Darwin vs Creation

Paul Bettany plays Darwin in an upcoming bio-pic. He also plays the Archangel Michael in 'Legion'. Is he a Creationist or a Darwinist?

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Archangel Michael
• creationist
• darwin
• Legion
• Library
• movies
• Paul Bettany

[carnut666]

well for one there's no evidence of an unknown entity and it would be an unnecessary assumption with no real explanatory power.

[carnut666]

who uses the term darwinist?

its just a term created by creationists to equate evolutionary theory to religon

[VTECZpirates]

magic man in the sky no thanks

[DNAunion]

@warriorprince1010

Magical unicorns farting the universe into existence remains fully supported by science.

[mafarmerga]

One movie is a based on a work of fiction, one is based on actual facts.

Nuff said.

[Elephantintheroom01]

Clever of him to take up both sides of the religious spectrum.

[Freki619]

actually "asking yourself" what the facts are would probably be one of the worst things you could do. Ask a professional who had dedicated his life to the study of evolution. Or just read a modern Biology text book with basis on actual scientific claims regarding the subject you're inquiring about. And if you honestly consider what he/the book has to say rather than discard it based on your own predispositions, maybe you'll understand how these things can happen :D!

[Freki619]

yeah, I respect the notion and need for distinction of "natural" and "Man Made" or it it's variants. I just think that in the sense as a whole saying something truly is not "natural" would be referring to outside of reality. anyways arguments can go on and on about the semantics of it all really :p . Idiocracy did put forth a scary concept which doesn't seem all too far removed from reality.

[Trai1Blaz3r]

I find it interesting to listen to evolutionists trying to explain away how the eye (or any other complex design) 'could have' evolved. But ask yourself, what are the actual.real 'facts'? And if your honest,you'll find its all just models and drawings of how it 'could have' happened.

[olunda]

Well put. What we do is all-natural baby!

Someone said: "Whatever isn't nature is culture." But I guess nature encompasses all culture. So cultural evolution is still natural evolution.

Still our situation is somewhat different because we can consciously decide to defy the original "intent" of our genes. Evolution is still taking place, but the ones most fit for survival might opt out of having kids. Perhaps you have seen the movie 'Idiocracy'?