I've always rather enjoyed watching documentaries. They were playing this one on the premium channels and for some reason I could just never catch the whole thing. Eventually I just got fed up and decided to buy it since it seemed worth owning at any rate. I read a vast amount of different subjects and two of those subjects involve Theology and Science. So when I started hearing about this "Intelligent Design" theory (and I will now delineate this as theory from a literary perspective here, meaning entry definition #7 from dictionary.com "guess or conjecture"), I thought it seemed plausible and made sense. As I started looking into it a lot more I found the theory had many flaws. When I watched this it really helped to explain the points of view in a very easy to understand manner. I must say that I did learn a decent amount about the "Intelligent Design" theory from this film, of course this won't be my sole location, and I will also read books on this to find out what exactly the minute points are.
This is definitely a documentary for people who are tired of the Michael Moore philosophy of documentaries. Randy Olson really doesn't barge in on people or make them feel uncomfortable. I think, for that reason, this documentary will speak to more people and more sides of the argument. Whereas a Michael Moore approach can come off as "rude" to some people. As most people will undoubtedly notice that when you're being belligerent most people tend to either shut down or oppose you even more vehemently. At least with Randy Olson's documentary it doesn't present an overbearing feel and gives the Intelligent Design believers their fair shake to explain what they believe. I think Olson expertly hits the nail on the head with what the real problem is in this kind of a "debate". (I put debate in quotes, because it's technically not.)
I think there are a few reasons why this stems even further than what is touched here in the documentary. From a scientific perspective evolution is a fact. However, it's listed as a "theory of evolution", and I think a major reason why non-scientists say to themselves "well it might not be true" is because most people don't know what it really takes for something to even be logged in as a theory in a science book. I think this is where science has essentially lost contact with humanity in some respects, and it's quite clear people can't be responsible to learn it on their own. So now all these people who think they understand what "theory" means from a literary perspective and not a scientific perspective walk into School Boards across the country and want to change science... for after all, it is just a theory. Not exactly, you need to go from a hypothesis to a theory. To get to the level of something being a theory it needs to be peer reviewed, and most importantly duplicated by multiple people. It's the ability to duplicate the research and come out with the SAME results that makes it a theory. It's a theory because it CAN undergo refinement. Like Charles Darwin's initial theory for survival of the fittest. It's been over a hundred years since that was proposed and just about everything in the "Origin of Species" has undergone refinement and changed. So to essentially say that this is where evolutionary thinking is, is basically saying that science is stuck in the 1800's, which it, most assuredly, is not. It's the same principle as the "laws" in the fields of physics. Does the general population really think that Newton's law of gravitation hasn't been refined? If they do then they are not keeping up because when Einstein came along it needed refinement... and that was just over fifty years ago. This is the problem, people have lost touch with the scientific community and I think that a greater deal of communication is in order.
The part Olson really nailed was that for the most part scientists are really bad at communicating this to the general public. Olson does take a very light hearted approach to all this, after all he is a scientist as well, so he really can't berate them too much. Though for a scientist, I think he communicates quite well with the public and he's the kind of guy science needs to help educate the greater populace about what's going on.
On the other side, he spoke to quite a few people on the intelligent design camp. I think he gave them a fair enough shake in letting them throw their ideas out there. He didn't badger them or tell them they were wrong, he merely asked questions on the subject. It seemed almost unanimous that when it came time to question the theory of evolution they felt the side of the evolution was rude or belligerent. This doesn't help communicate the idea properly. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the nicest guy in the world, but even I have enough wit to adjust my delivery if it's just not being heard. Olson specifically covered the issue in the school board in Kansas (since it's his home area) and I was quite shocked that this was even considered. I'm not one to say you can't believe what you want, but if you're going to start playing something off as scientific rigor that isn't, then, yes, I do have an issue with that. If I decide to have kids, I don't want them to grow up in a world where it is acceptable to stop asking questions of the world around them and summarily decide that, "oh, I don't get it. God must be the answer." I don't think that would be acceptable on both sides, and I know that's not the point of their argument, but it could be an adverse affect if this policy is brought in to play. And where does it really stop... when we finally end up in a world that is portrayed in "Fahrenheit 451" where people aren't allowed to question anything anymore?
From what I can perceive another problem that has lasted for centuries is that for people to clamor about their beliefs and not let science be performed correctly. One of the scientists in the poker game brought up the Catholic Church suppressing Galileo because it didn't support their way of thinking and Galileo was observing a Copernican model. I think a lot of scientists know about these kinds of historical references, far more than the general public, and for their profession to be in jeopardy because of faith seems to be like they're reliving something that already happened in some senses. So I can see why scientists would get quite annoyed when someone purporting a "God in the gaps" theory comes along and tells them they don't have their facts straight. I'm really not surprised at the rude backlash against the intelligent design theory. I think the people in the intelligent design camp should probably start trying to look at it from the perspective of the scientists to understand why they're being rude. Scientists probably can't even believe this is being debated; I for one really can't either, but scientists also need to look at it from the perspective of non-scientists as well to really explain their points. What shocks me even more is that at some point someone could make this a lesson in the classroom.
I think this documentary really helps elevate people's awareness to the major problems with this issue, especially since it shouldn't be. This should spark some peoples concern and generate good discussions, because that's exactly what this does. Unfortunately for the Intelligent Design side, on this DVD it seems their arguments are really very weak. He even spoke to their greatest spokesman; Dr. Behe (whose book I haven't read yet, but now am more prompted to read). A lot of the people arguing on the side of intelligent design don't really understand the major intricacies of evolution and that was made very clear. Olson even tore down one of the books they point to in order to reference the problems in evolution: "Icons of Evolution." This book apparently takes the perspective that kids are still learning science the same way it was taught in the 1800's. This just isn't accurate. This is also coming from a guy who says that "Darwinism is anti-Christian" in his book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design." This is just a stupid statement, I'm sorry, but I have to call it that because that's what it is.
However, I cannot berate the Intelligent Design group too harshly because in some cases they ask absolutely excellent questions of science. Such as when they ask for a specific thing to be explained, like flagellum bacteria. These points will simply send some scientist to go and figure it out, which is great for science and some scientist did go out and do that. I do think science should be questioned and I think everyone benefits in the end when tough questions are asked. However, to say science should stop researching and just say "god's the reason this happened" is a faulty argument. It honestly seems to be implied that this is what people that support intelligent design would want. Dr. Behe has already convinced himself that he's right, and he's convinced a lot of others as well, but that doesn't mean scientists should just give up. Galileo gave up after being summarily threatened, I don't want to go back to a world like that... a world that is flat and happens to revolve around the sun that is. These arguments have been going on since the Middle Ages; they seriously need to be put to rest.
The 10 questions part of the DVD which is about another 80 minutes is an excellent addition. I personally would have liked to watch the full two presentations on this because they were very intriguing. Namely that one of the major arguments against Intelligent Design is that it's not actually science. If it was science and peer reviewed then authors like Jonathan Wells would have the support of the scientific community, and that what Dr. Behe says is factually correct. The 10 questions also prompted me to go and purchase books by Michael Ruse because he seemed to explain things in a very interesting and excellent way. They also have some deleted scenes where Dr. Behe says he's not so concerned about what is taught in public schools because his kids don't go to public school, this is from the man who typically speaks at the school board hearings to convince the school to teach intelligent design. Olson mentioned he could have made a big deal out of it, but decided not to. There is also an excellent humorous skit debate with comedians poking fun at the circus this country has turned into over this subject. I found it to be pretty smart and funny, other reviewers clearly haven't.
All in all, this is a great product. This sums up both sides excellently and really delves into what is and what is not well researched. In the end Olson does take the side of evolution and states that he wasn't really convinced by the intelligent design arguments, because they didn't have that much weight behind them. I, for one, was tired of hearing Dr. Behe's Mt Rushmore argument towards the end of the documentary because it is not a good argument and shouldn't even be used to argue against science. For one it is documented that mankind built it, so to bring that into some estranged hypothetical scenario that God might have done something makes no sense. Not to mention the rocks look like humans from OUR history. If you really wanted to use an argument like that, use something like the face that was seen on Mars years ago because we have no record of humans building a structure that looks like that on another planet. Either way it's a rather preposterous argument. I highly recommend this DVD, it really makes you think about where the education system is heading and what we can possibly do about it.
| Additional DVD options | Edition | Discs | Price | New from | Used from |
Watch Instantly with 
| Rent | Buy |
