Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[Zanderinfal]

Whether you believe it or not, there is more than enough evidence to disprove, Mr Faulkner. I take it this guy didn't watch the Bill Nye Vs Ken Ham debate.

Anyways, I can understand that they want to have some representation, but when there is nothing scientific worth talking about when it comes to these "theories." It kinda sounds like they're just looking for some support among their piers - understandable, but they have to realize that in the wake of scientific development, religious theories aren't relevant in science anymore. Tough pill to swallow, but it's true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having beliefs of any kind as long as they don't infringe upon other people; that said, when we're talking about science and fact, creationism, a new earth and any sort of afterlife isn't provable and for 2 of those we have proof to suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, I think these guys need to understand that big claims require lots of proof.

 

[immortalfrieza]

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.

You'll just be REALLY BAD at your job.

It's only possible through massive amounts of denial. How else could one believe in something like creationism and yet overwhelming evidence against it is what one has learned and encounters on a daily basis, as well as having as a job to find more and more evidence that contradicts it?

Religion and science are completely opposed concepts, like light and dark, good and evil, life and death, and always have been. This is true even though religious people were responsible for the creation of the scientific method to begin with, though that's solely because everybody and his mother were religious back then, so they were the only ones who could have made it if it was ever going to be. As science has expanded our understanding of the universe, religions of all types have been proven false time and time again in every way, and yet somehow there are people that still believe in them.

 

[Agow95]

How about this, when a independent unbiased scientist comes forth with repeatable, accurate scientific proof that the universe was built over the course of 6 days by a omnipotent being that could only be described as a god and that evolution isn't possible, then you can have creationism featured in a show about scientific fact and evidence

 

[Gerishnakov]

Read Richard Dawkins' God Delusion; he quite clearly sets out just how utterly implausible the idea of 'creation' is.

 

[Chessrook44]

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: (Quote snipped for length)

Yeah the way I see it, we've explained many things. Nebulas, the structure of the Earth, physics, evolution, the history of quite a bit of the universe, most of what we can see...

God and Religion takes hold in those places where Science doesn't. Where facts are unavailable, and we can only go on what we believe. Did God initiate the Big Bang, or was it something else? Did life form from a random collection of materials, did it fall from an Asteroid, or did some higher intelligence, be it Aliens or God, form it from nothing? Do the beautiful nebulas in space form from random accretions of dust and radiation, or is some gigantic being sculpting it into form like some great artist? Well OK that last one is likely the former but you see my point.

 

[Kinitawowi]

God and Religion takes hold in those places where Science doesn't.

And therein lies the problem. Science is willing to accept that it might be wrong, that it has holes, that there are things it can't yet explain. God and religion end up becoming a slather of wallpaper paste, thrown over the top, seeping into all the cracks and refusing to budge. As the science expands, so the religious argument gets more and more squeezed until it cracks apart.

Why? Because it won't move. Science has advanced in the last 1500 years, but religion is still exactly where it was. And the more clear it becomes that they're fundamentally incompatible, the more of a problem it turns out to be.

 

[DSK-]

Am I the only one to have laughed at Commander Obvious' post? Why was he warned for that? :/

OT: I'm not surprised that Creationist views won't be entertained on such a show.

 

[Goliath100]

Snip

Because you are the 3rd person saying this: "...AT BEST be call a "hypothesis"."

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

also you are wasting 120 million dollars by building a replica of noahs ark.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1156554/noahs-ark-encounter-museum-costs-120-million-are-creationists-wasting-kentuckys-money/

The Noah?s ark encounter willl be created as part of a creationist theme park and is said to cost over $120 million, but some are already saying Kentucky has better uses for the money.

For example, the Huffington Post compiled a list of alternatives, which include feeding hungry children, donating to cancer research, investing into the Kentucky education system, saving abused animals, and combating illegal drugs. These alternatives did have good justifications, since Kentucky suffers from the highest cancer death rate in the US, has one in four children supposedly going hungry, spends relatively little on schools, has the worst animal protection laws of all the states, and is currently suffering from a dramatic increase in heroin overdoses.

Huh, that's interesting. I wonder what the bible would say about this....

"Jesus said to him, "if you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven" -Matthew, 19:21

"And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" -Matthew 19:23-24

"Then the Righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed the, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King [God] will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my Bretheren you did it for me" -Matthew 25:37-41

"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.
"Blessed are you who that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied" -Luke 6:20-21

"Woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
"Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger" -Luke 6:24-25

"Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again" -Luke 6:30

""But as Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the inkeeper saying, 'take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back' Which of these three, do you think proved neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?" He said, "the one who showed mercy on him." And Jesus said to him "Go and do likewise." -Luke 10:33-37

"But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind and you will be plessed because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the Just."" -Luke 15:13-14

"And a ruler asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" [...] And when Jesus heart it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me". -Luke 19:18-19, 22-23

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you" John 14:34

Oh, but silly me. I'm sure the people building "Noah's Ark" know far more about Christianity than I do.

Hah! You're thinking of non-American Christianity, there is an increasing disconnect between American Christians (especially evangelicals) and what is normally considered Christian.

Sections of American Christianity, particularly those where praying for wealth, country and victory in war is closer to the ancient Roman belief system rather than the humility and spiritual well-being that characterized ancient and more modern Christian teaching.

 

[Ratty]

The thing is, there's no such thing as a "Creation Scientist" as Creationism isn't science because its methodology is backward.

Actual science follows the scientific method. It looks at all of the evidence, comes up with explanations for that evidence then checks the explanations against all known facts, rechecking when new information arises. Constantly discarding or modifying explanations to better fit with what we know of reality.

Creationism starts with an explanation then looks for evidence to support that explanation, ignoring or dismissing any conflicting information. This is not science no matter how hard some people stomp their feet and insist that it is.

 

[Lieju]

I think creationism is a bit of a misnomer. Ever seen 2001 A Space Odyssey. When I first heard the term "creationist" I thought it meant someone who believes or think the universes had sentient influence. The idea and concept that god created the universe isn't really that bad nor does in actually contradict the scientific method. However a creationist is associated more with religions beliefs rather then just an idea that evolution might have some deliberate programing to it.

'Creationist' generally means just someone who believes in creation, but the way it tends to be used, especially in the US and related to the whole creationism vs evolution -'debate', it tends to mean people who believe in the Bible's version of events.

They have tried to make their claims sound more scientific, with claims like 'there is an intelligent designer, might be God, might be aliens, we aren't saying.' but it's not like they tend to be accepting of different religions or aliens.

Although even if they didn't make any claims about who or what the intelligent thing is, it's still not any more scientific if you don't have any evidence or actual theories or testable hypotheses.

 

[Pr0]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson actually summed this up best himself.

To paraphrase cause I don't want to link someone elses Youtube video here, he basically said that it stands to reason that there is no argument for or against God, but the advancement of human knowledge over time has quite simply shown that what we assign to "God" is often quite natural phenomena that we simply do not understand yet as a species and that effectively the "God" that we tend to believe in at any given time is simply the most efficient solution to a problem we cannot veritably explain as naturalistic, scientifically veritable processes.

So effectively, God is everything we don't know...til we know it, then suddenly the idea of what God is gets even more complex.

I take no sides in the area of religion but I do believe that teaching creationism in any of its forms, whether it is purist, fundamental creationism, or expanded creationism...is simply not teaching science...its teaching mysticism...and mystical/religious concepts are the baliwick of theology and they have plenty of TV air time all over the place.

Whether there is a God or not is immaterial to the debate, creationist views are not science, because they cannot be verified in any way and operate solely on "faith" and thus they have no place in a scientific discussion.

Believing in them, or not, is again, immaterial. Cosmos is about the science of known cosmology, physics, and the galaxy as we....human beings, understand it. If there is some kind of super entity, some massive intelligence so great that we could not ever comprehend it, that is actually responsible for all this stuff working like it does because said entity actually "created" it...thats just it...we will never be able to comprehend an intellect of that nature, we won't ever have the computational power to ever be able to even verify its existence much less come to "know" it in any way.

Creationists like having their equal time..but in all fairness, they've run the world for thousands of years and still, to this day, run many parts of the world right now. And, also...its not like they don't have enough money to put on their own TV show to share their views..so the entire dig at Cosmos is simply a professional dig at best and nothing more than that.

So in short, Creationist views aren't required on a show about Cosmology. There are more than enough platforms for them on television..and in other mediums as well.

 

[paragon1]

And people in Hell want ice water!

 

[Westaway]

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

Kind of like Christian Scientist? (Not attacking them, just find the title kind of funny.)

Newton, Mendel, Darwin, Galileo, and pretty much every single notable thinker up to and just after the enlightenment era were either Christians or deists, either way believing in Creationism.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

If you're discussing theology, perhaps.

It has no place in scientific discussion.

 

[MidnightSt]

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.

they wouldn't want to do that, believe me...
as soon as you bring something (or make something join) the "debate", it's very hard to get it out of it again, and impossible (as everyone should know from experience) to "win" the "debate" in the eyes of religious people.

the surest way to protect that something from deteriorating is to just stay away from that particular "debate", unless it is explicitly created from the get-go to join it, offcourse.

 

[JenSeven]

You know, I'm absolutely fine with creationists wanting this, but it has to work both ways.

If a creationist wants airtime on a scientific channel, I want atheist scientist to get airtime on religious channels.

 

[miketehmage]

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.

This. So much this. Really couldn't have worded it better myself. The point of science is to admit we are ignorant and to try and learn more about what is around us, and if we spend all day shooting down different ideas, as crazy as they may seem, we are no different to the people we claim to know better than.

 

[Cerebrawl]

When did evolution become fact?

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

Kind of like an ostrich, really.

If you're open to views that Darwinists refuse to look into, you can read "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt". Both are well annotated and documented and written from a scientific point of view, using the same method of reasoning that Darwin used to advance his own theory.

And no, even in genuine science, a theory is not considered a proven fact. If it were, then scientists would not be calling it a theory.

You haven't got the faintest idea what the word theory means in a scientific context. So here's what it means:

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!

Thanks to notjustatheory.com

 

[Ratty]

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

Kind of like Christian Scientist? (Not attacking them, just find the title kind of funny.)

Newton, Mendel, Darwin, Galileo, and pretty much every single notable thinker up to and just after the enlightenment era were either Christians or deists, either way believing in Creationism.

Newton also believed in Alchemy, do you think we should believe that to just because he did? What matters is what the men and women said and how much of it is supported by the current body of evidence. Otherwise, you're just arguing from authority. "Well these guys were really smart in certain fields so obviously you're dumb to disagree with them on anything." That's like saying someone with a Doctorate in Sports Medicine is automatically qualified to speak on geology.

Even the most brilliant ancient thinkers did not have access to the data and data collecting techniques we have now. No matter what names you can pull out of a hat the simple fact is that creationism does not follow the scientific method, therefore it is not science.