Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[Cerebrawl]

In Europe it was very specifically THE CHURCH that preserved the knowledge. In Arabia/Spain it's another matter.

In europe we had a thousand years of what is called the dark ages because nothing was being written. No new knowledge was gained(baring in a few trade skills being passed down from master to apprentice), and much old knowledge was lost.

The darkness of the dark age was literally the church stopping publication of anything that wasn't bibles.

We regained some of the works from the old great thinkers of greece and rome because it was preserved by the muslims, and some of this being left behind in al-andalus(spain) when the Ottomans were driven out. This refinding of knowledge brought about the renaissance and the age of enlightenment, where people moved away from faith and more towards reason. It was in the islamic world that had been preserving knowledge and making advances up to this point, much of that because they welcomed everyone, including "doubters", as fine a name for atheists as any. (this before islam turned anti-science not much later).

So to say that the church was the preserver of knowledge is historical revisionism at its very worst!

 

[Evil Smurf]

Cute, but I don't wan't to hear any "the earth is 6 thousand years old" bullshit.

 

[V8 Ninja]

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.

Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism. HOWEVER, unlike creationism, there's a stupid amount of substantial evidence suggesting that evolution is a thing and has always been a thing. So-called, "Creationist Scientists," follow the words of some random books where as scientists follow the observations of their eyes.

EDIT: YES YES YES, I know there's a difference between scientific theory and common theory. Yes, I'm a terrible person for not acknowledging the difference. Yes, Creationism is a host of defecation that has no scientific standing. However, evolution is more of a scientific theory than a scientific law, which Rhykker tried to say otherwise.

 

[Ratty]

All of this anti-religious talk is disgusting and hypocritical.
I mean, for pete's sake, to believe that the world is nothing but the creation of random accident is itself a faith statement in naturalism.

The scientific evidence doesn't point toward the idea that the world is the result of random events. Rather it suggests that matter follows consistent natural laws which are observable and testable. Based on the evidence we currently have, we can say that apparently the earth is the result of billions of years of gravity working on matter. Life is a result of chemical reactions, and life on earth as we know it today is the result of environmental pressures selecting better adapted (and therefore gradually more complex) specimens to survive and reproduce over millions and millions of years.

All according to consistent natural laws. Some things we think we know we will find out we were wrong about, and we'll discover new questions with our new answers. Scientific pursuit is the endless quest for knowledge of the natural world, always seeking to inch our understanding closer to an accurate and complete picture of the universe.

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.

Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism. HOWEVER, unlike creationism, there's a stupid amount of substantial evidence suggesting that evolution is a thing and has always been a thing. So-called, "Creationist Scientists," follow the words of some random books where as scientists follow the observations of their eyes.

I agree, though it's important to remember that creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense. The common usage of the word theory and what it means specifically in scientific discourse are different. An explanation has to be rigorously tested before it can really be called a theory in science. Whereas the common usage of "theory" as just "some possible explanation I've thought of" is closer to a hypothesis in science. Though even then a scientific hypothesis needs to be testable, and something like "it was done by magic/God" obviously isn't.

 

[Deadcyde]

*sighs* Not trying to disabuse religion, just things that try to sell themselves as fact despite not being so.

Creationism as it currently stands is wrong, there is no proof to back it up and a lot of proof to disprove various points it makes. If creationism were "God created all this stuff, including evolution and whatnot... maybe he did it on purpose so we were self perpetuating and rather then god having to directly intervene, humanity could rely more on faith in god's existence." there would probably be a shite load less arguing. But as most creationism and religion relies on things that fly in the face of something that in tangibly provable, they're gonna get shouted down.

It's really as simple as that.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

All of this anti-religious talk is disgusting and hypocritical.
I mean, for pete's sake, to believe that the world is nothing but the creation of random accident is itself a faith statement in naturalism.

It's not anti-religious to expect a science show to stick with actual science.

 

[Cerebrawl]

Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Oh HELL NO. That statement is wronger than wrong

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!



On the other hand, creationism is emphatically NOT a theory. It's not even a hypothesis(falsifiability is a requirement). Where it's testable it's wrong, where it's not it's unfalsifiable.

Creationism relies on FALLACY at its very core.

 

[Joos]

...
I'm not one to refute religious beliefs, but just as much as I would never expect a Church to teach evolution...

Like the Catholic church do, for example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Catholic_teaching_and_evolution

The doctrine of the Catholic faith is badly out of sync with what can be considered modern ethics and good morals, but it isn't out of sync with science (in this issue) at least.

 

[Joos]

Technically evolution is a theory, just like creationism.

Hold your horses there partner, first we need to look up what the word Theory actually means. Most people seems to think that Theory means hypothesis. This is incorrect. Theory means "current best possible explanation". In science, a Theory starts as a hypothesis which you then try to prove and disprove by various means such as empirical study, observation etc.
Only when the hypothesis can't be disproved, does it get labelled a Theory.
From a scientific standpoint, Creationism, or intelligent design is barely even a hypothesis, i.e. an "idea based on observation".

Ref:
The word Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
The word Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Scientific Method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Edit: I suppose my little post is the TLDR version of Cerebrawls more in-depth rebuttal above.

For those who can't be bothered to read all that above.

Spoiler

 

[hermes]

A creationist scientist is simply someone that does not adhere to the theory of evolution, but either works on other branches of science or adheres to any version of creationism in regards to the origin of life. Not that weird at all, considering there are many scientists that don't agree with the Big Bang theory or Strings theory, without being considered pariahs.

Moving the goalposts a bit here. There's a huge gulf between "thinks there's some issues with current scientific models" and "thinks 'God' created everything"... and then another huge step between that and "believes, in the face of all evidence, that the earth is 6k-10k years old". (the last being what these "creation scientists" claim)
The first is perfectly acceptable. It's even laudable, as it should encourage further testing and experimentation to improve our scientific models. The second is fuzzy, but not inherently a bad thing; as people have said repeatedly, religion and science do not have to be in conflict, they just shouldn't overlap. The third is absurd, anti-scientific, and blind self-deception.

But the label "creationists" is also a wide term... It covers people that believe part or all the bible is literal history, and people that believes life and evolution were created or heavily influenced by a higher intelligence.
That is part of the problem of asking for "equal representation", because there is a single version of natural selection in the scientific community (there are some branches, but they differentiate in small details), but there are a lot of interpretations of the Genesis among Christians (and that doesn't even include other religions).

 

[Megalodon]

A creationist scientist is simply someone that does not adhere to the theory of evolution, but either works on other branches of science or adheres to any version of creationism in regards to the origin of life. Not that weird at all, considering there are many scientists that don't agree with the Big Bang theory or Strings theory, without being considered pariahs.

Moving the goalposts a bit here. There's a huge gulf between "thinks there's some issues with current scientific models" and "thinks 'God' created everything"... and then another huge step between that and "believes, in the face of all evidence, that the earth is 6k-10k years old". (the last being what these "creation scientists" claim)
The first is perfectly acceptable. It's even laudable, as it should encourage further testing and experimentation to improve our scientific models. The second is fuzzy, but not inherently a bad thing; as people have said repeatedly, religion and science do not have to be in conflict, they just shouldn't overlap. The third is absurd, anti-scientific, and blind self-deception.

But the label "creationists" is also a wide term... It covers people that believe part or all the bible is literal history, and people that believes life and evolution were created or heavily influenced by a higher intelligence.
That is part of the problem of asking for "equal representation", because there is a single version of natural selection in the scientific community (there are some branches, but they differentiate in small details), but there are a lot of interpretations of the Genesis among Christians (and that doesn't even include other religions).

I'm sorry, but this is simply incorrect, a creationist is something rather specific. It does not refer to believers that think that naturalistic explanations are the tools used by a god to create life, but those whose believe in divine creation where everything is made in its current form. This belief is in direct contradiction to the established, verifiable facts. Evolution happens, if you believe otherwise, you are wrong, simple as that. Some definitions:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creationism?q=creationist#creationism__6

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/creationist?q=creationist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist?s=t

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationist

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/creationist?showCookiePolicy=true

All pretty consistent and specific.

 

[JarinArenos]

But the label "creationists" is also a wide term... It covers people that believe part or all the bible is literal history, and people that believes life and evolution were created or heavily influenced by a higher intelligence.
That is part of the problem of asking for "equal representation", because there is a single version of natural selection in the scientific community (there are some branches, but they differentiate in small details), but there are a lot of interpretations of the Genesis among Christians (and that doesn't even include other religions).

That's nice and all... but we're talking about Dr. Danny Faulkner and his Answers in Genesis [http://www.answersingenesis.org/] literalists here. They're the ones attacking Cosmos and demanding scientific teaching of parables and fables.

 

[Racecarlock]

Why doesn't cosmos teach creationism? I don't know, why don't churches teach evolution?

 

[Xisin]

So much ignorance in this thread.

We know as much about the universe now as we did back in the back in the bronze age (nothing). Sure, we have some pretty good ideas based on what we're able to observe and comprehend around us, but they're still just ideas.

By completely disregarding other, less popular, ideas, you're being just as closed minded as those who allow themselves to be blinded by their religious dogmas.

We know fuck all about the universe, we can perceive fuck all of the universe, we can comprehend fuck all of the universe, to think anyone is anywhere close to an actual answer on anything is the height of arrogance. Odds are, creationism is just as likely to be correct as evolution and the big bang theory, so why not give it its fair share of coverage?

Edit: I now realise the irony of "preaching" open mindedness.

I find your argument the most amusing of the lot. To know something with 100% probability that argument would have to be deductive. For example, a triangle is a shape with 3 sides and whose angles add up to 180. I have a figure with 3 sides and 3 angles that add up to 180 degrees, therefore it is a triangle. Science, in general, is inductive. The most we have is probability based upon experience. Right now it's getting to be spring. I've experienced springs in the past, so I know warm weather is on the way.

The greater beauty is that science seeks to find answers to the physical things around us. It can not answer metaphysical questions. God is a metaphysical concept and therefore is beyond the realm of science to disprove. Which means anytime there is a scientific discussion and someone says because of God, that is argument is irrelevant and thus needs no air time.

 

[Westaway]

In Europe it was very specifically THE CHURCH that preserved the knowledge. In Arabia/Spain it's another matter.

In europe we had a thousand years of what is called the dark ages because nothing was being written. No new knowledge was gained(baring in a few trade skills being passed down from master to apprentice), and much old knowledge was lost.

The darkness of the dark age was literally the church stopping publication of anything that wasn't bibles.

They had nothing to publish. The church was effectively reclusive monasteries wherein the monks would copy previous works, mostly the Bible but not exclusively. These were responsible for saving a large amount of works, besides the fact that if someone actually sought for "education" they would get it at the church. The clergy were the only literate people in continental Europe.

We regained some of the works from the old great thinkers of greece and rome because it was preserved by the muslims, and some of this being left behind in al-andalus(spain) when the Ottomans were driven out. This refinding of knowledge brought about the renaissance and the age of enlightenment, where people moved away from faith and more towards reason. It was in the islamic world that had been preserving knowledge and making advances up to this point, much of that because they welcomed everyone, including "doubters", as fine a name for atheists as any. (this before islam turned anti-science not much later).

So to say that the church was the preserver of knowledge is historical revisionism at its very worst!

Humanism was the Renaissance. The true break from faith (theism to deism) happened during the enlightenment. Everything else you have said was correct, but not at all contradictory to what I said. I was clear that the Muslims in Spain/Northern Africa/Ottoman Empire also preserved a great deal of knowledge.

Explain to me why even the great thinkers had difficulty completing their great contributions due to their religious biases getting in the way. Explain to me how that and many more aren't evidence that religion has actively held humanity back.

I'd love some citations on this claim in particular.

I find it amusing you request citations when a previous claim by yourself, that theistic philosophy in greece created the scientific model is complete fiction. So do you have any sources to back that up?

I find it amusing that you believe Aristotle is a fiction.
http://www.egs.edu/library/aristotle/articles/

 

[Cerebrawl]

In Europe it was very specifically THE CHURCH that preserved the knowledge. In Arabia/Spain it's another matter.

In europe we had a thousand years of what is called the dark ages because nothing was being written. No new knowledge was gained(baring in a few trade skills being passed down from master to apprentice), and much old knowledge was lost.

The darkness of the dark age was literally the church stopping publication of anything that wasn't bibles.

They had nothing to publish. The church was effectively reclusive monasteries wherein the monks would copy previous works, mostly the Bible but not exclusively. These were responsible for saving a large amount of works, besides the fact that if someone actually sought for "education" they would get it at the church. The clergy were the only literate people in continental Europe.

Yes, an enforced monopoly on literacy and learning that lead to a thousand years of stagnation. A thousand year void in innovation, discovery and progress. During which medical knowledge plummeted and those who had any were persecuted because "the Lord" was supposed to have a monopoly on that sort of thing.

 

[Neta]

In Europe it was very specifically THE CHURCH that preserved the knowledge. In Arabia/Spain it's another matter.

In europe we had a thousand years of what is called the dark ages because nothing was being written. No new knowledge was gained(baring in a few trade skills being passed down from master to apprentice), and much old knowledge was lost.

The darkness of the dark age was literally the church stopping publication of anything that wasn't bibles.

They had nothing to publish. The church was effectively reclusive monasteries wherein the monks would copy previous works, mostly the Bible but not exclusively. These were responsible for saving a large amount of works, besides the fact that if someone actually sought for "education" they would get it at the church. The clergy were the only literate people in continental Europe.

Yes, an enforced monopoly on literacy and learning that lead to a thousand years of stagnation. A thousand year void in innovation, discovery and progress. During which medical knowledge plummeted and those who had any were persecuted because "the Lord" was supposed to have a monopoly on that sort of thing.

They were the Apple of their time.

Hmm, Apple... that reminds me of something. Something about a tree and a garden...