Actually, not fairly at all, at least according to Sigemund at The Design Paradigm. Although Olson’s documentary on the intelligent design evolution debate has not been released nationwide, Olson did come through this area to show the film in an …

ID itself has problems with explaining what it really is all about in a meaningful way.

Omissions Although the filmmakers plead time constraints as their rationale, it is not insignificant that they did not include some of the most formidable proponents of ID, such as Dr. William Dembski. Also missing is the fact that ID is argued for from other disciplinary bases, including information theory.

Dembski may seem to be formidable but really his work and contributions to establishing or solidifying his ideas are hardly that impressive. Wrap a gap argument in a claim that it is related to information theory, stir and claim that the result is a way to detect without any false positives, something called design.

In the process, the concept of probability is renamed to become information or complexity but it really all comes down to probability and probability is all a measure of our ignorance.

Compared to other ID proponents, Dembski may appear to be a formidable proponent. As such, one may want to read the excellent rebuttals of his claims by scientists. Rebuttals which in many ways remain unanswered.

I also see this focus on Darwinian theory. Do people even realize that evolutionary science has moved far beyond this? ID by focusing on Darwinian pathways is showing itself to be even more scientifically vacuous as the argument now seems to have become not-Darwinian hence designed. Remember that all that is needed is specification, which in biology merely means function and is thus a trivial concept, and complexity, which means that we do not really fully understand all the details surrounding the origin and evolution of the system.

As such specified complexity becomes a useless quantity to detect design as it cannot even compete with the Null Hypothesis of ‘we don’t know’. And since it presents no independent hypotheses of its own, a design inference is immediately blocked by any attempt to formulate a scientific pathway, since ID has failed to calculate the level of complexity for most any non trivial system.
Flock of Dodos in many ways seems to mimic the approach of Michael Moore, let the sides speak for themselves. In this case it showed how scientists are ill equipped to combat a well funded PR machine.