This is an incredibly funny buddy movie starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. The two play the comic book nerds Graeme and Clive on their first trip to the world's biggest annual comic book convention in San Diego. Instead of heading straight back they decide to take a road trip and visit the sites of famous UFO sightings. On the way they witness a car crash, and they pick up the survivor, an alien called Paul. Yes, Paul is is his name. That's him in the picture above. He's been held prisoner in a government facility since 1947, but now he's escaped and is heading for a rendezvous with a rescue team from his planet.
Today I've read reviews on Christian websites which describe this film as evil for mocking Christianity and creationism. Evil? This isn't a film which paints Christianity as bad, it's just a comedy. Doesn't anyone have a sense of humour any more? The film pokes fun at the American style of Christianity, in which anyone who believes in God carries a gun. I'm sure that many European Christians think it's amusing as well. For non-Americans the connection between fundamental Christianity and firearms is impossible to comprehend. But getting back to the film, while visiting a trailer park the buddies meet the born-again Christian Ruth, who is wearing this t-shirt:
That's a nice shirt, which actually existed before the film but has become more popular now. I'd buy it if I saw it at Asda. It shows Jesus shooting Charles Darwin in the head. How can anyone on either side of the evolution vs. creationism debate not find this funny?
The main problem of the EvC debate is simply that it isn't a debate; it's just two sides yelling at one another calling each other intolerant. The creationists call the evolutionists unbelievers who refuse to believe in God, while the evolutionists call the creationists narrow-minded people who refuse to accept science. I say to everyone, on both sides of the argument, "Shut up and listen to yourselves. You're both as bad as one another". It's pointless talking to someone unless you're willing to listen and learn from him. That is valid whether we're discussing faith or science.
Evolutionists often say, "We're talking science and they're talking faith". That's not true. Evolution is a faith just as much as creationism. When Charles Darwin first proposed his theories he had no scientific proof to back up his claims, just a series of observations that prompted him to have his beliefs. His theories, which I prefer to call a belief system, were accepted by scientists, who decided to hunt for the missing proofs. This contradicts Karl Popper's hypothesis that a scientific theory can never be proved, it can only be refuted. Scientists should have been attempting to disprove evolution in order to strengthen its validity. On the other hand, Wolfgang Stegmüller claimed that every scientific theory has a metaphysical core surrounded by satellites of facts that support the theory; only these satellites can be contradicted, but when this happens other satallites are put in their place to protect the core from doubt.
Obviously, creationism is based on belief in the Bible. Christians read the Bible, in particular the first nine chapters of Genesis, assume it is all true, and then look for scientific facts to support what is said. In favour of the creationists I have to say that they are at least honest in admitting that their scientific arguments are grounded in faith.
Both evolution and creationism are based on faith, so when an EvC debate begins the ground rules have to be set. Is it to be a discussion about faith or about science? The two shouldn't be mixed. Discussions on faith are naturally more difficult, and typically involve different arguments. Any theism vs. atheism debate has wide-ranging philosophical and ethical consequences. Discussions on science are easier, in comparison, and should stick to the facts. The underlying belief systems are irrelevant and shouldn't be used to polemicise the debate. Conflicting scientific statements should be held up and measured against the facts, and the scientists on both sides should be prepared to alter their opinions. To take just one example, the evolutionists say that the Earth is millions of years old, while the creationists say the Earth is 6000 years old. (In the film Ruth says 4000 years, but that's a goof). Neither theory is any less credible or less sensible, from a philosophical standpoint. It's up to the scientists on each side to provide evidence to support their own claim and provide facts to disprove their opponents' claim. It's possible that a scientist might be persuaded by individual arguments of the other side without giving up his belief system.
It's all about keeping an open mind. If you're not willing to listen to the other side, stay quiet and let others talk. Those who call this film "evil" have no idea what they're talking about.
Very interesting thoughts about creationism and evolution. What do you believe?
ReplyDeleteI try to remain neutral in things like this. I prefer to listen to what others say. "It is more blessed to learn than to teach". As I see it, the scientific debate doesn't turn on the whole of Genesis 1 to 9, but on two chapters in particular, chapters 1 and 8, i.e. the seven (or rather six) days of creation and the flood. It's very difficult to set up a scientific theory based on Genesis 1, although some creationists attempt to do so. The flood is a different matter. It seems to me more credible, from a purely scientific standpoint, that the Earth's layers were created by a worldwide flood than by the slow passing of time. Remember that in the Biblical account the waters came not only from above, but from below the Earth. If the ground on the top of the Earth's crust were violently mixed up in water, the matters with different weights and consistencies would settle at different speeds and create layers. This would mean that the Earth's layers would be created over the period of a few months, not over millions of years. This is backed up by the empirical evidence: complete creatures are preserved as fossils. They would not have lain in one place for hundreds, let alone thousands or millions of years, to be slowly covered up. They were covered up fast when caught by settling land. It's an experiment you can do yourself, if you have a large aquarium. Put different types of matters like sand, limestone, clay and granite in the aquarium, add water, then stir it up. It will settle in layers.
DeleteWho said that quote? It is more blessed to learn than to teach. It's not in the Bible.
DeleteThat's a good question, I thought it was a famous quote, but it looks like I made it up myself. It's definitely what I believe. When I teach my knowledge is standing still, but when I learn I'm improving. That's why I prefer to listen to others when I'm discussing something, even if they're saying something I disagree with.
DeleteIt's actually the opposite of what the Bible says. "It is more blessed to give than receive", Acts 20:35. So is it also better to give teaching than receive teaching? Not in my opinion. In China teachers, whether they are teachers of martial arts or philosophy, are held in high regard. They are venerated as if they were divine. That maybe good for them, but it's not a position I would like to find myself in. Pride is a constant temptation for me, so it would be bad for me to have people praising my knowledge.