On Monday 2005-03-21 17:11, William T Goodall wrote: > On 21 Mar 2005, at 8:51 pm, Nick Arnett wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:26:18 +0000, William T Goodall wrote > > > >> The people in the original story who had religious objections to > >> evolution. You are objecting to them being referred to as religious. > >> Are you claiming they are not religious or what? > > > > Confusion reigns. I'm not disagreeing that they're religious. I was > > trying > > to point out that the article itself, not just the people it was > > reporting on, > > presents as fact the idea that movies about evolution contradict the > > Bible. > > It presents as fact the fact that some people have religious objections > to the theory of evolution. They *could* have added that there are > thousands of different religions which have various different positions > wrt evolution, but I don't see why they should.
As I recall, the lead sentence for the article could be read as implying that Americans in general were so given to religious literalism that Imax was forced to censor itself. While many surveys have over 50% of Americans being opposed to evolution in some way, this has in no way impaired the popularity of things like the Jurassic Park franchise. In a very real sense the BBC piece cuts right to the heart of the story, yet at the same time it succeeds in subtly misrepresenting the underlying cultural dynamics. Fore example, after reading the article, the reader is no closer to understanding why the fictional Jurasic Park makes money and the educational Volcanoes does not. The article sensationalizes American anti-intellectualism and intolerance, both of which are significant, but does so in a way that reinforces smug stereotypes held by Europeans about Americans. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
