The movie definitely conveyed the idea that science cannot understand religion, and science cannot demonstrate the truth of religion. Many followers of science therefore tend to discount religion and to belittle religion. Religion cannot express itself well using science. Many followers of religion therefore tend to distrust science and to discount science.
Why? Why does this antagonism exist? More importantly, how can followers of science come to recognize the truth of religion? How can followers of religion come to recognize the truth of science? How can we understand that perhaps neither could exist alone in a world where nobody believes in and recognizes the truth of the other? Paradoxically, Darwin wasn't saying “kill all religion,” he never said such a thing, but yet he is a totem for people. He seemed to be endlessly tortured by the conflict between religion and his thirst for science.
To our earliest ancestors, science and religion were one and the same. What happened two to three thousand years ago that caused religion and science to separate from each other in the first place? Can our understanding of religion and science now be reunified into one single model of the world such that people can clearly recognize the common origin of religion and science and the source and nature of their differences?
Darwin could not refute the creation/intelligent design hypothesis of creationism, but he insisted that biologists should proceed using the only viable approach, science, and attempting to falsify natural selection and descent with modification, which biologists have been attempting to do for 140 years. Every aspect of Darwin’s hypotheses has been demonstrated true repeatedly and natural selection has been fundamental to our understanding of genetic inheritance. Thus evolution represents a well-verified scientific explanation, a scientific truth. Since it can and will change, evolutionary theory is a conditional truth, as are all scientific statements.
Does scientific creationism belong in the educational systems? Personally I feel scientific creationism is religion, not science, and religion cannot be taught in public schools as literal truth. It could be appropriate to discuss the creationist movement and tenets in history or sociology classes, but creationism does not meet the criteria required for inclusion in the scientific curriculum.
Or going along the track of is evolution, just as much as creation, fundamentally based on faith in the philosophical backing of all science? Do evolutionary explanations amount to nothing more than "just stories" and therefore are no better or more truthful than creationist explanations? Can creationism be a science and evolution a religion? Could life have abruptly appeared on Earth? Do you consider evolution and religion as consistent or inconsistent (and if so, are evolutionists agnostic or atheistic?)
I like the question, Can creationism be a science and evolution a religion? This question really makes you stop and think. Instead of looking at how these two "ideas" differ from eachother, lets take a look at their similarities. Can they be grouped in the opposite catagories or not? Darwin's theory of evolution was blasphemy at the time he wrote it, and as you saw in the film, it was a very hard decision to make on whether or not he should publish "Origin of The Species". Darwin began his research on his evolutionary theory after he lost faith in God because of the death of his 10 year old daughter. Is there a way evolution and religion can somehow mesh together? Can God somehow be responsible for evolution? Could "survival of the fittest" somehow be God's way of ensuring the survival of his creation, in a forever changing environment? Because even though Darwin rejected God at first, he did come back to religion after publishing his book. There is a lot to think about. Also great movie, enjoyed it and understood it a little better the second time. - Andrew Kurtz
ReplyDeleteI do not think that you have to be on one side of the spectrum. You do not have to pick religion over science or science over religion. I believe that you can follow both religion and science. This goes back to what we learned about mythos and logos. As society modernized, scientific reasoning took over mythos. Logos was now the only way to look at things. This is how fundamentalism arose. People could no longer explain religion using mythos anymore. They took everything religion said literally and let go of the notion that sacred texts were written in allegories. This is where the conflict between religion and science came about. If people considered mythos to be a truth, rather than fiction, science and religion could coexist in harmony.
ReplyDeleteThe movie gave a great back drop to Darwin's life that i was completely unaware of before. Personally i feel that on the subject of creationism vs evolution the scale has become too polarized. people try and define everyone as a pure creationist or evolutionist, but who is to say the truth doesn't lie somewhere in the middle. i just feel that on something that may never have to a definitive answer its ridiculous to expect people to only think in terms of two options when in reality there are more options that exist
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with the statement that there may be a way evolution and religion can somehow mesh together. Honestly with such an intense, vast and not tangible topic such as Religion vs. the environment, one would be very close-minded and ignorant if they just tried to say one side was the winner. Darwin was very right because he did not fully shut down the idea of religion but he did question the people who believed that religious reasons were the only theories of creation. Religion and science coexist to create the understanding about how the world operates. In my personal opinion God is responsible for evolution and survival of the fittest. Those were his mechanisms to help us try to improve our own species on our own, but the whole process is still guided by him.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the debate between creationism and evolution has become way too polarized. The fact of the matter is that there is no way to absolutely confirm how humans came to be the way we are today. Both of these view points are theories, not fact. The problem is that with the increased popularity of reading the bible literally, believers take what is in the bible as fact, instead of viewing it metaphorically. On the other side, many who view science as the only path to find the truth blindly believe in evolution, even though many of them have never even read Darwin's "Origin of Species". I believe that both these theories should be able to coexist because they explain two different sides of the same story.
ReplyDeleteI would agree in saying that is possible for evolution and religion to be able to mesh together, I do not think that a person necessarily has to believe in one or the other. I personally don’t think that the Bible should be looked at as a factual account of events, but more a figurative and symbolic text. I personally believe that God created everything on the earth and as a result of that, evolution ad survival of the fittest came about. Which therefore means I believe that God has guided evolution and intended for species to change and improve themselves. Now this is just what I believe, but since that is my personal belief, I see that it is very possible for religion and evolution to mesh together.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed watching this movie, not only because of its artistic value, but also because of the way it portrays Darwin in a light that people may not have witnessed before. As far as the topic of the film (the clash between religion and science), I hold the belief that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. As Andrew hypothesized above, what if God was the "Master Chess Player" behind Evolution, making all of the moves with respect to how the world and the species that live in it evolve? I used the term "Master Chess Player" to emphasize the fact that maybe a higher power (God) is still responsible for the goings on of the world and its beings. Perhaps one doesn't have to pick a side, either rejecting science or, by the same token, rejecting religion. Maybe religion and science both affect each other, just as the actions of one being affect the outcome of another (like an algebraic equation). Of course, this is all speculation, and there is no right answer. It was really surprising to see how much Darwin actually struggled when deciding whether or not to publish his book; it seems that he, too, viewed this topic as having a large grey area, rather than a definitive black and white contrast.
ReplyDeleteAn aspect of this movie that got my attention, was the manor in which Darwin viewed his findings. When approached by his scientific mentors, and urged to publish his book. Darwin took a series of actions, that to me demonstrated a mix between religion and science. Darwin's beliefs are pretty clear, but one reason that he did not want to publish the book was that he enjoyed the style of life that religion was responsible for. In the movie Darwin thinks about what the world would end up like, if society were to be blind-sided by "The Origin of Species" . The fact that Darwin's morals were still in tact even though his beliefs had changed, show that religion and science can coexist on certain levels. It was mentioned above that evolution could be viewed as another one of gods creations, and that is also a valid co-existence. We talked about in class how interpretation of a sacred text varies greatly, so who is to say that you cant pick and choose from a sacred text and scientific text and not still be practicing that religion.
ReplyDeleteThe movie definitely brings forth the recurring question of how we should view the world in terms of evolution and creationism. To be honest, one should not necessarily have to believe in only one of these philosophies. In fact, a combination of these ideas actually seems most reasonable. Because we are human, it is only natural for us to assume that there is some sort of higher power or metaphysical being that dictates how the world should work. On the flip side though, it is just as normal for us to yearn for knowledge and apply reason to our beliefs. It's interesting to me that Darwin was able to consider both of these ideas as imperative components to society. Without these elements working together, society subsequently falls to chaos. And so, it is important to understand that both religion and science act as the backbone to an ordered society.
ReplyDeleteTo believe in evolution requires faith because the origin of life and the production of new information through mutation has not been demonstrated under any convincable solid conceivable circumstance. Is evolution then a science or a religion? Many of you seemed to allude that it can be a religion or both. Evolution has unquestionably been spawned by atheistic philosophy and is the key instrument used by secular humanism to explain the existence of humans independent of God.
ReplyDeleteAnd while evolution may not attain the same importance as such culture war issues as abortion or same-sex marriage, the topic is likely to have a place in national debates on values for many years to come.
On Friday in the 9:35am class we discussed what “truth” is. For the most part we focused on the difference between scientific and religious truth, and what truth can/should even be defined as. That same issue is brought up in this film, where Darwin battles between both his scientific and religious beliefs and even debates whether or not to publish his “Origin of the Species”. So we see that even Darwin was torn about how to approach large issues that involve discovering certain “truths”.
ReplyDeleteThere appears to be some opinions about the subject of creationism versus evolution, and whether or not these two ideas can – or should – be intertwined or separated completely. It brings us back to Armstrong’s question about mythos and logos, and whether or not two seemingly contrasting subjects – in this case religion and science – can be viewed in a “gray” area or if they are strictly “black and white”. What do you think the effects of teaching both evolution and religion would be in schools nowadays? We talked about trying to eradicate “religious illiteracy” in schools, but what if that means sparking up debate about the idea of evolution? Can those two ideas be taught in conjunction, especially in American schools?
The movie focuses mostly on the idea of whether we should view the world in terms of creationism or evolution. I believe that it is possible for religion and science to mesh together for individuals but not as a whole "we". It is impossible for everyone to agree since religion is a different thing to everyone and they would use the science in different ways that go along nicely with their beliefs. If the Bible is viewed as fact as oppose to metaphorically, then it wouldn't be so easy. But if you do see the Bible as symbolic and not fact then it is simple to connect the two. Even as two separate things, I don't see however how anyone could be so sure as to distrust science OR religion, since we have no way of absolutely knowing how humans came to earth. Both should be accepted and respected whether together or not.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found to be interesting in this movie was that Darwin’s social standing with his family and community conflicted with his findings and resulted in his regard of them as destructive. Being urged by fellow scientists to publish these findings as a weapon to “kill God,” hindered their development. But by the end I think he was able to see that evolution could, in effect, be a way to explain creationism or at least be regarded as an alternative view. Religious faith is not completely degraded by belief in evolution. In terms of whether evolution can be religion, or creationism a science; can physics be a religion, and art a science? I think that in some regards they can complement each other (as they did towards the end of the movie) but by definition they are not the same thing. There is no scientific formula for how to create a masterpiece, just as there is no scientific formula for religion. In regards to the question, “Are evolutionists agnostic or atheistic?” I would say neither. I consider myself Catholic, not a devout catholic, but in the same manner I believe in evolution. There are some people who use the theory of evolution to discredit religion, but can’t it just be a different variation or sentiment (although science based); just as Catholicism how Protestantism are both Christian but are subtlety different? I would say yes, evolutionary Christians and non-evolutionary Christians. Can’t God have created evolution?
ReplyDeleteThis just brings me back to what seems so long ago but was actually last week: logos vs mythos. Darwin is extremely troubled throughout the film fighting the notion that he is disproving parts of religion. This destructive factor is that the society in which he lives in revolves around the church. The personal psychotic issue with his daughter tends to mix in with his confusion about what is right and wrong. Many people who posted before I did mentioned the coexistence of science and religion. One cannot be at peace just believing in one side, it has to be that both sides are understood. This, of course, raises again the issue about what is to be taught in school... I don't really want to get into that. All in all, we must remember that anything spread or taught is a theory. Evolution is a theory just as literal creationism is. Neither can be 100% proven at the moment. The former may have more proof but the latter provides inspiration. Two things that can be seen in a positive light are in a constant battle of who is more truthful.
ReplyDeletethink that while a large issue that this movie focuses on is the question of creationism and evolution and the relationship between these two separate beliefs, I cannot help but be drawn into Darwin himself. The health issues and mental strain he endures while trying to cope with the death of his daughter and the guilt he feels is being compounded with his scientific research and the pressure he deals with over deciding whether or not to publish his work.
ReplyDeleteHave any of you ever dealt with a similar internal struggle that Darwin faces in terms of two conflicting ideas battling in your mind as you try to come to one conclusion? Were you able to merge the two different ideas together in order to make your decision or find clarity?
This movie is perfect for displaying the struggles caused by the choice between belief in religion and belief in science. In my opinion, the two no longer have to conflict. In the movie we see Darwin struggle with going against what religion teaches us because he knows he will be looked down upon. Fortunately, we no longer have to make such an extreme choice between the two. Darwin's theories may be used to help complement our religious beliefs. In the film, I found it interesting when the doctor questions Darwin about his faith. This point goes back to the fact that religious truth and scientific truth can coexist. With that said, I think it is important for the two to be taught in school and from there be left up to the individual.
ReplyDeleteGreat articulations guys, especially with what we have discussed in class in terms of truth, logos, mythos, bias, etc. And I agree somewhat with what Anum, barton, and many others have said about perhaps God creating evolution. But just to play the devil's advocate--why would have God made it such a long and drawn out process in order to create human beings, if that was the goal? Why take millions of years for evolution to occur if the grand product could have just been created instanteoulsy?
ReplyDeleteI remember during my junior year we watched a clip from one of Jon Stewart's shows about a religious scientist who believed evolution and religion could coexist together. He argued one did not have to be a purely scientific thinker or a purely religious thinker. I cannot find the video clip and I cannot recall the scientists name but I think he brought up a very relevant point that aids this discussion. Many religious people, this scientist included, believe that what God does and what God knows are too complex for humans to understand. The movie illustrates the struggle between following science and believing in religion. The scientist argued that God was powerful enough to create evolution, a complex process that happened over time. This shows that there can be a connection between religion and science. However, I do not believe that creationism should be taught as fact in schools. It should be discussed as one side of an argument, and evolution should be discussed as well, with the teacher presenting all facts and theories that support it. I personally believe that the evolutionists tend to be agnostic because evolution is referred to as a theory. Agnostic people believe that nothing can be known for sure in regards to God's existence. Evolutionist's provide evidence and explanation for their beliefs, but still refer to evolution as a theory because as of right now, we cannot prove or disprove God's existence or the idea of creationism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Leah when she says that it is impossible for everyone to agree when it comes to religious beliefs. However, because we can never agree on religion, I feel that science (specifically evolution) is something on which we CAN actually agree as a whole. In the movie, the interactions between Darwin and Jenny show mutual emotions. I think this is intended to show some biological similarities in that they are able to simply feel emotions toward each other, but also that the emotions aren't purely biological. As we discussed in class, there is still some mysterious component to the reason we feel certain ways.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, many religious institutions and followers have accepted evolution as scientific truth (logos), while still believing in their faith through scriptures or other methods as guides, usually metaphorical (mythos). Thus, in my opinion it is very realistic to have one's own religious preferences in terms of viewing morals while still accepting scientific evidence. It seems as though as more and more people take scriptures literally, and not in the "mythos" sense as we discussed in class, the line between science and religion is easily blurred. As far as school goes, I think it is healthy to at least expose students to Creation and Evolution; this would build more tolerance and hopefully a better understanding of where to draw the line between religion and science.
I think the key to religion, specifically Christianity, and evolution coexisting is reading the Bible metaphorically rather than literally. Once the Enlightenment period diminished the concept of mythos and logos came to dominate thought, the conflict between religion and science really elevated. I believe that if the Fundamentalists were to adopt a more allegorical understanding of the Bible, religion and evolution could mesh and blend more.
ReplyDeleteI liked that the movie provided a look into a different perspective of Darwin’s life that is normally taught. I had never really thought about him having an internal feud between religion and science, so I’m glad that was brought to my attention through the film.
I don't think religion and science can mesh together where people are drawing facts from both sides. I believe science prevails in this as these facts can be proven where as religion is a belief system. However I don't think science should destroy religion, like it said in the movie religion has been our ship that has kept us afloat throughout time and it wouldn't be good to completely eradicate it as this would turn our world upside down. Therefore I think science and religion can coexist only in the sense that science is taken as fact/truth where as religion is seen metaphorically as mythos that represents our culture, history and values that have been instilled upon us. The extremists on both sides create this tension/war between religion and science. I found it very interesting in the movie how even such a man of science as Darwin was not interested at all in killing god.
ReplyDeleteI definentily think that it is difficult for science and religion to coexist because they tend to contradict one another and the movie portrays that well. I understand how when one of the characters in the movie tells Darwin that his book/findings is going to 'kill' god he got uneasy because that was not what he was trying to do. He is a religious man who attends church every sunday but he is also a scientist who feels the need to share his findings with the world. Science consists of facts and religion consists of faith and it really isn't easy to mesh the two together. But I do agree with the comments that say that it is possible to believe in science while still being about to be religious. I also strongly agree with dclokey's comment on how you should read the Bible more metaphorically rather than literally.
ReplyDeleteI thought this movie was a compelling way to look at the difference between science and religion. Most people, when addressing the issue of science and religion, examine it from a point of view that uses present day circumstances as evidence. However, it is quite different to look at the struggles between science and religion through the eyes of Charles Darwin, who lived in a time when the church bound society together. The church was the glue that held together society, so he truly struggled with what the ramifications of his actions would have on not only the scientific world that he lived in, but the religious world in which his wife and others lived in. Due to this, I thought it was a statement of not only love, but wisdom that he choose for his wife to make the final decision on what to do with his book. She held the final decision. Viewing Darwin in this movie shows the struggles of the time, a time when religion and science were contenders is a great war. This war was for truth, but it had the ability to affect far more than Charles Darwin expected. However, I agree with him on his position. The truth most be told, even if it will negatively impact others.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this movie was a great example of the trials and tribulations of not only Charles Darwin, but of science as well. Christianity was obviously well-established within Darwin's society and his questioning of God took a mental toll upon him. I feel that the main problem lay in Darwin's willingness to upset the status quo. This was most evident when he became enraged at the sight of his daughter's punishment by his local church. However, Darwin became introspective when he learned that his daughter's punishment was for the beliefs that he had instilled within her.
ReplyDeleteI found this scene most striking because it truly showed the effects of the science versus religion argument. The theories that Darwin proved to be true would not be acknowledged by all and in turn would cause millions of people throughout the years to challenge the beliefs that they blindly accepted. The conflict would not only affect his coworkers, but would alter the generations' and generations' view of science and religion for the rest of time.
However, I would not consider this to "kill" religion as one of Darwin's acquaintances put in the movie. I personally believe that the publication of "The Origin of Species" allowed unhappy Christians a medium of challenging the Church. Darwin only provided substantial evidence for men of that time to call out the Church on errors and should not have felt that he was the sole demise of religion in any way.
I thought this movie was more enjoyable than I anticipated. It was an interesting way to show the less known story of Charles Darwin's life. I was completely unaware of his struggle between religion and science. I merely thought he traveled to the Galapagos Islands, observed nature, experimented with science, and voila.
ReplyDeleteI really do believe that in years time, religion and science will be able to mesh, particularly on the topic of creation vs. evolution. As a society, we've been able to adapt and settle in new environments and cultures, which is why I believe that eventually religion and science can coexist harmoniously.
Philip Tateyama said that he didn't believe science and religion could mesh together, however, my views on the creation of the earth pull heavily from both sides. Do I believe it was God who created the earth? Yes. Do I believe the first creatures on earth where single-celled organisms or bacteria, as science has proven? Yes. Do I believe God helped shape evolution in the hopes of creating what he has today? Yes. I could continue on and on with how religion and science has meshed together in my life. Therefore I strongly believe the two will be able to coexist in a global sense.
This movie had a certain bias towards science that would be widely accepted in our logos based society as opposed to the mythos based society that is portrayed in the film. I thought it was really interesting because I did not know the personal details of Charles Darwin’s life, but I was also unaware of the resistance he experienced from the religious community. Right off the bat at the beginning of the movie, we see England’s imperialistic tendencies and how their spread of ideas and cultures. The West thinks highly of its culture and religion, and they believe that their ideologies are supreme enough to save the savages. Also, when Darwin was speaking with his two friends at his house, one person told Darwin “You have killed God.” This reminded me a lot of the existentialist movement where Nietzsche proclaimed “God is dead.” They go on to say that science is at war with religion, and I suppose at that time there was really no thought as to whether or not they could even coexist. Although Darwin seemed uneasy about being at such odds with the religious community, he goes on to strongly challenge religion when he calls God an “utterly redundant almighty” and accuses God of creating so much beauty for no purpose. In short I think this movie was really interesting because it displayed Darwin’s ideas that were extremely progressive for his time period. In addition, a lot of our scientific and religious culture is based off of the discoveries he made. It makes me beg the question—if God is “discredited” as Darwin is accusing him of, does he lose legitimacy in the eyes of all Christians? Is science truly the enemy of religion?
ReplyDeleteI was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Like most people mentioned, I had no idea about the internal battle that Darwin faced in publishing his book, among other family problems he faced. I personally believe that science and religion can coexist, especially with an American mindset. Science and religion are complementary. The simple fact Earth can support life is remarkable: had the planet's location been shifted even slightly, it would be a desolate, lifeless mass. There is also definite, tangible evidence that similar organisms have been improved and nearly perfected over time, and that the fundamentalist understanding of Biblical creation borders ludicrous. As one of my biology teachers in high school noted: "science attempts to explain the 'how', while theology attempts to explain the 'why'." Because God is "Being" and not "a being" we will never fully be able to comprehend whether or not he does exist. I feel that this movie did a good job of showing Darwin's ideals and how they relate to his beliefs in regards to a higher power and Hell.
ReplyDeleteBuilding on what we as previous high schoolers knew of Darwin, the book "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright, and this video, it is safe to say that he led a somewhat traditional life of the times as compared to the elementary concept that he just randomly sprung up the idea of evolution after a trip to the islands. I have been swayed by Dan Brown's writings that religion and science may work hand in hand, and as we discussed in class they seem to demonstrate two faces of the same coin. Not to eliminate possiblities of other avenues of truth, however these SEEM to be the most ironic/clashing. I agree with Ihascher in a statement regarding the time period in which Darwin lived and conducted his research. It is important to keep in mind his culture and time period which intensified the personal struggle he endured to continue his work in the field, remembering that he himself was out to find a meaning of "truth."
ReplyDeleteI think the scientific and religious worlds, no matter how modernized or open minded people may become, will never be able to be at peace with each other. This may just be because I believe that in matters of greatly conflicting ideas or movements, one should give full allegiance to one or the other. While many non-religious people will argue that science and religion will one day be able to see eye to eye with one another, it conflicts with many religious doctrines to believe in anything else other than their own religion/God (including ideas of how earth came to be). In the Bible there is a passage that condemns being a "lukewarm" Christian, referring to a mediocre/half hearted faith. In I know that in today's society many people who half-heartedly claim to be religious frequently pick and choose parts of a religion that allows them to be accepted by the secular society. It is almost refreshing to see that Charles Darwin made his decision to follow his beliefs wholly, despite the fact that he was told he'd basically be killing God. I like many, did not know the complexity of how his ideas and contributions to biology came to be developed and consecrated as fact. It shows a level of dedication to one's beliefs of "truth" that is hard to find today. Much of the grounding basis of faith is that it is often blind, faith entails believing in something that is NOT scientifically or physically able to be proved. This is too much of a contradiction to the scientific research process which puts nearly all emphasis on gathering tangible, visible, statistic evidence in order to come to a factual conclusion/truth. I do accept that many religious leaders in the 21st century have had to become more secular or lenient in their practices to be socially accepted, so technically I suppose religion and science can coexist, but only at the disadvantage of the other.
ReplyDeleteAlso to Sarah Grace's comment, I don't think Nietszche's quote "God is Dead" has anything to do with the topic of evolution and Charles Darwin. Nietszche's stand on the "death" of religion in the Anti-Christ and Twilight of the Idols was that humans had butchered religion and the meaning of authentic faith so much that the Christianity that was intended to exist by God died and no "true" Christians remained. He is speaking of genuine religious faith becoming nothing more than liturgical practices and superficial institutional guidelines. Darwin on the other hand had established a scientific conclusion that would make millions of Christians all over the world re-consider their faith, he was not intentionally making any direct accusation about the flaws of the church and the institution of religion.
ReplyDeleteScience and religion can appear mutually exclusive from a biased view point. An Atheist family that does not allow religious texts in the house and a Conservative Evangelical household where scientific texts are not allowed are going to produce very biased views on religion and science. However, when the free flow of information is allowed, religion and science can easily coexist. For decades, the stories of the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah were chalked up to the exaggeration of writers trying to create a powerful and glorious God. Through recent archeological digs, there are now many cities in the Jordan River area that fit the description, including two that were possibly destroyed by the explosion of a meteor in 3123 BCE. Stories in the Bible that did seem outrageous, now have a basis in fact. As long as each individual maintains their faith through adversity and abstracts religion and its associated emotion from the pursuit of science, both will exist peacefully. In the movie, Emma held to her faith, even after reading her husband's work even though it calls traditional creation beliefs into question and then publishes that work. Emma displayed that truth should not be withheld regardless of belief.
ReplyDeleteLike a few of you, this was my first time watching WALL-E. Not only was the movie adorable but it also had a wonderful message. On the surface, the movie describes the importance of human interaction with their environment. It goes further to explain the danger of technology and how advancements in technology not only lead to human laziness but how they can eventually lead to the takeover of humans. Several visual elements are included to help further the message throughout the movie. Components such as silence, lack of dialogue, music, and color are all used strategically throughout the film and are successful in creating an intriguing film on two levels.
ReplyDelete