Randy Olson, the film director of "Flock of Dodos." Credit: Randy Olson
Posted on 03/03/2006 12:55:19 PM PST by GreenFreeper
Dodo birds are famous for two things: being dumb and being dead. So when Randy Olson calls fellow biologists "dodos" in his new documentary "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus," it's not meant as a compliment.
Dodos were flightless, odd-looking birds discovered by Portuguese sailors in the early 1500s on a tiny island in the Indian Ocean, just east of Madagascar. The birds were named after the Portuguese word for "fool" because they were fearless of humans and would walk up to hungry hunters who simply clubbed them to death and ate them. The birds were extinct by the 17th century, less than 200 years after their discovery.
Olson, a Harvard-trained biologists-turned-filmmaker, thinks the dodo's fate is a good metaphor for biologists in today's changing media environment.
"Natural selection teaches us that as an environment changes, species that can change with the environment will survive, while those that fail to change run the risk of extinction," Olson said in a telephone interview. "Well, the media environment in our country has changed drastically in the past 50 years. Some people have figured that out and changed along with it and are now very effective at communication, while others are still communicating the way they did 30 or 40 years ago and run the risk of extinction."
Evolution, intelligent design and rabbit poop
"Flock of Dodos" is a humorous examination of the debate between evolutionists and intelligent design (ID) proponents who argue that life is too complex to be explained by science alone.
The film features interviews with both Harvard evolutionists and ID advocates, including Michael Behe, a central figure in the movement.
The 90-minute film also features Olson's mother, Muffy "Moose" Olson, as well as a flock of animated dodos running around doing nothing. Evolutionists play poker, and there's a lesson on the unintelligent design of rabbits, that have to eat their own poop to get nutrients from their food.
Olson himself is also a central character in the film. He provides a running commentary of the issues discussed and even weighs in on the debate. As a marine ecologist with more than 20 years of research experience, Olson ultimately sides with evolution and concludes that intelligent design is at best an idea stalled at the intuition stage.
"There isn't much to intelligent design," Olson told LiveScience. "These guys have this really deep-seated intuition that they can look at nature and see a designer at work, but the problem is they've failed to advance it to any kind of science so far."
Ways scientists can improve
Despite Olson's dismissal of intelligent design in his film, scientists come off looking even worse. During interviews, evolutionists appear stiff, condescending, inarticulate and arrogant.
Olson fears the elitism he sees among his colleagues could turn the public off to science. But it's not too late to change, he says.
To start, Olson thinks scientists should practice being concise and punchier, as opposed to long-winded and exhaustingly thorough, when talking about their work.
"It's like in mathematics when dummies present the proof of a formula in a hundred steps and the genius does the same thing in five," Olson said. "It's the exact same process [in science communication]. The dummy takes 12 pages to explain what everybody needs to know, while the great communicator does it in a page and a half."
The film makes clear that if scientists can't explain evolution in a way the public can understand, misconceptions that threaten the credibility of the theory, and which creationists can exploit, will persist. One such misconception, repeated again and again in the film, is that humans are not descended from apes, as the fossil record shows we are.
"I do not believe that we descended from apes," says one college student in the film. "I do not believe in any way, shape or form we descended from apes," says another.
Finally, one young man says, "I didn't believe that until I met my uncle who has more back hair than I have facial hair."
Audiences have responded particularly well to scenes in his film where Olson's evolutionist friends are playing poker.
"It's not scripted and doesn't have the standard talking heads," Olson explains. "They're very unpredictable moments. A few of the scientists are trying to explain things, and they're being cut off and interrupted and criticized. It's all very lively and fun and unpredictable."
In addition to concision and spontaneity, Olson thinks scientists could also benefit from injecting some humor into their talks and learning to be a little more humble when dealing with people who don't agree with their views.
Larger issue at stake
The central message of Olson's film is that if evolutionists don't learn to adapt and to beat ID proponents at their own game, then they and their message could go the way of the dodo.
But Olson thinks the stakes are even higher than that.
"The bigger issue in this whole thing is who will be the voice not just of evolution, but of science in general." he said. "Is it going to be scientists who are handicapped by their blind obsession with the truth? Or will it be public relations firms that know the importance of a good story but feel no constraints by the truth?"
"Flock of Dodos" has only been screened at a few universities and film festivals so far, but plans are underway for a larger scale release later this year. A trailer of the movie can be viewed here.
Randy Olson, the film director of "Flock of Dodos." Credit: Randy Olson
this should be interesting....
I don't think anybody claims that you did.
At least they chose apes over Monkeys.
Sometimes I think the fools were on the other side of the club in that scenario.
Stupid people, even well-educated ones, don't know they're stupid.
Yes, that includes scientifically inclined ones who, as Mark Twain put it, gather large return of conjecture from small investment in fact.
Thanks. Many people are so misinformed.
Oh, a movie! And a student who says he's not a monkey! More full proof of evolution.
While this is a very satandard exchange in this type of thread, and while strictly speaking is true (we are not descended from apes), I have never understood why this is supposed to make anyone on the "other" side feel or believe any differently. If we are descended not from apes, but from creature more "primitive", that are ancestors to both humans and apes, I believe you have just made a "distinction without a difference".
Yeah but the implication has always been that finding the proverbial missing link would show us as just really smart unhairy apes.
Do they get a sticker so they can park next to the doors at WalMart?
I didn't say it would.
Fair enough. I think the "we evolved from Monkeys" business is overused on both sides. It's used to make the creationists look uneducated on the matter and its also used to make the evolutionary thinkers look silly (us related to monkeys?).
There was an old Scot named MacTavish
Who attempted a gibbon to ravish,
..But the object of rape
..Was the wrong sex of ape--
And the anthropoid ravished MacTavish.
I agree, you didn't. But this same sort of exchange always occurs at some point on this type of thread and if it isn't intended (or expected) to affect the creationist side of the argument why bother since it doesn't significantly affect the point that we are descended from creatures that are decidedly "non-human".
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.