Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[Gorrath]

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.

Generally speaking, a creation scientist is someone working in the field of creation science. While someone might be a creationist and a scientist, that does not necessarily indicate their field of study is creationism. The wording here gets jumbled up because of this and is often not clarified. Some would say that a "creation scientist" is an oxymoron because the ideas put forth by creationism are unscientific.

You might find a biologist, chemist or any other scientist who does good work in their field. That person might also believe in special creation. I would still not consider them a "creation scientist" because creationism isn't something that lends itself to scientific inquiry. The reason special creation does not lend itself to scientific inquiry is because some of the core tenants are unfalsifiable. That is to say, by the way the argument is constructed, it would be impossible to gather evidence for it or against it.

So, while we can say that all of those people you listed, and many more living today, do believe in special creation, they aren't creation scientists because creationism generally isn't something that can even be scientifically studied. It becomes difficult to understand meanings in all of this sometimes because one might say" creationist scientist" and just mean a scientist that accepts the idea of special creation and some other person might say "creationist scientist" and mean a scientist who studies creationism (which would be impossible if the creation idea at work is unfalsifiable.)

Hope I didn't belabor the point too much, just felt there might be some crossed meanings here.

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

Which religion's version of creationism do they want to give airtime to?

I'd be interested in learning about ancient Egyptian, Greek and Norse creationism. How about those?

Reading your comment, I actually quite like that idea. First-Nations / Native American ones would be cool too. Seems like a totally different show though, like a multi-part mini-series on the history channel or something. I'd watch it just to know how ancient people thought about these things.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

The point of science is discovery. Science is simply a method by which to take observations, form ideas about those observations, test those ideas in the form of an experiment, have our experiment repeated to see if we get consistent results and finally see if the theory we create from those results is able to have predictive power. While I'm all for admitting we are ignorant of that which we do not know, science isn't best described that way. Shooting down ideas is one of the most important parts of science. If your idea (hypothesis) isn't backed by the evidence, then that hypothesis should be discarded and a new hypothesis formed. Accepting ideas that don't fit with the evidence doesn't make one open-minded, and I'd go so far as to say it is probably rather foolish. But that is a philosophical debate.

 

[-Ezio-]

saw this on tumblr and it just seemed incredibly relevent.

 

[immortalfrieza]

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.

That's because practically everybody on the planet was religious at the time, as well as being raised under it's doctrine. You could be imprisoned, exiled, or even executed for being otherwise back then, so there wasn't really any room for any "notable thinkers" that weren't religious. This is the same reason why the claims that religion and science do go together because religious people came up with the very foundations of science to begin with is completely groundless. If there had been real room for atheist scientists back then, then the scientific method would have not only been created far sooner but science as a whole would have advanced SIGNIFICANTLY more readily than it actually ended up.

 

[Dijarida]

I'll say what I say whenever a creationist scientist comes up. If the majority of their science is correct, then the other gap are excusable. However, that gap is much too big in astronomy, and after relating a comment on a biological theory relating to astronomy, I wonder how much of his integrity can be trusted.

EDIT: Wow, this thread has some big issues. You'd think on a website based on journalism, people would understand how to have a bit more of a neutral outlook. No, oh my gosh no. What we have is people shooting down the /possibility/ of religion, and using opinions as fact. Stay classy, Escapist.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Creationism is just certain christians trying to make their religion relevant now science has slowly been able to explain everything. Science starts with a theory and tests that theory, then uses the result to either or disprove the original theory. Creationism starts with one thing "bible is real, god is real" and then builds the evidence to prove this fact. Im athiest and have no issues with peoples belief, but when you see these creationist people only pick and chose parts of the bible "as proof" then there whole argument fulls flat on its face. In science you cant just pick and chose your results.

 

[Gorrath]

Creationism is just certain christians trying to make their religion relevant now science has slowly been able to explain everything. Science starts with a theory and tests that theory, then uses the result to either or disprove the original theory. Creationism starts with one thing "bible is real, god is real" and then builds the evidence to prove this fact. Im athiest and have no issues with peoples belief, but when you see these creationist people only pick and chose parts of the bible "as proof" then there whole argument fulls flat on its face. In science you cant just pick and chose your results.

I hate to be pedantic but in threads like these it becomes really important to refine our wording due to the fact there is already so much misunderstanding of terms. Science does not start with a theory, it starts with an observation followed by an hypothesis. If that hypothesis fits with evidence gathered from a repeatable experiment, then we form the theory. I'd also be really hesitant to say that science has slowly been able to explain everything. It is, bar none, our best and only method for discerning reality, but there are still metric tons of things for which we do not have an explanation.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I am truly confused how he ever got those M.A's in physics and astronomy. I truly do not get it. Getting those M.A's means he's obviously very intelligent, he has to be as the material at hand is just so damn complicated.

And yet he purposefully and consciously ignores, and that's what both confuses and scares me, even the basics of the scientific method. Did he go through the entire, grueling process of getting those extremely difficult degrees fully convinced that it was all bunk? Is devotion and fanaticism truly that powerful? That's scary.

I find it so hard to understand that such an intelligent person does not realize or refuses to believe that what he does it not in any way science. Yet he wants to be a part of a scientific show. How in the hell does that man's head work.

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?

A scientific theory is not what a layman usually thinks it means. A scientific theory is a network of interconnected, related theoretical models. A theory also has a central core of principles that every model in that theory shares. A theoretical model is but one part of a theory which predicts, describes or simulates, among other things, certain more specific phenomenon. All inside a shared scientific domain.

As for evolution, there is both the fact of evolution, which is basically the mountain of direct and indirect evidence that life evolves, and he theory of evolution that tries to explain how that happens.

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

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.

Yah, I would consider the 700 Club anything but Christian.

 

[CriticalMiss]

"Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution," said Mefferd, "it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there.

And yet the only time someone made a list of scientists who didn't accept evolution there were only a few hundred names (less than one percent of scientists), most of them weren't in a biological field and some of them wouldn't even confirm that they denied evolution when asked. But the truth isn't really relevant to creationists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

Why would Cosmos waste their time by having these people on the show when they could use it for something more constructive like having a Carl Sagan cosplay competition?

 

[Gorrath]

"Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution," said Mefferd, "it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there.

And yet the only time someone made a list of scientists who didn't accept evolution there were only a few hundred names (less than one percent of scientists), most of them weren't in a biological field and some of them wouldn't even confirm that they denied evolution when asked. But the truth isn't really relevant to creationists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

Why would Cosmos waste their time by having these people on the show when they could use it for something more constructive like having a Carl Sagan cosplay competition?

They wouldn't, of course, but in the United States at least there is a drive to present creationist ideas (almost exclusively Christian creation ideas) as being the subject of some great campaign of prejudice. Every time a creationist is not allowed to share his or her ideas in a place where those ideas don't belong, people can shake their fists and claim discrimination. Of course to fight this "unfair" discrimination, there are people who need just a small donation to protect your religious freedom for you. Act now and you can get a "free" copy of our latest literature on how we are winning the culture war and preventing the Atheist Agenda from trying to steal our faith.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Creationism is just certain christians trying to make their religion relevant now science has slowly been able to explain everything. Science starts with a theory and tests that theory, then uses the result to either or disprove the original theory. Creationism starts with one thing "bible is real, god is real" and then builds the evidence to prove this fact. Im athiest and have no issues with peoples belief, but when you see these creationist people only pick and chose parts of the bible "as proof" then there whole argument fulls flat on its face. In science you cant just pick and chose your results.

I hate to be pedantic but in threads like these it becomes really important to refine our wording due to the fact there is already so much misunderstanding of terms. Science does not start with a theory, it starts with an observation followed by an hypothesis. If that hypothesis fits with evidence gathered from a repeatable experiment, then we form the theory. I'd also be really hesitant to say that science has slowly been able to explain everything. It is, bar none, our best and only method for discerning reality, but there are still metric tons of things for which we do not have an explanation.

Thanks for clearing that up, hopefully others will read it as it is really well put. I just couldnt think of the words at the time i wrote the comment,. But from my reasoning, creationism is the direct opposite of science.

 

[CelestDaer]

Yeah, I don't think Cosmos is going to say anything about Creationism... Neil Degrasse Tyson hates it, so...

 

[Reyold]

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? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

Exactly. This is why I find it strange when Christians back away from science. If God created the universe, then science is simply observation of it.

 

[Vivi22]

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.

When people talk about being creationists and "creation science," rarely are they talking about the idea that god created the universe and science is an explanation for how it developed from there. They are talking about a literal interpretation of creation as described in the bible. Which is obviously not congruent with any of the available scientific evidence.

 

[Slenn]

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.

This. This is exactly what would have to be aired if they chose to air something about the subject. Something that helps define where scientists draw the line between faith and trust. Something that tells others why we, as scientists, cannot use creationism as a theory. Something that explains why is evolution respected as a valued subject more in the science classroom than creationism.

Now, the original Cosmos and this one have a good habit of story telling. And that's usually how they explain things. If this is what they want to air, this is most likely how they'll do it.

 

[Brotha Desmond]

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.

That is actually a slippery slope. If they did that, then it would be viewed as an attack on religion. It would actually be better for them to not mention it at all.

 

[KazeAizen]

So did this turn into the "Gang up on religious nut jobs and prove why anyone who believes anything from that book is a stupid moron not worthy to breathe the air of this earth." thread while I wasn't looking.

 

[ninja51]

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? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

That's a point I actually give the show huge credit for. In the very first episode they have that line, "Your god is too small!" along with Neil explaining that science and the evolution and complexity of life are to him a deeply spiritual experience. I'm an agnostic personally, at this point in time no one knows for sure exactly if anything spiritual or supernatural in any form exists, we can only look towards the scientific process when trying to explain the universe.

Neil's science is too tight, we should be feeling enlightened at our new perspective of ourselves on the cosmic scale, and always continue to expand our knowledge, not shut our eyes and ears to the world because of some false belief that science and (at least some) aspects of religion can't coexist. It pains me to see religious people deny themselves some enlightenment in favor of purposeful ignorance for what I can only assume is the fear that their beliefs are too opposed to science.