Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[Mr Companion]

Like many here I don't dismiss creationist science because its religious, that is totally fine by me. It's because evolution is proven to work and is 99.9% certainly fact. Everything points towards it being true, you can run simulations you can run tests you can study history. Everything says its true. You can have a creationist theory but it has to work around evolution being real, if you deny evolution being real then your theory is wrong. Your theory runs off magic.

 

[Shaidz]

...

What the hell is a "Darwinist"?

Evolution is a very real, very well established FACT. The "theory" part of the "theory of evolution" is all about *HOW* evolution happens. There's absolutely no controversy that evolution does, in fact, really happen. The framework that describes the "how it happens" part of evolution is what "theory" part refers to.

Too true, we have documented EVIDENCE of evolution, its real, and it happens. Here is an example...
The rattle snake. Did you know the rattle snake is evolving, in our document history, to exist WITHOUT its rattle. Why you ask, natural selection I answer. Rattle snakes that "Rattle" are being killed off, thus rattle snakes that don't actually 'rattle' are surviving. This is removing the 'rattle' gene form the snakes gene pool, so there will be fewer and fewer rattle snakes that 'rattle' and possible one day rattle snakes wont actually rattle...THIS IS EVOLUTION VIA NATURAL SELECTION.

 

[Callate]

I would be perfectly willing to see a show like Cosmos allow a few minutes to a Creationist scientist... If they could present their views in a way that actually tackles science head-on rather than end-run around it. That means not taking a holy book as ineffable proof, going smoothly from premise to conclusion without swerving, offering strong, confirmed, positive evidence of the hypothesis (rather than, say, suggesting evolution is "false" because of potential gaps in the fossil record), and not trying to grind Occam's Razor into bluntness.

I would actually quite respect an actual scientist who could do that. But the fact is that while there might be "so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution" from the ludicrously subjective POV that underlines a term like "so many", there's an overwhelming majority of scientists in all fields both closely and tangentially related to evolutionary biology who think Creationism (especially "Young Earth" Creationism) is completely without merit; more, the most vocal, public, and eager proponents of "scientific" Creationism would almost certainly fail to prevent their views as I describe above.

 

[Isalan]

Thing I hate about this kinda nonsense is they go in with the traditional "Everyone has something to add, there are no wrong answers, its just a theory" crap, without understanding what it takes to make an idea a scientific theory. Theories require rigorous, thorough testing before even being considered a scientific theory and they require re-testing whenever new data pertinent to the subject is available.

Scientific theories are not things your mate Dave down the pub made up.

At the end of the day, I always remember this one quote "Religion asks that you think of God, Science asks that you merely think."

 

[Mumorpuger]

I can only speak for myself, but it's entirely possible to be a scientist who believes both evolution and creationism.

 

[Mumorpuger]

...

What the hell is a "Darwinist"?

Evolution is a very real, very well established FACT. The "theory" part of the "theory of evolution" is all about *HOW* evolution happens. There's absolutely no controversy that evolution does, in fact, really happen. The framework that describes the "how it happens" part of evolution is what "theory" part refers to.

Too true, we have documented EVIDENCE of evolution, its real, and it happens. Here is an example...
The rattle snake. Did you know the rattle snake is evolving, in our document history, to exist WITHOUT its rattle. Why you ask, natural selection I answer. Rattle snakes that "Rattle" are being killed off, thus rattle snakes that don't actually 'rattle' are surviving. This is removing the 'rattle' gene form the snakes gene pool, so there will be fewer and fewer rattle snakes that 'rattle' and possible one day rattle snakes wont actually rattle...THIS IS EVOLUTION VIA NATURAL SELECTION.

I don't mean to nitpick, but your example is actually forced selection, similar to how various dog breeds came into existence.

 

[Shaidz]

...

What the hell is a "Darwinist"?

Evolution is a very real, very well established FACT. The "theory" part of the "theory of evolution" is all about *HOW* evolution happens. There's absolutely no controversy that evolution does, in fact, really happen. The framework that describes the "how it happens" part of evolution is what "theory" part refers to.

Too true, we have documented EVIDENCE of evolution, its real, and it happens. Here is an example...
The rattle snake. Did you know the rattle snake is evolving, in our document history, to exist WITHOUT its rattle. Why you ask, natural selection I answer. Rattle snakes that "Rattle" are being killed off, thus rattle snakes that don't actually 'rattle' are surviving. This is removing the 'rattle' gene form the snakes gene pool, so there will be fewer and fewer rattle snakes that 'rattle' and possible one day rattle snakes wont actually rattle...THIS IS EVOLUTION VIA NATURAL SELECTION.

I don't mean to nitpick, but your example is actually forced selection, similar to how various dog breeds came into existence.

Forced or not, the results is the same, the evolution of a species into something different. Though i would argue this is not the same as what has happened to dogs. Dogs have been cross-bread, interbred and god know what else to create entirely different sub-species to a point where some dogs are more like rodents. Where as the rattle snake are still essentially rattle snakes just without the rattle gene. Which has come about as a direct result of them evolving to better survive in their natural environment, which is what evolution is all about.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

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.

I don't want to be that guy but you can't just say that and expect everybody to be alright with it. The idea that Great A'Tuin and its kin are swimming around the insides of a Celestial Otter just seems silly.

I respectfully decline your request.

I genuinely laughed out loud. I also shared that Family Guy clip with friends when Cosmos premiered; classic.

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

That. The people who watch and plan to watch Cosmos aren't watching for religious information. I don't want to say that this show isn't for creationists or the people who believe in creationism but...well it really isn't. If you don't agree with what the show has to say than don't watch it.

 

[The Lunatic]

I've always found America's obsession with god in the face of literally all scientific evidence to be kinda strange.


Living in the UK, I can't really think of an occasion in which creationism has even been regarded as true. You'd just get laughed at, honestly.

 

[BanicRhys]

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.

 

[soren7550]

There isn't really that much to say about this except...

Ninja'd. However, it took until the second page for this to be posted. Getting a little slow on the draw there, Escapist.

OT: Wasn't there a line in one of the first two episodes that pretty much shit all over creationism? Something along the lines of "Some people just accepted the world as the work of a greater being and didn't question why things were, and they were ignorant motherfuckers"? [footnote]Citation needed.[/footnote]

Spoiler: relevant image comic thing

Link if the image borks [http://imgur.com/1BXxi]

 

[Shaidz]

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 the big bang theory is, so why not give it its fair share of coverage?

Ermmm... i am not sure what school you went to, but we know A LOT more about EVERYTHING, universe included, than we did back in the Bronze age. Such as, what the sun is, how a solar system works, evolution, electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces. True, there is still a massive amount we don't know, but we do indeed know more than we did a few 100 years ago.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

But guuuyyyysss we need to show both sides of the argument even if one side has literally no evidence at all to back up their claims!

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.

I'm fairly sure this is objectively incorrect, unless you use the same "but you didn't see it" definition of the word "know" that creationists use.

EDIT: Actually even then it's objectively incorrect, as we've directly observed the make-up of the atom and other particles, as well as applied the properties of numerous different forces to our everyday life. And we've used those those applications to expand our observations and directly observe other formerly theoretical phenomena.

 

[Vigormortis]

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

As a devout disciple of His Noodliness, I demand our views are given airtime equal to that given to the Christian Creationists!

His Noodly Appendage demands it!

So much ignorance in this thread.

When atheistic thinkers decided they don't like where the evidence is really leading.

The irony of these posts is palpable...

 

[Remus]

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

At which point he is immediately put down by Marty and Rusty for multiple murder and other things I'd not mention.

I seriously doubt that creationism will see any airtime on the show. Just because a viewpoint is gaining a following does not make it valid when it does not stand up to scrutiny and testing. The big bang theory and evolutionary theory do in fact hold up after generations of testing and can both be observed in nature with minimal effort. Tyson himself has been asked about creationism many times and...well...lets let him say it hmm?

 

[Redhawkmillenium]

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.

It'd be nice if you could do the same, Escapist.

 

[Shaidz]

This explains everything.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

His Noodly Appendage demands it!

So much ignorance in this thread.

When atheistic thinkers decided they don't like where the evidence is really leading.

The irony of these posts is palpable...

I lol'd. nice one.

OT: the day churches start teaching science, is the day I'm okay with science shows even allowing religion a footing in the scientific community. I have no beef with people who have faith/religion, but when you start using it as fact with "magic" as reasons, then you'll get constant eye rolls, I'll stick to my science that can be proven and explained over and over again.

 

[Haru17]

The article is mistaken in calling Faulkner "Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner". Creationism isn't a field of science, therefore it is impossible to be a creationist scientist. Creationism is at best a philosophical view and at worst a political one. Evolution and natural selection just make sense when looking at the world truly objectively. Natural selection simply means what is able to exist exists. A chimp mutates to have extra arms instead of eyes and it gets eaten because it's blind and dies out. A chimp evolves into a proto-human species and it flourishes in its environment and breeds because of its increased ability for critical thought; something creationism is devoid of.

Respect for religious views is different from denying obvious facts because people are scared to admit that they're just evolved animals. Because then humans wouldn't be special anymore and then they start to question whether there is an afterlife if they're not special anymore. Accepting hard truths, like the nature of the universe, is the sign of true willpower. Willful self-delusion is the sign of an immature mind. You die when you die, I know, it sucks. Ignorance of this fact is hardly bliss, in fact, opposition to scientific progress actively harms the rate of human development. We die either way, but by promoting science we get flying cars before we die.

An a practical note, the Cosmos series is already finished filming, as other posters mentioned. All TV shows film an entire season at once before airing. This whole thing is just a blatant political move to promote Faulkner and his pseudo science. We should all be paying attention to intellectuals and scientists, not conspiracy theorists like Faulkner.

 

[JarinArenos]

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".

Not even that. A hypothesis has to be "testable", which creationist beliefs are not.