Flock of Dodos

Last class we watched the documentary "Flock of Dodos" which showed the contrasting views, arguments, and strategies of evolutionists and intelligent designers.

The film-maker was himself an evolutionist by training and the film was not without its biases. However, he tried very hard to allow the intelligent designers to get their point across and in the end, it was the intelligent design community that would actually appear more appealing to the general public. Intelligent design uses the very catchy and compelling catchphrase "teach the controversy." And why not? If there is a controversy in science it ought to be taught, right? The problem is that intelligent design cannot be tested experimentally and therefore, by very definition, is not science. The evolutionists, however, don't (or at least appear not to) counter with this argument, instead favoring to seemingly attack intelligent design as an outright stupid idea and that anybody who would propose or believe such and idea is likewise stupid.

Evolutionists seemed very confrontational and defensive (neither a strategy that will win many supporters) while intelligent designers often came across as very cooperative and compromising (even admitting that evolution occurs, but saying that some things also clearly point to the hand of a creator). The real downfall of the evolutionists was that they came across as not just attacking the concept of intelligent design as a science, but religion in general. With the vast majority of the general public having faith in some form of God, this strategy will endear yourself to very few.

The evolutionists often used large, complicated words that gave them the appearance of having an "I'm superior to you" attitude, while intelligent designers seemed more like friendly neighbors (although, at times, they did come across as a little too backward and homely).

Finally, the evolutionists came across as being hypocritical at times, recalling the arrest and prosecution of past scientists like Galileo for proposing new scientific ideas and then immediately dismissing intelligent design as ridiculous without a second thought.