|
"Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" Review 2 David E F Harrison, FTSE. FIBiol. B. Tech. PhD
The aims of this film are very ambitious: in just 65 minutes to put the scientific case for an alternative world view to Darwinism and to do so in a manner that is understandable and entertaining to the general public. Does it succeed? I think it does to a remarkable degree.
If anyone came to such a film expecting a comprehensive and indisputable annihilation of materialistic Darwinism, they would, of course be disappointed. It is simply not within the scope of this program to achieve that. On the other hand, anyone approaching this topic with an open mind could hardly fail to be intrigued by the arguments and possibilities raised and stimulated to want to learn more about the various arguments and counter arguments. Recently the "intelligent design" movement has undergone intensive attack in the scientific press as being totally devoid of any real scientific merit and consisting only of religious dogma. Such criticism could not be fairly levelled at this film.
The proponents of 'intelligent design' appearing in the film are all highly qualified and competent scientists. Indeed, some, such as professor Kenyon could be said to be leaders in their field. Though their interpretation may be open to debate, it is based on scientific data that is largely unchallengeable and which has been published in reviewed journals.
There is no overt reference to any religious belief or teaching. It will be said, of course that the film argues for the existence of a creator God by inference. Perhaps it does, but no more than Darwinist literature and teaching infers an atheistic worldview. It is inevitable when discussing the origin and driving force behind life on earth that the question must arise as to whether it has any reason or purpose or whether it is all a happy accident!
It is not possible to teach evolution of any kind without raising that most 'religious' of questions: why are we here? In the circumstances the film makes a very good job of exploring alternatives to Darwinism without evoking any particular religious belief.
The presentation of the film is excellent: the photography and animation is first class. I was pleasantly surprised by how good the narration is. Perhaps I feared an over-the-top approach common to so many American popular science productions, but no: the arguments are put simply and sincerely. As far as possible the scientists are allowed to speak for themselves and do so effectively. I would say that the presentation is far and away superior in its ability to inform than most of the science shows produced for television such as 'blockbusters' like 'Walking with Dinosaurs'. The arguments are put fairly and I do not think that Darwinism is at all misrepresented. The film would undoubtedly make a good teaching aid for schools. I have never seen the complex mechanism of the genetic system so well presented: it is comprehendible without falling into the usual trap of oversimplification.
Are there any criticisms of the film? Of course, you cannot deal with such a topic without causing some level of disagreement. Scientists rarely agree on everything. One remark that grated on me early in the film was a statement by the narrator that the development of the complexities of living systems cannot be explained by "natural processes". I do not hold that the alternative to Darwinian evolution is an 'unnatural' process and I suspect, neither do the scientists appearing in the film. I think God works mostly through the natural laws that he has created. The evidence of a design and purpose to life does not mean that it has defied all God's own laws but only that these laws have worked (in a way we may not understand) to a plan and a purpose. I think it would be unfortunate if such a careless statement allows opponents to attack the whole film as advocating the supernatural as an alternative to science. It is in fact only in this one place that such a statement is made and I rather think it is an unfortunate slip rather than the views of the scientists. A more appropriate statement would have been that the complexities of life cannot be explained by mere unplanned, random chance.
I found the arguments about 'irreducible complexity' less convincing than most of the video and the discussion of the alternative "co-option" theory somewhat peremptory, but this is probably just a personal view. I would have liked to have seen more discussion about probability and the To head off accusations that this is just Christian propaganda, the views of non-Christian scientists who have raised doubts about Darwinism could have been cited. Michael Denton who I believe called himself an agnostic is mentioned in passing, but there are others that could be quoted to One criticism levelled against 'Intelligent Design' is that it is not a theory, because it cannot be tested scientifically. The film answers this to some extent by using scientific information in arguments supporting the precepts of design. In fact the same criticism, non-testability, can be levelled at Darwinism: it is impossible to prove that evolution was guided exclusively by chance and natural selection. My own opinion is that neither ‘Intelligent Design' nor Darwinism are more scientific in this classic sense. Both theories depend on explaining observed evidence by applying a worldview. In one case that worldview is that there can be no pre-ordained design or purpose to the universe and the other that there may be. It is possible to stretch explanation and credibility to fit either view. I happen to agree with the proposal in the film that the observable data fits better with a universe designed for a purpose. To critics of the design approach I would say: view the film and carefully consider its arguments. Even if some of the arguments may not to stand up to rigorous scientific investigation, they have already stimulated some intelligent discussion about the interpretation of our world. At the very least this should release biological science from the sterile rut it has been in for the last few decades where everything has been interpreted unquestioningly through the Darwinian paradigm.
The ideas expressed in the film are not the end of the debate, and its proponents do not say they are: rather this is the beginning of a new debate which no longer takes for granted pure Darwinism, but questions the real driving forces behind the development of the universe. Rather than stifle science, I predict it will give it whole new impetus. In short I would recommend this film as an excellent starting point in understanding the implications of observing the natural world. It may not win over many ardent Darwinists, but it should help even them, to understand some of the implications and shortcomings of their own worldview. David E F Harrison, FTSE. FIBiol. B. Tech. PhD |