WorldNetDaily Praises Voyage of the Blind

Buffoon Award

YOU already know what we think of WorldNetDaily. They’ve won our Buffoon Award, after which they went on to defend Kent Hovind, to argue for Theocracy, and to praise the brilliance of Ray Comfort

Now they’re promoting a “documentary” produced by a creationist group calling itself Vision Forum Ministries. Their “work” is entitled The Mysterious Islands: A Surprising Journey to Darwin’s Eden. Click at your own risk.

We’ve been there, so we’ll save you the effort. At the website of the film’s producers we are told:

[18 November:] More than 2,500 people have reserved tickets to attend tonight’s Tampa premiere of The Mysterious Islands, a new film that debunks the conclusions Charles Darwin reached during his storied trip to the Galapagos Islands during the voyage of the HMS Beagle

Too bad, you missed the premiere. But you can still experience the documentary, so don’t feel left out.

Anyway, let’s get back to WorldNetDaily. Here are some excerpts from their article on this intellectual breakthrough: Watch scientists ‘prove Darwin wrong’. The bold font was added by us:

Just in time for the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species,” a team of Christian scientists has traveled back in time to the birthplace of evolution to “prove Darwin wrong.”

What a mission! What a team! Let’s read on:

The scientists have embarked on a journey to the Galapagos Islands, the same island chain Darwin visited during the voyage of the HMS Beagle in 1835. Many scholars today agree that the animals and plants Darwin saw on those islands contributed greatly to his becoming an evolutionist.

Is that a stupid sentence or what? “Many scholars agree” that the wildlife Darwin saw contributed to his “becoming an evolutionist”? Darwin actually used his data in developing his theory? Why didn’t those “many scholars” just ask Darwin? He described his thinking in his writing. We continue:

But upon returning to the very spot Charles Darwin arrived 174 years ago, the Christian scientists have examined the same unusual creatures Darwin saw – and they’ve documented their findings [in the above linked movie]. …

Their mission: Determine whether the Galapagos Islands, resting above vast tectonic plates, are a laboratory for evolution as Darwin believed – or a truly magnificent showcase of God’s creation.

The WND article is a long one, and as it gushes praise for the film, it unwittingly reveals the film-makers’ failure to understand what Darwin did, how he thought, and what evolution actually is. Here’s a sample, quoting Doug Phillips, executive producer of the film:

Darwin also believed scientists would inevitably see transitional forms in the fossil record, Phillips said. “He said we would see fossil examples of animals going from one kind to another,” he explained. “It’s our contention that not one transitional form has ever been found.”

With a producer like that, you don’t need to know much else. But you want more, don’t you? Okay, here it comes:

Phillips said there is a “war of the worldviews” between Darwinists and creationists. But, he confidently asserted, “Darwin got it wrong.”

One more quote, this time from the end of the article:

“Today people look to the Galapagos, and evolutionists and Darwinists see it in the same way that Christians look to Jerusalem and Muslims look to Mecca,” Phillips said. “They really embrace the evolutionary faith. In our film, we insist that evolution is, in fact, a faith. It’s a worldview based on unprovable assumptions that are accepted by faith.”

So there you are. And what have we learned? We’ve learned why Darwin was so different from everyone before him who traveled the world, observed nature, and tried to make sense of it. Darwin put all the available evidence together into a coherent, comprehensible, and testable theory. In our humble and inadequate way, we discussed some of that here: What Did Darwin Do?

What this film teaches us is that if one travels without curiosity, without a desire to understand, and without a willingness to observe the evidence — in other words, without a mind — then he will return from his voyage as ignorant as when he began.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

19 responses to “WorldNetDaily Praises Voyage of the Blind

  1. “Many scholars today agree that the animals and plants Darwin saw on those islands contributed greatly to his becoming an evolutionist.”

    Ok – now …

    Wow. Is that to say that Darwin became …wait for it ……..a Darwinist?

    Morons.

  2. Keelyn says: “Is that to say that Darwin became …wait for it ……..a Darwinist?”

    That seems to be what they’ve concluded.

  3. A war of worldviews, huh? Well, I guess my evidence-based worldview is winning the war while their lame speculation-based worldview is just limping toward a trend downshift. Fancy that.

  4. I love their “worldview” statements. The most succinct way of saying “close your eyes, cover your ears, and say ‘la, la, la. I can’t hear you!'” I’ve ever come across. It’s summed up nicely by their inevitable “no transitional fossils” statement.

    Creationist: My worldview doesn’t allow for transitional fossils. Therefore, I don’t see a transitional fossil, I won’t hear the evidence that it’s a transitional fossil, and I can safely say there are no transitional fossils. LA, LA, LA!

  5. The Curmudgeon // 23-November-2009 at 10:41 am

    Keelyn says: “Is that to say that Darwin became …wait for it ……..a Darwinist?”

    That seems to be what they’ve concluded.

    Such a vast intellectual leap for such small minds.

    😉

  6. Keep in mind that WND is so “out there” that even Discoveroid and Bigfoot-believer Michael Medved criticized it on his radio show. WND’s chief creationist Joseph Farah even admitted to me in private email that he thinks that OECs and IDers are just as wrong as “Darwinists.” Not that I expect him ever to challenge their “science” directly, after all YECs OECs and IDers alike eventually admit that their only real objection to evolution is the Hitler thing. I guess they were out of town when God handed out free will.

  7. retiredsciguy

    WND liked using the term “Christian scientists” in their blurb.

    Don’t they have reading rooms in several cities, publish a newspaper, have their own church, and eschew modern medicine?

  8. Yup, not one transitional fossil out there, don’t see no crocoducks, don’t see no dogs a birthin’ cats, all we see are them fully formed dead things.

    Anyone have any idea when Cthulu is coming, there are a few humans I’d like to toss down that particular hole.

    Just to enter reality for a moment, I really think we need to get away from talking about transitional fossils/forms and start talking about fossils with transitional features.

  9. Tundra Boy says:

    I really think we need to get away from talking about transitional fossils/forms and start talking about fossils with transitional features.

    It’s probably futile to try to change long-established terminology. Besides, the creationists would pretend to misunderstand whatever new term were adopted.

    Afterthought: If I were to attempt a new term, it would be something like “ancestral species.”

  10. I’ve long thought this li’l critter might count for something in the great transitional species debate, but no one ever seems to mention it. Scientists already thought bees had evolved from wasps (you know those crazy ol’ Darwinists, a-speculatin’ an’ a-conjecturin’ up a storm about the unobservable and unrepeatable past they weren’t there to see). So, if they were right, a transitional form somewhere mid-way between a wasp and a bee should show up, right? But there aren’t any transitional forms of *anything* — right? Well, then we get this…

    http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2006/Oct06/bee.html

    I mean, if a bee evolved from a wasp, doesn’t the existence of an extinct bee with wasp characteristics in the right time period when such a form would have been expected to live kind of clinch the case?

    I did run this past a Creationist I was arguing with. He merely replied, “It’s not a transitional form, it’s just some kind of bee.” Plus stuff about about how do you know it’s that old. Can’t win with these characters…

  11. Deklane said: “Can’t win with these characters…”

    Sure you can. Just ignore them. Game over.

  12. Deklnane: “Plus stuff about about how do you know it’s that old. Can’t win with these characters…”

    But you can make them squirm by asking them how old they think it is, how they determine that age. And whether they even challenged OECs who think that YE arguments are nonsense. I might also throw in a note about the isochron method, etc. but unlike most people, I prefer to keep the discussion not on evolution (that only gives them more stuff to misrepresent), but on their alternative, and how other anti–evolutionists don’t buy it.

  13. “The documentary was shot and directed by award-winning Jon and Andy Erwin of Erwin Brothers Motion Pictures. ”

    LOL! The award was for best “SHORT FORM MUSIC VIDEO” at the Gospel Music Association Dove awards. Yeah, trust a Christian music producer to know how to make a science documentary.

    I love how they say that “a team of Christian scientists” traveled to “prove Darwin wrong.” Imagine what they would say if I found a similar team of “Christian” scientists who would travel to prove Darwin right. I dare say I could find many more “Christian scientists” for that trip.

  14. retiredsciguy

    WND wrote,
    “…a team of Christian scientists has traveled back in time to the birthplace of evolution to “prove Darwin wrong.””

    Hmm. Isn’t the idea of scientific research to make the observations first, and THEN form hypotheses about what the observations prove or disprove? They may be Christians, but if this is their idea of the scientific method, they’re not scientists.

  15. retiredsciguy says: “Isn’t the idea of scientific research to make the observations first, and THEN form hypotheses about what the observations prove or disprove?”

    Not if the result is the devil’s work that would lead you away from the TRVTH™.

  16. The Galapagos Islands are one of the most beautiful locations in the world. The Theory of Evolution by Darwin can be witnessed day after day on the Islands.

  17. Welcome, zuri. Hey, everybody, this is zuri’s website: Discover The Enchanted Galapagos Islands.

  18. Gabriel Hanna

    Isn’t the idea of scientific research to make the observations first, and THEN form hypotheses about what the observations prove or disprove?

    No. If you don’t have a hypothesis you don’t know what to observe.

  19. retiredsciguy

    Gabriel, ok, you’re right. The point I was trying to make is that there’s a group of creationists going to the Galapagos with the sole intent of disproving Darwin — regardless of what their observations will support. That’s not science.