Ever been brought into a room where a presenter greets you and welcomes you and thanks you and invites you to open your mind? The presenter says, "I will show you how to make more money than you need, how to help your family financially, how you'll never have to work a day in your life again, and how to have all the ladies you want. This will change your life forever."
And then you think deeply to yourself, "What the fuck did I get myself into? Cuz Death can change my life forever, too, but I ain't goin' around wishin' for it."
I'd written my take on God's Not Dead, and how Harold Cronk, the director, had forced his hand on the movie by vilifying characters who weren't Christian to the tenth degree. His hand was so heavy he might as well have been masturbating. This is my example of being heavy handed, which of course sounds stupid. See Cronk?
And Rotten Tomatoes' rating at 17% reflects his efforts.
I'd heard many established writers talk about manipulative writing, and I don't completely understand what that is. But like anything else, I knew it when I saw Cronk's movie.
The premise of the film begins when a philosophy professor states God's dead. A Christian student disagrees, and the professor challenges him to convince the class otherwise. The student has three 20-minute sessions to do this over the course of the semester.
In my initial post, I had spared you the details of how the student manipulates scientific evidence to serve his purpose in his second session. I'm here to show what the student, ultimately Cronk, did.
The student uses evolution to help support the existence of God (imagine my slanty eyes wide open like the size of half dollars, round-eye. Didn't think science and religion mixed.). In class, the student introduces us to Darwin (the antichrist) and explains that Darwin's theory of evolution detailed what happens with life, but not where it came from. The student goes on to say that Darwin surmised that lightning struck a pool of chemicals, and, shabam, life. Astutely, the student smirks and states it's not that simple.
Now my round-eyes are the size of silver dollars. For you youngens, that's twice as much as a half dollar and it ain't made of silver.
The student explains that Darwin claimed all life came from a simple celled organism. The padowan then quotes one of Darwin's famous statements, "Nature does not jump", meaning it takes a long time for evolution to happen.
The wise student shows an analog clock, for you youngens that's a non-digital clock with needles that point to numbers, and asks the class to imagine 3.8 billion years, the time life existed on Earth, condensed down to a 24-hour period. He illustrates life as we know it had exploded onto the scene within the last ninety seconds and concludes that Nature does make a giant leap, in essence life was created instantly. This supports that God created all life in an instant.
Very clever. Or is it?
Now, let's look at the facts that the student presented, ignoring further facts that religions like Christianity put little faith in evolution, which was the first thought that came to mind when I watched this scene.
Life be on dis Earf for hella days: 3,800,000,000 years
24-hour day = 86,400 seconds
1 second = 43,981.48 years
90 seconds = 3,958,333.33 years
Don't worry. I'm Asian. I know how to do maf, I mean math. Sometimes my ghettoness comes out.
According to the student, all life as we know it came to be four million years ago, henceforth, here thereto, ala kazam, abracadabra, life came to be instantly. He didn't use the word abracadabra, but he did use the word instantly. In other words, evolution doesn't exist, Darwin is wrong, God does exist because he created life in an instant, (wave the magic wand) Nature makes a giant leap. I don't know, but 3.9 million years doesn't sound too instant to me. But, Jimmy, in the span of God, it is an instant. Geezus Kryst (facepalm).
This is all very manipulative. First, Cronk uses Darwin and his theory of evolution as a base to start with. It makes sense at first. Back in the 1850's Darwin was highly credited and known for the idea of evolution. I'm not sure Cronk knows this, but we as a people have learned a few things since then. Maybe that's why he's so stuck on a book that was supposedly written several thousand years ago.
I'd watched a documentary series by famed American astrophysicist, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, The Inexplicable Universe. He explains basic concepts of physics and the evolution of our understanding of the universe that includes Sir Isaac Newton's discoveries. Newton had given us a lot knowledge in regards to the forces at work in our universe, but even his work had to be revisited and revised to compensate for the new findings that physicists have since discovered. It's the natural order of knowledge and wisdom. Tyson even states that evolution does make jumps, scientist have discovered, eschewing the old idea that Nature does not.
Just look at the number of breeds of dogs that exist today. Due to artificial selection, the dog's ancestor, the wolf, had been bred to Chihuahua through the Great Dane.
Then, Cronk has us imagine the existence of life's timeline on Earth in a 24-hour period, shows that complex life forms came to be within the last 90 seconds, implying instantaneous life. The problem with this is he ignores the 23 hours, 58 minutes and 30 seconds that life could have taken to evolve into what they've become in the last 90 seconds. Miss something there, pal?
All this masturbatory manipulation coats every single line, scene, and actor in the movie. And that's what I meant when I said Cronk's hand was heavy in this piece of shit, I mean work. He either didn't trust the audience to come to the conclusion that he wanted (tsk,tsk), or he made the film specifically for the converted; sorta like saying, "Hey, Jimmy. You're Asian because..."
"Ah soh, dat why my eye rook rike dat."