Revisionism

There's this overarching trend in science and history of revisionism. It's in vogue to take an opposite stance on a long-accepted view just to be controversial and make a name for yourself. It's not really new, but it's gotten more pronounced in recent years. Startling reversals of ingrained dogma make for good headlines and attract grant money and disciples. They also make the scientists feel like misunderstood messiahs.

So we have the snowball earth theory, the dinos-into-birds theory, the various mass extinction theories, punctuated equilibrium, zero-point energy, Jesus doing the unmentionable with Mary Magdalene, and so on. It sells books and makes for enticing documentaries. One of these sensationalistic ideas is that T-Rex was not a fearsome predator but merely a scavenger. I've read a lot on both sides of the debate and both have some decent evidence in their favor. But for scientists (eh-hmm, Jack Horner) to stake their careers on the absolute assertion that this beast didn't hunt its own kills seems way premature to me, given the paucity of data.

Besides, just look at the fossilized skeleton of one. That's supposed to be a glorified vulture? Call it unscientific intuition, but it sure looks like a stone cold killer to me. You don't get that big, muscular, fast, keen of sight, widespread, and just downright cool-looking without being an A-list predator. Does the T-Rex remind you of a tiger, a crocodile, or great white shark, or does it remind you of a hyena or a vulture. I rest my case.