Trailer: ‘Creation’ — ‘You’ve Killed God, Sir’

Now Master & Commander — that was an enjoyable film, despite the somewhat whiny liberal "darwin" role he played in it.

While this trailer looks somewhat interesting, I suspect that the real film is just going to mock Christianity and lie about history.

I'll wait to hear, but chances are it will not get my money.

The evolution argument is only as devisive as your theology (or lack thereof). I believe in God, and I interpret the scriptures in such a way that God can use whatever means He likes to create this world or others. God is a God of truth, not ignorance posing as doctrine. Besides, just because we can't explain the "how" or "why" of everything doesn't make it false. At the end of the day, I know that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, and that I can know the truth of all things through the power of the Holy Ghost (Moroni 10:4).

Okay let's pitch this very same movie… but in Iran.
GO!

"the "Days" in the Bible cannot be 24 hour Solar periods" – "cannot" is a pretty definite interpretation. Surely the 'possibility' remains that even though the Sun did not exist, the time could still have been 24 hours right? I'm not arguing either way, but just suggesting that we really have no idea.

Goody. Another pseudo-historical Hollywood period piece that enlightens us about how belief in God is only for stoopid peepul, and how faith and science are automatically at odds. How bold, fresh and original.

I wonder if this movie will find it important enough to mention the potential shortcomings with naturalistic evolution that Darwin himself pointed out. After all, we can always trust Hollywood to present a fully factual and non-biased account of controversial issues, right?

Amen Brother …..Amen !!!!

This is sort of how my high school science teacher explained it and I guess I could see how evolution doesn't conflict necessarily with biblical teachings. It's the whole "Big Bang" theory that I've never been able to wrap my head around.

What he said…

The link is still missing, baby. Darwinism is an ineffectual challenge to intelligent design.

"Creation" is the most misleading title you could possibly give a movie about Darwin. Nothing, NOTHING, in Darwinian Evolution can explain creation itself. There is no evolutionary explanation for the Big Bang, nor can there be. At most, Evolution describes how the various species and lifeforms(including us) have got to where we are at. But that obvious point never stops leftists and militant atheists from using Darwinian evolution as a club against religion.

Also, I wonder if they will mention that Darwin married his first cousin. Not that that was taboo in England back then(or in many parts of the world now) but I am curious if they will avoid it for the American audience's sake.

Thank you for saying what I was trying to in an earlier post. I don't really see how evolution has anything to do with creation. They seem to be two completely different concepts. That's why I said earlier that I could wrap my head around evolution but not the Big Bang theory.

Like Jerb, I'd say that "Creation" is a bad title for a film about Darwin. That said, man, does "Creation" look boring. Is J-Connelly doomed to a career of playing the sidekick to doomed but genius men? Her agent should be whispering into her slumbering ear, "Dark Knight 2, Dark Knight 2…"

Oh well, I guess someone has to deflower HP – or has that already happened?

Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained physicist and applied theologian, explains in his book The Science of God how the six days of creation are reconciled with billions of years for the age of the universe. Each day is indeed 24 hours, but only from God's perspective. Taking into account the expansion of the universe, each day looking back from our current Earthly perspective encompasses an exponentially-increasing amount of time that adds up to ~15 billion years. He also comments on evolution from a biblical perspective, and it's quite intriguing.

In short, Schroeder takes science at face value and reconciles it with the Bible. As a scientist, I was so convinced by this argument that I was compelled to fully accept the biblical God.

This article gives the gist of Schroeder's "Age of the Universe" argument:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

Which makes for a very impersonal, distant Creator. If that's what you want to believe, more power to you. Personally, I'm of the belief that God is very involved in His creation still, and loved us so much that He couldn't stand to let us be dead and lost in our own sins or be separated from Him. So He sent His beloved Son to take our place on the cross and die a death He didn't deserve. But He did it anyway, all for love's sake. I can respect that.

You assume that Christians who hold to certain views are not "free thinkers?" You assume we have not pondered these things, simply because we don't agree with certain theories? (Sorry- evolution is still a theory). Many Christians, including myself, have been bombarded with secular teachings our entire lives, and still come away with a different viewpoint on these matters.

Actually.. considering the Iranian film industry they'd probably come up with something quite subtle and inventive.. not words you hear too often in the great USA!

Ohhh, but they'll make it interesting, I'm sure. It's hollywood…they'll add their own spin to it so that people will watch it.

Anybody want to get a betting pool started on how much Roger Friedman will gush over this movie?

Personally I am a Evo-Revolutionist, I believe evolution may be a fact, but as part of the ultimate plan of a higher power.

I always got the feeling that Darwin might have believed along a similar line, but he has been politicized and polarized.

I will reserve judgment on the film for now, if it turns out to be nothing more than an anti-christian screed I will make sure not to contribute my $10 to it's message.

There is no wall of Separation when it comes to Truth!!!

True that !!!!

Yes. Sketched out and developed by men. Hmm. 66 books, 40 authors spanning centuries, from kings to shepards, fisherman and tax collectors. What other collection of books are as coherant and been tested for centuries that continue to be proven correct through history, archeology, anthropology and time? That, as yet, has not been disproven but only proven or not yet proven. Of which, prophecies continue to unfold as predicted. Your denial and blindness do not make these things untrue.

God is invisible (He tells us we could not survive seeing His presence), existing on a different plane, that is one of the minor reasons He sent His son. But not imaginary. Once you have met and experienced God, you will understand. Like many things that you haven't seen or understand, it doesn't make them any less real. Einstein, knew there had to be a God in order for things to be. All we can do is try to understand and our understanding is infinitesimally minute. It took months for my eyes to be opened so I doubt that I'm going to remove the scales from your eyes in an online post. But closing your eyes won't make Him go away either.

Actually, the basis for the Big Bang Theory was thought up by a Latin American Priest , I believe he called it the Theory of the Primeval Atom. Now that said, unlike Evolution, the Big Bang Theory seems like a much weaker assumption. I don't know how they could prove that anyway…So there's abunch of residual energy left over, this automatically means the Big Bang theory is correct?

Scientists sometimes overstep their boundaries, as we all know.

Well Said True Blue!

It actually does look pretty decent, needless to say, I find Darwins theory fascinating, I would even go so far as to say it reinforces my faith in God. That said, if they try to Ram Materialism down our throats, I wont bite.

TY Sir….back at ya

From ICON, the company that brought you "The Passion of The Christ".
Thanks a lot Mel Gibson!

Well the Big Bang theory is actually a pretty strong case. It's the logical conclusion drawn from the fact that the universe is expanding. So if it's getting bigger, it must be have been smaller to begin with.

And yes there is proof – the microwave radiation – everywhere – is left over energies from the big bang.

Actually what's interesting is how our view of physics and nature almost start to point towards some sort of God. That is blasphemous in some scientific circles but hear me out.

In Darwin's time, science was very strict about the laws of nature. It was believed that if you knew the location of everything and it's inertia, you could know the outcome of the universe… a very God the clock maker idea.

But today with quantum strangeness, other universes, planes and branes – our "arrogance" in our trust of our laws of physics is some what diminished. It's not so clear cut.

And although I really can't definitively what and how I believe to be God – there's something there that is unknown.

As a young 1st grader, I used to stare with curiosity at the huge mural on the library wall that depicted man's "ascension" from the lowliest of little apes all the way to Homo Sapiens. As time went on, and with no particular religious training (I wasn't raised in church) I thought that it was the most ridiculous concept I'd ever seen. I'm now 47 and still think that, despite all the perpetual evolutionary indoctrination that comes with life. Yes, religious beliefs have since reinforced that skepticism towards Darwinianism (and all the new theories within evolutionary thought that have come and gone in the meantime).

Science has done much good in explaining many things, and still does, but I will happily go to my grave denying that one species can "evolve" into another, I don't care how many millions of years you give it.

Adaptation within a species towards their environment; yes, but not one species into another.

Yes. Judging from the trailer, another ahistorical, cooked up story that presents us with a false conflict. Darwin was never in danger of being burned at any stake.

I have no doubt that evolution is a real and wonderful phenomenon. Darwin is a great man. At the same time, I believe we are none the wiser. Evolution does not explain the breadth of human existence to the extent many expected. Real, but overrated.

You cannot blame him, but Darwinian ideas have been terribly misunderstood and gave rise to a host of bad, even murderous, ideas. In terms of human suffering, blind scientism has turned out to be more dangerous than religious fundamentalism.

I think natural selection and evolution can also happily coexist with the idea of God and of a divine creation. How exactly does it "kill God"? At best it kills one literal interpretation of the Bible that was never undisputed.

Apparently, religious folk aren't the only ones who can lash out when their faith is threatened.

Actually, Occam's razor works better in Intelligent Designs corner.

Which is simpler: That somehow, someway all the proteins necessary for life randomly aligned themselves perfectly in order to create lifeforms that, over billions of years, eventually end up with Perez Hilton OR that an intelligent "higher power" designed the universe and the lifeforms necessary to allow for evolutionary processes to end up with Me.

Which theory is simpler?

Also, since evolution would require an incredible number of "failed" evolutionary paths, how come we don't have thousands of fossils of Humans with 3 arms, or 4 eyes or 14 vertebrae or 2 toes, etc. Where are all the fossils, I ask?

Odds favor that 50 years from now Intelligent Design will have proven that Darwinism was unable to evolve.

That seems more like trying to shoehorn facts to fit a theory, or in this case scripture.

Not sure that's the best approach.

Now, now, don't let little things like facts get in the way of an evangelical atheist's attempts to fight blasphemous thoughts like the possibility that any sort of deity might exist.

You threaten his faith, after all.

When I was in high school, and for the most part, a liberal… I took so much stock in this whole creationist-evolutionist debate. Oh those nasty creationists are so wrong and so forth.

Now, admittedly only about a decade or so removed, I find the whole discussion rather tiring.

I'm still very much an evolutionist. I think the major flaw in most people's understanding of evolution is the concept of time and how many iterations it takes for species to evolve. LIke a game of telephone, the original message gets scrambed ("evolved" if you will) into something completely different. That I today would not look anything like my grandmother a thousand generations past seems to me to be a given. Add a million generations past and the difference ought to be staggering.

And unlike Global Warming (which I feel is flawed), the understanding of evolution of the natural world carries with it no political agenda. The conclusions drawn by evolutionists do not require massive new taxes or a "holier than thou" attitude.

To get back on point – I find really little of interest. Personally I believe that creationism/Intellegent Design really has no place in the schools (Ockham's Razor) but if there are people who want to study it, I have no problem with that. So long as Evolution is taught competently as well.

Truth, or exhortations of Faith?

Also, the "separation" Mister_Blank was referring to seems to be less a "wall" and more of different categories of understanding. Would you use a cookbook to learn how to put together a wooden table? Nope, and yet there is no "wall" that keeps one from accepting both. (Or maybe I need a better metaphor. Whatever.)

For the record, Darwin states in the same book that he believed his own theory could not hold up under irreducible complexity. He did not now complicated microscopic organisms were and wouldn't be able to explain it. His finches theory was disproven untrue. The fossil record does not support billions of years worth of fossils.

It takes more faith to believe in Darwin and the Big Bang:
1) You have to believe matter can create itself
2) You have to believe nature forces (e.g. gravity, light) can create themselves
3) You believe one can physically create a soul/spirit
3) You believe Eugenics, euthanasia and abortion are means to help evolution along since we have evolved enough to be begin to control it.

Not sure why someone would want to live in a world without God. You can either be accountable to a higher power or just another human. In the big scheme of things, is one nation's leader any better than you? If you believe don't believe in Creation you do.

Lebbowski,

The priest, Georges Lemaitre, was Belgian, not Latin American. He did say masses in Latin, which may be what you are thinking of. Here's an article. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science... There's also the obligatory wikipedia article but the link won't past correctly because Big Hollywood can't handle the circumflex accent above the "i" in his last name.

The fundamental theory of Darwin is that everything evolved from a single organism.

Odd, I don't recall that coming from Darwin.

There is a theory trying to figure out how life first started on Earth, but it didn't come from Darwin and I don't think it says everything evolved from a single organism.

How very true! I wasn't there- were you? Nobody knows except the Creator, and He left us a book. Scientists examine tons of data and then try their best to force it into their preconceived notions. It's very easy to do- just look at it happening today with Global Warming.

You know, it's usually the leftist trolls who get this reaction from me, but I think you just broke my irony meter.

You might want to know that speciation is a proven fact. Domestic sheep have been bred into different species. Ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

becouse i have called and ye refused: i have stretched out may hand, and no man regarded me . I also will laugh at your calamity; i will mock when your fear cometh: when your fear cometh as desolation and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you . then shall they call upon me but i will not answer: they shall seek me early , but they shall not find me: for that they hated kbowlekge and did not choose the fear of the Lord………………………….GOD

Yeah, but if atheists do that and prove themselves wrong (which is inevitable), then they have to come to terms with the fact that they have to be held accountable for every immoral action they've committed…and none of them want to do that.

That's what all this comes down to. They don't want to go through life thinking they'll get in trouble for anything after they die.

Sorry- I knew I'd catch some flack for this, because there a lot of scientifically adept commentators on this forum. It's just that no matter how much evidence (notice I didn't say proof) is thrown at me, I can't accept that we have monkeys for uncles. Although some of my relatives have given me pause.

Actually, it was Godless, but I knew what you were referencing.

"…but I will happily go to my grave denying that one species can "evolve" into another…"

And that my friends is the summation of someone who either a) did not pay attention in science class b) had a teacher who communicated scientific principles poorly or c) just plain did not do very well in science.

I have a degree in anthropology, but even before I signed up for that in college, I followed evolutionary theory (KEY WORD – THEORY – LOOK UP THE MEANING) and never ONCE was I taught that somewhere along the path a monkey miraculously changed into a human. IIRC the theory of evolution never claims THAT. It claims that somewhere in the biological history, a primate took the step up from being an animal to a 'thinking man.'

I have a bare minimum of respect for the Creationists who keep refusing to learn the Scientific Method – I think its largely because they want to twist the Scientific Method to their own agenda and they can't do it without looking like fools. I respect them for wanting to live a fuller life in God – I right there with you – but I find it ridiculous to support their literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis – if Im not careful, I could easily begin a theological argument by asking these Creationists that if they are so adamant that we take the literal translation of the Bible as exact history, then why do a lot of them refuse to accept Transubstantiation?

Oh and also – one of the reasons why Darwin was in the Galapagos to begin with was he was on a kind of 'sabbatical' – one that I think was required before he took Holy Vows of Ordination. Yes, thats right…he was studying to go into the priesthood.

The beginnings of science BEGAN when monks in their monasteries during the "dark ages" after the fall of the Roman Empire began asking "what does the Face of God look like? How can we get to know the Mind of God?" They answered that question by looking at the world around them: trees, plants, landscape, the seas. What God created is what they believed would hold messages from God. And as God *is* a creator, I have always believed that to ignore what he created is a tremendous insult to Him. He just wants us to appreciate what He made.

Having said that – I was clapping in delight to see this come up as a preview – Shades of Stephen Maturin! (and Paul Bettany was EXCELLENT as Stephen Maturin) Rumor has it that Russell Crowe is going to reprise his role as Jack Aubrey – YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have never heard an evolutionist explain where matter came from in the first place. If it always existed, then the Law of Entropy is false–the universe is always running down. If the Universe is eternal, then we would not see it winding down. We know that it is unraveling, counting down. So since it is not infinite and eternal, then one must explain "Where did the original matter come from?" You are left with only one option–A Creator. Now, the skeptic will scoff and say, "Where did God come from?" To answer that, we use the basic premise of the law of discovery: All things that exist "came to be"–they were created–made, formed. All things that come to be have a creator. But God is eternal, and never "came to be." He has always existed and therefore does not need a creator. He is the originator.

You must be logged in to post a comment.