Table of Contents
Frank B. Finite (a "true" atheist)
Alternate Resurrection Theory of the Month
The Blind Fools Guest Entry Log
The Janitorial Page
Here we have a one man cleaning crew and his name is Mack. But he's more than a janitor, he's an all around handyman who can fix just about anything.
Mack's also very opinionated. And he came to me one day and asked if he could have his own column in the e-zine. When asked why he should get one he said that if editors get to write editorials then janitors ought to get to write janitorials.
(Note to self: find out if writing editorials is in my job description and/or contract because I haven't written a single one yet.)
Seeing that we run on a skeleton crew around here as it is, and seeing that we always have space to fill - I decided to give Mack his wish.
P.S. - This is about as serious as we get around here (unless there's money involved).
First a prescript: Answers In Genesis has posted their scientific rebuttals here to the PBS/NOVA series "Evolution" for those who are interested. For the most part, AiG was diplomatic and pc though they did thoroughly defeat ALL of the show's scientific arguments.
I, on the other hand, do not intend to be so nice . . .
Part 1 of 1 (maybe 2)
The Agenda
The Agenda
This article will only deal with episode 1 (actually, only the first 70 seconds of it). Also, it will NOT mention the other refuting arguments as presented by Answers in Genesis and EvolutionReview.com. It will take a different approach . . .
I was absolutely disgusted with the stench permeating from PBS/Nova from Monday Sept. 24th through Thursday 28th with the airing of 'Evolution'!
The problem is not what the series presented as information for their audience to absorb, but rather what they intentionally ommited and kept away from the public.
The worst of it all is that these people who claim to be open-minded and proponents of non-censorship were exactly the opposite - what hypocrites!
It's obvious that they were SCARED to show ANY SCIENTIFIC evidence refuting evolution. They know that their "theory" is a frail house of cards and any little tiny bit of opposing facts will bring it tumbling down in the eyes of their audience.
They are a bunch of big cowardly yellow scared chickens. In fact, they all probably look like this...
As I think about it, they're also fraidy cats. So in reality, the probably look more like a combination of the two - like this...
But mainly they are hypocrites. Let's look at some statements from their own web site, shall we?
---> We honor the intelligence of the viewing audience.
---> We want innovative programming that represents the diversity in this country, that has a strong educational basis, . . .(emphasis added)
---> What accounts for this success? Basically, a belief that science is neither sacred lore nor secret ritual, but rather, curious people exploring interesting questions. NOVA's approach, developed over more than a quarter century, is to select a topic of great interest to viewers and then produce a film that is as entertaining as it is informative, (emphasis added)
Keep these statements in mind as we explore some thoughts . . .
As mentioned before, they REFUSED to show any of the scientific facts that Answers in Genesis presented to them both at the FREE church seminar and in a two hour long interview (as stated on AiG's web site).
Nova deals with scientific issues in their documentaries, so why omit the scientific evidences as presented by AiG?
If AiG's evidences are weak, why not just lay ALL the cards on the table and let the audience see how foolish they (creationists and/or intelligent design arguments) are?
Because they know that the refuting evidence is not foolish, but scientifically sound.
Why just focus on the Biblical teachings?
I'm sure that AiG would rather have had them present their scientific facts rather than Biblical claims considering the scientific context in which the show was produced and the secular audience who watched it.
I know that I would rather it have been the other way around.
And not enough air time is not a good excuse. I know that there is always much footage that, as they used to say, "ends up on the cutting room floor." Stuff gets edited out to meet time limitations.
But as just mentioned, they could have edited out the Biblical arguments and placed in the scientific ones. They also could have done without that sappy docu-drama in the first episode of Charles Darwin's life (unless you take their 'agenda' into account).
Speaking of which now leads us into the "psychology" of movie making . . .
There is a ton of pre-planning that goes into producing a film (and/or documentary). First there's an angle, a point-of-view (agenda) that will be the starting point and guide as the film, well . . . evolves.
Then concepts are thrown around, ideas are debated and the approach is finally decided upon.
Once the approach is hammered out, outlines are written, storyboards are drawn, etc. Then you have to get lighting and music producers, art directors, make-up artists and such.
Depending on what mood you want for each scene, all of the above people do everything necessary to achieve that predetermined mood.
You can shoot the same thing twice with the people saying and gesturing the same exact way; but depending on how you direct the lighting, position the person being interviewed, cut the scenes, orchestrate the music playing in the background, picking which scene playes beforehand, etc., you can make the feeling be very different.
One's mood and emotions can be greatly influenced by the masterful use of such techniques. I mean, who DIDN'T cry watching Forest Gump?! Yet it was total fiction by people playing make believe.
So our little "movie" in the first episode brings us on a level in which we feel that we can personally relate to Darwin. We grow an emotional attatchment as we experience some of his hardships and triumphs along with him (accompanied by mood lighting, music, etc.).
This can be a way to get people to focus on the person before being introduced to the ideas being hypothesized by that person. If we have an emotional connection we are more likely to be less resistent to the idea, even if that idea seems a bit hard to swallow.
Also, in the drama part of Darwin's life, every move is planned and sequenced for a specific reason in a scene. There is very rarely an action on part of the actors that "just happened" and accidentally made it into the final cut.
And just as every move/word is important, also is every scene as well. There is no scene that is ever put in just to fill space (unless we're maybe talking about the movie "Twister").
Actually scenes are usually cut out because of time restraints (or if they're deemed to not "work" for what is trying to be communicated).
And it is only in the first 70 seconds of the whole series in which you get a crystal clear idea of where the ducumentary is coming from and where it's going.
Basically the angle is this:
Evolution is true and the only people who oppose it are
ignorant and combative fundamentalist Christians who never take
their eyes off the Bible. And evolution (the scientific community)
wins out because the Bible thumpers only have religious arguments
from their old book.
Which is a totally bogus myth that the producers of Evolution perpetuated by, as stated before, they willfully and purposely ommited the opposing view's scientific arguments.
Let's critique the first scene of the series to see how much effort they put into perpetuating this myth from the very start:
First we get a view of a field with some ominous music playing in the background grabbing the viewer's attention by alerting them to the possible impending doom. What is this danger that lies ahead? Later we find out that it's the ignorant fundies. But more on that later.
We have Charles Darwin dressed as an adventurer. He is basically monochromatically covered in brown and tan. This cohesiveness of color in solids visually indicates that he is stable.
Visually he looks stronger than captain Fitzroy (the ignorant fundy), whom we will discuss a bit later. Darwin is wearing a double-breasted jacket with a scarf which looks a more "civilized".
His hat is also very masculine and adventurous looking - the stuff legends are made of.
Now let's compare this to how the fundamentalist captain Fitzroy is dressed . . .
Fitzroy is wearing a poncho. I probably don't need to say any more than that, but I intend to drive the point home. His poncho is made of multi-colored horizontal stripes. This has two affects.
First, the horizontal stripes (something you never see on a business suit) breaks up Fitzroy visually. He is not as "put together" as old Charlie boy. He just looks weak and chaotic.
Second, the fact that he's wearing a poncho visually ties him in with the native boys (who are on a lower order in the evolutionary scheme of things) who are also wearing ponchos.
And not only that, their ponchos are also multi-colored stripes (like the boy who is later poking at the skull with his finger).
Coincidence? I think not.
So we are getting visual signals that Fitzroy is somehow connected with these natives. As mentioned, one of the boys pokes at the skull with his finger much like we have seen in documentaries when lower primates do this to unknown objects.
They also, as told by the elder native, had previously thrown stones at the skull ignorantly not knowing the value of it.
And the boys are watching from behind a make-shift fence as Darwin examines the skull. This seems to indicate that they are somehow cut off from the level of understanding as that of Charlies.
And the connection to the fundy Fitzroy? It's that he is somewhat ignorant and barbaric too. Not AS ignorant and barbaric as the village boys, but ignorant and barbaric none-the-less (by being religious) when compared to the intellectual and scientifically minded Charles Darwin.
Fitzroy's barbaric belief in a mythical God from an old book blinds him from the truth of evolved intellectual scientific understanding.
And then there's Fitzroy's hat. It's a nice round one. I'm not sure what the style of it is called, but it sure looks a bit feminine and weak when compared to Darwin's.
When the two men first approach the village, there is a distinct difference in their attitudes and postures.
Darwin at first refuses to buy food from the boys. He is too determined and focused on his mission to think about sustaining his own existence (a very noble thing).
When asking the whereabouts of the skull, Darwin is very excited and animated. His arms are thrusting about as he heroically tries to communicate with the elder. He's working very hard to gain knowledge.
And fundy Fitzroy? He just stands very still and stoic looking at Darwin. But then, all of a sudden, he crosses his arms - wow, what action! But this just tends to show how closed-off he is to understanding and gaining such knowledge.
But then there's even more action!
One of the natives starts to touch something on Darwin's back (maybe a gun). Fundy Fitzroy shoos him away as if to say, "Don't be so inquisitive."
Now it could be argued that he is just keeping him away from a loaded gun which would be the safe thing to do and is entirely possible, but why put that in? Why is it important to the scene?
Maybe it's a little "gun control" public service announcement? Maybe since the gun is loaded and attatched to Darwin it's showing that Darwin will be connected to something 'dangerous' in the future?
There are a few possibilities to choose from, however it is strange that it was put in and it was put in for a specific reason - whatever that was.
As they approach where the skull is Fitzroy is now translating what the elder is saying. He mentions that a LOCAL flood washed down an embankment of earth exposing the large head bone. Why have a local flood expose the skull?
Maybe it's a jab of sorts at those who believe in a WORLD-WIDE flood because it's not long after that there's an altercation about the Biblical story.
When they reach the skull, Darwin immediately takes off his gloves to get down and dirty with the business of uncovering and learning. Fundy Fitzroy simply adjusts his gloves to be more comfortable.
Sticks, placed by the natives, cover the skull so Darwin uncovers it signifying his having to work through primative man-made road blocks to get to the truth - just like with Christianity as is seen later in the episode.
After Darwin grabs the skull he stands up and then some interesting things happen.
First Darwin is busy scraping the mud off of it. Good ol' Charlie is not afraid to get dirty while busily working to uncover the truth. Fundy Fitzroy just babbles about religion as we shall see.
Immediately after standing, Darwin ponders about what caused their extinction (while scraping mud reveiling the skull underneath). As he asks the question out loud, the camera moves adjusting his position in relation to what is behind him.
There is now a hut in frame stage behind him. But what is interesting is that the roof of the hut in the shape of a triange now frames Darwin's head (as he asks the "extinction" question). Could this triangle, similar to that on our American currency, be some sort of hint at illuminated knowledge?
To answer Darwin's inquiry about the extinction, Fundy Fitzroy says that maybe there wasn't enough room on the ark to fit them. Darwin immediately laughs. Then the background music goes into "danger" mode as the captain asks, "What is that laugh?!".
Fundy Fitzroy quickly snatches the hat off of his head in a seemingly uncontrollable combative gesture as if to indicate that he is willing to resort to fisticuffs to defend his belief. Then he asks, "Do you mock me or the Bible?" Darwin calmly answers, "neither."
At one point during all this, the camera moves position again revealing two lamas behind them visually supporting the "two of every kind of animal" description in the ark story of the Bible.
So we have here in the first 70 seconds of this eight hour "documentary" the angle that would be sold to the public viewing it. And they were consistent right through to the end. They presented their "scientific" arguments, but in the last episode AIG's scientific arguments were omited and only the "religious" footage was shown.
Anyone who was watching this and learning about evolution for the first time would believe that evolution had been thoroughly scientifically proven and the only arguments against it were irrational ones from fundamentalist religious fanatics.
And therefore anyone who rejects this "theory" is basically a nut case who needs help by getting more education.
But ironically, as stated before, they are the ones who omitted facts and therefore it is up to the reader to decide if the documentary (as well as PBS/Nova) is reliable and trustworthy or not.
Clearly,
Mack the Janitor (and handyman)