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.

ergundel Watch either "Dodos" or "Expelled" if you do NOT want to learn much about Evolution or Intelligent Design.Both movies are more about attitudes towards their respective theories rather than the merits of the theories themselves. "Expelled" argues that scientific communities act with the same partisan and even repressive behavior seen in almost every kind of community, and "Dodos" argues that anyone who questions Evolutionary theory is an idiot or a quack (albeit likable idiots and quacks).And this utter lack of respect for it's opposing position is why I give this movie a low grade. It doesn't even pose provocative ideas (like Expelled), or a sense of humor (like a Michael Moore film).Instead Dodos offers criticisms of ID that would easily be destroyed if posed to one of the various ID representatives the movie interviews. The scientists offered as friendly witnesses on the side of Darwin rarely if ever pose a scientific argument, and instead offer ad hominem attacks, and other examples of logical terrorism that should make any scientist ashamed.But perhaps worst of all is the recommendation the movie makes to scientists in the following statement: "The bigger issue in this whole thing is who will be the voice not just of evolution, but of science in general. Is it going to be scientists who are handicapped by their blind obsession with the truth? Or will it be public relations firms that know the importance of a good story but feel no constraints by the truth?" This is not the kind of statement made by people assured of the merits of their argument; no, this kind of statement is made by one with blind faith who lacks confidence in their ability to persuade by reason.Dodos argues that ID succeeds in the public arena because it tells a simple story, while the truth is much more complex. I would argue that the opposite is true. Evolution succeeds because it is such a simple explanation; ID succeeds when the simplicity of Evolutionary theory fails to account for the evidence. IDs biggest problem is that it's central argument (that there is a designer to life) opens up so many more questions that sticking to the simple "selection via random mutation" is often more attractive intellectually.Dodos claims that scientists have good answers to the questions posed by ID, but those answers require time and a depth of knowledge to understand. Personally, I've tried to find those answers, but such responses will rarely convince anyone not already converted, and often are rebuttals to arguments no one is even making.I will agree with Dodos about one thing: if champions of Neo-Darwinism hope to squash the "pseudoscience" of ID, they need to have a more compelling presence in the media. But when they lose the veneer of a "blind obsession with the truth", scientists lose all credibility.

lastliberal I love science. I am not a scientist, but when it comes to books, magazines, etc., I am more likely to pick up something about science than anything else. I also love movies, so when a movie about Science comes along, I will see it.I am not anti-religion. If it helps you get through life, then I am all for it. I prefer Effexor myself, but whatever floats your boat is OK with me as long as you don't try to teach my children your fantasies.This is what it's all about. The fantasy of Creationism versus the facts of Evolution. This film makes it simple to understand even for the uneducated dodos that let others do their talking and thinking for them. It is even-handed and gives time to both sides of this non-debate.The Creationists want to promote "teaching the controversy." This film is perfect for that and should be shown in all schools and all classes.

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.