Posted by Siamang on: 06.04.2007 /
By Siamang
Yesterday I attended a screening of the documentary “A Flock of Dodos — The Evolution/Intelligent Design Circus” in Hollywood. The director, Randy Olson was there for a discussion following his film.
It’s playing this month on Showtime, and it should be available on DVD in August. I’d heard a lot about this film, and so I wanted to see it, and I don’t have Showtime, I have HBO instead.
It was playing at the Center for Inquiry West, so this would give me an opportunity to check that group out.
The Center is located in a small building in Hollywood. I’ve seen megachurches before, but this is what I’d describe as a microchurch… except for the, you know, atheism thing. I felt a wierd combination of feelings. I was gratified and amazed that there was an actual BUILDING somewhere FOR atheism. Like a real building, with walls and stuff, and not just a meeting hall we shared. But also wierdly I didn’t like that we had a building… I’m not a “joiner,” and here was something I could join… I should join… but eughhhh… JOINING something is so not me!
They seem to have one meeting room, a small corner dedicated to books about atheism, science, philosophy and religion, a small lobby with a kitchenette surving coffee and donuts, and a theater with a stage that seats about 80 or so.
The vibe was casual. This was Sunday morning, 11am, and one can’t help making comparisons to church. The crowd mostly all seemed to know one another. Except for a handful of standouts, most people there were over retirement age.
The theater was almost full, with even some people sitting in the aisle, but they didn’t have to turn anyone away. They asked if anyone heard about the screening from the listing in the Times, and I was the only person to raise my hand. I got the strong feeling that this crowd was mostly made up by weekly attendees at the CFI. It seemed to function much like a community center for freethinkers.
I had no idea that there were so many old atheists! Were these folks completely invisible when I was growing up? Or did they become atheists as they got older?
Anyway, it was very friendly, but not in a pushy way. Nobody was trying to get me to join anything (which is just the way I like it!)
I loved the movie. It’s warm and funny, with an exciting new star, the director’s mother Muffy Moose.
It seriously poses the tough question: If scientists have the evidence for evolution, why can’t they convince the public?
There was a discussion afterword. One thing the director said is that the Intelligent Design folks have put out an attack website about him, and they’ve had people tape recording almost every public event he’s been to to try and catch him saying something they can discredit him with. Everyone kind of looked around at that moment!
Anyway, we can discuss more about the film or the center in the discussion thread… this is long enough for now!
-Siamang
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
1Interesting question. Just last week my neighbor (who has just read The God Delusion) mentioned to me that she’d been doing an informal poll of friends and other neighbors and was shocked how many of them are creationists.
Comment by: Lee Bowman
2First let me say that I’m not a religionist, that I believe in and support science, and do not hold to the ‘young earth’ concept of a “six day creation”. I’m an engineer, with some science training, an am currently studying evolutionary and cellular biology, as well as information technology.
In answer to your question, it’s nothing new that competing philosophical questions clash. In this day and age, it seems to be getting worse. While science holds to the Darwinian theory of evolution, it’s far from proven. ‘Common Descent’ has been firmly established, proven on multiple fronts, and universally accepted. The conclusion that that in itself confirms macroevolution has not, however. The emerging field of genetic engineering has shown how altering genetic code can alter the biologic outcome. Therefore, it is logical to assume that that could have been done over time by an external agency (as opposed to RM/NS) to produce new species, and in conjunction with the evolutionary mechanisms already in place. Along with overall design over time, Microevolution appears to be a ‘designed in’ process to aid in survival by allowing adaptability modifications, and to create diversity.
As we all know, this position has been rejected by science as “not empirically testable”, and as pointing to a ‘creator’, a totally unacceptable premise for science to embrace. It does not, however rule itself out due simply to a existing philosophical bias. Man as a free agent exists. It is invalid to assume that no other intelligence existed prior, or exists now out of man’s purview. The religious belief of a single omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent God may be held by some, but is not at issue when considering prior intervention in species evolution. Officially, that is all that the concept of Intelligent Design postulates.
So why is science so up in the air about not allowing ID inquiry? They cite the fundamentalist Biblical arguments, and I would agree that they are not compatible with the observable scientific data. But to use those arguments against ID is to attack straw men, and to prohibit consideration of a designer, or more likely multiple designer/technicians is closed minded. I would suggest, and am working toward a truce between the ID community and science, with the stipulation that no canonized religious concepts be allowed. Short of that, science, technology and education are in a state of crisis that will only escalate.
The atheist viewpoint has long been considered to be one of a high level of thinking, free from mythology and constraintive religious dogma. There is a middle ground, however, that is even more tangible, objective, open, and free of unrestrained bias. Agnosticism makes no firm commitment for or against a god or gods, for the reason that neither alternative position is provable.
Richard Dawkins, like many others in the atheist tent, states that the concept of a ‘deity’ violates Occam’s Razor, in that it would require that entity to be more complex than is plausible. With all due respect to a learned philosopher and Franciscan friar William of Ockham, his proposition is invalid in evaluating scientific and philosophical questions, especially the broad cosmological and philosophical concept of a deity(s). Given our lack of empirical date, and flawed reasoning ability, mine included, we can take no firm position on the matter, The fact that we often do so demonstrates a degree of arrogance on our part. A good example of that arrogance is Richard Dawkins, a talented researcher and author, but one who routinely jumps the gun in drawing conclusions. ‘If this, and this, then this’ is often misapplied. In his latest book, and as validation of a non-deist perspective, Dawkins cites abuses of society by organized religions. Agreed, but primarily due to man’s corrupting influence. While valid, they constitute non-arguments in favor of an atheist perspective. As far as a viable position to take, objectivism and determinism make sense than a purely ‘naturalistic’ viewpoint regarding origins. Further, deism or agnosticism makes more sense than an unprovable atheist position, and I would hope that you reconsider yours.
So in answer to your question, the scientific community needs to modify their stance a little, and to allow open discourse. To continue to not do so will ultimately bring science to its knees.
Comment by: Siamang
3Inquiry is perfectly fine. Get a lab and do some experiments. Do some work on it.
Where are you studying cellular biology? Can you do some experiments? Can you get funding for some experiments? Can you prepare a formal grant request for an experiment that can prove or disprove ID? Have you done this? What was the response?
I think science is against teaching ID in elementary or high schools before it’s been supported experimentally. I mean, what burgeoning new science was ever taught to children before being experimented on in the lab?
But Behe is still at Lehigh University, right? The Discovery Institute has a multi-million dollar budget, right? Why don’t they fund some experiments that Behe could do?
It’s been over ten years since he wrote Darwin’s Black Box. Where’s Behe’s experiments?
You seem to be very hung up on the philosophical issues involved. I’m more pragmatic. The Public High School is not the place for cutting-edge science or philosophy.
Do your experiements, prove your pet theories, THEN get others to accept them.
Pleased to meet you, Seņor Quixote.
Comment by: Siamang
4I would add a note of welcome, Lee.
That seems off-topic. I didn’t use this topic to say that Christianity makes no sense, or to attack your philosophical or religious position.
The fact that you inserted a call for me to change my religious beliefs into a discussion about a movie about biology makes me fear you wanted to “say it all” in one post.
I hope that’s not the case. I hope that you stick around for more discussion.
In any rate, I think it would be helpful to read my story before you attack my philosophical position.
Welcome again, friend. For as long as you decide to stay.
Comment by: Karen
5Glad to hear you liked the movie. I did too.
I specifically liked that they included Muffy Moose - she totally humanized the film, gave it a lovable central character who wasn’t a talking head, and she grounded it in human experience. Who of us doesn’t have a fun, free-spirited relative or friend like that - or at least wish we did? At the screening I went to, Randy talked about how he intitially didn’t use a lot of her in the first cut, but in the editing process they realized she was gold and they needed to put her in more. Excellent decision.
I wonder what you thought of the use of animation, since that’s your area of expertise?
I found some of the illustrations - like the “wall of the gaps” and the lightbulb moving up from gut intuition into the brain power of the scientific method - very powerful. Especially in terms of reaching a non-science-oriented audience.
Did you feel that was useful?
Comment by: Mike C
6You should review this experience for Church Rater! Wouldn’t that be an interesting twist? - a review of an atheist “church”. :)
Comment by: Siamang
7Useful but mixed in its quality.
I understand its mostly a bugetary issue. I liked the designs of the animation, but I think a little more could have been done.
Also the wall thing was a little unpolished animation-wise. One of the graphics in the holes was unreadable, the text that flew in at the end was of a different style than the rest of the movie. With a movie like this, a consistant art-direction would be preferred. I think Flock’s graphics got a lot of consistant art direction via Tom Sito’s animation, but it should have carried through to the shots that obviously Sito had nothing to do with, like the brick wall. It should have been a cartoon brick wall.
Again, the lightbulb. Great concept… but a different art-direction from the rest of the movie. That looked like a real anatomical drawing. But the art direction of the movie has cartoon figures, like the caracatures of Wilberforce and Bryant.
It needed to be a CARTOON lightbulb and a cartoon cut-away silhouette.
Comment by: Siamang
8I thought about that, mike!
But it’d get a zero for music, and a zero for preaching!
lol!
Comment by: Mike C
9Ah, the numerical ratings are meaningless anyway. I don’t pay any attention to those. It’s the written part of the reviews that are most interesting to me.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
10Siamang, you can put n/a for singing and preaching ;-)
Comment by: Karen
11Yeah, with a budget a lot more could’ve been done.
I think, along with the film being so human and fun, the other thing I really liked is that it acknowledged that ID makes a lot of sense, intuitively.
Most discussions about this issue feature scientists scoffing derisively about ID and pointing out how wrong it is, or how it’s just creationism 2.0. I happen to agree with those points, but they aren’t very effective unless you’re preaching to the choir.
What Olson does is acknowledge that the arguments of ID - at least on the surface - MAKE SENSE to many, many people. They make an emotional connection. They reinforce what people WANT to believe.
Then he goes one step further, with the light bulb illustration, to point out why intuition isn’t science, why intuition and emotion are unreliable and why objective examination is vital. I’ve never seen anything else that does that, and does it so well.
I hope lots of people are watching it on Showtime.
Comment by: Siamang
12Randy says he’s getting lots and lots of emails from people who saw it on showtime and it’s changed their minds about ID.