Why, I guess I'd better go sell all my pharmaceutical stock and invest in Scientology! Thank you for showing me the light, O Tom Cruise!
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.
The debate means nothing to scientists or to science.
"..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."
Its because there is an element among Christian circles who are uncannily analogous to their Islamic counterparts in following a literal interpretation of their scriptures.
If somebody doesn't want to believe in evolution, they can believe frogs are spawned from contaminated water and flies from decaying meat for all I care. But they shouldn't be permitted to inject personal religious views into what is scientific discussion, anymore than scientists should be preaching morality and theology.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner folks. The most ignorant statement made at FR today.
Seriously though - and sadly - you have no idea how far you are from the truth.
And what is the truth? Your bias' have blinded you.
Know Thyself - Socrates
Why, I guess I'd better go sell all my pharmaceutical stock and invest in Scientology! Thank you for showing me the light, O Tom Cruise!
You are a few hundred years behind. The details of biochemistry and metabolism are pretty well understood at this point. There is no need to invoke any kind of mysterious "life force" to explain biological systems.
And there is no "wishing" of any kind. A molecule that can "reproduce" is simply catalyzing copies of itself and be overrepresented in a pool of other molecules (isnt this self evident?). Get enough of these replicators to band together and you have the beginnings of a metabolism and "life".
You recount a personal experience. There are many such testimonials as to the power of the Channel to Rama, as to astrology, as to prayer to Allah, as to seeing a UFO, so one account seems to have little value scientifically. It can not be reproducibly observed by independent observers.
It is an anecdote, but not science. Hearing whispers in the mind that says "God tells me so and so" is not a reliable guide. Many scoundrels have made the same claim as you do.
I don't know wether to laugh or just shake my head. Please try to follow the "thread" of thought.
Who said "medicines don't help the violently mentally ill"? - it wasn't me.
Please re-read the previous thread and maybe this time try to think outside you "sarcastic" box.
Sheesh...
Well said, Brother!
Goliath complains, but David was so BIG, I never had a chance. Yeah right.
Same ole' same ole.. "We're not getting our message out".
Bwahahahahahahaha. Truly priceless - right along with the mock niceties while still maintaining the pretense. IE - the only thing new is that they're saying the same things while pandering to the winning side.. ID. They might as well have requested the terms of their own surrender. *chortle*
So you think that God created you so that you would like food that's bad for you? Is that your proof intelligent design?
True for food. But isn't beer the "best" drink for us?
It's fascinating to be sure, enough to give me dimensionia.:)
Rah was a pretty powerful god you know. I wouldn't call him too unproductive. :) Then again, SG 1 got him pretty easily.
"Current evolutionary theories suggest Shakespeare can be written by random ordering of letters over time."
EIOUEOIKEJKLNMLVKFJEKLEF EJIOPWEJIOWEJFWO OEJFIOWEJIOwE
Crap! Didn't work again!!!!!!
) is established on pure fantasy
It's established on faith as in my belief in ID being a method of God's creation. I can't "prove" that because I came to that conclusion on my own through my own experiences.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner folks. The most ignorant statement made at FR today.
Apparently, you've never read any of my posts. I'm insulted. How could you give it to him?
And most science departments have janitors who are smarter than many high school science teachers, and just about all grade school science teachers.
Fun statements and the last statement is true around here BECAUSE THERE AREN'T any grade school science teachers here. Boy, old Delbert could have been a professor. Well I'll be!!
I recently answered a high-schooler's question, on where did all the breeds of dogs come from.
From the horny chihuahua down the block.
> Who said "medicines don't help the violently mentally ill"?
That was your implication with this scintillating statement: "The most ignorant statement made at FR today."
If you find the idea of pharmaceuticals helping people to be "ignorant," then it's fair to say that you feel that they don't help people.
Please, DO try and keep up with the adults. If you don't try, you'll never grow up.
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.