Talk:The Voyage that Shook the World

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"proponent of consensus"[edit]

Dave souza changed:

"proponents of evolution, intelligent design, and young earth creationism"

to

"proponents of the scientific consensus on evolution as well as proponents of intelligent design and young earth creationism"

with the edit comment "being a proponent of consensus on evo isn't the same as wanting evolution..."

I don't understand the distinction that is being made here that warrants the wordier phrasing.

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Philip, it's simply that evolution is something that happens, the theory of evolution is the scientific consensus on evolution and that's what people support. The short statement is like saying that a proponent of relativity theory is a proponent of gravity. There's also the issue that someone can be a proponent of the theory of evolution, but opposed to evolution in practice when it involves an unfortunate extinction. . dave souza, talk 19:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring your POV about which view is correct, it seems that you are saying that people support evolution because it's the scientific consensus, not for other reasons, such as the evidence. On the other hand, it's unusual for a non-creationists to say that, so perhaps I've misunderstood. But if that is correct, it's hardly something that needs special distinction in this article. The analogy with relativity and gravity has gone over my head, sorry. As for your last point, yes, I guess that is a possibility, but (a) the same could apply for creationists or ID proponents, and (b) this doesn't change that they can be correctly described as proponents of evolution. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GEVAL, we don't present an assumption that fringe views are correct. People support the scientific consensus, having considered the evidence. Creationism and ID creationism are religious views, not science. Evidently clarity is required. . dave souza, talk 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid a debate about whether or not the creationary view is correct, but if you are going to insist on pushing your POV on this talk page, I might feel obliged to respond. I wasn't suggesting that we present any view as correct; I was responding to your comment above that treats one view as correct. Creationists reject that creationism is any more a religious view than is evolution, so that comment of yours was also POV. And ID is specifically non-religious. And neither qualifies as a "fringe view".
You've made your POV clear, and I've probably made mine clear, so let's put all that POV stuff aside and stick to the point. Your comment that "People support the scientific consensus, having considered the evidence" is still not clear. Are you saying, "People support evolution, having considered the evidence, and hence evolution is the consensus", or are you saying, "People support whatever the consensus view is, which is currently evolution"?
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both creationism and ID are fringe pseudoscientific views, whatever their merits as religious views, and WP:PSCI applies. Scientists who support the consensus on evolution have done so on the basis of the evidence; see scientific consensus for further clarification. . dave souza, talk 11:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked that you stop pushing your POV and explain what you meant by "People support the scientific consensus, having considered the evidence", because I'm still trying to understand the point of the change you made per my first post in this section. Regardless of why people support evolution, what is wrong with just saying "proponents of evolution"? Are you trying to make a point that evolution is the scientific consensus, or what? Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pressing for adherence to WP:NPOV, a policy you should study. Please pay particular heed to WP:MNA. As I said at the outset, people are proponents of the scientific concensus on evolution without being proponents of the process. Sorry it seems to be over your head, but in my view it's a necessary clarification. . dave souza, talk 12:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, with all due respect, it is you, not I, who has been pushing a POV on this talk page. I'm quite familiar with the NPOV policy, which is why I've been asking you to stop pushing your POV. I put two alternative wordings to you for what you might have meant by your comments, and instead of telling me which one was correct (or giving me a third), you've fallen back to repeating the original wording. A "proponent" is "a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea". You do not appear to be using "scientific consensus" as a cause nor an idea; I don't think you're saying that these people are pleading for there to be consensus (agreement) on evolution. So what do you mean? Philip J. Rayment (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Disagree utterly. Your repetition does not persuade; your argument is specious, and your characterization of accurate,neutral sourcing and phrasing being preferred to Creationist propaganda sourcing and phrasing as "pushing your POV" is, frankly, worse than disingenious. Puppy has spoken; unlike Dave, puppy is not interested in answering your tedious repetitions. He has the patience of a saint; I do not. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "repetition" is due to a failure to answer, and this post is nothing more than offensive and biased rhetoric. (You've not shown, for example, that any of the sourcing is "neutral".) Philip J. Rayment (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry you've chosen to take offense at my candor. You have not questioned any specific source as to neutrality that I have seen. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was, as I said, offensive and biased rhetoric; not "candor". You're half right that I've not questioned any specific source as to neutrality. That is, I have not done so explicitly. But one source (Bowler) is clearly not neutral, and I have implied that others aren't by asking why they don't also get the qualifiers as are applied to the reference to Movieguide. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bowler is described: he's an expert historian, and well represents majority views on the history of science. . . dave souza, talk 12:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about qualifiers, not descriptions. He's not described as being biased against creationism or for evolution, hence he doesn't have the qualifiers that you insist that Baehr should have. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movieguide description[edit]

Dave souza also added further explanation of Movieguide. I understand that point he is making, but feel that this is simply unnecessary over-explanation. The site is linked, so anybody interested can follow the link to find out more about Movieguide. This page is about the movie, not Movieguide, so surely a brief explanation such as was already there is more than sufficient without needing to spell it out in so much detail.

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to have come back on this earlier, the thing is that Conservative Christianity in some cultural contexts indicates Protestant evangelicals and Protestant fundamentalists, but in Ireland and the UK where the film has been shown, it's more likely to be applied to the Catholic Church. As you may have noticed, the Roman Catholic approach to evolution differs considerably from the YEC approach of the film's sponsors, and a website which "offers in-depth analyses of current movies from a biblical perspective" is likely to favour the YEC view. I'll restore the edit, if another equally informative and unambiguous description can be agreed that will be welcome. . dave souza, talk 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do understand the point. My point is that spelling this distinction out in this article is unnecessary. If article A explains topic A in considerable detail, there's no need for article B, which refers to topic A, to spell topic A out in much detail, else the link to article A is redundant.
You mention that the meaning of the term varies according to culture. So would the qualifier "American" be sufficient? Would something like "... Movieguide, an American conservative Christian movie review website, gave the movie four stars ..." be sufficiently clear?
I also find it refreshing that you acknowledge that the YEC view is the biblical view; most anti-creationists try to deny that.
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Readers are entitled to know that a YEC source is praising a YEC film without having to look through other articles. I acknowledge that the YEC view is a biblical view, and while it's just one of many Christian interpretations of the bible, its proponents evidently believe that it is the view. . dave souza, talk 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You now claim (my words) that "YEC" is not equivalent to "biblical", merely compatible. That being the case, what's your evidence that MovieGuide is a "YEC source"? I agree that it's Christian (and therefore presumably biblical) because it claims to be (and the claim appears to be correct), but I've seen no evidence of it being YEC unless you're basing that on their opinion of this film, in which case the argument becomes circular (A YEC source is praising the film; we know it's YEC because it's praising the film).
For another, "looking through other articles" is a normal thing to do. The article doesn't spell out—to avoid "looking through other articles"—the views of the BBC, Bowler, or Crawley. Aren't readers entitles to know those views also? Why does the movie review site need to be singled out for special treatment? Frankly, I think for consistency's sake the sentence should read "Ted Baehr on Movieguide gave the movie four stars ..." without any qualification, but I'm prepared to compromise to the point of the original qualifier that was there. I simply don't see the need to over-qualify the reference to a third party.
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christians proclaiming "a biblical perpective" commonly mean by that a literalist perspective, which is a minority view in international Christian terms. There are other perspectives on how to view the bible, such as the Baconian view that the book of God's word should be read with the book of God's works, instead of imposing literal biblical views on science. The film's promoters clearly gave the film to a sympathetic reviewer, and as shown below one who is happy to repeat the misinformation that slow geological development is "contrary to the traditional interpretation of the Bible, Genesis and to God". As Bowler shows, there were several traditional interpretations. Strange that there don't seem to be any other reviews, as far as I've been able to find. . dave souza, talk 10:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it clear that "The film's promoters clearly gave the film to a sympathetic reviewer" other than the circular argument that they must have because he gave it a sympathetic review?
You seem to be trying to have a bob each way, whereby "biblical perspective" may or may not be a YEC view, yet it "commonly mean[s] ... a literalist perspective".
You didn't answer my question on why Movieguide needs its apparent views qualified but the other parties don't.
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One, and apparently only one, review appeared before the film was released so that must have been on the basis of a private viewing. Inviting reviewers to a private pre-release show is not unusal, but then we'd expect more reviews.
The review expresses support for YEC views, the website is emphatic about its "biblical Christian" approach. Why so keen on hiding that?
When another review appears, we can set out its views as expressed on its website. . . dave souza, talk 12:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so keen on emphasising it? Why do you claim that Movieguide is YEC? Why is the "special treatment" not given to other parties? Why do I have to ask these last two a second and third time? Philip J. Rayment (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • see my post above, as well as below. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. If you disagree, offer a rational argument, but don't tenditiously force people to repeat themselves over and over. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section, and conflict of interest[edit]

WP:LEAD requires the lead section to summarise main issues from the body of the article; I've restored and slightly modified a statement of Peter Bowler's position, and have added a summary of the main points put in response by Creation Ministries. In this edit summary when deleting information from the lead Synergyfilms (talk · contribs) indicated a conflict of interest, and I've requested compliance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly "misleading phrasing"[edit]

KillerChihuahua made an edit with the edit comment "Its not "Darwin's attitude regarding racism", its painting Darwin as a racist. This is already covered lower, where youjust changed order. No need to over-emphasize, and with misleading phrasing".

I wasn't happy with my own wording which KillerChihuahua changed, but it was an honest attempt to be neutral and accurate. I would have like to have written that "[Bowler] stated that ... the film presents a historically inaccurate portait of Darwin's racism", but of course that would be implying that Darwin was racist, which is not NPOV. So my wording was an attempt to avoid the POV and to be neutral.

The problem is that without it, the reader could easily get the impression that Bowler was criticising the entire historical portrait rather than one aspect of it. I'll have another go at qualifying it.

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip, you're conflating two sentences in the source and synthesising the fringe view that the accusation of racism is the only historical inaccuracy in the film. Bowler's views as clearly expressed in his books show that historical claims in the film are nonsense, if we're to take the Movieguide review at its word. For example, "Everywhere he went, he tried to look at the world through the prism of slow geological development. He knew that his position was contrary to the traditional interpretation of the Bible, Genesis and to God. And, he was clear that one could not hold to his position and to the Christian faith." As Bowler discusses in Evolution, The History of an Idea pp. 118–134, Darwin learnt geology from the Reverend Adam Sedgwick who held much the same outline of ancient earth geology as is mainstream today, albeit expecting jumps in the fossil record, and Charles Lyell, whose uniformitarian ideas influenced Darwin on the voyage, held the traditional view that adaptation of species to environments was a sign of the Creator's benevolence. Both were devout Christians, both rejected YEC Biblical literalism. So, from Bowler's viewpoint the film clearly distorts history, the separate sentence about racism gives a specific example of one such distortion. . dave souza, talk 09:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm basing the edit on two sentences in the source, because without doing so, the introduction gives an impression different to that in the interview. As for it being a fringe view, that is again your POV speaking; apart from you here, nobody, as far as I'm aware, has claimed any other historical inaccuracy. Please try and remain neutral.
Your claim of other historical inaccuracies (like Bowler's incidentally), are nothing more than a difference of opinion. You're basically saying, "The film says one thing, someone else says another, so the film is wrong". The rest of your reply reeks of original research and conclusions that are POV.
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained Bowler's published opinion on this talk page, which is reasonable. The impression given in the interview is that Bowler's expert opinion is that the film presents a "historically distorted portait". In the interview Bowler makes two distinct statements, you're trying to run them together to support your POV that they only refer to one historical inaccuracy. You appear to be trying to promote the fringe POV of the film's promoters, a direct violation of WP:GEVAL policy, please don't. . dave souza, talk 12:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) sorry it took me so long to respond here, didn't realize there was a discussion here regarding my edit. I'll try to catch up with What Has Been Said So Far. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have read, and Raymond, I agree with Dave. You're conflating two statements into one. Bowler said the film was inaccurate. A second segment addressed Darwin and racism, stating the film was precisely backwards in the conclusion presented. He also said his words were misused regarding his view of Darwin. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the interview? Is it available anywhere? As far as I know, all we have available is Crawley's blog entry about it, and in that, Bowler didn't say that his words were misused, and in that he makes no specific claims of historical inaccuracy other than the reference to racism. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Peter Bowler also raised concerns about how the editing of his own interview could leave viewers with a false impression of his own perspective on Darwin." - yep, Bowler said his words were misused.
  2. "...film which offers an historically distorted portrait of Darwin." - Yes, he said the film was inaccurate (general statement)
  3. "He claims that the film's narrative implies that Darwin's theory led him towards racism, whereas recent historical work by James Moore and Adrian Desmond shows that Darwin's scientific work was partly motivated by the naturalist's passionate opposition to racism." - Yes, they got racism backwards.

Seems fairly clear to me. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Peter Bowler also raised concerns about how the editing of his own interview could leave viewers with a false impression of his own perspective on Darwin." That's not the same thing as him saying that they were misused.
His general statement does not have to mean that the film was generally inaccurate. It is quite normal for people to introduce a specific matter with a general statement.
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite common for creationists to indulge in quote mining and misrepresent proponents of science, your interpretation seems to me to be a big stretch. . dave souza, talk 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an anti-creationist "urban myth" and I totally reject it. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's well documented. Quote mining is used extensively by creationists. Even creationists have criticised creationist quote mining. Guettarda (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I have seen the same quote from Darwin used in many Creationist sources in a totally dishonest way, I can testify that this is in no way a myth. The quote I'm referring to is:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Creationists naturally leave out the rest of the paragraph:
When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
Of course, this is just one example out of many. A few sites that use quote mining like this: http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html, http://www.nwcreation.net/quotes.html, http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequotes.html, http://www.bible.ca/tracks/, http://web.archive.org/web/20030925234423/http://www.geocities.com/acts_2_38_4_12/evo1_index.html, http://www.soulcare.org/Creation/EvolutionQuotes.html, and MANY more. I assure you, the practice is quite common. Check out the Quote Mine Project at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html. Eebster the Great (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Have any secular, neutral reviewers reviewed this film? We need to get a little balance in here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find any reviews. Rotten tomatoes doesn't even have the film; IMDB has the film with a 1.7 star rating and no external reviews listed at all. Are we premature in having this article? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is "secular" equivalent to "neutral"? Philip J. Rayment (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the subject of the article is a propaganda film or a film which promotes a specific POV, then reviews by groups which also promote that view are intrinsically biased. The bias is there on the face of it! It a religious film about a religious view, with a religious review. A secular review would not have the religious bias. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which view ("also promote that view") are you talking about? I've asked dave souza above to support his claim that Movieguide is YEC, and he has not done so. That is, I've not seen anybody offer evidence that Movieguide promotes YEC.
That it is a "religious" film with a "religious" view and a "religious" review is your POV. Sure, a secular review would not have "religious" bias. It would have its own bias!
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist, and you cannot seriously be saying all three parties are not creationist. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<ec> Philip, you don't seem to understand the word secular. We have the one review, which openly approves of the minority religious view and fringe pseudoscience view being promoted by the film and its backers. WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL require due weight to independent viewpoints. . . dave souza, talk 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


PR: Which are you saying is not involved in presenting a Christian, primarily if not exclusively creationist, view?

  1. Creation Ministries International
  2. Movieguide
  3. William Dembski (Uncommon descent)

KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't claimed that any are not creationist. It is you (dave souza and/or KillerChihuahua) who have claimed that they are and have used that as justification for edits and comments. So I'm asking you to demonstrate that Movieguide is young-Earth creationist (I'm not disputing that it's Christian). We haven't discussed the stances of the other two.
As for the word "secular", what do you think I don't understand about it? According to the link, it's "separate from religion". That being so, it will look at things from a non-religious viewpoint (bias), hence is no more neutral than a religious viewpoint. That's in principle. In practice, "secular" usually means anti-religious. I imagine, for example, that you would consider the BBC as being secular. Yet in practice it has shown at times that it's anti-religious.
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you agree they are all Christian, and at least two are Creationist, correct? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not agreed that. I said that it is up to you to demonstrate that Movieguide is young-Earth creationist. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming they are not Christian? You're not making any sense. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself, "...it is up to you to demonstrate that Movieguide is young-Earth creationist." Asking me my views on whether or not they are Christian is a case of trying to divert responsibility. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dembski's remarks[edit]

Should there be the section with Dembski quotes? This is from his blog. Moreover, it is outside his area of expertise since he isn't an expert on documentary films. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the Reviews section itself is well established, the two paragraphs about Dembski and the his personal blog statement are questionable, not least as his blog clearly comes under WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources and involves claims about third parties, there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention and it is being used to obscure the mainstream view, as well as being used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance. The same could also be said about much of the self-published material from the film's producers and promoters, but at least they're directly involved in the film: there's no indication that I've seen that Dembski has anything to do with the film. . dave souza, talk 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've removed it. I also think removing it is a good idea because Dembski refers to the "other side" here and it almost looks like he's stating that he's a creationist. I don't think that's what he means but it certainly can be easily misintreptred that way so it is probably best to just leave it out. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Don't really think you could call that "misinterpreted", he's been found in court to be creationist and has always been on the same side as creationists, though often claiming that ID isn't creationism. Tend to agree it's best left out. . dave souza, talk 23:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter that Dembski's quote is from his blog? The information about the criticism is also from a blog. Further, I find it hard to accept that it is "outside his area of expertise" when he's talking about personal experience.
That Dembski's blog "clearly" comes under WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources is POV if not blatantly false; his views are widely respected.
How is Dembski's view "being used to obscure the mainstream view"? His view is that it is typical or normal for documentary makers to not disclose the stance of the documentary. I've seen nothing to say that the "mainstream view" on that is anything different.
I've also objected to earlier claims of "fringe views" on this page, but no substantiation has been forthcoming, yet here it is repeated again as though its unquestioned.
I don't see the relevance of whether or not Dembski is a creationist, other than trying to marginalise him on those grounds.
In summary, there's been no good reason offered for the removal of Dembski's relevant comment, and it should be reinstated.
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's Demkbski's personal blog, and WP:SPS requires "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Do please provide evidence that he meets that standard regarding documentary film making. Regarding fringe views, you've been given the link to the standard "widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic," and "Examples of such views include certain forms of revisionist history and pseudoscience". The standards for that have been set by Arbcom, see WP:PSCI. According to WP:MNA policy we shouldn't thrash out here whether intelligent design and young Earth creationism are pseudoscience, that's well established by scientific bodies and the courts. . . dave souza, talk 12:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section says "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist" and footnote [3] explains this as "Examples of such views include certain forms of revisionist history and pseudoscience". Dembski is only notable as a proponent of pseudoscience. And he's making direct accusations about producers at the BBC. So it's a rather problematic source. Also, given that things disappear at UD, if you want to cite anything, you really need to have an archive copy made. Guettarda (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It's Demkbski's personal blog, and WP:SPS requires ...": In quoting that, you've completely sidestepped my point that "The information about the criticism is also from a blog." Are you therefore applying this policy selectively? And for what it's worth, it appears to not be Dembski's personal blog, as there are quite a few different people writing there.
"Regarding fringe views, you've been given the link...": Which didn't support what you were claiming.
"The standards for that have been set by Arbcom, see WP:PSCI.": Yet that section doesn't mention creationism nor Intelligent Design.
"According to WP:MNA policy we shouldn't thrash out here whether intelligent design and young Earth creationism are pseudoscience...": And I have no desire to do so, but if you continue to insist on basing your case on your POV, what choice do I have?
"...that's well established by scientific bodies and the courts.": I disagree that it's been "well established" by either.
"The section says [quote snipped] ... Dembski is only notable as a proponent of pseudoscience.": The section does not declare ID to be pseudoscience, and Dembski is notable for being an advocate of ID; that ID is pseudoscience is a POV that many do not share.
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, everything is a POV. Yes, the IDists insist that you need to remake science into "Augustinian science". Just like every proponent of pseudoscience insist that what they are doing is the realscience. But Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia that does not give equal credence to fringe ideas. Creation science is pseudoscience. ID is rebranded creation science. Yes, once can argue whether they are "obvious" or "generally considered" pseudoscience. But that's about as far as the argument goes. Guettarda (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that is argument by assertion, which is no argument at all, or begging the question, also an invalid argument. Creation science is no more pseudoscience than is evolution: they are both explanations about history (or prehistory if you prefer); i.e. what happened in the past, and both are held by significant numbers of scientists as well as large percentages of the general population; hence it is not a "fringe" idea—that is blatantly false. If you concede that there can be an argument about whether they are "obvious" or "generally considered" pseudoscience, then you concede that the matter is unsettled, and therefore it's reasonable to conclude that holding to one or the other is POV; a POV that is being imposed here against Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Philip J. Rayment, I cannot allow your statements to go unchallenged. First, your assertion that "Creation science" is science is quite false. Something doesn't become science just because you stick a science label on it. Creation science fails on (at least) three counts:
  1. Science deals with the observable. Creation science posits a supernatural creator. Since the creator may not be observed, the existence of said creator is not scientific, as are assertions that said creator caused events in the real world. No evidence, no science.
  2. Core "Creation science" concepts such as "irreducible complexity" have been scientifically demonstrated to be false. So-called "creation scientists" have asserted, essentially, that certain biological systems could not have evolved from simpler forms because removing any individual part would cause them to stop doing the function they currently do. Of course, such arguments ignore that simpler systems may perform an entirely different function: see Exaptation. And also bear in mind that, even *if* somebody managed to disprove that something evolved, that does not prove intelligent design. All it proves is that there is something current scientific theory does not explain. The solution to that is to form a new testable scientific theory which does explain all the evidence, not to fill in the gap with pseudo-science.
  3. Creation science does not posit any valid, testable theories. In the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the so-called creation science expert Michael Behe was forced to admit that, if "intelligent design" were to be considered science, then using the same criteria, so must Astrology. Asked if he had ever devised and run an experiment which could disprove his theory, he answered that he had not.
You're correct to say that Wikipedia must adopt a neutral point of view but your interpretation of this is wrong. This does not mean that we must give equal weight to each side in an issue and state that all viewpoints are equally valid when they are obviously not. Ought we give holocaust deniers equal time with proper historians or should we instead focus on the evidence at hand?
Your bias really shows through in your post. It seems quite obvious that you get your information on science from preachers rather than scientists. In the real world, "intelligent design" is not considered by actual scientists to be a valid scientific hypothesis, never mind a theory. Until there is reliable, testable, reproducible, observable evidence of intelligent design, then Wikipedia should maintain its present stance which is that intelligent design is not a scientific concept.Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your point 1, an archaeologist can find a stone object and conclude from its design features that it was made by an intelligent being. Not being able to observe that being does not mean that the archaeologist's conclusions are not scientific. Of course there's also the point that much of evolution is not observable, such as fish turning into amphibians.
2. I disagree that they have been shown to be false, but if they have, that must mean that the idea is falsifiable, and therefore scientific. "...such arguments ignore that simpler systems may perform an entirely different function.": Such arguments do not ignore that claim; the claim has been answered, and one of the answers is that the counter-claim is speculation, not observation. "even *if* somebody managed to disprove that something evolved, that does not prove intelligent design." Yet evolutionists sometimes use the argument that it couldn't have been designed as evidence that it must have, as though they were the only two alternatives. And you've not proposed a third.
3. "Creation science does not posit any valid, testable theories.": False. "...so-called creation science expert Michael Behe...": Behe is an ID expert, not a creation science expert. As for saying that Behe admitted that astrology could be counted as science under his definition, it is clear from the context of his testimony that what he meant was ancient astrology when it wasn't distinguished from astronomy.
I'm familiar with the NPOV policy including the "equal weight" part of that. However, contrary to your implication, I'm not asking for any view to be stated as equally valid (or given "equal time"). But debate on this page has been based on claiming that it is not equally valid, which is hardly being neutral, which is also not allowed. In addition, the policy refers to "minority views", not "minority views within the scientific community". It's debatable that some form or design proposal is the minority view, given the numbers who believe, for example, that God created man, and even if it is, it's a large minority.
"Your bias really shows through in your post.": As does yours. (Of course, that is an ad hominem argument.)
"It seems quite obvious that you get your information on science from preachers rather than scientists.": Then perhaps you are allowing your bias to show through too much. I actually get it from scientists. And an argument about the source of a claim is also a logically-fallacious argument.
"In the real world, "intelligent design" is not considered by actual scientists to be a valid scientific hypothesis, never mind a theory.": Blatantly false. If you wanted to qualify that to "most scientists", you would probably be correct. But implying that it is all scientists and implying that exceptions are not "actual" scientists is factually incorrect and therefore that part of your argument fails. In any case, it's an argument ad populum; another logically-fallacious argument.
"Until there is reliable, testable, reproducible, observable evidence of intelligent design...": You mean like the "reliable, testable, reproducible, observable evidence" of fish turning into amphibians?
Philip J. Rayment (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lippard[edit]

There are two places where Lippard is mentioned; these are sourced to his blog. While I don't see a problem with sourcing Lippard's views to his blog, I do see an issue with putting so much weight on his comments which have not been picked up or received any mainstream coverage; this is not an article about Lippard and he was not involved in the making of the film. Why is he in this article at all? I can probably find a lot of blogs where notable people commented, and they are not mentioned at all. Nor should they be, unless very noted in the field. Lippard is not, he is a general "skeptic" and he's not particularly noted. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably the only skeptic who has watched and reviewed the film, though this particular quotation was on a specific point made prior to my having seen the film. My actual review is here: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/07/voyage-that-shook-world.html My blog is the primary locus of skeptical information about the film in the blogosphere, to date. If you can find other notable non-creationist blogs commenting on the film that don't make reference to mine, I'd be curious to know what they are. Lippard (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment and link. Jim Lippard has effectively been presented by CMI as an authority that they can quote-mine to give credence to their response to the historians: the article that they cite makes it clear that he hadn't seen the film at that time, and that should be shown. Having accepted that his views are considered by them to be notable, it should also be noted that having seen the film he found it "as trying to hide its own creationism" but giving a false equivalence to creationist views and expert views. This article is heavily based on self-published creationist sources rather than reliable secondary sources: given that the CMI themselves point to Jim Lippard, it seems reasonable to accept his source as a mainstream view which is not entirely uncomplimentary about the film. As a first step, I've tried to reflect the comments made by Jim Lippard in a concise but rather more rounded way. In tha absence of any other mainstream reviews of the film, it would also seem reasonable to summarise his review more fully in the reviews section: that would give space for his compliments on the production quality as well as the main points made about the presentation of creationist views. . dave souza, talk 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't mean to give offense, and I sincerely hope none is/was taken - if Lippard is it, then Lippard is it, but it seems unbalanced to rely so heavily on one review. That's not to disparage Lippard, merely surprise that no one else seems to have treated the film at all(?). But perhaps, given time, there will be more reviews. It is troubling that the quotes are from prior to actually seeing the film, am I understanding that correctly? If so, that should be made clear in context. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have indicated that with this edit. Basically, CMI issued their response to the historians' statement, and when Jim Lippard stated in his blog that the response "appears to be sound with respect to those two specific allegations" they picked this up as an endorsement of their position. When Jim Lippard saw the film later, he posted a review of it, noting its production quality as well as its fairly restrained promotion of creationism. That seems to be the only non bible-based review of the film currently available. . dave souza, talk 18:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my objection, then, we can hardly add other reviews if none exist. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. I expect there will be a future opportunity to remove references to quotes from my blog and replace them with quotes from published reviews. Lippard (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of the NCSE will be publishing a review of the film by me and John Lynch. A web version is here: http://ncse.com/rncse/30/review-voyage-that-shook-world Lippard (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Summary?[edit]

I was lurking at a science blog and saw this movie title come up, so came to good ol' wikipedia to get the details...is there a way that we can work a summary of the film's main points into the lede? A first glance tells me it's a movie, that it's by Creationists, and that historians were misled...but nothing about what the film is peddling. I'm not suggesting that we give "fair time" to any propoganda, I'd just like to know what the propoganda -was-. Quietmarc (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only useful summary I've found is Jim Lippard's review, an outline of that could be added to the reviews section, and then briefly summarised in the lead. For citations, use the <ref name=Lippardreview/> inline template. . dave souza, talk 07:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had started a summary of Lippard's review, so have now added it. Feel free to add an appropriate summation of that to the lead. . dave souza, talk 08:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consult wikipedia several times a day, usually, but have never contributed so I don't know WP's style guidelines. However, I have a feel for WP's style and this article is very much an exception. The whole article is about the controversial aspects of the film. It makes sense to have a section on the controversy, but not to devote the whole article to the contention. I second the comment that the article needs to do what most WP articles do, and that is give useful information about the topic - in this case the film. The controversy and points of view of those who disagree with the film should not be the main point of the article. Take for example the WP articles on Flat Earth, UFOs, etc, etc. These topics get a fair hearing. But in this one, there seems to be a very strong agenda deriding the film. Hardly encyclopedic! DanLivo (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All articles should be verifiable from reliable third party sources, and should meet the requirements of WP:NPOV including its specific requirements for dealing with pseudoscience. If other articles give equal validity to fringe views, they should be improved. This article gives an outline of the film from a suitable third party source, mentioning the creationist claims it makes. Further analysis based on reliable third party sources will be welcome. The controversial aspects have been the most notable aspects of this film, and they are duly covered. . dave souza, talk 10:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity and style[edit]

This article tells me much too little about the film. It reads more like an exposee. While I feel that "young earth creationism" is in error, and perhaps this film was some sort of flim-flam job, the objectivity of the article is lacking beyond all reason. Lead with the story of the film, it's production, etc., then have a paragraph or so about how the "experts" were fooled. The opinions of the writer are just too obvious here. I haven't seen the film, but the statements are entirely believable. The article's agenda, however, does not seem to be primarily to tell us about the film, but more about the opinions of people who opposed its views. 70.245.225.102 (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC) fervor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.225.102 (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem appears to be the fact that the only people who appear to have noticed the film's existence have been historians and scientists/skeptics, who have lambasted the film. Lacking any RSs that do anything other than shred the film, an "exposé" is about all you're left with. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The film can be found on YouTube so someone can sit down and describe the film's contents without any problems. - Simeon (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOR, and specifically WP:PSTS. . . dave souza, talk 16:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case here because it's purely a matter of describing the storyline of the movie. For example, when I go to a movie (e.g., Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) and afterwards I type on Wikipedia what happened in the movie, I'm not doing original research, I'm merely sharing my knowledge about the movie, which is what Wikipedia is about. It would become original research when I start to interpret the contents of the movie. - Simeon (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a WP:PLOT summary for a documentary necessary? Would it not, of necessity, regurgitate & give WP:UNDUE weight to the allegedly inaccuracate account contained in the film? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there's value in providing a summary of the documentary contents.. (see e.g., Super Size Me) not everybody has the time or wants to view the whole movie but they do want to know what the general message of the movie is. Despite creationism being a minority view, I think the movie should still be discussed, even if only for showing where the movie is really coming from. - Simeon (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it makes it more important that the summary be conducted in an "evaluative" manner, and thus rely on a WP:SECONDARY source (preferably by a qualified historian of science). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at the current article, we were able to describe, presumably without qualified historians of science, what the movie is about, where it was produced, what's wrong with it (lots of criticism in the article at the moment). If 'laymen' can describe all that, what's the big deal with also watching the movie and mentioning what's in there? You don't need to be a qualified historian of science to understand the movie and to formulate what the line of argument of the movie is. After all, the criticism is already well represented (including criticism from qualified people) but the contents of the film are missing. - Simeon (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we have the 'History of Science Society' weighing in with a 'statement'. And I said preferably. The problem is that "what's in there" may well be a complete distortion of the historical record. Therefore baldly restating "what's in there" without giving the "current level of … acceptance among the relevant academic community" of "what's in there" is in violation of WP:FRINGE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the wealth of content in Category:Creationism, I don't think a paragraph or two about the contents is too much for this fringe theory. It's not about whether the movie is true (because it's inherently POV) but about its message: "the movie claims the following about creation, evolution and Darwin for the following reasons". As long as you describe it from that perspective (the movie says this, the movie claims that), it doesn't matter that it's a distortion of historical record because if that's what the movie does, then that's all the movie has to offer. You can include as well that these views are not held by the academic community but as it currently stands, readers learn little about the movie itself. Would they really have to watch the movie entirely because we're unable to describe it? - Simeon (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blyth controversy[edit]

The film argues (in part following the arguments of Loren Eiseley) that Darwin effectively plagiarized Edward Blyth's theory of natural selection. This argument is decisively refuted by Joel S. Schwartz, "Charles Darwin's Debt to Malthus and Edward Blyth," Journal of the History of Biology vol. 7, no. 2, Autumn 1974, pp. 301-318, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/4330617, as well as by the relevant section of the Wikipedia article on Edward Blyth. Lippard (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Voyage that Shook the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Voyage_that_Shook_the_World&oldid=1207898737"