What is Science

There are some crazy people who think "Intelligent Design" and Religion should be taught in public school. To which I say:

Okay. Good idea, actually. Because whether you are an Atheist, or a Deist (of whatever variety), or believe in Science! you must realize that religion is a fact of life. It exists in the minds of most people in one way or another. There are a million varieties of it. It is also very complicated and therefore it is a subject that can, and probably should, be discussed in school. However: like politics, religion can be a sticky thing to get into. You can't preach one side, nor one denomination. You can't overtly tell someone that one is right and one is wrong. But, like politics, we should be confident that an intelligent, well educated student can make an intelligent, well educated decision of their own which, if it is intelligent, should be a viable opinion.

Right?

However, that does not mean "Intelligent Design" should be taught in a science class. Because it isn't science. Philosophy? Sure. History? Definitely. Current Events? Yep. Science. No, not really. Nothing about it is "scientific".

Though I can see why some people believe that it is. "Scientists" have gotten into the habit of proposing all sorts of ideas of their own which aren't actually science either. They are just ideas. Philosophies. Supported by logic and reason, but not by any real evidence, besides (perhaps) a small kernel. But evidence is what is needed for a theory to be a "scientific theory". Eleven dimension unifying string theory is a good example of this. There is precious little physical evidence for eleven dimension unifying string theory. Especially from the perspective of a person who isn't a doctor in paranormal (quantum) physics. But, of course, that's because we can't see in eleven dimensions; we only see in three.

Uh huh.

This has led people to believe the "watchmaker argument" is scientific evidence for "Intelligent Design". If you find a watch, you assume it was made by someone; why not assume that the awesome complexity of life and the universe were made by someone as well. That's logical and it makes so much sense that people have used it (in one form or another) for thousands of years at least to point to the existence of God. But it isn't evidence. It's just logic, and it's just a metaphor. Metaphors are great at explaining things, but they are not evidence and they are never, Never Ever, a perfect explanation for anything.

That is why they are "metaphors". Like a parable, they are not literal.

The other thing about metaphors is, you can also punch a hole in them with another metaphor, or another line of logic. Unlike a watch, life can change and adapt, like water to fill a glass perfectly. The watch is like a block. If you find a block to fit a glass perfectly, then it makes sense to assume it was built to fit a glass; however, water always fits the glass and it wasn't tailored to fit the glass. Now, excusing the fact the above is more of a simile than a metaphor, it serves the same purpose of explanation. Also like the "watchmaker argument", it can have a hole punched through it just as easily.

But, as only a kernel of evidence, a case study, my disbelief in metaphors is not scientifically supported. It's only based in logic.

Inkheart (movie)

When I first looked at "Inkheart", I had two hypotheses. One: that the movie would be pretty good; a fantasy where one could pull a story into reality is one which I have a particular affinity for (I love my books). Two: it'd be some awful 'family movie' with a thin, nauseating plot.

I was happy that it leaned more toward the former. It was "enjoyable" fantasy. However, there were some... holes. It doesn't really suffer from 'Family Movie Syndrome', but it's continuity errors are mostly because it is trying to be happy in spite of rather dire tragedy.

The major problem with the movie is lack of explanation for the "silvertongue" power. From here, since the major problem is plot related, it's going to be hard to discuss this movie without a few small spoilers. I'll try to keep it small.

There are multiple characters with this power, this is known from the beginning. One of them isn't very good at it and brings damaged things out of books. Another is considered better, however, they always transfer: when something is brought from the book, something else goes in. The last doesn't appear to have any limitations whatsoever. That's the most annoying part.

There are parts in the ending which don't make sense. Most of it can be explained, but you have to explain it yourself. The film makers don't help you. But there is also one glaring error which doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to add a little unnecessary drama to the end with Dustfinger. And I can't explain it in any other way.

So it's good, but the ending will annoy a thoughtful viewer.

Gears of War 2 (XBox 360)

All I played of this game was an online "hoard" match with three people. I didn't play the story and I didn't play very long. I never got used to the controls, really, though I did get to the point where I could survive for a little while. I don't have a very deep knowledge of this game, but I will still give a review of what I did experience:

This game is really, really "Slow". Your character is a hulking creature with an automatic weapon. You spend all your time crouching behind something and then shooting out from behind it. Then hiding again. Then shooting again. Then something gets close to you and dismembers you. Yay. Then you do it again. You can punch things really hard, and you can sorta stand up against an enemy for a little while... But for the most part, you're shooting from behind cover. And then run your massive bulk to a new piece of cover. With all the turning radius of a rocket ship.

The people I played with thought the game was great. They had the first one as well. They had played a lot and were pretty good at it, so there must be something for FPS fans (even though it's not really First Person...), but it wasn't my cup of tea.

The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (musical movie)

"The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" was better than I thought it would be. I was fearing that it would be one of those movies where I always want to look off or beyond what the camera is showing. "Look over there! Gaa!" But It wasn't.

The movie advertises itself as funny, but I didn't find such, per se.... I didn't laugh too often. Once in a while, but not often. However, it wasn't highly dramatic, either. Most of the time... I did choke up at the end a bit. Good music helps that.

The music was really enjoyable. Better than the music in most musicals, I feel. It didn't always have that "This is the song that goes like this!" (-Spamalot) feel to it which many musicals follow. The infusion of some of Dolly Parton's own songs was fairly seemless and added some depth to the soundtrack.

The movie is "Entertaining", foremost, but also has some depth to it as well. There's a lot of opinion and philosophy which the film discusses such as honesty, television, morality... that last one is the biggest. Is it good or bad to have a whorehouse in your town? It's really a cultural judgment. However, I never felt like the characters in the movie behaved like people who made regular use of a whorehouse. They had sexual values which I would believe are more consistent with our culture's, which villainizes them. If partial nudity throws you into a tizzy, then be warned that there is some, along with some drug usage, but no real violence besides a punch to the face.

Which is worst?

The Triplets of Belleville (animatied silent film, 2003)

This is a very unique movie. If you are a dialog driven individual, you should be warned that there ain't much in here. The movie is entirely crafted from visual style, sounds, and music. It becomes quite the "artistic" film. Like the ballet, but I can understand animation more than dance: I'm more familiar with it. Or like the beginning of Wall-E, but not quite so magnificent (however, Triplets sustains better than Wall-E, which I only found so magnificent for the first part).

The advantage of this style is that it creates a film that can really be understood by any language group because "language" isn't important. There is no need for subtitles. But it does require an attention of a different sort than usual and it is a different culture (by a little) than what the average American knows. If you aren't ready for that, then this may not be the movie for you. It is undeniable that the film is "good". But it is very particular and probably could not be enjoyed (at all) by many people. But for those who are adventurous and looking for something new and different, it is a good lead. The movie is very, very well polished, that much is clear.

I kinda like the visual style. It is reminiscent of cartoons such as old Popeye in how they moved, but there was much more detail and the same level of exaggeration in what everyone looked like. Its like one of those old "find things" books in how much is going on in the background (and the foreground) and I doubt anyone sees it all the first four times they watch the movie. I've only seen it once, so I feel like I've barely seen the surface.

The tone of the movie is pretty melancholy, even if it is filled with visual jokes. The movie makes me feel sad so that, when the jokes come, I'm not really in the mood to laugh. But if your sense of humor is really cynical and dry, the movie is probably better to you.

It was an interesting adventure, and I recommend it to those who are ready for that.

Update:

I watched Triplets of Belleville again, and found it to be very re-watchable. I also watched it with a cycling fanatic who was amazed at the brilliant level of detail. Whoever made this movie knows as much about biking as they do about animating.

This is a very detailed and finely tuned film. I still find it to be "Artistic" but in a very entertaining way. If you can get past the lack of dialog, it is a very good movie.

However,

The ending is almost too laughable. Too unreal for a movie with so much background detail.