M. Night Shyamalan's Pro-ID Blockbuster?

A film that presents science badly? Inconceivable!

Most so-called Science Fiction films have holes large enough to pilot a starship through. The linked analysis is really reaching to find fault in a dismally failed flick. According to RottenTomatoes.com the consensus review is "The Happening begins with promise, but unfortunately descends into an incoherent and unconvincing trifle." Need much more be said?

well, if you are a character in a movie or book, intelligent design is obviously correct. it's the rest of us who are subject to evolution.

I have to say, I saw this film last night, and I didn't see how it promoted I.D. particularly. It was appallingly scientifically illiterate, definitely, but it didn't really promote I.D. In fact, evolution was mentioned all the way through the film. If anything, I would say it was promoting the Gaia concept.

The real crime, though, was the absolutely abysmal acting, writing and direction. It was so bad that people in my cinema were laughing all the way through.

It could do its part to mainstream ID a little more, although Shyamalan's been on a downward trend since his first movie, so it likely won't be a blockbuster. At any rate, I'm somewhat content to let IDers have what they've got: fantasy. (A bit pissed they've got Zooey, but oh well.)

I agree with Martin. What pass for scientific deductions in this movie were baffling, at best, and there were times when the entire audience burst out laughing at scenes that were intended to shock. (The scene about a video shot at a zoo was especially hysterical.) But intelligent design? I didn't see it. I would say it advanced "Unintelligible Deduction."

I'd actually go as far as to say that I think the science bloggers have been a bit OTT bringing up ID. I've been racking my brains, and I can't think of a single pro-ID comment in the whole thing. If anything, they were banging on about evolution the whole time, saying that "plants can't move, so they have to rapidly evolve chemical defense" and such-like. To suggest that it was pro-ID is to miss the point that really,it was just awful.

I read about the movie, and it didn't really seem any more devoid of science than other movies. The assumption seems to be that some kind of plants are somehow killing off humanity because they're a threat. Really that sounds like evolution to me, at least more than intelligent design. He might of made the teacher say that just because it's been in the news, or just so the teacher could have some lame revelation later.

Don't forget other films either.

Take Event Horizon for example, which uses solid scientific reasoning the demonstrate the existance of Hell.

Er. :)

fter all, he is the devoutly Christian director who made his break though with a film about a kid who sees dead people (The Sixth Sense) and then later teamed with Mel Gibson in a movie titled "Signs."

are you sure he's christian? he attended nominally christian schools (episcopal, etc.), but is always described as hindu in profiles that i've seen. see first things:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=312

Saw the film. There was no ID in it. The film does err for both convoluting science, misusing the word "theory," and at the same time give scientists superhuman powers of deduction (like when one predicts the exact time the unknown phenomenon will end). It was not a hard-science film, but I did enjoy it as a film made in the vein of Hitchcock's The Birds, both of which have strong envrionmentalist messages.

Regarding the comment that Shyamalan is Christian, I would first corroborate Razib's comment with the fact that Shyamalan does hold to Eastern philosophies and he has said he intends his next movie to reflect that.

I just saw the film yesterday, and saw it as being pro-environmentalist by emphasizing that humans are on a planet with other living organisms, and the interactions among organisms are often complex and hard to understand. That was the whole point of "the acts of nature" comments Wahlberg's character made. He did not say "acts of God," and he never said evolution was "just a theory," if I recall correctly. As others have noted, evolution is mentioned many times, and the botanical science offered is, as far as I know, sound: plants do evolve chemical defenses, and can target threats. There has been recent research indicating that plants can communicate.

However, anybody looking for hard science in the movie was looking for the wrong thing. All of Shyamalan's movies drive home a philosophical point or some comment on the drama of human existence. Science fiction is always designed to promote this point. Think of Blade Runner, War of the Worlds...scientists should remember that science fiction is just that, not documentaries. I am scientifically-minded and a budding filmmaker, and I consider this film no insult to science or filmmaking. Any of you who considered it abysmal apparently have not seen some of the dreadful movies I have.