IMDb > Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus (2006)

Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus (2006) More at IMDbPro »


User Rating:
7.3/10   618 votes »
Your Rating:
Saving vote...
Deleting vote...
/10   (delete | history)
Sorry, there was a problem
Popularity: ?
Up 8% in popularity this week. See why on IMDbPro.
Evolutionary Ecologist, Randy Olson, tries to find out just who is the real "Flock of Dodos"
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. Full summary » | Full synopsis »
1 win See more »
User Reviews:
Not enough keep-theology-out-of-science class See more (13 total) »


  (in credits order)
Michael Behe ... Intelligent Design Supporter (as Michael Behe Ph.D.)
John Calvert ... Intelligent Design Supporter
Jack Cashill ... Intelligent Design Supporter
Tom Givnish ... Evolutionist
Randy Olson ... Himself
rest of cast listed alphabetically:
Erik Alden
David Bottjer ... Evolutionist (as Dr. David Bottjer)
Carol Brown
Jeff Brown
John L. Burch
John Angus Campbell ... Intelligent Designer (as Dr. John Angus Campbell)
Ty Carlisle
Steve Case ... Evolutionist (as Dr. Steve Case)
Michael Donoghue ... Evolutionist (as Dr. Michael Donoghue)
Ron Etter ... Evolutionist
Daphne Fautin ... Evolutionist (as Dr. Daphne Fautin)
Sue Gamble ... Moderate Republican
Thomas Givnish ... Evolutionist
James Handen ... Evolutionist (as Dr. James Handen)
William Harris ... Intelligent Designer (as Dr. William Harris)
Ed Leydecker
Karel Liem ... Evolutionist (as Dr. Karel Liem)
Donal Manahan ... Evolutionist (as Dr. Donal Manahan)
Kathy Martin ... Conservative Repbulican
Diane Michelle
Bob Muller ... Evolutionist
Steven Orzack ... Evolutionist
Mark Patterson ... Evolutionist
Jane Pickering ... Evolutionist (as Dr. Jane Pickering)
Edward Rowand (as Pastor Edward Rowand)
Mark Skinner ... Evolutionist
Bill Wagon ... Democrat
Jonathan Wells ... Intelligent Designer (as Dr. Jonathan Wells)

Directed by
Randy Olson 
Writing credits
(in alphabetical order)
Randy Olson 

Produced by
Ty Carlisle .... producer
Thomas Chan .... co-producer
Julie Janata .... executive producer
Ed Leydecker .... co-producer
Peter LoGreco .... co-producer
Steven Miller .... executive producer
Randy Olson .... producer
Stevo Polyi .... associate producer
Original Music by
Amotz Plessner 
Cinematography by
Shane Seley 
Joseph Trinh 
Film Editing by
Pascal Leister 
Art Direction by
Ryan Mitchell 
Art Department
Gary Reisman .... graphic artist
Sound Department
Thomas Chan .... sound
Jillinda Palmer .... sound editor
Jake Gideon Posner .... voiceover recordist
B. Tennyson Sebastian III .... sound mixer
Camera and Electrical Department
Scott Degraw .... assistant camera
Matt Hawley .... assistant camera
Zach Jones .... assistant camera
Peter LoGreco .... assistant camera
Joseph Trinh .... assistant camera
Ray Woodhouse .... assistant camera
Animation Department
Tom Sito .... animation director
Jonathan Archambault .... digital ink & paint (uncredited)
Editorial Department
Ty Carlisle .... assistant editor
Joe Faissal .... on-line editor
Laura Jans .... colorist
Judd H. Maslansky .... assistant editor
Randy Olson .... assistant editor
J. Bretton Truett .... on-line editor
Music Department
Robin Urdang .... music supervisor
Other crew
Peter D. Coogan .... stock footage researcher
Jeff Dowd .... producer's representative
Ryan Mitchell .... publicity art director
Muffy Moose .... head dodo
Tuan Nguyen .... stock footage researcher
Tuan Chau-Minh Nguyen .... researcher
Michael Sebastian .... production assistant (as Mike Sebastian)
Jean Sievers .... publicist
Garin Sparks .... promotion dodo

Production CompaniesDistributors

Additional Details

Rated PG for some thematic elements and brief mild language
84 min
Aspect Ratio:
1.78 : 1 See more »
Sound Mix:
Stereo (RCA Sound System) | Dolby
Filming Locations:


This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.
16 out of 40 people found the following review useful.
Not enough keep-theology-out-of-science class, 27 May 2007
Author: youaresquishy from San Antonio, TX

I want to begin by saying that I believe in evolution, and that I do not worship supernatural beings.

This is not a non-entertaining film, and I don't know of a better one about the teaching-intelligent-design-in-schools issue. However, ultimately, it's a disappointing, sometimes mildly amusing, hypocritical, smug documentary that is nevertheless not totally devoid of value about an important subject.

This film comes off as arrogantly insulting those who believe in intelligent design ("ID") itself, and it fails to get across the most important point that, even if you are pro-ID, while your views are arguably worthy of respect as a philosophical matter, you can't reasonably believe that your ID philosophy ought to be taught in science class.

Whether you believe in ID or don't, when it comes to whether ID should be taught in science class, it is clearly unreasonable to think that it ought to be, because science is a completely different way of looking at the world than that implied by ID. Teaching ID in science class would be a lot like teaching Kant's ethics or Russian literature in science class--it obviously doesn't belong there. The film really doesn't develop this idea enough, or, hardly at all actually, and devotes much too much time to trying to debate the truth or falsity of ID itself, which, in my view, is either (a) something that reasonable minds can and do differ upon or (b) completely incoherent babble, ultimately, on both sides of the debate.

I find it incredibly arrogant to presume to know that the universe was designed by a deity, just as I find it incredibly arrogant to presume to know that it wasn't. How would YOU know, unless you were a deity yourself? It might seem implausible to you that there's a deity behind all this, and it does in fact seem implausible to me that there's a deity behind all this, but I can assure you that it seems at least as implausible to many people that there isn't.

There are many reasonable people in the world who believe in ID but do not want it to be taught in science class. And this film is more about criticizing and insulting those who believe in ID itself than it is about criticizing those who not only believe in ID but also believe that it should be taught in science classes.

There are some positives though. This film does do a couple of interesting things. It briefly talks about an organization called the Discovery Institute which is a well-funded group which promotes the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, and it contrasts it with the relative lack of organization on the opposition-to-ID-in-schools. It criticizes the anti-ID camp for not doing what the pro-ID-in-schools camp is doing, i.e. for not really getting organized, not engaging in politicking, not being charming when in the public eye, insulting the other side and acting as though the subject is not worthy of debate rather than respecting its dignity and engaging in reasonable debate, and for not really explaining to the public its position and exactly why it's a bad idea to "teach" ID in science class.

It also explains a little about the legal and political history of the recent ID-in-schools phenomenon, and that's interesting stuff.

But the film lacks depth. I would have enjoyed hearing more about the subjects that I just discussed in the "positives" part of my review.

But the most glaring problem is its hypocrisy. It is guilty of exactly what it criticizes the anti-ID camp for, specifically: (1) not really explaining exactly why it's ridiculous for ID to be taught in science class, and (2) arrogantly insulting the pro-ID side rather than respecting its dignity and engaging in reasonable debate. At the very least, it should have reserved its insults and criticisms for those who not only believe in ID but who are also of the crazy view that ID ought to be taught in our science classes. There's nothing especially crazy about merely believing in ID. I don't, but most people actually do, and most of those people are not crazy.

For example, as far as (2) goes, the film basically calls the pro-ID camp a bunch of "dodos" in the first 5 minutes. The film's entire tone is one that basically kind of treats the pro-ID camp like it's just stupid and that you are stupid if you think it's anything other than obvious that the pro-ID camp is stupid. It is unlikely to turn on any pro-IDers for this reason alone. And that is really unfortunate. It would have been much more effective to grant that there is possibly some value to the ID viewpoint, but nevertheless that there is absolutely no value to the view that ID ought to be part of science classes.

As far as (1) goes, even though it seems pretty obvious to me why ID shouldn't be taught in science class, the film doesn't do much to explain why it's so obvious. It just spends almost all of its time childishly attacking people for merely believing that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. It seems to be of the viewpoint that somehow the standard position for a pro-ID person to take is that ID ought to be taught in science class, when in reality this is just an incredibly radical and idiotic position that most pro-IDers cannot possibly subscribe to.

There is some value to seeing this, but it is ultimately a pretty childish documentary that will insult the very people it claims to most want to influence--the pro-ID camp.

Was the above review useful to you?
See more (13 total) »


If you enjoyed this title, our database also recommends:
- - - - -
Jesus Camp DMT: The Spirit Molecule Religulous Kansas vs. Darwin Do It for Johnny
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
IMDb User Rating:
Show more recommendations

Related Links

Full cast and crew Company credits External reviews
IMDb Documentary section IMDb USA section

You may report errors and omissions on this page to the IMDb database managers. They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update. Clicking the 'Edit page' button will take you through a step-by-step process.