Re: Nev Pierce's article "Science, emotion clash in 'Creation'" in the Calendar section of the Los Angeles Times (Sunday, Sept. 6, 2009).

The new film 'Creation' -- a drama about the intensely human story of Charles and Emma Darwin torn apart by the death of a daughter and the theory of evolution -- will open the Toronto International Film Festival this coming Thursday.

Festival co-producer Cameron Bailey says,

"We just thought 'Creation' was a film that spoke to our times. That tension between faith and reason was something we began to see in a number of films, and it crystallized beautifully here, especially in that debate between a husband and wife who happen to see the world in completely different ways. It's still pressing."

Indeed. Worldviews-in-conflict are certainly enduringly relevant.

Paul Bettany (the doctor in "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"), the actor who plays Charles Darwin, calls Darwin

"a fascinating human being...there is this family in crisis. The husband and wife are becoming aliented becase of this dreadful loss they've gone through. And it also happens to be about Darwin, who is the the process of killing off God..."

Aye, here's the rub. Must we be forced to choose between God and science? between love and truth? between faith and reason? Is this an either-or question?

Director John Amiel ("Sommersby," "Entrapment") says,

"It's sad to me that Darwin is considered controversial anywhere, any more than the ideas of Newton or Galileo...I believe that some people will find things to object to, and I hope that some people will be provoked to think harder and deeper about the ideas that are in the film."

Indeed. Thinking harder and deeper is a good thing. Let's do that...

For director Amiel, just as Newton and Galileo threw off centuries-old, conventional, religious-based thinking about the cosmos with heliocentrism, so with Darwin.

But there's a big difference. Newton and Galileo's theories didn't attack God himself.

• Galileo: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” Quoted in Des MacHale, Wisdom (London, 2002).
• "Newton saw a montheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation." Source: Wikipedia (not bombproof, I realize, but when pressed for time, usually a nice shortcut).

However, Darwin's theory has been used to attack centuries-old, conventional, religious-based thinking about God being responsible for creation itself -- in other words, universal truths about God that are completely independent of recent/ancient time, conventional/unconventional styles, or religious/quasi-religious beliefs.

To use a poker analogy, with Newton and Galileo, much less was at stake. It's relatively easy to make the adjustment from believing in a geocentric universe to a heliocentric one and still have plenty of room for a Divine Creator. But with evolution, the stakes have been raised infinitely: Does Nature alone account for the world as we know it -- without any participation from a Divine hand? Some evolutionists, like atheist Richard Dawkins, say Yes. Others, like evangelical Christian and Human Genome head Francis Collins, say No.

So, contra producer Amiel, I don't think it's sad that Darwin's theory is controversial. I expect it because people have different worldview starting-points.

Because different worldview interpretations impinge on Darwinism, controversial Darwinism is and controversial Darwinism will remain.

Of course, helping people think through these things harder and deeper is why I wrote The Late Great Ape Debate and its companion The Late Great Ape Debate Discussion Guide. Get your group copies of these books and go through them!