The film is called "I Origins."
A Smart Movie That Questions Evolution
[it] ... revolves around around (sic) the concept of ”irreducible complexity,” the argument put forth by proponents of intelligent design who believe some biological systems are too intricate to have evolved naturally.Yup, it's the same ID drivel we've seen spewed forth by the Discovery Institute all shined up and polished into a slick smart film at Sundance.
The director, Mike Cahill, gives us the goal of this film.
Make a movie compelling enough that even an evolutionary biologist or staunch atheist might stop and ponder.Right. Because over a century of science-based discovery just doesn't cut it? This film, however...
In the film, a young molecular biology Ph.D. student named Ian Gray (Michael Pitt) is researching the development of the eyes — organs often cited by intelligent design proponents as examples of “irreducible complexity” – in an attempt to put the argument to rest forever. In the process, he discovers that eyes may not be the unique fingerprints we think they are, and may even have deeper and more ethereal purposes.Uhm, what? Okay, I guess we'll need to see the movie to be able to decipher this cryptic message. But it doesn't bode well at all. Not unique fingerprints... God?
It’s believed that the irises of the eyes are as unique as fingerprints, but after Ian meets a Sofi (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey), a girl with unusually beautiful eyes, he discovers that she may have an eye-twin somewhere out there. It’s a finding that leads the character to question if there really could be a god in the gaps.Uhm, what? I suppose this might make sense to me if I were stuck in some kind of messed up dream and hence tangled up with the screwy logic that often accompanies them. Sadly, this is real-life me reading and I have no idea what this means or how it proves any sort of god in the gaps. I guess now I need to watch the movie, eh?
Oh, by the way, Ian's the scientist and skeptic who's doing this research into the eye to prove, I guess, that they could have arisen without some form of design? Hold on, hasn't this been more or less demonstrated?
As an extra bit of irony, director Mike Cahill tries to model this character after Richard Dawkins. I'm guessing it's to facilitate some sort of wet dream fantasy for ID proponents out there who would give their right nipple to see Dawkins convert over to their side?
“I really got into Richard Dawkins [while making this movie] and kind of based the character off of him,” said Pitt. “If you could you convince Dawkins, then you will convince everybody. So we were setting up a really big challenge.”Look, it could be a very entertaining film. But do we really need to have completely junk science theories like ID set on apparently equal footing with real science? And what an extraordinary story science has to tell about the evolution of the eye -- a story that is obviously skipped by this movie.