Origin 150th: Time to Mock the Creationists

first_img51; With the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s Origin just around the corner (Nov. 24th), Evangelist Ray Comfort and actor Kirk Cameron and volunteers are invading some 50 universities today to hand out free copies of Darwin’s magnum opus.  These, however, are spiked with a critical introduction that criticizes evolutionary theory and presents the Christian gospel.  Amanda Gefter at New Scientist is trying to pre-empt the effort.  She wrote an editorial mocking Comfort and trying to make the messenger look ridiculous.  Typical words in her article: outdated, wrong, bizarre, pseudo-scientific, ignorance, laughable, bananas.  Cameron says, “All we want to do is propose the opposing and correct view.” The Origin into Schools Project website elaborates:A gracious man once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  However, it seems that some contemporary atheists don’t share such honorable convictions.  When they found out that I was writing an Introduction to this book, they threatened lawsuits, tried to organize themselves into gangs with the intent of tearing the Introduction out of the book, and have even talked about book burnings.The site also cites Darwin’s own words from his Introduction to the Origin: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”  Richard Dawkins allegedly told students to rip out Comfort’s introduction.  Comfort responded, “It seems very strange that Professor Dawkins would say that my Introduction didn’t worry him at all, and in the next breath tell university students to rip it out.  If, I am, as he says, an ‘ignorant fool,’ then what I have written will be nothing but ignorance and foolishness.  So why is he so concerned?  I think the man protesteth too much.”You can read Amanda’s hot air if you want to (remember, she’s the one whose motive-mongering piece was pulled by New Scientist – see 02/26/2009, but two months later described her vertigo when she was slain in the spirit of Charlie, 04/11/2009).  Notice that something different happens here at Creation-Evolution Headlines.  We give you the original sources and quote extensively from the evolutionists’ best champions.  Then we set apart our editorializing which, though spicy and satirical sometimes, is directly related to things just said by the champions in the body of the article.  It critically examines their own specific statements and logic.  You can check it all for yourself.  Gefter, and her henchmen at New Scientist, by contrast, hand you predigested us-vs-them, either-or verdicts like this:As for the creationist Origin, I see no need to seriously worry about it.  The arguments in Comfort’s introduction are so outdated, wrong and at times downright bizarre that anyone with a half a brain will realize immediately that it is bogus; meanwhile, Darwin’s well-reasoned, evidence-based text that follows shines with added brilliance by comparison.We respect our intelligent readers too much to hand them such shallow rhetoric full of loaded words.  Here is a link to the Introduction Gefter swept into the trash, hoping you wouldn’t look at it: Introduction (PDF).  Go ahead and read it yourself and form your own opinion.  Gefter then appealed to authority by calling in the Darwin Dobermans, Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller, hoping you would fear them instead of forming your own opinion.    Our commentary should not be construed as an endorsement of Comfort or his approach, but his website at Living Waters is completely up-front, honest and open about what he is trying to do.  He certainly has the right in a free country to present his point of view with his ministry’s own money.  If you think some of his arguments are weak, you can judge for yourself.  Some of them might be strong.  Keep in mind that one strong, true argument can overcome a thousand volleys of mudslinging.  Our readers are intelligent enough to discern valid arguments on their own.    The Darwin Party already has complete control of the universities, the textbooks, the media, the courts and the government.  Why are they so paranoid about one man handing out free material that is 90% Charlie and 10% critical analysis?  Who is really going bananas here?  They retort and deride; we report so you can decide.(Visited 25 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Tax fillip for SA film

first_img16 August, 2004South Africa’s film industry has received a major fillip from the government, which is offering some $40-million in tax incentives to local and foreign film companies over the next three years.The incentives are intended to promote South Africa as a prime filming location and, according to Trade and Industry Minister Mandisi Mpahlwa, “secure South Africa’s place as a major place of investment, like Spain, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and India.”The total value of the South African entertainment industry is about R7.7-billion, comprising film and television production, broadcast, cinema and interactive industries. Of this, the local production industry accounts for approximately R1.4- billion.Productions with budgets exceeding R25-million ($4-million) will qualify for tax rebates under the programme. Feature films, documentaries, television movies and drama series will be eligible for tax rebates – but reality series and, unsurprisingly, pornography will not.According to the department of trade and industry, production costs in South Africa are up to 40% lower than the United States and 20% lower than in Australia. But it says despite the country’s many competitive advantages, the film industry’s development has been stunted by South Africa’s apartheid legacy.Shooting in colour…Although the South African film industry has a long history, until 1994 it was largely inward-looking and culturally exclusive. The country’s first democratic elections meant a rejuvination of the political, economic and cultural landscape and new challenges and opportunities for the industry.An increasing number of feature films, television series, documentaries and commercials have been produced in South Africa since 1994, which has had a positive impact in the local industry. But the Department says there’s much room for improvement. Benefits of local production have been largely restricted to improving “certain technical skills only” and attracting only “some” investment into the sector.A critical driver to its growth has been the inclusion of culturally distinct content and the development of niche markets worldwide. In this way, a number of other countries such as India, the UK, Spain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have emerged as major movie producers.Consolidating…commodifying…The South African film industry has been characterised by increasing consolidation driven by the need to generate economies of scale. As a result, about 15 production companies produce over 90% of all feature films and television productions.The local film industry is clustered around two key locations – Cape Town and Johannesburg, and there are around 150 registered producers in the country.The National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF) was established in order to increase the local content quotas for television, which had a positive impact on the growth of the local industry. During 2003, 24 films were produced in South Africa. The NFVF invested in 16.However, the department says growth in the sector is dependent on “inward investment” as well as the development of local content as a tradable commodity – and it is in these areas that it hopes to make a contribution.Major films produced in South Africa include ‘The Gods Must be Crazy’, ‘Cry, the Beloved Country’, ‘The Piano Player’ and ‘Sarafina’. Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell are currently in the country filming ‘Ask the Dust’.SouthAfrica.info reporterlast_img read more