Creationists take their fight to the really big screen.

There's a lot more to this than the creationists.Let's look at a simple economic cost-benefit analysis, since Murray uses a marketing point of view. benefits: a crowd that is not large
costs: creating a controversyAlso, let's take a look at another thing that most people leave out: opportunity cost. I'm assuming that the Murray is going to screen another film instead (a pretty safe assumption, since it would be stupid to screen nothing). If instead, Murray chooses to screen Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, rather than the alternative film, you incur what's called an opportunity cost, which is what you could have gained by screening the alternative.From this perspective, you can see that the decision is based more on economics than religion.

removed by commike37 (the author)This message has been edited by commike37, 03-23-2005 09:42 PM

While that would be true in the North, advertising would be outweighed by the controversy and normative issues in the South. That is bad, "as the loss of venues in the Southern states could be enough to turn profit to loss." Also, even though we may know about this article, the Mail & Guardian Online isn't well-known enough to generate massive advertising, especially in the North where this controversy doesn't exist.On another note, I don't think that there is enough in the article to conclude that the offended people were from the Christian right. That seems more like a generalization to me.

They are not complaining about science; they are complaining about how science was presented.All of this is quoted from the article Trae references at the beginning.Audience Replies:
"I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact."
"I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."Bayley Silleck, who wrote and directed Cosmic Voyage:
"They have to be extremely careful as to how they present anything relating to evolution,"

But evolution is not the end-all, be-all. You're making it out to be a "holy grail," and some people don't like evolution as a "holy grail." You largely ignore about my point about how it is presented. There are two types of theories, empirical and explanatory. The problems do not lie with empirical evolution, it lies with explanatory evolution (namely, how empirical evolution is interpreted and presented). Although they didn't realize it, these people were complaining about the explanatory theory of evolution. If evolution is fact, though, does that encourage exploration of the origins of life, criticisms to evolution, and alternative theories? But if this movie was rejected due to economic reasons, then would it be fair to blame it on the so-called "Christian right"? And whether you realize it or not, your argument does have relevance to economics, specifically normative economics. That's just fallacious. It's just plain discriminatory to say that any movie that doesn't present evolution in the way that Volcanoes of the Deep Sea does is automatically not science. You are running a very extreme example of slippery slope.

You miss the beauty of my argument, though. The movie is rejected due to economic reasons, not because of the "Creationist conspiracy." Controversy, whether it comes from Christians or scientists, is a cost that discourages the showing of the meaning. You see, unlike humans, this economic outlook does not discriminate. Furthermore, you have not shown me a link between Creationists and both the benefits and opportunity costs of this dilemna, meaning that two of the three factors involved in this situation have no relevance to the Creationists.

Benefits: Greater friendliness to religious people -> A larger market
Costs: None, really. The movies not being shown in the South is a sunk cost. It's already happened, so this sunk cost doesn't weight into the decision.

An economic analysis is very neutral. Here's a quote from my economics textbook. "Economists are trained to put their emotions aside and ask: What are the costs of the policy, and what are the benefits?" I've been doing this with my analysis, but you obviously haven't put your emotions aside. First off, I object to your portrayal of them as bigots and morons. Just because they disagree with you doesn't classify them as that.
Second, controversies don't necessarily lead to money. I already explained this in more detail in a previous post, but the controversy can also generate negative effects (ie: people choosing not to watch the movie). In the south, these negative effects will certainly outweigh any free advertising, and the IMAX filmmakers can't make profits without the South. This controversy created by the Creationists specifically has to with the costs of showing the movie. You still haven't accounted for benefits and opportunity costs, as I have asked you to do.

You see, you're assuming on an evolution vs creation that evolution is a "be-all." That's a problem. And you also use an extreme analogy with the heliocrentric solar system. You may be correct in some empirical aspects, but to prevent a view that the entire world and the human race has resulted solely from the process of evolution really undercuts the evolution/creation controversy (which is what this board is all about). Well, its good to see that you can undermine an article I have quoted with a simple "I don't think" statement, and that you have the credibility to do this without any sources. This film probably made a reference to the theory of evolution, because one of the complaints was about its outlook on human life. I've seen this again and again in movies in documentaries, where it says, "[something] resulted from the evolutionary process that started with simple protocells billions of years ago." If people want to object to that sort of presentation of evolution, then allow them to do so.