Glenn Beck — Bonkers Over Darwin Movie

It’s been a long time since we posted about Glenn Beck. That was when he claimed Bill Nye Would Persecute Galileo. Some of our earlier posts were Glenn Beck on Darwin and Racism, and before that Hey, Glenn Beck!

We’re discussing him again because he’s sounding off about something we wrote about recently: Discoveroids — Disney, Darwin, & Indiana Jones. Disney is considering — not yet filming — a movie about Charles Darwin. The Discoveroids are already foaming at the mouth about it, and now it appears that other creationists are too.

In the US edition of London’s Guardian we read Glenn Beck planning boycott of Charles Darwin movie. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Former Fox News commentator Glenn Beck has suggested a boycott of the just-announced Disney film about the celebrated English naturalist Charles Darwin, during an episode of his nationally syndicated radio show.

It’s difficult to boycott something that doesn’t yet exist, but that doesn’t bother Beck. The Guardian then reminds us:

Disney’s plan to greenlight a film about Darwin’s voyage on board the HMS Beagle in the 1830s – the expedition that revolutionised scientific understanding of evolution and natural selection – was made public a week ago. A rough reception was inevitable after the difficulties faced in the US by a previous Darwin film, Creation.

We discussed that in last week’s post. Let’s read on:

Beck’s comments came after a discussion on whether or not boycotts were a legitimate political tactic. Beck has previously disapproved of them on free speech grounds, but his attitude appears to have changed – at least as far as Disney is concerned. After citing his disapproval of Walt Disney World’s decision to project rainbow lights on its Cinderella Castle to mark the supreme court’s backing of gay marriage, Beck said: “Boycotts work and we [conservatives] … do nothing.”

Wow — Disney is going wild! By the way, WordPress — the website where this humble blog is hosted — displayed the rainbow flag for a few days following the recent decision of the US Supreme Court. But it was only visible on our statistics page and a few other internal places. There were dozens of protest threads about it in the user forums, but management quickly shut those down. We didn’t bother joining in those discussions — we don’t care about anything WordPress does since Beep Beep Boop was imposed on us. Anyway, let’s get back to the Guardian:

Beck then said: “They’re doing a new movie, kind of an Indiana Jones swashbuckling spirit of a five-year voyage in 1831 on ship HMS Beagle to the coastline of South America to find and follow the man who made discoveries that made him one of the most influential figures in human history.”

No one knows what the movie will be like — if it ever gets made. The Beck quote continues:

Wow, this sounds like a swashbuckling thriller that we are going to have to take our families to see. Doesn’t it sound great? It’s Charles Darwin. It’s the story of Charles Darwin and so we’re going to find out how exactly he came up with the idea, made the discoveries that brought him to the theory of evolution. Thank you, Disney! That’s fantastic.

We assume that’s sarcasm. It’s difficult to know when dealing with creationists. Anyway, there are dozens of comments at the Guardian website. We can’t wait to see ol’ Hambo’s reaction to this proposed movie. At times like this, the creationists are more entertaining than any movie could possibly be.

Hey — maybe Disney should consider a creationism theme park. It could be right next to the Haunted House.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “Glenn Beck — Bonkers Over Darwin Movie

  1. anevilmeme.

    Glenn Beck was far more interesting and entertaining before he went legally insane and elevated paranoia to an art form.

  2. Diogenes' Lamp

    Glenn Beck said before that Darwin was “the father of racism.” Not that Darwin himself was a racist, but he was “the father of racism.”

  3. If you can find it, watch “The Voyage of Charles Darwin,” an excellent 1978 BBC mini-series about this exact subject.

  4. docbill1351

    There is also a book, “Voyage of tge Beagle” written by some Charles Darwin dude.

  5. Glen Beck “best movie advertiser today!”
    It was never the Oscars that prompted me to see movies but the ones RCC and other boycotted were a sure winner to go to!!

  6. Unfortunately, though this might be a very laudable effort by Disney, like “Creation,” will it actually draw an audience? Will it have the excitement of Jurassic Park/World? Likely not, unfortunately. I could be wrong, but I won’t hold my breath.

  7. Ever since the Hollywood trades announced the greenlighting of a Disney film about Charles Darwin and the epic voyage of The Beagle, rumors of a creationist boycott have cheered comedy writers for the various late night TV talk show hosts. After all, this is a topic with everything a comedian could possibly want. Well… perhaps not literally everything a comedian could want in a current events topic. But it’s got literally clueless, science-illiterate young earth creationists. And that beats a maximally flexible modern-day-dinosaur (also known as a rubber chicken) any day of the week.

    I do hope the Disney movie will include the public’s reaction to Darwin’s theory, especially the various Christian ministers who praised Darwin “for explaining how Our Creator chose to fill the earth with wondrous creatures”, among whom was one of the great heroes of fundamentalist Christians, Dr. Benjamin Warfield, “the Father of Biblical Inerrancy.” And that’s something they won’t pick up from any Ray Comfort video.

    When the movie portrays how Darwin’s journey gave him first-hand observations of the horrendous treatment of African slaves and ignited his life-long impassioned opposition towards slavery, I also hope they mention how Darwin’s royalties from sales of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life funded the printing of scripture-filled Abolitionist tracts written by the various Christian ministers Darwin also generously supported. Then perhaps Ken Ham can explain to his followers how he and other millionaire origins ministry entrepreneurs justify their pathological lying about Darwin supposedly being such a rabid “racist.” (Yeah, right. We all know how “creation science” purveyors are always so conscientious about setting the record straight and publishing errata compilations when caught red-handed in their lies.)

  8. Speaking of YEC anti-evolution lies, any public discourse on Darwin and his famous book gives linguists and lexicographers like me yet another opportunity to explain to overly trusting Hamites that in 19th century English the word race meant “variety of organisms”, as in this updated title translated into 21st century English:

    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Varieties of Organisms in the Struggle for Life.

    Indeed, today’s readers of recently translated editions of The Origin of Species in other languages have this potential advantage over most English-speaking readers stuck with Darwin’s original text: New translations generally bypass (and re-word accordingly) the archaic features of Darwin’s language from a century and a half ago and thereby avoid the reader’s likely misunderstandings which would have accompanied that outdated language from another era. Of course, that general observation fails if the translator(s) have limited working knowledge of 19th century English. Yet, the best publishers understand that potential problem and assign translator contracts accordingly.

    After all, between Darwin’s day and our own, inevitable changes in English language vernacular rendered many Bible translation editions seriously “outdated” (and Bible paraphrase editions even more so) within a generation or two, if maximal reading comprehension accuracy trumps all other translation goals. (Despite the accusations of Bible critics that profit motives drive every new Bible translation edition, even an often cynical “insider” like me–one who regularly calls out the disingenuous spins and the duplicitous misdeeds of every “side” in most such conflicts and controversies–must agree that most modern day English translations pass their prime in twenty years, at most.)

    Considering how Ken Ham and many other YECists and IDers regularly exploit such equivocation fallacies as exemplified in the “…the Preservation of Favoured Races…” clause, I’ve wondered how such language-dependent equivocations “underwhelm” the non-English-speaking audiences and readers of their anti-evolution propaganda. AIG, CMI, and many other organizations in the origins propaganda industry proudly brag about the numbers of foreign language editions of their books and videos. Yet, I wonder if any of their multilingual staff or donors have ever explained to them how and why their many equivocation fallacies only “work” in English (and perhaps sometimes with a few other related Indo-European languages with similar words and cognates.) Indeed, this “Darwin’s evolution book has a racist title!” argument of nonsense makes even less than zero sense in Mandarin Chinese, Tagalog, and Hindi. [Yes, I do enjoy exploiting the irony of illustrating the total nonsense of this particular example of Ham’s propaganda rubbish through “repayment in-kind”!]

    Frankly, the more I think about the difficulties of conveying such English-based equivocation fallacies in other languages, I realize that an honest translator of YECist and IDer propaganda would find it extremely difficult to explain the argument in another language without also debunking the argument at the same time! Think about it: A typical Ken Ham tirade-filled, anti-evolution sermon would sound even more ridiculous in translation, depending upon and varying with the particular target language involved. . . .

    ===> Those interested in additional examples of how many equivocation fallacies concerning evolution fall apart when translated to other languages can read the rest of my essay on the Bible & Science Forum blog:

    Translating YEC Propaganda: Anti-Evolution Equivocation Fallacies Sound Even Stupider in Another Language

  9. Thanks for the comedy skit Glenn. You just go right ahead and hold your breath till you get what you want. Nanny nanny nuu nuu……

  10. @Prof. Tertius

    BTW, the original title that Darwin chose was An abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties Through natural selection, but his publisher persuaded him to change it.

  11. My kids are a little more excited about the prospect of Frozen 2 than they are for this.

  12. Diogenes' Lamp

    If they make Frozen 2, I hope they ditch the sisters and keep the snowman. And the reindeer.

  13. My kids are a little more excited about the prospect of Frozen 2 than they are for this.

    So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that they aren’t all that excited about the translation dynamics of English-based equivocation fallacies.

    Interesting. Different strokes, I guess.

  14. Glenn Beck — Bonkers Over Darwin Movie

    Face it: Glenn Beck is bonkers, period. And a relentless self-promoter: I’m sure one of the reasons he stepped into this pile of turds is to get his name in the media again, as if it weren’t there too often already.

  15. Beck knows how to play to the audience of disgruntled, old white Christian males. He’s gotta bank while he can because in twenty years most of them will be dead or shouting at the TV in a nursing home.