Review of Creation the movie
—Sanitizing evolution
by Dominic Statham
Published: 15 October 2009(GMT+10)
Photo wikipedia.org
A poster used to promote Creation the film makes it clear what the movie
stands for; that mankind is an evolved animal
Creation (Hanway Films and BBC Films1)
is John Collee’s screen adaptation of the book, Annie’s Box,
by Charles Darwin’s great-great-grandson, Randal Keynes.2 Its title is deliberately equivocal, and does not
refer to the biblical account of creation, but to the creation of Darwin’s
book, the Origin of Species.3
It is a skilful, imaginative and powerful production, with outstanding performances
by Paul Bettany as Darwin and Jenny Connelly as his wife, Emma.
Annie’s box was a writing case into which had been placed some personal items
of Darwin’s beloved daughter, Annie, after her tragic death, aged only 10
years. Not surprisingly, given its title, the book dwells particularly on the close
relationship between Darwin and Annie, and the effect that her death had upon him
and his growing secular view of the world. It pictures Darwin as a man of great
virtue and honesty, and strongly committed to his family. As one reviewer commented,
“The Darwin of these pages is an almost saintly figure: patient, reasonable,
freethinking, only angered by cruelty.”4
The film also portrays Darwin as a dedicated father and family man, wise and considerate
towards his servants, and whose life was greatly affected by the loss of his daughter.
Moreover, he is depicted as someone torn between his commitment to his deeply religious
wife, Emma, and his scientific theory of evolution, which he felt contradicted so
much of what she treasured and believed in.
It is probably not unreasonable to portray Darwin as a very human, sensitive and
caring man. As a youth, his endearing qualities caused him to gain favour with leading
men of his day, such as Adam Sedgwick and John Henslow, both of whom were his Professors
at Cambridge University. In later life, he gave to charitable causes and energetically
supported a petition to obtain a government pension for the impoverished Alfred
Wallace, who was a serious contender for priority for his own theory. One visitor
to his home at Downe described him as “the dearest, sweetest, loveliest old
grandpa that ever was”.5
The portrayal of his wife, Emma, as an intelligent, talented and attractive woman
is probably also fair.
This movie portrays Charles Darwin as a loving, devoted family man who struggles
personally over the implications of his theory, thus leading viewers to regard his
evolutionary ideas sympathetically.
Unfortunately, the film uses these qualities of Charles and Emma to sanitize a theory
about life which is very unsanitary. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural
selection is a story of violence, suffering, death, desperate competition and extinction
of the unfit. Such a view of the natural world has caused many to question the goodness
of God and, in some cases, to categorically deny His existence. Yet, in the context
of Darwin’s idyllic family life, and his wife’s loving support for him
in finally agreeing to the publication of his theory, the unacceptable is made acceptable.
This view is powerfully presented in the final minutes, when he walks towards his
family, with his resurrected daughter, Annie, by his side, following the reading
of the final sentences of the Origin of Species: “Thus, from the
war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable
of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals directly follows. There
is grandeur in this view of life … from so simple a beginning endless forms
most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” Randal
Keynes writes, “There is a widely held belief that the Darwinian view is one
of struggle, suffering and heartless selfishness, but the point of the book and
the film is that they show Darwin and Emma as real people—like you and me.”6 Darwin and his theory certainly
get the sympathy vote.
According to the film’s official website7
Creation tells “[t]he true story of Charles Darwin”, a great
scientist “caught in a battle between faith and reason and truth and love”.
While it may well be true that he was a devoted husband and father, his life was
not characterised by conflicts between either faith and reason, or truth and love.
Firstly, from his autobiography and notebooks, a strong case can be made that his
evolutionary beliefs grew out from his rejection of Christianity and his embracing
of deism,8 rather than from
scientific deduction (see Darwin, Lyell
and Origin of Species). Secondly, the idea that he procrastinated
over the publishing of his theory out of concern for the offence this might cause
his wife (or society in general) is questionable: as early as 1844 (fifteen years
before the publication of his Origin of Species) he had documented his
theory in an essay and left instructions that, in the event of his death, this should
be published posthumously—with no delay sought.9 (Those potentially offended would presumably have
no reason to be less affected because of his death—Darwin himself would have
avoided the fallout from any such offence, of course.)
The scene where Darwin’s friend, Hooker, attempts to rouse him from his sick
bed, in order to join his fellow scientists in the ‘battle for truth’,
peddles the popular myth that the creation/evolution debate is about science versus
faith, rather than one faith against another.
The film has a number of inaccuracies, most of which are insignificant. Some, however,
are important. It contains no hint that Darwin had largely abandoned the idea of
biblical creation early in his life, and long before he could have amassed evidence
for evolution. Rather, in the scene where Thomas Huxley pressures him to publish
quickly, he is seen to be cautious, arguing that more time is needed to be sure
of the facts. Similarly misleading is the implication that it was overwhelming scientific
evidence that caused him, slowly and methodically, to reject a belief in creation.
In fact, he had discarded the Bible as a reliable document and embraced evolutionary
ideas within two years of his return from the Beagle voyage.10,11
The scene where Darwin’s friend, Hooker, attempts to rouse him from his sick
bed, in order to join his fellow scientists in the “battle for truth”,
peddles the popular myth that the creation/evolution debate is about science versus
faith, rather than one faith against another. Indeed, at times Darwin is portrayed
as a martyr to truth, suffering much ill health due to his concerns about the social
implications of his theory. At one point, almost in despair, he laments, “I
dare not study for the fear of seeing what is already as plain as day.”
After the death of Annie, we see Charles seeking to rationalise the loss and turning
to science, whereas Emma retreats into the “irrationality” of her religion.
Finally, however, we see her reading the manuscript of the Origin of Species,
and actively supporting its publication. The implication, surely, is that all reasonable
people will eventually make their peace with evolution.
I would recommend that Christians watch the film so that they can discuss its message
with friends in an informed way. Some parents may feel that it is unsuitable for
young children, as it deals with intense adult emotions and includes a short section
where Thomas Huxley blasphemes horribly. Those interested in Darwin’s life
and legacy will appreciate the CMI production, Darwin: The Voyage that Shook the
World, now available
on DVD.
A reader’s comment:
Diane S., Australia, 15 October 2009
The film does not reflect what I am reading in ‘Charles Darwin, Voyaging.
Volume 1 of a Biography’, by Janet Browne, 1995. It was reviewed as ‘the
definitive Darwin biography’, by Ernst Mayr, NY Newsday.
This book is written in three parts 1.Collector,2.Traveller,3.Naturalist. But in
all those roles he was always self important; either "idle dreamer" or urgently
driven. Yet dispassionate and methodical.
It was notable that among the men of the family, atheism was to be kept their secret?
So his atheism was imbibed from family attitudes and discussions; easy for a man
who was totally indulged and for whom money was not a problem. His father took care
of his financial means all his life.I read that he carefully married a much younger
besotted cousin who was groomed for the match, to both consolidate the family fortunes
and to have children. But… ‘he grew to love her’. That her wealthy
father gave her a generous income also, may have helped? She was no trouble.
So Darwin and Emma were not typical ‘real people’ as per modern society.
He was therefore free to live as he wished and publish whatever conclusions and
theories that occurred to him, using data from his personal and copious notes, to
maintain his status.
As I plough through this tome it seems his greatest gift was public relations. His
charisma and reputation was so well crafted that any contrary view was despised.
Lack of gratitude to earnest helpers was noted as evident, both on the Beagle and
in his publications.
He was indeed cautious, but only as to the acceptable timing, rather than agonising
over the implications, nor the testable, repeatable accuracy of his conclusions.
Though Stephen J Gould, NY Review of Books,says of this book ‘It is wonderful
and marvellous, even magisterial.’, I think that relates to Ms Browne’s
authorship rather than to Mr Darwin.
‘Annie’s Box’ sounds more like a Victorian tearjerker. Using a
child’s death to humanise an otherwise self-important person is very sad.
Perhaps Darwin’s charisma needs help.
|
Further reading
Related resources
References
- The film appears to have been financed by “Pathé
Productions, Film Finance Corporation Australia, BBC Films and the UK Film Council
… in association with the New South Wales Film and Television Office and
Hopscotch International”;
www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfilms/2009releases/creation.shtml. So it seems that taxpayers’
money largely funded this production. Return to text.
- Keynes, Randal, Annie’s Box: Charles Darwin, his
daughter and human evolution, Fourth Estate, 2001. Now republished by under the
title, Creation: The true story of Charles Darwin, John Murray, London,
2009. Return to text.
- Amiel, Jon, cited in, “Creation” tells of Charles
Darwin’s war between science and love, Los Angeles Times;
www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-creation6-2009sep06,0,1320146.story.
Return to text.
- Turney, Jon, Darwin’s lost daughter, The Guardian,
8 June 2002;
www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jun/08/featuresreviews.guardianreview42.
Return to text.
- Desmond, Adrian and Moore, James, Darwin, p. 604. Penguin,
London, 1991. Return to text.
- Cited by Katbamna, Mira, Creation From Book to Screen,
Daily Telegraph, 12 September 2009. Return to text.
- <http://creationthemovie.com>. Return
to text.
- A theist believes in a creator who intervenes in the universe,
whereas a deist believes in a creator who does not. Return to text.
- Ref. 5, pp. 316–317. Return to text.
- Barlow, Nora (ed.), The autobiography of Charles Darwin,
pp. 85–86, Collins, St James’s Place, London, 1958.
Return to text.
- Ref. 10, p. 124. Return to text.
|
