Hmm, I posted the below in response to this. Which was moderated out. Odd, as I didn't think it warranted excluding. Tbh, it's a really bad post and a bit out of their depth as a movie site. Kind of sad really. Although I guess in deleting a comment like mine they're being hoisted by their own petard..."In our society, we only believe in free speech and the value of different ideas if we agree with them"
Still, at least The Simpsons can always show us the way eh? :)
Guess I'll lower my expectations of the movie blog.
Wow. John. I'm so saddened by that post. Please please, do yourself a favour & read up on this stuff.
"Actually, you’re incorrect. Evolution, according to most darwinist scientists, is not a “fact”. My their own admission, is is simply what many of them believe to be the best working theory they have."
Aside from the labeling of "darwinist" that' actually broadly true. Just that evolution by natural selection is the *only* credible theory put forward in 150 years that can explain the growth of life on earth. There is a huge amount of supporting evidence, and none against."Also, the point here is, that when many scientists do produce theories and facts, and ask to just simply follow the evidence to wherever it leads, they get silenced. Many people start with the incorrect scientific assumption that unless evidence leads to where they already want it to go, they dismiss it. The problem is that people refuse to sit and listen to anything that doesn’t already fundamentally agree with your preexisting ideas."
Um, no. This isn't how science works at all. This is how theology works. Yes, you start with a hypothesis and look to prove this by using your theory to predict experimental results (e.g. gravitational lensing as predicted by general relativity). If the evidence matches your predictions then bingo. If it doesn't, well...that can actually be better. It means you have something interesting to look at, there's a hole in your theory etc. Now, the kicker is that all of this means nothing without peer review. Competition fuels science. Can you honestly believe that if someone came up with refuting evidence and an alternative theory of evolution by natural selection that they wouldn't shout it from the rooftops? They'd be the Einstein of Biology! A 150 years of theory overturned! The Nobel Prize and a place in history!...or "nah, I think I'll just support the status quo.".And also there's another kicker...science would welcome this. Unlike politicians, or indeed theologians, scientists care about what is true, not just supporting the current world view. If you can show them a theory that supplants their own they will be delighted. I almost hesitate to recommend him, because of many people's preconceptions (who probably haven't read his work), but do read some of rRichard Dawkins stuff. And no, I don't mean "The God Delusion". I mean one of his science books. Something like "Unweaving The Rainbow" or "The Ancestor's Tale". There's a taster here from one of his lectures. Try this and see if you're interested.If that's not to your taste, try some Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman or Kip Thorne.Then you'll understand what I mean by no one believes in evolution, myself included.