LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Micransix Crappy film

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

meddlecore "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus" is a film which debunks the claims and myths promoted by those who are proponents of the Intelligent Design movement- a movement that is essentially revealed to be a modern "re-packaging" and politicization of the Creationism movement that is central for the religious right. This time being brought to the forefront by marketing the evolution vs intelligent design "controversy" (and I use this term lightly) as a theoretical debate- one half based on science and understanding nature...the other based on well...nothing, except some extremely flawed (laughable even) logic. It's an all around intelligent, humorous and entertaining film that has been made in vain of the ever growing do-it-yourself documentary regime.It was made by Kansas-born evolutionary biologist turned filmmaker Ralph Olson , whom I personally like a lot- looking forward to seeing more from him. He is extremely intelligent, witty, and always succinct in a way even the layman can understand. He's also confrontational with a bit of charm, making him more palatable to the less tolerant, when compared to someone like Michael Moore. And most of all....he knows what he is talking about.Being born and raised in Kansas, he's familiar with the culture which is acting as the home front for both the Creationist and Intelligent Design movements' attack on Evolution. Graduating from Harvard with a concentration in cellular biology, has also put him in a privileged position to analyze and criticize such a subject.The concept of the film is to root out who the "Flock of Dodo's" really are- those using the US Constitution to politicize and force upon the masses the teaching of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution as a possible alternative to the theory or the counter-revolutionary Evolutionists attempting to quell them? Olson goes through the history of the Creationist/Intelligent Design movement from it's birth, showing how the anti-darwinist, anti-scientific, anti-intellectual ideas of a man named Thomas Henry Huxley have grown into something societally destructive. The film reveals how "God" has been relegated to the ever-narrowing gaps that modern science has yet to explain.Some of the commenters on IMDb were making this film out to be a "fair and balanced" look at the Evolution-Intelligent Desgin debate.....but it's not...the film is clearly pro-evolution, as it should be. What it is, is a subjective look at the debate- one man's memories weaved cinematically into a film that enlightens and entertains those who are lucky enough to view it.Olson narrates the film himself and is often on camera (as you may have picked up)- both alone and when questioning others. He even uses his mother, not only for opinion, but as a source to some of the top people in the Intelligent Design movement (as the one man was now her neighbor). He interviews numerous professors from top universities versed in the theoretical and practical study of Evolution, some of the major people forcing elements of Intelligent Design through the political process (not Bush, though he is discussed- but mostly the major players in the highly publicized Kansas controversy where the schoolboard tried to force teachers into teaching Intelligent Design), the lawyers fighting these battles in the courts, and some high-profile scientists and authors from both sides of the argument. Olson thus does, though, while always remaining pro-evolution, provide detailed information concerning the arguments and criticisms made by both parties. So I suppose it is fair in that sense.Worth a watch. 6 out of 10

RNMorton 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.

Kansas-5 I watched this movie a couple of years ago with an large audience of mixed partisans from both sides. There was also a discussion panel afterward that included a number of scholars and critics and politicians.I think Olson showed everyone as they really were: The scientists were a bit supercilious but the fundamentalists were absolutely idiotic. The documentary had no obligation to make the latter seem anything other than the scientific illiterates and theocrats that they truly are. I wish the film had also shown the venality and pervasive corruption of the bible thumpers revealed in their mismanagement of and campaigns for the Kansas State Board of Education, but that complexity would have been harder to explain and would have taken much longer.On the panel above, held in Kansas City, a local reactionary radio host participated on the "Intelligent (sic) Design" side. After a number of outrageous, preposterous statements, he got progressively more contentious and finally loudly contended that all the scientific advances since the birth of Christ were a product of "western Christian civilization." I'm sure that, for instance, dozens of Jewish Nobelists in the hard sciences would have been stunned by this calumny, but I think it revealed the true colors of these fundamentalists. Taken to task, the ideologue even claimed that Gallileo had not actually been persecuted by religious zealots and the Vatican.It should be mentioned that this was a truly amusing documentary in many ways. It captured some leading scientists in their most casual, unguarded and perhaps slightly inebriated moments. It showed the "I.D.ers" for the bumpkins they are, with ludicrous statements against interest right from their own mouths. Audiences even got to identify with Olson's mom, "Muffy Moose," who was an endearingly hilarious example of a fence sitter, and were educated about the peculiar digestive processes of rabbits (I'll avoid a spoiler here, but just that part makes the movie worth attending).I have to give it two opposed thumbs up!

Robert J. Maxwell A documentary film about discrepancies between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design, focusing on the Kansas school board controversy of a few years ago.It's a pretty good movie too. We get to know both sides of the issue, nobody is demonized, nobody exalted. The graphics are entertaining and the editing about as good as you can expect. Randy Olson, who made the film and narrates it, makes some low-key witty remarks along the way. Some documentaries, whether good or bad in their own right, consist of so many talking heads that you can listen to it from the next room and still follow the presentation. Not this one. Talking heads abound but so do cartoons and travelogue-like on-location shooting.Olson himself is an evolutionary biologist who's studied at Harvard and done research on changes in coral communities. He's a sharp guy, and he's pleasant and polite, and when he's negative about something it's in a gently ironic way.But don't expect a movie about evolution. It's about the nature of two pretty much antagonistic groups and the conflict between their belief systems. The debate is important because it is evidently not going to go away by itself. These are existential propositions being examined, not hortative. What I mean is that this is a debate over what IS, not over what ought to be. It's not a symbolic issue like having the ten commandments in a courthouse or having a state flag that resembles the Confederate stars and bars or whether or not films that show a lot of smoking should get an R rating. The argument is about whether something exists or not, and that's a different order of argument.Olson is clearly on the side of the evolutionists but he's not a zealot. He criticizes them (or allows them to criticize themselves) for being too snooty to present their case to common people in common-sense terms, whereas the ID side hires The Discovery Institute to invent appealing bumper-sticker slogans like "teach the controversy." The same public-relations outfit developed the SwiftBoat ads that torpedoed Kerry's run for the presidency. The anti-evolutionists also seem to be cohesive, highly organized, and well funded. They fling out so much misinformation that the tactic has become known among scientists as "the Gish Gallop." They're good at what they do, and the evolutionists are mostly aloof, indignant, arrogant, abrasive, disputatious, and sometimes kind of snotty with one another. In other words -- dare I say this? -- the ID people look like Republicans and the evolutionists look like Democrats.Actually, "Teach the Controversy" isn't a bad idea per se. Why not? Only I would stipulate, as an ex-prof, that it belongs in a senior seminar organized around philosophical/scientific controversies -- Copernicus and all that. I can't see both views being given equal weight in biology classes because, if Darwinian evolution is "only a theory," as the ID people argue, then Intelligent Design hasn't yet cleared even that bar.The film was at times a little irritating. It's okay when the film maker inserts himself into his work as narrator. Michael Moore does it entertainingly and numerous others, such as Milton Friedman, have walked us through scientific arguments in TV series. But Olson's movie is a little self congratulatory. I had to wince once in a while as the auteur explained that his father was a graduate of West Point in "the year of heroes" and his mother ("Muffy Moose") was a relative of General George C. Marshall or somebody and they both knew General Douglas MacArthur on Corregidor and -- well, and so forth. Not to say anything against Olson's mother. She's savvy, keenly intelligent, and engaging. I just don't think we needed to know that she was a model. And the film is informed with a subtle elitism. Eight evolutionists are gathered together by Olson to play poker and talk about biology and we get the title card -- not only are they all PhDs but we get a list of the schools they attended. (Mostly Harvard.) PhDs are introduced to each other as "doctor," which doesn't happen except on film.That's carping, though. The film's virtues as an exploration of a controversy that simply will not go away far outweighs any weaknesses it might have. Well, maybe I should add that not only does the theological interpretation of evolution refuse to disappear, but lots of public figures are obviously afraid to challenge it. One third of the American public does not "believe in" evolution. President Bush has argued publicly that both sides should be taught in school. And at the recent debate between Republican presidential candidates, one of the questions was, "Who does not believe in evolution," and three out of ten hands went up.