion and freedom of media. (We have big problems with that just now, but we are getting the message across.)
While I am here, one of the most significant books published this year, because it – potentially – rids us of much Darwin nonsense, endlessly iterated in textbooks, teacher’s manuals and popular films, is Michael Flannery’s republishing, with a useful introduction, of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory Of Intelligent Evolution . We would be vastly better off if Wallace, rather than Darwin, had been the main theorist. For example, we would never have dealt with the awful eugenics movement and the completely ridiculous evolutionary psychology movement. Wallace was far wiser than his co-theorist, Darwin, about the stuff that really matters.