The Voyage That Shook the World

The perspective of this film comes from those with a point of view opposite of Darwin. While this may seem to paint him in a completely unfavorable light, it does not discredit the work he put in to form his theories.

The interviews from experts tend to paint Darwin in a more positive light acknowledging how his work has influenced science though they also acknowledge some flaws in his reasoning (as might be the case with any scientist). Ultimately, every scientist is influenced by some kind of preconceived notions. Lyell's influence on Darwin was strongly referenced.

The film as a documentary/history was adequate at best. I felt that hearing from experts was informative and intrigues me to hear more of what they may say within their own context to get a fuller picture (I do believe in being well read and researched). The acting and representation of Darwin's life was rather weak.

I do lean towards creationism and would give this a 7/10, though I understand how someone who might lean towards evolution would strongly give a lower rating.

Being used to hard hitting Creation videos and presentations, I was surprised at the mild approach of this documentary. The film makers took great pains to put Darwin and his ideas in the context of the era in which he lived. This was a time when Darwin would not have been able to benefit from what we now know about the complexity of life, such as the complex protein-based machinery contained within a single living cell. This documentary clearly showed that while Darwin's ideas were not original, he did bring together his observations in a unique way. Sometimes he did not have enough information to draw the correct conclusion, and sometimes he was simply bent on showing that uniformitarianism could explain all life on earth. Yet after a lifetime of study, Darwin failed to formulate a reasonable hypothesis as to how life arose in the first place.

This was a very balanced documentary, but the viewer will have to listen carefully to the arguments because the producers will not hit you over the head with the evidence showing that Darwin "missed the boat" when he sailed on the Beagle.

You obviously have people reviewing the show with preconceived ideas which they have no intention of changing. With the above noted reviews it goes both ways but I must say I would go so far as to say periphilla possibly didn't even watch the program as he had already made up his mind.

It was an interesting documentary, great scenery, worth while seeing. Like all documentaries they have their own spin but I did not find it outlandish by any stretch of the imagination.

If you watch this film with an open mind it does get it's point across that

The film presents itself as a serious examination of Darwin and his theory while in fact it appears to be far from this and appears to have a creationist agenda lurking in the background. I say "lurking in the background" because all too often the film lacks the courage of the evident convictions of its producer and director. It points out a number of errors, or alleged errors, that Darwin made on the Beagle voyage, which is fair enough. No doubt Darwin did make errors. But it then uses them to cast doubt on such issues as the age of the earth, suggesting that it is perhaps only a few thousand years old, rather than millions, as all serious scientists accept. Sir Charles Lyell's argument that geology shows that the earth is millions of years old, has not been seriously doubted since, although it is true that he did not give sufficient prominence to examples of sudden catastrophic changes. But the film tries to argue that this casts doubt on the whole theory, which it does not. There is no shred of evidence that all continents and the fossils in them are to be explained by a sudden world-wide and simultaneous flood which submerged the entire globe. The film does not argue, in any case, that the Grand Canyon was created in a sudden cataclysm. The film however never poses the argument directly, presumably because it is unsustainable. The film also states as criticism some points which are false, e.g. that the sea shells which Darwin found high up on the Andes were not fossilized. They were fossilized, as Darwin himself observed and the samples were returned to England. The film makes some valid points about Galapagos finches, which later research seem to show are not always separate species, in the sense that their beaks change from one form to another, but back again in a number of generations. Speciation is a debate within natural selection, but if one was to take on the whole debate and cast doubt on whether species evolve at all, one would have deal with all the intermediate fossils that have been found since Darwin, e.g. archeopteryx and the many Chinese reptile/bird fossils (some of which, yes, were fakes, but most are not), and the many intermediate species between ape and man, let alone DNA evidence. But the film does not attempt this, being apparently content to cast a little doubt here and there, without drawing any firm conclusion.

Everyone in the scientific community should see this! It's interesting that many of those giving this one star say it isn't scientific, despite the fact that most (all?) of those interviewed hold PhDs in some scientific discipline. They seem to be prejudiced against the conclusions drawn from the science. Their low ratings have nothing whatever to do with the quality of the filmmaking, which is superb.

At least one reviewer says the scientific community is in 100% agreement that evolution is the reason for today's biodiversity, but that statement is false. There are 2.5 million scientists who believe God created the world.