Life on the Discovery Channel

Posted 22 March 2010 by Matt Young

Last night, I watched the the first two episodes of the series Life on the Discovery Channel. Although it had some fascinating footage (who knew that Komodo dragons were poisonous?), I thought the program as a whole was episodic and unfocused -- more like a travelogue than a science program. Still, it was a pleasure to hear narrator Oprah Winfrey refer to evolution and geologic time as the uncontroversial facts that they are. The series is on every Sunday night through April 18, and I will probably try to catch most of it.

66 Comments

Lawrence LeClaire · 22 March 2010

Dude, no worries on missing an episode. They'll only play it 2,456 times in the next month : )

Justin Wagner · 22 March 2010

I watched the UK version on blu-ray...having David Attenborough narrate was like having icing and a cherry on top.

ObSciGuy · 22 March 2010

I'll be a nerd and point out that Komomdo Dragons aren't poisonous - they're venomous ;)

There's a nice post about these lizards and their venom over at Ed Yong's blog, Not Exactly Rocket Science: Venomous Komodo Dragons kills prey with wound-and-poison tactics

Dave Luckett · 22 March 2010

Komodos are not precisely poisonous themselves - it's just that their saliva is a congenial home for some of the nastiest bacilli you ever want to meet. This is a symbiotic relationship, more or less. The lizards - they're the world's largest species of lizard - benefit from the fact that anything they bite, more or less, develops galloping gangrene. The bacilli have a home, and a congenial (to them) environment, plus spreading potential.

Dave Luckett · 22 March 2010

And now I read the article, and I'm wrong, and everything I thought was incorrect. Curse you, advancing science! Why are there no immutable truths?

John Kwok · 22 March 2010

That's a brilliant bit of science journalism from Ed Yong:

Dave Luckett said: And now I read the article, and I'm wrong, and everything I thought was incorrect. Curse you, advancing science! Why are there no immutable truths?

Had exactly the same reaction as soon as I finished reading it. But that's why science succeeds. Incidentally the lead scientist in the scientific paper Yong refers to, Brian Fry, is the same Australian scientist who has made some other important discoveries with regards to the evolutionary history of snake venom, and providing more molecular evidence demonstrating the close phylogenetic kinship between snakes and their monitor lizard relatives.

Matt Young · 22 March 2010

I'll be a nerd and point out that Komomdo Dragons aren't poisonous - they're venomous

Yes, I should have said venomous, though as Mr. Luckett points out that's not exactly right either. I don't remember exactly what the narration said. As for your being a nerd, I think "editor" is the preferred term.

Ed Yong · 22 March 2010

That was one of my favourite stories from last year. It busted a a piece of established wisdom, it made a cool predator even cooler, and the methods involved shoving a terminally ill Komodo dragon into an MRI scanner. Posts like that pretty much write themselves.

Plus, as has been pointed out, Bryan Fry is a total legend.

Glad folks are enjoying the post

John Kwok · 22 March 2010

If you keep this up, you might be giving Carl Zimmer some competition (Just kidding of course.). On a more serious note, thanks so much for a splendid piece of science journalism:

Ed Yong said: That was one of my favourite stories from last year. It busted a a piece of established wisdom, it made a cool predator even cooler, and the methods involved shoving a terminally ill Komodo dragon into an MRI scanner. Posts like that pretty much write themselves. Plus, as has been pointed out, Bryan Fry is a total legend. Glad folks are enjoying the post

James B · 22 March 2010

The second show, concerning reptiles and amphibians, had a scene with a Basilisk(sp?)
lizard on a branch, then a shot of a large flying bird, "a raptor", implying that the bird could attack the lizard. Actually, the bird was a Turkey Vulture, and that species generally does not prey on living creatures.
If the lizard was squashed on a neaby road, then perhaps; but a Turkey Vulture likely would not swoop down and snatch a lizard off of a branch overhanging a river. The photography for the series is excellent, but
the information presented seems pretty shallow so far. Dumbed down for average viewers? I don't think Oprah is a good choice for the narrator, when has she ever had a real competency in the subject matter?

John Kwok · 22 March 2010

The original narrator was Richard Attenborough. It's too bad the USA distributor opted to use Oprah instead:

James B said: The second show, concerning reptiles and amphibians, had a scene with a Basilisk(sp?) lizard on a branch, then a shot of a large flying bird, "a raptor", implying that the bird could attack the lizard. Actually, the bird was a Turkey Vulture, and that species generally does not prey on living creatures. If the lizard was squashed on a neaby road, then perhaps; but a Turkey Vulture likely would not swoop down and snatch a lizard off of a branch overhanging a river. The photography for the series is excellent, but the information presented seems pretty shallow so far. Dumbed down for average viewers? I don't think Oprah is a good choice for the narrator, when has she ever had a real competency in the subject matter?

John Kwok · 22 March 2010

Sorry about that, I got the two Attenboroughs confused. I meant actor Richard Attenborough's brother, David, who is often the voice of documentaries produced by the BBC Natural History Unit (as well as having written and produced many of them himself). I believe he wrote and produced the current Life series which Oprah Winfrey is narrating for the Discovery Channel:

John Kwok said: The original narrator was Richard Attenborough. It's too bad the USA distributor opted to use Oprah instead:
James B said: The second show, concerning reptiles and amphibians, had a scene with a Basilisk(sp?) lizard on a branch, then a shot of a large flying bird, "a raptor", implying that the bird could attack the lizard. Actually, the bird was a Turkey Vulture, and that species generally does not prey on living creatures. If the lizard was squashed on a neaby road, then perhaps; but a Turkey Vulture likely would not swoop down and snatch a lizard off of a branch overhanging a river. The photography for the series is excellent, but the information presented seems pretty shallow so far. Dumbed down for average viewers? I don't think Oprah is a good choice for the narrator, when has she ever had a real competency in the subject matter?

Jersey Jim · 22 March 2010

John Kwok said: The original narrator was Richard Attenborough. It's too bad the USA distributor opted to use Oprah instead:

I have to disagree. After all, Oprah brings a demographic that doesn't often tune in to the DC. As was already pointed out, evolutionary history and geologic time were treated as incontrovertible facts. Oprah's implied agreement with the same may make a small impression on viewers who tune in because their hero is narrating. Plus, irregardless of her initial competency in these areas, one would hope that narrating this series will make an impact on Oprah herself; in the future she may be be more critical of guests on her show who peddle anti-science. In short, why not gain a powerful ally with a broader audience than would normally be reached?

John Kwok · 22 March 2010

David Attenborough has a wonderful voice, which does an exceptional job in conveying the wonders of nature, if anyone who has seen his narrated documentaries can attest. As for Oprah, I'm not certain whether narrating this series for an American audience will have the desired effect that you suggest. Indeed, judging from her past experience, I strongly doubt it:

Jersey Jim said:
John Kwok said: The original narrator was Richard Attenborough. It's too bad the USA distributor opted to use Oprah instead:
I have to disagree. After all, Oprah brings a demographic that doesn't often tune in to the DC. As was already pointed out, evolutionary history and geologic time were treated as incontrovertible facts. Oprah's implied agreement with the same may make a small impression on viewers who tune in because their hero is narrating. Plus, irregardless of her initial competency in these areas, one would hope that narrating this series will make an impact on Oprah herself; in the future she may be be more critical of guests on her show who peddle anti-science. In short, why not gain a powerful ally with a broader audience than would normally be reached?

Peter Henderson · 22 March 2010

Well, as expected Mr Ham doesn't like it at all: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/03/22/the-typical-evolutionist-straw-man/#review

No doubt adults and children will be attracted to such a spectacularly filmed series—but at the same time, it is a dangerousprogram as such a well known USA media personality, through her narration, will indoctrinate you and your children in evolution … and that nature is god

You have been warned !

psweet · 22 March 2010

Just a minor quibble, James. I noted the same thing you did, but I believe I saw some paler color in the outer primaries, so I was thinking Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture. And although we know the thing wasn't going to grab a living Basilisk -- does the Basilisk know the difference?

James B said: The second show, concerning reptiles and amphibians, had a scene with a Basilisk(sp?) lizard on a branch, then a shot of a large flying bird, "a raptor", implying that the bird could attack the lizard. Actually, the bird was a Turkey Vulture, and that species generally does not prey on living creatures. If the lizard was squashed on a neaby road, then perhaps; but a Turkey Vulture likely would not swoop down and snatch a lizard off of a branch overhanging a river. The photography for the series is excellent, but the information presented seems pretty shallow so far. Dumbed down for average viewers? I don't think Oprah is a good choice for the narrator, when has she ever had a real competency in the subject matter?

TimonT · 22 March 2010

Beware: Oprah is Dangerous

It's nice to know that Oprah is willing to at least appear to accept evolution (with the appropriate financial inducement, of course). But that comes no where close to compensating for the fact that she promotes dangerous medical quackery on her program. See “Proof that Oprah Winfrey is utterly beyond redemption...” (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/proof_that_oprah_winfrey_is_utterly_beyo.php).

stevaroni · 22 March 2010

Peter Henderson said: Well, as expected Mr Ham doesn't like it at all: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/03/22/the-typical-evolutionist-straw-man/#review
No doubt adults and children will be attracted to such a spectacularly filmed series—but at the same time, it is a dangerousprogram as such a well known USA media personality, through her narration, will indoctrinate you and your children in evolution … and that nature is god
You have been warned !

Sweet Jesus! I'm with Ken Ham here! Can you just imagine it if little children watched this and got it into their impressionable little heads that nature was full of endless wonder and marvel and beauty! What a fiasco! Some of them could even want to be... park rangers and zookeepers and... and... oceanographers.

fnxtr · 22 March 2010

Jersey Jim said: irregardless

and you said it just to piss me off, didn't you, JJ. ;-}

MPW · 22 March 2010

John Kwok said: I meant actor Richard Attenborough's brother, David

Whoa, whoa... they're brothers?! Huh, I just googled it and it's true! How did I not know this until now? Richard's probably at least as well known as a director now. Apropos of nothing, I just last year saw his fine early performance as a baby-faced psycho gangster in the 1947 British thriller Brighton Rock, from the Graham Greene novel. Well worth your time if you can find it somewhere. To be on topic for a moment, I'm also skeptical of Winfrey's involvement and have my doubts about whether it will affect her anti-scientific tendencies. Presumably they'll release it on DVD with the (David) Attenborough narration intact, as with Planet Earth.

Robert Byers · 23 March 2010

Does Oprah know what she is talking about?
Should she be a influence on origin issues?
If creationim gets some science celebrity should that influence viewers too?
Oprah used her influence to get President Obama elected.
By the reasoning here that would make that a right idea!!

Deklane · 23 March 2010

David Attenborough is my hero! I can't get enough of those BBC nature series where he goes on location all over the world to some pretty unlikely places and narrates on the spot. Even if they have to put him in a harness and haul him up by crane to top of the South American jungle, or he gets lunged at by an elephant seal twice his size. I'm pretty sure there's a bit in a documentary about animal life in the Antarctic where there's an aerial shot of an unbroken expanse of snow -- but wait! There's a speck down there, just one black spot in the midst of vast and endless white desolation -- and it's moving! The helicopter zooms down -- and it's David in a parka trudging along and lecturing about penguins! (This is from memory, so don't take it too literally, but I seem to recall some scene like that.) I was a little disappointed by the BLUE PLANET series about oceans that he only narrated... I kept waiting for him to swim by in a scuba suit... It might be kind of fun to see Oprah do the things David does in these documentaries.

Peter Henderson · 23 March 2010

Some of them could even want to be… park rangers and zookeepers and… and… oceanographers

or go to work at the creation museum.

Stanton · 23 March 2010

Robert Byers babbled: Does Oprah know what she is talking about? Should she be a influence on origin issues? If creationim gets some science celebrity should that influence viewers too? Oprah used her influence to get President Obama elected. By the reasoning here that would make that a right idea!!

So, tell us, Mr Idiot Byers, who would make a good "science celebrity" for Creationism, one of the most infamous of all anti-science movements?

John Kwok · 23 March 2010

However, unlike Oprah, David Attenborough has a keen interest in and substantial admiration for viewing Earth's biodiversity close up, whenever it is possible for him to do so. Also unlike Oprah, he was trained in geology and zoology as a Cambridge University undergraduate. I think for many, David Attenborough has had a more substantial impact in introducing them to natural history and Earth's biodiversity than, for example, has Carl Sagan with respect to astrophysics and, in general, science. And of course, David Attenborough is my hero too:

Deklane said: David Attenborough is my hero! I can't get enough of those BBC nature series where he goes on location all over the world to some pretty unlikely places and narrates on the spot. Even if they have to put him in a harness and haul him up by crane to top of the South American jungle, or he gets lunged at by an elephant seal twice his size. I'm pretty sure there's a bit in a documentary about animal life in the Antarctic where there's an aerial shot of an unbroken expanse of snow -- but wait! There's a speck down there, just one black spot in the midst of vast and endless white desolation -- and it's moving! The helicopter zooms down -- and it's David in a parka trudging along and lecturing about penguins! (This is from memory, so don't take it too literally, but I seem to recall some scene like that.) I was a little disappointed by the BLUE PLANET series about oceans that he only narrated... I kept waiting for him to swim by in a scuba suit... It might be kind of fun to see Oprah do the things David does in these documentaries.

mharri · 23 March 2010

Didn't see it; but being a folklore and legend enthusiast, all this mention of basilisks makes me half expect one to turn any predator to stone -- maybe a salamander newly formed from an open flame.

Frank J · 23 March 2010

So, tell us, Mr Idiot Byers, who would make a good “science celebrity” for Creationism, one of the most infamous of all anti-science movements?
— Stanton

Although the anti-evolution activists would not likely pick Oprah as their spokesperson, if they did I would not be surprised if she fell for their scam. I once saw her rave about prayer as alternative medicine.

misha · 23 March 2010

The BBC version has not released yet in the US. Amazon says that BluRay will be available on June 1. I can't wait to watch this over again with Attenborough narrating. The Discovery Channel version of Planet Earth with Sigourney Weaver paled in comparison to Attenborough on the BBC. I suspect the same for Life with Oprah.

The only thing that beats David Attenborough narrating Planet Earth is pressing the mute button and watching while listening to Sigur Ros (preferablly the Parenthesis album).

Glenn · 23 March 2010

Don't give Discovery too much credit; they just agreed to fund a new show by Sarah Palin. Ugh.

John Kwok · 23 March 2010

That's depressing news. What for, I wonder:

Glenn said: Don't give Discovery too much credit; they just agreed to fund a new show by Sarah Palin. Ugh.

D. P. Robin · 23 March 2010

John Kwok said: That's depressing news. What for, I wonder:
Glenn said: Don't give Discovery too much credit; they just agreed to fund a new show by Sarah Palin. Ugh.

Maybe about the majestic moose? dpr

Glenn · 23 March 2010

Sorry, should have posted the link:

http://weblogs.variety.com/on_the_air/2010/03/discovery-lands-sarah-palins-alaska.html

Wheels · 23 March 2010

Glenn said: Sorry, should have posted the link: http://weblogs.variety.com/on_the_air/2010/03/discovery-lands-sarah-palins-alaska.html

And here I thought the Discovery Channel was going downhill before. Wonder if there'll be any mention of the threat to polar bear populations, which she ardently denied even over the cries of her own state scientists?

dNorrisM · 23 March 2010

1) I was sure Oprah got the venom think wrong as well- glad to find out the truth. 2) The show aired on 3 stations (On WOW); PLNTGRN claimed the narrator was David Attenborough, but to my diappointment, it was Oprah. Still worth seeing. 3)

So, tell us, Mr Idiot Byers, who would make a good “science celebrity” for Creationism, one of the most infamous of all anti-science movements?

"Byers?...Byers?... Anyone?"

John Kwok · 23 March 2010

Shouldn't it be obvious? Ray Comfort's pal Kirk Cameron:

dNorrisM said: So, tell us, Mr Idiot Byers, who would make a good “science celebrity” for Creationism, one of the most infamous of all anti-science movements?

catherine · 23 March 2010

"I have to disagree. After all, Oprah brings a demographic that doesn’t often tune in to the DC. As was already pointed out, evolutionary history and geologic time were treated as incontrovertible facts. Oprah’s implied agreement with the same may make a small impression on viewers who tune in because their hero is narrating.

Plus, irregardless of her initial competency in these areas, one would hope that narrating this series will make an impact on Oprah herself; in the future she may be be more critical of guests on her show who peddle anti-science.

In short, why not gain a powerful ally with a broader audience than would normally be reached?"

Good points, but I agree with those who think this is was/is a terrible idea. I also resented it in terms of all the good narrators who could use the money in these very hard times for everyone, including actors/voice overers, and she has all the money in the world already.

And, to repeat, she'd have to do a lot of real science on her show to make up for the quackery she's supported, and since her show is going away soon, this won't be possible.

Ichthyic · 23 March 2010

her show is going away soon

several of us had debate the value of utilizing Oprah's fanbase by having her narrate these things before.

I personally did not know her show is going away?

that changes things a bit.

Now I'm leaning more towards this being a bad idea, regardless of what the Nielson ratings might have to say about it.

George Martin · 23 March 2010

On the comments about Oprah. Unless she promotes the Discovery Channel show on her own show, I think that few, if any, of her fan base will know about this show. Those that would want to watch such a show probably could care less who is narrating it as long as the narrator has a pleasant voice. Me, I would prefer that Mike Rowe was doing the narration!

I guess because it's late, I hate the stupid non word irregardless which was used above. If regardless means "without regard", what the hell does irregardless mean?

George

Alex H · 23 March 2010

George Martin said: On the comments about Oprah. Unless she promotes the Discovery Channel show on her own show, I think that few, if any, of her fan base will know about this show. Those that would want to watch such a show probably could care less who is narrating it as long as the narrator has a pleasant voice. Me, I would prefer that Mike Rowe was doing the narration! I guess because it's late, I hate the stupid non word irregardless which was used above. If regardless means "without regard", what the hell does irregardless mean? George

Do you say flammable or inflammable? But yeah, I was disappointed by Oprah as well. But that's no different than all the other times that Discovery has ported over a BBC show like this- though the worst offender IMO was Stockard Channing on Walking with Beasts. Oh, and dNorrisM- good idea. He's so boring, he'll put the audience to sleep and they won't listen to all his BS.

Robert Byers · 24 March 2010

Deklane said: David Attenborough is my hero! I can't get enough of those BBC nature series where he goes on location all over the world to some pretty unlikely places and narrates on the spot. Even if they have to put him in a harness and haul him up by crane to top of the South American jungle, or he gets lunged at by an elephant seal twice his size. I'm pretty sure there's a bit in a documentary about animal life in the Antarctic where there's an aerial shot of an unbroken expanse of snow -- but wait! There's a speck down there, just one black spot in the midst of vast and endless white desolation -- and it's moving! The helicopter zooms down -- and it's David in a parka trudging along and lecturing about penguins! (This is from memory, so don't take it too literally, but I seem to recall some scene like that.) I was a little disappointed by the BLUE PLANET series about oceans that he only narrated... I kept waiting for him to swim by in a scuba suit... It might be kind of fun to see Oprah do the things David does in these documentaries.

I'm a biblical creationist but I loved and loved his show on birds. Its a classic in doing something well. Great info(some useful creationist leads) and great shots showing bird life. He has a good way of ordering his talk. Its like in between a paragraph and a short story. The other one by David was no good. I later learned he was a brother of the guy in Jurassic park.

Ichthyic · 24 March 2010

Me, I would prefer that Mike Rowe was doing the narration!

not a bad idea!

Frank J · 24 March 2010

Great info(some useful creationist leads)
— Robert Byers

Every fact about biology and natural history can be a "creationist lead" if you take it out of context.

Ginger Yellow · 24 March 2010

I was disappointed by the first few episodes of Life. Komodo dragon footage aside, it seemed to be going over a lot of old ground. It really picks up toward the end of the series, however. The episode on deep sea creatures is truly spectacular.

misha · 24 March 2010

Robert Byers said: Great info(some useful creationist leads)

If only these "useful creationist leads" ever resulted in research. More like "useful creationist deadends." Byers, what discoveries have been completed by creationists based on these "leads." Or has it just been, "God did it."

Alex H · 25 March 2010

Ginger Yellow said: I was disappointed by the first few episodes of Life. Komodo dragon footage aside, it seemed to be going over a lot of old ground. It really picks up toward the end of the series, however. The episode on deep sea creatures is truly spectacular.

It kinda reminded me of watching a kid at the zoo, the way it just bounced around between things- "Look, there's a lizard! Look, there's a frog!"

Frank J · 25 March 2010

misha said:
Robert Byers said: Great info(some useful creationist leads)
If only these "useful creationist leads" ever resulted in research. More like "useful creationist deadends." Byers, what discoveries have been completed by creationists based on these "leads." Or has it just been, "God did it."

Mutually contradictory deadends to boot. It's fun, however, to watch Biblical creationists like Byers bite their tongues when the DI refuses to admit that God is the designer. After all these decades, the state of the art in creationist research is the astonishingly detailed "some unknown, possibly deceased designer did something, somewhere at some time, and it's not 'Darwinism'." Note, if anyone objects that a DI person occasionally admits that his personal speculation is that God is the designer, remember, so have many of their "Darwinist" critics. What I mean is that, when push comes to shove, the DI admits that it has no clue whom or what it caught in its "irreducibly complex mousetrap." And of course there's Behe's stunning admission at Dover that said designer might no longer exist.

misha · 25 March 2010

Frank J said: "some unknown, possibly deceased designer did something, somewhere at some time, and it's not 'Darwinism'."

That's what is partially confusing to me. Most IDers or creationists are so adamantly opposed to "Darwinism" that they would welcome anything in contrast even if it is directly adverse to their faith. Much like Behe claiming that even astrology should be considered science under his new definition. But I guess they figure they can fight those demons later. Maybe its not so confusing after all. This would explain so many of the ID/creationist behaviors. They see the threat of the ToE as so imminent that they will do anything to defeat it (lie, cheat, steal, and even compromise the integrity of their faith). The biblical literalists probably see all those things as forgivable, but reading the Genesis account as allegorical: unforgivable. They get so caught up in fighting against "Darwinism" that they don't even realize the weapons they attempt to use. They'll throw just about anything at it they can get their hands on figuring that they'll just ask for forgiveness later. It reminds me of the story in 1 Samuel 28. King Saul is so caught up in beating the Philistines that he resorts to calling for sourcery to help Israel win the battle. Well, needless to say they lose the battle and Saul loses his kingdom.

Ginger Yellow · 25 March 2010

It kinda reminded me of watching a kid at the zoo, the way it just bounced around between things- “Look, there’s a lizard! Look, there’s a frog!”

For me, it was more like a lazy greatest hits album. I doubt any of the actual footage was recycled, but an awful lot of the scenes being shown in the early episodes had featured in previous Attenborough documentaries. Like I say, though, it gets a lot better in the last few episodes.

RDK · 25 March 2010

I'm curious, as I haven't been able to sit down and watch any of the "Life" episodes on the Discovery Channel - how does it compare to "Planet Earth"? When I first heard about Life it seemed like just a rehash of the former series, except....narrated by Oprah Winfrey.

Is it worth the time?

And I had no idea David Attenborough was brothers with Ricahrd Attenborough, that guy from JP. One of my favorite movies of all time; got me interested in dinosaurs and archaeology when I was just a wee baby evolutionist.

Alex H · 25 March 2010

RDK said: I'm curious, as I haven't been able to sit down and watch any of the "Life" episodes on the Discovery Channel - how does it compare to "Planet Earth"? When I first heard about Life it seemed like just a rehash of the former series, except....narrated by Oprah Winfrey.

Feels a bit less focused. Planet Earth's episodes were centered around a specific environment, like tundra steppes, jungles, or the deep ocean, so the animals you saw tended to be fairly similar. Life's episodes seem (so far) to be focused more around different groups of animals- mammals, birds, ect. So it shows 5 minutes of cheetahs hunting an ostrich (yeah, that was just crazy watching them actually bring it down), but then bounces over to some cute Ibex kids climbing down a cliff to the river. The abrupt change of scenery is jarring.

Daniel J. Andrews · 25 March 2010

Deklane said: David Attenborough is my hero! I can't get enough of those BBC nature series where he goes on location all over the world to some pretty unlikely places and narrates on the spot. Even if they have to put him in a harness and haul him up by crane to top of the South American jungle, or he gets lunged at by an elephant seal twice his size. I'm pretty sure there's a bit in a documentary about animal life in the Antarctic where there's an aerial shot of an unbroken expanse of snow -- but wait! There's a speck down there, just one black spot in the midst of vast and endless white desolation -- and it's moving! The helicopter zooms down -- and it's David in a parka trudging along and lecturing about penguins! (This is from memory, so don't take it too literally, but I seem to recall some scene like that.) I was a little disappointed by the BLUE PLANET series about oceans that he only narrated... I kept waiting for him to swim by in a scuba suit... It might be kind of fun to see Oprah do the things David does in these documentaries.

Ditto. He's my hero too. Just finished watching The Great Melt (Nature's Great Events series). My only disappointment in that, and Planet Earth, is the same as yours. He just narrates. Half the fun is seeing Sir David in the hottest/driest/wettest/deepest/highest/darkest/coldest/windiest etc places on earth. I loved the part where he crawled into an underground termite chamber "I'm six feet under the ground...", or hanging from a hot air balloon 10,000 feet up, or swaying from a jungle canopy harness. How can anyone possibly match that kind of contagious enthusiasm he shows, and all those superlatives he uses? E.g. This is the biggest undivided leaf on earth, this is the biggest creature that exists on the planet, earth, this is one of the wettest places on earth, this is the biggest flower in the world, and on. (check out his biography, Life on Air, both the book and the hour long show--the show is especially good). Also, for you Sir David fans, he and BBC are filming another series. This past Dec/Jan they were in Antarctica, and have some time lapse cameras set up. As of last week I didn't see anything about this on the BBC website so I'm relying on a comment from Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal (he was in Antarctica and made a comment about this on his blog).

Dale Husband · 26 March 2010

Robert Lyers said: I'm a biblical creationist but I loved and loved his show on birds. Its a classic in doing something well. Great info(some useful creationist leads) and great shots showing bird life. He has a good way of ordering his talk. Its like in between a paragraph and a short story. The other one by David was no good. I later learned he was a brother of the guy in Jurassic park.

Don't you EVER get tired of promoting the fraud of Creationism around here?

Frank J · 26 March 2010

They get so caught up in fighting against “Darwinism” that they don’t even realize the weapons they attempt to use. They’ll throw just about anything at it they can get their hands on figuring that they’ll just ask for forgiveness later.

The professional anti-evolution activists are very aware of the weapons they use (contradictions, evasions, word games and all). They know they don't have to ask for forgiveness, because ~75% of the public either tolerates them or hears what they want to hear, and the rest would disagree even if they were far more careful. That ~75% includes ~25% that is so hopelessly fundamentalist that they'll defend anyone who bad-mouths evolution, and use Morton's Demon on any contradictions (YEC vs OEC, evolution is falsified/falsifiable, etc.) that the activists use. But it also includes ~50% that is roughly equally divided between those with varying doubts of evolution, and those who accept it but think that it's fair to "teach both sides" (and clueless, as I once was, that the other "side" is not a competing, or even failed, theory, but a scam). That ~50% lacks the time, interest, or both, to see the games these people play. That's the group we need to reach, not the lost causes.

Frank J · 26 March 2010

Don’t you EVER get tired of promoting the fraud of Creationism around here?
— Dale Husband

If he's anything like the 100s of creationists or trolls I have encountered on these boards in the last decade, he will get tired if we ignore his PRATTs (points refuted 1000 times) against "Darwinism" - all answered here anyway - and keep pounding on him to spell out the testable details of his "theory." Challenging them to refute other "kinds" of creationism also tends to make them run away.

Shelldigger · 26 March 2010

Alex H said:
RDK said: I'm curious, as I haven't been able to sit down and watch any of the "Life" episodes on the Discovery Channel - how does it compare to "Planet Earth"? When I first heard about Life it seemed like just a rehash of the former series, except....narrated by Oprah Winfrey.
Feels a bit less focused. Planet Earth's episodes were centered around a specific environment, like tundra steppes, jungles, or the deep ocean, so the animals you saw tended to be fairly similar. Life's episodes seem (so far) to be focused more around different groups of animals- mammals, birds, ect. So it shows 5 minutes of cheetahs hunting an ostrich (yeah, that was just crazy watching them actually bring it down), but then bounces over to some cute Ibex kids climbing down a cliff to the river. The abrupt change of scenery is jarring.

I was thinking the same thing. The show bounced around like slinging a superball sideways down a hallway. As far as Oprah narrating, I kept thinking "I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics she must be capable of" with all the talk of evolution and old earth stuff, when she is well known as a woo soaked god botherer. But then I realised that just maybe, a large portion of her audience might get some good exposure to some facts for a change. Wishful thinking perhaps... Regardless of anything else, the filming is spectacular. (assuming everyone has HD by now)

Frank J · 26 March 2010

But then I realised that just maybe, a large portion of her audience might get some good exposure to some facts for a change. Wishful thinking perhaps…
— Shelldigger

I had written a comment a few days ago, but it didn't appear (I may have not hit "submit"). What I wrote is that there is nowhere near enough mentioning of "how many years ago" in popular explanations of natural history. Most people, including many who accept evolution, dismiss it all as "a long time ago." Most critics of ID/creationism prefer to discuss natural selection, which, if not introduced carefully, can backfire with most lay audiences ("nature red in tooth and claw", etc). I'm convinced that if we get the chronology firmly into the public discourse, that will put YECs on the defensive, not only against science, but against other creationists. That does occasionally happen, but only as isolated events. If it ever becomes a major part of the "debate" then we can start to reverse what Ken Miller frustratingly wrote about in "Only a Theory": How anti-evolution activists have succeeded at dividing their critics, and uniting different "kinds" of fans.

Shelldigger · 26 March 2010

Frank J said:
But then I realised that just maybe, a large portion of her audience might get some good exposure to some facts for a change. Wishful thinking perhaps…
— Shelldigger
I had written a comment a few days ago, but it didn't appear (I may have not hit "submit"). What I wrote is that there is nowhere near enough mentioning of "how many years ago" in popular explanations of natural history. Most people, including many who accept evolution, dismiss it all as "a long time ago." Most critics of ID/creationism prefer to discuss natural selection, which, if not introduced carefully, can backfire with most lay audiences ("nature red in tooth and claw", etc). I'm convinced that if we get the chronology firmly into the public discourse, that will put YECs on the defensive, not only against science, but against other creationists. That does occasionally happen, but only as isolated events. If it ever becomes a major part of the "debate" then we can start to reverse what Ken Miller frustratingly wrote about in "Only a Theory": How anti-evolution activists have succeeded at dividing their critics, and uniting different "kinds" of fans.

Thing is even a guy like me (think like a geek but live in the mundane world of rednecks, help me) is aware of the geological chronology. It is out there plain to see in most any sciency product of cable tv, or science article. Its there...now how are you going to get people to listen or absorb the information? I know people (who live way too close to me) that could watch this entire episode of "Life" twice, and walk away not having learned a damn thing, other than "did you see the giant lizard thing?" I like your idea, but it will be a long uphill battle getting there. (The word Byers just jumped into my head) I see the problem being, those who have substituted their reasoning skills, with rationalizing skills, and are unable to discern the difference. What other possible explanation could there be for the existence of a YEC? Back to the TV, shows like this one seem to be geared towards those with short attention spans, hence the constant bouncing around, and other shows that keep hammering you with the same information every 10 minutes so the end result of a one hour show is somwhere around a whole 11.5 minutes of actual information, once you factor in commercials (I really hate that scenario). Tv shows geared more towards real science information (PBS) are longwinded, low resolution, put you to sleep monologues, low budget affairs that dont have any mojo. We need some damn mojo. We need Dawkins to be the next Sagan. Or something of that nature. Something with science, and spark, something that lays down the chronology, something that explains our insignificance in the universe, something that covers it all, in a way that can reach into the closed off recesses of those not yet too far gone to get it, and bring them into the age of information. Discovery channel is getting close, they have a lot of what is needed, just need to couple the knowledge with the eye candy. Maybe what Im looking for has been done with "Cosmos" Maybe it needs to be done again? With new info, new high res cameras, and a new face for science. Whew, didnt mean to rant that much.

Frank J · 26 March 2010

I like your idea, but it will be a long uphill battle getting there. (The word Byers just jumped into my head)...
— Shelldigger

See my comment above of 6:11 this morning. The point is not to bother with people like Byers (whom I'm not even sure is a real YEC) but to target the ~50% who do have the capability if not the time or interest. With them it will be a "long uphill battle." But with the hopeless ~25%, and of course the fraction of 1% that are professional anti-evolution activists, it would be impossible.

Jesse · 26 March 2010

Shelldigger said: Thing is even a guy like me (think like a geek but live in the mundane world of rednecks, help me) is aware of the geological chronology. It is out there plain to see in most any sciency product of cable tv, or science article. Its there...now how are you going to get people to listen or absorb the information?

Hahaha, so do I. Or rather, I live in a strange mixture of people. Now I know you're not going to believe me, but I know some pretty pro keep-religion-out-of-science/government rednecks. I even know a redneck atheist. Well, I suppose you could say they're redneck-ish rather than full on redneck, but you wouldn't realize it until you had some in-depth conversations with them.

ah_mini · 31 March 2010

"Life" is merely a continuation of the trend towards HD eye-candy in preference to any real science. Thus we see a lot of slick camera work and great visuals, but little to tie them together. I had a hard time distinguishing "Life" from the earlier "Planet Earth" series that the BBC was involved in (again, another series of spectacular natural stunts, but no more).

Contrasting both these programs with David Attenborough's early stuff like "Life on Earth" (a gem, good viewing even today) and "The Living Planet" (also good, although horrid 80's synth music grates all the way through) reveals just how much scientific content has been sacrificed. "Life on Earth" in particular is in your face about evolution from the start; enough to make creationists' eyes bleed :D

Sojourner · 5 April 2010

I think I missed something somewhere. When I watch the Discovery series, "Life," narrated by Oprah Winfrey, I am confused by her narration which suggests that species purposefully developed physical traits to overcome the challenges of a hostile environment!!?? I was taught that over many, many hundreds of thousands of years . . . natural selection took place resulting in what we have here today. Was I taught wrong? How did "purposeful development" creep in? Is Oprah spinning the story? Has the science changed and I have just failed to catch up with it? I'd appreciate any help from anyone who knows one way or the other. Thank you. Sojourner.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 5 April 2010

Whoever wrote the script for Oprah got it wrong, if that's what it said. No species that we are aware of can "purposefully" develop heritable physical traits.

Sojourner · 5 April 2010

I didn't think so, but I don't spend my hours pouring through science journals either. I thought I'd watch, "Life," for the pure fun of it, but every time I hear the narrator suggest that the "so and so animal . . . developed . . . this or that physical trait . . . in order to do this or to do that," it drives me silly and makes watching the otherwise awe-inspiring photography quite irritating. I appreciate your reply. Thank you. Sojourner.

DS · 5 April 2010

Of course, RG is correct. Just think about it. If you concentrate really hard, can you grow wings? Do you know how to grow wings? Is there any mechanism whereby your thoughts could change your DNA? Will your kids have wings if you really want them to? If humans cannot do it, is there any other species that knows more about genetics that could do it? IS there any species that is even smart enough to know what the environment will be like in the future, let alone know what feature would be beneficial in that environment? Humans seem to be pretty poor at both those things, how is an ant or a rhino supposed to be so smart?

Popular television programs make mistakes like that almost every five minutes, even ones who get most of the science right. They want feel good sound bites that capture attention. One of the ones that bothers me most is when they use the word "designed" to refer to some morphological feature. The word "adapted" isn't any longer or harder to pronounce, so why not use the correct term? And of course the ever popular use of the word "theory" when they really mean "hypothesis". You would think that programs devoted to science education would have better technical advisors, especially after spending millions on stunning photography.

Alex H · 6 April 2010

There were some staggeringly bad choices for the narration. One of my favorites was "millions of years ago, the ancestors of modern birds lost their front legs and grew wings," as if to imply that the wings of a bird were entirely separate structures. I also noticed some waffling on the use of the word "evolution"- sometimes it was used, other times, as DS pointed out, they'd use words like "designed" when they should have used "evolved."

Sojourner · 6 April 2010

I raised the issue because several years back I was casually speaking with my children about "Darwin's Origin of the Species," a book which I had purchased for my daughter "as a classic," that she might enjoy reading (extremely bright child who simply cannot stop reading -- she was quite interested in anthropology at the time).

As the conversation moved along, my high-school age children explained that they had learned about evolution in school. "You, know, they said. The giraffes couldn't reach the leaves so they grew longer necks. Birds of prey grew sharp talons so they could swoop down and catch slowly moving critters. We know all about it." And the conversation continued with many such examples.

It then took me about forty minutes to explain that those things didn't just "happen," but that birds with sharper talons just happened to live long enough to mate and produce offspring having a tendency to have sharp talons as well, and with the passing of hundreds of thousands of years, periods of drought and famine resulted in the sharped-taloned birds simply outlasting the others because their slight genetic difference played a role in them surviving long enough to produce offstring with similar traits. I used the example that people near the Equator tend to have darker skin because light-skinned folks naturally fell prey to skin cancer and other such factors which hampered their ability to pass along their genes to the next generation's gene pool.

Anyway, after explanation, I think they finally understood the concept of "natural selection," but I was surprised by the fact that my two very intelligent children had either both coincidentially mislearned the material or had been mistaught.

But watching the "Life" series made be think, well, gee whiz, I'm an old geezer these days. Maybe I've missed something. I'm glad my knowledge is still useful. But if my children are watching the "Life" series, I can't help but wonder if they are sitting in their college apartments thinking to themselves, "Geez. Maybe I bought into what Dad was saying waaay too easily. Even Oprah Winfrey understands evolution like I do."

In the end, it seems like a great disservice when the narrator misinforms the masses under the guise of, and enjoying the ambience of, a trusted educator.

I've appreciated everyone's comments. Thank you again.

Sojourner.