And the "Science people" wonder why they're not taken seriously on global warming and evolution. Discovery, the National Geographic and others constantly speak in the name of "science" and the "scientific community" with no apparent objection from the scientists themselves.
When the AAAS speaks out warning the public that these outlets are prone to sensationalism, fraud and forgery, the AAAS will get some respect. So long as they are content to have themselves lumped together, they will be.
cookcounty wrote: "Discovery, the National Geographic and others constantly speak in the name of "science" and the "scientific community" with no apparent objection from the scientists themselves."
These networks and shows are very careful to use terms like, "might be" or "possibly was" when they state their positions.
I'm reminded of a show on the History Channel about flight. They theorized the ancient Egyptians might have known about the principles of flight. Apparently someone found a bird-shaped toy in one tomb. The show proved it was flyable by making "minor" alterations, such as adding control surfaces and a rudder. The show was very careful to say, "the Egyptians MIGHT have known about flight." Well, duh.
These shows explore possibilities but ignore the most obvious explanations. Occam's Razor: the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible. In the case of the Egyptian toy, the most obvious explanation is it's a toy bird, made to look similar to real birds.
In the case of this tomb show, I detect a bit more enthusiasm than typical. I suspect Cameron and other nonbelievers are overjoyed to explore remote possibilities, especially when bashing Christian beliefs.