Ministry Challenges Darwin, Evolution in Film Project

By Audrey Barrick|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

If Darwin knew what we know today, would he still have developed his theories?

That's what Creation Ministries International, a non-profit group of Christian apologetics ministries, is posing in a documentary film project that challenges evolution.

As the world marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth on Feb. 12, CMI hopes to illustrate how the evolutionary viewpoint is far from the tried and tested science fact that many believe it to be, according to the ministry website.

Production for the Darwin Film Project began in February 2008 but the idea for the project originated years earlier when Dr. Emil Silvestru, a geologist for CMI in Canada, suggested re-examining Darwin's ideas in time for the pivotal anniversaries in 2009.

"The 2009 anniversary cannot go unchallenged," CMI states. "2009 is a pivotal opportunity for the church worldwide to challenge the false foundations of the theory of evolution … and time is short!"

According to CMI, the one-hour international broadcast documentary is one of the biggest documentary film ventures ever undertaken by a faith-funded Christian organization in the world. The project had a nearly $1 million budget and the entire film crew are Christians.

Meanwhile, evolutionists and media are busy preparing for celebrations worldwide, including over 400 Darwin Day events in 36 countries. Special events include feature films, TV documentaries, tall-ship re-enactments of the voyage of HMS Beagle, an international opera production, a world-traveling museum exhibition, numerous cultural events and many publications, with the latest being the free distribution of 200,000 "commissioned" comic strip books featuring Darwin as a children’s hero, according to CMI.

Those behind Darwin Film Project are aiming not only to challenge evolution but to also demonstrate that the Bible "can be trusted in matters of history and science," including the origins of the universe.

"Throughout western society, where his ideas have been widely taught, many people think the Bible (and hence Christianity) simply isn't relevant to their every day life," CMI states. "They logically conclude that if the Bible is wrong about Creation, how can any of it be trusted?"

The non-denominational ministry works to present scientific support for creation as described in the Bible and hence to show that "the Bible can and should be trusted."

The documentary, expected to release this month, will take a critical look at some of Darwin's key ideas, and feature history footage from South America, period re-enactments and interviews with leading authorities, including evolutionists, from around the world.

Next Story : Donors Pumped $83M to Calif. Gay Marriage Campaign

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

nochristian »

Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:19 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 2

Another attempt by creationists to discredit a 150 year old theory that has yet to be disproved through 150 years of testing by creationists and other heretics.

abb3w makes an asute observation. Fundamentalists are threatened by anything that is not written in the Bible. The Bible is FACT. Gee... How can we prove that? The Bible is a collection of stories, some based in historical fact and some depicting an idea, a philosophy, not fact.

If the theory of Evolution threatens your faith, you have no faith. It is astounding that the creationists, now Intelligent Design-ists, are still attempting to discredit Darwin's theory. especially with the genetic proof in their faces.

Just as the NOVEL "The DaVinci Code" threatened "The Church"... it's a NOVEL!
steveh20 »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:41 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Thanks bobxxxx, glad you enjoyed it. Your right about the fossils but incase you are interested David did a series of programmes on them in the late 80's entitled Lost Worlds Vanished Lives, if you ever get the chance to see them they are worth a look.

JK, many thanks, so you came up with 42, thats no problem as long as they don't want to build a by pass through this planet.

BW

Steve
JohnKandor »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:47 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Steve, a "Bull Session" is one of those all-night, beer-and-cannabis-fueled sessions of talking with your college buddies, discussing the "meaning of it all".

We usually ended up concluding that the ultimate answer was "42".
bobxxxx »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:09 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

From Karl's website:

"Karl Priest was a West Virginia educator for 34 years in including four years as a principal. He taught students from kindergarten through ninth grade, mostly as a math specialist, and spent his last nine years as a Junior High and Middle School math teacher."

Karl, you might be able to add two numbers together, but you know nothing about biology and you're not qualified to say anything about it.
bobxxxx »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:07 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

steveh20, I already saw the excellent David Attenborough video you recommended. What a great man he is. The evolution deniers don't have anyone on their side who comes close to his integrity and intelligence.

At the beginning of the video David Attenborough explains what every biologist in the world knows:

"So, a hundred and fifty years after the publication of Darwin's revolutionary book, modern genetics has confirmed its fundamental truth. All life is related. And it enables us to construct with confidence the complex tree that represents the history of life."

http://www.wellcometreeoflife.org/transcript/

Notice that David Attenborough doesn't bother to talk about fossils. Fossils are extremely useful but they are totally unnecessary to confirm the truth of evolution. Like David Attenborough said, modern genetics has shown beyond any doubt all life is related. This massive, extremely powerful, and undeniable evidence from molecular biology and genetics has proven the fact of evolution. The professional liars of the Discovery Institute spread lies about this evidence for their gullible uneducated customers, but their dishonesty can't prevent this powerful evidence from growing every day.
steveh20 »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:48 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Yes Darwin is dead, he is buried in Westmister Abbey, I visted his grave today, it was very cold in London this morning.
Karl »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Dawin is Dead (Leave Him in the Grave)

http://ednews.org/articles/33215/1/DARWIN-IS-DEAD-Leave-Him-in-the-Grave/Page1.html

Thanks for taking a look.
steveh20 »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi orange, viking, abb3w, et al.

On BBC1 on Sunday night the British naturalist David Attenborough presented a program entitled "Tree of Life" about Darwin, yes really, about him on prime time TV, God bless the BBC. The last six minutes was this illustration, talk about saving the best till last...see what you think. If the program appears on BBC America, try and catch it.

http://www.wellcometreeoflife.org/

Enjoy.

Steve
agentorangex »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:30 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

bobxxxx,

"New Protocetid Whale from the Middle Eocene of Pakistan: Birth on Land"

Naaa, just more evidence for the flood. See, in order for whales to live, god had to create for the whales to morph (not evolution though) to give birth on land so they could live on the ark. & then after the flood, the ability to birth on land stopped immediately again by more animal morphing ( but that's not evoooolutttion!) Silly scientists.
bobxxxx »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:16 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 3

"Meanwhile, evolutionists and media are busy preparing for celebrations worldwide, including over 400 Darwin Day events in 36 countries."

Meanwhile the uneducated evolution-deniers are spreading lies about science, as usual.
steveh20 »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:16 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I don't think your speculations are a million miles away from a fair reading of the situation(as I see it), not sure what a bull session is though.
bobxxxx »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:13 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 3

"If Darwin knew what we know today, would he still have developed his theories?"

If Darwin could somehow magically appear on earth in the year 2009, he would be very proud to find out how many of his predictions were proven correct. An example is this new discovery of a whale transitional fossil. I look forward to reading how the Christian Discovery Institute dishonestly pretends this fossil is not extremely important.

http://tinyurl.com/bb943u

New Protocetid Whale from the Middle Eocene of Pakistan: Birth on Land, Precocial Development, and Sexual Dimorphism
abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:07 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

steveh20: "That's a very interesting thought. Have you ever read escaping from fundamentalism by James Barr?"

Nope. One of the usual suspects in some of the on-line bull sessions on religion that I participate in might have read it, so I may have been indirectly exposed to the ideas. However, I'm speculating based on my Catholic upbringing, my experiences with one particular "Biblical Inerrancy" YEC proponent, a bit of semi-random poking at Wikipedia, and some less-than-obviously related science articles.
steveh20 »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:08 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Blame the Protestants' abandonment of both Orthodoxy and the Petrine Apostolic Succession from the basis of church authority, leaving only the authority of Scripture as foundation. As such, any question of the slightest errancy in scripture is tantamount to question of the validity of the foundation of their worldview... which understandably makes most people antsy."

Leaving aside the blame part, That's a very interesting thought. Have you ever read escaping from fundamentalism by James Barr?
steveh20 »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:03 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi mathetes, sound great, its been freezing here the past few days, winds from Siberia I am lead to understand. That said, I love barbies, so Saturday afternoon we fired it up and got the burgers going (coals, not one of those girly gas ones)bit surreal really. Thanks though for the invite.

blacksho, thanks for the link and thinking of me.
abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:57 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

nolalady: "God created the earth."

Philosophically, this may validly be Affirmed as a premise of Faith; however, it may be Refuted as a premise of Faith with equal validity. I prefer to take neither on Faith, to use simpler premises of Faith, and to thereafter address the question via Inference from the simpler premises.

nolalady: "I took at graduate level Math analysis class where we had to prove the foundations of mathematics, the number line, infinity etc. When we got down to the most basic thing, someone asked the atheist professor, well how do we prove that, the response 'Well, we have to take it by faith'"

Or, alternatively, assert Refutation and work with the consequences. The validity of formal Logic for propositional inference and the self-consistent joint affirmation of the Zermelo-Frankel Axioms fall in this category. (Some branches of mathematics use alternative axiom schemata which ZF allows proving to be equivalently consistent to ZF.) Science adds the premise that Reality is Relatable to Evidence. Everything else in science is inference from these three groups.

pvlman: "Evolution poses no threat the Christians and Christianity, why do some keep picking at this bone?"

Because rather than build their house on sand, they have built their house on a rock... which rests on sand. Blame the Protestants' abandonment of both Orthodoxy and the Petrine Apostolic Succession from the basis of church authority, leaving only the authority of Scripture as foundation. As such, any question of the slightest errancy in scripture is tantamount to question of the validity of the foundation of their worldview... which understandably makes most people antsy.
abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:55 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

nolalady: "What change from one species to another have we seen that will then reproduce?"

Please pardon the cut-and-paste of a bit from another thread. However, it seems you share a common misunderstanding about the nature of speciation.

Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.

When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.

While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.

Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference to presume that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.
pvlman »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:36 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Darwin knew what we know today, would he still have developed his theories? I guess that would be depend on who is defined as "we". Science has yet to find anything that really should change Darwin's observations and what he concluded from them. Yes science does change what is known/understood about evolution. That ability to change is what makes science, science. Unlike the rigidity that makes faith, faith.
pvlman »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:26 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Evolution poses no threat the Christians and Christianity, why do some keep picking at this bone? Not like you are force to teach evolution from the pulpit or in Sunday school. Unlike your quest to teach your faith in public schools as the undisputed truth.
mathetes »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:46 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

steve and viking,

I have no comment other than to say hi. I always look forward to what you bring to the discussion and the spirit in which you bring it. Cheers!

PS: Steve, I watched our university's baseball games Saturday with some UK lads on our soccer team. They could not get over our winter in Mississippi: 62 degrees and sunny, in January, for Pete's sake! Though the wind was strong and slightly cool, the lads were out in their shorts, soaking up the sun! Wish you were here to enjoy it with us!
viking »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:55 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Nolalady,
I think anyone would have to admit that while there were religious motivations involved in the voyage (including the desire to gain finances to have a successfull crusade of the holy land) a primary motivation was seeking of wealth. But I digress I happen to agree with you when you state.

God created the earth. science and math are used to explain it.

Although I would say universe where you place earth. This is of course why I reject YEC and find theistic evolution to be consistent with both faith and science.
In relation to Darwin day being "nothing more than an effort by atheists to criticize Christians." I think you are taking it to personally. To the extent that sentiment is true wouldn't it apply to all theists not just Christians. And of course there is nothing inherently inconsistent between the theory of natural selection or evolution and Christian faith. The conflict is one made by humans not by God.
JohnKandor »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:02 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Jacob, we can only hope that Ray Comfort's new book has greater merit than that absurd "banana" video of his.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

As a Christian, I found that video to be incredibly embarrassing.
nolalady »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:58 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

viking: you are probably correct about Columbus in that more people believed the earth was round. However, it was in his biblical understanding that prodded him to make the journey. Science and God are not separate. God's character is decency and order. God created the earth. science and math are used to explain it. I took at graduate level Math analysis class where we had to prove the foundations of mathematics, the number line, infinity etc. When we got down to the most basic thing, someone asked the atheist professor, well how do we prove that, the response "Well, we have to take it by faith" I still hold to the stand that it is hypocritical to condemn Columbus day and exalt Darwin Day. Darwin day is nothing more than an effort by atheists to criticize Christians. It is rediculous.
Blacksho89 »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

steveh20; I saw your question about the girl suspended for casting a spell. It apparently is a true story, this is the most succinct explanation I've found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Like_Everyone_Else
viking »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:47 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Nolalady,
you ask "What change from one species to another have we seen that will then reproduce?" if you google "observed speciation events" you will find among other sources the following
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
you will find there more than a dozen speciation events which meet your definition.
steveh20 »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:46 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Yeah, Liverpool V Chelsea, Liverpool scored 2 goals in the last 4 minutes to win 2-0.
HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA (not that I am biased of course).
Sorry you only had the superbowl.
BW
Steve
viking »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:38 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Steveh20
by the way did you get the chance to see some real football this past weekend.LOL
viking »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Steveh20,
You may be right. LOL.BW.
steveh20 »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:34 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Hello viking, I think you are taking the question a little to seriously and literally. Youv'e spent to much time doing that philosophy stuff with orange and the others.
:-)
BW
Steve
viking »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:24 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Steveh20,
I disagree. I don't believe that Darwin would have developed his theories if he knew what we know today. Because if he knew what we know today it is inconcievable that others would not already have developed that knowledge and with such overwhelming evidence someone else would have already developed the theory of evolution. That is the real point about Darwin not that he got everything right. He certainly didn't. But rather that he saw the pattern and process as clearly as he did (incomplete as his vision was) given the limited information he had.
viking »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

nolalady,
Hi you are sadly misinformed regarding Columbus.

Recent scholarship finds that since about the 3rd century BC, virtually no educated person in Western civilization has believed in a flat Earth.[3][1]

Jeffrey Russell states that the modern view that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat is said to have entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.

If you research actual historical documents of Europe in the time period of Columbus you will find only the most ignorant and superstitious held to a flat earth belief. Columbus being a seafarer had personal experience of a curved earth as everyone does who sails out to sea. The problem was he wasn't a very good mathematician. Sometimes though it is better to be lucky than smart. But then again considering his end maybe not.
steveh20 »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:07 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"If Darwin knew what we know today, would he still have developed his theories?"

Talking geologicaly, then yes he would have, because he would had known even more that the time was available for evolution by natural selection to occur to provide the bio diversity on the planet today. Time was a problem, those who knew bst in those days said the world was not old enough, the geologists provided it. Don't often quote but John Fairplays words on visting the unconformaty at Siccar Point with Hutton seems appropriate

"We felt ourselves necessarily carried back to the time when the schistus on which we stood was yet at the bottom of the sea, and when the sandstone before us was only beginning to be deposited, in the shape of sand or mud, from the waters of a superincumbent ocean. An epocha still more remote presented itself, when even the most ancient of these rocks, instead of standing upright in vertical beds, lay in horizontal planes at the bottom of the sea, and was not yet disturbed by that immeasurable force which has burst asunder the solid pavement of the globe.... The mind seemed to grow
giddy by looking so far into the abyss of time."

Steve
P.s I love this question, it is an open goal.
nolalady »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:11 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

Darwin was a racist. The same people who want to remove Columbus day stating that he was a racist ( Columbus went against the science of his day and used to Bible to determine that the world was round) want to make a Darwin Day. Hypocrital!
nolalady »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:01 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

didymus: That's funny! What change from one species to another have we seen that will then reproduce? What chaos to order have we observed? Calling evolution a theory is a joke. There is no observation and no testing. Even the smallest components are just beginning to be tested now and no solid confirmation have yet to take place.
didymus »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:32 pm Agree: 4 Disagree: 2

Article asks, If Darwin knew what we know today, would he still have developed his theories?

Yes, and that's because they're scientifically observable.
JacobAdams »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:43 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

Ray Comfort's book, which discusses atheism and creationism, will be coming out on Feb 12, Darwin's birthday. The forward of his book is written by an atheist, who tells readers to be open-minded. For more information, see http://wndbooks.com
Online4Him »

Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:35 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

The documentary, expected to release this month, will take a critical look at some of Darwin's key ideas)

I look forward to viewing this documentary . . .

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story