Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
Gorrath said:
You never cease to amuse me CM. Thankfully, Heisenberg caught Einstein red-handed and old Special Pleading Fallacy was rumbled. Being that I'm a towering nerd, I've always loved the line from Star Trek V where Kirk asks, "What does God need with a starship?" The single line was one of the first instances where I started to really contemplate whether what I'd been forcefed my whole youth was actually true.
As much as Star Trek V isn't a great movie, that is a great line that succinctly sums up a lot of questions about God that beg the question of whether any God described in human religion is actually real, or if so, whether they deserve our respect and devotion.

Why does God need a starship? Why does God need people to worship him? Why does God eternally punish those who don't? Why does God spend most of the old testament killing his own creation for being imperfect? Why does God need to have a son and then have him sacrificed to be able to forgive us? And I could probably go on.

Of course, no good answers exist for these questions. Instead people want us to believe he works in mysterious ways. Except his ways as described by the bible, the old testament in particular aren't all that mysterious. They're just immoral.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
KazeAizen said:
An interesting theory was shown to me one day by a Religion Professor at University of Dallas. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have some form of second coming or coming of the savior at the end of the world. While she was explaining this she drew two parallel lines and then had them slowly intersect showing that while we may follow different beliefs and practices they are all converging on the same point in the end. Who's to say that The Big Bang and The Creation aren't similar to that? I'm mad at these threads showing up here. I'm mad because I know the majority rule of the place and then I suddenly feel alone when I'm the one guy on the opposite side of the fence trying to inject logic or at least some decency into the thread but get jumped on because I share the unpopular opinion.
If it soothes you at all, I once made it my mission to dig and dig until I found the intersection between religious belief and science. After all, it seemed, if both are an attempt to deal with questions of reality, they must share some common ground, right? And they do share common ground, on specific claims. I spent quite a lot of time sitting in a space that I think is a lot like where you sit now. What I discovered is that, where you are at and where I was, the debate becomes a philosophical one about belief. That debate, I think, is one worth having.

I'd ask your indulgence for those that harshly reject your notions of God though. We do live in a world where people, even today, find that their specific brand of religion (or that of their family) did many dubious or even vile things to them. I myself feel as if a great part of my youth, which could have been spent learning about science, was instead filled with nonsense, bigotry and hatred. I won't jump on you and I try not to jump on anyone, but this strong visceral reaction many people have to religion is often born of great misdeeds done to people in very personal ways. I always try to caution that an attack on ideas should never be and never be construed as, an attack on an individual. I can respect and even love you, and yes I do mean you, as a person, while vigorously, even savagely debating your philosophy. I may not share your point of view, but you are not alone. I am with you, as a part of humanity. We are all of us brothers and sisters.
 

mitchell271

New member
Sep 3, 2010
1,457
0
0
"Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution..."
I think you're confusing scientist with general populace. Protip: scientists require PhD's (and homeopathy isn't a science). You'll notice that even the goddamn Pope agrees with evolution, who are you to argue with the leader of your massive cult?
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
1,129
0
0
Gorrath said:
If it soothes you at all, I once made it my mission to dig and dig until I found the intersection between religious belief and science. After all, it seemed, if both are an attempt to deal with questions of reality, they must share some common ground, right? And they do share common ground, on specific claims. I spent quite a lot of time sitting in a space that I think is a lot like where you sit now. What I discovered is that, where you are at and where I was, the debate becomes a philosophical one about belief. That debate, I think, is one worth having.

I'd ask your indulgence for those that harshly reject your notions of God though. We do live in a world where people, even today, find that their specific brand of religion (or that of their family) did many dubious or even vile things to them. I myself feel as if a great part of my youth, which could have been spent learning about science, was instead filled with nonsense, bigotry and hatred. I won't jump on you and I try not to jump on anyone, but this strong visceral reaction many people have to religion is often born of great misdeeds done to people in very personal ways. I always try to caution that an attack on ideas should never be and never be construed as, an attack on an individual. I can respect and even love you, and yes I do mean you, as a person, while vigorously, even savagely debating your philosophy. I may not share your point of view, but you are not alone. I am with you, as a part of humanity. We are all of us brothers and sisters.
I won't deny some of the more religious families can be harsh to their kids. Our natural instinct once we hit a certain age is to rebel to an extent. Funny thing is in the past the church was actually a heavy commissioner of explorations of various sciences. So there is some overlap right there. The debate is one worth having but no one wants to debate it anymore. I once posted a thread, which I sort of regret now, asking should religion as a whole just be done with. Over 75% said yes that religion should just go away all together. 75%!

I try to indulge them. I try to listen to people who don't share similar beliefs as me. Very few though have anything intelligent to say. Most are just angry for what you are describing most likely. An environment that shoved it in their face and caused them some form of harm in the past thus they hate the very notion of it while then using examples from the Renaissance era to back up their reasons why the church is a vile terrible thing. I won't deny that it was messed up back then and that we've had stumbling blocks in recent years but everywhere I turn someone calls the whole thing, specifically the Catholic church, the largest organization of pedophiles in the world. Thank you for actually having an intelligent response and bringing to light some interesting stuff for me. I half expected to get a savage response from someone.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Vivi22 said:
Gorrath said:
You never cease to amuse me CM. Thankfully, Heisenberg caught Einstein red-handed and old Special Pleading Fallacy was rumbled. Being that I'm a towering nerd, I've always loved the line from Star Trek V where Kirk asks, "What does God need with a starship?" The single line was one of the first instances where I started to really contemplate whether what I'd been forcefed my whole youth was actually true.
As much as Star Trek V isn't a great movie, that is a great line that succinctly sums up a lot of questions about God that beg the question of whether any God described in human religion is actually real, or if so, whether they deserve our respect and devotion.

Why does God need a starship? Why does God need people to worship him? Why does God eternally punish those who don't? Why does God spend most of the old testament killing his own creation for being imperfect? Why does God need to have a son and then have him sacrificed to be able to forgive us? And I could probably go on.

Of course, no good answers exist for these questions. Instead people want us to believe he works in mysterious ways. Except his ways as described by the bible, the old testament in particular aren't all that mysterious. They're just immoral.
Those were the questions I started asking, and as you say, no acceptable answers were forthcoming. I found that people I had been taught to respect out of reflex had very suspect reasoning and even more suspect motivations. I was given vague hand-waving answers to difficult moral questions. At first, I was told to go read my Bible and pray. So I did what I was told, I read the whole book, and now I had even more questions when my prayers were not answered in any way I found meaningful. Once I came with these new questions, they told me to STOP reading the Bible, or rather, to read the bits they wanted me to read and to interpret things the way they told me to interpret them. At eleven years old I stood in front of a pastor and raised my brows as he tried to give me contextless answers to what was moral about a pair of she-bears ripping children apart for making fun of a guy for being bald. That evening I was left wondering, if an eleven year old child could be left totally unconvinced by these weak answers, bereft as they were of any logic or moral reasoning, how in the world did any adult believe in it?

I still don't have an answer to that question.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
Brotha Desmond said:
TheSYLOH said:
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.
That is actually a slippery slope. If they did that, then it would be viewed as an attack on religion. It would actually be better for them to not mention it at all.
And why would that be a bad thing? Provided it is done in a rational and respectful manner and in context of the show's content.

If religious fundamentalists threaten things like scientific education, important for a show like Cosmos, why not attack them for it. They sure attack science a lot, that's for sure. The incredible sensitivity surrounding that sort of thing is something I'd really like to see removed. If rational debate is no longer possible then where will we be.
MinionJoe said:
InvisibleMan said:
? and I'm sure soon we will hear from the alchemists wanting to have some air time on the show, too!
Gold was transmuted from mercury via neutron bombardment back in 1941.

Here's the peer-reviewed journal on that very process:

http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.60.473


Now that's cool.
 

Megalodon

New member
May 14, 2010
781
0
0
KazeAizen said:
I'd never insist Creationism is a science and I'm one of the people who believe in it. I believe in Evolution too. Oh dear God I just contradicted myself. I'm a sane religious person who doesn't dismiss certain sciences but still believes in happenings like Creationism!
Apologies if I've misinterpreted here, but this reads like you do dismiss some fields of science? Which ones?


Yeah if you couldn't tell I'm sick to freaking death of stuff popping up like this and then I come under fire because I so happen to be a believer.
If you don't actually believe that the universe was magicked into existence 6000 years ago and that all the animals were popped into existence in their current state. then you're not really the intended target of most of the ire here, although its hard to avoid some general religion bashing thanks to the internet and people have strong feeling about this. It's that specific, objectively incorrect, belief and its proponents that seek to undo so much of the progress we've made over the years, that is truly objectionable.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if people want to believe the universe was created by a personal deity, 6000 of 14 billion years ago. But when they try to insinuate that belief into where it doesn't belong, and try to poison the well of knowledge with their unsubstantiated story of preference, that's when it becomes an issue.

Anyone who claims themselves as a Creation Scientist is ignorant. Now a "Creationist" as in someone who believes in The Creation fine. There are some of us out there who actually believe certain things in the Bible are more metaphorical than literal.
Slight tangent here, but which bits of the bible are metaphorical, which are literal? How do you tell the difference?

Who knows? Perhaps The Big Bang and The Creation are one and the same thing? One day the Universe is just there.
My personal opinion here is summed up by the Carl Sagan clip I posted earlier in the thread. I don't see the need for a god in that process, because it then begs the question of where did the god came from etc. If you do, go nuts, as long as you're not proclaiming your opinion is the only truth without the evidence required to back up that claim, I don't really care.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
Sniper Team 4 said:
When did evolution become fact? No, seriously, can someone tell me when? When I was still in school, all the way up through college, evolution was still referred to as a theory. Then is seemed like one day theory was dropped and evolution became fact. I'm curious when that happened, or was my city just slow to catch on?
As others have said, we know species change, so evolution is a fact. The theory of natural selection explains how it works, and is extremely robust.

It may also be that evolution was more often called a fact after the fruit fly experiments that showed speciation of fruit flies in a laboratory, so we don't just know that organisms change from fossil records and all that other evidence, but we've actually observed it in the lab in a controlled experiment. Saying that evolution didn't happen after this experiment is not much different from a person saying the earth is flat after humans orbited the earth.
 

Brotha Desmond

New member
Jan 3, 2011
347
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
If religious fundamentalists threaten things like scientific education, important for a show like Cosmos, why not attack them for it. They sure attack science a lot, that's for sure. The incredible sensitivity surrounding that sort of thing is something I'd really like to see removed. If rational debate is no longer possible then where will we be.
21st century America.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
KazeAizen said:
I won't deny some of the more religious families can be harsh to their kids. Our natural instinct once we hit a certain age is to rebel to an extent. Funny thing is in the past the church was actually a heavy commissioner of explorations of various sciences. So there is some overlap right there. The debate is one worth having but no one wants to debate it anymore. I once posted a thread, which I sort of regret now, asking should religion as a whole just be done with. Over 75% said yes that religion should just go away all together. 75%!

I try to indulge them. I try to listen to people who don't share similar beliefs as me. Very few though have anything intelligent to say. Most are just angry for what you are describing most likely. An environment that shoved it in their face and caused them some form of harm in the past thus they hate the very notion of it while then using examples from the Renaissance era to back up their reasons why the church is a vile terrible thing. I won't deny that it was messed up back then and that we've had stumbling blocks in recent years but everywhere I turn someone calls the whole thing, specifically the Catholic church, the largest organization of pedophiles in the world. Thank you for actually having an intelligent response and bringing to light some interesting stuff for me. I half expected to get a savage response from someone.
In my case, my parents were very open and didn't try to force anything on me or my siblings. They just wanted us to have some exposure to religion to make up our own minds. I love them for that, and many other things. My grandparents, who we were left in the care of, and who I also love dearly, were much more responsible for the push towards Christian belief. The youth group we were a part of was all about squashing independent thought and learning repetitious dogma. We were schooled in the new testament but also encouraged to treat homosexuals as sinners (with no explanation as to why homosexuality was worse than the sins we were all supposedly committing all the time). It was simply a form of bigotry and prejudice backed up by Biblical decree from the old and new testament. So my story isn't particularly vile, just dubious, but I know of many others like myself who lost something in those years we were forcibly indoctrinated. I need not appeal to some Medieval example of the harm the church can do, I lived through enough of it to know. I tell you all this simply to explain why I view the church the way I do, not as an accusation that you're some brainwashed cultist or moron. You have your own experiences, and I respect that, as they are no less important than my own.

I should also note that I am an agnostic atheist, a skeptic and a religious person. I happen to adhere to a religious philosophy that has no deity and no supernatural belief. I think religion is best described as what one does, not what one believes. Belief has very little value when compared to what action results due to that belief. I find Christianity to be no more or less valid than any other religious practice of similar stripe. What I, and so many others take issue with isn't the belief, though we may find the tenants themselves questionable at best, the problem is with the actions of some based on their professed belief.

When a group of people try to co-opt a science class by injecting creationist propaganda into it, I don't just blame the people who are doing this, I look at why they think they should. Christianity teaches one to be evangelical, even at the expense of one's own life. I find this notion, in actual practice, to be incompatible with a secular society. So if you are the sort to hold to your religious views and are able to live and let live in this secular nation, I'd embrace you. But, those who religiously go about working to do what their religion commands, even if it conflicts with a free and open nation, I must take action against, and I cannot ignore the beliefs they hold that inform that action. So I must be critical not only of the people but of their religion as well. I do not attack the religion out of hatred from the wrongs it did to me, but because I don't want to see those same wrongs done to others.

But be proud of your religious belief, tell others what you think and listen in turn. Love your neighbor even if he dismisses you or thinks you a fool. Enjoy yourself and indulge in your religious practice without shame. Just make sure that whatever you decide to practice, it does not work toward subverting the secular society in which we live. So long as we stay true to secularism, we can all live peaceably by whatever creed we deem fit for us. In the case of this story, that means not pretending as if some religious belief belongs on a show about science. But you already know that, and have said as much, and for that I respect you.
 

Pinkamena

Stuck in a vortex of sexy horses
Jun 27, 2011
2,371
0
0
I wouldnt mind a mention about it at all, as long as it's not presented as a scientific theory.
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
1,439
0
0
Eh, I say it depends on what he wants to say on the show.

If he wants to call attention to the great statistical improbabilities of life on earth being possible and then of life spontaneously-generating from inorganic matter, and then point out that this leads some scientists to infer the concept (note: I said "concept," not "hypothesis" or "theory") that there may be some intelligent design behind the processes, then that's fine, as long as its made clear that the science stops once you make the leap to the inferential concept; it's not a hypothesis or theory because it's not testable, and therefore, not science.
 

Cerebrawl

New member
Feb 19, 2014
459
0
0
I wonder what she'd say if I demanded all bibles should have notations about everything we're known is wrong in them and require priests to preach the controversy from the pulpit.

"And in the beginning a singularity expanded to create time and space as we know it, some 13.7 billion years ago."
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
remnant_phoenix said:
Eh, I say it depends on what he wants to say on the show.

If he wants to call attention to the great statistical improbabilities of life on earth being possible and then of life spontaneously-generating from inorganic matter, and then point out that this leads some scientists to infer the concept (note: I said "concept," not "hypothesis" or "theory") that there may be some intelligent design behind the processes, then that's fine, as long as its made clear that the science stops once you make the leap to the inferential concept; it's not a hypothesis or theory because it's not testable, and therefore, not science.
I'm not aware that anyone could calculate the statistical probability of life generating on Earth, we do not have another Earth to draw any comparison. I'm also not aware of any accepted theory that suggests that it happened spontaneously or from inorganic material. I don't see why they'd let him bring any of this up since it sounds like a great big straw-man.
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
1,439
0
0
MinionJoe said:
remnant_phoenix said:
...life spontaneously-generating from inorganic matter...
I'm unaware of any theory that claims life generated from inorganic matter.

The theory of abiogenesis states, "...life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

So far as we know, all life is carbon-based, and therefore, organic in nature.

There are some hypothetical type of inorganic life, such as silicon-based, but we have seen nor created any examples of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry
When I said "inorganic," I meant "non-living." That was term misuse. I apologize.

I'm not a scientist; I'm a literature and writing teacher, and it's been years since I studied chemistry. Thanks for reminding me what the scientific definition of "organic" is.

No sarcasm. Precision of language is important to me.
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
1,439
0
0
Gorrath said:
remnant_phoenix said:
Eh, I say it depends on what he wants to say on the show.

If he wants to call attention to the great statistical improbabilities of life on earth being possible and then of life spontaneously-generating from inorganic matter, and then point out that this leads some scientists to infer the concept (note: I said "concept," not "hypothesis" or "theory") that there may be some intelligent design behind the processes, then that's fine, as long as its made clear that the science stops once you make the leap to the inferential concept; it's not a hypothesis or theory because it's not testable, and therefore, not science.
I'm not aware that anyone could calculate the statistical probability of life generating on Earth, we do not have another Earth to draw any comparison. I'm also not aware of any accepted theory that suggests that it happened spontaneously or from inorganic material. I don't see why they'd let him bring any of this up since it sounds like a great big straw-man.
Years ago I saw a documentary where a group of astrophysicists calculated a conservative statistical improbability that Earth would be a habitable planet. Something like 1 in 10 to the 128th power. I don't remember what the documentary was called though.