Excuse me for the uncreative and very simple title. Before I had came up to my room to write this, I was watching a show on BBC America called “Primeval.” A rather good show, with lovely acting and good CGI. However, one thing annoyed me about this show… the fact that the writers have, as it is blatantly apparent, done little to no scientific research. I mean, sure, since there’s dinosaurs and giant scorpions and what-have-you, of course it’s more science fiction than science fact. However, the thing that actually annoyed me was the lack of research about actual scientific theories. This fellow, called “Nick,” mentioned “random selection” (he was arguing about something with this other character). Random selection? Random? I think the writers got “random selection” (a twist of words used by creationists [people who believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design]) confused with “natural selection,” a component of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. There is this saying, or clarification, that I read on YouTube:
The creation of an environment is random; a creature’s adaption to that environment is not [random].
The adaption part is natural selection, although not the only way for animals to change themselves. Other than that, a good show.
Anyway, the moral of the story is:
If you are debating the theory of Evolution with someone, and they use “random selection” to support their debunking of evolution, you automatically win that debate. Why? Because they have obviously never researched the theory; imagine trying to debate Saber (Fate/Stay Night) versus Asuna Kagurazaka and the opponent [the person you're debating with] doesn’t know who Saber is, which is sort of blasphemous if you ask me.
November 2nd, 2008 |