Watch Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus For Free

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

I picked this film to watch because I enjoy studying creationism and evolution. Was thinking the film was going to be objective, but very early in the film found it to be biased toward the evolutionist with those who do not believe in evolution being considered the "dodo's" of the film. Having been myself a former evolutionist I can understand the reasoning of the filmmaker, an evolutionist, to be totally lopsided in his presentation.Evolutionist will watch this and get the affirmation of their beliefs from this film. Intelligent design believers will find that they are mocked throughout the film. I Myself, as young earth creationist,don't find any merit in intelligent design directing evolution, thought they have far better arguments than that proposed by evolutionist. This film gave very weak arguments to support evolution.Would recommend those on all sides of the fence to view this film. This film will not convert a non-evolutionist into being an evolutionist, though it will help the beginning non-critical thinking evolutionist to feel he has some legitimate reasons to believe the way he does. As I encourage all sides to view this, I likewise encourage all sides to view the creationist arguments for a young earth with no evolution. A great resource to begin with is answersingenesis.com.

It never ceases to amaze me how evolutionists posture themselves as the great intellectual victims in America. Hey, wake up, you won! In fact, YOU WON BIG, so stop whining. Forget for a moment that you are crusading for a theory which has scant little verifiable evidence for where its advocates want to take it, or as a general explanation of the development of life on earth. It's like one of the great scams of the last century. In the home of the free and the land of the brave you get to teach unimpeded and unquestioned a theory with gaping holes and little actual factual support as an explanation for the development of life. Congratulations!And what the school district wanted to do in the Dover case was so insignificant, that is, inform kids that another theory existed. Oh my goodness, what happened to the opportunity to form your own opinion? If John Scopes were alive today he'd be fired for teaching that Darwinism might just not be right. Heresy!! It's like the Dark Ages all over again, except this time the left is in control. Isn't the free expression of reasoned belief and opinion what PBS and the ACLU are supposed to stand for, or does that only apply to beliefs without Christian support? The only thing I agree with Bush on (and I voted Dem the last two presidential elections) is that both theories have some factual basis, neither have complete validation, and both are appropriate for the classroom where neither can scientifically prove itself to be the definitive answer. This movie and the even more intellectually dishonest NOVA "documentary" (I gag at the use of that word with the NOVA "effort", my tax dollars at work) assume that Darwin's theories have been conclusively proved to be correct as an explanation for the development of life on earth, and that if you were just smart enough and didn't let your mind be clouded by the religious nonsense you'd see the truth too. Unfortunately, that just AIN'T TRUE. The Inconvenient Truth (ignored by these position papers) is that there are as many issues with Darwin's theories as there are with the intelligent design theory. The dishonesty of this movie (and the NOVA "effort") in appearing to show the creationist view, but simply as a set up to the Darwinist response, is so contrived as to suggest the weakness of the Darwinist position. This one does the intellectual dishonesty in a particularly coy, pseudo self-effacing manner, making it in its own way even more dishonest. And they always have to throw in the personal stuff, just to show how all the creationists are Nazis and the anti-creationists just humble little folks (who nonetheless would like to impress their unsupported beliefs on your kids). I'm sure there are personal issues both ways, but you won't see it here or on NOVA. Let's have an intelligent debate on this issue, not the propaganda machine. Be professional journalists and grow up guys.For an interesting counterpoint to this position piece check out http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html.

I enjoyed watching this documentary.The filmmaker, Randy Olson, seems like a pretty down to earth kind of guy. His documentary, Flock of Dodos, could pretty much be summed up the same way.I wouldn't consider myself to be in either the intelligent design or the evolutionists' camp. Honestly, I'm not even sure it really matters which camp a person finds themselves in when it comes to their spirituality. This brings me to my point: Randy, though I found his documentary enjoyable, failed to ask an obvious question that I feel strikes directly at the heart of the current debate. That question being - do the evolutionists that were seated around the poker table feel that the theory/fact that they have devoted their lives to leaves no place for a creator...no place for a designer? Though beyond the empirical realm, this question was never opened for consideration. Yes, the evolution guys attacked the credibility of the ID guys, but they were never directly asked about whether they felt that evolution and the possibility of design were mutually exclusive ideas.Most of the educated ID guys didn't discount that evolution has occurred. They just seemed to discount the idea that it occurred unassisted. I would have liked to have heard some equally candid thoughts from the evolution camp about whether or not they felt that the theory/fact removes the possibility of a designer.A side note: Several of the reviewers, who I assume fall into the ID camp, seemed to feel that Randy treated the ID side unfairly. Let me just say that I don't think that he did this on purpose. Randy, like the rest of us, is subject to the knowledge and experience in his possession. He has his own set of biases. When those biases go unchallenged it logically results in the appearance of bias, i.e. the faulty red state/blue state construct as well as other indications of bias that again are probably more the result of a lack of knowledge than a malicious attempt at arrogance. To me, at least, Randy seemed like a pretty open-minded sort of guy.Just my two cents. Fun doc to watch.

I was lucky enough to go to a small screening of FOD at my college. Randy Olson was present at the end to discuss opinions and answer questions.What struck me about this movie was how unashamedly it looks at pretension and ego in the scientific community today. Though ostensibly about the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate, this movie delves quite deeply into the levels of effective communication between scientist and layman. Anyone out there who's ever studied under a particularly brilliant professor will know exactly what I mean- they usually have quite earth-shatteringly amazing ideas and thoughts that they are woefully unequipped to communicate to the rest of us mortals.The movie covers the Evolution/ID debate (and its theological implications) from a variety of perspectives, ranging from Conservative right-wingers to Athiest Liberals. To be entirely honest, I went in to see this movie with a preexisting bias- I am a student of Evolution and an Athiest. However, what I like about this movie is that it does not hide or suppress the opinions of either side, but lets them be heard. While my opinion on Evolution remains unchanged, this movie did uproot some prejudices in my mind relating to certain very common social stereotypes. Fundamentalist Christians are not necessarily scary bible-spouting messengers of doom, nor are scientists with an arsenal of PhDs necessarily the calm voice of reason.Ultimately, Flock of Dodos is precise, to the point, and in a way- manages to do exactly what it asks the scientific community to do. It communicates a complex idea to the everyman without resorting to falsification or 'dumbing-down.' (9*/10*)