atenolol wrote:
A poster pointed out that 2001 is science fiction. Exactly. It is fiction. But the development of man and man's intelligence on Earth is not fiction. It is an historical fact and subject to scientific evaluation. Science explains that development through the Theory of Evolution. I am a Darwinist. An explanation which relies on an alien manipulation of man's history is anti-Darwinist to me.  
There's nothing remotely anti-Darwin about 2001.  As you agree, it is fiction.  Fiction about the development of man's intelligence.  There is absolutely nothing in the movie that insists it is a ringing declaration of the truth of how man evolved.  Another idea of human evolution is the basis of QUATERMASS AND THE PIT; that's also fiction; Nigel Kneale believed evolution was factual, as do I.  I do not understand why you insist on believing that 2001 is an attempt at revealing a hitherto-unknown Great Truth.
atenolol wrote:
It is one thing for science fiction to deal with an alternative world or with the future. It is quite another to deal with the past and then ignore the facts of the past. That does open a door which just calling it "fiction" can not close.  
 How so?  I've italicized the portion of your quote that I simply cannot accept on any level. Science fiction deals with possibilities, not certainties; the writers of future-set science fiction are not claiming that the future they depict is certain, it's just a maybe.  2001 shows a possible past and a possible future, both entirely within the province of science fiction.   

Last Edited By: Bill Warren Jan 23 11 2:12 PM. Edited 2 times.