I checked the official website (here) to find out what I could. You can find movie trailers and a taste of some of the controversy the film has already generated. One thing that caught my attention was a link to a Richard Dawkins' article against the movie. Dawkins is an atheistic, darwinian scientist who was interviewed for the movie. Among other complaints, he claims he was deceived as to the purpose of the interview. It's quite lengthy, but it's good for us to see how these people think.
If this is the first you've heard of this movie, check it out. If you've heard anything, and especially if you've seen it, I'd love to hear what you think. I doubt I'll get to see it in our rather remote neck of the woods, but if I do I'll let you know. I also have concerns about some of Dawkins' comments. If there is any truth in his claim about being deceived or about his friend being kicked out of the movie, I'll be disappointed. What do you think?
Dave
1 comment:
I spent some time (far too much time) checking out the links you posted.
I'm not entirely certain what I think, or, to be honest, how high on my priority list of "things to care about" this is. Here are some of my discombobulated thoughts:
First, I agree that if any of the contributers were tricked into being a part of this film that there is definitely a mixed message been made, and one I personally wouldn't want to be associated with. Credibility is lost far too often by Christians claiming to be furthering God's kingdom by less than Christian means.
Second, Dawkins also loses a lot of credibility and respect by the manner in which he berates the producer of the film. For a Professor of science I would expect a lot more restraint are much more intelligent criticism. A lot of what he had to say was pointless and off topic. What difference does it make if the film is amateurish?
Third, I find the debate that revolves around creationist points of view and those of evolutionists to be a waste of time. As a Christian I believe the Bible's account to be accurate and literal. It is obvious that a non-believer would disagree. Any scientific evidence discovered by either side will unquestionably be refuted and explained away by the other. I don't feel that this argument is one that is likely to convert an non-believer. As I mentioned previously, It is God's job to work in the hearts of mankind; it is ours to be his spokesperson. Trying to prove God scientifically, I think is contrary to his plan. I suppose if you are convicted to pursue this argument then I can't disagree, but to complain when you are fired from your job for doing so seems contradictory.
I guess what it comes down to for me is this: I am not a science-type of thinker, and therefore rarely find it worth my time to involve myself in scientific debates on issues that I feel are matters of faith and not science.
Post a Comment