Darwin Film Too Controversial for america

[grumbler]

Ok, on a serious note, I suspect that the poll worded the question strangely.  Probably something along the lines of, "Do you think it's possible that Darwin's theory of evolution is not correct?" and only 39% said "no" and then that got reported as "61% said that it's possible that Darwin's theory is wrong".  But you can think that Darwin was right, and still say that it's possible that he was wrong.

You could also have the question be "do you think God had no hand in the development of mankind"  - the strictly atheistic interpretation of evolution, and postulate that everyone who answers "no, I think God might have played a role" does not "think the theory of evolution is correct." 

Not that any of this actually matters all that much.  Generally, the Euros who disdain religion do so for the same empty set of reasons as those Americans who worship  - that's what they have been trained to think.

[Alatriste]

If nothing else, I think the casting's pretty controverisal. Paul Bettany as a sexy strawberry blonde Darwin?

Charles Darwin around 1838, when he was barely 30

[The Brain]

Sorry, Darw cannot meet Brazen's internet standards.

[Valmy]

Sorry, Darw cannot meet Brazen's internet standards.

Indeed his waistcoat is too pointy.

[dps]

You know, if the film actually does get distributed in the US (and I figure that it will), there's likely to be more controversy over its alleged portrayal of Darwin as a sex symbol than over its take on evolution and religion.

[Syt]

You know, if the film actually does get distributed in the US (and I figure that it will), there's likely to be more controversy over its alleged portrayal of Darwin as a sex symbol than over its take on evolution and religion.

Which is just as well. Everyone knows that sex was invented in the 1970s by the porn industry and that until then people multiplied by mytosis.