Sorry. That’s what it is. There’s plenty of room for religion in that. Let’s not fool ourselves. I never called religion superstition. So I’ve made it clear what the latter is, and it is on this point that the revolution in the natural sciences stands… or falls.

And btw, how do you know what the movie is about? Have you seen it? The trailer makes it look like a biopic. Did Emma Darwin worry about her husband’s soul? Yes, and anyone who wants can read the letters about it between them. Did Darwin worry that his theory might offend certain people’s beliefs? He did, and in fact, that happened.

Would anyone complain if there were a movie made about Galileo and his struggles with the Church? Such a movie has been made, and it showed in the United States.

If you don’t want to see the movie, because it’s “bullshit”, reinforcing — so you say — Evolution=No Religion, then don’t go. There are millions of us who would greatly enjoy seeing this film. Your take on the human drama presented — parents’ loss of beloved child — is repeated endlessly in movies and TV melodramas. Your animus towards Darwin (”tough breaks, poor guy… there’s some stuff that’s just vicious”), because he had the misfortune to endure such a tragedy, is curious, and unfortunate.

Which is bullshit.

The repeated calls of religion as superstition- which is frankly ridiculous if you look at its history and contributions to the world- is a New Atheist perspective that isn’t going to do anyone any good. We should be over this, instead of trying to beat each other to death with it.

As for Darwin himself, tough breaks, poor guy. Feel bad for him- there’s some stuff that’s just vicious.

But of course no one sees it that way. (sigh) This country is run by IDIOTS!

Honestly though, as a person who has always believed that evolution is a fact, this movie would not do well in American theaters. Even Michael Moore understands that there has to be some suspense as the story unfolds. If they redid it with big stars and animation from Pixar it would still tank at the Multiplex. Americans don’t go to theaters to learn, they go to be entertained. The more unbelievable the story’s use of believable special effects the better it will do. This sounds like a made for television product.

This isn’t about belief this is about what the theater goers will watch. Release it to DVD and move on. I know I’d like to rent it.

I’m a religious person who has never had any trouble over Darwin or Evolution. I don’t see any conflict between faith and science, because I don’t expect God to tell me how he does His creating.

I suspect that my view has been more the norm among religious since Darwin’s day than not. In England, Darwin’s contemporary Cardinal Neuman had no problems with the new theory. The outrage came from the so-called Liberal Anglicans who were jockeying for power in the English Church at the time and using a family-values platform as their starting point.

The objection to Darwin is thus not a religious issue at all. It arises with political people that see religion as a tool, as an entree to power. These people want their god to be an inside source that tells them the secret to success, wealth, and dominion. They demand dead certainties, just like they’d expect from their brokers and their bookies. Needless to say, they feel cheated a lot of the time.

The story of Annie is a heart-breaking one. Darwin nursed his daughter through a horrifying fatal illness, his wife, Emma, being laid up in the final stages of pregnancy. His daughter is buried in the Malvern Hills, a rare outcrop in western England from which one can look out over the flat countryside, towards the Cotswolds and beyond.

For years, Darwin and his wife could not bring themselves to visit the grave. When they finally did, during a particularly terrible health and emotional crisis fifteen years later, it helped the man break through his stifled grief, and give him strength to return to his work and writings post-Origin, as he was worn down with the defense of himself and his views.

No one knows for sure when Darwin lost his faith in the Anglican Church. It’s not clear how far he ever moved past agnosticism. The theory that he lost his faith after the death of his daughter comes from a book by Darwin scholar, Randal Keynes. Surely there were many contributory factors. When Darwin left on the Beagle journey at age 24, he believed he would become a clergyman. By the end of his voyage, where he saw not only geological and biological phenomena that helped shape him into an evolutionist, but also slavery, coups, and close-up the wars of extermination against native South American populations, he had decided in a career as a scientist (actually, a geologist, at that point).

The suppression of this movie is an outrage. It would certainly help humanize Darwin, whom the religious right want to demonize and make pariah. You cannot at this point in time separate Darwin from the issue of evolution. Years after his death he remains a symbol not only of the fact of evolution, but of courage and truth-telling, or belief in the powers of reason to subdue those of superstition and destructive passions.