Sunday, March 9, 2008

Putting a new light on taking Pinhole-perfect pictures

Why are people in old black and white pictures never smiling?
Is it possible to make a camera out of a paint can?
Where did our modern-day photography begin?

Photography: (from the Greek) writing with light
I'm going to take you back in time. Hope you're okay with that. This is not going to be boring, but you have to hang with me closely. It's spring of 2007. My teacher just finished announcing that he will be requiring all of his students to complete a science project by the end of the year. He will allow us to partner up in groups of twos and threes. A couple of my girlfriends from school latch together, and I wheedle into the group as humble master-mind of the project. For our science project, we bounce around a few ideas, but the greatest idea of all sticks.

We're going to build a camera. At first, I thought - my but this will be a challenge! But I pictured myself rising to the occasion, and with the help of my ingenious partners, we would order all of the parts and piece together an awesome digital camera for all to be impressed by. (I should tell you now that each of us in turn were mechanically challenged by nature) My teacher seemed amused, and suggested the 'Pinhole Camera' as a better alternative. The words fell like sweet music on young ears. I had never heard of 'making a camera' out of a 'paint can, or oatmeal canister', and then developing the film into a negative. The whole idea sounded horribly unique, but - why not at least research the idea? We soon learned it was a simple enough process - one learned by patience, experience, and a good sense of humor.
We cleaned up a paint can, and that was our camera body. In my friends basement, one of us spray painted the can with flat black paint. That dried nicely. On the side opposite the lid of the can, my buddies drilled a quarter sized hole. My difficult job was to cut out a square from an aluminum pie-plate and pierce the middle through with a good-sized needle. That pie-plate hole was our 'pinhole'. We taped that pie plate behind the quarter size hole. In front of the hole, we taped black construction paper on with black duct tape. Ta-da! We were so proud of our camera!
The hard part came when we set up our 'dark room'. We used a back stairway in our school for our light-proof room. Our 'red light' was the EXIT sign that was above the door. We set up four pans for the developing process (which I'll explain later), and laid down garbage bags to protect the carpet. The only expense in the process was in buying 'Ilford RC Film Paper', and ’Developer’ and ‘Fixer'. The 'Ilford RC Film Paper' was taped inside the lid (opposite our pinhole) while we were in the dark room. It was very important that the film not be exposed to light until we were ready to take our picture. I should add, that we (the official amateurs) became 'friends' with a photo-shop man named Dirk, who walked us through much of our problems over the phone.

This is the paragraph where I explain why the film works. The film is made up of tiny light-sensitive particles, that creates a chemical record of the pattern of light when exposed to a real image. When light hit’s the film, it undergoes a chemical reaction. The spots that were hit by the sun, are made darker when they are developed. Developing this white film paper in a dark room, turns the film into a negative.
All right, so we had it all set up. The biggest question was 'will it work?'. We didn't expect much, because after all - it was just a paint can. But we thought it would be cool if we could prove all of our hard work to our friends with an actual print. Just one good picture. That was all we wanted. Our first picture was a close up of a flower.
That was our first mistake. Pinhole pictures are best taken of distant landscape, like a barn or a house. We also HELD the camera while we waited for the 30 seconds exposure time to be fulfilled. That was our second mistake. Humans naturally shake when they're trying to hold something perfectly still for 30 seconds. A pinhole camera needs to be carefully set on a stand, and the picture needs to be taken with your back facing away from the sun.
(this is not a pinhole pic. It was taken with my awesome KODAK digital)

When we barricaded ourselves in the dark room and developed that first picture (4 easy steps), we were distinctly disappointed to see little blots. Then, my friend started screaming with excitement. "I see a flower! I see a flower! See - those are the seeds... or the petals!" We all looked closer, analyzing the shapeless blobs. I said, "It looks like the fork I used to move it around left some dots. See?" We all had different opinions of what it was - but, clearly, it was nothing impressive - especially since we all had to interpret it. A picture should be clear and the details distinct.

Our disappointment only mounted through the following desperate attempts, and we soon learned that the dark room was the perfect place for heated conversations and misunderstandings. It wasn't until Dirk told me, "You guys are using a stand, right? A stand to put your camera on? Because it will not work without a still image and a still camera." I stumbled in answering that one, and decided that we would try to take a picture one last time. We must have looked an odd three-some, down by the road menacingly pointing a paint can on a stand at the world.
We went inside and shut the dark-room door firmly behind us. On the door was a note-book-paper sign with large lettering. 'Developing in process. Do not disturb - under any circumstances!' We were very serious about our developing process. There was nothing more annoying than a promising picture ruined by the opening of a door by a smiling curious peer.
Our eyes piercing through the dim red EXIT light, and our noses dulled by chemical fumes, we ran the picture through the Photographic development process.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Recipe for Developing
A dark room with red light
4 13x9 Pyrex Pans

(2 min.) In pan #1: ½ cup developer and one cup water
Actually a reducing agent, the developer changes silver ions into silver metal. The grains of particles on the film that have latent-image sites will develop more rapidly than the other particles.
(30 sec.) In pan #2: water
Here the water stops the developing process.

(2 min.) In pan #3: 1 cup fixer and 2 cups water
The fixer dissolves the silver-halide crystals and leaves only the silver metal behind.
(5 min.) In pan #4: water
All the chemical products are washed off, and the picture is ready to be dried.

Get a clothespin, and a hanger, and hang out your print to dry.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Even in the darkness, it was clear we had our first good picture. Our victorious screaming was unanimous. We could not believe the details that a paint can and a back stairway had produced!

After that successful print, we became very secretive toward our inquisitive peers, and enthusiastically threw ourselves into taking more pictures. Our excitement had been revived by success, and I must tell you, there was nothing more satisfying than watching the film develop before our eyes in our very own homemade studio!
We even posed for a picture and had a hapless friend 'open the shutter flap' (which was nothing more than a piece of black construction paper) and hold perfectly still for 30 seconds exposure time.
It was very difficult to hold our smiles still, and during the entire picture I hissed, "Don't laugh. Don't move. Don't breathe."
Later, I developed the negatives we had created into 'positives'. This I did through a great little shop called ArtsCameras Plus. (http://www.artscameras.com/) They sent two of those pictures off and called me when they were done.

















Over time, the pinhole camera became a dusty memory underneath my bed, along with our smudged prints. The upgraded paint can was very unhappy down there, I was certain, because when I pulled it out one summer day, it seemed to cling to me. I decided independantly to go purchase more chemicals on my own, and then take pictures of my own.
I clothed my bathroom window in black garbage bags, blocking out all light (my dark room). I took a flashlight and covered taped a scrap of red tissue paper on top of it (that became my red light). After purchasing liquid chemicals, I was ready. I dedicated a whole day to running in and out of my house, clutching a paint can and aiming it at curious objects. This kind of operation was repeated several times throughout the following seasons, but even such well-planned sessions were not without their failures.

That brings me to today. Yay! Today is a good day. The sun is shining (albeit making the snow sparkle), and I'm writing in my blog!

When I decided that Pinhole Pictures was to be the topic of my next article, I set about researching the matter thoroughly (google! yay!). I figured that while I'm at it, I might as well answer a few remaining key questions people have about photography.

Why are people in old black and white pictures never smiling? Where did our modern-day photography begin?

I'm sure you can guess the answer to the first question. When my friends and I smiled in our picture, we had to hold our smiles perfectly still for 30 seconds (difficult). Even then, our smiles created shadows and altogether blotted our mouths out on the prints. That was unanticipated. Another thing to consider, is that in the 1700-1800s, orthodontists were a thing of the future. It's possible that people were not all that proud of having their crooked teeth photographed.

In answer to the second question, I deliver up at your feet my fascinating research on this intriguing subject of ours. Indeed, I promise you will learn something new today.

For those of you Chinese reading this, you’ll be interested to know that your ancestors (of 5th century B.C.) were the first people to write about the use of the Pinhole camera, when an upside down image was exposed on a wall from a pinhole that was on the opposite wall.
Aristotle (4th century B.C.) wanted to know why "when light shines through a rectangular peep-hole, it appears circular in the form of a cone?" He obviously dealt with the pinhole image formation in his work.
The Pinhole Camera (camera obscura) was used in the 1500s by artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci to help them draw pictures. Outside the dark room a persons’ or objects’ image was reflected on a piece of paper. The artist would then trace the image.
In 1724, Johann Heinrich Schultz discovered that a silver and chalk mixture darkens when it is exposed to light, but still didn’t know how to make lasting pictures with that knowledge.
The year 1826 dawned brightly when a French scientist, Joseph Nicephore Niepce, put a plate coated with an ancient form of asphalt (bitumen) in a pinhole camera. With the camera pointed at his house for eight hours he created a photograph!
This phenomenon was expounded on by Louis J.M. Daguerre, who developed the ‘daguerreotype’ method of taking a negative image, where the mirrored surface of the metal plate reflects the image and makes it appear positive in the proper light. People were amazed to see the Degeuerreotype studios, and declared their images to be “mirrors with a memory”.
The daguerreotype was the first quality look at the camera. The Library of Congress holds 725 pictures taken in 1839-1864. The earliest pictures of the President Abe Lincoln and his wife were taken using the daguerreotype, and the well-known picture of Edgar Allan Poe in 1848 was a daguerreotype. The daguerreotype was the first successful photographic process to be invented. However, it’s biggest drawback was that it was a direct photographic process without the capacity for duplication.
The Calotype, also known as 'Talbotype', offered a more sensitive medium through its use of the latent image phenomenon. This refined process of photogenic drawing was invented by Fox Talbot in September 1840.

In the 1900s, Kodak came out with the ‘Brownie Camera’. This pinhole camera was sold to children for just $1. The name of the Brownie Camera came from the cartoon’s of Palmer Cox. His Brownie characters of 1880 were like the children-adored Walt Disney characters of today. Kids were encouraged to join the Brownie Camera Club, win prizes, and participate in the pure enjoyment of capturing a special memory. The Brownie Camera was a chance for everybody to involved in the wonders of photography. You can find those camera’s all over eBay now.
Taking a giant leap through the evolving of the camera we come to the Polaroid Land Camera, which was invented in 1947. It was the first to produce instant pictures within 60 seconds, and was the most popular camera for a time.
Now, you might ask - why would it take 60 seconds for a picture to be taken? Is that why people didn’t smile in pictures back then?
Think of it this way. With the Polaroid Land Camera, it took 60 seconds for the sun to expose the film to a real image and dye the light-sensitive chemical particles of the film into a negative.
Try to hold a smile perfectly for 60 seconds. You can’t move an inch, or relax your face at all, or the print will turn out fuzzy. But compare this with camera’s before that time - which involved hours of exposure time. The Calotype took anywhere from 10 sec-60 sec. In contrast, daguerreotype needed 25 minutes exposure time; a large improvement from the original 8 hours it had taken.
You can create a Pinhole camera by getting a box that lets no light in except for a tiny hole on one end. Then place film or photographic paper on the other end.
This site will show you how to make a pinhole camera very simply out of an oatmeal canister: users.rcn.com/stewoody/makecam.htm
Also try:
http://www.agendanation.net/20/pinhole
Another: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/education/lessonPlans/pinholeCamera/

Today, we’ve arrived at a different world of cameras. Obviously, in this grand 21st century of ours, it is no sweat to come by a decent digital camera for $100, and it’s amazing how many children barely know how to write, but can easily operate a Kodak camera. For the folks who don’t care to buy a digital camera, most have camera’s built into their cell phones anyway. So pinhole camera’s have become pretty unnecessary. But not everyone has forgotten the pinhole camera. In fact, many teachers involve their students in making pinhole cameras and taking pinhole pictures for science projects to teach them the simple fundamentals of how photography works . For others, pinhole pictures are considered an art, a hobby, or a relaxing and enjoyable past-time.

Thankfully for us, the Pinhole Camera process is one of the simplest forms of photography. I took advantage of that, and now I understand a bit better how photography has evolved into the Kodak camera I hold in my hand today.
Naturally, the cup of intrigue I sipped from long ago, I now pass to you.
The following pictures are of a few negatives shot around my house. I looked through the pinhole in my paint can and sized up the image I would be shooting (adjusting a music stand and weight props to the right position). Then I went into my dark room, taped a crudely cut piece of film under the lid, and firmly hammered the lid shut. With my thumb holding the black construction flap over the hole, I placed the camera on the stand and pointed it the correct direction. The time of day does matter, because I had to make sure my back was to the sun when I shot pictures. The flap was opened, the clock was watched carefully for the second 30 seconds was over. During the frigid winter weather, when I had helpless family members pose, they declared that it was the longest 30 seconds of their lives. Indeed, the clock hand did freeze during a couple shoots.

Regardless, the following prints are the results of those sessions. Look at them carefully. They are negatives, so you should understand that everything is mirrored, and all things naturally white (like sunlight and sky) show up as black (shadow and black). It has been a fun challenge for many of my friends to tell me exactly what the images are. The details are fairly good, but the natural human eye is challenged beyond the natural state of what it expects.
So, the cup is passed to you: What exactly do you see?





















PICTURE #1
(what season is it? what is the central object?)












PICTURE #2
(why do the objects look like they're on fire?)





















PICTURE #3
(what season is it? is the man in the door way standing or sitting?)









PICTURE #4

(which is man or woman? winter or summer? where/what is the shadow image? what kind of building do they stand by? what are they standing on?)






12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this education on the pin hole camera! What a miracle!

Unknown said...

Thank you ruthie. You make the world a better place. ;)

Unknown said...

Hah, that sounds so stupid, mom.

Anonymous said...

AWH!!!!!! THAT'S SO AWESOME!


seriously, our project was THE best. :P

even with all our disagreements. it was still a lot of fun. and it was really fun to read that and remember all the stuff we did. we should for sure do it again sometime. :D

lots of luv, Emmalee

Anonymous said...

Hey Andi,

Not sure if you've decided to close down on me..... I spent some time writing that last comment, plus the interesting links I sent you on your evolution thread.

Hope I didn't offend you somehow.

I hope you feel you can continue to discuss things like evolution, especially with someone like David M, who's definately more "qualified" than me! Obviously, I understand that you probably don't want your entire blog to become some big creationism debate! But then, you did start it ;)

In the meantime, have fun with the pinhole camera! I did that as a kid, great fun.
Not enormously related, but I was looking at some photographs of a very different kind the other day: pretty wow I have to say!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/gallery/2008/mar/10/medicalresearch.photography?lightbox=1
or, same photos different link:
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/wia/index.html

The greatest photos ever taken in history I think is the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field photographs. These photos are amazing: they zoomed in with the telescope on a patch of sky that basically looks empty, and essentially zoomed in as far as they could. What they saw was pretty amazing: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/56533main_MM_image_feature_142_jwfull.jpg

That's the Ultra Deep Field photo, 11 days of exposure.
Thousands of amazingly distant galaxies, never before seen. The universe is HUGE! A video here with a "zoom" puts the picture in context with the sky: http://anon.nasa-global.speedera.net/anon.nasa-global/hubble_udf/zoom1.mov
And this guy's website has some interesting info about the photos - well, his refers to the non-ultra deep field photos, but they're basically the same thing.

Cool eh???

It can inspire you to see the amazingness of God's creation - or, it can inspire me as to the awesome majesty of the universe and the impossibility of God, and perhaps the arrogance of us humans to think that we are a big deal in the universe, and that a creator of THIS would ever care to be so trivial as to answer prayers etc - it doesn't matter what we think, it's just an awesome photograph!!

By the way,

I'm happy to post on your website, so long as you reply! If you want to converse more privately, then feel free to email me at servantmalchus@hotmail.com

If you want me to just bugger off, then you can tell me that too. (!)

Anonymous said...

Or maybe my last comments didn't get through....?
That photography one went straight through, behaved differently to last time.....
Hmmm, maybe you DIDN'T get my second long-winded one about religion and whatnot on your previous post....
If you didn't... Blast!! It took me ages of stream-of-consciousness to write that!

Unknown said...

hey! which one didn't I reply to? I'm totally getting what you're saying, what did you want a reply to? And the photograph thing sounds awesome! I'm not home right now (visiting my sisters), so I'm going to have to check it out tomorrow. But I appreciated your take on 'how I view'/'how you view' the wonder of photography.

What did you want me to reply to? Throw it at me, or tell me which of my blog article/comments to check. I took off all that comment-moderator gobbleygook. It was annoying. I feel bad - there were a couple of Dan's comments that I approved but for some reason disappeared. - don't know what happened with that, that's why I took off the moderator. I think yours made it through - it could be that I just haven't had the time to hardline study your intellectual dogma... You know, school/work/friends/church - it all keeps me busy. Plus, I thought it would be cool to just right random articles on things I KNOW about. -- obviously you have the upper vantage by having studied your field of choice for years -- extensively. I have a few friends in Biology/Chemistry/Science (including my broinlaw) but they won't help me out here.

Lame excuses, but there they are. Hope alls goin well with you. How's old phyrangula doing? Well, I expect. ;) ttyl

Anonymous said...

Hi andi!

Don't have much time to reply now. Yes, the link I gave you on the evolution thread was one of them, but I did write another long spiel on the Baby Ben post - I suspect that that never made it to you for some reason, blasted computers!! I'm not blaming you!

Anyway, in the meantime, here's something I just saw re: early photography, thought you and your project classmates might find it interesting: the world of early photography: http://www.neatorama.com/2006/08/29/the-wonderful-world-of-early-photography/

Funny you mention Pharyngula and the movie Expelled! There's considerable discussion going over at Pharyngula about that now. Particularly for example the fact that PZ Myers was interviewed for it, but that he was told he was being interviewed for a different project. But, that's what the people behind this film have been doing a lot of - same with Dawkins. It will be interested to see how their words are edited to try and extract from them whatever meaning/slant the movie producers want.

I shall do another post on Expelled for you sometime soon when I have time.

It's slightly hard to comment on it, of course, as it hasn't actually been released yet. But from all accounts, and people who have seen it, and the general thrust of the publicity we have seen, it's not worth your intellectual time. But you'll probably go see it anyway, not least because they're paying for church and school children to see it.

It's propoganda, nothing more. It's from the sort of people who say "I think there are problems with evolution. Have YOU ever seen a half-monkey, half-human?" thereby demonstrating their complete ignorance about the actual theory. Crikey, if we DID find a half-monkey, half-human, it would DISPROVE the theory of evolution!!!

Anyway, more on Expelled later....

See ya!

Unknown said...

Hey, thanks for the links. Very enlightening - I wish I'd seen them earlier. I don't know if you saw this one, but it's a pretty cool link off of one of the sites you gave me.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/p?pp/app,grabill,lomax,pan,wtc,ils,vv,gottscho,detr,bbcards,prok,nclc,fsa:@FILREJ(@FIELD(CALL%2B@od1(LOT%205357))%2B@FIELD(COLLID%2Bcoll))::SortBy=DOCID

All that jumble stuff should take you to a page of pictures taken using thousands of American soldiers that stood to create large shapes.

Anyways, thought that was pretty sweet. ;) Have a grand weekend.

Unknown said...

That's interesting what you said about the Movie Expelled.

I ran across some other perspectives that you and your buddies down at Phyrangula would find interesting.

http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2007/10/expelled-movie-its-about-censorship.html

And more on religion, this looked intriguing.

http://www.kathleenkennedytownsend.com/

I believe she was one of the people interviewed for the movie Expelled.

I think its not even all bad for you and your friends that this movie is coming out. It looks like its got some good thought-provokers, and since you guys are so well-established in your dogma, the movie should be more of an amusement - less of a threat. ;)

Anonymous said...

Hi andi,

Yup those photos of soldiers are pretty cool - must've been a lot of organisation to put them together!

Your expelled link is ultimately not very interesting.

The point is true: a film called "crossroads: the intersection of religion and science" is clearly a film that will represent both sides of the debate. A film called "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" is not! Dawkins makes a point specifically of not granting intervies with people with a creationist/ID agenda. He doesn't wish to give them oxygen of publicity, has had many bad experiences of being "re-edited" and taken out of context, plus they ask stupid questions ;)

The rest of the post is a quote from the producers.

“People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale,” said Walt Ruloff, co-executive producer and co-founder of Premise Media, which is producing the film."

Well, that is true. It's not "elitist". If you do the hard work to become a highly regarded biologist/scientist, then you are "elite." In the sense that you are, in fact, more informed about the subject than the general ignorant public. Again, "ignorant" is not actually an insult, it simply means "not knowing something." The vast majority of America is ignorant about biology. Their sum knowledge is that "people have sex and babies come out" and "people say we used to be monkeys." That's ignorant, whether you find the term offensive or not. This is the movie team manufacturing it's own furore: "look, these people are calling you ignorant!!" Er... well... yes? As for the fairy tale... well, it is pretty miraculous: I usually see talking snakes and magic fruit in fairytales; I don't expect them to form a major part of a science class.

"He continued to say that his company agreed to take up the film’s production because they “believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth.”"

Absolutely. This is what science does better than any other discipline. Do you think the best way to find truth is to make a propoganda-film? If ID is actually serious science, as they keep claiming, why is the best they can do is make a film with Ben Stein of all people, that seems actually to spend most of it's time hilariously trying to link charles darwin with Stalin!!?

"The film’s original title was Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion, according to U.K.-based The Guardian. The film company said the movie's title was changed, on the advice of marketing experts."

We haven't seen it yet. The only people who have so far are invited pastors, aside from a couple of people who have slipped through their carefully controlled net. Non-disclosure agreements; stage managed press conferences where journalists aren't allowed to ask questions, except for "plants" from religious organisations. And they claim that there is some sort of "Big Science" conspiracy? Who's the group conspiring and stifling dissent here??!!

If the "marketing experts" had any sense, they probably realised that the crossroads title was totally inappropriate, as the film is so one sided!

The thing is, the film doesn't, as far as we know, have any good thought provokers. From all we have seen so far: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html
It's a giant rehash of the factually wrong attempts to equate darwin with hitler and stalin. It's lacks even a basic attempt to define evolution as it actually is understood by scientists. It big deliberately sets up this weird "Big Science" thing, trying to create a "Big tobacco" conspiracy where there isn't one. It's just laughable to scientists to suggest there's a "Big Science". They use people like Sternberg as being "expelled" - not really true when you really look at it. He was not sacked, cos he was already retiring. He by-passed all the standard review procedures, and made a bad judgement calls. He wasn't "sacked" from the Smithsonian etc etc.

The really amazing thing: This movie is the BEST ID-proponents have come up with. For all their claims of science, they've been at it for years and have come up with nothing. They have tried to force it into schools, and failed: see th dover trial: judge ruled intelligent design is not science. Simple.

Expelled is their last ditch effort: it will fail miserably as anything to do with science, it will fail to advance anything positive in terms of knowledge and research on behalf of the intelligent-design community: but it will succeed with it's target audience (religious people with no science education), and it knows that and is going after THEM!

If they had a "killer blow" to the scientific establishment, I think they really ought to have shown a few scientists by now, so as to shame them into submission. Of course, they know they don't have anything of the sort: it's not about science, it's about propoganda, and they're paying bribes to schools that bring kids to see it, and they're filling the preview-screenings with pastors to "mobilise the faithful."

That's all it is: it's propoganda, and that should be extremely clear even to an intelligent person like you from the way it is marketed. If their arguments could stand up to scrutiny, they would not dare be so careful about who they're showing it to.

It's actually really sad.

Here's an interesting documentary:
Nova's piece "intelligent design on trial" documents the Dover trial, in which the "expert scientists" who came to defend "Intelligent design" collapsed and essentially admitted that the ID movement is nothing more than a push to teach biblical-creationism in science class, and, ultimately, through the wedge document, eradicate anything non-christian all-together. Very sad in a country like america that prides itself in freedom of religion. (any religion.)

Watch the whole thing here: It's reasonably long, but divided here into comfortable chunks.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

BTW.... bet you still haven't watched all the vids at youtube.com/potholer54 have you?

The scientific community has been waiting for years with bated breath for any "thought provoking ideas" from ID. All ID boils down to is really "irreducible complexity" which, while impressive sounding, is really another way of saying "gosh that's complex, I can't understand it, so it must be God."

This is clearly demonstrated in the nova film above when Michael Behe, a principal advocate of the ID strategy and of "irreducible complexity" made claims about bacterial flaggelum's "irreducible complexity" in court, and then was flaggelated himself after being presented with mounds of scientific evidence disproving one of the main tenets of "irreducible complexity" and then describing clearly how the bacterial flaggelum could have evolved.

Etc etc.

Sometimes it's really tiring typing about this stuff.

Just watch the videos if you can spare some time: NOVA above and potholer54 on youtube.

I'm looking forward to Expelled too... but only to see how funny it is, and then weep when most of america falls for it's nonsense.

Or maybe it will turn out to be an erudite contribution to the scientific debate over the origins of life..... but then, if they had such an erudite contribution, they would have published it by now so..... all we got is a movie with "Win Ben Stein's Money" as the host poking fun at things, and probably getting paid a whole load to do it by wealthy churches.

Unknown said...

Voltare44:
"The point is true: a film called "crossroads: the intersection of religion and science" is clearly a film that will represent both sides of the debate." A film called "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" is not!"

But you don't know that. Neither of us know exactly what sides of the argument it will represent. Obviously the film is out to question the evolutionary theory, but the fact that they interviewed scientists who believe it wholeheartedly says that they did their research. It might mean that they have more grounds to produce the film than you think. Admittedly, if they had only discussed scientific methods with creationists, there would have been no adversity - and very little inside perspective. That does not make a movie. As it is, it sounds like they spoke directly to Dawkins and other such scientists. I imagine he's thinking back through everything he said and wondering how their going to use it against the theory. But I guess we'll just see.

You also said:
"Dawkins makes a point specifically of not granting intervies with people with a creationist/ID agenda."

Exactly. If you ask me, that bit of title alteration was pretty clever. I realize Dawkins was probably a bit put-out, but how else could they have gotten an objective view from an evolutionist? I'm not defending everything about the movie, but if you ask me - what they did makes sense. Evolutionists (exluding some gems in the rough) don't give Creationists the time of day. This is because their ideas are annoying, completely unfounded, and built on ideals not reality. Right? But how else are Creationists supposed to go about and objectively get Dawkins opinion? By presenting an objective title and hoping to get honesty from both sides. Annoying - yes. But realistic - absolutely.

You quoted:
"The vast majority of America is ignorant about biology."

I can't help but wonder. Is this because of our school systems?

"The really amazing thing: This movie is the BEST ID-proponents have come up with. For all their claims of science, they've been at it for years and have come up with nothing. They have tried to force it into schools, and failed: see th dover trial: judge ruled intelligent design is not science. Simple."

From personal experience, I have to say I've been disappointed with the lack of proffesional Creationist material available to me growing up. However, the first look I had into the evidenced defense of Creationism was Kent Hovind. You guys rip him on that stupid tax fraud thing he was caught up in, but that was just one part of his beliefs that he was too extreme in. He believed he shouldn't have a social security number, whereas I believe that if you are going to be in America and benefiting from this culture, you need to be paying your taxes - contributing beneficially to the society you live in. So that I disagree with, and I'm sure there are other issues to. But didn't he have a sum of money going that no evolutionists could prove evolution? As far as I know - he never payed out any money.

I liked how you said 'they tried to FORCE creationism into schools'. And since 'a judge' ruled it wasn't science, then that makes 'the judge' THE sovereign head of science or something? No - a judge is a fallible human too. And who's to say the judge went on purely evidence? Creationism is scorned enough - why shouldn't the judge feel pressure and prejudice to scorn it as well? And you know what I find so humorous? Public School systems can only teach Evolutionary theories of Science (and I know that seems hard headed of me, but it's true) but they are required to teach 'varities of relationships between men, women, and animals' (to put it gently). Is one moral and the other not? Is that why the lack of Christian (yes now I mean Christian, just general good moraled people) understanding in BOTH areas of Public school curriculums? Ug. I don't get it. Everything I believe, seems to have a whole online network against it.

"Sometimes it's really tiring typing about this stuff."

Hah. Tell me about it. Sorry I put you through it. I should tell you - I can't access youtube. My great internet protection thingy magiger won't let the site through.

"I'm looking forward to Expelled too... but only to see how funny it is, and then weep when most of america falls for it's nonsense."

Ahaha, that made me laugh. ;) Ug, I'm frustrated. You're right. We Creationists do try to 'simplify' the 'mumbo jumbo scientific stuff' - and I would venture that many of us fail when it comes to debating scientists who have been in the field a lengthy bit. But I think the reason why, is because we are not being educated. The curriculum I've been raised on is Creationist without a fault. You knew that, probably. But the curriculum most kids my age has been evolutionistic without a fault. I wish there was a way to be taught both theories and taught how defend the theory of your choice. After all, some may say kids should not be allowed to choose - but kids are given the choice to choice whether they're straight or gay. That's a hard issue to present to kids. Kids are supposed to question religion, home choice, marriage, sex, morals - everything but evolution. Don't disagree with me on that. It's true. You harp on how 'yes! yes! question science - discover - learn!' - but STILL 'learning' and 'discovering' and 'questioning' are only allowed within the realms of Evolution and the theory it represents.

La, I've been typing so long my legs are numb. Nevertheless, thank you for the stimulating discussion. ;) ttyl

p.s. do you cook? you REALLY should try those cookies - the unique flavor will melt you to your knees. Guarantee it. ;)

Virgin Diaries


A lot happens on couches. Movie night. Good book. Morning coffee. Making out. Making out. Making out.

Pull up a couch if you want to read about it.