Review: Flight of Dodos

Apologies for the dust. Unfortunately I never got around to writing an appropriate eulogy for Dr. Waldvogel; I may get around to that at some point.

Another year brings another Darwin Day, this time being the 201st birthday of the Bearded One. The Biological Sciences Club along with Dr. Kelly had a viewing of filmmaker Randy Olson's 2006 documentary "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus", which is a film I've been wanting to see for a while since I saw its name tossed about last year in my browsing.

Olson uses humor and animated graphics to capture the attention of a general audience, and his interviews are conversational (in fact, one of his meetings with scientists is actually a poker game) He highlights both sides as potential (if not already) 'dodos'- ID populists who insist on 'teaching the controversy' as well as erudite scientists so far removed in their ivory towers that they've lost how to connect with the general public.

This being 2006, he takes his camera to Kansas to talk to the Kansas Board of Education members still reeling from Evolution War II (as opposed to Evolution War I which was a more obviously creationist attempt to wedge 'alternate views' in the 90s), one of whom coincidentally lives across the corner from his mother. He also talks to intellectuals around the country including Michael Behe (who despite his views I still regard as some kind of scientist, even if his 'theory' doesn't hold water).

Olson makes the interesting observation that the Intelligent Design movement is a more marketable approach, with buzz phrases 'Teach the Controversy', 'there are flaws', 'where's the proof?' etc. and friendly supporters you could easily have a beer with (or at least lemonade and brownies). The scientific establishment, however, can't seem to communicate effectively and are somewhat argumentative (or at least during a poker game with alcoholic lubrication).

The neighborly barmate analogy he borrowed and used from the 2004 Presidential campaigns, and unfortunately the same attraction seems to appear today in the form of the Tea Party movement along with its darling, Sarah Palin. Folksy populism and mild sex appeal are great advertising, shiny wrappers. However, Sarah, the Tea Party, and Intelligent Design all share the same lack of substance beneath the glitz and glamour. Intelligent design, as previously discussed in this blog lacks testable research and actually discourages finding natural explanations beyond 'somebody did it.' Likewise, for all the outrage and screaming they've been whipping up, the Tea Party is still largely that- angry people who misappropriated historical events for their outrage (the original Boston Tea Party was more in protest of the British East India Company becoming a monopoly on tea, etc. etc. like a nightmarish WalMart). But I digress.

My seemingly irrelevant tangent to modern politics merely restates the documentary's message- science needs to better communicate information, research, and models to the general public, educating them with interesting things to combat attractive anti-intellectuals with ad company slogans. In my personal opinion based on my background, I feel one step would be to better promote public television programs if children must be parked in front of the boob tube. Relatable icons like Bill Nye the Science Guy and the characters of The Magic School Bus captivate attention and effectively promote scientific literacy.

As a postscript, I'll sadly note that the majority of the audience for this viewing were students largely there for extra credit in their Biol 102 course, uninterested in a discussion afterwards. Olson's humor was appreciated though, and hopefully brought his points across. This was a much more digestible film than Ben Stein's Expelled last year.

Post-Nova thoughts, and some podcast ponderings

I think the previous two entries sufficiently cover my reaction to the documentary. It was well done, with lovely visuals (even though the darkness and the Law-and-Orderesque trial bumps were a bit theatrical). It was nice to see how the Rehms, Buckingham, Bert and others actually looked and sounded like after reading their words elsewhere.

Last Friday, I tagged along with a friend to an impromptu discussion on the evolution/creationism issue in the Jordan Room. This discussion spawned out of a Biol 103 class, apparently, and went from about 12-1:30 PM. The mix of people was evenly mixed perspectivewise, and I really wish I had my EvoCrea text with me (I may bring it tomorrow, if they do it again). What interested me was the perspective of the professor leading the discussion, who talked about believing in evolution (GAH semantics) as a missionary would to a would-be convert. Or at least, it seemed that way to me- I could be totally wrong on this. The topic came up of not accepting macroevolution based on evidence (or lack of quality evidence), and he seemed like, "Well, it's wonderful that you're basing your judgment on evidence instead of a religious bias, but eventually you'll be swayed by all of the data." This method rubs me the wrong way...

...and leads me to wonder whether it'd make a good podcast topic or not- the fringes of both ends of the spectrum, and the 'conversion' to one side or another. That, or macroevolution itself, as I'd like to convince people of its validity without feeling like some kind of missionary preaching the Origin.

Macroevolution hasn't explicitly been covered in the course yet, but it frustrates me so when people accept micro but don't make the next step to macro (oh god, I'm starting to sound like that prof...). Building off of the pepper moths, you can look at the honeycreepers of Hawaii (or any other endemic island bird population for that matter) and see how an incredible amount of diversification can arise with so few difference in genes (see cichlids in the African lakes). As the NOVA video illustrated, birds with an appropriate beak type will increase in population in the right areas, and eventually that WILL lead to new species.

I'll have to double check on the definition of a species (I'll go by genetic/fertile offspring, which makes sense in my mind...) before I dig into this, but it should be incredibly fun. Particularly if I get an opposing view. Whee!

~Danielle

Expelled: The Victim Card and Other Thoughts

Since Darwin's bones turn 200 this Thursday (and his influential tome 150 years), this week is Darwin Week at Clemson University (or at least, the Department of Biological Sciences is celebrating- everyone's welcome to the party, even Wallace fangirls like myself). Monday kicked off the celebration by showing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein's documentary on intelligent design. I'd heard about it when it came out, but wasn't sure I wanted to actually pay money to see it/was too lazy to youtube it. So when this popped up on my facebook events, I jumped at the chance.

John Scalzi described the Creation Museum as a very expensive, very fancy temple to horseshit. Borrowing his analogy, Expelled takes fecal matter, mixes it in brownie mix, then bakes it to present as a visually appealing package with a less than pleasant nutrition content.

The film's approach can be summarized as

• Show victimized scientists persecuted by the Darwinist establishment
• Appeal to America's love affair with the First Amendment
• Discredit evolutionary theory by quote-mining, including the origin of life with the origin of species (equating panspermia with aliens, the crazy-complex evolving crystal thing, etc.
• Compare the scientific establishment to Stalin, Hitler, and other oogie boogies.
  

All very well and good rhetoricwise, but attacking one theory does not spontaneously generate evidence for your own. Intelligent design was briefly described in the beginning by the Discovery Institute director, but no real evidence was shown. While many academically decorated intelligent people were interviewed in the film, not many actually provided the research for ID, opting instead to hate on Darwin.

The name of the film refers to the handful of scientists interviewed who were, according to Stein, 'expelled' from the scientific establishment because of their connections to Intelligent Design theory. Maybe the interwebs have hardened me, but that segment makes me want to tell them, "BOOHOO, go cry elsewhere. :/" This site explores the actual reasons why these individuals were removed from their various posts, some, such as Gullermo Gonzalez's decreasing publication output and general level of success in his field, really do have nothing to do with touting Intelligent Design.

I love the first amendment. I can speak my mind (except calling out disasters in movie theaters), publish said free thoughts, practice (or not) my own odd duck deist perspective, gather in places and bother my elected officials, if I feel like it. America does too, for the most part, so any whiff of freedoms being tromped on usually gets our goat. So when Ben Stein accuses science of stifling dissenting voices, we're expected to sit up and do a double take. However, science ISN'T quashing anything; it's patiently waiting for them to provide acceptable evidence for theory status. Peer-review, testable, observable evidence. Until that shows up, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science.

Also, as PZ Meyers says, science is not a democracy. Hypotheses must be tested and demonstrated. They must be repeated and observed again and again, reinforcing their validity. Sure, y'all can say 'There must be an intelligent designer!", but until that can be feasibly demonstrated, it's not science.

Quotemining. It's evil. Don't do it. Cutting and pasting does not make the quote you want exist, even if it creates a nice little soundbite.

Another pet peeve is the assumption that evolution = how life was created. Evolution moves life through change and creates new variation, but the actual STUDY on the origins of life is abiogenesis. Minor point, but there it is. It's an exciting field whose theories for the most part go over my head, but its a gross oversimplification to cut them down to "growing on the backs of crystals" or "coming from outer space", which only makes it easier to point to Intelligent Design and say, "Hey! Our idea isn't so ridiculous now compared to these silly scientist folks, is it?"

The most irritating and offensive aspect of Expelled was the Cold War imagery and implications that evolution led to Hitler, Stalin, and the Holocaust. Social Darwinism is an ideology separate from the scientific theory of evolution (if I recall correctly, Malthus was musing over such before On the Origin of Species was published). It arose from the colonial period, the White Man's Burden type of thinking. Might as well blame Kipling too. The atrocities committed in Nazi Germany were not 'natural selection'; 'twas artifical selection by a government presumptuous enough to deem a certain archetype as the 'ideal' with horrific consequences.

In a less mature fit of internet giggles, I realize Expelled visualized Godwin's Law- decidedly more than halfway through the film's 97 minutes, imagery of Hitler popped up. Oh the lulz before the facepalm.

I'm going to have to find a copy of Bill Maher's Religulous to balance out my documentary content for the month.


Also, I cannot write an essay to save my life. I can try, but it usually ends up being regurgitated ideas with florid wording, needing more textual support. So I apologize for that abominable piece turned in Tuesday...