Eric Hovind's "Genesis: Paradise Lost" (Part one) film analysis?


(Clarke Morledge) #1

I recently learned that Eric Hovind is releasing a new film, to be shown in select movie theaters across the country, via Fathom Events, next week (November 13 and 16).

The promos for Genesis: Paradise Lost seem geared towards the “evolution is a lie” narrative, and “debunking” of the Big Bang. If anyone is planning to go see the film, it would be nice to provide a play-by-play analysis of the movie’s contents, oriented towards helping conservative evangelicals sort through the movie’s claims.

The timing does not seem that great for Hovind (I suppose), as it arrives still fairly close on the heels on Del Tackett’s and Thomas Purifoy Jr.'s, Is Genesis History?, from earlier in the year. That earlier film comes across to me as potentially more effective, as the cinematography was really spectacular, and Tackett has such a winsome presentation. This Eric Hovind production instead relies a lot on computer generated effects, and it comes across as being more “in your face” than Tackett/Purifoy.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #2

Do you mean debunking the movie’s claims? Or what specifically do you imagine helping Christians through the movie’s claims could look like?


#3

If it comes across like his youtube videos do I wouldn’t be able to sit through more than about 10 minutes before I would run out screaming.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #4

This is still my favorite segment on someone reviewing the Hovinds:


(Clarke Morledge) #5

Let’s just put it this way, as generously as I can: In one of the promotional videos for the film, it has a head bust of Darwin, with narration going on about how millions of people have been deceived by the “lie” of “evolution,” that keeps them from seeing the “truth.” Then in the final moments, the bust of Darwin crumbles into dust.

SIGH

This type of rhetoric is just not helpful at all, and simply invites ridicule. At least Del Tackett was not that annoying. But for some reason, a lot of Christians like this simplistic polemic. A point-by-point engagement, might help to show that the arguments being presented do not point to some type of massive conspiracy theory, on the part of mainstream science, without implying that atheism is the only reasonable alternative.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #6

Well, as cool as it would be to do such a large project, I don’t think many have the time or resources. If someone paid me $5-$10k, sure I couldn’t even make time.

Ah look, the Hovind claims have already been debunked for years: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

And the entire BioLogos website illustrates how it’s not atheism/evolution vs. creation. If anyone cares to learn otherwise, it’s already been done.


#7

William Dembski of the ID movement had a Darwin doll with its head in a vice.


(Clarke Morledge) #8

Matthew: it is good to have this discussion online, as the only “prebunking” of Eric’s film so far, that I have seen, comes from Paul Ens, Paulogia YouTube channel.

Ens describes himself as a former Christian, and while he is good at engaging the scientific issues, my concern is that his skepticism of Christianity only reinforces the “good guy” (i.e. Eric Hovind style YEC) vs. the “bad guy” (evolution = non-Christian) stereotype.


(Samuel Blair) #9

Stumbled upon this after my son saw the film as part of a youth group he attends. He was not impressed at all, neither by the production value nor the arguments presented. We debriefed on the ride home and he said that the film proposed that there are no scientists simply don’t like the bible. To which he immediately brought up a personal friend of ours who somehow manages to be a scientist and love the bible.

Frankly I was very dismayed with the caricature of science presented as well as the stance presented to children that disbelief in a literal 6 day creation and young earth is tantamount to throwing out the whole bible.

I joked with my friends that some dads get the drug talk or the girl talk, and I get the “you can’t interpret scripture without attention to context and genre” talk.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #10

I share in your concern. I think Christians (more than ex-Christians) need to be busy about holding their own accountable toward truth. I think Paul would be spinning in his grave over the issue of believers being confronted about their falsehoods … not only in front of non-believers, but by non-believers of all things! If Christians can’t get truth and honesty right … that is a travesty to our witness.

All that said, whenever anybody puts forward excellent material – excellent education in truth; I see it all as belonging to Christ anyway whether he is given credit or not. So it doesn’t bother me perhaps quite as much as it might have bothered Paul that ex-Christians or anti-theists also share in a commitment to truth. That is to be celebrated wherever it is found, I think. I’ve learned a quite a lot of good science from many of Dawkins’ excellent writings --if we can’t separate the wheat from the chaff, we are poorer for it.