A Matter of Faith - Creation, Science and Authority

Updated on April 1, 2016
Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull writes articles on topics such as religion and skepticism, original poetry, short-stories, and film/tv/book/game reviews.



A Matter of Faith is a film by a production company called Five and Two Pictures who identify themselves as an indie Christian film production company. The film is currently available on Netflix which is how I found out about it so if you want to watch the movie before this review please do. It is one of many movies about Christianity vs. the secular world with it's primary focus being on the debate between Creation and Evolution.

While I am happy to say the movie breaks out of some of the tropes typically displayed in this kind of movie it falls victim to bad writing and actually reveals one of the fundamental differences between science and the skeptically minded and those who espouse this brand of evangelical Christianity.

In this hub I want to break down some of what the movie does right, some of what it get's wrong and some of what it reveals to the audience about this particularly sect of Christianity.

Our Main Character - Rachel

All that combat experience and they don't even put ONE fight scene in this movie!!!
All that combat experience and they don't even put ONE fight scene in this movie!!! | Source


Our story follows Rachel, a freshman at college who is studying biology, Rachel also happens to be from an Evangelical family who believe in the story of Creation. Things seem to be going well for her at first. She enjoys the lectures given by her biology professor Prof. Kaman and although she does seem to have doubts about evolution she doesn't let this interfere with her studies. In fact Rachel is doing exactly what most sane rational Christians would do in her situation, she's learning the information she needs without necessarily sacrificing her whole belief system.

Kaman starts out his lecture by holding up a rubber chicken and asking his students the age old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Of course Kaman says the egg came first since eggs were around way before chickens were. The movie doesn't quite drive the point home though. The difference here is that Rachel and Creationists in general think God created a chicken wholesale, just BOOM an entire chicken while those who understand science and evolution know that chickens evolved over the course of millions of years from other egg laying animals.

Chickens even have dormant genes to grow teeth because some of their ancestors had teeth.

Modern Creationism Isn't Scientific

But of course this just can't be allowed to stand. Rachel's Father gets wind of how Professor Kaman teaches his classes and the fact that Professor Kaman has the nerve to not even MENTION Creationism as a viable alternative to Evolution.

This is the first sticking point where the obviously Christian writers of the script don't understand how science works and why only evolution is taught in biology. There is nothing scientific about Creationism, it's a religious belief, it relies on the supernatural and unfalsifiable. Evolution on the other hand could be falsified at any time through empirical evidence and yet it has stood the test of time and become the unifying and central theory of all life sciences. To put it simply creationists have never discovered a scientific fact that points to a supernatural explanation rather than a natural one and no discovery ever made has falsified evolution.

So we've got reams and reams of evidence for evolution, from genetics, from fossils, from morphology, from behavioral science, etc. And we have no scientific discoveries that would suggest an alternative to evolution let alone ones that would come close to falsifying the entire theory.

The reason Creation is not taught in science classes is because it is not science.

Ancient Creation Science

Thousands of years ago the first scientists to study life were mostly Creationists. In Ancient Greece and Rome for example the first people doing dissections and anatomical studies to try to learn of the origin of life and how it functioned were mostly made up of pagan Creationists who believed in the gods. And yet they did not allow this belief to stop them from doing actual science, rather they were rational about it, adjusting their beliefs according to the evidence like true skeptics.

When Darwin's theory emerged it threw the world into an uproar that still hasn't died down completely. Many Christians could not reconcile the deep time and utterly natural way in which life had diverged into so many amazing forms with their belief that God had made the world and all the creatures in it. But some Christians did – and do – accept Evolution just as the ancient creationists would have if they had the kind of evidence we do now.

Perhaps the ancients wouldn't have rejected their faith outright BUT, given the overwhelming evidence, would have adjusted their view of the gods and of how those gods achieved such wondrous creation. But as we will see the characters in this movie are not comfortable shifting their perspective in lieu of the evidence and, in fact, they turn a blind eye to evidence altogether in favor of submission to authority.

Christian Dad VS Evolutionist

One of the faint favorable points I have to give the movie is in its portrayal of the Straw Man evolution professor. While it is explained that he got a colleague of his fired for teaching Creationism he isn't vilified for this action outright. He isn't painted as some sort of enemy by the movie and manages to be a nice guy throughout the whole run time. So in that sense the movie is a step-up from garbage like God's Not Dead portraying atheists and non-Christians as angry, abusive, selfish, etc. In fact Kaman is never explicitly identified as an atheist or abject non-believer.

So Rachel's Father, Jay, finds out she is being taught biology by someone who actually understands science (an evolutionist) and that he wants to have a chat with Professor Kaman. Kaman, who has just been handed an opportunity to set up a science department debate, sees an easy victory in debating Jay since he's never done a debate and clearly doesn't know anything about evolution. Jay resists at first, especially when Rachel shows up and begins asking what the heck he's doing interfering in her education, but Kaman goads him into it and he agrees believing it is an important topic.

The idea, I suppose, is that Jay is doing this to save Rachel's soul from Hell, which is where all evolutionists must go since you can't possibly still believe in Christ and God if you accept evolution and reject the literal interpretation of Genesis.

This Movie Treats Rachel Like Shit

Rachel, despite being the main character, is treated like shit in this movie by everyone, but especially by God. Her Father is an absolute clown who doesn't learn ANYTHING new by the end of the movie and thinks that he can interfere in her education and turn her against science.

She is majoring in biology, remember, so by attempting to undercut this college's science lectures by injecting theological teachings from a narrow branch of one religion he is directly sabotaging her education. If you don't learn actual real science in your biology classes – and science classes in general – how are you going to compete in the job market? How are you going to get a job studying the evolution of bacteria if you think bacteria were popped into existence fully formed, fully complex, via magic words?

If this were Mormons or Islamists or Scientologists trying to teach their wacky beliefs in a science class Christians would lose their collective shit BUT if it's their specific brand of authoritarian Bible-thumping Christianity then it's the ONLY legitimate alternative.

And it isn't as if Kaman is attempting to deconvert his students, he doesn't even MENTION religion or religious thinking in the brief snippets of his lectures we're given. He isn't offensively berating Christian students in the classroom, he's simply teaching the actual science they need to know.

Later on in the movie Rachel realizes the “error” of her ways by getting right with the Lord. And this is where we start to see, more and more, the message of the movie – submission to authority, preferable male authority. Rachel has been at odds with her Father due to his decision to debate Kaman, she wants to be left alone and wants him to call off the debate because, you know, she's an adult and her Father has no business embarrassing her AND fucking up her education.

Are You Fucking Kidding Me Movie?

What this brand of Christianity is all about: submit to your heavenly Master - PLEASE HIM! Your own happiness will be in serving your Master, you are nothing by yourself.
What this brand of Christianity is all about: submit to your heavenly Master - PLEASE HIM! Your own happiness will be in serving your Master, you are nothing by yourself.


She's also spent some of the movie dating some guy while resisting the creepy religiously motivated advances of Evan an evangelic (see what they did there?) student who works for the school paper. Apparently her would-be boyfriend is shallow and was just dating her for her looks. I should point out that they've only gone out maybe twice at this point so I'm not sure how deep the writers expect college romance to be after two dates but I'm pretty sure, “she's cute” is a good enough reason for most guys to go on date number 3.

But Rachel has to submit to her Fathers, her Earthly Father who is fighting for her soul and her heavenly Father who hasn't said a word in two thousand years but who she still believes in because childhood indoctrination. Evan guilt trips her into recommitting her life to Christianity and agreeing with her Dad's decision. Evan is creepy throughout the entire runtime of the film including a bizarre scene where he secretly meets Rachel's Dad for what appears to be a romantic date at the park. In fact the sexual tension between the two men could be cut with a knife.

In the end Evan has to settle for Rachel since homosexuality is against the rules in Christianity although he's been nothing but a creep and an asshole to her the entire time.

And where is God in all of this? Silent of course. What does a merciful and perfect God want with submissive obedient slaves? Never mind that!

It's not good enough to believe in Christ, you have to become a slave Rachel, stop acting as if you're a sentient being with autonomy and get on your knees!
It's not good enough to believe in Christ, you have to become a slave Rachel, stop acting as if you're a sentient being with autonomy and get on your knees!

Token Black Guy

So Jay, Rachel's Dad, goes to meet with the Professor who Kaman got fired to try to get his assistance in the debate. Professor Portland is played by our very first black actor in the entire film. I'm serious, you can watch it for yourselves, the handful of students that attend the college are all white as far as I can tell (there may have been one Asian). Now I'm no social justice warrior and I don't think a cast HAS to be super diverse for a movie to be good but I do find it amusing that we have to wait 45 minutes before we get our first black character.

Portland is played by Walker Texas Ranger sidekick and all around veteran actor Clarence Gilyard though they give him nothing to do with this role other than knock-down poorly constructed straw men.

Master Debater

So we finally get to our debate and it's filled with strawmen. Kaman basically stands up and declares that evolution is irrefutable absolute truth. He doesn't really bring up the many many lines of evidence or any specific discoveries, he doesn't even bring up Darwin's finches. He does bring up abiogenesis, which is of course a strawman since evolution would be a reality regardless of whether a God sparked the first single-celled organisms or not.

But here, and sprinkled elsewhere, we get hints at what the real difference of perspective is between Christians who agree with and write stuff like this and those who are actually interested in evidence and truth.

In the end they make the claim that evolution and creation are both FAITH BASED positions because they fail to even understand evolution on a high school level.

Warning Strawman Alert!

Man Vs God or Man Vs Bible

As you can see above the problem isn't addressed as whether or not evolution is scientifically accurate or a scientific fact. The problem is addressed as whether or not you're going to take man's word for it or listen to the Bible which is supposedly God's word.

Of course last I checked God's word says to burn witches, stone gays, slavery is okay while ham bacon and pork are forbidden. While man's word, aka science, cured smallpox, nearly doubled the human lifespan, took us to the moon and discovered the origin of species.

Also we have the claim that we can't prove evolution. Of course we can. On the basis of the DNA evidence alone we KNOW, as a scientific fact, that all species on Earth are related genetically, as in via reproduction/common ancestry. That is scientific fact. It may not be "irrefutable truth" but it is a scientific fact.

Really once again we are looking at calls to accept on faith the authority of a book that says stars can fall from the sky and there are windows in Heaven that keep the rain at bay against the work of secular skeptical scientists who demand empirical evidence and objective verification before they go spouting off about anything.

Christianity is About Submission

This brand of Christianity isn't about a personal relationship with Jesus. It isn't about Salvation or grace or mercy. It isn't about attempting to live a better life or a more Christ-like life. It isn't about adopting Jesus' moral philosophy, or selfless giving, or reflecting his pacifistic resistance to the corrupt world around us. Nope, in this movie Christianity is about slavery and submission to authority figures.

Rachel has to submit to her two Fathers. And constantly in their language the characters make it clear that Christianity is about giving yourself blindly over to an authority and refusing to look at evidence that might contradict that authority. If evolution and science begin to contradict this ultimate authority – the Bible – then it must be evolution and science that are cast out. If colleges are not willing to “teach the controversy” then they must be in on the conspiracy against the celestial dictator of the entire Universe.

And if you see someone stumbling or doubting or being convinced by evidence you MUST report them to God through prayer, always report all suspicious activity to the authority in the Sky.

Where's the Beef?

Sorry but to a skeptic the highest "authority" is actual reality and if something can't be shown to match up with reality, ya know, through empirical evidence, then the likelihood of it's existence cannot be determined.

Something has to have some demonstrable effect or manifestation in reality to be considered real. If you can't even show your God exists in the first place why would anyone consider this God an authority? Especially when the book you hold out as the word of this God is so obviously flawed, morally bankrupt and scientifically inaccurate.

The fact of the matter is we have enough evidence to confirm evolution to a decent degree of certainty, this film gives NO REASON, other than baldly asserted "authority", to take the Creationist position seriously.

Sorry but that's not how my brain works movie and if your God is real and I have to give an account one day all I can do is shrug my shoulders and ask "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" Where is the evidence? If it's all a matter of faith than I'm afraid I fail, because I refuse to deceive myself into believing something for which there isn't sufficient evidence or reason to belief. Where is God? Where is the evidence?

Where was your God when poor Rachel here was treated like total shit and never once got to use a wakizashi.

Red Herring Alert!

the origin of the Universe has nothing to do with evolution but thanks for playing
the origin of the Universe has nothing to do with evolution but thanks for playing

Evolution Doesn't Require Faith

Science functions on skepticism, that is to say that in order for an idea to take hold in science it must undergo rigorous doubt and testing and be proven empirically. Many ideas that have turned out to be correct were originally doubted by the scientific majority including evolution, the Big Bang, plate tectonics, to name a few.

But if the evidence is there and the theory isn't falsified by other evidence and replaced by a better theory than the odds of it being true increase drastically. Evolution, like gravity, plate tectonics, and the Big Bang, has mounted up mounds and mounds of evidence with no competing theories to oust it and no discoveries that contradict it.

Sure evolution changes – all science does - new information is found that helps us better understand it. But if you live your life by an absolute unquestionable authority like this brand of Christians do you are in danger of hellfire for the mere act of doubting. You don't adapt or adjust your understanding of nature, your understanding is dictacted to you by authority figures. Your parents, your preachers, your Bible, your savior – THEY DEMAND SUBMISSION.

Evolution doesn't want or require you to become enslaved to it and it doesn't take faith. Evolution is a scientific theory about how we get from single-celled life to the vast array of beautiful organisms on planet Earth today. It isn't taught in science class to indoctrinate, it's taught in science because it is scientific. Evolution is not a matter of faith at all, it's a matter of fact.

Boring and Authoritarian

1 star for A Matter of Faith


Movies like this are confused about what evolution is because they are written by folks who don't know the first thing about evolution outside of what they read on Answers in Genesis or learned in Middle School.

When I was fifteen and in biology class learning about evolution I raised my hand like the zombie I was and asked about abiogenesis and why we couldn't learn creation is class. My teacher, who I know look back on as very wise, simply replied that questions of theology and religion are not scientific questions. We were asked not to give up our personal beliefs but simply to recognize that God cannot be scientifically tested.

Years later when I broke free of the programming and gave evolution a fair shake I found it an enriching reality. It's not something that rules out the activity of a God, though it does rule out the magic we see when reading Genesis literally. I look back now and wish that I'd been able to break that programming in ninth grade biology instead of letting the information stay in my brain only long enough to pass tests and quizzes. Because if I had let myself actually understand evolution I'd know that I had nothing to fear from it.

The authoritarian brand of Christianity is genuinely frightening to me but I am glad that it is only a small portion of Christians who think this way. At the end of the day though the language to support their view is all their in scripture. God as a King, Jesus yoking those that serve him and the end of the world where those who do not support God's ultimate authority are damned.

In their unswerving loyalty to the authority of the Bible they forget that not everyone does or should think like they do. And they also disregard what science is and the fact that skeptics must question authority, be it scientific, religious, or supernatural.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • profile image

      johann hollar 

      4 years ago

      Like God's Not Dead this another piece of crap Christian film that makes college look like a bad place to go, but instead of vilifying atheists who actually went to college, they do that to those of us who understand why evolution is true.

      These kind of "people" clearly have no real idea of what a college setting actually is and I have three reasons why. 1) You have to take a science class whether you want to or not, as part of the general education requirements, even if is not involving evolution. 2) No professor of biology in his/her right mind would take time out of their professional careers to waste time on the farce that is creationism no matter how much "people" demand it and 3) I know this for a fact because I am in college (or will be going back in the fall.) I already have my associates and I have 2 semesters left before getting my bachelor's.

      It proves to be really insulting to my intelligence that there are individuals out there who try to promote the image that being a delusional idiot who avoids college like the plague makes you more successful than actually going to college and improving your standard of living.

      Once more, the Scholar has spoken.

    • Titen-Sxull profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago from back in the lab again


      The worst part wasn't the Strawman, I expect those in this kind of movie. The worst part was the (male) authoritarian message that permeated the movie. Rachel, the main character must submit to male authority, first with God and then with her Father who she disagreed with about the debate and of course she has to end up with Evan the good Christian boy.

      The basic message seems not to be that the facts disagree with evolution but that the authoritative 'word of God' disagrees with it, and Christians have to submit to that authority.

      Personally I don't think Christians have anything to fear from accepting evolution. anymore than they had to fear accepting the heliocentric model of the solar system or any of the other scientific facts that contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible. A smart scientifically literate Christian is better than a dumb agnostic/atheist.

    • lawrence01 profile image

      Lawrence Hebb 

      4 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand


      So I get you didn't think too highly of this movie then? :-)

      Neither did I from the trailer I saw (it was a trailer when we went to see 'War room' but it did get a bit of a debate going in our family as my daughter is in a Catholic school (no we're not Catholic) and they teach evolution in school science class and I wanted to know how they could teach it?

      "Dad, you've got it wrong!" I was told "They teach God still did it using evolution as the mechanism"

      Considering I've moved from a creationist background to more of intelligent design with young Earth leanings (still not convinced on the age of the Earth as there is some evidence indicates it might be younger than we think but 6k years is a real stretch even for me, especially when the Bible doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth!)

      Anyway, I think that answer she gave was good enough and she's smarter than me so she'll figure it out!

      I enjoyed this hub, but these movies always seem to have a 'straw man' in them so I tend to avoid them.


    • Titen-Sxull profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago from back in the lab again


      The mental gymnastics of apologists and ordinary believers to try to explain this inexplicable deity creates constant contradictions and illogical statements. That's why I call God the one who has been fine-tuned, for thousands of years apologists have been fitting their square peg God into the round hole of reality where it definitely doesn't fit what we observe and learn about the Universe.

      Of course this kind of constant waffling, of having to redefine and re-defend God constantly, is because they have no evidence to stand on. They build their arguments from the conclusion backward, unlike science which observes, records and discovers first and has that bedrock of empirical evidence to follow toward a tentative conclusion.

      God is so ill-defined as to be incoherent or nonsensical as a concept.

    • Austinstar profile image


      4 years ago from Somewhere near the heart of Texas

      NIce! I learned a new word! I quite like the 'ignostic' definition. I have always thought that "god" is poorly defined. And the way god is described is so totally illogical:

      He's all powerful (but he isn't)

      He's all knowing (but he isn't)

      He's all good (but he also created all things including evil and bad stuff)

      He's in heaven (but no one knows where that is)

      He answers your prayers (except he doesn't)

      He is one god (except he is also 3 gods - 1 the father, 2 the son, 3 the holy spirit)

      He lives outside of space and time (but that's impossible because he must occupy space and pass through time)

      He created life (by magic breathing)

      He created the earth (in 6 days) - not practical or logical

      He's GOD and he can do whatever he wants to punish his own creation (that makes him a psychopathic monster)

      This list is as long as my arm and then some. I just can't deal with the vagueness of a god. Either he can be proven or he can't. And in the billions of years of Earth's existence, there is not a shred of proof that everything tangible was just poofed into existence by a "being".

    • Titen-Sxull profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago from back in the lab again


      It never occurs to many of them that the very basis of their assumptions might be incorrect. Luckily for me my intellectual curiosity kicked in to overcome the emotional and mental programming and I found my way out. For many though they can't understand why someone might doubt the existence of God, they just see the world through a different set of base assumptions.

      My assumption is that anything that can be meaningfully said to exist should have some sort of detectable properties or effects, if not what is the point? How can we presuppose that there must be a God when no one can agree on any of this God's characteristics outside of general vague notions like it being a Creator God. A concept has to be coherent before we can move forward.

      This is why I'm tempted to sometimes call myself an ignostic atheist, ignostics believe that God is so poorly defined the question of God's existence is meaningless. Many Gods are so poorly defined that I would be an ignostic toward them.

    • Titen-Sxull profile imageAUTHOR


      4 years ago from back in the lab again

      That's a very telling observation Paladin_ and it's something that few Creationists likely realize. Back when I was a teenage creationist I just assumed that God's existence was a foregone conclusion so of course those who believed in God would be on the right track while the evolutionists that rejected him were just doing guesswork to get around the obvious 'evidence' of God. There was no need to go and actually learn about evolution because I assumed what the creationists said about it was correct.

    • Paladin_ profile image


      4 years ago from Michigan, USA

      Judging from your review, this film follows the standard formula for movies of this genre: create atheist or evolutionary strawmen, then knock them down. The "good guys" (believers/creationists) win, and the "bad guys" (evolution supporters/angry atheists) lose!

      I suspect this is so popular among many creationists because it's really the only venue where they can actually "win" anymore. When the topic is debated in a neutral venue, where each side presents its best case, all parties must follow the rules of evidence, and every detail can be rigorously challenged and counter-examined -- such as the Dover school board case -- the creationist side gets eviscerated!

      I often bring up the following point in discussions of this topic, and I'll introduce it once again here -- because I think it's not only extremely relevant and thought-provoking, it's very revealing of which side of the creation/evolution debate GENUINELY cares about disseminating the truth:

      Examine any random selection of creationist and evolution/science websites (including the most popular, like Panda's Thumb and Answers In Genesis) and check their lists of links to websites from the OTHER SIDE. On most, if not all, of the pro-evolution and science websites, you'll find links to creationist websites. In fact, the last time I checked, years ago, pro-evolution websites like TalkOrigins had the biggests lists of CREATIONIST websites on the internet!

      On the other hand, on creationist websites, you'll find NO links whatsoever to websites promoting evolutionary science. Nada. Zilch. Even when they're literally critiquing an evolution website, they don't provide a link to the actual site!

      More than anything else, this should tell any reasonable person which side is dedicated to promoting the actual truth, and which side isn't.

    • Austinstar profile image


      4 years ago from Somewhere near the heart of Texas

      You are so totally correct about them never once considering that other people do not feel (or think) the same way as they do.

      People who believe that their beliefs are the only real beliefs are so narrow minded and indoctrinated that they can never recover. And that is a sad thing.

      Like you said, if only you could have understood evolution in the 9th grade, you could have foregone a lot of anguish and doubt about your world.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, reelrundown.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)