Customer Reviews

Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is a very insightful condemnation of Intelligent Design and the approach of evolutionists, with minimal humor, but a lot of fun. Olson takes a relaxed approach to this huge controversy, and teaches us a great deal in the process.

He tells the story with some of the style of Michael Moore, using dry wit, multiple interviews, and an overt agenda. He was an evolutionary marine biologist, a student of the great Stephen Jay Gould, who decided to go into film, and here looks at all angles of the intelligent design controversy and how it tries to attack evolution. The movie is short on content and long on entertainment, and that's for a purpose. The goal of the movie is to show how behind biologists are in public relations, and how much more they need to do.

The movie did this admirably. The evolutionists come across as either Ivory Tower scientists who can't relate to the public, or real prigs who you wouldn't want to drink with. The Intelligent Design folks are all pretty likable, but simultaneously really off when it comes to science, for the most part not knowing anything behind what they are saying. Olson wishes to point out this huge gulf between the facts and likability, and call scientists to a place where they can start to actually reach out to the public on a level that doesn't require four years of grad school to understand. The scientists are therefore the dodos in the film.

This movie's raised a lot of controversy because the Discovery Institute, based in Seattle and the leader of the ID movement, complained that they weren't consulted and that the movie is very biased against them, for instance making it look like their budget is 5 million instead of 4 million. Likewise the scientific community complained that the movie makes them look bad and that Olson is calling for them to dumb down their material. Yet Olson tried to use material indicative of the personalities, even excluding the comment that Behe made that he didn't care what was taught in public schools because his children don't attend them. This comment wasn't reflective of all of the rest of Behe's interview, and so therefore was excluded from the film. (It can be viewed, however, as an extra on this DVD.)

There are moments to smile at here, rather than laugh out loud. Some of the focus on the director's mom, Moose, was perhaps a bit irrelevant. But the film overall is a brilliant work, simultaneously condemning both sides, and calling for radical change in the way that science is presented- but in a light-hearted manner that few can effectively achieve on film.

I do not think that Mr. Olson comes down firmly on one side or the other in this film, even though he identifies himself as an Evolutionist. This is not the point of this film. He most definitely is not bashing anyone. Instead, it shows the difficulty that comes about when two sides have such a hard time even discussing such a topic. If anything, he takes the Pro-Evolutionists to task for not being able to clearly articulate their points of view to common folk.

I'm sure many of us have had good or bad experiences in discussing certain topics with family and friends. If we have a wide-enough group of contacts there must inevitably be the individual or group that you simply cannot continue the discussion with because you cannot understand how they could possibly think the way they do. This film shows why it is so difficult for Evolutionists to engage in a debate when they mostly feel there is no reason for a debate. And it is told with a great deal of sensitivity, respect and humor toward both sides -- especially endearing when he presents his own mother's points of view (the last scene of which left me chuckling for hours).

I am sorry, but I cannot compare Randy Olson to Michael Moore because I do not see where Mr. Moore shows any respect toward anyone who disagrees with him. Where Mr. Olson presents an engaging experience, Mr. Moore simply comes across as a smartass.

Upon watching this film, you may be surprised at how serious the divide on Intelligent Design and Evolutionism really is. Other than sound bites on TV, you may not even be aware that there is a group with $5 Million in funding geared toward promoting their point of view. Truly a fine bit of film-making!

Wow! I liked *Flock of Dodos*. You have to have an open mind to view this documentary on evolution and intelligent design. It is both educational and interesting. This film touches aspects of the debate that you may not have seen in the media.

What is the difference between evolution and intelligent design? What is the difference between intelligent design and creationism? If you don't know or not sure, then this is the one you need to watch.

It's interesting to see how much and how long these people have been fighting for what is to be taught in the schools, especially the Kansas Board of Education. It is amazing to see what people believe about the origin of life.

One camp believes in "teaching the science". The other camp believes in "teaching the controversy". So, one believes that presenting natural evidences (fossils, etc.) is the way to go in schools. The other believes that one should lay out pros and cons of each theories/approaches. The bigger question that this film presents is what exactly is intelligent design? And how is this really different from evolution or even from creationism?

This film touches on the state boards of education in a few cities, the Discovery Institute, scientists/evolutionists and their views, Christians, and other whatnots. For a film that is 1 and a half hour long, it is packed with information. You just have to watch it.

Now, Olson did a good job on the subject of intelligent design. There's just some parts of it that could have been edited out. I think that Olson tries to be like Michael Moore. The difference is that Moore has more balls to confront people. Olson tries to confront people but he ends up liking his interviewees even if he disagrees with him. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't usually feel the need to leave feedback, but Dr. Olson's poignant and clever documentary Flock of Dodos really got me thinking about things differently. Times when my perspective changes, or even shifts a little, are worth noting.

I am a high school biology teacher in a rather conservative town. I consider myself a Christian, but also believe that evolution and religion aren't at odds. As an educator, I am often frustrated that others in the field turn so many good, and yes, intelligent, people away from science because they refuse to acknowledge that much of the country and world do not hold the same set of beliefs that they do. Many of my students arrive in biology class opposed to hearing about Darwin because they have been raised to believe all scientists are atheists liberals. I have learned it takes patience, understanding, and tolerance to be effective and so many in science treat this sensitive topic without regard to other perspectives and values. Attacking someone's core set of beliefs is a losing strategy.

Dr. Olson's film is a masterpiece because he gets this problem across in an engaging way that resonates with me. Yes, many scientists are dodos when it comes to debate and exchanging ideas. You cannot hope to provide a convincing argument when you begin by being close-minded and argumentative. Flock of Dodos is fun, funny, and makes a statement about where we are as a nation. If we have any hope of evolving and moving forward by incorporating the best science into the average American experience, this film should serve as a wake up call.

I am online purchasing Flock of Dodos to show to my 9th grade students. They will laugh and my hope is that they will also think about things differently and even be more open to new ideas.

Writer/director/narrator Randy Olson stars in this documentary exploring some of the ideas driving the Creationism vs. Evolution controversy. By utilizing light-hearted, graphical animations juxtaposed with first-hand interviews, the filmmaker makes fairly entertaining work of fleshing out a few of the fundamental issues underlying the debate.

The film begins at the narrator's home, where he explains a little about himself and his background before embarking on a personal journey to explore the intelligent design controversy through interviews with some its leading proponents. As the filmmaker himself explains, he is an evolutionary biologist, so it is pretty clear from the outset as to which side of the debate he subscribes.

His interviews with scientists and advocates are insightful and thought-provoking. To his credit, the filmmaker seems to make an honest attempt to engage his subjects in a rational, open exchange of ideas, and for the most part succeeds in presenting viewpoints that are contrary to his own personal position.

If there is a weak point in the film, for me personally it lies in the fact that it seems to lose focus when it moves from the purely substantive, scientific arguments and wanders into the more political aspects of the controversy (i.e., religious fundamentalism, separation of church and state, etc.) as well as the individual and corporate personalities influencing the present debate.

For example, the concept of irreducible complexity is introduced and explained fairly well through graphical representations and personal interviews with leading proponents. However, rather than presenting a solid counter-argument from the pro-evolutionist side based solely upon scientific reasoning, he instead shifts toward the financial funding aspects of the pro-intelligent-design movement and what its underlying motivations might be.

Personally, I would have preferred if the film stuck to the scientific arguments so I could decide for myself which side I believe.

I suppose presenting some of the personalities involved may provide part of the "entertainment" aspect of the film, and might be included to appeal to a wider audience. The card game with the obnoxious, wine-drinking, evolutionary "intellectuals" is certainly an example of this, as are some of the other characters presented, including the pro-intelligent-design school board member embroiled in political turmoil, and the filmmaker's own rather eccentric mother, who late in life has adopted a Buddhist philosophy because, "it's a happy religion."

I was not disappointed with this film. All in all, I found it to be an entertaining work aimed primarily at those preferring slightly more substance to their viewing regiment, rather than the typical "bubble-gum" fare that seems to pervade popular culture today. I would, however, have enjoyed seeing more of the substantive arguments and fewer of the political and character-driven aspects of the issue.

I enjoyed this movie very much brought up some good points but i was anticipating a more educational movie it was mostly just about the debate between I.D. and Evolution.

Great documentary on the evolution v. creationism debate. The filmmaker makes it clear that he is an evolutionist, and yet treats creationists extremely fairly. All the creationists interviewed in the film were very satisfied with how they were portrayed. The only group upset at this film is the Discovery Institute, who refused to respond to the filmmaker's requests for inclusion in the film. They refused to make a showing in the film, then complain about how they were portrayed in the film. I don't think Mr. Olson could have done anything more.

This film addresses specific points of debate, but more than that it uncovers some tactics used in the debate and shows the character of the individuals involved. Olson gives each interviewee plenty of time to make their points. In general though, this film has more entertainment value, and a little less substantive value, though this is just what many people need.

This was a fantastic movie, plain and simple. Finally a movie for everyone to see allowing everyone to understand this whole debate. The movie is not complicated, conveying its purpose very well. After this movie, many should undoubtedly see why evolution should be taught in science classes and how intelligent design is in no way a science, therefore it should not be taught in a science class or in public schools at all.

I watched this movie first on Showtime before it was available on DVD. I loved it! It was easy to understand and very humorous in addition to being very informative, even my 11 year old son enjoyed it.

I found it unusually refreshing that this issue was raised by a fellow scientist and I am glad it is finally coming to light in this medium. I have often wondered why scientist's don't feel the need or even think it is their responsibility to relate to the average person on matters that they have been educated in. The majority of them write books and publish journals only for their peers and even look down on people who don't have an understanding of their background.

Studies and statics show that less then 26% of Americans don't understand a basic scientific article in a newspaper! Obviously we need more people who are educated to speak out! Randy Olsen brings this issue to the surface and holds his fellow scientist's responsible for helping in this crucial problem.

Thank You Randy so much for making this much needed film! You are my personal hero!

"We have woefully under-educated the American public in the area of science. It is going to take a long time to overcome that."

- Kansas School Board member as quoted in "Flock of Dodos"

I am not sure if it is possible to write a "spoiler" to a documentary film. But if it is, I warn you that I am about to do it, as the conclusion of Flock of Dodos is quite necessary to reviewing this film. If you don't want me to spoil it for you, don't read on.

The film "Flock of Dodo's" is one scientist's (now film-maker's) journey to explore what the big deal is behind the intelligent design/evolution controversey. The conclusion? It is a controversey not of sceintists versus sceintists, but scientists versus lawyers and advertisers. The director tells us that his purpose was to find out more about the controversey in order to see if there was anything to it, but the more he found out, the more problems he had.

This is a very cool film that takes something of the form of a road-trip primarily into, and back out of, Kansas (where one of the more famous challenges to evolution in school curricula took place). We meet quite a few faces from all sides. On the evolution side, we meet several scientists from various universities and two former school board members. On the ID side, we meet Michael Behe (one of ID's 'pioneers'), John Calvert (lawyer making his living defending ID), and even attempt, unsuccessfully, to meet some folk from the Discovery Institute.

Through all of this, however, the film's director notices a big problem. Even though evolution is quite universally accepted and regarded as well corroborated fact in the scientific community, scientists and academics are very bad at being spokespersons for evolution in the way people like John Calvery and Michael Behe are spokespersons for ID. At one point, the director even wonders to himself, after noting Behe's status as one of the 'faces' of ID, who Behe's equivalent is in the evolution world: who are the public spokespersons? The answer, he finds, is that there aren't really any. (He does not mention people like Richard Dawkins, but if he did, it would be sad, as Dawkins has more-and-more become a perfect target for accusations of evolutionary zeolotry and irreligion).

Another great thing about this film is that we meet a wide variety of people and begin to see all of them as quite human - none of these people are evil, though many of them are convinced that the other side is. (And if both sides are nice folk convinced that the other side is evil, then the question comes up: do they really know eachother at all, or do they just scream in eachother's direction?)

My personal favorite by way of highlights was the director's confrontation of John Calvert, who asserts that Haeckel's drawings are a fraud widely used in evolution textbooks. Were Haeckel's drawings a fraid? Yes, and you don't have to get this info from - as Calvert did - Jonathan Wells' inflamatory book "Icons of Evolution." Are these drawings widely reproduced in textbooks? The answer is no, and the confrontation leading us to this conclusion is absolutely hilarious. I won't spoil it; you have to see it for yourself!

This is a good film. At times, it seems almost Michael Moore-ish but, unlike Moore's films, there really isn't a whole lot of UNSUBSTANTIATED spin here. You don't get the impression, as one does with Moore's films, that he is ambushing people, or that he is using rhetorical trickery (like taking quotes out of context, or grandstanding.) Behe has as much, if not more, say than many of the scientists in the film.

If you are concerned about evolution, intelligent design, and the fuure of sceince education, this is an outsanding film to watch. The director shows us why the issue is as contentious as it is important, and why - more importantly - evolutionists may be winning in the halls of the academe but losing in the sidwalks of Everytown, USA. He reminds us that if evolution hopes to win the day, it must roll up its sleeves and accept the fact that public relations is what we must do.

Entertaining. Interesting. Informative.