Rating: 
Summary: Buy it, get informed and demand change
Review: "Icons of Evolution" should be required viewing for all high school science teachers and parents of high school students. In fact, it would probably be a good thing for high school students to watch the video themselves. The story is compelling, but the issues raised are even more important than the story itself. As a former public high school biology teacher, I'm impressed by how plainly this video lays out some of the fundamental problems with public high school science education. On the one hand, doctrinaire pressure groups like the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), who seem to have only one agenda item, work to impose their particular version of evolution on all students. On the other hand you have weak-kneed bureaucratic administrators who haven't a clue about what it being taught but simply "follow the curriculum as it is given." In this environment, all innovation is stomped out and students end up with a dry recitations of lessons which contain rubbish mixed in with important information. When I taught using Miller and Levine, the most popular high school biology text at the time, it contained garbage like drawings of embryos by Ernst Haeckel which were recognized as nonsense over 100 years ago. What shocks me is that I seemed to be the only teacher who knew this was garbage. "Icons of Evolution" should be a wakeup call to all taxpayers who continue to flush money uncritically into our public education system. The potential for something much better than we have is out there. Buy this video, watch it, get informed, get out there and demand change.
Rating: 
Summary: The book is much better
Review: After reading the book by the same title, I was not impressed with the DVD. Unlike the book, the DVD relied on evoking an emotional response regarding the high school teacher and Darwin critic who had his teaching suppressed. While that is certainly lamentable, I was hoping for detailed illustration on the more cogent details of the book. The book, unlike the DVD, is fantastic, providing rigorous scientific evidence refuting neo-Darwinism. I am neither a creationist nor a Christian fundamentalist, but I love science and had believed evolution to generally be true. However, after reading Jonathan Wells' book, I was disappointed at how scientists are essentially dismissing dissenting viewpoints to undergird what has become scientific dogma in the face of contradictory evidence. The DVD, however, touches on this theme, and is a good initial exposure.
Rating:
Summary: Terrific Intro. to Scientific Controversy over Darwin
Review: Based on the controversial book by biologist Jonathan Wells, this fascinating documentary explores recent claims that many standard textbook evidences offered for Darwinian evolution (the "icons of evolution") are actually misleading if not false. The video also interweaves the story of a high school biology teacher who faces stiff resistance for trying to tell his students about some of the scientific controversies over Darwin's theory. This documentary is notable for featuring interviews with BOTH critics and defenders of Darwin's theory. Critics featured include Jonathan Wells and the wry and witty David Berlinski, while defenders of Darwin who show up include Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education and Ken Miller, author of Finding Darwin's God. Particularly intriguing is the segment on the "Cambrian Explosion" some 500 million years ago, which features exclusive footage from major fossil beds in China and includes interviews with Chinese paleontologists who say their findings are turning Darwin's tree of life upside down. If you are interested in the scientific (as opposed to religious) questions being raised about evolution, this is perhaps the single best introduction. Anyone who thinks that there is no scientific controversy over evolution should watch this documentary. Whatever your view on evolution, this video is likely to be an eye-opening experience. Highly recommended for high school age and above. It's interesting that several of the reviews on this page that claim to pan the video have not even watched it, for they talk about things that aren't even covered in the video. For example, the video is not about either intelligent design or creationism. Nor does it deal with the peppered moth issue (although peppered moths are a prominent part of the BOOK Icons of Evolution). Nor does it attack the scientific method. I guess some Darwinists are so sure of the truth that they are willing to attack something that they haven't even seen. What a curious conception of science!
Rating:
Summary: Every School Board Should See This DVD
Review: Fast-paced, gripping, and richly visual, this documentary explodes the worn-out stereotype depicting the controversy over evolution as a battle between intolerant religious fundamentalists opposed to Darwin's theory and valiant Darwinists who are defenders of academic freedom and free inquiry. One of my favorite parts of the DVD is when a high school biology teacher is actually forbidden by school administrators from assigning an article by noted evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould because the article exposes bogus evidence for evolution still printed in many textbooks. Watching this DVD will be an eye-opening experience for anyone who thinks Darwinists believe in free inquiry. You will see a leading Darwinist contend (on camera) that science isn't democratic and that students shouldn't learn about inaccuracies in their textbooks (or scientists who are critical of parts of evolutionary theory) because the students might be confused by the truth. Buy this DVD and send it to every school board member or donate a copy to your local library.
Rating:
Summary: Why don't evolutionists view this DVD before "reviewing" it?
Review: I could be mistaken, but it appears that the viewer from Missouri and DAN JOHNSON have not even viewed this DVD, yet claim to be "reviewing" it. That's why they dare not raise objections to any of the points made in this evenhanded presentation of the problem - why falsehoods supposedly known to be such by evolutionists - in some cases for many decades - continue to be presented in textbooks as fact. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould agrees that Haeckel's embryo drawings were false, yet claims that since evolutionists have known this for umpteen years, it's a moot point. Wasn't he concerned that Darwinism had to resort to known falsehoods as "evidence"? Why is teaching falsehoods a moot point? Certainly he can expect it of those wicked theists, but isn't Gould a scientist? Similarly, why aren't evolutionists up in arms about the fact that the feet of "Lucy" were altered to look more human, when allegedly the entire evolutionist community knew her feet were unhumanly curved, quite like an apes? Where is their thirst for accuracy and self-correction? Jonathan Wells became an atheist through being indoctrinated with Darwinism. I would wager he has more scientific credentials than either of those two dishonest "reviewers": he has degrees in geology, physics, molecular and cell biology, and religious studies, and has worked as a post-doc research biologist. After rediscovering the wonder of creation, he explored various religions, taking him to gurus and swamis, and finally back to Christian theism - ironically, the foundation of most of today's sciences. Chesterton wrote that "As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman's argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out. ... For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. ... The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel." Fortunately these "reviewers" have a wealth of information to turn them away from their pseudoscience and back to science: Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", Strobel's "The Case for a Creator", and ex-agnostic Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", among others. Of course there is also the Access Research Network on the web to provide objective arguments for real free thinkers.
Rating:
Summary: Why don't evolutionists view this DVD before "reviewing" it?
Review: I could be mistaken, but it appears that the viewer from Missouri and DAN JOHNSON have not even viewed this DVD, yet claim to be "reviewing" it. That's why they dare not raise objections to any of the points made in this evenhanded presentation of the problem - why falsehoods supposedly known to be such by evolutionists - in some cases for many decades - continue to be presented in textbooks as fact. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould agrees that Haeckel's embryo drawings were false, yet claims that since evolutionists have known this for umpteen years, it's a moot point. Wasn't he concerned that Darwinism had to resort to known falsehoods as "evidence"? Why is teaching falsehoods a moot point? Certainly he can expect it of those wicked theists, but isn't Gould a scientist? Similarly, why aren't evolutionists up in arms about the fact that the feet of "Lucy" were altered to look more human, when allegedly the entire evolutionist community knew her feet were unhumanly curved, quite like an apes? Where is their thirst for accuracy and self-correction? Jonathan Wells became an atheist through being indoctrinated with Darwinism. I would wager he has more scientific credentials than either of those two dishonest "reviewers": he has degrees in geology, physics, molecular and cell biology, and religious studies, and has worked as a post-doc research biologist. After rediscovering the wonder of creation, he explored various religions, taking him to gurus and swamis, and finally back to Christian theism - ironically, the foundation of most of today's sciences. Chesterton wrote that "As an explanation of the world, materialism has a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality of the madman's argument; we have at once the sense of it covering everything and the sense of it leaving everything out. ... For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. ... The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel." Fortunately these "reviewers" have a wealth of information to turn them away from their pseudoscience and back to science: Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", Strobel's "The Case for a Creator", and ex-agnostic Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", among others. Of course there is also the Access Research Network on the web to provide objective arguments for real free thinkers.
Rating: 
Summary: DO NOT BE MISLED!
Review: Interesting to see how many people without the proper biology education will drone on in their review, using words and terms that betray their amateur expertise in the matter. EVOLUTION IS DEFINED AS A CHANGE IN ALLELE FREQUENCIES ACROSS SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS IN A POPULATION OF ORGANISMS. If this confuses you, you probably should back out of the controversy. Darwin's theory was natural selection, not evolution. What we took from Darwin was a lifetime of studies in population dynamics. What we added (from 1952 onward) was knowledge of genetics, and how changes in allele frequencies and other aspects of genetics tie into population dynamics (and the environmental factors that influences those dynamics). Things are basically that simple. Creation Science is not science at all, but the latest attempt by Christian conservatives to inject their religious beliefs into the classroom. The evidence is severly lacking, but TV shows and Creationism lecture series at your local church can be very convincing, especially when you're being pressured to believe that evolution contradicts your beliefs! And telling people that the peppered moths were actually glued to the tree? C'mon, that was just to make sure both moths were in the picture! ... If you understand evolution, then you know that the theory stands, with or without Darwin. Is it a fact? The process of evolution is a fact (see the definition above). The specific evolutionary histories of organisms on this planet are theoretical. And finally, no, science is not democratic. Creationists tell you that so that your like of democracy will be offended. The point of not being democratic is that scientists do NOT determine validity by means of votes, polls, and townhall meetings. YOU DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS FALSE WITHOUT EVIDENCE. And this is a better approach than American democracy, in which people without knowledge of politics or the platforms (but instead only a religious sentiment to be offended or appealed to) determine what is best for everyone else. Americans like their science to be like their politics: The side that can scream "GOD" the loudest must be right.
Rating:
Summary: science versus a vague feeling of anti-science
Review: It is unfortunate that there is a market for those who would like to say that the Biology and Geology departments of all of the Universities of the nation are simply wrong, a bunch of blind fools, basically so they can promote a simpler but baseless like like Icons of Evolution. It is sadder still that the fundamentalist religion movement of the 1920s persists today in trying to keep a small religion, rather than broaden their sense of awe accept the real magnificance of the evolution of life and the natural world. The writers try hard to pretend that they opposition to science in general and to evolutionary science in particular is not based on the misconception that have about religion.
Rating:
Summary: BE CAREFUL
Review: Mr. Johnson is an antievolution thinker, but he's a Lawyer too. That's why he use the words very well, and you can be converted to his way of think. He don't know nothing about Biology or Evolution, nor like Behe, other antievolutionst, but with a some Biology backround, but wrong orientation. See the picture, but see the PBS series "Evolution" too, and judge yourself.
Rating:
Summary: This DVD is a must see for critical thinkers
Review: No religion, just the science. Why do evolutionists avoid the debate in the classroom, they dont like the latest answers science is providing. This DVD is a first class documentary that takes the tough questions head on. World class biologists discuss Darwin's theoretical flaws.
Every middle school kid should see this film. A+++
|
