Captain Janeway Helps Teach Earth As The Center Of The Universe

fb share tweet share

UPDATE: Find out what Mulgrew had to say about her part in the documentary right here.

One of the great things about Star Trek over the years is that it’s helped inspire passion for science in fans both young and old. So it makes sense that various Trek actors have lent their talents to films and programs promoting astronomy, biology, math — you name it. But one place I never expected to run across Star Trek: Voyager’s Kate Mulgrew was narrating a trailer for a movie arguing for a geocentric model of the universe. As in “the Earth is the center of the universe and everything else revolves around it.” Yeah.

The trailer above is for an upcoming documentary called The Principle, and opens with Mulgrew making the rather ballsy assertion that “Everything we know about our universe is wrong.” From there, it seems to be making the case for so-called Intelligent Design, specifically for the notion that humans were specially created by God. So, simple enough: it’s another creationist/theist/Intelligent Design movie, the sort of thing you’ll see roll though theaters and sell out to church crowds every now and then. But if you dig a little deeper then the film’s geocentric thesis becomes clear. As best as we can tell, this whole “we’re the center of the universe” thing is being presented not as metaphor, but as literal, actual, geographical fact.

As nutty as that possibility might seem, The Principle was bankrolled by a guy who believes just that. As reported by Raw Story, one of the people behind The Principle is “ultra-conservative and anti-Semitic Robert Sungenis,” who also runs the bluntly named Galileowaswrong.com. Honestly, I’m not sure which aspect disturbs me more, but my initial thought after watching the trailer and reading Raw Story’s report was that Mulgrew must have been hired on without knowing exactly what she was lending her voice to. Right?

Unfortunately, we tried to reach Mulgrew for comment, but had no luck. When we called her one-time publicist Andy Snider, we were told he no longer represents her. A call to her representatives at Viking Talent Management will hopefully prove more productive — they seemed a bit shocked when we told them what our story was about, but they promised they would call back. We’ll let you know if they do.


The Principle is due for theatrical release sometime in 2014. You can learn more on the film’s Facebook page, and you can read Sungenis’ description of the film in his own words in this forum post. Finally, here’s the official description for The Principle:

Everyone knows that the ancient idea of Earth in the center of the universe is a ridiculous holdover from a superstitious age, right? Modern science has proven that we are nothing special! We inhabit, in Carl Sagan’s words, “….an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.”

Well….prepare to be shocked!

“The Principle”, destined to become one of the most controversial films of our time, brings before the public eye astonishing results from recent large-scale surveys of our universe- surveys which disclose unexpected evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly insignificant Earth.

Set for theatrical release in Spring 2014, “The Principle” includes narration by Kate Mulgrew (“Star Trek Voyager”, “Orange Is The New Black”, and “Ryan’s Hope”), stunning animations by BUF Compagnie Paris (“Life of Pi”, “Thor”), and commentary from prominent scientists including George Ellis, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, Lawrence Krauss, and Max Tegmark. Tracing the development of cosmology from its inception (Stonehenge, the Great Pyramid at Giza), through the great revolution of Copernicus, to the astonishing new discoveries of Earth-oriented alignments in the largest structures of our visible universe, “The Principle” leads us face-to-face with the question, and the challenge — what does this mean for the future of mankind?


  1. Matt says:

    Answer to this movie: The Anthropic Principle

  2. zirtoc says:

    It will be interesting to see what the ‘evidence’ is for this theory. I’m usually first to take the other side on scientific debates, but I’m firmly with the heliocentrists on this one.

  3. EECOM says:

    Wow. Seriously? Is Ms. Mulgrew not making enough money through residuals, Adult Swim, or signing autographs and posing for pictures on the convention circuit that she has to do something like this? How could any actor, much less an actor from one of television’s highest profile franchises which, ironically, is based on science, participate in a project like this unless they a)believe in this nonsense themselves, b) are really, really, behind on their bills, or c) have the worst agent in the world?

  4. Steve Ausdahl says:

    I just… I don’t get it. People are so focused on thinking that Intelligent Design and science’s Big Bang have to be completely unrelated. I think they are mixed together. I do believe in intelligent design, but through an extensive, multi-billion year process (The part of the Bible that talks about days? Keep in mind a poet wrote that and listing off seven days in a week sounds pretty poetic. No one alive actually knows how long it took).

    A theory is considered valid until it can be disproved with hard evidence. My theory is that science is correct, with the Big Bang, evolution, etc. But it was at a creators command. Since no one can disprove this (as of now, and I am assuming for a long time to come) this is a valid theory, but very commonly ignored.

    Think of the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate that happened recently. Nye said that scientists are searching for how the Big Bang came to happen, and Ham (in a stupidly “im superior” kind of snarky remark) said “There is a book with the answer… The Bible.” While I didn’t like Ham’s attitude on that part, I agree with him, and it should be considered as a theory behind the Big Bang.

    • CapuchinSeven says:

      er no. No idea where you people get your education from. “A theory is considered valid until it can be disproved with hard evidence” is the biggest load of crap I’ve ever heard in my life. Screw it, I’ll just use your logic and make up my own facts, there are 50 space cats that can survive in a vacuum orbiting star UDFj-39546284, they help make the crops grow on earth and seeded all cat life on earth. They now watch us from this distant star and they are pleased with our internet cat movies. Don’t believe me, WELL didn’t you hear? A theory is considered valid until it can be disproved with hard evidence and you have no hard evidence.

      Given the fact that there are creation stories far older than the one presented in the bible, I literally have no idea where you’re getting any of your assertions from. EVEN if the bible means millions or billions of years when it says days, it still gets even the most basic points wrong.

      As a scientist, I literally weep for humanity when I see posts like yours.

  5. Victor says:

    Two things about this. One, Lawrence Krauss is not a theist of any kind. I wonder if he knew what he was getting into? Second, please do not lump Intelligent Design in with “Creationist.” They are two separate things.

    • SomeGuy says:

      No, they’re really not. Both imply some intelligence caused us to come into being. It’s used as a fig leaf by Christians who label their designer “Jesus.” Just because others label theirs as aliens, Zeus, or the Doctor makes no difference as the evidence for all is absent.

      • Victor says:

        Yes, they really are different. Creationists insist on a literal six day creation, ID does not. Creationists do not hold to any form of theistic evolution, while ID can accept theistic evolution, so long as Methodological Naturalism is rejected. The only similarity is the one you mentioned, some intelligence brought about the universe. But one similarity does not make them equal.

  6. sounder says:

    Religious mind trick.

  7. Graham says:

    Interesting that this kind of debate only takes place in the US.

  8. KhalilaRedBird says:

    Actually, given what we are fairly confident with about the big bang, any given point could be considered the center of the universe, which started as a point and is continuously expanding.

  9. Paul L says:

    “I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew”


  10. bug menot says:

    The mathematics (read: predictive power) of epicycles isn’t bad. It’s the fact that it makes a bunch of needlessly complex assumptions that are most likely wrong, that makes it a bad theory (and total OCD madness). Of course with modern computers, it would be trivial to make a formula fit a curve such as the planetary positions in the night sky.

  11. bug menot says:

    Hmm, just finished a marathon with family of the “Ancient Aliens” show’s first 3 seasons. Some of that stuff was just hilarious. It totally applies as a variation on ID? Am I wrong to make fun of that one guy’s hairdo/wig/OMGWTHLOL during the first season? :P