ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Jan 22 11 2:09 PM
atenolol wrote:Andrew Kidd wrote: atenolol wrote: His critique--He believed in evolution and thought 2001 simply brought anti-evolution in the back door under the sci-fi gloss of an alien intervention.Speaking as a committed defender of evolution-as were Kubrick and Clarke-I couldn't disagree more. The monolith is just one point in human development, and natural selection is what has driven the rest of its evolution.MISSION TO MARS on the other hand...as Evilskippy would say, AAAAACCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!Well, just to defend my old professor--How many alien interventions are necessary? I don't think it is in dispute that the movie implies that human development was subject to alien manipulation."committed defender of evolution as were Kubrick and Clarke"But the movie they made does drag in aliens to supplement human evolution regardless of their private beliefs. If, for example, Cecil B DeMille was proved to have been an agnostic, it would hardly make THE TEN COMMANDMENTS a picture made from an agnostic point of view.By the way, as I said, I found the movie to be great, myself. In retrospect, though, my professor had a valid point.
Andrew Kidd wrote: atenolol wrote: His critique--He believed in evolution and thought 2001 simply brought anti-evolution in the back door under the sci-fi gloss of an alien intervention.Speaking as a committed defender of evolution-as were Kubrick and Clarke-I couldn't disagree more. The monolith is just one point in human development, and natural selection is what has driven the rest of its evolution.MISSION TO MARS on the other hand...as Evilskippy would say, AAAAACCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!
atenolol wrote: His critique--He believed in evolution and thought 2001 simply brought anti-evolution in the back door under the sci-fi gloss of an alien intervention.
Share This