What the hell...

Wow. The government is covering up fossils that falsify evolution? Just... wow.

Say, where do I sign up for the Department for the Sustainment of the Darwinian Conspiracy? I already do so much work on their behalf, I may as well get them to pay me for it.

Joshua:

Try here.

See, the problem is that Indiana Jones movies are "Indiana Jones-style thrillers" that promote bad or false science....

So, a few days ago I suggested starting a collection to buy PZ Myers a DVD of Expelled [jazz hands!], with the excess being donated to the NCSE, much like how John Scalzi paid for his ticket to the Creation "Museum". I notice a fair number of used copies of Fossil Hunter being hawked in the $6.99 – $7.50 range; maybe we could add one to the list?

At the risk of having too much me in this comment thread. . . .

Was it a success? A flop? A big budget fluff piece that only attracted those already inclined to agree?

Speaking of which, what happened to Sizzle? Did the scientists kill it?

Might as well throw the book in Blake. It will provide extra hours of entertainment, after all...

I've actually been thinking of comparing the response to Sizzle and Expelled. In terms of the former, it seems that mainstream folks thought that it "re-opened the debate" about anthropogenic climate change. I've cast out Google nets every once in a while to see if any new reviews could be dredged up, but I haven't found anything new in months.

Overall I just think it was a poorly made, confusing film that wanted to outdo Al Gore but ended up crumbling due to a lack of cohesion. The relative silence surrounding the film seems to confirm that, although I'm sure there are some who will tell me that I'm thinking too much like a scientist for demanding proof that Sizzle was a success.

I'm sure all present contenders for this year's Hugo and Nebula Awards, not to mention those potentially expecting Pulitzer Prizes or the Nobel in Literature, are sadly turning to their drawing boards (and/or absinthe bottles) at this world-shaking news.

Joshua, the conspiracy already hides and guards the great Ice Wall and successfully perpetuates the notion that the earth is round - covering up a few fossils here and there is nothing in comparison.

You guys should actually read the book before you pass judgment.

The book is about a paleontologist who is accused of destroying a whale fossil when it comes out that she is a Christian and now seems to have motive. It's true that her adviser might have been a tiny bit over the top in his reaction to what he thought she said at a press conference, but her father, a fundamentalist Christian minister, is also a bit over the top in his reaction to his daughter's evolutionary belief system. I tried to be fair in my exploration of the faith/science issues raised in the book -- which has meant that I've taken heat from both sides of the debate (if you can call it a debate when only one side seems to think there's an open question left to discuss).

I'm sure that if we were to have a civil discussion, we'd find that we agree on 95% to 100% of any issue you care to raise. Please don't assume that I'm a biased moron (my words not yours), because I'm writing about a polarizing issue where past biases have caused so many religious people to take extreme, unsupportable views. Writers have very little control over backcover copy or the marketing materials used to promote their books.

John; I'm sorry that our comments have frustrated you. While an author might not have absolute control over every aspect in which their book is promoted, I can't imagine that you were kept in the dark about your book being released with Expelled. Given that Expelled was an inaccurate propaganda piece, this does not reflect well on your piece, which (from what I have been able to glean thus far) is also supportive of intelligent design.

As I have stated elsewhere, though, I do intend to pick up a copy of the book and review it here. I cannot promise that it will be a favorable review, but I am going to follow through nonetheless.

Generally, however, I don't think that it is necessarily unfair to "judge a book by its cover." Part of the role of synopses (and in this case, movie tie-ins) is to indicate to interested readers what the book is about and why they might find it appealing. In this case, the association of the book with Expelled has not reflected favorably on the book among the science-savvy readers here, and I see little reason to consider their reactions unfair.

As I said, I am going to read your book when I can get my hands on a copy, and I will post my thoughts here. At that point I'll be able to see whether my concerns over what was stated in the promotional material were accurate or not.

Actually your comments didn't frustrate me, and I didn't really think you were being unfair. I just think you should read the book before passing judgment. Hey, I'm a writer. What can I say? Every book helps me put food on the table. I've got to at least try. ;-)

"Intelligent Design" is kind of like Republicanism or Democratism -- both sides of the highly polarized issue tend to want to define it in the terms most favorable to their own views. I've noticed that anti-designers tend to define "Intelligent Design" as creationism that has had a name-change operation in order to get around court rulings of the past. They associate it with young earth creationists who want to ban the teaching of evolution in schools and insert their own creationist agenda. And they're partially right. A lot of classical creationists would probably say they believe in intelligent design.

I, however, am not a young earth creationist. I think it would be wrong to teach intelligent design or creationism in the schools, and I'm fine with the teaching of evolution. In fact I'm fine with the whole evolutionary framework. I don't think there is a viable mechanism for abiogenesis, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before scientists find something that's at least plausible. To me "Intelligent Design" is just the idea that a study of nature might suggest the existence of an intelligent designer (God or Allah or aliens or the flying spaghetti monster or whatever you want to call him or her or it). I don't believe in God because of any arguments or anything I've studied. I believe in God because of personal experiences I've had which I can't deny. Believe me. Sometimes I wish I could, but I can't. Don't worry. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just telling you where I'm coming from.

So how did my book come to be associated with Expelled? One of the producers contacted me and asked me to do a novelization of a screenplay they had in house. As you can imagine I was pretty excited. It's hard to break out as a novelist, and this seemed like a great idea at the time. But when I read the screenplay, I had to tell him I wasn't interested. The story just wasn't something I could write--it was more of a courtroom drama than a thriller, and I write thrillers. So when I told him I couldn't do it, we started talking and one thing led to another until I had suggested a thriller that explored the same issues but in a completely different way. He's an intelligent and reasonable guy, and he had no problem with me writing a story about a theistic evolutionist (a Christian who thinks God probably created the world through the process of evolution) on a quest to find a whale fossil. And that's how the association began.

So what did I think of Expelled when it came out? Of course I thought it was biased and that it used as many propaganda techniques as it could. That's the nature of these kinds of movies. Certainly you don't think that Michael Moore's documentaries are all unbiased objective truth? But apart from the anti-evolution stuff in the movie, I could relate to a lot of points it raised. You don't know what it's like being a Christian in grad school. All the jokes and snide remarks -- the general assumption that Christians are all idiots who are anti-science and irrational in the extreme. Most scientists weren't like that at all, but there are enough vocal elements in any crowd to occasionally make things uncomfortable. And usually the crowd goes along with it--as if it's a universally known fact that they shouldn't disagree with. I have no problem believing that there are scientists who have been harassed or pushed out because of their theistic beliefs and/or actions. Do I think it's a systemic problem like the impression the documentary gave? Absolutely not. But I do think it exists and is in some cases tolerated. And I still remember how it feels to silently endure the statements that were said with the assumption that all present surely must agree.

I didn't know how the documentary would turn out, and the producer who contacted me didn't either. There were a lot of people involved in creating the documentary, and I get the idea that all of them would have liked to change some things. Ben Stein had his own set of ideas going into the film, as did the director and all of the producers. But I think it's important to remember that they're all perfectly decent people who you would probably enjoy talking to and having a few drinks with after a hard day at work. They're not part of any grand conspiracy, just like you're not part of any grand conspiracy. They're just honest guys with honest opinions who are trying to make a living and feed their families.

And I'm just fiction-writer with very thin skin who quit his job as a principal scientist at a scientific software company to pursue his passion--even though it's very difficult to make a living as a novelist. I love debate and discussing ideas, because that's what brings me closer to the truth. I'd love to discuss the actual issues further with you, but if you've already decided that an intelligent design viewpoint is by definition wrong and thus a poor reflection on my book, then I doubt such a discussion would be productive.

John; Thank you very much for your detailed response. You may be right in that we don't have much to talk about in terms of ID, but it is not because I have dismissed it as absurd out-of-hand. Up until two years ago I had never even heard of ID or creationism, but after being barred from teaching a class about whale evolution I started to look into it. I started with Jon Wells' Icons of Evolution and tried to really get an understanding of what the other side had to say (even though I disagreed).

If ID is merely that nature might suggest the existence of God, then it isn't anything new, and it is more of a philosophical point. Where the concept crosses over into science, however, I think there are some very deep problems. First among them is that the present ID movement has been fashioned as more of a social and political campaign, trying to railroad schools into "teaching the controversy" rather than building up a solid foundation of research. Even the famous Wedge Document said that ID advocates would have to base their claims on evidence brought out by research first, but in my opinion they have failed to do this.

Indeed, I recently read the textbook Explore Evolution, which did not deliver on its promise to accurately depict the present state of evolutionary science. It seems to me that many ID advocates are more concerned with tearing down present scientific theory and expect their views to be the default setting which will replace what the study of nature has revealed. This is, of course, a generalization, but it is the distinct impression I have received from the people at the Discovery Institute, makers of Expelled, etc.

I don't have a personal hatred of such advocates, as you say they might be very personable and kind people outside the culture war arena, but in many cases I cannot respect what they do. In many cases, of which Icons of Evolution is a perfect example, these advocates have either distorted what is known about evolution or failed to research it fully before pontificating on it. They say they want to be taken seriously as scientists, yet they refuse to honestly engage scientists and instead focus on swaying popular opinions. If we're going to have a scientific argument, there has to be some well-researched science for us to argue about.

So, as I said, we may have very little to argue about in terms of ID. I have tried to keep up with arguments made my its advocates and thus far I have not been impressed (and in many cases I feel that these spokespeople have either distorted claims or been ignorant of the subject about which they're talking about). (I am talking about the leaders of the movement, of course. I am not so foolish as to say that "Everyone who believes ID is gullible" or any such things.) In terms of Fossil Hunter, I just ordered a copy and may very well blog my reactions to it chapter-by-chapter. It does look very interesting as I am actually writing a book of my own and just polished off a section on fossil whales, so I am very interested in what you have written. Again, thank you for your reply, and I will let you know when I start blogging my reactions.