Pharyngula

Posted by: Ian Monroe | June 13, 2009 9:49 AM

Looks fun. :)

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | June 13, 2009 10:01 AM

4 minutes of waiting and it still won't play.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 13, 2009 10:10 AM

Bill Donohue condemns it as a vicious attack on Catlicks in

3...2...1...

Posted by: AnonymousCoward23 | June 13, 2009 10:15 AM

I don't like how it (apparently) portrays Darwin as a sole man standing against a whole world believing in Creationism. Might be just the trailer, though.

Posted by: Richard Harris | June 13, 2009 10:16 AM

Darwin sure killed god for me. For the ensuing fifty plus years, I have been ever grateful to be free of the mental shackles of, not only Bronze Age superstition, but all the other superstitious crap, because reading Darwin made me see the value of science.

Posted by: tus | June 13, 2009 10:19 AM

lulz, sounds about right.

i like how creationists think it would even mater if charles darwin DID recant his theory on his death bed. they seem to think about it like their beliefs, that the man has anything to do with the idea. the idea is distinct and separate from the man, so even if he DIDN'T believe it, the idea works, its out there.

*sigh* theological mindset...

Posted by: Evil Eye | June 13, 2009 10:22 AM

Could someone repost this as a youtube video so I can see it? It wont play for me either.

Posted by: marcia | June 13, 2009 10:26 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCYafqq9ljk

Posted by: John Harshman | June 13, 2009 10:27 AM

I have never understood this idea that Darwin killed god. Why? Without evolutionary biology, is theism a live concept? Not that I can see. The usual judeo-christian concept of god is incommensurate with almost every feature of the world, and evolutionary biology is at best a tiny part of it. Why don't we say that Plato killed god, or Hume, or Copernicus, or Newton? Newton explained rainbows by physical processes; didn't that kill god, who supposedly creates them as a sign he won't flood us again?

This focus on Darwin seems more sociological than rational. Can anyone explain?

Posted by: the Nihilist | June 13, 2009 10:34 AM

I remember Dr. Scott being asked about this movie, at the end of one of her lectures. I had completely forgot about it.
I get Religitards all the time, trying to make the bizarre argument that at the end of Darwin's life he was bitter and disillusioned by Scientist who, 'turned the theory into a religion' (one of their favorite misquotes.) I'll be curious to see if Hollywood goes down that road to try and pander to all the mouth-breathers that will need some kind of ending that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy.
Anyone want to open some side bets on that one?
*evil grin*

Posted by: Spud | June 13, 2009 10:38 AM

Oh, by the way - does anybody know when this is actually released in the UK? I've looked and looked and can't find any info.

Posted by: Amy | June 13, 2009 10:42 AM

Did anyone here see "Master and Commander"? Darwin looks a lot like the scientist guy on the ship with Russel Crowe.

Yes, they are both played by Paul Bettany! Very similiar characters as well.

Posted by: sammywol | June 13, 2009 10:45 AM

Didn't realise that this would be a husband and wife production. Have had a soft spot for Bettany ever since his Chaucer in A Knight's Tale - secret guilty passion of medievalists everywhere.

And yes dude he was the naturalist in Master and Commander too.

Fingers crossed they don't bugger it up.

Posted by: Steve | June 13, 2009 10:53 AM

I'm a little worried. The trailer sort of makes it sound like losing god is a bad thing... I really hope thats not the message it's trying to put out there.

Posted by: Ick of the East | June 13, 2009 11:05 AM

Did anyone here see "Master and Commander"? Darwin looks a lot like the scientist guy on the ship with Russel Crowe.

And Maturin got to the Galapagos decades before Darwin. If only his finches hadn't escaped when the French arrived (damn their eyes), he would have come up with the TOE much earlier.

/I noticed in the trailer that his daughter says, "It's only a theory". I hope that's the daughter that dies.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 13, 2009 11:08 AM

Why choose "Creation" as title?

Posted by: Pmont | June 13, 2009 11:19 AM

Does anyone here remember the BBC (I think) Darwin miniseries production from ~30 years ago? I remember enjoying that immensely but I've not heard of it since.

(OK--I went to IMDB and found it: "The Voyage of Charles Darwin." It's hard to find, but it is available on DVD. Great stuff, from what I recall. It should be revived.

Posted by: Alex | June 13, 2009 11:21 AM

I thought it was Nietzsche who killed God. Not Darwin.

Posted by: IainW | June 13, 2009 11:35 AM

Mildly Diverting Trivia: Toby Jones, who plays Thomas Huxley, was also the store clerk in The Mist who shot the fundamentalist psycho.

Maybe he'll get to literally slay Wilberforce in the Oxford Debate.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 13, 2009 11:37 AM

Historical trivia:

It was Darwin's son, also named Charles, who died (not one of his daughters). He was greatly saddened over this.

Interestingly, Darwin was not "broken" or "bitter" at the end of his life. He also considered himself a businessman and wrote in a letter that he considered his success in business to be the great accomplishment of his life. He took a modest middle class inheritance and turned it into a fortune by way of carefully managed investments. He was the "Warren Buffet" of the 19th century.

Back to the movie, I find all the melodrama a bit disconcerting. Chances are, this is Hollywood's way to try to make the story of his life and work appealing to the demographics that they have targeted. There's lots of real comedy and drama in Darwin's life (his voyage on the Beagle was quite full of drama: the captain turned out to be a nutter who physically assaulted Darwin among other wackiness). I wonder how much of that we'll see.

The preview made me nervous. I foresee an effort to exploit the present day "controversy" and not offend some treasured "demographic" in the audience. I fear the movie will make hash out of the science (I hope I'm proven wrong).

Posted by: Evil Eye | June 13, 2009 11:42 AM

Oh.. and don't forget. This is not an educational movie. It is just a love story about a scientist.

Didn't they do that too with Richard Feynman?

Posted by: Tim Fuller | June 13, 2009 11:44 AM

I don't like how it (apparently) portrays Darwin as a sole man standing against a whole world believing in Creationism.

There is a bit where his friends admonish him to publish and mentions he is not alone.

Enjoy.

Posted by: Happy Tentacles | June 13, 2009 12:01 PM

#33 - Yes, I remember seeing 'The Voyage of Charles Darwin' on the BBC back in the 1970s! It was very exciting and inspiring to watch; it seemed to go on for several weeks and I didn't miss a single episode. The story was all new and exciting to me then. I'm not sure whether I want to see it again in case it doesn't match my recollections, but I suspect it was a lot more cerebral and science-based than the forthcoming film, which looks a bit too much like a relationship-drama in period costume for my taste.

Posted by: Andyo | June 13, 2009 12:05 PM

We should start some kind of Pharyngupool on the ending. I'll place my bets on "yeah, Darwin's theory was right, but maybe god did it like this...". Y'know, accommodating to "moderates".

Anyone seen that Steve Martin movie where he's a scam preacher (redundancy I know), based (I think) on the Popoff scam? That sort of ending I'm betting on.

Posted by: Paula Kirby | June 13, 2009 12:15 PM

This focus on Darwin seems more sociological than rational. Can anyone explain?

I suspect it originates with Creationists rather than scientists. More than any of the other scientists you mention, Darwin challenged the notion that humans were special, and this was inherently more of a challenge to traditional religious thinking than that the Earth orbited the Sun, for instance.

Has it struck anyone else how much of the media coverage of the Darwin bicentenary has centred on reassuring people that it's ok, you CAN reconcile evolution with religion? (Or has that only been in the UK?) Or how many of the pro-religious lobby have tried to make out that atheists claim that evolution disproves God? Andrew Marr (respected UK journalist) wrote an article for the BBC news website arguing against turning Darwin into a god ... as though anyone were actually trying to do any such thing!

I don't know any atheists who would state categorically that evolution disproves the existence of a god (it disproves 6-day creation, but nothing can absolutely disprove the existence of a god: it's just that evolution makes it even less likely than it was before); and I certainly don't know any atheists who are trying to deify Darwin.

What a shame that, in this of all years, the focus has been on knocking down arguments no one has ever made, and on desperately trying to appease the infants amongst us, rather than on a genuine exploration of Darwin, man and theory. Even the Edinburgh Science Festival fell into this trap earlier in the year. Such a waste.

Posted by: Jason | June 13, 2009 12:29 PM

I am more than nervous about the ending. Given the trailer, I cannot imagine the movie ending in any other way than with the epiphany, "Even though my theory is true, there are still miracles and so much in the world that is unexplained, leaving plenty of room for God" after much hardship and a harrowing escape from disaster.

Can anyone seriously imagine the alternative epiphany - "Life can still be meaningful without God!" - actually being the ending? Come to think of it, is there any movie that ends with that message?

Posted by: Susan | June 13, 2009 12:36 PM

@ bobxxxx

Who killed god? The answer is obvious. Of course it was Darwin.

Actually, the trailer seems to indict Emma.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 13, 2009 12:44 PM

Emma looked like Connelly. Right. Yeah. Uh huh.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 13, 2009 12:52 PM

There's no way in hell they'll "resolve the conflict" in any way. Emma hews to her faith but loves Chas anyway; Chas is wracked by guilt and misgivings about the implications of his ideas and evolving (heh) philosophy on his marriage. Their kid dies and throws all of this contrast into sharp relief. Nothing is ever "resolved," in history, modern life, or (one hopes) this fictionalized story. I'd be very surprised if the script ends up taking a position of any kind.
It's a relationship movie, with philosophical underpinnings, not a scientific one.
And it looks pretty good to me.

Posted by: Diego | June 13, 2009 1:00 PM

@ 40 The thing is that O'Brian had a number of really fascinating historical figures to draw upon for Maturin. And I also think that in addition to historical sources, he most definitely patterned his spy/naturalist on himself.

And here's an interesting thought that just occurred to me. If anyone in O'Brian's books is modeled on Darwin, surely it would be Reverend Martin. He is English (much more evidently English than the Irish/Catalan Maturin) and is a country parson with an amateur enthusiasm for natural history. What do you think?

Posted by: Romeo Vitelli | June 13, 2009 1:28 PM

Count your blessings. They could have cast Will Ferrell as Darwin. I'm sure he'd love to do a "serious" role.

Posted by: dave souza | June 13, 2009 2:03 PM

quo Darwin –

"With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world."

Darwin didn't kill God, he killed a particular empirical argument for Christianity which made the dangerous error of opening God up to empirical disproof, by finding that supernatural design was unnecessary. As he noted, that argunent also produced the problem of evil: why had a benevolent designer produced so many nasty things?

Somewhere between the death of his father, a freethinker and non-believer who Darwin thought was a good man, hence the promise of eternal torment for failing to believe was a "damnable doctrine", and the death of his innocent and delightful daughter Annie, Darwin lost faith in Christianity. He kept wanting to believe in a rather detached and deistic Creator, but was sure that his own mind had evolved and such feelings could no more be trusted than a dog could understand the mind of Newton.

Will this appear in the film?

Posted by: James F | June 13, 2009 3:04 PM

Romeo Vitelli #61 wrote:

Count your blessings. They could have cast Will Ferrell as Darwin. I'm sure he'd love to do a "serious" role.

Could he really do anything to surpass this role?

Posted by: xebecs | June 13, 2009 5:17 PM

Diego @59: Unfortunately, I haven't read all of the literature about O'Brian that I might. I have his biography, but didn't get far. Examine my user name though, and you will get a clue about how I feel about O'Brian's work...

Posted by: Rodger T NZ | June 13, 2009 5:45 PM

O M G Darwin killed kenny god ?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 13, 2009 6:13 PM

Whether or not it was Darwin that did it, God has been confirmed to be dead, Jim.

Posted by: gdlchmst | June 13, 2009 8:45 PM

Seriously, with Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly, how can this movie not be great!?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 13, 2009 9:50 PM

he killed a particular empirical argument for Christianity which made the dangerous error of opening God up to empirical disproof, by finding that supernatural design was unnecessary. As he noted, that argunent also produced the problem of evil: why had a benevolent designer produced so many nasty things?

dangerous error?

naw.

Inevitable construction and rationalization, I say.

Inevitable.

Posted by: Kel | June 13, 2009 10:10 PM

If I remember correctly, Darwin killed god, and Nietzsche just performed the autopsy.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 13, 2009 10:22 PM

It's a relationship movie, with philosophical underpinnings, not a scientific one.

and relationship movies don't ever resolve the dilemmas they build up?

while it's of course possible that they'll leave the problem unresolved, that rarely makes for a neatly packaged movie. more likely, they'll add some squishyness to it just to make it more palatable. And "well, I'm gonna stay agnostic" is not squishy OR palatable to too many people

Posted by: John Morales | June 13, 2009 10:31 PM

Darren Garrison, I appreciate your recommendations.

"Who and who? Are they supposed to be famous?"

Step away from your keyboard (and your smug pride in ignorance) and go rent Dark City now.

Grab this one while you are at it [Labyrinth]

I can't see how her presence will entail that Creation will be a great film, though... and that was my actual point.

Re my "smug pride in ignorance", I consider myself rather knowledgeable, in that gappy, unsystematic way that autodidacts are knowledgeable; any smugness lies in my discrimination as to what I consider worth knowing.
My wife jokes (about celebrities) that if I've heard of them, then truly they are famous.

Posted by: Darren Garrison | June 13, 2009 11:51 PM

"any smugness lies in my discrimination as to what I consider worth knowing"

Maybe I was a little harsh, but it always seems to me like someone is proud of not knowing something when they say "who?" (or "what" or whichever question fits) rather than google. If you want to know the answer-- you google. If you want people to be aware that you don't know the answer, you say "who?". I'll admit that I didn't know the name "Paul Bettany", but I see he's been in a few significant films. Jennifer Connelly, on the other hand, has had major roles in many big-name, award-winning movies (and some stinkers). I see from her IMDB page that as for myself I've been watching her movies for 22 years (with Labyrinth being the first seen (with the earlier Dario Argento classic Phenomena seen years later).

Of course, there is this clip...

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=6835097

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 14, 2009 4:20 AM

Most great movies are rarely neatly packaged, and I hope that this one isn't either.

great movies are also rare. so it's more likely that it will have a neat ending than that it will have a good ending.

I hope you guys are right, but I doubt it.

Posted by: John Morales | June 14, 2009 6:07 AM

Last Hussar,

[Darwin] retained belief in an overarching deity, but could not reconcile the Christian loving version to the death of his son.

Growing up Catholic, it did not escape me I was told about the love of God whilst simultaneously having the fear of God instilled in me. Neither took, obviously.

Note the traditional Christian approbatory idioms are "to put the fear of God [into someone]" and "God-fearing man".

Posted by: CapgrasDelusion | June 14, 2009 8:37 AM

Anyone else notice the "it's only a theory" meme in there?

I fear that this movie will be annoying in it's treatment of the current "god or not" debate raging in our culture. We'll see...

Posted by: Kel | June 14, 2009 9:14 AM

I'm sure Newton did something too

Posted by: Kel | June 14, 2009 9:41 AM

There's much to admire about Newton, but the man had an ego that makes Kanye West seem humble.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 10:19 AM

The last shot seems to me totally implausible historically - a respectable upper-middle class Victorian married couple in bed together naked? However, maybe someone with more knowledge of the costumes and mores of the times will correct me.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 14, 2009 11:42 AM

@50 C.M. Baxter
Yes, I double-checked a more reliable source than Wikipedia (A Charles Darwin site maintained by scholars called Darwin-online). Anne Elizabeth was born in 1841 and died in 1851 (the year Darwin had to present his theory to prevent another from beating him to it). Charles Waring Darwin was born in 1856 and died in 1858. I vaguely recall reading a passing mention of his son's death in a book by Stephen J. Gould and somehow it stuck. I forgot about the daughter. Teach me to check my facts first. ;-)

@94 Andyo
Regarding victorian behavior and the question of Jennifer Connelly (Emma Darwin) naked in bed with her husband: the Victorians had plenty of sex, and so did the Darwins. They had lots of children. In the Victorian era the "bad" behavior regarding showing too much skin related to public display, not private. Their bedrooms had as much going on as ours. (But then don't trust me, I'm the one who forgot about Darwin's daughter).

Posted by: Andyo | June 14, 2009 9:28 PM

#97 Steven,

Please, I don't think I asked that. I don't ask such inappropriate questions! There might be children watching! Or... women!

Posted by: Widgetas | June 15, 2009 5:29 AM

Small child: "What are you so scared of? It's just a theory."
Aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgh!
Samll child = uneducated masses but the uneducated masses won't understand.
Grrrrr...