“Review and Synopsis” I question the professionalism of the production of the film Flock of Dodos. I felt that the presentation was extremely biased, which took away from the educational values of the movie. One of my favorite documentaries is Supersize Me; and, while it’s clear that Morgan Spurlock had preconceived notions from the onset of the film, I believe that he portrayed the information in a fair and, relatively, unbiased manner. I do not see this to be the case with Flock of Dodos. I think the film cheaply employed Daily Show type tactics, (i.e. – clipping a full length interview into a 15 second snippet of the interviewee having a tongue-tied moment) in order to make the interviewed person look ignorant (don’t get me wrong, I love Jon Stewart & Colbert, but even Stewart mocks people who use his show as a source for factual information).
In Freshman College English we learn that when writing a paper, one should strive to establish credibility so that the reader(s) will trust that th…
|
|||||
|
Dishonest and unscientific – don’t waste your money  If you want a good documentary that actually addresses both sides of the debate, states the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments and tries to offer an honest conclusion about which is the stronger argument, do not waste a penny on this movie. You will not learn anything. Intelligent Design is misrepresented and smeared, and a detailed case for Darwinism that destroys the ID argument is never even attempted – the filmmaker basically falls into the same lazy trap of calling Intelligent Design theory creationism so that he never has to actually attempt to refute the Intelligent Design argument. If the filmmaker wanted to make a dodo out of Intelligent Design all he had to do was immediately show, using illustrations and evidence, exactly why the Intelligent Design argument is wrong, why Irreducible Complexity is wrong, and rock the world with one blow. Since there is no honest and proven refutation of Intelligent Design (research it, there actually isn’t. Darwinists always SAY there is, with such certainty you’d think they must be right, but there really isn’t), the filmmaker is left with 2 options – to either present the debate honestly and admit weakness in Darwinism, or hide from the debate and simply condescend, ridicule, and look down upon the “ridiculous” ID movement. Except they forgot they are supposed to be scientists. If the Intelligent Design theory actually were ridiculous, any truly smart person would simply look the challenger in the eyes, explain fully why they are wrong and destroy the debate instantly. Instead we’re left with a bunch of lazy “scientists” smoking cigars, playing cards and belittling others, all the while forgetting to bring their actual argument to the table. They try to dismiss ID by destroying old creationist arguments, as though you could out-swim Michael Phelps by out-swimming your 4 year old nephew? What does one have to do with the other? The Darwinists in this film don’t make a dodo out of Intelligent Design because, as Pacino said in And Justice For All- “Only we have a problem here. And you know what it is? Both sides want to win. We want to win! We want to win regardless of the Truth! And we want to win regardless of Justice! WINNING is everything! That man there wants a win so badly today, it means so much to him, he is so carried away with the Prospect of winning, the IDEA, that he forgot something absolutely essential to today’s proceeding. He forgot his case. He forgot to bring it.” If the Director, Randy Olson, makes a second film, maybe he’ll remember to bring his case with him. When I watch science documentaries I like there to be actual science in it. Skip this one…. New Age mommy, her sonny and gambling professors.. Bad part: Story: If you have money to spend and want true balanced information available, it is better to watch “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. Or else, to balance things our check out “Icons of Evolution” DVD. This documentary deserves at best three stars, but I would give it one or two, because it presents ID as: religion, god-of-the-gaps, power game, and political agenda, when in reality what he uses himself for the most part is argumentum ad verecundiam, and rhetorics. Worth it But at the same time, it is not a movie made for scientists only. The movie is made in such a simple and straightforward way that anyone can (and should) watch it as well, and the various GRE words definitions throughout the movie make for a very fun diversion for anyone who has had (or is) studying for that exam. There’s a good deal of humor and contrary to popular belief, it is not made to insult or demean as most other movies of this genre would. Silly as it sounds, this movie is very much worth it and I highly recommend. This now stands proudly in my dvd collection and I keep making friends watch it. So far, no one hated it…. |
|||||
1 Comment until now
Terrific
Former marine biologist Randy Olson has crafted a brilliant and very down-home style documetary that exposes the soft underbelly of the ID “controversy” which, as it turns out, is little more than the proverbial tempest-in-a-teapot. There are, however, a number of disturbing issues raised by easy going, good ol’ boy Dr. Olson. First, the duplicitous shenanigans of the ID crowd as personified by Professor of Communications John Angus Campbell who speaks on behalf of Darwin but is a long time board member of Discovery Institute (and who also gave the interviewer that wierd pinkie/index finger “hook ‘em horns” hand gesture which makes me wonder about his allegiances altogether). Then there is the well known Dr. Michael Behe whose scholarship in science serves a religious doctrine that is oddly reminiscent of Inquistion priests who extracted confessions from those who saw the gaps in the god. Today Behe and others exploit the nonsensical “god in the gaps.” Just a through the looking glass reflection of the same wrong-headed adherence to dogmatic belief.
Second, and even more problematic, is the quotation by Justice Scalia from his dissenting Minority Report on the Edwards v The State of Lousiania case(1987). “The people of Lousiana…are quite entitled…to have whatever evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools…” One must wonder if this same principle applies to every theory. Ought every scientific theory presented in a public school science class include “whatever evidence” there may be “against” the prevailing scientific paradigm? This would certainly open the doors to whatever “evidence” diverges from science such as UFOs, Bigfoot, and a host of paranormal phenomenon. One can only imagine the intolerable bind that such a principle of inclusion would put science educators in.
Dr. Olson’s non confrontational interview style allows believers to be hoisted by their own petards. But he doesn’t spare scientists either. Their rarified discourses can’t compete with the ID PR machine that reduces science to sound-bites and false analogies crafted to snare the unwary. Frutstrated though they may be, mainstream academic scientists take a hands off approach to ID as being hopelessly irrelevant and simply cannot reduce the complexities of science to layman’s terms. As a consequence bumperstickers proclaiming “teach the controversy” hold more sway than the writings of the late Stephen J. Gould.
Dr. Olson has done a great service in documenting the history and current state of affairs of religiously inspired attempts to put god back in the schools and return us to the Dark Ages. It was certainly not a good sign that Christian fundamentalists appear to sound much like Muslim fundmentalists in their rejection of secular science. Come to think of it, that’s exactly what it sounds like.
Add your Comment!