Posted on 02/10/2006 10:18:17 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Screening airs evolution versus intelligent design debate
By Alvin Powell
Harvard News Office
This just in from the front lines of the battle between evolution and intelligent design: evolution is losing.
That's the assessment of Randy Olson, a Harvard-trained evolutionary biologist turned filmmaker who explored the debate in a new film, "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution - Intelligent Design Circus," which was screened Monday (Feb. 6) at the Harvard Museum of Natural History.
Evolutionary biologist and filmmaker Randy Olson greets audience members before the screening of his film. Featuring Harvard faculty as well as scenes shot within the museum, the 90-minute film strikes a humorous tone as it explores the debate, poking a bit of fun at both intelligent design and the scientific community.
Though Olson is obviously on the side of evolution, he exposes the shortcomings of both sides. He portrays intelligent designers as energetic, likeable people who compensate for their shaky theory's shortcomings through organization, personal appeal, and money. Scientists, on the other hand, squander their factual edge through indifference and poor communication skills.
But Olson said there's something deeper than the surface face-off between those on the front lines. The efforts to teach intelligent design in the schools is backed by media-savvy, well-financed organizations like the Discovery Institute that aren't afraid to hire high-powered public relations firms to advance their cause.
And, though the position of evolution supporters has been upheld by the U.S. courts - most recently last year in the Dover, Penn., case - Olson predicted that the battle isn't over.
"What's going on is not being called 'a culture discussion,' it's being called 'a culture war,'" Olson said in a panel discussion after the screening.
The film is centered on the debate over teaching evolution in the schools of Olson's home state of Kansas and also covers the Dover, Penn., case.
Despite his scientific background, Olson handles intelligent design proponents gently throughout the film, giving them a chance to air their views. He offers some anti-design examples, like the fact that a rabbit's digestive tract is designed such that vegetation breaks down in a portion that comes after the part that absorbs nutrients, forcing rabbits to digest their food twice to get any value from the food. Rabbits do this by eating pellets that they've excreted to pass them through a second time, prompting the film to ask, "Where's the intelligent design in this?"
But rather than offering a detailed explanation of evolution or a point-by-point rebuttal of intelligent design, "Flock of Dodos" probes how it is that, 150 years after Darwin published his theories and 80 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, a debate over evolution is raging in this country.
Though he concludes that intelligent design is a theory that has stalled at what he calls the "intuition stage," Olson says in "Flock of Dodos" that it still appears to have the upper hand.
The movie includes several shots of the inside of the Harvard Museum of Natural History, most recognizably the whale skeleton hanging from the ceiling, complete with remnant pelvic bones attesting to a time when the whale's ancestors had legs.
The movie also includes several Harvard-trained scientists, as well as faculty members Karel Liem, the Henry Bryant Bigelow Professor of Ichthyology, and James Hanken, professor of biology and director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Olson received his doctorate from Harvard in 1984 and was a professor at the University of New Hampshire from 1988 until 1994, when he left the university shortly after receiving tenure to attend film school at the University of Southern California.
Olson participated in a panel discussion after the film with James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, and New York Times science writer Cordelia Dean. The panel was moderated by Douglas Starr, co-director for Boston University's Center for Science and Medical Journalism.
Dean said the debate has remained alive because the scientific community has failed to make the case for evolution to the ordinary person. That is at least partly due to neglect, she said.
"They often see no necessity to do so, and our society as a whole suffers for it," Dean said.
McCarthy said that may be because of the nature of the scientific subculture itself. Scientists are discouraged from drawing too bold conclusions from their research and from not mentioning sometimes multiple caveats on their findings, traits that make it difficult to craft and deliver a clear, persuasive message to the public.
"It's so counter to our training as scientists to give a flip answer or to give an answer without all the caveats," McCarthy said.
Super argument!
A conundrum exists once one realizes that, to develop a skeleton or musculature (or eyesight, or gastrointestinal function, etc.) would require the pre-existence of highly complex vasculature, oxygenation and nervous systems to support them.
By the same token, however, without eyesight or a highly developed gastrointestinal tract for locating and processing the necessary nutrients required for such new systems (vasculature, respiratory and nervous), they could not have developed in any event.
Which leads one to assume that, IF The Theory OF Evolution is correct, then all of these interdependent and irreducibly complex systems just somehow "exploded" onto the scene in some minor Big-Evo-Bang. Not only does such a necessary assumption strain credulity, it also flies in the face of every scientific principle known... one of which is that "where there is a design, there must be a designer.
That's just, shall we say, for starters.
;-/
;-)
Next time, you're awake, my jokes deserve more than one groan. You'll see -the on reply next. :)
You have broached the subject of the --on rule. It is a subsidiary of evolutionary culture. Many things come from --ons. One day they may rule the universe. Here is a "short" list. 1)White sticky stuff comes from gluons 2)Paid professions first came from protons. 3)Static electricity came from Kling-ons. 4)Regeneration came from Neutrons. 5)Mickey Mouse's dog came from Plutons. 6)Cows came from muons. 7)Spies came from Bondbons. 8)Cameras came from Photons. 9)Captains and their mates came from crutons. 10)Smart bad guys came from U-Conn. 11)Organized crime came from the Dons. 12)Spoiled Divas came from the Prima-dons. 14)Underwear came from long-jons. 15)loud music came from rock-ons. 16)inspirational football players came from walk-ons. 17)Heavy lifting came from wontons. 18)sleeping came from yons. 19)Ties came from clip-ons. 20)And finally, the answer to your question. Morality did not come from morons. BUT GREED DID!!
Morality came from old wise birds taking a midday drink break.
Bumping your post!
You used up almost ALL of the "ons". ;o)
Good one. There's lots of ones I missed, but I tried to get the good-ons. :)
"I tried to get the good-ons."
LOL!
OH...you got them, all right.
You got almost ALL of 'em. ;o)
I'm just teasing you.
That was a great post!
I thought of Klingons, came back and looked at your post...
and, yep...you covered that one.
It was a fine post.
I can't wait to see what WKB has to say.
Thinking of all these must have been, ahem, hard...
There were still a couple I missed, but I was "on" one. :P
I told you so:) What's with the e?
Not when I'm in one of "those" moods. I was waining near the end though and getting too wet.
It's BETTER than twice!
How does one get 'too' wet?
How does one get 'too' wet?
Since I started to wain, I got too wet.
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.