Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID in pop culture: A movie that explores ID concepts?


A friend forwards this from Wired:

The words “molecular biology thriller” don’t come up a lot when describing movies, but director Mike Cahill’s I Origins aims to be different. The film, which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival this week, revolves around the concept of ”irreducible complexity,” the argument put forth by proponents of intelligent design who believe some biological systems are too intricate to have evolved naturally. It’s not an easy concept to cram into a suspense thriller, but Cahill had a guiding principle: Make a movie compelling enough that even an evolutionary biologist or staunch atheist might stop and ponder.

In the film, a young molecular biology Ph.D. student named Ian Gray (Michael Pitt) is researching the development of the eyes — organs often cited by intelligent design proponents as examples of “irreducible complexity” – in an attempt to put the argument to rest forever. In the process, he discovers that eyes may not be the unique fingerprints we think they are, and may even have deeper and more ethereal purposes. The story is told from the perspective of Ian, a scientist and skeptic who was partly inspired by one of the most noted evolutionary biologists and staunch atheists in popular culture, The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins.

Worth a look, even if it deaks out into mysticism. It may persuade some viewers to actually think about the issues vision raises, for example, the intricate eyes of supposedly primitive Cambrian creatures more than half a billion years ago (and complex life is not thought to be much older than that).

Actually, a number of good films could be made, replanting our understanding of evolution, reclaiming the landscape after decades of devastation by Darwin’s profbots.

More about I, Origins.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

Note: When ID surfaced in an Inspector Lewis mystery, it was pointed out here that the significant thing is that the audience for Brit cozies had even the foggiest what Hathaway was talking about when he used the term. While what he said isn’t strictly correct, it isn’t the usual rubbish you’d hear from Wikipedia’s trolls; indeed, there are dozens of possible interesting story premises from ID, well suited to the mystery genre.

If ID themes continue to be filmed, it will be interesting to see if materialism or creativity wins – that is, will filmmakers know how they “must” portray things or will creativity surface? They will get no help from critics who will (easy prediction here) prove less cognizant than average viewers who do not necessarily bring so many prejudices to the subject.

Bornagain77, I think you have a lot of great posts, and tons of good information, but I would like to point out one issue. I recently saw one link you provided to Jerry Bergmans book about educational suppression of ID. But in the presentation Bergman talks about a teacher who was let go because she would put passages of scriptures on her desk every day. Calling that a case of academic suppression is not really fair to those who actually are being academically suppressed, so the conversation is derailed right there. And this is the thing, this is what concerns the public, and I think perhaps rightfully so. ID gets shafted as a scientific idea, because so many people also want to wrap it up with religious idea-which in turns creates a distrust from the community which wants a secular educational place. I think even your name here creates a similar problem. You do such a great job talking about the science, why dilute your message by wrapping it in Christianity? Half the people who read your messages won't believe you are able to be objective. In my opinion, ID science would be so much further advanced by now if those who have a good understanding of it could simply let it remain as an alternative scientific study. But then they want to throw in bible passages, and political statements, and its understandable why the public gets a reflexive action to distrust it. ID is not a right wing or Christian idea, it is simply an idea which allows for non-materialism as a possible explanation of life. Darwinism is clearly wrong. And I think more people would understand that by now if they could just be focused on the facts and not be distracted by some people's religious views. I would feel the exact same way when people want to promote atheism in their discussion of science. Your ideas are too good to simply let them be dismissed as just your own sermons to convert people. phoodoo
Of somewhat related note: There’s a documentary coming out that shows how the scientific community is in panic-mode because of all the evidence coming in suggesting that the Earth is in a special place. Top cosmologists are interviewed: http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/ bornagain77

Leave a Reply