Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[mjharper]

I can't help thinking that Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy is relevant here. Be fair and balanced, but give theories their 'due weight', presenting "competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject".

In establishing due weight, Jimmy Wales wrote in 2003:

- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Which of those categories does Creationist Science belong in? Clearly, it belongs in the third category. There aren't many Creationist Scientists (regardless of how many Creationists there are), and there aren't any "prominent adherents".

Note that I'm not saying that Wikipedia is an absolutely perfect source; but that the question of discussing alternative theories in a show such as this is a practical one, and Wikipedia has a lot of experience and relevance in that department.

I'm sorry but Wikipedia is only one crowd-based encyclopedia. According to its own rules of viewpoints it can't be used as evidence for effective viewpoint rules.

That's only true if you regard all viewpoints as equally valid, and don't accord them due weight, which was precisely the point I was making. Wikipedia might only be 'one' site, but it is by far the largest and most successful. As such, the rules it has in place for dealing with its billions of articles are certainly more useful and telling than, say, a wikia group on a video game.

None of which denies the value of alternative viewpoints; but if we're talking about encyclopaedias, ones such as Wikipedia, Britannica, and Brockhaus receive more 'due weight' than, I don't know, conservapaedia.

Due weight means establishing the relative importance of a viewpoint, and not just pretending that all viewpoints, no matter how obscure or established, are equally valid. That's relativism. And relativism is a cancer of knowledge.

 

[coil]

Anyone who doubts the validity of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution should Google "Evolution Canyon" (actually, do it even if you accept NS. Because it's awesome). I already know how this stuff works and my jaw still dropped reading it. Our world is an amazing place.

 

[Sight Unseen]

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.

Is it me or did this just hit it on the head? I mean, you had to expect that posting something like this on the internet would only bring about the whole "I'm ok with religion because can be wrong dummy-heads all they want" cliche out in force. But it kind of amazes me that in the era of such "open mindedness" people can't see how creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. Believing that God created the universe does not supplant any sort of scientific evidence. The two can compliment each other. Some people don't choose to believe that the really abstract questions can be explained by a god. Some people do. I find that in this case the anti-creationist, hardcore science people are just as elitist and close-minded as religious fanatics on Fox News because they have science to wave in people's face. Case in point, this:

No. How about we keep the crazies away from our educational TV. It's bad enough that religious nuts indoctrinate children from birth. As someone who grew up in a religious family, I'm extremely thankful for the education I was lucky enough to get. I've been able to open my eyes to how truly miraculous the universe is, and how amazing it is to learn the truths behind how the universe began to how we theorize it is going to end.

I still wear the cross on my neck that I've had since birth, not out of faith. But as a permanent reminder of the narrow minded and slightly bigoted person I once was. I have never been a better human being as I've become after I turned my back on religion. I feel like I've made so much more progress in my life since leaving it behind and educating myself.

So yeah. Keep religion out of the classroom and keep it out of our science documentaries. You have every right to have blind faith that some omnipotent guy in a robe with a white beard that totally isn't Zeus ejaculated the universe into existence over six days. Just like we have every right to keep your nonsense out of our educational material and believe that the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago and continues to expand.

You use me as a point in your case without knowing me.

If you asked me "What would it take to change your mind?" I would answer "Evidence."
If you asked someone religious what it would take to change their mind, they would almost always answer "Nothing."

Just take a look at the recent Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate. Generally speaking, a healthy amount of skepticism in everything, including our current model of the universe, as portrayed by science, is healthy. However, it's closed minded to not allow anything to change your mind, just because you're afraid of spending eternity in a fiery pit.

Keeping religion separate from science is all I ask for. We should not be teaching people -especially children- Creationism. We should be teaching them a scientific model of the universe based on observable evidence. If you want to call anyone closed minded, you'd be better off taking a stab at OP, since he seems to have mixed up the term Theory and Fact.

Ok so you could have lead with that. I whole heartedly agree people should learn about science in a responsible fashion and if they so choose they can have their faith as well. But you lead with the calling every creationist a crazy, then go on to talk about how you're so much of a better person now that you are not religious and put it down since you have an education as if all creationists are uneducated. So if I "use you without knowing you" I do believe I used what you said as a representation of you. I think the point people are missing here is the contradiction of denigrating people's faith under the guise of "its your choice" and then being just as close minded to the fact that science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

To be quite honest, if anyone believes in creationism over evolution then they ARE uneducated. That's not to say they can't be smart people, but they simply aren't educated enough about evolution to make that call.

If anyone can look at and understand all of the evidence for evolution and then go "Nope. I'm still gonna believe in my sheepherder's book from the stone ages." then they are delusional. It's as simple as that.

Anyone who doesn't agree that evolution by natural selection is real doesn't really understand evolution. Scientists haven't figured out everything about it yet but what they do have is so sound that nothing has contradicted it yet and I doubt anything will other than maybe a detail here or there.

One more , then I give up. It is possible to believe in both. Just because you believe in evolution, which I will agree, is an observable and testable phenomenon, does not mean they can't believe there is a god as well. See my first quote of Chessrook44. I said it at the beginning, science and a god are not mutually exclusive and one does not inherently supplant the other. If you willfully write of hard evidence like the observed examples of evolution, you are indeed ignorant. But it is not fair to denigrate someone's faith and call everyone who believes it an ignorant, uneducated, crazy person under the assumption that science and creationism can't coexist.

Well, sadly, a very large proportion of Americans believe that evolution is wrong and has no valid evidence. Full stop.

While I agree that evolution and creationism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, I'm of the opinion that evolution by natural selection makes God almost trivially useless once life began, and if you agree with abiogenesis then that supplants God there, and so on. It gets to this the point that you're left with this God of the gaps mentality. At some point you have to say that maybe there isn't a God because all that he used to represent is now explained by science. We're not at that point just yet but we're getting closer and closer.

 

[renegade7]

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

No, no it isn't. It's not science. It's not relevant -at all- in mainstream science.

I'm just not understanding why religious people feel so threatened by evolution that they need to make asses of themselves. How does Genesis just being a myth bar you from believing in Jesus' message of peace?

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?

Scientists use the word "theory" in a way that is a little pedantic and antiquated, and I really wish they'd pick a new word for it. A theory refers to something that is as factual as possible given the available information. A proper explanation of what exactly a scientific "theory" is would fill the better part of a textbook on philosophy and ethics of science, so let me give you the breakdown:

-The word "theory" does not mean the same thing to scientists as it does in common usage. To a scientist, a theory is an attempt at explaining an observation that fits with experimental results.

-Facts in science are observable absolutes. "Objects fall to the ground" is a directly observable absolute. They are to scientists what axioms are to mathematicians: the only way they can actually be false is if our method of seeing the universe at its most fundamental level is flawed.

-A scientific theory exists to explain the facts or the relationships between the facts

-Scientists use the word "theory" rather than "fact" for their explanations in order to leave open the possibility that they can change and to prevent dogma from hindering scientific progress. The observed facts do not change, but the technology to analyze them and the related scientific understanding can.

Some other things that are "only theories, not facts"

-Newtonian mechanics (which is no longer a valid theory, technically, but still works for most purposes, a fine example of the importance of distinguishing facts from theories and understanding their relationship)
-The Pythagorean theorem
-The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
-The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
-The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
-Universal gravitation
-The electromagnetic force (obviously, it's "just a theory, totally not true" since you're definitely reading this over the internet)
-Chemistry. All of chemistry, which operates on the electromagnetic force.
-The link between casual sex in back alleys and chlamydia.
-Computer theory

Shall I continue?

 

[Skeleon]

I always find it curious that YECs tend to act like their particular creation myth is the only one out there. And that's not only true for Christian Creationists, mind: Literalist Muslim Creationists do the same thing when they invoke the Quran. They should realise that YEC opens the floodgates for all creation myths.

 

[Abomination]

I can't help thinking that Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy is relevant here. Be fair and balanced, but give theories their 'due weight', presenting "competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject".

In establishing due weight, Jimmy Wales wrote in 2003:

- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Which of those categories does Creationist Science belong in? Clearly, it belongs in the third category. There aren't many Creationist Scientists (regardless of how many Creationists there are), and there aren't any "prominent adherents".

Note that I'm not saying that Wikipedia is an absolutely perfect source; but that the question of discussing alternative theories in a show such as this is a practical one, and Wikipedia has a lot of experience and relevance in that department.

I'm sorry but Wikipedia is only one crowd-based encyclopedia. According to its own rules of viewpoints it can't be used as evidence for effective viewpoint rules.

That's only true if you regard all viewpoints as equally valid, and don't accord them due weight, which was precisely the point I was making. Wikipedia might only be 'one' site, but it is by far the largest and most successful. As such, the rules it has in place for dealing with its billions of articles are certainly more useful and telling than, say, a wikia group on a video game.

None of which denies the value of alternative viewpoints; but if we're talking about encyclopaedias, ones such as Wikipedia, Britannica, and Brockhaus receive more 'due weight' than, I don't know, conservapaedia.

Due weight means establishing the relative importance of a viewpoint, and not just pretending that all viewpoints, no matter how obscure or established, are equally valid. That's relativism. And relativism is a cancer of knowledge.

I was just pulling your leg

I do believe Wikipedia is valuable and I agree on its method of determining an article's veracity but I also dispute the idea that "Wikipedia is good and therefore it's methods must be good" as a point in favor of determining the veracity of other scientific viewpoints. In other words, just because Einstein claims something doesn't mean it's right because Einstein claimed it

 

[coil]

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?

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
- Tommy Lee Jones, Men In Black

The last part's a little off topic, but the point stands.

 

[IceStar100]

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.

ALL HAIL THE OTTER GOD MAY HIS ENIMES BE SMASHED AGINST A STOMIC LIKE A MUSSTLE!

Side bar: It's sad when even Christion think this is stupid.

 

[Spacemonkey430]

Well, sadly, a very large proportion of Americans believe that evolution is wrong and has no valid evidence. Full stop.

While I agree that evolution and creationism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, I'm of the opinion that evolution by natural selection makes God almost trivially useless once life began, and if you agree with abiogenesis then that supplants God there, and so on. It gets to this the point that you're left with this God of the gaps mentality. At some point you have to say that maybe there isn't a God because all that he used to represent is now explained by science. We're not at that point just yet but we're getting closer and closer.

Now see, I like it when the hate can be stripped away and the insightful opinions are left. Now I'm going to do the overly cheesey thing: I find that to be a thought provoking opinion, good sir. I commend your intelligence and insight. *removes monocle and top hat*. But really, I am of a different opinion, though I see the merits of yours. Its sad that people don't think for themselves but that's the world we live in and always have.

 

[Augustine]

I imagine the easiest way to have the theory aired is to go submit it to the peer review and have it recognized by the scientific community. If that doesn't work, you may want to go over the theory and makes sure its science.

Failing that, this will be like showing a Sasquatch documentary.

 

[mjharper]

I can't help thinking that Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy is relevant here. Be fair and balanced, but give theories their 'due weight', presenting "competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject".

In establishing due weight, Jimmy Wales wrote in 2003:

- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Which of those categories does Creationist Science belong in? Clearly, it belongs in the third category. There aren't many Creationist Scientists (regardless of how many Creationists there are), and there aren't any "prominent adherents".

Note that I'm not saying that Wikipedia is an absolutely perfect source; but that the question of discussing alternative theories in a show such as this is a practical one, and Wikipedia has a lot of experience and relevance in that department.

I'm sorry but Wikipedia is only one crowd-based encyclopedia. According to its own rules of viewpoints it can't be used as evidence for effective viewpoint rules.

That's only true if you regard all viewpoints as equally valid, and don't accord them due weight, which was precisely the point I was making. Wikipedia might only be 'one' site, but it is by far the largest and most successful. As such, the rules it has in place for dealing with its billions of articles are certainly more useful and telling than, say, a wikia group on a video game.

None of which denies the value of alternative viewpoints; but if we're talking about encyclopaedias, ones such as Wikipedia, Britannica, and Brockhaus receive more 'due weight' than, I don't know, conservapaedia.

Due weight means establishing the relative importance of a viewpoint, and not just pretending that all viewpoints, no matter how obscure or established, are equally valid. That's relativism. And relativism is a cancer of knowledge.

I was just pulling your leg

I do believe Wikipedia is valuable and I agree on its method of determining an article's veracity but I also dispute the idea that "Wikipedia is good and therefore it's methods must be good" as a point in favor of determining the veracity of other scientific viewpoints. In other words, just because Einstein claims something doesn't mean it's right because Einstein claimed it

Okay, I misunderstood. Sorry for the snippy tone.

I absolutely agree that we should not just accept something because someone famous said it. And I didn't mean to make the kind of inference you suggest. I was really just trying to argue that the inclusion of Creationist Science in a TV show is a practical rather than theoretic question, and show that using practical guidelines from a recognisable source.

The issue of whether Creationist Science makes sense is distinct from the question of whether it should be given airtime in Cosmos. That's what I was trying to get at, in my too-early-haven't-drunk-enough-coffee manner

 

[Souplex]

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?

It's a "Theory" in the scientific sense, in which nothing is absolutely provable.
Gravity is still technically just a theory. If one day gravity stops working for some reason or another, then the theory of gravity is no longer valid, and we need to figure out what to replace it with.
Evolution is a theory yes, but it has incredibly strong evidence supporting it, and is accepting by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

 

[AstaresPanda]

It would be pointless, wrong show. Simple. why do they just not make their own creationist cosmos instead of trying to push their veiws into a show they have issues with.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist?

Their coexistence is not a problem at all, the problem is claiming one is the same as the other.
Actual science originates in fact while religious study originates in belief, one is trying to figure out how the world works the other is trying to solidify belief, these are completely different fields.

If you want to find religious study equals then you look to other religions, Christian creationism, Islamic creationism, Egyptian creationism, Greek, Norse, Hindu, Buddha,... those approach the topic from the same standpoint but are not related to scientific research.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

It seems to me that Creationism isn't a viable scientific model. The whole point of science is being able to prove something as fact or not. Religion doesn't allow for such set definitions.

 

[Gormech]

I'm sort of interested. Regardless of the personal bias of myself or the audience, exploring what has been learned and the ways that we've come to such conclusions, flaws included, it should be seen as a possible source of validation for either side of the argument.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

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

Surprisingly, no. Apparently you can still practise, understand and innovate in many areas of science without applying the same rigour to your beliefs in other areas.

RISE UP, STORMCLOAKS! EMBRACE THE WORD OF MIGHTY TALOS! I DEMAND TIME ON THIS SCIENCE SHOW TO SPREAD THE WORD OF HE WHO IS BOTH MAN, AND DEVINE!

And you'd have pretty much the same level of justification this guy has.

OT: It would be funny if they conceded and devoted an episode to thoroughly debunking creationism in all its forms (as you can see done in a Google search if you like), but I hope that it gets no airtime whatsoever, because as has been discussed and somehow not stated strongly enough yet thousands of times, creationism is simply not fucking science. It's like me going to the news and demanding they do a segment on a dream that I had, except worse, because at least I really did have a dream, so there's some aspect of reporting to it.

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?

Yes, it is referred to as a theory in the same way as gravity is referred to as a theory. Scientifically it's pretty much as proven as can be, as are many 'theories'.

Is it me or did this just hit it on the head? I mean, you had to expect that posting something like this on the internet would only bring about the whole "I'm ok with religion because can be wrong dummy-heads all they want" cliche out in force. But it kind of amazes me that in the era of such "open mindedness" people can't see how creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. Believing that God created the universe does not supplant any sort of scientific evidence. The two can compliment each other. Some people don't choose to believe that the really abstract questions can be explained by a god. Some people do. I find that in this case the anti-creationist, hardcore science people are just as elitist and close-minded as religious fanatics on Fox News because they have science to wave in people's face.

Actually the issue is more that science doesn't entertain notions that have no basis in evidence. Where there is a lack of knowledge, science works to discover it, and in the mean time doesn't make any baseless assertions. On the other hand, religion sees a lack of knowledge and substitutes whatever fairy tale it thinks is fitting and until science proves otherwise says "Well you don't know, so maybe an omnipresent omnipotent magical being did do it". It is very much an adversarial relationship, as people who think they know because they believe stop asking questions and God will always be a vague, fluid and ever applicable answer to every question for these people because it just does anything it wants, regardless how many times it is proven wrong.

Just because you can't prove something wrong doesn't make it right.

 

[loa]

You're not a scientist if you're researching with the sole goal of proving your already established result without ever accepting it to be false or unlikely.

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?

It is a theory and that's why people seem to think it's on "equal footing" with fairy tales because lolsemantics.

 

[Erik Zarkov]

The problem with YEC is that they won't accept the Scientific Method, and then point out the strengths of said method and present them as flaws. Further more, they won't accept any evidence that isn't testable right now.

Science has had some crazy hypotheses which although came under quite a bit fire at first, eventually became accepted because the results of testing these hypotheses supported their claims. Einstein did not want to accept Quantum Theory, but repeated tests kept showing results in what the theory predicted. Some hypotheses can't be tested in the lab. Instead we have to search out for evidence among the stars, or in our own Earth though fossils.

For what Science tells us now, we 1) Have Theories based on what we know. BUT! 2) Be willing to change those theories based on new observations and evidence. AND 3) Accept that mistakes happen, verify, verify, verify. Maybe that fossil is a fake, maybe the experiment was compromised and the results are skewed. Follow these and we can keep building on our knowledge, and learn more about universe.

Now the YEC will look at new observations and evidence, see Science build a better model and go, "Hey, they just changed the model. That means the last model was wrong! How do you know this model isn't wrong too? Therefore, you can't accept it, and therefore mine is just as right!" This is one of the prime arguments, that since Science makes mistakes, or as it finds new data, refines its theories, that you can't trust what its telling you, at least as far as knowing about the past.

Which leads into the other popular argument, "Since nobody was there to see it and record it, how do we know the laws of physics worked the same then as now." Seriously, that's their argument. Nobody was around to record the speed of light way back then, so at some point in the past it could have been much much much faster so now that its slowed down all those stars look to be billions of light years away. Because at some point the speed of light slowed down and stopped slowing. And you can't prove this by their logic, because nobody was there to observe this, and you can't disprove it either by their logic. Its very neat and tidy.

So you have a group, with a hypothesis, that by their own logic you can't test or find evidence for its support. They request to put it up there with Theories that we have tested and found evidence for their support. There is a very simple answer for this request.

No.

They have an amazing claim that at one point in history, the laws and theories we observe now were not the same in the past. Until they can find evidence or proof for this claim, rather than attacking the methods of Science itself and claiming that as its proof, they can stay the hell off Cosmos.

 

[Mad World]

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

No.

You can still be a scientist who believes in creationism.