Wake Up, Dodos - Making light of a dry, but important, topic.

Flock of Dodos, a new documentary on the controversy between Intelligent Design and evolution, debuted last week at the Tribeca Film Festival. It’s a fine example of its genre, taking on a subject that is important and controversial (if occasionally dry), and treating it in a way that will compel broad interest. The insult in the title is not directed at just one side of the dispute: It lampoons both the supporters of ID, who are wrong on their pet issue, and the evolutionists, who are sometimes dismissive, inept, and arrogant.

The movie’s creator and narrator is Robert Olson, a Harvard-trained evolutionary ecologist who retired 15 years ago to become a filmmaker. Because Olson is originally from Kansas, his film focuses on the evolution-related controversy that has embroiled the state’s school board in recent years. The documentary is not neutralit comes down squarely on the side of the evolutionistsbut it is mostly fair, and sometimes even sympathetic, to the proponents of ID. And it does aim some tough criticisms at Olson’s fellow Darwinists.

Olson’s gripe with his intellectual allies is that they suffer from a bad attitude, and an even worse ability to communicate to the average person. Because the claims of Intelligent Design seem so transparently absurd to most scientists, and because these scientists are already busy with their own research schedules, too many of them have chosen simply to ignore the creeping popularity of the ID movement. When the occasional biologist has emerged to try to put the record straight, he has typically been encumbered by professional jargon, convoluted speechifying, and sub-par charisma. The result has been ugly: Against the pithy sound bites, flashy presentations, and high-powered PR firms of the light-footed ID movement, the lumbering evolutionists have taken a series of savage beatings in the arena of public opinion.

Olson illustrates (and perhaps exaggerates) the evolutionists’ difficulties. In one of the film’s more amusing scenes, several Harvard biologists huddle around a poker table and get progressively drunker as they banter and bicker and bemoan the rise of the ID movement. Their conversation is intelligent and entertaining, but it’s also annoyingly haughty and dense. In various interviews, the opacity and rudeness of these scientists contrasts sharply with the cordial, down-to-earth demeanor of the average IDer. Contrary to the snobbish stereotype, these ID supporters are not ignorant and prejudiced rednecks, but rather well-dressed, well-meaning, and educated people. Their only obvious failing is that they happen to be wrong about a fairly esoteric question with a counterintuitive answer. And this, as Olson points out, should hardly be the cause of any serious animosity between mature adults.

But the maintenance of civility does not require shying away from the truth, and Dodos could have called attention more clearly to the two central issues of today’s evolution debate. First there is the pedagogical question, concerning whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught as a “scientific theory” in science classes. And then there is the broader philosophical question, concerning whether ID deserves to be taken seriously in any venue, science classes aside.

On the first point Olson makes a decent case, but he could have been more concise: The fundamental problem with teaching Intelligent Design in science classes is that it just isn’t science. By definition, scientific inquiry is limited in scope to providing natural explanations of the physical world. The hypothesis that human life was created by a supernatural intelligence might be true or false, but it isn’t empirically testable, so it simply fails to reach the level of a scientific hypothesis. For this reason, ID cannot sensibly be included in science classes: The pure methodology of establishing physical facts through empirical verification is essential for the continued integrity of science, because it encapsulates scientists’ specialized, time-tested, and uniquely powerful way of advancing human knowledge. Science as an enterprise would suffer great harm if it allowed supernaturalism to creep into its operations, just as religion would diminish itself if it began demanding empirical evidence to back up its tenets of faith.

Here Olson excludes a key point that is helpful to keep in mind on this subject: The teaching of evolution as a limited scientific theory leaves open the broader metaphysical questions of the existence of God and the ultimate origin of lifethese are mysteries that require the energies of philosophers and theologians, not scientists. This point appears lost on many of the more vociferous IDers, who seem to believe that the teaching of evolution poses a grave threat to religion and even to the very moral order of society. This is the type of nonsense that stokes the fires of hostility against evolution, and, frustratingly, it has only been fed by some of the more ornery evolutionists, whose deep-seated hostility toward religion has driven them to try to use science as a cudgel against believers. But, as the Catholic Church has acknowledged, religion is not necessarily threatened by Darwin: As an empirical extension of natural science, evolution can in no way disprove the existence of a supernatural God, and it has absolutely nothing to say about matters of morality. By making this message more explicit, Olson could have made evolution even more palatable for a religious audience.

But what about the bigger question: Even if ID is not properly suited to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, how about as a non-scientific theory? Here there are two points to be made against ID, and Olson picks up on only one of thembut he nails it.

Olson’s exposition of this first point hinges on what has become the biggest buzzword in the ID movement: “irreducible complexity.” This concept is the golden calf of ID advocates, who argue that there are some biological structures that are so complex that they could not possibly have evolved through the Darwinian process of genetic mutation and natural selection. The proper functioning of these structures, they claim, requires the simultaneous operation of numerous different components. These components supposedly could not have been of any use to an organism if they had evolved individually on a gradual timescale, so it is not clear how they could have evolved together to form the larger structures.

And so? Do IDers modestly conclude from this that they may have found an interesting challenge that should be the topic of further discussion and investigation?

Well, not exactly: They conclude that, because we can’t presently think of a way that some complex biological structures evolved naturally, these structures must have been fashioned by an intelligent designer. Here you will want to fire up your camcorders: Rarely will you see a logical long-jump that hurdles so many acres of careful reasoning with such soaring ease. If ever there was a record-breaking flight of fallacy, surely this is it.

Olson correctly identifies this “irreducible complexity” canard as a textbook example of “God of the gaps” reasoning, whereby one finds a gap in human understanding of the world, and then immediately plugs this gap by invoking divine intervention. It is by the same thought process that the ancient Greeks deduced the existence of an angry Zeus hurling thunderbolts.

There is a further point to be made here that is even more troublesome for the ID position, but Olson sadly fails to press it. The point has to do with human intelligence: Positing the existence of an Intelligent Designer doesn’t really solve the problem of how human intelligence came to exist. (The answer, “A higher intelligence made it,” only provokes a further question: “How did the higher intelligence come to exist?”) It is precisely the aim of evolutionary theory to address this problem, by explaining how intelligence could have evolved through a bottom-up process. (Whether or not such a bottom-up process was established and/or guided by a higher intelligence would remain a question for philosophers and theologians.)

And so, missed opportunities aside, Olson deserves accolades for his spirited defense of evolution. He has made an entertaining film that will gently prod its viewers in the direction of the truth. For the sake of sound thinking, this is an important accomplishment.

Who said this?:

"My views on the environment are rooted in my belief in Creation. I don't believe that life on earth began spontaneously or as a result of some haphazard, random selection process; nor do I believe that nature is oh-so-precariously balanced. I don't believe that earth and her ecosystem are fragile, as many radical environmentalists do. They think that man can come along, all by himself, and change everything for the worse; that after hundreds of millions of years, the last two generations of human existence are going to destroy the planet. Who do they think they are?

I resent the presumptuous view of man and his works. I refuse to believe that people, who are themselves the result of Creation, can destroy the most magnificent creation of the entire universe. We cannot comprehend many of the wonders of the universe. The human mind, or that small percentage of it that we use, is incapable of imagining the size of the universe, its origins, or even where it is. Although some incredibly arrogant scientists believe they are capable of scientifically unlocking every mystery of the universe and of understanding everything in purely material terms, I believe that there are certain things that the mind of man simply cannot discover or ascertain. there are certain things we were not meant to understand, cannot understand, and must accept on faith. ....... [he talks about how in awe he is about the perfection of this small sphere (earth) located in this small solar system, located in this small galaxy, located in this endless universe] ... then says, "We humans had nothing to do with the earth's creation, its placement, or its functioning. We are only part of it, which is not to downplay our role or significance in this world. [but] we are as much a part of it as any of its other inhabitants, both animate and inanimate; as much as the redwood tree or a spotted owl, as much a part of it as a glacier. But environmentalists paint humans almost as an aberration; as the natural enemy of nature. According to them, we are capable of destroying this wondrous planet merely by being ourselves. That is true vanity, or what I call humanity vanity. ..[he goes on to discuss many examples].

"...humans are the only creatures capable of cleaning up the messes made by themselves and all other creatures. ...The fact is, we couldn't destroy the earth if we wanted to. The earth is over 4 billion years old. The arch-enemy of nature, man, has been on the planet no more than 200,000 years. Man cannot even come close to creating the powerful forces of nature - many of them damaging and destructive - yet these forces have been around for the same 4 billion years the earth has. And the earth is still here. Imagine that! [he then goes on to describe how impossible it would be for man to "destroy the planet", even if we dedicated all of our mental and physical resources to the effort.] ...

"...Now, I want to make it clear that when there is damage to the environment, there is no one who wants to fix it more than I do. ... [but] we don't have to punish progress in order to fix the environment. ... The key to cleaning up our environment is unfettered free enterprise, our system of reward. The more economic growth we have, the more a prosperous people will demand a cleaner environment. The poor have other things to worry about, such as feeding their families. For a study in contrasts, look at the level of man-made pollution in countries with totalitarian regimes. Pollution in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union is horrendous. If you go there you will see dead, not dying, forests. You will see three-eyed fish in streams. When no one owns private property, there is no incentive to keep it clean and pure because no one has a stake in keeping up its value. ...

"...Yet the environmentalist wackos go out of their way to find fault with everything in America. They criticize our profit motive, even though it's given us the most sophisticated pollution-control technology in the world. ...Our prosperity has created a leisure class that has too much time on its hands, so they use it to complain about America. In the process they also enhance their self-esteem. If they agree that things are wrong and need to be fixed, they also believe they are the ones who should have the power in society, not some business owner or civic leader. These people "Care". They care so much that caring becomes a crutch that makes them feel special and more noble than the rest of us. [the "guuuud" people]. ... Many of these people have replaced religion with secular environmentalism. Some of them even worship the earth goddess Gaia. When they get together, their gatherings take on the air of a religious revival meeting. There were 750,000 people in New York's Central Park recently for "Earth Day". ... [ he then talks about methods used by environmentalist wackos, including attempting to criminalize much of the food we eat, etc., etc.] ...

"...It's interesting to note which environmental hazards these people really worry about. It is those that are caused by business or man-made things. ... [gives comparison examples] ...

"...My friends, the earth is a remarkable creation and is capable of great rejuvenation. We can't destroy it. It can fix itself. We shouldn't go out of our way to do damage, but neither should we buy into the hysteria and monomania which preaches, in essence, that we don't belong here. We have a right to use the earth to make out lives better.

".. I want to make it clear that there are some decent environmentalists. My comments are directed at the doomsday fanatics who want to sharply change the American way of life. The Sierra Club wants to limit the number of kids you can have to two. They are trying to limit the way you drive your car. They are trying to stop people from preserving food by irradiating it. They are into power and controlling people's lives. They go way beyond their nominal environmental agenda.

Decent environmentalists are those such as the Audubon Society. Did you know that they have a wildlife refuge in Louisiana that has oil rigs on it? Audubon members carefully monitor the rigs so that there is no damage, and the revenue the oil companies turn over to them helps pay for additional efforts they make to preserve wildlife. ...." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Excerpted from pages 152-168 - Chapter 15 entitled, "Sorry, But The Earth Is Not Fragile" in his 1992 book, "The Way Things Ought to Be"

"evolution is a phenomenon, perhaps, but not a causation. that's the glaring problem with that."

Only those (like Dawkins) who embrace scientism attempt to marry science with origins.

Quote: "...A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

"Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

"And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.

"On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

"Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."

Excerpted from: Theories of Evolution - John Paul II

#70 - Posted 02/10/2006

Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson

Excerpts:

"Trustees at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 11 unanimously approved the creation of two new theological study centersthe Center for Theology and the Arts, and the Center for Theology and Law, during the board's annual spring meeting.

Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.

"One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day," Mohler said.-

"This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day."

Mohler also announced the appointment of two new faculty members to lead the centers. [snip] ...

...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern's Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. Wise currently serves on the faculty of Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn., where he is also director of the Center for Origins Research.

Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.

Wise replaces William Dembski, who is leaving Southern Seminary to join the faculty at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary so he can be closer to his family.

"With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches," Moore said. [snip] ..

In other business, trustees: .... Heard a report from President Mohler that Southern's enrollment has topped 4,000 students for the first time in the seminary's history."

Here are a couple of interesting items I found on the web regarding Kurt Wise:

[1] 7/3/2003 "Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:

"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable." ~ Kurt Wise

[2] December 19th 2004 Theologyweb.com

Post # 7:

"...there is new breed of YEC out there, of which Kurt Wise is an example, who recognize that there are scientific problems with their Weltanschauung. I knew Kurt was exceptional, but there are more of his stripe. Affectionately, I'd like to refer to them as neo-YECs, as opposed to the Wieland-Ham-Morris-Safarti-Jorge YECs for which I would propose the oxymoronic moniker paleo-YECs."

"Conflicts between Science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible." ~ Moses Maimonides bttt

Watch Out Clarence Darrow

Posted Mar 30th, 2006 at 10:47 pm in Evolution, Intelligent Design

Late to the party as usual, I came across a thread from a couple of weeks ago on The Loom where Randy “Flock of Dodos” Olson gave more of his thoughts on communicating evolution to the public. Olson also chimed in on the comments, which in the great tradition of the internet, turned heated and passionate as people argued for the best course of action.

I’ll throw in my two cents, even though that’s not really why I’m writing…

What Olson is getting at is the main reason people reject evolution they think it conflicts with their faith, and they think the soul purpose of evolutionary biologists is to attack their faith. Olson comments on who he thinks is a great messenger of science to the general public.

"Right now, I am putting all my chips on Dr. Steve Case, head of the Kansas Writing Committee. He’s got a great combination of elements well humored, nice guy, very articulate, very humble, and best of all, very patient. There might be better spokespersons out there, but what I know so far is that all neutral folks (neither rabidly pro-evolution nor pro-intelligent design) cite him as their favorite character in my film. The bit that he delivers about “the God of the gaps” concept and how it leads to the predicament that the more we learn the smaller God gets, which we illustrated with a brick wall graphic, is I think the most profound summary to date of the flawed logic of intelligent design. At our test screening you could hear people in the audience say a hushed, “oh my goodness,” as they got his point." ~

That’s what a lot of this nasty debate is all about. How do you frame the issue. I continue to be a firm believer that it’s not better science education we necessarily need (though we certainly do), but rather it’s a better way to talk to people about the two. If you can’t address the religious aspects with the people who are most concerned about that, you can teach evolution effectively all day long and it won’t matter.

What Really Caught My Eye

Earlier in the same comment, Olson told some information (dare I say gossip?) that I’d not heard before.

"I’ve been contacted now by a major Hollywood production company who is in casting for a movie titled, “Monkey Trial,” which is going to be a re-telling of “Inherit the Wind,” from the pro-I.D. perspective, to be directed by Mel Gibson’s producing partner who was involved with a little movie called, “Passion of the Christ,” so brace yourselves evolutionists." ~

Sounds lovely. If you thought the 30 minute flogging of Jesus was a little too violent, just imagine what they’ll do to Clarence Darrow." ~ bttt quote

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.