…and this is a 
Paging Randy Olson
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 19, 2008 8:59 AM, by PZ Myers
This bad propaganda film for creationism is going to come out soon, so I can sympathize with this call to put together an honest science movie in reply. However, I have huge reservations, particularly with the idea that we need to get people who understand science to write the movie. People who understand science might very well be the worst possible people to write it; the first priority ought to be get people who understand movies to write it. Someone like, for instance, John Rogers or Randy Olson — somebody who knows the movie business and also knows the science.
Then you run into another problem: these guys are professionals. You don't go up to a pro and tell them that you've got a really important idea for a movie, could they please write it for you? For free? And, by the way, we don't have a budget or any capital lined up, we just think it's the right thing to do.
I'm afraid the place to start isn't with soliciting manuscripts from scientists — it ought to be with an idea, something more specific than simply countering some other film that's going to be a box-office flop, and getting backing so you can do it right, and do it professionally. And that means no amateurs from the ranks of scientists trying to do a job they aren't trained for.
Can you imagine if Charles Darwin were asked to write the movie of his work? It would be five hours of barnacle anatomy and pigeon breeds.
P.S. I don't mean to be discouraging, but there really is expertise in the entertainment industry, and it does not help our cause of trying to emphasize the importance of knowledge of science to be so cavalier about other people's knowledge.
Comments
I think a better idea would be 'Sweding' Expelled.
Posted by: Sigmund | March 19, 2008 9:05 AM
Intriguing topic PZ...
Hey Randy,
It's funny, this really interesting film I around New Year's comes to my mind...Maybe you can elaborate?
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | March 19, 2008 9:11 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | March 19, 2008 9:17 AM
Flight of the Pigeons....narrated by Morgan Freeman.
Posted by: James F | March 19, 2008 9:20 AM
David Attenborough would be the man to present/narrate it.
Gadgets Galore - Cephalopods is on BBC iPlayer at the moment which he narrates. He's fantastic and a British national treasure. Plus he's smart enough to see ID for what it is!
Posted by: Paul Phoenix | March 19, 2008 9:22 AM
why would you make a response to a flop?
nothing gives the impression that they deserve to be taken seriously quite like a big-budget reply.
Posted by: Lord High Executioner | March 19, 2008 9:23 AM
With the death of Arthur Clarke, folk in various spots are waxing lyrical over 2001, so maybe "five hours of barnacle anatomy and pigeon breeds" would work.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | March 19, 2008 9:24 AM
PZ, your comments regarding a film to respond to the other soon to be released work are well taken.
My hope is that the scientific community takes a pro-active approach to the IDiots film, and refutes its lies and distortions at every possible turn.
The film may turn out to be a "box office flop", but may still serve as a focal point for a renewed attack by the IDiots. Watch the letters in your local paper, pay attention to your school board meetings - the IDiots will rally, citing the film as evidence that they are being muzzled, censored and otherwise kept from teaching their version of evolution.
Posted by: Senecasam | March 19, 2008 9:27 AM
Barnacles and pigeons aren't the only thing in The Origin. Since everybody loves a good poopstory, maybe Chuck's research into the spreading of plantseeds by sticking to the poop on birds' feet might make for good material.
Posted by: Mario | March 19, 2008 9:29 AM
Maybe we can get Leonard Mlodinow to do a movie. I loved his book - 'Some Time With Feynman' and he used to write for Star Trek Next Generation. Though I wish Carl Sagan and Douglas Adams were still alive... a collaboration between those two would have been a galactic blockbuster.
In fact its time some did a movie on the life of Darwin! Or is one already out there?
Posted by: N 'Man O' Rage' R | March 19, 2008 9:30 AM
PBS already did this. The recent episode of NOVA titled "Judgment Day" presents some of the best arguments against teaching Intelligent Design in school I've ever seen.
They cover the case in Dover, Pennsylvania where the school board first tried to force their science teachers to teach ID in school. Eventually after the teachers walked out they dropped teaching ID and instead wanted them to read a disclaimer in class rehashing the old "Evolution is just a theory" argument. The teachers refused and the lawsuit ensued.
It's a two hour special and one of the best NOVAs I've ever seen.
Posted by: RayCeeYa | March 19, 2008 9:31 AM
Dare I ask what "Sweding" means?
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | March 19, 2008 9:39 AM
Ditto RayCeeYa (you beat me to it),
We don't need to reinvent the wheel -- just repackage and release the NOVA on the Dover trial as a documentary.
Posted by: Sonja | March 19, 2008 9:40 AM
As PZ notes, Expelled (I presume that's what we're talking about here) is going to be a box-office flop. That will speak for itself about the film's merits, and it won't cost us science proponents a dime.
To be a philosopher of science, you must be a philosopher first. Yes, you must know your science, but philosophy must be your forte. Above all, you must understand the philosophy of science. Same with making a movie about science. You must know your science, but you must know moviemaking first and foremost. You must know movie science. This is a tall order, and there's no sense in throwing money at it if it is not well ordered to begin with.
Science is boring to the average person, and the average person is who goes to movies, on average. Battles, explosions, sex, plot twists -- that's what gets people into the theatres. A pro-science movie won't fit this criteria easily.
Not that it couldn't be done. But it needs to be done professionally, for the right reasons at the right time. As just a retort to Ben Stein, it would be a waste of time and money. We've got bigger cephalopods to film.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | March 19, 2008 9:40 AM
Isn't Charles Darwin already going to be in an upcoming movie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SzwGGOttCY&feature=related
Posted by: Eric | March 19, 2008 9:41 AM
#10
There is Evolution: Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which can be watched online here. It's a combination of a dramatization of Darwin's life intercut with interviews with people like Dan Dennett and Stephen Jay Gould.
Posted by: James F | March 19, 2008 9:41 AM
I think BBC's "Earth" is a damn good start. It looks amazing, and has a lot of fantastic information. It got me up more than a few times to do additional reading about some of the topics, and galvanized me enough to try re-learning some of my old high-school biology lessons. I've been comfy enough with it lately to try teaching my 8-year-old daughter about taxonomy, and about definitions of life. Gotta say that film was a kick in the pants.
Posted by: DaveX | March 19, 2008 9:41 AM
I nominate Woody Allen.
Posted by: Ben | March 19, 2008 9:45 AM
But there are already hundreds of 'reply' films!
The real problem with the idea is trying to put 'Science' up against 'ID' Well, ID is such a simple idea, that it easily fits in a smallish pamphlet. And religion is also a small idea. Sure there are many books about the bible, but in the end, there is just one medium sized book.
Science is huge! You can make an entire movie about nothing other than climate change (Thanks Al) Or an entire movie about any other topic, and just barely scratch the surface of the knowledge.
If you made a move about nothing other than the scientific method, and how it came into being and where it is now, that might be a decent story. In the end, I think it would have limited viewer ship. Preaching to the choir as it were. The reality of science is that, while it's exciting to those doing it, it can be terribly boring for those watching it. And science on the whole has no huge controversy, like the religions of the world do. Religions seem to thrive on conflict, and conflict makes a great story. Science thrives on careful unbiased observation and testing. Not terribly exciting movie stuff.
The only real option I could see would be a movie depicting every great battle religion has waged against science, and how religion had to back peddle, make excuses, then accept the science. Start with Giordano Bruno (or perhaps start with Epicurus as the narrator) and go through flat earth, geocentric earth, and all the other silly little battles, up to global warming (which I'm glad that battle with the religious is finely over, and we can get on with working on it) It could be like a series of short stories. Science shows a theory, religion decries it as false, science proves beyond reasonable doubt. Religion accepts. Rinse repeat up to ID, tell 'both sides' and end the movie with the question:
Why should this time be any different than all the rest?
Posted by: Bart Mitchell | March 19, 2008 9:46 AM
Forrest Prince:
Barnacles Gone Wild?
Posted by: Epikt | March 19, 2008 9:48 AM
I agree with some of the earlier posters, and have the added benefit of being a film industry professional myself. No one, except for perhaps a brief "church bus bubble," is going to go see Expelled. The movie will simply die due to indifference, and if the "trailer" that's already made the rounds is any indication, the few critics who bother to review it (and of course they won't screen it in advance for critics) will not be kind. There's no reason to think this movie is worrisome enough for the pro-science side to hurry up and get a rebuttal documentary into pre-pro.
Suffice it to say that far more people saw Judgment Day and the Evolution miniseries than will ever see Expelled, unless its producers do the inevitable thing of sending out pallet-loads of free DVDs to churches after its brief theatrical run fizzles out.
Posted by: Martin | March 19, 2008 9:53 AM
Sure, that's what the first draft would be, but after the studio got their hands on it there'd be boobies and car chases and an assassination plot involving Samuel Wilberforce.
Posted by: Moggie | March 19, 2008 9:54 AM
I write science and history films for a living and the problem as i see it is that Expelled can cause a stir because it bills itself as uncovering some evilutionist conspiracy to keep down the heroic pioneers of creation science.
Our version wouldn't have the mystery or the conspiratorial edge as we would just be saying 'uh, these guys are making things up, evolution is simply correct and here's some pretty convincing evidence.' Their premise sounds so reasonable - we want to give kids a balanced education - and then they hit viewers with the whole EVIL SCIENTISTS WON'T LET THAT HAPPEN!!!
As other commenters have pointed out, there are already great films out there that knock down ID, especially around Dover, but even without them i would argue that we already have some pretty awesome films giving our side of the story. Pretty much every natural history film ever made takes evolution as read and mentions it frequently, certainly here in the UK. We already have vast libraries of beautiful films that have inspired and moved many many millions of people - if Expelled is the best they got i'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Posted by: Carpworld | March 19, 2008 9:57 AM
It's already being done. Sublimely.
Discovery Channel's MythBusters is the best thing going in terms of pro-science film.
They take real-world situations and develop rational hypotheses and specific experimental tests. It's all done with incredible humor and fun.
The kids love the show. I love the show. I work all day testing hypotheses in the lab, only to come home and watch it all on TV.
I had no idea what it was until my son turned me on to it over a year ago. I'm pretty sure that show is mostly why he says his favorite middle school subject is science.
He 'get's' science because of that show. He questions things and is developing a finely honed sense of skepticism because of the show.
Posted by: me | March 19, 2008 10:01 AM
get penn and teller to make the movie. they are big fans of science, have experience in show business, even have their own movie. they devoted an episode of "penn & teller: bullshit" to creationism. i bet they would enjoy the idea.
Posted by: tus | March 19, 2008 10:06 AM
PBS' special First Flower is rebroadcasting on April 17. It's another wonderful show about how evolutionary science works, how and why scientists both disagree and collaborate within the field, and it's a darned entertaining romp through botany.
Posted by: Carlie | March 19, 2008 10:09 AM
In addition to the ones already listed, what about Flock of Dodos? It's not specifically just evolution, but I thought it did a decent job showing what idiotic arguments the ID people make.
Posted by: Jessika | March 19, 2008 10:11 AM
Really great PS, PZ. As much as "PR" is denigrated in this forum, the soft and creative skills which make for good politics and propaganda (in the noblest sense of the word)are the ones which are needed to sway the masses. Also heartened by the tip to the worth and dignity of those of us who are not cut out to be research scientists.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | March 19, 2008 10:12 AM
Posted by: MissPrism | March 19, 2008 10:15 AM
I was looking through John Rogers' old blog posts and ran across a quote that looks like it sprang from PZ himself...
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2008/01/pretty-much-turtles-all-way-down.html
"Religion's meant to fill in the gaps of the Unknowable, not contradict the Knowable But Makes You Uncomfortable. There's a fossil record, assholes. Join the Enlightenment."
He officially gets my vote. :D
@24; I dunno, I'm getting the sinking feeling that Mythbusters is about to jump the shark. I liked the unscripted dialog and single-experiment focus of the first couple seasons; there aren't nearly as many "Science Content" warnings as I seem to remember.
Posted by: Ian Maddox | March 19, 2008 10:16 AM
At Sam Harris' forums, there is a thread about rebutting points about this movie from creationists. IT is predicted that after Expelled launches, forums at Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins - and maybe even Pharyngula comments may see an increase in traffic from IDists and Creationists using points from that movie to open debates.
In the Sam Harris thread at http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/9594/ it is suggested what "we" invite spokespeople of authority - like PZ, Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins to comment personally.
While I understand the potential pit falls of getting involved personally in a public venue, those pharyngula fans (and PZ if inclined) would be welcomed to present their own firm rebuttal points there.
Sadly there are no prizes, and not much fame to be garnered - but you may be helping fellows of reason who may be confronted by [i]straw-herrings (tm)[/i] produced by incoming Expelled traffic.
Posted by: Jefe | March 19, 2008 10:17 AM
Re: Can you imagine if Charles Darwin were asked to write the movie of his work? It would be five hours of barnacle anatomy and pigeon breeds.
More likely he'd insist on filming the really interesting book first, The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Actions of Worms. It wouldn't take much to persuade Hollywood producers they could market it as a sequel to Dune.
Posted by: Nan | March 19, 2008 10:20 AM
But 'Expelled' is not about Intelligent Design, its about 'Academic Freedom' - a very different topic (or at least a very different line of attack).
Making a movie about the evidence for evolution is beside the point.
Posted by: Sigmund | March 19, 2008 10:20 AM
Shawn Otto, of ScienceDebate2008 is reading Terrible Lizard by Deborah Cadbury at my request. I have read the criticism of the book, but with good science advisors on the film I think it would make a good, subtle answer to Expelled because it shows the process of applying science to try to prove the metaphysical claims of creationism; and it was approached by the leading "Undergroundoogists" of the early to mid 19th century. It has a good subplot on the struggle for a scientist trying to gain entry into the closed societies of the Victorian age, it has a creationist whose may have gone mad when he realized the implications of his discoveries, and it has a villain who used vindictiveness to try to suppress or steal the discoveries and conclusions of an outsider who is actually using science.
Shawn wrote the adapted screenplay for House of Sand and Fog which won an Oscar. If he agrees to work with me on it and can find a producer who would respect the science, I think that this would be a more effective response than a "counter" documentary. It would attract the people whose worldviews are being shaped by the Expelled brand of paranoia and persecutionism.
(I realize that I am taking some risk in floating this idea on a forum so large, but this is date-stamped and would establish primacy.)
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | March 19, 2008 10:23 AM
Sorry to insert ad here, but this is where I work:
http://www.tangentdigitalmedia.com/
and we do nothing but science-related media.
The one downside? We would need money, not to mention a focus, but given that, a really slick movie would result.
Personally, I think Bart's idea (although he himself seems to dislike it) of a history of scientific thinking/development of scientific methodology would be an excellent idea for a documentary film, as there would be no end to the opportunities for human-interest asides, and historical examples to illustrate major points (Clever Hans and controlling variables, Leach-treatment and falsifiability etc). Even some of the more intrinsically boring stuff, like the development of statistical analysis could be illustrated in an entertaining manner by some quick animations (such as the famous milk vs tea first experiments).
We await you word, oh cephalopod overlord!
Posted by: Jason Failes | March 19, 2008 10:27 AM
I don't think the movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," is going to make the kind of cultural splash that some people fear (or hope) it will. Ben Stein's blog and articles in support of the film are pretty pathetic. I blogged on it: Ben Stein: Crouching theocon, hidden nit-wit, and I think all you really need is for PZ, Dawkins and others who get "interviewed" in the movie to post comments about their real views. When the traffic from IDists and Creationists using points from that movie turn up, the comments from PZ and Dawkins can be linked to.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 19, 2008 10:33 AM
Perhaps the film you want to see has already been created.
Last night I saw a film about E.O. Wilson: "Darwin's Natural Heir", produced by Neil Patterson. It was shown at the National Geographic Society in D.C. as part of the Environmental Film Festival. Dr. Wilson and Mr. Patterson, both present for Q&A after the film, somewhat comically overcame the disadvantage of poor hearing to give their thoughts on nature conservation generally and species preservation in particular.
It was a truly inspiring and informative film which I recommend to all. [ Spoiler: Ants. Lots of ants. ]
Posted by: xebecs | March 19, 2008 10:39 AM
"But it needs to be done professionally, for the right reasons at the right time. As just a retort to Ben Stein, it would be a waste of time and money."
My feelings exactly. Why would we want to swell Ben Stein's head any more?
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 19, 2008 10:40 AM
Some kind of time machine adventure where the guy uses science in some way to stop a future full of religious loonies. That way you can have evolution, gadgets, women in skimpy costumes, dinosaurs and religious loonies (can you imagine the poster for that!!!).
Why not make a hollywood blockbuster that gets the science right. It will get a lot more coverage than a documentary.
Even better...tv series.
Posted by: Richard Eis | March 19, 2008 10:42 AM
As someone in the film business for 30 years, I have to say your note was very perceptive, PZ. Scientists would be pretty much a negative when it comes to writing such a film. You'll get another example of "preaching to the choir," like you do with Expelled. Of course you're talking about a feature length theatrical release. But if you look around you'll see countless examples of highly respected, loved, and watched shorter formats, especially in broadcast formats. My own personal journey into film making happened largely because I loved watching science films in schools. When so many others slept it was the highpoint of my day.
You know, maybe it's a festival that might serve your purposes, one that highlights science and reason.
Posted by: SkyBlue | March 19, 2008 10:44 AM
Okay, whoever suggested "Barnacles Gone Wild," -- Hollywood does in fact need your talents. The rest of you, who knows.
As PZ said, the Hollywood thing is indeed very difficult and elusive. It's not as simple as, "let's make a film that does this ..." An awful lot of klunkers begin with that approach.
But that said, the real starting point is with leadeship and unity, which is something that's difficult among academics (especially scientists), but PZ and the other evolution grass roots folks (Genie Scott, Ken Miller, Barbara Forest, and others) have shown amazing ability with this. I have spent the past 5 years involved in two topics -- ocean conservation and evolution education. The former is bogged down by a terribly destructive competitive situation (environmental groups fighting each other for donor dollars) that has lead to large scale failure, while the defense of evolution, lead by those figures, has an amazing spirit of cooperation and collaboration that is responsible for the string of major victories such as Dover and Kansas.
So the bottom line is that it is entirely possible to create a piece of mass media like a movie and use it for large scale rallying of the evolution defense forces. We did this to some extent with Flock of Dodos. It would be great to do it again in a bigger and better way.
But there's also a difference between basic entertainment media and more focus agenda-driven media. PBS and National Geographic aren't going to produce any agenda-driven media. The Dover special from Nova was a factual retelling of the story, but not something to arouse and motivate the troops. That sort of media is going to have to be independently produced, and that unfortunately takes a lot of money.
The sort of money needed does exist in Hollywood. One specific example is Participant Productions, founded by Jeff Skoll, founder of E-Bay. They produced the Al Gore movie, Syrianna with George Clooney, and a number of other excellent movies that relate to issues. I contacted them recently to see if they might have any interest in a sequel to Dodos, but they said they are more focused on social issues with "action agendas."
This is a problem with the issue of evolution in general. It is seen as a little too academic/esoteric. You don't really see any Congress members who embrace the issue in a big way. So its hard to find the constituency for it.
But that's no reason to not change things. This is one of the reasons I have avidly supported the Science Debates 2008 concept. Its time for the science world to assert its own voice, and in so doing develop the ability to more clearly explain to the public why it is important to defend evolution.
And in the meanwhile, you need to develop the pitch for Barnacles Gone Wild. Best title of the year. There's an Oscar with it's name already on it somewhere.
Posted by: Randy Olson | March 19, 2008 10:55 AM
Who is the audience? If the audience is the antiEvol crowd, you are going to have trouble getting them to pay for tickets. If the audience is the creationists, it will have to be carefully designed to counter their most popular canards in an effective way from THEIR point of view. The PBS series etc. don't do that, and so don't have the impact they could have.
It needs to be a movie about the EVIDENCE, not the EXPLANATION which they arn't ready for. It can't just be a picture of Archaeopteryx with a textual explanation that must be taken on trust of scientists which they do not have.
You have to undermine the memes that be, and the ignorance that supports them, and undermine those memes. Examples:
"Archaeopteryx is a hoax"? Demonstrate that some 7+ fossils have been found by different people.
"Archaeopteryx is a bird"? Go into details of the skeletons showing affinity with reptiles.
Make sure you have someone who used to be a creationist reviewing the thing for effectiveness.
etc.
Posted by: SMgr | March 19, 2008 10:56 AM
#10: "In fact its time some did a movie on the life of Darwin! Or is one already out there?"
Well, there is the 1978 TV series The Voyage of Charles Darwin.
Otherwise I think pretty much everything David Attenborough has done is the response asked for.
Posted by: kai | March 19, 2008 11:00 AM
*runs*
Posted by: Bob O'H | March 19, 2008 11:03 AM
Dawkins Does The Galapagos:
"The Lava Lizard's Tale"
"The Giant Tortoise's Tale"
Posted by: Damian | March 19, 2008 11:11 AM
Re: #20
Monty Python does molluscs:
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/molluscs.htm
Posted by: CortxVortx | March 19, 2008 11:11 AM
There are several ways to put out a positive film about evolution and science - and one good way has already been broadcast, but not released, "The Voyage of Charles Darwin" in 1978. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216517/usercomments for details.
Surely it would be relatively inexpensive to persuade the BBC to release this, or even re-edit it and update it for the upcoming Charles Darwin anniversary? Perhaps the Friends of Charles Darwin could lend a hand?
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | March 19, 2008 11:14 AM
What about Joss Whedon? I believe he is an atheist, feminist writer. He could make something awesome about freedom and rationality if hollywood would let him.
Posted by: Sea creature | March 19, 2008 11:21 AM
Myth Busters is TV, not science.
That's the problem with the fanatics, they start with the TRU BELEEF and them attempt to put it into entertainment. As John Stewart said (and PZ hinted), "first comes the funny".
Posted by: Mold | March 19, 2008 11:28 AM
I've got a feeling that if we respond with a film of our own which demonstrates how Expelled is misleading and intelligent design is not science, most members of the public are going to start feeling like a child in a divorce. There will be two parties trying to discount each other's authority in order to garner control. It won't be pretty and the public is going to resent the ordeal and probably end up siding with whichever position makes them feel good first. I don't think we can afford the public to side with science on an every-other-weekend schedule.
My fiancee is not nearly as much of a fan of science as I am. She's what I consider to be a normal person, an average American in regards to science knowledge. When I try to convey the awe I have for the universe around us (which is too often), I often get pretty specific. From my point of view I'm just trying to give thorough explanations because that's where the beauty lies. From her point of view I'm preaching, trying to show how smart I am, and trying to give her more than she asked for. I think most people are like her and not like me (and probably you). I can spend an entire day watching science documentaries and try to pick them apart for accuracy or date them by the extent of what science knew when they were made. The public doesn't have a long attention span for science and there's no single thing that is going to change that. We have to acknowledge this is a long term problem that requires a long term solution. Right now many good things are being done. There are wonderful bloggers like PZ and others who attempt to convey good science to the public. There are videos on popular sites like YouTube.com that attempt to explain good science. We need to keep these efforts up. There is a problem though and that is that the public mostly doesn't know how to distinguish between the good science and the bad. To solve this I suggest the following:
-We need to get the public off it's addition to relying on authority as a means to judge claims. There really needs to be a movement to teach the public the pitfalls of fallacious logic. If this is done the public will fall for fallacious arguments which are at the heart of pseudoscientific and nonsense claims. In addition, we need to be more vocal against fallacious arguments that keep the public from being interested in the first place...like evolution = social Darwinism = Nazis.
-When addressing the public members of the science community need to repeat the following mantra: this is what we know, here's how we figured it out, the following resources are available for you to learn more and verify our work. The more scientists do this the less the public will trust those who don't or can't.
Posted by: Aaron | March 19, 2008 11:34 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | March 19, 2008 11:38 AM
The importance of evidence should be the theme of any answering film. "Forensic Files," CSI, and the like are fairly popular shows. Evolution should be shown as a kind of forensic exercise, one that is vastly superior to garbage like "Psychic Detectives" and other flim-flam.
Certainly answering tit-for-tat would be ridiculous, since it takes far longer to explain why their BS is wrong than it takes for them to make their superficial "case".
Juries and audiences like DNA evidence and other cool little evidences that turn the tide of accusations. Maybe show what evolution can do in a court case, and compare and contrast with what ID can do--nothing at all. Be careful not to caricature ID in the doing, try as earnestly as possible to try to make ID useful, and it'll still totally bomb.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 19, 2008 11:41 AM
This is the movie that should be made. The reign of terror of fundie religious fanatics against scientists and state officials over evolution. On body counts they are way ahead. Routine, Xians in the past and fundies today have a history of settling doctrinal disputes by firing, exiling, or killing their victims.
PS I should add that a few people have contacted me with stories. Death threats are common and most do not even bother to publicize them. Not well documented info indicates that a lot more people have been fired then have been fired and made the news.
Posted by: raven | March 19, 2008 11:49 AM
This would certainly be a long-term solution, but there's a wonderful program at Montana State dedicated to making filmmakers out of scientists and those with science backgrounds. Here's the website: http://naturefilm.montana.edu/index.php
As a former student, I can say that there are a lot of positive things coming out of this program, and if you are interested in shaping future science programming, this is one good way to get a foot in the door.
Posted by: cg | March 19, 2008 11:54 AM
The book for the Barnacles movie has already been written: Rebecca Stott's Darwin and the Barnacle. Starring Mr Arthrobalanus! Do wonders for invertebrate cladistics and you will learn that there is more to barnacle sex than huge penises, some barnacle males are like miniature anglerfish males, reduced to little more than bags of sperm attached parasite like to females.
If the Alien franchise can take a deep sea beastie like phronema and make megabucks then surely the same can be done for barnacles?
Posted by: Peter Ashby | March 19, 2008 11:58 AM
#49 > Myth Busters is TV, not science.
http://xkcd.com/397/
You can argue that their testing is not strict enough, or that they don't always control all possible variables. It is TV, after all; they have budget and time constraints. But the fact is that they have some hypothesis and then proceed to test it, and that is most definitely science.
Actually, the thing that impresses me most is that if someone points out a major flaw in their methdology, they'll go back and do the experiment all over again. Is there _anything_ more scientific than that?
Posted by: Jared Lessl | March 19, 2008 12:00 PM
If you want a narrator to counter Mr. Stein, I'll propose Lewis Black:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g
Hell, the clip above should be counterweight enough to the vacuity of Expelled.
Posted by: JohnB | March 19, 2008 12:03 PM
For those who don't know here is phronema:
http://www.sciencemadecool.com/2007/06/friday_parasite_1.html
Scale up, make black and shiny and terrestrial and you have Alien. You don't think someone *designed * it, did you?
Hat tip to the Beeb's excellent Blue Planet series, The Deep episode in particular. It also has the Dumbo Squid so is well worth watching. Available on DVD ;-)
Posted by: Peter Ashby | March 19, 2008 12:06 PM
Forrest Prince #14
Battles, explosions, sex, plot twists -- that's what gets people into the theatres. A pro-science movie won't fit this criteria easily.
Yes it will. This is the history of life in a nutshell...
Missprism #29
Shape-Shifting Armoured Hermaphrodites With Penises Longer Than Their Entire Bodies Gone Wild?
That's an oxymoron surely.
Posted by: Jit | March 19, 2008 12:08 PM
Someone has mentioned Douglas Adams. For what it's worth, Adams is exactly the kind of person we non-sciency types need for projects like this. Slight drawback: he's dead.
You may be pleased to know that the BBC is doing a followup series to Last Chance to See (with Stephen Fry, I believe); that may be more about conservation than evolution, but if it's anything like the first series, it will get a lot of people interested in biology and evolution, too -- that's how you deal with the "but Science is huge!" problem. Make the aspect you're looking at exciting enough for people to want to find out more. There is something important to learn from the old Last Chance To see; it began with the WWF sending authors to visit endangered species and write articles about them, accompanied by zoologists - one of them was impressed enough to hang on to the topic. If you want to do something like this, get professional writers to work for you; their perspective will help communicate your ideas to other nonscientists.
Posted by: catta | March 19, 2008 12:09 PM
The question is, a movie about science, or a movie responding to the claims in Expelled?
I see potential benefits and problems with both concepts.
For a movie about evolution there are a number of different routes, but many of these have already been done as series, 1-2 hour specials, etc. Also I'm not sure that you could put together a program that could do this adequately without losing some of the audience. We still have people who think that *poof* one day a "monkey" had a funny looking baby. Americans are stupid.
As a response to Expelled there are two ways of looking at it. One is that it is a bit disgusting to dignify their movie with a response, but, it also would be good for pro-science advocates on school boards, in classrooms, etc., to have a response to the bogus claims made in Stein's movie. It could be titled, Flunked, not Expelled: How the Intelligent Design Movement Fail to Qualify as Science. I've seen topics and statements similar to that, but a case by case refutation of the claims made by Stein, including interviews of people who appeared in Expelled would be a pretty powerful tool for science education.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 19, 2008 12:10 PM
I agree JohnB. I caught a newish episode just recently after not having watched for a while and they were doing exactly that, going back and revisiting things after criticisms/suggestions. As you say that is the essence of good science and I agree it doesn't matter if it is not super robust, what matters is the METHOD, the IDEA and that they have ENTHUSIASM. Besides the new woman they have on is HOT.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | March 19, 2008 12:12 PM
To the person who asked, "Who is the audience?", you're asking the wrong question. The question to ask is, "What is the story?" If you tell a truly great and entertaining story, everyone will show up. That was my concern about "Expelled." Had it been a truly great and entertaining story you would have had pro-evolution folks attending (and thus supporting) it. Fortunately they took care of that concern on their own.
Posted by: Randy Olson | March 19, 2008 12:21 PM
1) Get a budget line for $10 million or so in the NSF budget, for public education.
2) Parcel the money out to Nova, Attenborough, and so forth to let them do more of what they do on a regular basis.
If you want to generate ticket sales, call the movie either "Science Disproves Darwin?" or "Creationism Proved Correct?" to attract the fundies, and then spend the rest of the movie on experiments and demonstrations that disprove creationist claims.
Posted by: N.Wells | March 19, 2008 12:23 PM
This guy says he's making a movie rebuttal to Expelled:
http://360.yahoo.com/profile-ft3Y5044duiKWjG_Yo_trI8YBA--?cq=1
This is what he says about it:
Of course I have no idea of what kind of film maker he is. But it might be worthwhile for anyone interested in a movie response to contact him.
Glen D
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 19, 2008 12:30 PM
Randy Olson wrote:
Then you might want to approach it from the point of view of where the battle, the action, is taking place; in school boards across the country. Joining a school board is something that a lot of people can do. Those are the forces you want to inspire.
The other thing to note is what is at stake, what happens when American students leave school with not just a mistaken academic/esoteric notion about the history of life on Earth, but a crippling mis-education on what science actually is.
Will it have economic consequences?
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 19, 2008 12:35 PM
Just throwing around a few plot points.
I think science documentaries, while welcome are overdone for the science category in particular, so maybe a dramatization is in order to draw in new crowds.
Since good movies have some sense of conflict and drama maybe we should have a collection of short stories compiled into one big film.
Like an old philosopher/scientist in the near future(maybe an even older Daniel Dennett type character) telling a kid about the past great scientists and then with every story a flashback into the past.
We have a dramatic portrayal of what the Catholic Church did to Galileo.
We could touch on Albert Einstein and at the same time visit the World War 2 era and set the record straight on evolution's non-role in it.
Also a nice little slo-mo side to side shot of a Nazi belt buckle with the a yellow subtitle saying "God is with us".
We could visit ancient China and show the making of gun powder and the other stuff they invented.
We could go back to the pre-Islamic Middle East and show strides in Mathematics.
And maybe go straight back to the "beginning" showing some visual representations of the effects of the Big Bang and then fast forward to the formation of our own solar system and then a fast forward through the evolution tree until we're right back where we started with the old scientist and the kid.
and for an epic feel i think John Williams should produce the musical score for the movie.
Posted by: ChrisGose | March 19, 2008 12:39 PM
This bad propaganda film for creationism is going to come out soon, so I can sympathize with this call to put together an honest science movie in reply.
What, as well as
* Life on Earth (1979)
* The Living Planet (1984)
* The Trials of Life (1990)
* Life in the Freezer (1993)
* The Private Life of Plants (1995)
* The Life of Birds (1998)
* The Life of Mammals (2002)
* Blue Planet
* Planet Earth
* Life in the Undergrowth (2005)
and
* Life in Cold Blood (2007)?
"Yes, but apart from all that... what has David Attenborough ever done for us?"
Posted by: ajay | March 19, 2008 12:42 PM
Randy Olson wrote:
And stories are about characters, people struggling against the odds... I see the main character as a biology teacher struggling to teach the subject.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 19, 2008 12:47 PM
@ 42: "Who is the audience?"
The ideal target audience is (always) the middle -- the undecided, and the decided-but-swayable. No need to preach to the choir or preach to the hardcore reality deniers. The trick is to make the message accessible, and make the audience understand that they have an interest in embracing change.
Aaron @ #50 gives a really good example of what happens when the message isn't accessible.
Posted by: Bureacratus Minimis | March 19, 2008 12:50 PM
Randy (@66) and Norman (@69) raise good points about needing a compelling story. Human-interest angles and conflict are both eyeball-grabbers, documentaries, no matter how well done, are not as effective. Galileo's persecution has lots of costumes, drama and conflict; Carl Sagan walking into the ocean saying "billions and billions," not so much.
Posted by: Bureacratus Minimis | March 19, 2008 1:00 PM
I guess I should also point your attention to Matthew Chapman.
He is the great great grandson of Charles Darwin and also an accomplished film writer and producer.
If anybody will do this film, he would.
http://www.matthewchapman.us/
Posted by: ChrisGose | March 19, 2008 1:04 PM
Getting back to the NOVA special on the Dover trial...I think you could make a pretty damn good feature film out of that story. The documentary was gripping and dramatic. Plenty of interesting personal dramas, great courtroom scenes (how about Behe and that pile of books on the evolution of the immune system?), and high stakes (science education in American schools). Plus it's still an ongoing issue in our culture.
Sure, it's not "Die Hard", but neither was "Quiz Show".
Posted by: Rick R | March 19, 2008 1:05 PM
You might want to show how you can use evidence to distinguish between a designed object, and a "natural" object in any such movie. Involving a forensics issue, you'd be wanting to distinguish between, say, a "naturally evolved" organism and something that a criminal has engineered to do something specific and not to the benefit of the engineered organism.
The IDists have occasionally tried to make something of the fact that we might indeed wish to identify "design" in organisms in the fight against terror, suggesting that ID would be useful for this. Of course it would not be, rather it would come up with a "positive" finding for every last organism, and would not be able to distinguish between "wild type" species which are naturally selected, and the rationally engineered organisms that terrorists would use.
Using such a theme, one could tie in people's interests in forensic evidence, current events, and the bleeding obvious fact that organisms have all of the earmarks of evolution, none of design.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7