Actually, not fairly at all, at least according to Sigemund at The Design Paradigm. Although Olson’s documentary on the intelligent design evolution debate has not been released nationwide, Olson did come through this area to show the film in an advance screening for Cornell’s Darwin Day last February.
Sigemund describes his initial disappointment and some of the techniques Olson uses to bias viewers against ID:
In Flock of Dodos, filmmaker and marine ecologist Randy Olson asks the question, who are the real dodos in the evolution/intelligent design debate: 1) the intelligent design (ID) advocates who disbelieve a purely mechanistic Darwinian explanation for the origin and development of life, or 2) the legions of Darwinist academics who seem unable to connect with and convincingly explain their position to the majority of Americans who stubbornly cling to beliefs in origins that are not solely Darwinian. Flock of Dodos (FOD) is intentionally light-hearted, reflecting Olson’s desire to avoid yet another dreary documentary of droning talking heads, a format which quickly triggers the “Where’s the remote?” reflex in most viewers. Olson is a trained filmmaker, and his stated intent is to connect with his audience on an emotive level. In FOD he succeeds in this, using a combination of often self-deprecating humor, animation and a Charles Kurault-like “on the road” motif.However, the film is not the impartial assessment of the ID debate as it is sometimes billed. Whether by simply reflecting the filmmaker’s own leanings (he was a tenured professor of evolutionary marine ecology at the University of New Hampshire before turning to filmmaking) or through an intentional desire to do so, the film conveys both explicit and subtle messages that seek to steer viewers at an emotive level against the ID position. I am no expert in ID, having only recently begun to read on the subject. But I have seen enough to conclude that, for whatever reason, FOD mischaracterizes or omits pertinent issues in the ID debate. Some were evident during the film and subsequent audience interaction with Olson; others become more apparent on reflection. In no particular order, I will list some of my concerns:. . . .
Guilt by association Early in FOD there is a “growth segment”, showing us that the filmmaker is open to new ideas and experiences: en route to an ID conference the narrators wonder what kind of ignorant rednecks they are likely to encounter, but are surprised to find well-dressed attendees that speak in complete sentences. They later admit to actually liking ID advocates as great people to sit and chat with. Yet throughout FOD there are subtle guilt-by-association messages, linking ID advocates to “red state” (i.e. Republican/conservative) politics. In fact, the red state/blue state map is shown at one point (although to be honest, a red county/blue county map would have been more accurate, albeit even more daunting to those who regard red as a threat to science and civilization in general). Each time a red state association is made in FOD it is invariably negative, and one can almost hear the Orwellian sheep chanting, “Red state baaaad, Blue state goooood.”
You can read the rest here.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Powered by WordPress.
25 queries. 0.428 seconds
April 28th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
I don’t think Olson treated ID fairly. He let Behe prattle on for what seemed like several minutes without pointing out the numerous logical flaws in his arguments. He let Jack Cashill state that the ID movement is being run behind the scenes by jews, muslims and agnostics without calling his bluff.
BTW, please don’t confuse “fairly” with “favorably”.
April 28th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
I believe that everyone should pay more attention to what nature is saying. For thousands of years mankind has universally been awed by the marvel, the power, the beauty and the “miraculous” genius prevalent throughout all nature. No one will ever be able to censor all that nature proclaims about itself … and it ain’t “Hey look at me, I’m a big accident.”
April 29th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Michael Behe says:
The danger to Christians from osmosing alien, materialistic presumptions, I think, far outweighs the danger of being wrong about any particular scientific point.
April 29th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
It is my understanding that the intent of this film was not to present a debate on ID vs
Evolution or to treat ID fairly, but to show that ID proponents are winning in the public
arena. ID proponents are friendly, not condensending and can talk to people directlty and clearly
about ID. Evolutionary Scientists (which Olson is) is in danger of losing the PR war becasue of
their arrogance and intellectual elitism. In other words, it is Olson’s view that ID will win
not because of valid facts but becasue of better marketing.
April 30th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Yes, yes, the IDiots can win the PR war (which doesn’t mean they ARE winning it, or will win in the end). But guess what … it don’t mean squat. Science is not determined by opinion polls, nor can ID be made science by popular vote. Yes, public opinion and popular vote can put ID in the classrooms … but it will still be a false, mendacious pseudo-theory and have no bearing on reality.
And the evolutionary process in nature is not dependent on public opinion either, nor on the success of the ID public relations campaign against legitimate science. Nor is the Evolutionary Process dependent on the standing on of Evolution Theory nor its success in public placement nor its flaws or incompleteness.
The Evolutionary Process is like the Process of photosynthesis (and, for that matter, like gravity and the speed of light) - a fact of nature, an actual reality.
Whatever we as a society decide about the placement of Evolution Theory or the Intelligent Design fantasy in the science curriculum of our public schools, the Evolutionary Process goes on - inevitably, inescapably. Undeniably.
As Galileo said of another disputed reality … “E pur si muove!”
It still moves.
April 30th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
So even if the ID-10-T’s win the PR war. Even if it wins, it will lose in th long term. If ID is taught in the classroom, it’s glaring weaknesses will be easily seen. Advances in biology will come to the people who realize how useless ID is. Look at my farmer friend. He supports ID but uses evolution. Imagine running a farm with ID. I can’t even understand what that would mean? Prayers instead of planting? Or if you do plant, plant beans and expect corn? Forget breeding or pollination to strengthen your strains. I wonder what a farm would look like after 10 years of ID? Why does the dustbowl come to mind.
This does raise one of my standard issues with ID. If it is science, what predictibility does it have? So far, I have sen none
Ted
April 30th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
The thing to keep in mind about the ID movement is that despite its attempts to maintain a face of “Scientism”, it is not really concerned with science at all.
The real concern of the ID-iots is the culture war. For quick, easy reference, see the notorious “Wedge Document” which lays out The Discovery Institute’s purpose and goals. Their core position is lain out clearly on the first page.
”The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
“Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.
…
“Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.”
Even from this alone, it should be clear what is really going on in this battle over placement of ID in the classrooms - a war over a faith-based initiative in social engineering.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Interesting, but what is the Discovery Institute’s motives? I find it hard to believe it’s altuistic. They are well financed and have a very sophisticated public relations network. They are doing well in the PR War, but seriously behind in the science. When any news release comes out on Evolution, a new fossil discovery or even a dating technique, they are quick to respond on how it really doesn’t hurt their position, which comes across to me as very defensive.
In only one area I think they are making headway. Colleges across the country are always looking for topical subjects and this seems to be one appearing in seminars. Not to prove it but to use it more as a debating challenge and cultural experiment. It will be interesting to watch the evolution of the Discovery Institute over the next couple of years. Already they have admitted that evolution (lower case e-evolution) has occurred. But they are trying to question the EVOLUTION as in evolutionary theory. This is a big change on their part, but one that was expected because even with all their disagreements on the basic tenets of evolution, they were failing miserably. You can’t fight all the evidence and it looks like they are giving up that part of the fight. This just means they can focus their efforts on trashing evolutionary theory, and trashing does seem to be their main forte.
I also predict some future changes in their position. The Young Earth Creationalists seem to be decamping. I always thought the attempt to merge all the varying faces of Creationalism was a political idea rather than an ideological one. With Discovery backing off on the idea that there was no evolution and that does hit the YEC’s right in the heart. How can you claim the Earth is only a few thousand years old when the rest of your coalition is taking the longer view, the much longer view.
May 8th, 2006 at 1:04 am
The disco institute are funded by right wing christains, including some christian reconstructionists!
HELLO DARK AGES 2!!!
May 11th, 2006 at 3:04 am
TH:
on the DI’s motives, again, just look to the Wedge Document statement of purpose. Is fighting a culture war altrusistic? Why not assume so? Myself I have no doubt they believe they are doing this for the good of society and for the good of the United States of America. Torquemada believed all HE did was for the good of the church, the good of mankind as a whole and even for the good of the souls of those he brought to the stake in the Act of faith” (AKA “Auto da Fe”). Sincerity is an attriubute of character and behavior, and a passive virtue at best - deplorable in its absence, neutral in its presence.
Do the founders and members of The Discovery Institute want to being back the Spanish Inquisition? I expect not.
not.
But then … NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
As to FLOCK OF DODOS treating ID fairly - my take on that will have to wait on my having seen the film. Everyone else;’s take on that question should wait on THEIR having seen it as well (that is, after all, the EMPIRICAL way). In the meantime, people, go get yourselves each a copy of DARWIN’S DANGEROUS IDEA by Daniel Dennett. Garner some insight into WHY the Theory of Evolution is so deeply disturbing to our self-appointed guardians of culture, morality and state- and church-approved ethics.