Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[Rhykker]

Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to creationist theories.

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, the follow-up to Carl Sagan's 1980 television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, premiered March 9 and has explored our universe from the scientific lenses of astronomy, astrophysics, biology, and more. But Dr. Danny Faulkner, a creation scientist with a background in astronomy and physics, wishes the series would present the Creationist point of view as well.

Faulkner expressed his thoughts on The Janet Mefferd Show, which takes a Christ-centered look at current events. Host Mefferd asked if Cosmos will "ever give a Creationist any time," to which Faulkner replied, "Creationists aren't even on the radar screen for them; they wouldn't even consider us plausible at all."

"Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution," said Mefferd, "it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there. You know, the old, 'some scientists say this, others disagree and think this' -- but that's not even allowed."

"Consideration of special Creation is definitely not open for discussion, it would seem," Faulkner added.

Faulkner's comments come after the second episode of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, which covered evolution and the origin of life. Given evolution is not "just a theory," but rather one of the most reliably established facts in science and the foundation of modern biology, it is not exactly surprising that a science series would not present special creation as an alternative.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

Source: Right Wing Watch [http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/creationists-demand-airtime-cosmos-sake-balance]

Permalink

 

[Ninmecu]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

 

[Shaidz]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

You bet me to that comment!! DAM YOU!!! But yes, a total oxymoron.

Edit: By definition someone who believes in the creation theory totally disregards any scientific 'facts' regarding the creation of everything, a scientist is someone who works purely on scientific fact, so yes, by definition, this is an oxymoron.

 

[Vivi22]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Yes. Yes it is.

The reason these people aren't given any consideration is because their bullshit hypotheses are untestable and blatantly contradicted by every scrap of evidence of available to us.

The reason they don't consider guys like this plausible as he puts it is because they're not. They are wrong. End of story. And some scientists being stupid enough to say they don't accept the evidence for evolution does not mean they actually have a leg to stand on with their arguments. There are a disturbing number of people who still think the Earth is flat. But this guy would never ask a science show like Cosmos to give their lunatic ideas the time of day.

And just to address the request that people not attack others religious beliefs at the end of the article, I don't feel that's what I'm doing here. Largely because I'm addressing their beliefs as they pertain to science and evidence. If someone wants to believe in creationism, they're free to do so. They're still incredibly wrong, and demonstrably so, but they can go ahead and believe it. I have no problem with their religious beliefs until they try to force people to give them as much weight as scientific theories based on actual evidence and not 2,000+ year old religious texts.

 

[TheSYLOH]

Actually I would be genuinely surprised if Cosmos did not discuss intelligent design and creationism. Just as I would be surprised if they did not discuss global warming denial. People in general and children especially need someone to take the time to explain how and why these things are not science and why they can be so easily dismissed.
Cosmos would be the perfect platform to explain this.

 

[Sofus]

I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

 

[Chessrook44]

See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

 

[STENDEC1]

"Creationists aren't even on the radar screen for them; they wouldn't even consider us plausible at all."

Yeah... that'd be because it isn't plausible. It's crackpot religionism that ignores decades of research that proves that natural selection/evolution is real. It amazes me that here, today, we STILL have people who believe mankind was just formed out of nothing by some omnipotent being (and were white no less - Adam and Eve eh?), despite the fact that science has shown the evolutionary path it took us to get here.

 

[Shaidz]

I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

Ermmmmm, each to their own i guess...

 

[Goliath100]

There is no "creationist theories". In a scientific context, "theory is the highest level of truth. Socalled "creationist theories" do not pass this test and can at best be call a "hypothesis".

Edit: Please note the use of "AT BEST". You don't need to be the 5th person informing me that science need to be falsifiable.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

I'm not against creationism because it's religion based. I'm against it because it's pseudoscience that has been debunked and refuted time and time and time again and doesn't have a single scrap of credible evidence to its name. We've been through this before with the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, where it was ruled by a judge to be a religious matter and not a scientific one. But it continues to press on and markets itself as science, like with homeopathy. Pseudoscience like this is harmful because it tricks smart people into believing stupid things and it can have disastrous consequences.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Scientists give equal time to valid, sound countering points of view. When Creationists can provide some sort of actual proof of their theories other than a several-thousand-year-old book that's been translated and edited dozens of times, and practice real scientific inquiry rather than present a thousand rationalizations for "God did it", then maybe they'll see airtime on something other than right-wing talk shows.

I've got nothing against anyone who's religious, but when you start trying to have your faith supplant real, useful science, then you're going to get shouted down.

 

[antipunt]

Some random Asian lady threw a pamphlet on my table at Panera regarding how the Malaysian Aircraft was discovered by her lord UFO commander or something. I had to read it twice, it was whack as FUG!

 

[RealRT]

I've got a a better idea: leave the fairytale bullshit out of the science show.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't science need more evidence to back it rather than just citing one source (a book of dubious origins). Is there ANY strong evidence to back up creationism, or is it just die hard Christians grasping at Fiction?

Seriously, there's probably more evidence to show life on earth was instigated by aliens than Jebus. Just give it up guys, you've got your evangelical ranting on early in the morning when nobody's awake, be happy there hasn't some kind of ironic reverse crusade. Embrace extinction with grace... like the Dodo.

 

[Roxor]

Oh, there's the fallacy of equivocation again. Creationists love that one, don't they?

Creationism makes only two kinds of claims: Those which are untestable, and those which have been tested and found to be wrong.

 

[thiosk]

I believe bible pages should be devoted to science-based theories of creation.
You know, for fairness.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

And the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also want airtime as well.

Their 'theories' as just as valid if not more so than Creationists so they should get airtime as well.

 

[Zaydin]

The difference between actual science and Creationists is this:

When asked how life began, the scientific answer is: We don't know yet, but we won't give up until we find out.

The Creationist answer to every unanswered question ever is: God did it, and nothing will get us to change our minds.

The problem with Creationism is a simple one: It's worse than wrong, it's unfalsifiable. One of the cornerstones of science is that you need to be able to test a hypothesis to find out if it's correct or not. There is no way to test Creationism; ergo, it is not science.

 

[Kinitawowi]

I think these god-bothering nutjobs should have the right to exist, but they should also be prepared to face the fact that their religion is intended to stomp on questions, not answer them. Creationism is lunatic fringe level stuff. If I wanted a Cosmos that gave undue weight (undue meaning "any") to a creationist viewpoint, I'd go watch Family Guy.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

I respectfully decline your request.