Lippard reviews The Voyage That Shook the World

It’s a very charitable review of a creationist movie, the latest bit of dishonest propaganda since Expelled. It is apparently very professionally made, which means less and less nowadays as digital video gear gets cheaper and easier to get, but I was surprised at one thing: it’s not really a movie. It’s only 52 minutes long! This looks like something they’re aiming at the television market, so look for it sometime soon on TBN or maybe even the History Channel.

Among the usual mangled creationist nonsense, it seems to be arguing for some revisionist history, claiming that science only advocates gradual change, but the evidence supports catastrophism, which is a biblical view. This is ridiculous, of course; the Bible is not a science textbook and provides no supporting body of evidence for anything, while science strives for an accurate model of the history of the earth that includes both gradual events and sporadic major changes.

No surprises. Bad science and bad history, but polished to a nice shiny gloss. If it comes on TV, I’ll probably watch it and take notes, but I’m not going to go out of my way looking for it.


  1. matthew.hodson says

    I just watched this terrible “movie” thinking it could be an interesting historical look at Darwin’s journey and how he developed his theory. Not something that I have no knowledge of already but more details and another view point might be nice.

    The title and the blurb describing it lured me in.
    The movie is made well and starts off in a reasonable way with some interesting details, but as it progresses the atmosphere becomes more and more hysterical, women began screaming. Okay, well not really but it does dissolve into creationist nonsense.

    It is an exercise is pure deception, Satan, if he existed, would be proud.

    My reactions started out as: “that’s interesting”, progressed to “why are they talking about that? How is it relevant?”, and finally to “Whaaat?”

    Is there anything sneakier than a creationist?

  2. says

    Wow I just watched two of the Kent Hovind DVDs a debate verses DR James Paulson. I know it would be frowned upon to say that Kent won. But I have to be honest Kent slaughtered them both. The other debate was against Dr. Meyers. Can someone please let me know of a debate where the evolutionist wins. There must be one out there somewhere.

  3. John Morales says

    Yahoomess @70:

    Debating verses? (Is this poetic or Biblical?)

    Dr. Meyers? (Who is it to whom you refer?)

    PS Do you think “winning” a debate establishes the veridity of that which the winning side (whether affirmative or negative) is in favour of, or do you think it establishes which side is better at debate?

    Can you cite the specific debates and basis (i.e. met criteria) for determining the “winning” side of said debates upon which you have based your conclusion?

  4. Nerd of Redhead, OM says

    The other debate was against Dr. Meyers. Can someone please let me know of a debate where the evolutionist wins.

    Debates are won by those who employ verbal and rhetorical trickery. Which is all the creobots are good at. Evolution won the real debate years ago in the peer reviewed scientific literature with real hard physical evidence. There is no evidence in the form of scientific papers for creationism. There are a million or so scientific papers that support evolution both directly and indirectly. No contest, and creationism loses big time in reality.