Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus

2006 "Evolutionary Ecologist, Randy Olson, tries to find out just who is the real "Flock of Dodos""
7.1| 1h24m| PG| en| More Info
Released: 01 January 2006 Released
Producted By:
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Filmmaker and evolutionary biologist Randy Olson tries to figure out if it is the Darwinists or Intelligent Design supporters who will become a flock of dodos.

Genre

Documentary

Watch Online

Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus (2006) is currently not available on any services.

Cast

Director

Randy Olson

Production Companies

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.
Watch Now
Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus Videos and Images
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus Audience Reviews

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast
Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.
Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.
Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
gavin6942 Filmmaker and evolutionary biologist Randy Olson tries to figure out if it is the Darwinists or Intelligent Design supporters who will become a flock of dodos.Of course, this documentary is very one-sided. It is coming from the point of view of an evolutionary biologist. He points out flaws in animal (and human) design. He also makes a comment early on that he was expecting a city full of yokels where the intelligent design movement was the strongest.But, even one-sided, he certainly lets the other side speak plenty. So that is good, and about as balanced as you can expect from someone who obviously has a dog in the fight.
tumblez007 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.
gamecorps-1 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.
JoeB131 I think the problem with this film is that it goes into the Darwinism/Intelligent Design debate with its mind already made up.It does recognize that the ID side is a lot better at connecting with people. It attributes this to the fact that they've gotten slick public relations firms, not that they actually make legitimate points that the Darwinist side is unable to answer.It does engage in some chicanery. For instance, it attacks Dr. Wells "Icons of Evolution" on the dispute over Haeckel's embryos. THe problem is that Haeckel's embryos are frequently included in a lot of textbooks. They engage in misdirection by pointing out they aren't in advanced embryology textbooks. Well, most people aren't going to take advanced embryology, they are going to maybe take High School biology.It criticizes the ID side for using catchphrases, while repeating catchphrases of the Darwinist side- such as 'God of the gaps". It's a clever phrase, but it doesn't really address the problem - that there are some huge gaping holes in Evolutionary theory- how did life evolve from chemicals, why are there so few transitional fossils in the records, how would a complex structure like an eye evolve.It also engages in "guilt by association". The Discovery institute uses the same public relation firm as the Swift Vets who attacked Kerry, that makes them evil. Sorry, the Swift Vets had a legitimate point, Kerry was presenting himself as something he wasn't.It also presents it as a "blue state/red state" issue. Again, wrong. I know a LOT of liberal democrats who believe that God had something to do with the origin of life in the world.In all, it tries to be fair, but really isn't.