Creation Ministries International

John Lynch and I have co-authored a review of the Creation Ministries International film on Darwin which will be appearing in vol. 30 of Reports of the National Center for Science Education and which may be found on their website. My previous blogged review of the film is here. I gave a little more background on the film here. John Lynch has said more about it here, here, here, and here, mostly about the deception used to get interviews by prominent historians. ...

Todd Wood of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College has gotten around to doing what I haven’t done, updating my analysis of the market for creationism that I did in early 2007. He confirms some of the trends I noted, such as that the market for creationism has been growing and is dominated by Answers in Genesis. His update goes further, and includes a comparison to the National Center for Science Education, noting that he market for criticism of creationism has grown along with the market for creationism. He also points out that the groups involved got a boost revenue in 2005 during the Dover trial, that the AiG split from Creation Ministries International doesn’t appear to have hurt AiG, and that “Godquest,” formerly known as Creation Science Evangelism, the Hovind organization, is the #3 creationist organization for revenue behind AiG and the Institute for Creation Research. Wood reports the following numbers for recent years: ...

I finally had a chance today to watch the Creation Ministries International-funded film, “The Voyage That Shook the World.” It’s a 52-minute, professionally produced docu-drama. The cinematography is excellent, and there are high-quality graphics and effects. There’s not a whole lot of acting to judge–most of it appears for visual effect during narration or interview voice-overs–but I saw nothing to criticize in that regard. The documentary content itself starts off reasonably, with the only initial hint that this might not be a mainstream production being the emphasis put on Darwin “making up stories” as a child. The first experts to appear are professional historians. Apart from H.M.S. Beagle having the wrong number of masts (two instead of three), I didn’t notice any obvious mistakes in the history, though I’m no expert. Where it first veers into creationist territory is when the narration starts talking about Charles Lyell’s influence on Darwin, with regard to uniformitarianism and “deep time,” and it makes an odd assertion that the great age of the earth was a settled question in Darwin’s time, unlike today. That’s an odd assertion since the age of the earth is overwhelmingly confirmed by science today, and there is no scientific debate about the earth being about 4.5 billion years old. (Particularly odd was that this remark came from historian Peter Bowler, I believe, which makes me wonder about the original context of his remark.) Several creationists and intelligent design advocates appear, though they are not identified as such. A CMI web page about the film does show who’s who, but this is perhaps the most deceptive aspect of the film–using on-screen credential identification that puts recognized experts with well-established reputations on a par with relative unknowns without established reputations. For example, creationist Rob Carter is identified on-screen by where he earned his Ph.D. and as “marine biologist and geneticist,” but he has no academic appointment, a scant publication record, and works for CMI. Stuart Burgess is identified as “Design & Nature, Bristol University” but he’s a mechanical engineering professor at Bristol University. (UPDATE: Note that Burgess’ title is, in fact, Professor of Design and Nature.) Emil Silvestru is identified by his Ph.D. and as a “geologist and speleologist,” but he works full-time for CMI. Cornelius Hunter of the Discovery Institute is identified by his Ph.D. and as “molecular biophysicist and author” when he is an adjunct professor of biophysics at Biola University. That institution was originally known as the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, founded in 1908 by Lyman Stewart of Standard Oil, the guy who funded the publication and distribution of The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, from which fundamentalism gets its name. I consider this to be a deceptive equation of expertise, for which the film deserves criticism. (I gave the same criticism to “The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark,” which used the same technique to equate creationists with little or no reputation with recognized experts.) Creationist Emil Silvestru argues for a young earth and for the creation of geological features by catastrophic flood, though I noticed he mentioned “a flood” and not “the flood” at first, and while he mentioned the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington as having been cut rapidly by catastrophic forces (true), he did not make the common grossly mistaken creationist assertion that this is how the Grand Canyon was formed. Silvestru also makes a polystrate tree fossil argument for rapid deposition (which may well be the case in the particular instance, but is not generally the explanation for polystrate tree fossils). The creationism starts out fairly subtly in the film, with the remarks about the age of the earth, and at one points sets up a novel opposition between two views: ...

Three historians interviewed for the Creation Ministries International docu-drama, “The Voyage That Shook the World," published a response maintaining that their views were not accurately represented by the film. Peter Bowler, Janet Browne, and Sandra Herbert wrote a note to that effect in the July 2009 issue of the Newsletter of the History of Science Society, which was also publicized by the National Center for Science Education’s website (and see John Lynch’s commentary at a simple prop). CMI has now published a response to the historians on their website, noting that “The historians’ description of the film, while not totally accurate at all points, is not unreasonable and in some respects complimentary.” It also uses the historians’ statement that had they known the nature of the film, they might not have participated, as evidence that they were justified in concealing that information from them. CMI takes issue, however, with the two specific allegations by Bowler and Herbert that their words in the interviews were taken out of context and misrepresented in what appears in the film. To rebut them, CMI’s website publishes more extensive quotations from these two historians and compares them to how they were edited and placed in the context of the film. Although I haven’t yet had an opportunity to view the screener copy of the film in my possession, the CMI rebuttal appears to be sound with respect to those two specific allegations. The CMI web page concludes by noting that each of the participants was given their raw footage, as well as a copy of the film, and ends by saying, “We are hopeful that it will turn out to have been a case of not having checked the raw footage sent to them, instead relying on memory. We would be delighted to publish news of a retraction of either or both of these two claims in this space, should that occur." So we can add up the lessons here: 1. Do due diligence about the production company and find out who’s behind it before agreeing to appear in a documentary. 2. Make sure your release gives you some way to defend yourself if misrepresented, e.g., make sure you get the raw footage. 3. If you [think you] are misrepresented and go public with it, consult the raw footage to make sure your charges of misrepresentation are themselves accurate. ...

Via John Lynch’s blog, I see that Creation Ministries International has made a docu-drama about Darwin titled “The Voyage That Shook the World,” featuring professional historians who are well-known experts on Darwin. And why did these historians participate in a creationist project? It seems that CMI took a page from the producers of “Expelled” and set up a separate production company, and failed to disclose the nature of their production to the historians in question. That suggests to me unethical deception–lying by omission–though I’d like to know what exactly the historians were told and what releases they signed before they participated. Updates to come if I find out. UPDATE (June 27, 2009): CMI describes its process for the documentary, including the document sent to interviewees, on its website. No mention is made of CMI or a creationist slant to the film. The director says that “if anything, CMI’s influence was one of moderation, ensuring that all sides were fairly represented,” but if he is himself a creationist and set out to make the film from a creationist viewpoint, this isn’t much of a defense. Note that at least one participant questioned who was providing the funding, and was told only “private investors.” And one participant tried to return his fee in order to not appear in the film. The proof will be in the pudding–it will be interesting to see what the film’s narration says and how they fit the interviews into it. There’s clearly no defense if it says things that are false or misleading. Implicit in the CMI position is that creationism is a valid, reasonable, and evidence-supported viewpoint that deserves equal representation, but that’s not the case. One thing that’s clear is that anyone being interviewed for a documentary in the age of Borat and Expelled should do some due diligence before signing a release. UPDATE: John Lynch has responded further, as well, and I agree with everything he says. Their statement about atheists having “no compunction to be truthful at all” is false and offensive, and their analogy to an investigation of the Communist party is a bad analogy. UPDATE: P.Z. Myers has weighed in. This may be the sort of online media coverage they’re hoping for–the film is showing at so few places that the biggest place in Arizona to see it is a church in Miami, AZ (population < 2,000). UPDATE (June 29, 2009): The CMI web page contains this statement under the movie poster image: “The Voyage that Shook the World, CMI’s documentary, has atheists ranting and raging. Rather than critique the film, they falsely accuse CMI of deception.” This statement itself is dishonest–the accusations of deception are accurate, and the current complaints are not necessarily in lieu of critiquing the film, if it becomes feasible to view it. UPDATE: John Lynch responds further to CMI, and notes that he has been incorrectly identified as an atheist (he’s an agnostic). ...

As was mentioned last August by commenter Ktisophilos, Ian Plimer has a new book out on climate change, titled Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science, in which he challenges claims of anthropogenic global warming. Plimer is an Australian professor of geology who I criticized for his methods in debate with creationists, as well as for his reliability and accuracy. He responded by criticizing me with more misrepresentation in his book Telling Lies for God, which contained numerous errors, as well as multiple cases of failure to properly quote and cite sources that he used in writing the book. (The Creation Ministries International documentary for which I was interviewed, Facing the Fire, is about Plimer’s 1988 debate with Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research.) It now appears that Plimer’s latest work is also extremely sloppy and contains erroneous source attributions. Tim Lambert at the Deltoid ScienceBlog identifies a long list of problems in the book by page number, points out the facts about Plimer’s misleading figure 3, which doesn’t originate from the source Plimer has claimed, and about another misrepresented source and graph. Some Christians who found Plimer to be worthless as a source on creationism as a result of my critique have nonetheless found him to be a worthwhile source on anthropogenic climate change, such as Bill Muehlenberg and some of the commenters at his CultureWatch blog. This strikes me as an inconsistent position–Plimer has demonstrated unreliability in both debates, and shouldn’t be relied upon as a source for either. That doesn’t mean to ignore what he says, or that everything he says is wrong–it’s just that everything he says needs to be thoroughly checked for accuracy. If it checks out, then it’s better to cite the original source, not Plimer. UPDATE (May 26, 2009): Commenter Paul points out a review of Plimer’s book by Barry Brook, which also includes a link to a point-by-point critique of the book by Prof. Ian Enting of the University of Melbourne (PDF). (This link has been updated as of June 1, 2009 to point to a location that will continue to maintain the most recent version of the critique, as per a comment below from Prof. Enting.) UPDATE (May 28, 2009): Bill Muehlenberg still appears to be refusing to publish contrary opinions from me, continuing his past record. I posted the following two comments on his blog, which he has not allowed through moderation: 1. Comment submitted on the evening of May 22, 2009: I am a critic of creationism and skeptic who challenged Ian Plimer’s methods and reliability in his criticisms of creationism (cited by one of your commenters above). I am sorry to say that Plimer’s methods and reliability continue to be unsound in his contribution to the climate change debate. For example, see the following two blog posts that document errors and falsehoods in his new book: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php I think that Plimer is mostly correct about creationism (it’s nonsense) and mostly incorrect about climate change (there are real trends that correlate with human activity), but given his record he shouldn’t be relied upon as a source in either debate without carefully checking up on everything he says.2. Submitted on the morning of May 23, 2009: Bill: I do hope you will let my comments through moderation. Here is another post from the Deltoid ScienceBlog about Ian Plimer misrepresenting one of his own sources: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/plimer_and_arctic_warming.phpUPDATE (September 2, 2009): Plimer has descended further into irrationality in his exchange with George Monbiot. UPDATE (December 17, 2009): Plimer engaged in a debate, of sorts, with George Monbiot, on Australia’s “Lateline” program. Monbiot offers his overview of how it went. ...

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis to settle their dispute with private arbitration, the outcome sought by Answers in Genesis and affirming the trial court’s ruling. CMI had hoped to force the U.S. dispute into the Australian courts, where a second lawsuit is ongoing and has its next hearing in April. This decision opens a route for AiG to stop the Australian proceedings in favor of the private arbitration that has been ordered in the United States. The court’s decision is here (PDF). It appears to me that CMI is going to be held to the agreements that its previous board of directors signed, however foolish, irresponsible, or unethical it was of them to do so. As those previous board members resigned in return for indemnification, it doesn’t appear to me that CMI is likely to obtain any remedy for the wrongs it alleges have occurred. It looks like AiG operated within the bounds of the law in its actions. ...

Daniel Radosh has a new book out titled Rapture Ready!: Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture, which might be entertaining. There’s a chapter on creationism that talks about Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, and possibly the split by Creation Ministries International, since Google Books tells me my name is mentioned on p. 279. Anybody at Scribner want to send me a review copy? Based on the reviews at Amazon.com, it sounds like Radosh gives Christian pop culture a sympathetic and even-handed portrayal that also points out its absurdities and self-contradictions, similar to the excellent documentary Hell House.

Creation Ministries International has updated its website to respond to the trove of documents released by Answers in Genesis. The Answers in Genesis site now includes the U.S. judge’s order to compel arbitration in the U.S. (PDF). The court’s order requires arbitration to occur in the U.S., but does not put a stop to the legal action in Australia, on the grounds that one of the documents at issue (the Deed of Copyright License or DOCL) says that the parties do “not object to the exercise of jurisdiction by [the Australian courts] on any basis” (to quote the judge’s quotation from the document). The judge describes his order as granting in part and denying in part the Answers in Genesis petition, though Answers in Genesis describes it merely as granting their petition to compel arbitration. The CMI update has a lengthy list of “WHAT AIG IS CAREFUL NOT TO TELL YOU” that makes the point that the U.S. and Australian groups were not as separate as AiG has tried to convey, with interesting examples such as that the U.S. group had appointed a CEO/COO to report to Ken Ham as president, and Carl Wieland of the Australian group was given the task of firing this person. Another is that the letter from Wieland to the U.S. board that AiG describes as “unsolicited” was actually specifically requested by the U.S. board in response to Wieland’s criticisms that he had previously made to the Australian board (three members of which were also on the U.S. board). AiG describes its former executive VP, Brandon Vallorani, as a dupe or co-conspirator with Carl Wieland, but doesn’t note that when he was terminated he was given a payment in return for being bound to silence, and so is unable to comment on what actually happened without breaching that agreement. The CMI summary notes (as I mentioned, via Kevin Henke, in my previous post) that the Thallon document contradicts other testimony from Thallon about whether the Australian board was pressured to accept the October 2005 agreement: “Ironically, there is eyewitness testimony of people having heard Thallon himself claim that they acted under duress in signing, and we have in writing (written back at the time) from a leading creation scientist and professor that Thallon personally told him that Ken Ham had threatened to not buy the next issue of the magazine if they failed to sign. So Thallon is either telling the truth to this scientist, or he is telling the truth in these documents–it’s hard to see how both can be the case.” It’s also interesting to note that the Thallon document alternates between U.S. and Australian spellings of some words (e.g. “organization” and “organisation” are both used in paragraph 22), which probably indicates a document prepared by Thallon (an Australian) and one or more Americans (such as AiG’s attorneys) that was not fully reviewed carefully for consistency. ...

The judge in the U.S. lawsuit filed by Answers in Genesis against Creation Ministries International said that he intended to rule that the groups go into arbitration in Kentucky, under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. But he rejected AiG’s demands to stop the legal proceeding in Australia or to force arbitration by Peacemakers/ICC, the organization they had selected for Christian arbitration. After the hearing, CMI’s attorney proposed that the judge himself mediate a one-day attempt to resolve the dispute more quickly, and the judge agreed on the condition that the mediation meeting be limited to Carl Wieland, Ken Ham, and their respective attorneys. CMI agreed, posted a note to that effect on their website, and booked airfare. AiG, however, objected to the restriction to one person, and requested that an additional person participate, on the grounds that Ken Ham is not a member of the AiG board of directors. The judge then withdrew the mediation offer, and the case will continue in the U.S., without going to Christian arbitration. CMI has a new web page up describing the mediation offer and speculating on the next steps. They observe that the judge has made multiple statements to the effect that the only jurisdiction mentioned in the legal documents between the groups is Australia, and point out that they have already filed an appeal on that basis regarding the judge’s decision to require arbitration in the United States. CMI has also updated their main web page on the dispute.