Newmarket to Distribute "Creation" to US Audiences

Posted 24 September 2009 by Reed A. Cartwright

To keep this short, I'll just quote the NCSE announcement:

he new film about Darwin, Creation, will be distributed in the United States after all, according to a story in the Hollywood Reporter (September 24, 2009). The film is expected to be released by Newmarket Films in December 2009. Earlier the producer of the film, Jeremy Thomas, lamented to the Telegraph (September 11, 2009), "It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. ... It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America." A few days later, however, NBC Bay Area (September 15, 2009) reported that a distribution deal was imminent. In her review of Creation at The Panda's Thumb blog, NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott described it as "a thoughtful, well-made film that will change many views of Darwin held by the public -- for the good." It also received praise from Steve Jones in Time Out London (September 22, 2009), who called it "a great film about a great man and a greater theory" and by Adam Rutherford in his Guardian blog (September 23, 2009), where he wrote, "we should ... be grateful that this film is moving and beautiful, just like the creation Darwin so luminously untangled," adding, "Creationists the world over deserve to see it."

Huzzah!

40 Comments

Vince · 24 September 2009

Great news, but do you mean "Newmarket to distribute..."

Mike Elzinga · 24 September 2009

Thanks for the alert to the announcement on the NCSE website.

Also mentioned there is a NOVA presentation, "Darwin’s Darkest Hour” to be aired on October 6, 2009.

fnxtr · 24 September 2009

“Creationists the world over deserve to see it.”

That's ridiculous! If they can't demonize the man after seeing this, what're they gonna do, argue the evidence???

Seriously.

Karen S. · 24 September 2009

I'm so glad we'll get a chance to see this film. I hope it provokes a lot of thoughtful discussion.

Also mentioned there is a NOVA presentation, “Darwin’s Darkest Hour” to be aired on October 6, 2009.

Yes, and it's a 2-hour special. It has an extensive companion web site with a discussion board, etc. Here's the link to Darwin's Darkest Hour

DavidK · 24 September 2009

FYI:
Richard Dawkins is coming to Seattle!
He will be speaking about his new book, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence For Evolution” in the Hec Edmundson Pavilion at the University of Washington on Thursday, October 8th at 7:30 pm. Admission is free for this event.
Thu 7:30 PM Location
Hec Edmundson Pavilion
3870 Montlake Blvd NE
(at NE Pacific Place)
Seattle, WA 98195

Mike of Oz · 25 September 2009

DavidK said: FYI: Richard Dawkins is coming to Seattle!

Awww crap! That's a week before I get there on a month's leave - and I don't have any extra to take. Crap.

michael J · 26 September 2009

I wonder if the name of the movie will make anybody think it is a pro-creationist movie.

novparl · 26 September 2009

Does this silver-bullet film mention what Darwin says survival of the fittest really means? See cover of Dawkins's "Devil's Chaplain." Bet it don't.

harold · 26 September 2009

Great scientists, like great artists, have a huge variety of personality types.

It's a pleasant fact that Darwin had personality traits that most people would find agreeable, at least relative to those of, say, Newton.

It's easy to take some of the views of just about anyone who lived in the Victorian era out of context, but overall, Darwin was relatively progressive for his time.

All of that makes it more enjoyable to learn about Darwin's biography.

Of course, it's all technically irrelevant to the fact that life evolves. If the theory of evolution had first been strongly expounded by an extremely unpleasant person, life would still be evolving.

stevaroni · 26 September 2009

Novparl conspiratorially ponders... Does this silver-bullet film mention what Darwin says survival of the fittest really means?

I don't know about Darwin, I never asked him and he's been dead for 150 years, which is going to make a direct answer hard to come by. Nonetheless, when evolutionary science says "survival of the fittest", it means that the fittest usually survive best. This observation has the particular trait of being objectively true, and frankly, not especially earth shaking. Anything past that is philosophy, or, in your case, Nov, projection, but not science.

wile coyote · 26 September 2009

Oh gosh, here I was thinking that THIS time people would just yawn and ignore him ... thilly me.

stevaroni · 26 September 2009

wile coyote said: Oh gosh, here I was thinking that THIS time people would just yawn and ignore him ... thilly me.

Yeah. It's a fine line, though. On the one hand, you don't want to feed the trolls. It's like wrestling with a pig - you both get dirty and the pig likes it. But on the other hand, you don't want to establish the precedent of letting them get away with drive-by-lying. They're too good at that. I try to succinctly call shenanigans, point out that, once again, the emperor has no clothes (probably because his pants have been on fire so much) and move on.

QrazyQat · 26 September 2009

I've only heard about the movie, from people who've seen it like Dawkins and the others on an interview show that was making the rounds last week, and I don't see why creationists wouldn't love this movie. It seems like it shorthands the science into mush and makes Darwin's agosticism nothing more than a reaction to his daughter's death. So creationists will see it confirming their idea that he was simply a twisted man who couldn't come to terms with God's Will and so created an atheist idea to try to make everyone else as miserable as he. It doesn't sound like a movie to applaud; I hope I'm wrong.

BlueCrown · 26 September 2009

Why is a movie about Charles Darwin so important? Charles Darwin is not somebody claiming that he saw an alien which nobody else did. Regardless of what Darwin's personality, behavior and even credibility was, his ideas are as valid as other great scientific ideas (and would have been as great and as valid even had they come from a complete lunatic, provided they were lent a hearing ear)--not because he's trustworthy or objective... but because of the very nature of his ideas. Evolution is not a one-time occurrence and can be proved and demonstrated as many times as we want it to be.

As for Darwin, we should remember him and appreciate his contribution to our understanding of life--not scrutinize his life with ill intentions.

Henry J · 26 September 2009

As for Darwin, we should remember him and appreciate his contribution to our understanding of life–not scrutinize his life with ill intentions.

And that's what people with sense do. It's the anti-evolutionists that worship Darwin as having a excessive amount of power over people. Henry

Ray Moscow · 28 September 2009

I saw "Creation" Friday night and really liked it, although I have a few concerns about its accuracy (such as, was Darwin actually driven to hallucinations by his daughter's death)?

Still, it was well acted and is a powerful story.

Dave Luckett · 28 September 2009

I think the conversations he has with his dead daughter are not meant as actual events. They take place in his head.

I know, for example, that I had conversations with my mother years - decades - after she died. That occurred not only in dreams, but in vivid recollections of what she would have said to something I saw, or experienced myself. I think the moviemakers are using a literary device to draw out and personalise Darwin's ideas, and also effectively sharpening the poignancy of his grief, not intimating that he had hallucinations.

eric · 28 September 2009

QrazyQat said: It...makes Darwin's agosticism nothing more than a reaction to his daughter's death.

Well, as I understand it (and I don't have a lot of knowledge here), Darwin was in fact deeply troubled by his daughter's death and it was in fact a strong influence on his thinking. But that doesn't mean it was unthinking or irrational. Her death could simply have been a precipitating factor, causing him to think deeply about a subject he otherwise would've treated casually. Anyway, if you want to get firsthand knowledge of how Darwin's theological beliefs changed over time, I suggest you go to primary sources and browse Cambridge's Darwin Correspondence Project.

So creationists will see it confirming their idea that he was simply a twisted man who couldn't come to terms with God's Will

Maybe so. But if Darwin's agnosticism was in part a reaction to a highly emotional event, then we shouldn't lie about it or sweep it under the rug. Lying to support ones position is the other side's strategy, not ours.

novparl · 28 September 2009

Stevamoany -
in what way is mentioning survival of the fittest "drive-by lying"? Last night on Brit-TV, arch-lier Dawkins claimed that zebras keep getting better at escaping lions. No proof (as usual) was offered. He also claimed that for most animals, life is suffering and death. Yeah, ev'body's godda die sometime. But no proof was offered that zebras have a bad time before giving a lion a meal. (I like meat too, tho' I prefer fried chicken to zeb.)

DS · 28 September 2009

Novparl wrote:

"Last night on Brit-TV, arch-lier Dawkins claimed that zebras keep getting better at escaping lions. No proof (as usual) was offered."

How many toes did the ancestors of zebras run on? How many do they run on now? Do you think they are better or worse at running from lions now?

"But no proof was offered that zebras have a bad time before giving a lion a meal."

Yea I'm sure that being chased down by a large carnivore and eaten alive is a real joy for them. Do you have any particular reason to doubt this or are you just slinging mud again? You do know that sometimes lions keep the kill alive for hours as they devour the less essential areas don't you?

stevaroni · 28 September 2009

Stevamoany - in what way is mentioning survival of the fittest “drive-by lying”?

Nov, almost everything you say is purposeful misdirection and evasion. Even the most charitable description does not seem to involve the word "honesty".

Meanwhile, nothing you ever say involves empirically verifiable data. Again, even the most charitable description of your behavior does not seem to involve the word "honesty".

Evasion, yes. Evidence, no. Ergo, I call you a drive-by liar.

Prove me wrong.

Provide some evidence for ID. It's a simple request, one you always seem to overlook while you merrily drop insinuations about real science.

Evidence, Nov. How about providing some.

(Cue the crickets, while NP drafts another missive about how mean and unfair I am)

Kevin B · 28 September 2009

stevaroni said: (Cue the crickets, while NP drafts another missive about how mean and unfair I am)

As Dawkins said, Life is suffering..... Actually, Dawkins' position is the same as the Christian one, except that D doesn't believe that after the game is over everyone will adjourn to the social club for a beer.....

Just Bob · 28 September 2009

No, no, no, muchacho. A popular song where I live has it that "In heaven there is no beer--that's why we drink it here."

John Kwok · 28 September 2009

Huzzah! Huzzah! What joyous news from Newmarket. Can't wait to see the film. Hope it plays at more than a few theaters here in the Big Apple.

henry · 1 October 2009

DavidK said: FYI: Richard Dawkins is coming to Seattle! He will be speaking about his new book, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence For Evolution” in the Hec Edmundson Pavilion at the University of Washington on Thursday, October 8th at 7:30 pm. Admission is free for this event. Thu 7:30 PM Location Hec Edmundson Pavilion 3870 Montlake Blvd NE (at NE Pacific Place) Seattle, WA 98195

Dawkins' Latest Book: The Greatest Lie on Earth by Brian Thomas, M.S.* Dawkins is right about one thing: evolution does leave God with nothing to do. But an evolutionary origin or progression of simple-to-complex life is unobserved, and it ignores contrary paleontological evidence as well as basic information science. It is a farce. On the other hand, biological information, which is observed, points to God having done quite a bit “in the beginning.” * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on September 23, 2009.

eric · 1 October 2009

henry said: ...progression of simple-to-complex life is unobserved,

Well, you got that part right, but only as a side effect of your tilting at strawmen. There is no progression in life forms, no ladder; by mass the vast majority of life on earth is still single-celled. But I'm very surprised you would want to point this out to the public. The fact that many organisms (including single-celled organisms) are more successful than we are is an argument against the specialness of man, not for it. As Haldane supposedly put it: God seems to have an inordinate fondness for beetles.

DS · 1 October 2009

Henry wrote:

"But an evolutionary origin or progression of simple-to-complex life is unobserved, and it ignores contrary paleontological evidence as well as basic information science."

Stop the presses, he used the E word. Oh my gosh Henry, do you finally have some evidence? Did you finally find the precambrian rabbit? Do tell oh oracle of misrepresentation. Enlighten us with your vast knowledge of palentology.

And by the way, as eric has already pointed out, disproving a bastardized version of evolution that exists only in your mind won't get you anywhere. You need to address the real issues in evolutioinary biology in order to have any meaningful discussion. That is your goal right?

Oh well, at least all the trolls could finally find something they agree on, they all hate Dawkins. Now I wonder what their Bible has to say about stuff like that.

wile coyote · 1 October 2009

"You don't need to see his identification. These droids aren't the ones you're looking for. There is no evidence for evolution." The FORCE gives power over the weak of mind!

Stanton · 1 October 2009

DS said: Oh well, at least all the trolls could finally find something they agree on, they all hate Dawkins. Now I wonder what their Bible has to say about stuff like that.

You mean things like how Jesus considers people who do evil in His name to be despicable persona non grata, or how Jesus thinks that people who drive other people away from the Faith should go swimming in the Mediterranean while wearing millstones tied to their necks?

John Kwok · 1 October 2009

Who needs the FORCE when you have some stout-hearted, courageous Klingon warriors? I predict that a zealous band may pay a visit to the Josef Goebbels of the ID movement, one William Dembski, sometime in the near future:

wile coyote said: "You don't need to see his identification. These droids aren't the ones you're looking for. There is no evidence for evolution." The FORCE gives power over the weak of mind!

Kevin B · 1 October 2009

John Kwok said: Who needs the FORCE when you have some stout-hearted, courageous Klingon warriors? I predict that a zealous band may pay a visit to the Josef Goebbels of the ID movement, one William Dembski, sometime in the near future:
wile coyote said: "You don't need to see his identification. These droids aren't the ones you're looking for. There is no evidence for evolution." The FORCE gives power over the weak of mind!

From the point of view of arguing with experts (but not, I must add, from the point of view of other men's wives) Dr Dr D seems to have a lot in common with Dr Dionysius Lardner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Lardner#Disagreements_with_Brunel Incidentally, Darth Vader broke down on the M1 near Watford Gap services recently and had to be rescued by the Highways Agency's recovery force. He was travelling in R2D2's Mercedes..... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/8285717.stm

henry · 4 October 2009

Stanton said:
DS said: Oh well, at least all the trolls could finally find something they agree on, they all hate Dawkins. Now I wonder what their Bible has to say about stuff like that.
You mean things like how Jesus considers people who do evil in His name to be despicable persona non grata, or how Jesus thinks that people who drive other people away from the Faith should go swimming in the Mediterranean while wearing millstones tied to their necks?

You must be referring to this verse Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

DS · 4 October 2009

Henry,

How about:

Love thy neighbor as thyself.

In the words of Matt Dillion:

"There's a lot of words in that book you ain't livin by."

fnxtr · 4 October 2009

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Riiiight. And I'm the founder of Anarchists For Responsible Government, and chairperson of The Hermit Club.

henry · 4 October 2009

John Kwok said: Who needs the FORCE when you have some stout-hearted, courageous Klingon warriors? I predict that a zealous band may pay a visit to the Josef Goebbels of the ID movement, one William Dembski, sometime in the near future:
wile coyote said: "You don't need to see his identification. These droids aren't the ones you're looking for. There is no evidence for evolution." The FORCE gives power over the weak of mind!

Are you the unofficial ambassador to the Klingon empire?

henry · 2 November 2009

DS said: Henry, How about: Love thy neighbor as thyself. In the words of Matt Dillion: "There's a lot of words in that book you ain't livin by."

That's the second commandment. Here's the first. 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ° 38 This is the first and great commandment.

DS · 2 November 2009

Henry,

What's your point? That as long as you keep the first and greatest commandment that you can ignore the rest?

stevaroni · 2 November 2009

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Isn't that roughly like being a kryptonite cook at Superman University?

Stanton · 2 November 2009

henry said:
Stanton said:
DS said: Oh well, at least all the trolls could finally find something they agree on, they all hate Dawkins. Now I wonder what their Bible has to say about stuff like that.
You mean things like how Jesus considers people who do evil in His name to be despicable persona non grata, or how Jesus thinks that people who drive other people away from the Faith should go swimming in the Mediterranean while wearing millstones tied to their necks?
You must be referring to this verse Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

As such, please explain how repeatedly lying to us, as well as quotemining and copying and pasting lies you find at Answers in Genesis and ICR demonstrate how you are doing good in Jesus' name? I fail to see how continuing to demonstrate that you are totally and completely untrustworthy for Jesus' sake is supposed to be a good thing.

Stanton · 2 November 2009

DS said: Henry, What's your point? That as long as you keep the first and greatest commandment that you can ignore the rest?

Hence henry demonstrates how to be a "Liar for Jesus"