The Voyage that Shook the World

Last updated

The Voyage that Shook the World
Cabin scene from The Voyage that Shook the World.png
A scene from the documentary. The actor portraying Charles Darwin as a young man is on the right.
Directed bySteve Murray
Written byGeorge Marriott
Steve Murray
Produced byBen Suter
Carl Wieland
Narrated byMatthew O'Sullivan
Distributed byTVF Ltd, Fathom Media
Release date
  • 2009 (2009)
Running time
52 minutes
LanguageEnglish

The Voyage That Shook The World is a 2009 dramatised documentary film commissioned by Creation Ministries International, a Christian Young Earth creationist organisation, and produced by Fathom Media. It was released to mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work On the Origin of Species . [1] [2]

Contents

The film includes interviews with scholars, academics and scientists covering a wide range of views. These include some who accept the scientific consensus on evolution as well as proponents of intelligent design and young Earth creationism. It features wild-life footage from the Galapagos Islands as well as on-location footage from Argentina, Chile, Tierra del Fuego and the United Kingdom. The film's dramatised sequences were shot on location in Tasmania, Australia. [3]

A historian featured in the film has stated that the creationist backing of the film had been concealed when he agreed to take part, that the editing of his words could give a false impression of his views, and that the film presents a historically distorted portrait of Darwin. Creation Ministries agreed that they had set up a "front company" to approach experts. [2] They denied any deception and stated that one of the interviewees had admitted that while the producers choose comments they "didn't distort what we said", and compared their approach to that used by the BBC in making documentaries. [4]

The three historians featured in the film subsequently issued a statement that they had been misrepresented by the film company's selective reconstruction of Darwin's voyage. [5] CMI countered these claims with extended quotes from the interviews of the historians. Their response was described as appearing to be sound in specific aspects by American skeptic Jim Lippard, who had not seen the film at that time. [6] [7] Having seen the film, he described it as trying to hide its own creationism, which becomes increasingly apparent as the film progresses. [8]

Reviews

Ted Baehr on Movieguide, a conservative Christian website offering film reviews, gave the movie four stars and called the film "a beautifully produced program" that shows the flaws and "anti-Christian" attitudes in Darwin's work, but is done "with dignity and respect". Baehr asserted that many of Darwin's ideas "now prove unscientific", and concluded that "if people watch it with an open mind, it may turn their hearts and minds away from the confusion that is Darwinism toward asking the right questions that can lead them to the truth." [9] As of 21 July 2009, this was the only review cited on the film's website. [10]

A statement by the three historians featured in the film says that it is "clearly intended to challenge evolution, but stops short of openly endorsing the more extreme alternatives favored by some creationists." They described it as being highly critical of Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism and featuring geologists who point to evidence of limited catastrophes in Earth history, but said that "it does not imply that the whole geological record is the product of a single flood." They state that the reconstruction of Darwin's life is used to give the overall impression that he "had an enquiring mind but was led astray by his theoretical preconceptions, a view backed up through interviews with several scientists, including one who expresses open doubts about evolution. The film also suggests that what is ultimately at stake is a clash of world views rather than the resolution of scientific questions." They recommended websites for information on the history of Darwin and evolution; [5] the Darwin Correspondence Project [11] and the National Center for Science Education, [12] both of which have sections on science and religion, and the National Science Foundation's "Evolution of Evolution" report featuring interviews with historians of science. [13]

Review by Jim Lippard

In his review of the film, Jim Lippard described it as professionally produced with excellent cinematography and high-quality graphics and effects. He had no criticism of the acting, which is mostly shown as visual effects during voice-overs of interviews or narration. As a documentary it starts reasonably, though putting unusual emphasis on Darwin "making up stories" as a child, and has the professional historians as the first experts shown. Lippard thought the film veered into creationist areas when discussing the influence of Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism. Though science has now fully confirmed that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, historian Peter Bowler is shown saying that its great age was a settled question in Darwin's time, but not today, and Lippard wondered if this remark had been taken out of context. In emails, Carl Wieland of Creation Ministries International and Steve Murray who directed the film advised that the remark was about the point that in Darwin's day there was nothing like the modern Young Earth creationist movement. [8]

The film then presented as experts several people without identifying them as creationists and intelligent design advocates. Lippard thought perhaps the most deceptive aspect of the film was that these people were shown as though they were on a par with established experts, misleadingly representing their subject areas and not mentioning that two work for CMI while an intelligent design proponent is a professor at Biola University. They identified Stuart Burgess as "Design & Nature, Bristol University": Burgess, the Professor of Engineering Design and department head at Bristol University, is Lecturer and Unit Director for a 4th year course on Design and Nature about mechanical solution principles found in nature. In their emails, Wieland and Murray disclaimed any attempt to be deceptive in choice of on-screen credentials. [8] [14]

The creationist Emil Silvestru presents arguments for a young Earth and for catastrophic flood producing geological formations, taking as an example the Channeled Scablands, but omits evidence of the great age of the Earth. The film argues that Darwin was misled by Lyell's ideas, and presents a two-model approach in which science of the age of the Earth is contrasted with religion as the creationist view that the diversity and distribution of species evolved rapidly in the few thousand years since Noah's Flood. The film then presents creationist claims that there are limits to evolution and random mutation cannot generate new information or structures, claims at odds with the synthetic biology research of Synthetic Genomics. The film touches on claims that evolutionary views caused racism, but omits to mention religious support for racism, such as the Southern Baptist Convention being set up to promote slavery. Alvin Plantinga presents philosophical arguments against the validity of scientific evidence, and the film completely omits the overwhelming evidence supporting common descent and human evolution. The film concludes that there are opposing views of evolution and creation, and implies that religion and science are incompatible, finally stating that questions of origins and meaning in existence will not go away. Overall, Lippard thought the film was better than he had expected, and appeared to be trying to hide its own creationism. [8]

Controversies

The documentary has been criticised by the three historians featured in the film, Peter Bowler, Janet Browne, and Sandra Herbert. Bowler made his complaint known in a BBC interview, and later all three issued a statement published in the History of Science Society Newsletter. [15] Creation Ministries International has responded to the criticisms, in the latter case with supporting extended quotes from the interviews.

Bowler's BBC interview

Historian of biology Peter J. Bowler felt he and the other historians were deceived. Peter J. Bowler, HSS 2007.jpg
Historian of biology Peter J. Bowler felt he and the other historians were deceived.

In a BBC interview Bowler complained that he and other expert historians had been "duped" into participating in an "anti-Darwinian" film presenting a historically distorted portrait of Darwin without realising it was being produced by a creationist organisation. He claimed that the narrative of the film wrongly implies racism, contrary to current historical research, and also expressed concern that the way his words had been edited could give viewers a false impression of his own views on Darwin. [2] In the same interview, Philip Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries UK, stated that his organisation had established a "front company" called Fathom Media for the purposes of approaching experts such as Bowler, who would not agree to take part in the film if they realised it was an "overtly Creationist" production. "At the end of the day," he said, "[when] people see 'Creationist', instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to." When asked if this method of securing an interview was "deceptive", Bell replied, "Well, it could be called deceptive. But I think, at the end of the day . . . more people are concerned about how we've made a documentary, that's a world-class documentary, clearly with wonderful footage, with excellent interviews, and balanced open discussion." Bell also denied that his organisation had broken the Biblical Ninth Commandment by "bearing false witness" against Bowler and his colleagues. "Nobody was told any lies," he said. [2]

Creation Ministries International answered these allegations in a statement about how the film was made. This included a statement by the director, Steve Murray, and the text of the document sent to all interviewees prior to their interview. In responding to accusations of "lying by omission" it stated that in an email response to a query, an unnamed interviewee said, "They didn't actually distort what we said, but did cherry-pick the comments." The producers deny any deception and accuse their critics of being inconsistent in not criticising the BBC and other documentary producers when they do not reveal the purpose of their documentary to their interviewees when, for example, making an undercover documentary of repression behind the Iron Curtain. [4]

There was a similar controversy over the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed when interviewees critical of intelligent design stated that they were misled into taking part by the film producers misrepresenting the aims of the film. [16]

History of Science Society statement

The statement issued in the History of Science Society Newsletter said that the three historians had been misrepresented by the film company's selective reconstruction of Darwin's voyage. They said that they had been led to believe that "the movie was being made to be shown as an educational film on Australian broadcast television and possibly elsewhere", and had only been alerted to the true nature of the movie shortly before its release. They describe the interviews filmed with themselves as having been edited to highlight certain aspects of Darwin's views and character. Browne's description of Darwin's childhood delight in making up stories to impress people was "used to imply that the same motive may have driven his scientific thinking." The film uses the description of Darwin's later views on racial inequality but, the statement says, omits Bowler's account of the thesis that Darwin's work was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery, as put forward by Adrian Desmond and James Moore. A comment by Sandra Herbert that "Darwin's theory required explanation of many aspects of life" was, the statement said, edited down to imply that his theory required explanation of all aspects of life. They stated that this opportunity to reach out to a wider public had turned out differently from their expectations, and that academics perhaps "do need to be more aware of the fact that the media organisations are not always open about their underlying agendas." While they probably would not have contributed had they known the true origins of Fathom Media, they thought that the producers had a point in that if academic historians refuse to participate when historical information is sought by organisations they disapprove of, they cannot complain if less reputable sources are used instead. [5]

CMI has responded to these criticisms by quoting more extensive transcripts of the interviews to show that Bowler made no mention of Desmond or Moore, and that Herbert's views were not misrepresented. [6] On Bowler's claim, they quote the director (Steve Murray) as saying, ". . . in my interview with Prof. Bowler he offered no reference at all that I or others could tell (even on re-examining the transcripts), to the work of Desmond and Moore, nor was there any statement that Darwin was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery, or anything to that effect". In answer to Herbert's claims, Murray said, "Professor Herbert seems to imply that somehow we twisted the meaning of her words, so that 'many aspects of life' was edited to imply 'all aspects of life'. Yet where did she refer to 'many aspects of life'? We simply included what seems to be a very clear statement that Darwin had to 'explain everything!' (Implied: 'all aspects of life')"

American skeptic Jim Lippard, commenting on CMI's response before he had seen the film, said, ". . . the CMI rebuttal appears to be sound with respect to those two specific allegations." and added that prospective interviewees should do due diligence to find out who is backing the film before agreeing to appear, should check that the release gives a way of defending against misrepresentation, and if going public with feelings that they have been misrepresented, should "consult the raw footage to make sure your charges of misrepresentation are themselves accurate". [7] Having seen the film, he thought that it started off reasonably, but deceptively presented creationists as though they had reputations on a par with well credentialed experts, and as the film went on more standard creationism began to emerge. [8]

Box office

The Voyage That Shook The World grossed $116,436 at the box office in Australia. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creationism</span> Belief that nature originated through supernatural acts

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views, which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.

Evolutionism is a term used to denote the theory of evolution. Its exact meaning has changed over time as the study of evolution has progressed. In the 19th century, it was used to describe the belief that organisms deliberately improved themselves through progressive inherited change (orthogenesis). The teleological belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution. In the 1970s, the term "Neo-Evolutionism" was used to describe the idea that "human beings sought to preserve a familiar style of life unless change was forced on them by factors that were beyond their control."

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ken Ham</span> Australian Christian fundamentalist

Kenneth Alfred Ham is an Australian Christian fundamentalist, young Earth creationist, apologist and former science teacher, living in the United States. He is the founder, CEO, and former president of Answers in Genesis (AiG), a Christian apologetics organisation that operates the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Young Earth creationism</span> Form of creationism

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism which holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created by supernatural acts of the Abrahamic God between about 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. In its most widespread version, YEC is based on the religious belief in the inerrancy of certain literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis. Its primary adherents are Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six literal days. This is in contrast with old Earth creationism (OEC), which holds literal interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with the scientifically determined ages of the Earth and universe. It is also in contrast to theistic evolution, which posits that the scientific principles of evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, solar nebular theory, age of the universe, and age of Earth are compatible with a metaphorical interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theistic evolution</span> Views that religion is compatible with science

Theistic evolution, alternatively called evolutionary creationism, is a view that God acts and creates through laws of nature. Here, God is taken as the primary cause while natural causes are secondary, positing that the concept of God and religious beliefs are compatible with the findings of modern science, including evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but includes a range of views about how science relates to religious beliefs and the extent to which God intervenes. It rejects the strict creationist doctrines of special creation, but can include beliefs such as creation of the human soul. Modern theistic evolution accepts the general scientific consensus on the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, the Big Bang, the origin of the Solar System, the origin of life, and evolution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Answers in Genesis</span> Nonprofit promoting Young Earth creationism

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is an American fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization. It advocates Young Earth creationism on the basis of its literal, historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis and the Bible as a whole. Out of belief in biblical inerrancy, it rejects the results of scientific investigations that contradict their view of the Genesis creation narrative and instead supports pseudoscientific creation science. The organization sees evolution as incompatible with the Bible and believes anything other than the young Earth view is a compromise on the principle of biblical inerrancy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rejection of evolution by religious groups</span> Religious rejection of evolution

Recurring cultural, political, and theological rejection of evolution by religious groups exists regarding the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. In accordance with creationism, species were once widely believed to be fixed products of divine creation, but since the mid-19th century, evolution by natural selection has been established by the scientific community as an empirical scientific fact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of creationism</span>

The history of creationism relates to the history of thought based on the premise that the natural universe had a beginning, and came into being supernaturally. The term creationism in its broad sense covers a wide range of views and interpretations, and was not in common use before the late 19th century. Throughout recorded history, many people have viewed the universe as a created entity. Many ancient historical accounts from around the world refer to or imply a creation of the earth and universe. Although specific historical understandings of creationism have used varying degrees of empirical, spiritual and/or philosophical investigations, they are all based on the view that the universe was created. The Genesis creation narrative has provided a basic framework for Jewish and Christian epistemological understandings of how the universe came into being – through the divine intervention of the god, Yahweh. Historically, literal interpretations of this narrative were more dominant than allegorical ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creation Museum</span> Museum in Kentucky promoting a pseudoscientific creationist point of view

The Creation Museum, located in Petersburg, Kentucky, United States, is a museum that promotes the pseudoscientific young Earth creationist (YEC) explanation of the origin of the universe and life on Earth based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative of the Bible. It is operated by the Christian creation apologetics organization Answers in Genesis (AiG).

<i>Of Pandas and People</i> Creationist supplementary textbook by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon

Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins is a controversial 1989 school-level supplementary textbook written by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, edited by Charles Thaxton and published by the Texas-based Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE). The textbook endorses the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design – the argument that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent which is not named specifically in the book, although proponents understand that it refers to the Christian God. The overview chapter was written by young Earth creationist Nancy Pearcey. They present various polemical arguments against the scientific theory of evolution. Before publication, early drafts used cognates of "creationist". After the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to "intelligent design". The second edition published in 1993 included a contribution written by Michael Behe.

<i>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District</i> 2005 court case in Pennsylvania

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design (ID), ultimately found by the court to not be science. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book. The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial, a name which recalls the popular name of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neo-creationism</span> Pseudoscientific creationism

Neo-creationism is a pseudoscientific movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Paul A. Nelson is an American philosopher, noted for his advocacy of the pseudosciences of young earth creationism and intelligent design.

Creation Ministries International (CMI) is a non-profit organisation that promotes the pseudoscience of young earth creationism. It has branches in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Giuseppe Sermonti</span> Italian professor of genetics

Giuseppe Sermonti was an Italian professor of genetics. Sermonti is well known for his criticism of natural selection as the deciding factor of human biology.

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a Christian, conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S., best known for its promotion of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. As part of the Discovery Institute's Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.

Objections to evolution have been raised since evolutionary ideas came to prominence in the 19th century. When Charles Darwin published his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, his theory of evolution initially met opposition from scientists with different theories, but eventually came to receive near-universal acceptance in the scientific community. The observation of evolutionary processes occurring has been uncontroversial among mainstream biologists since the 1940s.

The Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism". The Discovery Institute promotes the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement and is represented by Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm.

<i>Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed</i> 2008 American documentary-style propaganda film

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 American documentary-style propaganda film directed by Nathan Frankowski and starring Ben Stein. The film contends that there is a conspiracy in academia to oppress and exclude people who believe in intelligent design. It portrays the scientific theory of evolution as a contributor to communism, fascism, atheism, eugenics, and in particular Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust. Although intelligent design is a pseudoscientific religious idea, the film presents it as science-based, without giving a detailed definition of the concept or attempting to explain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity, Expelled examines intelligent design purely as a political issue.

References

  1. ↑ "The Voyage that shook the world". Ballyemoney and Moyle Times. 10 June 2009. Retrieved 24 June 2009.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Crawley, William (21 June 2009). "Creationists defend Darwin film". BBC. Retrieved 24 June 2009.
  3. ↑ "The Voyage That Shook the World". Archived from the original on 14 April 2011. Retrieved 5 November 2009. "Making of The Voyage" video
  4. 1 2 "Did CMI 'lie' in making The Voyage?". Creation Ministries International. 27 June 2009. Retrieved 26 June 2009.
  5. 1 2 3 Bowler, Peter; Browne, Janet; Sandra Herbert (July 2009). "Newsletter". The Perils of Publicity. History of Science Society . Retrieved 18 July 2009. Three historians of science find themselves misrepresented by a film company's selective reconstruction of Darwin's voyage.
  6. 1 2 "Darwin historians not misrepresented". Creation Ministries International. 25 July 2009. Retrieved 27 July 2009.
  7. 1 2 Lippard, Jim (24 July 2009). "Creationist Darwin docu-drama and allegations of misrepresentation" . Retrieved 27 July 2009.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 Lippard, Jim (31 July 2009). "The Lippard Blog: The Voyage That Shook the World" . Retrieved 6 August 2009.
  9. ↑ Baehr, Ted (1 May 2009). "TV Review: The Voyage That Shook the World". Movieguide. Archived from the original on 1 July 2009. Retrieved 24 June 2009.
  10. ↑ "The Voyage That Shook the World". Industry Reviews. Retrieved 21 July 2009.
  11. ↑ "Darwin Correspondence Project—Home" . Retrieved 18 July 2009.
  12. ↑ "NCSE | National Center for Science Education—Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools" . Retrieved 18 July 2009.
  13. ↑ "Evolution of Evolution—150 Years of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"" . Retrieved 18 July 2009.
  14. ↑ "Bristol University—Personal Details". Professor Stuart Burgess, BSc, PhD(Brun), CEng, FIMechE, Professor of Engineering Design. Retrieved 15 August 2009.
  15. ↑ "July Perils Publicity".[ dead link ]
  16. ↑ "Historians misrepresented by creationists". National Center for Science Education. 20 July 2009. Retrieved 21 July 2009.
  17. ↑ "Film Victoria – Australian Films at the Australian Box Office" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 July 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.