Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
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.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
The Discovery Institute has repeatedly and clearly stated they are not in favor of ID being taught in public schools!
The most preposterous notion is this caricature.
Good evening!
Up late, are we?
The blind rage, scorn which covers howling fear, as evidenced by the most absolutist refusal to debate rationally, reveals the evofundies for what they are.
They want to believe, so they believe. Their need and desire to believe that there is no reason, no cause, no God, no soul, no divine order enthralls them totally. They are even more locked in a small box of their own making than the pro-drug guys.
They tremble underneath their anger. They have exoskeletons that seem hard and scarey, and underneath, they're just naked quivering little things. All shell, no substance. All exterior and no innards. All armor and no stout heart.
Of course, they can change. I did. I used to "believe" not only in the TOE but in all sorts of other nonsense as well. The door is always open, but people can stay in the little box if that's what they want.
I was really influenced by Heinlein when I was around 15 years old - "Stranger in a Strange Land" etc. Thought it was so profound, and it helped influence me into rejecting sexual morality. Helped.
Years later, I re-read it (in a couple of hours). I was totally amazed how shallow and ill-written it was. Tripe. Garbage. Like a junk comic book without pictures.
Get it right. People have bad habits because of free will.
You got it! :^)
Well, like a "catcher" in the rye, I was able to "catch" some grief and "catch" up on some things.
The statements were "catches" all right, must have been an early bird "catching" the worm or maybe simply just a "catch-all." "Catching" on is even better as you can be a "catch" with red hands or a "catch" with your pants down if not. I think it was "catching" instead. Maybe it will "catch" on someday.
"The most ignorant statement made at FR today."
I get NO respect, no respect....
The Discovery Institute has repeatedly and clearly stated they are not in favor of ID being taught in public schools!
Elaborate on that.
I like catchup on my french fries.
Does that count?
and infer to the white elephant in the living room.
The pink hyena in mine says hello.
What facilitated the change LJ? Glad to see you up and at 'em.
"They often see no necessity to do so, and our society as a whole suffers for it," Dean said."
Funny, but after my 23 years of managerial experience, I have yet to write a report or made a presentation to any board of directors explaining how evolution fits into a business model. Now maybe if I worked for a banana importer, a discussion of monkeys and evolution might then be relevant.
I like catchup on my french fries.
Does that count?
As long as you don't get "caught up" too much into it.
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.