I Origins Is Irreducibly Irritating
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Flatland is not only a satirical novella but one of the most influential pop maths books of all time. It's such a genius way of introducing ideas about space. (See also, Flatterland which was a kind of homage/sequel to Flatland by Ian Stewart)
I was kind of hoping there would be more... discussion in that discussion, but it's so full of notes: and digressions that it just feels like so much fluff and background noise. The only point of interest I can see is Pitt calling the MPDG trope "bullshit," but for all the extra words he didn't say much of anything.
I suppose that's par for the course with interviews like these, but if you're not able to have an intelligent, candid discussion about a film idea or role... what's the point?
I suppose that's par for the course with interviews like these, but if you're not able to have an intelligent, candid discussion about a film idea or role... what's the point?
it's ironic he calls it bullshit because he dances around the issue when in act the character actually IS that damn trope. He just doesn't want to admit it.Kieve said:
Besides the point, the irreducible complexity of the eye is already recognized as untrue. All living tissue reacts to light (usually, it burns). From there, it becomes a simple matter for primitive light-sensitive organs to develop, being able to detect the light in broad ways and from there, it's just a matter of slowly refining how sensitive the organ is until you have the eye. There are, in fact, several species that we've discovered which have proto-eyes. I believe the tuatara is one example, which has a third proto-eye that assists in in maintaining its circadian rhythm (we think, although we're not sure; this naturally assumes I'm remembering correctly). So the actual premise is downright bullshit at the core, as some basic research into the subject would have turned up.
Yeah, I haven't seen the movie (and have zero interest in doing so), so I don't feel confident asserting opinions on it myself. But nor did I read anything in that interview that struck me as "she's not, here's why."AxelxGabriel said:
The rest of the interview posted is much the same. Bob asks question, Cahill or Pitt responds with something tangential and empty that doesn't address the question, and I'm left wondering "why did I bother reading at all?" There's no 'getting to the bottom' of anything, or getting anywhere.
Ugh. Just ugh. I was really looking forward to iOrigins if only because the work produced by its makers/actors (Another Earth, Sound of my Voice, and The East) was all very fresh and interesting. Its a shame that it sounds like not only would I not care for their new movie, but actively hate it.
Still, I owe it at least a watch given how much I liked their previous work. Maybe once its out on Netflix I'll give it a go.
Still, I owe it at least a watch given how much I liked their previous work. Maybe once its out on Netflix I'll give it a go.
Wait, you have a "brilliant" scientist who's project is being executed with the goal of knocking down irreducible complexity? That whole premise is friggin' nonsense. Why would any scientist, let alone a "brilliant" one, waste time on a project who's stated goal is to disprove something that is ludicrous on its face? Granted the filmmakers certainly don't seem to see it this way, but that's just headache-inducing all on its own. Irreducible complexity is barely a coherent idea, let alone something scientists would be spending time "trying to disprove." Ugh...
Regardless of which way you want to spin it these sorts of films/literature are always annoying because they have an angle they want to push and mold the other side of the argument into whatever form they need to help emphasize the tone/point of the narrative.
This is something that can be used in both directions, it's bullshit either way and always come off as incredibly smug.
This is something that can be used in both directions, it's bullshit either way and always come off as incredibly smug.
Well if our "Brilliant Scientists" want to go after God then they are (once again) going about it in the wrong way.
Look, the big problem with Atheistic Evolution is that they can't prove that you can go from non-life to life using purely scientific means.
By definition science must be repeatable so if life arose via naturalistic means then you should be able to replicate it in a lab. Until then the atheistic theory is just as much of a faith-based position as my theistic one.
Look, the big problem with Atheistic Evolution is that they can't prove that you can go from non-life to life using purely scientific means.
By definition science must be repeatable so if life arose via naturalistic means then you should be able to replicate it in a lab. Until then the atheistic theory is just as much of a faith-based position as my theistic one.
You're confusing abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution is the process of organisms evolving over time - The key being that it starts from something and describes how that thing changes. Abiogenesis is the process of life arising from non-life, which is really what you're talking about here.seiler88 said:
There is a significant amount of work into demonstrating abiogenesis in a lab, and a number of key principals (Such as the generation of organic components from inorganic ones) have been demonstrated. Research is far from complete, but it is progressing - it's less 'we don't know how this happened' and more 'we don't know exactly which ingredients were used just yet.'
But that's beside the point, which is that none of this is attacking God at all, merely expanding our knowledge of how the physical laws of the universe interact. Unless you define God not only as creator of life but the only individual capable of generating an organic being from inorganic matter, this discovery would not directly threaten your faith. A number of Christian groups (including the Catholic Church if I recall correctly) accept evolution as the method by which God modified life. It is probable that should a complete explanation for abiogenesis be uncovered it would simply be added to religious canon as 'how God did what he did' rather than as proof that God didn't do it at all.
Really it's less a war between Christians and Atheists and more a war between those who feel that knowing it happened is good enough and those who wish to see how the trick was done - regardless of who (if anybody) performed it.
You're assuming that the conditions that created life are currently reproducable in a lab. Earth was a radically different place when life was first formed, everything since then has been adaptation to a changing environment. There's also the question of sample size, it's also possible that the process requires an ocean-sized body of liquid to recreate that first lifeform. It's like asking a caveman to split the atom, they don't have the tools to do it.seiler88 said:
Hilarious article, Bob! The hate is tong in this one. Once I saw Bob rant about I Origins in the first minute of his Lucy review, I knew he would hate it. That one woman Just had Manic Pixie Dream girl written all over her. I don't know what "twee" means in this context, but I think it's meant to be insulting.
Wait. Oh no. He included a link to a TVTropes page! Must...not...click... NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Wait. Oh no. He included a link to a TVTropes page! Must...not...click... NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Hell, I even think the whole conceit of reincarnated people having the same eyes as the person who lived before them is kind of a neat idea. But this whole thing is like having some super scientist setting up an experiment to disprove intelligent design or a geologist grappling with the difficulty of showing the Earth is older than 6,000 years. It's just a hugely nonsensical proposition.CaitSeith said:
There is a little difference between faith-based theories and scientific-based theories: Faith-based are unquestionable and rarely get replaced. Scientific ones are debated by scientists and put into test as soon as technology allows it, until they are either replaced with more accuarate ones (or debunked totally) or are proven true and become laws (heck! Scientists are even trying to recreate the Big Bang!).seiler88 said:
Others have tackled the "problem" with "atheistic" evolution, so I guess that just leaves this.
Atheism is a single point of belief. It doesn't even address science. You will see a higher instance of atheists in scientific fields, but that doesn't mean anything. You have atheists with no interest in methodology, verification or falsification.
Well, no. "Atheist" only means that you don't believe in God. Everything else is up for grabs. An atheist can believe in new age, supernatural stuff, aliens, pop sci, etc.Hiramas said:
Atheism is a single point of belief. It doesn't even address science. You will see a higher instance of atheists in scientific fields, but that doesn't mean anything. You have atheists with no interest in methodology, verification or falsification.