|
Feedback archive → Feedback
2009
Did CMI ‘lie’ in making The Voyage?
The flak begins as CMI’s Darwin movie starts making an impact
Published: 27 June 2009, last updated 22 July 2009, 5pm (GMT+10)
The Voyage that Shook the World, CMI’s documentary, has anti-Christians
ranting and raging. Many preemptively accuse CMI of deception, without having even
seen the film.
Creation Ministries International (Australia) set up a separate company, Fathom
Media Ltd, to produce its groundbreaking Darwin movie, The Voyage that Shook the
World.
Following a BBC radio session featuring expert Darwin historian Peter Bowler (one
of several evolutionists interviewed for The Voyage) and CMI-UK CEO Philip
Bell,1 the Internet exploded
with accusations about CMI having been engaged in “deceit”, “lying
by omission”, even “bearing false witness”.2
For any fair-minded persons the following three statements should clarify the matter—one
by CMI, one by the film’s non-CMI director and the third is the written proposal
put to potential interviewees when seeking their involvement.
1. Statement by Creation Ministries International
In March 2009 we wrote an article about the film in Creation magazine (subscribers
in over 100 countries) in which we stated openly that Fathom Media was
a subsidiary production company we set up. In a footnote, we explained: “This
allowed us more freedom to approach the places we wanted to film and be judged on
the merits and the aims of the project, without being discriminated against on the
basis of our name.”
The reactions of the evolutionist establishment, including some of the experts interviewed,
have indeed confirmed our caution and our fears about the prejudice that exists.
One of the interviewees even wrote including a cheque, trying to return the money
that Fathom Media paid for the interview. The interviewee said the film
appeared to be different from what the interviewee had been led to believe. The
person did this based on seeing a short trailer on the CMI website, and before seeing
the film.
We wanted straight answers to the questions on these important matters from all,
whether creationist or evolutionist—unhampered by prejudice.
In short, we wanted the film to be judged on its content,
not its associations. We did not want people to be “scared off” by our
advertising a link to CMI, but at the same time we were determined not
to bear false witness. If people had asked us, we determined from the outset that
the team would answer honestly, and we instructed the film crew that went to get
the interviews along those lines. Of course, we hoped and prayed (literally, and
earnestly) that such questions simply would not be asked—e.g. whether creationists
were driving it.3 We wanted straight answers to
the questions on these important matters from all, whether creationist or evolutionist—unhampered
by prejudice and all the other ‘baggage’ that has accumulated, much
of it quite unfairly, around the issue.
“Lying by omission”?
We do not believe that we framed the invitations or the interviews in such a way
that, due to the omission of information, a false impression would be formed about
where we were coming from. Such would indeed risk breaching the commandment against
false witness—the classic ‘half-truth’ deliberately intended to
deceive. We were and are under an obligation to speak the truth, but not to provide
exhaustive information where it was not sought. The Bible
says of Jesus that “no deceit was in his mouth”
(1 Peter 2:22), yet he withheld information from those who
were not ready to receive it, including the Pharisees (Matt. 21:23–27) and even his own disciples (John 16:12).4
We were and are under an obligation to speak the truth, but not to provide exhaustive
information where it was not sought.
Our desire to “walk in the light as He is in the light”, however imperfectly
we might do that, contrasts with many of the atheists who are so vehement in their
accusations against us. Under atheism there is
no compunction to be truthful at all. For example, an American academic
boasted about how he deliberately
deceives students in his efforts to get them to accept evolution.
If our critics were consistent, they would be raging at the BBC and other investigative
documentary producers, since this is their accepted practice. For example, reporters
didn’t reveal everything to Communist officials when making an undercover
documentary of repression behind the Iron Curtain.
If one reads (see following) what was written about the film to the interviewees,
which was quite open about the intent of the film, it is amazing that people did
not ask the relevant questions about creationist backing.
Nor did we make statements that were designed to make people conclude that this
was a film by evolutionists. To the contrary, would an evolutionist film crew talk
about exploring the origins controversy or even any words to that effect, as this
one did? There is no controversy as far as dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists are concerned.
Further, and perhaps most importantly, we were determined to deal fairly with the
material that the interviewees provided. There was not to be the sort of sneaky
editorial cut-and-paste that ends up with someone being seen to say “black”
when they actually said “white”. Indeed, in an email response to a query,
one interviewee said, “They didn’t actually distort what we said,
but did cherry-pick the comments.” (emphasis added)
Steve Murray, director of The Voyage that Shook the World, on location.
To help ensure that fairness reigned, we hired key industry personnel who were not
a part of CMI and we took a largely “hands off” approach in the interview
process, as will be clear in the statement below by the Director, Steve Murray.
Even the most fanatical evolutionist would have to admit that the film included
some very pro-Darwin statements.
Cherry-picked comments?
The interviewee cited above said that the film “cherry-picked” which
of his statements to include. But that is completely normal in a documentary with
hundreds of pages of interview transcripts to choose from, with re-enactments as
well as different interviews all to be squeezed into 52 minutes. But he was not
misrepresented; that is the point: “They didn’t actually distort what
we said”, he admitted (above). This contrasts with the usual
BBC and ABC (Australia) “mockumentaries”
of creation or Christianity in general, even including self-confessed and proud
lying to creationists (see
‘Origins questions’—evolutionists puzzled, creationists muzzled
for documentation).
Does the film have a viewpoint? Of course. So does every documentary. Does that
influence which cherry gets picked? Of course. What counts is whether that has been
fairly done in terms of the way that “cherry” is used and presented,
not whether it suits the ideology of any particular interviewee.
What we wanted was to break down this blanket of prejudice that prevents rational
discourse about the evolution issue, to get people thinking and asking the sorts
of questions that many have just stopped asking. And it seems that this, and the
fact that the film is getting tremendous acceptance in circles that have hitherto
had a jaundiced and caricatured view of biblical creation and those scientists who
believe it, is the cause of much of the irrational ranting. It is very much a case
of the informal fallacy of “shoot the messenger”5—perhaps in an attempt to discourage people
from actually seeing the documentary for themselves.
Note added, 22 July, 2009:
Three of the interviewees featured in The Voyage, Professors Janet Browne,
Sandra Herbert and Peter Bowler, wrote the following in the July 2009 Newsletter
of the History of Science Society: “Had we known the true origins
of Fathom Media, we probably would not have contributed, 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.”
2. Statement by Steve Murray6,
director of The Voyage That Shook the World.
The following is adapted and expanded from what I wrote to one of the interviewees
who expressed concern.
Fathom Media was set up as a legal entity to produce and market a documentary
that was aimed squarely at a secular broadcast audience. This is entirely consistent
with industry practice. While it may have been commissioned by a creationist organization,
it was not primarily designed for creationists. Thus, producing and marketing a
film under the banner of CMI would simply not work for the world of secular television.
For the film to be successful it needed authoritative and wide-ranging views on
Darwin.
For this reason, I and other independent media professionals were engaged to produce
the documentary. Yes, I was commissioned by CMI, but I have to say that if anything,
CMI’s influence was one of moderation, ensuring that all sides were fairly
represented. And as I explained to one of the interviewees, it was my responsibility
alone to select the interview segments and to “tell the story”—stuff
that I thought would be interesting to people who don’t know much about Darwin.
I wanted the audience to get some understanding of why Darwin’s life and writing
does generate debate. I find it extraordinary that after 150 years people are still
fiercely debating what Darwin began. And I believe it’s because he touched
on the core of what it means to be human, and that’s a profound question that
most people struggle with (and indeed a question that occupied much of Darwin’s
thinking). Yet—and I hope all would agree—to do that question justice
requires more than just one (creationist) perspective!
I would urge everyone, especially the critics, to watch the actual doco before jumping
to conclusions based on the identity of the commissioning organization (i.e. prejudice).
Above all, we wanted a film that would generate discussion on the issue of origins
and Darwin’s role in influencing those ideas. But a discussion based on real
history and science—not myths and half-truths. After all, would this not be
one of the goals of any Professor of Science History in teaching their students?
I have to say that all of our interviewees were extremely gracious in the giving
of their time and thoroughly pleasant to interview. I count it a privilege to have
met them. One academic who has published widely on Darwin, did comment on how much
they enjoyed the interview and that they really appreciated the questions that we
asked.
However, I am aware that some of these academics have been getting flak for appearing
in the film, which in itself is a sad indictment on academic freedom of expression
and association. I had hoped that an objective look at what the evolutionist interviewees
contributed to the film (especially from the historians) would be seen as fairly
neutral in an ideological sense. I believe that our interviewees contributed important
and fascinating insights and facts about Darwin and his work. And that the film
deals with their views fairly. I would urge everyone, especially the critics, to
watch the actual doco before jumping to conclusions based on the identity of the
commissioning organization (i.e. prejudice).
3. Document sent to all interviewees prior to their interview
FATHOM MEDIA – DOCUMENTARY ON CHARLES DARWIN
Copyright 2008
Documentary Purpose & Intent
Our aim is to dig a bit deeper into the life and science of Charles Darwin and the
development of his ideas. We are particularly interested in exploring the role of
a person’s worldview and how that impacts on scientific discovery and analysis.
We plan to explain how the Beagle voyage came about, look at a number of
his influences and show some of the subsequent years that lead up to the publication
of Origin of Species. We will include nature footage, some excerpts from
his diaries, and some historic drama re-enactment.
However the key anchor for the documentary will be the interviews, of which you
are a part! These will really give us our story. We are approaching various authors
and scientists to help paint a picture of Darwin’s observations, the conclusions
he reached, and how they correlate with the understanding of science today.
As mentioned, we are keen to hear and present a wide variety of perspectives on
these issues. We would hope the spectrum will include scientific views on Classical
Darwinism through to Neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, design from intelligence
and creationism; together with historical reflections on Darwin’s social era,
views on his life and the impact of his work. We would also canvas opinions on his
motivations, the scientific ideas of the time, and of course, his legacy.
We recognise that when it comes to discussions on Darwin and the impact of his ideas,
there can be a high degree of emotional response. However, our intention as film-makers
is to facilitate a balanced discussion between people who won’t necessarily
share the same views. While it is not practically possible to offer interviewees
any form of editorial control, it is our sincere intention to accurately represent
the views of all participants and to employ an extremely high-standard of journalistic
integrity in editing the interview content.
Finally, we are looking to craft a quality documentary that will sell to international
broadcast networks. A documentary that will help viewers to comprehend and understand
the seismic paradigm shift that resulted from Darwin’s writing.
Steve Murray, Director
Related articles
Further reading
Recommended Resources
References
- On the BBC website, a write-up by the interviewer, BBC Northern
Ireland presenter William Crawley, 21 June 2009, prompted a huge response.
Creationists defend Darwin film. Return to text
- For example: Lynch, J.,
Creationists lie to historians and deny subterfuge.; RichardDawkins.net,
Comment on William Crawley’s blog; Lippard, J.,
CMI makes Darwin docu-drama. Return to text
- The closest anyone came was a question by one interviewee
as to who was funding the project. The answer was “private investors”.
Indeed, hundreds of individuals invested in the project with no expectation of a
financial return. Further questioning from the interviewee would have led to CMI
as the project’s facilitator, as the private investor support was obtained
via CMI’s mailing list. This project was too big for the resources of CMI
to fund. Return to text.
- After this article was first posted, a commenter on a well-known
atheopathic blog tried to attack this, ludicrously citing the discredited
Skeptics Annotated Bible, and responding:
We were and are under an obligation to speak the truth, but not to provide exhaustive
information where it was not sought. The Bible says of Jesus that “no deceit
was in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:22), yet he withheld information from those who
were not ready to receive it, including the Pharisees (Matt. 21:23–27)
Doesn’t that sound fishy?
I thought it does. So I decided to look it up and read the rest of Matt 21. Jesus
immediately, starting in 21:28, goes on to tell the Pharisees not one, but two parables
that contain the information he didn’t directly tell them,
No they don’t! The question was about Jesus’ authority, which
Jesus did not answer. Instead, He continued with the Parable of the Two Sons and the Parable of the Tenants
and the end of the chapter makes clear that the Pharisees understood them both.
Not at all. All they realized was that Jesus was referring to them. They
most certainly did not understand that Jesus Himself was
God the Son, and “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6).
They quote-mine the very (alleged) words of Jesus!!! …
Atheopaths (and agnostopaths) and their churchian allies have
a fetish about alleged quote-mining. Of course, there is nothing of
the sort. As we’ve pointed out before, the Gospels specifically state that
Jesus spoke in parables to hide the truth from the masses (Matt. 13:10 ff., Mark 4:11–12 and Luke 8:10) — (and this is one reason that
it’s
absurd to claim that Genesis is a parable). Thus contrary to this incompetent
eisegete’s claim, these next two parables were not revealing the truth to
these unrepentant critics.
and even his own disciples (John 16:12).
And in 16:13 he promises them “the Spirit of truth”
which “will guide you into all truth” — “all”, mind
you. I think that’s a reference to Pentecost.
Yes it is, as well as to the
future inspiration of the New Testament. And it doesn’t change the
fact that Jesus didn’t reveal everything at the time, but would make
sure more is revealed later. This actually bears out what we say about
our film: by not revealing everything to our interviewees, they were more likely
to tell the whole truth about Darwin, warts and all, so our film would be an overall
more truthful project.
But for a real example of blatant distortion of an interviewee’s
words, see
Christian historian Dr Paul Maier’s response to the deceitful way
that he was interviewed under blatantly false pretenses by that atheopathic Penn
& Teller Show mocking the Bible. For example, the show left out one of Maier’s
crucial qualifying comments, “But this is the liberal viewpoint,
of course.” This left viewers with the impression that this was Maier’s
own view, rather than his explanation—not endorsement—
of the liberals’ argument. Well-known skeptic
Michael Shermer was an integral part of this deceitful show. This is more
evidence that atheistic critics are often projecting their own foibles
onto CMI.
Intelligent Design theorist
Bill Dembski also relates in
Boo-Hoo: Documentary Makers Didn’t Tell Us They Think Darwinism Is a Crock:
Lynch is outraged: the documentary makers are guilty of “lies” and “deception”.
Would a charge of fraud hold up in court? I suspect the documentary makers simply
withheld information. Is that wrong? The BBC, for instance, didn’t inform
me that a documentary they were making about ID was to be called “A War on
Science”, and that I would be portrayed as one of the “bad people” trying
to “destroy science.” I was, to be sure, displeased with this outcome,
but I recognize that this is the way the game is played. The other side has been
dishing it out for a long time, but has a hard time of it when the tables are turned.
See our response to that program,
Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC. Of
course, CMI denies playing any sort of “game”, because the film was
true to the statements given to interviewees, and did
not make them (or Darwin) look silly. Citing these examples of atheopathic distortion
was thus not a tu quoque (you too) but an a fortiori (how much more)
argument. I.e. apparently many evolutionists think that the above underhand tricks
are ethical, so how much more should they regard CMI’s mere withholding
of unsolicited information as ethical.
Return to text.
- From “no-one delights in the bearer of bad news,”
Sophocles, Antigone, 442 BC.
Return to text.
- Steve Murray runs his own independent media production company
in New Zealand, producing programs for a wide-range of clients—both corporate
and not-for-profit. Return to text.
| Derek C. wrote: “This is an awesome website. As a Christian who’s finally just turning my life over to God (for good), I needed somewhere to look for answers when I had no one to ask.” Help keep the ‘awesome’ going!  | | |
|
