In other words he engages in the very thing he defines as "Trivia Tackling": "trying to take down a large institution, idea or individual, not by assailing the large and significant parts, but by doggedly locking on to pieces of trivia." The closest thing to "assailing the large and significant parts" in Flock is when he talks briefly about Behe's mousetrap analogy. We see no intense discussion between Olson and Behe about the mousetrap, which would have been interesting, nor about any evolutionary matter with Behe that Olson has any expertise.
Something I noted recently is that John Angus Campbell (the "fake" Darwinist in the film) has his own website in which he clarifies his beliefs and his position on ID, and how Wikipedia mischaracterizes him. He is politically liberal, and a subscriber to neo-Darwinism who has long advocated "teaching the controversy." He ended his association with Discovery Institute when he started to find himself in the cross-hairs of Discovery Institute's political enemies.
When Wikipedia and The Weekly [a tabloid] mistakenly assumed I was supporting ID (and the religious right!) rather than promoting argument as a way of engaging a classic text [Darwin's Origin] - (and this before audiences who particularly needed to read it) the DI [Discovery Institute] affiliation had outlived its usefulness [for what?] and it was time for me to move on.*Like Kenny Rogers, Campbell knew when to fold 'em, when to walk away, when to run. Congratulations, Campbell. You too are a "secular creationist" for aiding and abetting "anti-science." Question: Did Randy Olson consult anything other than Wikipedia to learn about Campbell?
See Campbell's concise rebuttal to Wikipedia and the Seattle Weekly: