Darwin experts, Drs Janet Browne, Sandra Herbert, and Peter Bowler, co-authors of
a ‘disclaimer’ about their interviews in CMI’s Darwin film.
The article alerted readers to the fact that three of the interviewees for CMI’s
Darwin documentary, The Voyage That Shook The World, have jointly responded
in print to their role in it. Writing in the Newsletter of the History of Science
Society, the article, by Professors Janet Browne, Sandra Herbert and Peter
Bowler, is titled
The Perils of Publicity. The subtitle states: “Three historians of
science find themselves misrepresented by a film company’s selective reconstruction
of Darwin’s voyage.”
Actually, when one reads the article, it is rather mild compared to the impression
one gets from the NCSE site, and even from the article’s subtitle. The historians’
description of the film, while not totally accurate at all points, is not unreasonable
and in some respects complimentary.
Making the point for us
In fact, the following from their article is very significant. They say: “Had
we known the true origins of Fathom Media, we probably would not have contributed”
—which was a major reason for our not wanting to thrust our name in people’s
faces. The logic was not lost on them, it seems, as they go on to say, “but
the producers do have a point: if academic historians refuse to participate when
movements they don’t approve of seek historical information, these historians
can hardly complain if less reputable sources are used instead.”
Exactly.
If that were all that were involved, one could simply shrug this article off as
expressing an understandable but relatively benign desire of these academics to
make some sort of public dissociation—lest the opprobrium directed at creationists
might rub off on their careers in some way. But there were two specific claims made
in the article which are somewhat more serious. When we contacted the Director,
Steve Murray, who conducted the interviews, he said concerning these two points
that he was “mystified by comments from both Prof. Bowler and Prof. Herbert
regarding how we used their material.”
What follows comes from his written response to us, which details the claims and
responds to each one, including providing the unedited transcript text.
Claim number 1
Steve Murray:
The article states that, “Peter Bowler’s description of Darwin’s
later views on racial inequality is used in the film, but not Bowler’s account
of Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s thesis that Darwin was inspired by his
opposition to racism and slavery.”
Yet 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.
The following is the relevant extract from the interview transcript. The
sections in bold italics were included in the documentary:
TRANSCRIPT BEGINS [Ed: Transcripts were typed from the audio file
by a professional outsourced firm and have been left unchanged, including typographical
errors, e.g. in the spelling of Fuegians]:
Steve: Can you talk to us a little bit about the Jemmy Button story
when he was on the Beagle how that influenced his thinking?
Peter: (08:28:11:03) Well the Beagle had, was it three Fuegans
aboard whom Captain Fitzroy had taken from the island onto the ship’s previous
visit. And they had been brought back to England and had been educated and by the
time Darwin met them were behaving as educated Europeans. And Darwin then accompanied
the ship down to Tierra Del Fuego where these people were put back ashore.
And Fitzroy and Darwin both hoped that because they were now educated they
would be able to teach their own people that the benefits of civilisation and of
course this went terribly wrong. And by the standards of that time they reverted
to savagery very rapidly. And Darwin saw for himself the state
in which the people of the island normally lived, which was a very primitive one
with very limited tools and limited food supply, very little in the way of clothing
or shelter or whatever.
(08:29:36:04) And they’re brought face to face with just how primitive, if
we can use that term, humans can be still in the world today. And that raises
several questions in his mind. One is is this telling us something about the original
state of human beings or has the Fuegans fallen back to that savage state from originally
a higher state. And of course once you become an evolutionist
then the idea that the way they’re living now is an analogue to the way our
own Stone Age ancestors would have lived many many thousands of years ago.
(08:30:20:15) And the other question then is why we are different to them? Why have
we got civilisation while they don’t. Is it possible for them to be completely
educated in the civilised way? In which case you have to believe that human civilisation
is a learned thing. It’s something added to our biological and mental and
moral nature. If the Fuegans are mentally and morally identical to us then what
differs is what we’ve learnt in the course of our own lifetimes we’ve
learned the arts of civilisation. They’ve learned to cope with a very harsh
environment in what we would consider to be a savage way but as…(interrupted
by director coughing)
Peter: (08:31:12:10) But the other question that Darwin
then has to contemplate is whether that difference is something deeper, something
biological. Is it a possibility that perhaps that they don’t
have the same capacity to develop the arts of civilisation, that they could never
for instance do it by themselves?
They might become educated with the help of Europeans but would not have the capacity
to do it themselves. Initially Darwin and Fitzroy who both were very favourable
towards missionary efforts to educate the peoples of various parts of the world…
(end of Reel 54)
Reel 055
Steve: So yeah picking it up later so that they’re talking
about the…
Peter: (09:00:36:23) … they hoped that they will be able
to educate the various races of man kind in the arts of civilisation but there was
always this nagging problem of is it going to be possible. And one thing that’s
characteristic of the general direction of European’s thought during the 19th
century is there were increasingly harder line taken on that which we see reflected
in Darwin himself.
That by the time he writes the Decent of Man in 1871 it’s pretty clear
that he by that time shares the growing suspicion or conviction of many Europeans.
The non white races simply do not have the capacity to be elevated properly into
civilised human beings that they are mentally and morally at a more limited level.
In a sense they are stuck at an early stage in the biological evolution of the human
species.
(09:01:42:06) So their way of life may offer us a so fossilised relic of what our
own ancestors lived like in the distant prehistoric past. But now Darwin and many
of his contemporaries are beginning to realise that what they needed to claim that
they are biologically relics of the past. They are in fact equivalent to earlier
stages in the ascent from the apes who have been preserved in isolated locations,
preserved with those earlier levels of mental and moral development.
Steve: How does that then – that sort of ties in quite nicely
with the charge that Darwin’s thinking really lead to a lot of the issue in
rights atrocities the 19th and 20th century and especially
in terms of eugenics movement and things like that.
Peter: (09:02:39:12) Well this is a very complicated situation.
I mean clearly Darwin’s theory reflects the many of the social values of his
time and the language he used was certainly seized upon by many people in his own
time to create as the world view where we struggle in competition and the inevitable
survival and triumph of the fitter races or individuals that is seen as part of
the natural order of things.
And Darwinian language the struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest becomes
part and parcel of that whole world view and in that sense Darwinism feeds very
directly into that way of thinking. But the situation’s complicated by the
fact that Darwin’s actual theory of natural selection was not taken very seriously
by the scientists of the time. So although theory seems to reflect the values of
the time the scientists sort of don’t want to follow through the logical implications
of that and impose the values of capitalism or racism on nature.
(09:03:58:10) So they back off from accepting natural selection just at the time
when writers, politicians, philosophers and all sorts are gladly using the rhetoric
derived from natural selection to reinforce those arguments. So the relation between
the science and the social developments of the time is a two way process. You can’t
say that Darwinism caused those things. And in fact even the scientific arguments
offered as background for many of those social positions were not necessarily Darwinian.
Herbert Spencer who was the great social Darwinian of the late 19th century
was a Lamarckian. He believed in the struggle stimulating self improvement and those
improvements being passed onto future generations. So Spencer’s called a social
Darwinist but in fact was not very Darwinian.
And many of the early geneticists who were happy to see genetics used to support
eugenics, the idea that there would be harmful genes which we need to weed out of
the population. Many of them were not initially Darwinians and the synthesis between
genetics and natural selection comes only in the 1920s and 1930s after a couple
of decades of genetics are being seen as an alternative to Darwinism and yet being
used as a foundation for eugenics. So it’s an extremely complicated situation.
Steve: Thank you.
TRANSCRIPT SECTION ENDS.
This is how these comments were used in the documentary:
Peter Bowler:
(08:28:51:10) Fitzroy and Darwin both hoped that because they were now educated
they would be able to teach their own people that the benefits of civilisation and
of course this went terribly wrong. And by the standards of that time they reverted
to savagery very rapidly.
Narrator:
A year later, the Beagle returned, to begin the Pacific leg of the voyage. Charles
found Jemmy Button again. Nothing of the English gentleman remained. To Darwin,
it was as if Jemmy had slipped right back down the ladder of human progress.
Drama sequence Darwin and Fitzroy at dinner
Darwin (ex “The Voyage of the Beagle”): “These are the most abject
and miserable creatures I anywhere beheld. Viewing such men one can hardly make
one-self believe that they are fellow creatures … ”
Peter Bowler:
(08:29:47:09) And that raises several questions in his mind. One is is this telling
us something about the original state of human beings or has the Fuegans fallen
back to that savage state from originally a higher state.
(08:31:12:01) But the other question that Darwin then has to contemplate is whether
that difference is something deeper, something biological.
Narration:
Jemmy would have a profound impact on Darwin’s later writing, when he applied
his theory of evolution to humanity.
Peter Bowler:
(09:01:29:10) by the time he writes the Descent of Man in 1871 it’s pretty
clear that he by that time shares the growing suspicion or conviction of many Europeans.
The non white races simply do not have the capacity to be elevated properly into
civilised human beings that they are mentally and morally at a more limited level.
In a sense they are stuck at an earlier stage in the biological evolution of the
human species.
Narration:
Such ideas are now seen as racist with no basis in science. Today biology and genetics
reveal that all people groups are very closely related. But in 1834, this experience,
as well as his grandfather’s evolutionary ideas, had given Darwin another
way of looking at human origins. A picture very different from the traditional biblical
view that all people are descended from Adam and Eve.
Claim number 2
(Steve Murray continues):
The newsletter article also goes on to say, “Sandra Herbert’s comment
that Darwin’s theory required explanation of many aspects of life was edited
down to imply that his theory required explanation of all aspects of life.”
Again, one can easily see whether this is so. The relevant section of Dr Herbert’s
interview transcript reads as follows:
TRANSCRIPT SECTION BEGINS:
Steve: So he sees these mockingbirds island by island?
Sandra: (04:02:54:15) He sees these mockingbirds island by island
differing and he collects them, labels them and he starts thinking well these are
different from the South American mockingbirds somewhat. Are they good enough-are
the differences enough to be called true species, he can’t really answer that
himself because he’s not a designated taxonomist.
But he wants to ask this question and he now thinks maybe species aren’t so
stable and maybe what I’m seeing is change, a change of a mockingbird from
the South American type, every so slight. So this is 1836, the summer he’s
thinking about this as he’s coming home and he brings-immediately upon arrival,
he gets these birds to John Gould at the Zoological Society of London.
John Gould comes back within weeks and says these are good species. The differences
among them are enough for us to call them separate. With that Darwin moves over
to the transmutationist column because he believes he’s seen it himself. He’s
seen the results of species change. At this point he starts to use phrases like
if species change. So he’s crossed the line and this is the spring of 1837
and he starts to keep notebooks on transmutation and these have been published now
so you can see him working this out.
(04:04:28:04) Of course, it’s huge because once you commit yourself
to a transmutationist explanation, you have to explain everything.
You know, why are there two sexes? What happened to-you know I mean absolutely everything
has to be explained. So it’s a huge project. He knows it’s going to
be a lonely one for a long time too because after all Lyell who’s his closest
patron and becomes his friend has written a book against transmutation.
So, you know, it’s going to be a long road, but he’s a very young man
and he has the time to work it out. So that’s what he does for the next twenty
years.
Steve: My understanding also is that Lyell was positing deep time
in terms of the slow and steady?
Sandra: Yes, that’s right. Of course…
Steve: Maybe if you could just talk about that and how important
that was for really Darwin’s theory to work?
TRANSCRIPT SECTION ENDS.
And again, how the section was used in the film:
Matti Leisola p. 192:
(16:29:44:15) We see a lot of variation potential in nature but real novelties are
not there. People talk about different species and speciation in nature. That’s
something that we can observe but it is not the same thing as creating novel structures,
novel information. I don’t see that.
Narration:
This novel, new genetic information is essential for Darwin’s
theory to work. But he had his own information to process as he left the Galápagos.
It would take many years before he was ready to show his theory to the world. And
the world would not be the same.
Sandra Herbert :
(04:04:28:04) Of course it’s huge because once you commit yourself to a transmutationist
explanation, you have to explain everything. So, you know, it’s going to be
a long road, but he’s a very young man and he has the time to work it out.
So that’s what he does for the next twenty years.
Fade to Black
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”)
It is worth noting that at the end of the documentary, we make it very clear that
in “On the Origin of Species” Darwin did not attempt to answer
the question regarding the origin of first life, which further nullifies Prof. Herbert’s
complaint and ensures that viewers do not read that into her sweeping statement.
These matters aside, it needs to be pointed out that Professors Browne, Herbert
and Bowler provided many other first-rate interview segments on different topics
that were used in the film. Also, well before their joint article appeared, both
Dr Herbert and Dr Bowler were provided with DVD copies of the raw, unedited footage
of their entire interviews.
Again, I encourage people to view the documentary and make up their own minds on
how their material was treated; I believe it was done with fairness and respect,
and due regard to the context.
Steve Murray,
Director, The Voyage That Shook The World
[From CMI: It was not altogether unanticipated that at least some of the many evolutionist
authorities interviewed for the documentary (and there may be more to come) would
feel the need for some form of public “dissociation”, once they became
fully aware of the documentary’s creationist connections. Though we understand
the risk to academic careers and reputations, we’re naturally disappointed
when claims are made that do not seem to be sustainable from the transcripts of
the entire raw footage. And we are surprised, too, given the generally mild and
respectful tone of their article in other respects, as well as the very cordial
interaction during the interview process, which Director Steve Murray commented
on more than once to us. We are hopeful that it will turn out to have been a case
of not having checked the raw footage sent to them, instead relying on memory. We
would be delighted to publish news of a retraction of either or both of these two
claims in this space, should that occur.]
UPDATE 14 August 2009: BBC presenter William Crowley’s show sparked our article
Did CMI ‘lie’ in making
The Voyage?. He is not known for any creationist sympathies. Nevertheless,
in relation to this ‘historian’ furor, he has fairly and accurately
quoted a significant extract from our above article (and linked to it)
on his blog.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.
Feedback Guidelines
Be constructive & courteous. Don't attack individuals, denominations, or other organizations.
Stay on-topic. We're not here to debate matters like eschatology, baptism, or Bible translation.
Links to external sites and articles will be removed from your submission.
Privacy & Content Ownership
Comments become the property of Creation Ministries International upon submission and may be edited for brevity and clarity.
CMI may choose not to publish your comment depending on how well it fits the guidelines outlined above.
By submitting your comment you are agreeing to receive email updates from Creation Ministries International. You may unsubscribe at any time.
CMI records your real name, email address, and country as a sign of good faith. Privacy Policy
If your comment is published, your name will be displayed as ""
Cancel
Accept & Continue
Close
You are leaving CREATION.com
We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control.
Readers’ comments
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.