In 1831 a young amateur scientist, Charles Darwin, boarded HMS Beagle on an epic five-year voyage of discovery. 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary ...
See full summary »
In 1831 a young amateur scientist, Charles Darwin, boarded HMS Beagle on an epic five-year voyage of discovery. 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book, 'Origin of Species'. The Voyage that Shook the World retraces Darwin's journey, exploring the places and discoveries crucial to the formulation of his Theory of Evolution. Filmed in South America, UK, North America, Australia and Europe, The Voyage features dramatic period recreations and stunning nature cinematography interwoven with scholars sharing their perspectives on the man and the controversy. A fascinating and thought provoking opportunity to gain new insight into The Voyage that Shook the World.Written by
Con Dios Entertainment
Three of the historians interviewed in the film, Peter Bowler, Janet Browne and Sandra Herbert, later stated in a History of Science Society Newsletter, that they were misled into appearing in the film, unaware that it was produced by a creationist group (Creation Ministries International), and that their statements were misrepresented in the film. Bowler also stated in a BBC interview that he had been "duped" into participating in an "anti-Darwinian" film. See more »
Dishonest propaganda posing as scientific critique of Darwin
The film presents itself as a serious examination of Darwin and his theory while in fact it appears to be far from this and appears to have a creationist agenda lurking in the background. I say "lurking in the background" because all too often the film lacks the courage of the evident convictions of its producer and director. It points out a number of errors, or alleged errors, that Darwin made on the Beagle voyage, which is fair enough. No doubt Darwin did make errors. But it then uses them to cast doubt on such issues as the age of the earth, suggesting that it is perhaps only a few thousand years old, rather than millions, as all serious scientists accept. Sir Charles Lyell's argument that geology shows that the earth is millions of years old, has not been seriously doubted since, although it is true that he did not give sufficient prominence to examples of sudden catastrophic changes. But the film tries to argue that this casts doubt on the whole theory, which it does not. There is no shred of evidence that all continents and the fossils in them are to be explained by a sudden world-wide and simultaneous flood which submerged the entire globe. The film does not argue, in any case, that the Grand Canyon was created in a sudden cataclysm. The film however never poses the argument directly, presumably because it is unsustainable. The film also states as criticism some points which are false, e.g. that the sea shells which Darwin found high up on the Andes were not fossilized. They were fossilized, as Darwin himself observed and the samples were returned to England. The film makes some valid points about Galapagos finches, which later research seem to show are not always separate species, in the sense that their beaks change from one form to another, but back again in a number of generations. Speciation is a debate within natural selection, but if one was to take on the whole debate and cast doubt on whether species evolve at all, one would have deal with all the intermediate fossils that have been found since Darwin, e.g. archeopteryx and the many Chinese reptile/bird fossils (some of which, yes, were fakes, but most are not), and the many intermediate species between ape and man, let alone DNA evidence. But the film does not attempt this, being apparently content to cast a little doubt here and there, without drawing any firm conclusion.
15 of 21 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this