Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views
- Thread starter Rhykker
- Start date
The Dark ages is to put it bluntly, bollocks. Intellectualism did not shrink after the fall of Rome it carried on growing as normal and some would argue people were actually more free intellectually in certain parts of Christian Europe than they would have been under Rome.Cerebrawl said:
Really it seems to me that some people simply want to believe in this supposed Christian oppression of science because it conforms to there view of Christianity as being inherently unscientific (which granted is hardly an unwarranted view given the amount of crazy creationist they have) and that the Church in the middle ages saw science as blasphemous pursuit, when the truth is really quite the contrary and that actually science was seen then as a highly Christian pursuit (because they saw Natural Philosophy as an attempt to understand God's creation.) Despite what people would like to believe Christianity and Christian Philosophy actually had a huge part in establishing modern scientific thought and that understanding of the natural world.
Not this shit again...
For fucks sake. It's not even a question of opinions. It's facts vs. fiction. Stop acting like they're on equal footing, because they're not. Not even in the same ballpark, hell, they're not even playing the same game. Just no.
For fucks sake. It's not even a question of opinions. It's facts vs. fiction. Stop acting like they're on equal footing, because they're not. Not even in the same ballpark, hell, they're not even playing the same game. Just no.
I had a friend (note the had)that went completly gaga for Ken Hamm. I was trying to be respectful and open minded, even though he believed that dinosaurs were dragons and sodomite became one of his favorite words. Then he turned this crap against me for really no reason at all. Im a lot less tolerant than I used to be.
You can be a scientist who is also a creationist (they are rare, however), but there is no such thing as "creation science". The religious underpinnings and justification for creationism are just that - religious, not scientific.
Creationists aren't "stupid" - but they are fanatically devoted to their religious beliefs. God created the world, and to them, that's the end of the story. Their belief is true, because to them, it just IS. There is no scope or room for argument with genuine creationists. Any proof you give that their biblical account of creation might be wrong will inevitably be written off as "not good enough" or "a conspiracy by the secular humanists" or "lies" or, in the worst cases, "planted by the devil". You've even got creationists who believe that God INTENTIONALLY created the world to make it LOOK like it is 6 or so billion years old and that life evolved, because he wanted to "test our faith".
Creationists are never willing to even hazard a thought that they might be wrong. They never offer hard and fast rules on the falsifiability of their own theories, and as such they are not scientific theories. Just once I'd like a creationist to openly say "If I saw X, I'd stop believe in creationism".
Creationists aren't "stupid" - but they are fanatically devoted to their religious beliefs. God created the world, and to them, that's the end of the story. Their belief is true, because to them, it just IS. There is no scope or room for argument with genuine creationists. Any proof you give that their biblical account of creation might be wrong will inevitably be written off as "not good enough" or "a conspiracy by the secular humanists" or "lies" or, in the worst cases, "planted by the devil". You've even got creationists who believe that God INTENTIONALLY created the world to make it LOOK like it is 6 or so billion years old and that life evolved, because he wanted to "test our faith".
Creationists are never willing to even hazard a thought that they might be wrong. They never offer hard and fast rules on the falsifiability of their own theories, and as such they are not scientific theories. Just once I'd like a creationist to openly say "If I saw X, I'd stop believe in creationism".
I think it's a splendid idea and in return, Neil DeGrasse Tyson can revise all of the science textbooks in Texas okay?
I may not understand this show's production schedule, but isn't it a bit late to be asking for this kind of thing? I mean, even if they would consider it, aren't pretty much all the episodes so far along they're either done and ready for airing, or in advanced post production? It's like they're asking them to scrap an episode and remake it to include creationism segments. It's just not realistic in terms of time consumption and money it would cost them for the producers to do that.
On the other hand, maybe Faulkner means that he wishes that creationism was considered from the beginning. But it's a show being funded and produced by people who don't believe in that; it's their money and their time. You can easily go fund and produce your own show about creationism if you're feeling so underrepresented. Granted, you're not going to have all that sweet, sweet Seth McFarlane and Neil Degrasse Tyson money and name recognition. But they're not required to give your views the time of day if they don't want to, just as you wouldn't be required to if you did make your own creationism show.
On the other hand, maybe Faulkner means that he wishes that creationism was considered from the beginning. But it's a show being funded and produced by people who don't believe in that; it's their money and their time. You can easily go fund and produce your own show about creationism if you're feeling so underrepresented. Granted, you're not going to have all that sweet, sweet Seth McFarlane and Neil Degrasse Tyson money and name recognition. But they're not required to give your views the time of day if they don't want to, just as you wouldn't be required to if you did make your own creationism show.
"let me just shut up and accept anything I hear as fact"
What, you mean like you did with the Bible?
Don't start whining because your fairy tales have no evidence to back them up. I don't see you complaining that the Hindu creation myth isn't getting airtime, or Australian Aborigine's creation myth, or any of the ancient religions that have just as much validity as Christianity's creation myth.
What, you mean like you did with the Bible?
Don't start whining because your fairy tales have no evidence to back them up. I don't see you complaining that the Hindu creation myth isn't getting airtime, or Australian Aborigine's creation myth, or any of the ancient religions that have just as much validity as Christianity's creation myth.
I feel like what you've written is half true. You were right that they were not out to get science as a practice. Rather they were out to find those that had ideas that challenged the scripture that held up for several centuries. But most of those ideas were the product of people who practiced science or had far reaching ideas (like Giordano Bruno). The Ptolemaic universe was so widely accepted for hundreds of years since its inception. It wasn't until Copernicus and Galileo with his invention of the telescope were these heliocentric ideas submitted for review. And the Catholic church was not the happiest with Galileo. They didn't like the idea that the sun had sunspots (they viewed it as perfect), or that the Earth went around the sun. It wasn't science that they were after, it was the products of science.JazzJack2 said:
Now it could be my lack of background with religious history (so please forgive me if I'm wrong), but I've never heard of it being mentioned that the Church was a supporter of science. According to James Burke in his Connections series, the traditionalists did not like the idea of being able to challenge the authority and test that same authority. And this came about from the new found knowledge in old books regarding the sciences of astronomy and medicine. People wanted to learn how to use science to use these practices, but the Church wasn't so happy about the methods they used. Now, that isn't to say there weren't any religious thinkers in other eras in history that took a part of science (take a look at Kepler). So could you help fill in the gaps so my brain can work this all out? What source says that the Church was a supporter of science?
I actually came here to say pretty much that.Ninmecu said:
Also, there are very few scientists who don't accept Darwinian evolution, and even fewer who would seriously endorse creationism.
Because it contradicts most specific ideas of God, makes God pretty much superfluous, and is pointless padding?Nooners said:
I mean, if you want to believe it, fine. I have no evidence that it's not true. But it doesn't jive with the issues at hand for sure.
Or, you know, since it's TV, make your own special. If people can make 9-11 hoax documentaries....Thoralata said:
They're not rare. What's rare is creationists in specific, shall we say "relevant" fields.Korolev said:
Some are, some aren't.
I guess what you're saying is true if you mean they're not inherently so, but you then go on to replace one blanket statement with another, so I doubt that very much.
I like how you ask others not to attack anyone's religious views when you ... just did that.Rhykker said:
Furthermore, evolution still has many holes to work out of its mythos before it can be considered anything other than just a theory. Anyone who says otherwise is just as ignorant as they accuse others of being.
Also, I will not be revisiting this thread, so anyone replying to my comment trying to troll me into some petty little flame war will be disappointed. Go watch Kent Hovind instead.
Hey, I totally want to talk about how the universe was created by Uranus copulating with Gaia and that's why Altas has to hold the sky up or else he'll crush everyone trying to have sec with the earth again.Neta said:
It's as valid a creation theory as Genesis.
Failing that, Can I tell my theory about how the world was created from Ymir's dead body? Okay, it's not my theory but it's still bloody awesome.
You tell me. How do we know there aren't leprechauns prancing around that disappear as soon as someone looks at them with their magic powers, which they use to erase all evidence of their existence? Because your question is of a similar nature.thewatergamer said:
Because your hypothesis is non-falsifiable. Which is a problem for creationists, not the rest of us.thewatergamer said:
Should we teach Islamic, Jewish and Hindu creationist stories, the origin myths of the Greeks and Norse, and Native American creation tales as well? What? Can they not express their opinions now? Shall we include UFOs in history books? Show them building the pyramids? It's somebody's opinion, after all. How about the flat earthers? They're still around. Where do we draw the line, and on what basis?thewatergamer said:
I was hoping to actually discuss the whole "it's only a theory" thing, but suit yourself.James Rednok said:
I hate to say this, you've got it all wrong. Allow me to tell you about my faith, The Church of the Eternal Timelord. We believe our mystical savior has saved the Earth countless times from alien invasions that have been covered up. Including one that started all live on Earth, and is also the reason why the Mona Lisa we currently have is a fake! (But *THEY* won't tell you that.) We have a lot of documentation you can either read, or watch, and learn how our savior died for your sins. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died. And died.Dalisclock said:
We're all pretty sure he's gonna die at least another 12 times for your sins.