Bright Horizon Pictures - "What is Scientific Truth?"

[winbert]

Hello, just curious if anyone knows anything about this "documentary"? Only thing I can find on the web is Bright Horizon's website. I missed the screening a couple weeks ago at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor. I was initially intrigued, assuming it was a secular documentary (the Michigan Theater has always seemed to be a fairly progressive institution), but then found Bright Horizon's self-description as follows:
"...non-profit Christian film company with the main goal of spreading the Gospel and truth through film."

Uh-oh. Since this is seemingly a small-time local effort I'm motivated to do some grass-roots refuting of any foolishness presented as fact. However, rather than attend the next screening (Novi Christian Community Center on 9/26) I'll probably just wait to buy a copy (hate to contribute $ to their cause, but better for note-taking anyway :-). In the meantime, I figured I'd do a little research on some of the people featured in the film:

Dr. Richard Adler - Associate Professor of Biology and Microbiology and the Microbiology Concentration Advisor at UMD; with his wife, co-wrote the historical book "Jewish Ann Arbor"

Dr. Loring Brace - Anthropologist at UofM; apparently "Darwinian" and anti-Creationist

Bob Dutko - Conservative Christian talk show host in Detroit

Ken Ham - Young-Earth Creationist; president of Answers in Genesis USA, which runs the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY

Dr. Grady McMurtry - Creationist; apparently questionable credentials

Todd Slisher - VP Science Programs @ the Detroit Science Center

Commentary from Dr. David Menton - "Creationist Anatomist"

Hmmmm, interesting. Let's just say I'm not holding my breath in expectation of a factual, reason-based perspective ;-)...

Thanks for any feedback/comments.

winbert

[abourque]

Interesting. Sounds to be along the lines of "Expelled" where they bend the facts enough to make it sound feasible and laudable. Please keep us informed of what you find out.

BTW, if you're lucky you might be able to find a copy "online"... not that I would know about that kind of thing...

[MerrieMelodyxx]

Winbert, if you do get a hold of a copy, I'd be interested in seeing as well. I organise some events in the Southeast of Michigan, and if I can get permission, it sounds like it would be a very interesting movie for a movie night.

[winbert]

...along the lines of "Expelled"

Adam - great link for Expelled Exposed! Expelled was on my list until I read/watched a few partial rebuttals on the web/YouTube. The claims seemed so ludicrous that I figured it wasn't worth my time. But of course there are plenty of creationists that swallow it whole - hook, line, & sinker...

Winbert, if you do get a hold of a copy, I'd be interested in seeing as well. I organise some events in the Southeast of Michigan, and if I can get permission, it sounds like it would be a very interesting movie for a movie night.

Michelle - Looks like they fixed the Paypal link shortly after I had posted, so I ordered a copy. On the "Freedom From Religion Foundation of Washtenaw County" Meetup forum Mark Farris has ordered a copy & also suggested a movie night.

Besides us all being entertained by the documentary's likely foolishness, I'm wondering what we (the non-believing community, and myself specifically) can do to counter this type of local propaganda against the public's proper understanding of legitimate science? I would think to be effective a rebuttal would ideally target this documentary's specific audience, but how? Distribute a point-by-point counter-argument pamphlet at the door of the Novi Christian Community Center on 9/26? There's an idea from the Detroit Atheists Meetup Group for several non-theists to attend and contribute respectfully to any discussion forum they may have afterward. Hmmm...

Thx,
winbert

[Nohands]

I am at such a loss for words at the moment I can almost here my mind churning. I watched the Dawkins-Wright interview http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistPlan ... FjoEgYOgRo about 6 mo. ago and could not believe even with my limited education that somebody with the mind of Dawkins could not get something as simple as "look at the evidence yourself" across to Wendy. It came across to me as if she did not even want to look. However, as much as I like Dawkins he can be very smug and sometimes does not come across well.

Her snowflake analogy took me along time to work out in my head, (couple of months)but when I realized what she was talking about it almost floored me. She is trying to say that Humans are snowflakes but animals are not. Yes we can easily recognized one another in merely fractions of a second because of those differences. But she does not seem to see those differences in other species. I am very familiar with German Shepherds as growing up with them as a child. At first glance somebody unfamiliar with the breed could easily say "well they all look the same to me". However, on a closer look things like size all be it very little difference can be detected. Then you have things like tail thickness and distinct curls in tips. These are very slight distinctions but to another Dog are just as noticeable as another person is you and I. This seems to me where she is able to justify the creation idea.

I just want to pull my hair out but I shave it

[winbert]

I watched the Dawkins-Wright interview

Wow! That was excruciating to watch, even just the first part. It should be titled "Dawkins banging his head against a wall named Wendy." I still can't get over her argument that the overwhelming scientific community as a whole only provides one "opinion" in the understanding of the natural world (in other words, "science"), and that outsiders (like herself & her theistic group) can provide an equally valid alternative "opinion" . Ridiculous! Pick any of the possible outrageous analogies - architects claim that a building should be built a certain way based on factual/historical research, but an astrologer has a conflicting but equally valid "opinion" on building construction based on his interpretation of the stars.

To promote the public's scientific understanding, I often question the value of these interviews/debates that merely scratch the surface of the dispute. Obviously their purpose isn't to convince the opposing debater/interviewee (e.g., Wendy), which would be naive & hopeless. Their purpose is surely to convince the audience. Imagine from the perspective of an uninformed observer sitting on the fence - Dawkins seems to make reasonable claims about the existence of scientific evidence (including fossils & DNA) supporting evolution, but Wendy seems to make reasonable claims which seem to justify skepticism of evolution (history of scientific fraud, lack of evidence [especially of macro-evolution], censoring/discrimination of dissenting opinions, etc.). You & I know better, but it seems that to convince observers more factual detail is necessary. Dawkins started to provide some of the technical details of recent human evolution, but to the skeptical observer he might merely be pulling these terms out of his @ss . It seems that a coherent and thorough presentation of the body of scientific knowledge is needed, which would require piles of academic documentation and probably hours/days to present (which clearly doesn't fit the interview/debate format). Also, each of Wendy's false/misleading claims would need to be specifically refuted and/or put into context. For example, any errors in the details of Darwin's findings from 150 years ago (or mistakes/fraud from the 1920's) don't represent the accuracy of modern evolutionary theory.

There has to be a happy medium between the two extremes of what it takes to believe something:
- On the one hand, a bystander with zero scientific knowledge needing to trust whatever anyone claiming to be a scientist presents to them. Obviously this doesn't work because some people with scientific credentials claim the evidence calls evolution into question & supports creationism. Other legitimate scientists claim that there's no debate that evolution happened, and state that the evidence overwhelmingly supports this fact. Who to believe?
- On the other hand, everyone could go get a PhD in biology and do decades of independent research, which presumably would completely convince them that evolution happened.
(related to this topic I recommend the book "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society" by Farhad Manjoo. I listened to the audiobook from Audible.com and found it fascinating.)

My feeble attempt to convince doubters of evolutionary theory is to recommend two books:
- "Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction" by Eugenie Scott (Exec Dir of the National Center for Science Education - I recommend joining!); this book does a wonderful job of laying out the facts, the history of the debate, and specific rebuttals of most Creationist claims.
- "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" by Francis Collins (former head of the Human Genome Project and current Director of the National Institutes of Health); despite being a devout christian, Collins fully supports the bulk of modern scientific understanding and argues that point in this book (e.g., presents basically irrefutable evidence that humans & mice share a common ancestor); although he also argues that modern scientific understanding can live harmoniously with Christian belief, my hope is that this will give the author some credibility with Christians.

Along those same lines, the two DVD's I highly recommend are:
- "Evolution"; PBS 4-disc series narrated by Liam Neeson
- "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"; PBS Nova series examines the trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (Kansas, 2005)

winbert

[Nohands]

"True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society" by Farhad Manjoo

Just put it in my wish list on Audible

Thank you

OMG I just realized the fallacy in my own argument on the snowflake idea. If creation were true it would only be true for other animals and not Humans.

[ChrisLindsay9]

I'm planning on going to see the screening of it at the Novi church, on Sunday Sept. 26th. One of the people in the film is a UM professor that I'm going to try and invite to an upcoming Ann Arbor Science/Skeptics meet-up.

[winbert]

Well, the DVD showed up over the weekend & I watched the first half last night. Wow, what a complete hack-job. Hard to believe when I first saw that it was playing at the Michigan Theater I thought it might be a legitimate discussion around the philosophy of science. Turns out it's a third-rate spectacle of inaccuracy trying to "scientifically" prove young earth creationism and discredit evolution (at least they didn't call it Darwinism ). Early on the narrator sets the level of credulity required of the audience by asking the rhetorical question "Should science be restricted to the natural?" DUH!!!

They present the same old tired arguments (which have been debunked a thousand times) and roll out all the usual misleading terminology in a pitiful attempt to make their case. For example:
- creationism & intelligent design are introduced as "scientific theories" that are "supported by the evidence"
- they incorrectly conflate the origin of life & evolutionary theory (as well as cosmology)

McMurtry's incompetence doesn't disappoint when he:
- summarizes evolution as "the simple becomes complex by random chance" and claims this violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- states "If the universe was old you wouldn't have suns still hot, and icy comets still flying around" and that "the universe should be homogeneous if it has always existed"
- references the "over 200 arguments" that they have for a young earth/solar system/galaxy/universe, including many that have been wonderfully discredited at Infidels.org like: decay of the earth's magnetic field, recession rate of the moon, & lumpy rings around planets
- etc., etc., etc.

Unfortunately, so far comments by Dr. Adler, Dr. Brace, & Mr. Slisher have been intentionally cut short so as to mis/under-represent their positions. Clearly their presence is merely a feeble attempt to add credibility to the movie. I can only imagine how unhappy Adler/Brace/Slisher are with the finished product. Seems like it might be worthwhile trying to get them involved in refuting the ridiculousness of this "documentary"? Perhaps Adler/Brace/Slisher would be interested in writing letters to the editor, or even attending the screening at the Novi Christian Community Center on 9/26!

winbert

[abourque]

Wow, just wow.

It sounds like a good candidate for a movie night. For a MST3K style movie night. With plenty of popcorn to throw at the screen!