We are so desperate for material today that we’re revisiting stuff we looked at and rejected yesterday. That’s why we’re looking again at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog, where they wrote: A Disney Darwin Is Coming.
To know that they’re talking about, let’s start with this article from a few days ago in Variety, a leading news source for the entertainment industry: Charles Darwin Movie in the Works at Disney, which informs us:
Disney has launched development on a Charles Darwin movie with Stephen Gaghan on board to direct from his own screenplay. The studio acquired an untitled pitch from Gaghan, whose credits include [we don’t care].
Jeremy Thomas produced a Darwin movie, 2009’s “Creation,” starring real-life spouses Jennifer Connelly and Paul Bettany. That film, directed by Jon Amiel, focused on Darwin and his family as he struggled to finish “On the Origin of Species.” … [It] grossed less than $1 million worldwide.
We wrote about that one a few times. At first it had problems finding a distributor in the US — see Creation, the Movie: Expelled from the USA. Our final post was Creation: 3rd Weekend Box Office Results.
Okay, here’s what the Discoveroids say about the new film — or possibility of a film — with bold font added by us:
There’s already an element of the fairy tale in the beguiling Darwinian story of evolution, so perhaps a Disney Darwin isn’t all that shocking an idea. It’s evidently on the way, according to the Independent, “Charles Darwin Disney film: Adventure movie will give naturalist the Indiana Jones treatment.”
The article to which the Discoveroids refer doesn’t give any sources describing the contents of the proposed film. All they do is mention Darwin’s well-known voyage aboard the Beagle when he was a young man. The Indiana Jones talk seems to be pure speculation. Nevertheless, the Discoveroids accept it as an accurate description of the film. Then they say:
Wait a minute. Disney perhaps. But Indiana Jones? That is absolutely ridiculous. They seem to have the wrong one of the two co-discoverers of the theory of evolution. For a character worthy of Harrison Ford, surely it’s Alfred Russel Wallace that you want, not Darwin.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Wallace is the Discoveroids’ favorite “evolutionist,” because late in life he lost his mind and descended into mysticism — see Discoveroids Adopt Alfred Wallace as Godfather. Let’s read on:
Of course Disney has always excelled at fantasy and comedy, and this is surely both. Here we have a man who skirted the coast of various continents for a few years with Captain Fitzroy versus a man who lived literally by his wits with native peoples in South America and throughout the Malay Archipelago. The juxtaposition is a simple one, and readily quantifiable.
[*Groan*] Darwin’s five-year ’round the world voyage on the HMS Beagle — a wooden sailing ship — was a considerable adventure, during which he did extensive exploration at various exotic stops along the way. He also did field work both before and after that voyage. Although Wallace may have spent even more time in field gathering specimens, suggesting that Darwin was nothing more than an effete intellectual is utterly inaccurate.
Then, although the Discoveroids always cast themselves as opponents of the political left, they attack Darwin because of his family’s prosperity:
Darwin’s voyage on The Beagle was paid for by his father (around 600 pounds worth).
Does this sound anything like an Indiana Jones?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Indiana Jones didn’t pay for any of his fictional adventures. They were all subsidized — either by his university or other benefactors. And all of the artifacts he pursued seemed to have mystical implications. We continue:
In contrast, Wallace, by and large, paid his own way with the specimens he collected and sent off to his agent Samuel Stevens back in England. For Darwin, collecting was a fascination underwritten by his father, Dr. Robert Darwin. For Wallace collecting was a passion and a livelihood fueled by his own hard work.
That’s true, but irrelevant. By the way, do the Discoveroids pay for their own creationist activities? Hint — no, they don’t. Here’s more:
Darwin amassed nothing approaching [the number of specimens collected by Wallace]. Wallace’s massive collecting reflects a man in need of an income — no specimens meant no sales. Darwin’s comparatively smaller scale collecting reflect the interests of hobbyist with the leisure of an independent income. Which do you think represents the more independent adventurous spirit?
That’s a brilliant method for evaluating the merits of Darwin’s work. Anyway, that’s how the Discoveroids are thinking about the movie project being considered by Disney. Impressive, isn’t it?
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.