Creationists take their fight to the really big screen.

"I really hate it when the Germ Theory of Disease is presented as fact.""I don't agree with their presentation of the idea that the Earth is a sphere and not flat."They have to be extremely careful as to how they present anything relating to The Atomic Theory of Matter"Anybody who would complain about such things would be considered pretty stupid and backward, eh?

quote:

---

But evolution is not the end-all, be-all.

---

Well, actually, regarding the study of life on Earth, it really is the "be-all and end-all", so to speak.Well, it isn't really the "end-all", because it might be shown to be wrong at a later date.But that's as likely to happen as the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar Syastem will be shown to be wrong at a later date.

quote:

---

You're making it out to be a "holy grail,"

---

Nah, we know that evolution really happens, and nobody has ever seen the Grail.

quote:

---

and some people don't like evolution as a "holy grail." You largely ignore about my point about how it is presented.

---

If it was presented accurately, then boo hoo to the people who didn't like it.

quote:

---

There are two types of theories, empirical and explanatory.

---

Huh, this is new to me. I am under the impression that all scientific theories need to be both empirical and explanatory.

quote:

---

The problems do not lie with empirical evolution, it lies with explanatory evolution (namely, how empirical evolution is interpreted and presented). Although they didn't realize it, these people were complaining about the explanatory theory of evolution.

---

I don't really think there's a difference, mike.

quote:

---

If evolution is fact, though, does that encourage exploration of the origins of life,

---

Theories and discussion regarding the origin of life are largely separate from those involving the Theory of Evolution, because the ToE deals with life once it got here, not how it got here.

quote:

---

criticisms to evolution, and alternative theories?

---

You are confusing "fact" and "theory".Yes, it is a fact that evolution happens. We observe the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. This is the fact of evolution.The Theory of Evolution is the theoretical framework which explains all of the facts as we find them, organizing them into a coherent picture of what the facts tell us is going on. It is a "big picture" kind of idea.While the fact of evolution is not at all in dispute, the Theory is certainly the topic of much testing, debate and criticism from within the scientific community. That's what scientists do; test theories to see if they break.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-24-2005 09:27 AM

quote:

---

You see, you're assuming on an evolution vs creation that evolution is a "be-all."

---

I'm not "assuming".It's a conclusion based upon 150 years and billions of individual tests of the theory.

quote:

---

That's a problem. And you also use an extreme analogy with the heliocrentric solar system.

---

See, it's NOT an extreme analogy at all.Nobody has ever observed the entire solar system at once, so how is it that we are able to be positive that the sun is at the center of it?The notion that the Earth was at the center of the entire universe, let alone our solar system, was common for quite some time. Copernicus came up with heliocentrism less than 300 years before Darwin published Origin.the ToE has just as much, if not more in many cases, emperical support as any other theory in science, including the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System.

quote:

---

You may be correct in some empirical aspects, but to prevent a view that the entire world and the human race has resulted solely from the process of evolution really undercuts the evolution/creation controversy (which is what this board is all about).

---

So?Was the information presented accurately?BTW, do you now understand the difference between "theory" and "fact" as they are used in science?If so, the boo hoo to the people who didn't like it.

quote:

---

Well, its good to see that you can undermine an article I have quoted with a simple "I don't think" statement, and that you have the credibility to do this without any sources.

---

What article? I didn't see any citation.

quote:

---

This film probably made a reference to the theory of evolution, because one of the complaints was about its outlook on human life. I've seen this again and again in movies in documentaries, where it says, "[something] resulted from the evolutionary process that started with simple protocells billions of years ago." If people want to object to that sort of presentation of evolution, then allow them to do so.

---

Nobody is saying that they aren't allowed to object.What I am saying is, "If Evolution was presented accurately, boo hoo to the people who didn't like it."It's too damn bad that some people are threatened by scientific findings. It's too bad that science contradicts their religious views.Boo Hoo.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-25-2005 08:58 AM

quote:

---

The people who wouldn't want to see it, will likely not come and the controversy is not likely to influence them in any way, except perhaps to have them come and picket. For those who would not care one way or the other, they are more likely to be drawn by the controversy (that is an added element of intrigue) than turned off. Heck, some may come just for the principle of supporting disliked art.

---

I had never heard of this IMAX movie before this controvosy brought it here, where it was brought to my attention.Now I am considering going to see it if it is showing around here, just to see the mention of evolution for myself.I wouldn't ordinarily go see a volcano movie, but now I'm considering it.Indeed, when I was living in Philadelphia and Andres Serrano had pisschrist in an exhibition, I just had to go to see what all the fuss was about.See, mike? MORE people hear about something, and consider going to see it, when there's controversy.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-25-2005 09:07 AM

Stick with PBS if you want good science programs.I really love all of them; NOVA, National Geographic Frontiers, Nature, although I am disappointed that they have become so fast moving and flashy these days. I used to love it when there was a long-lasting shot of some great lioness on the hunt with no announcer talking.

That's Merlin, one of our cats.He's our death wish kitty.