Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

Recommended Videos

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
Gorrath said:
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.
It never ceases to amaze me that a being that supposedly created everything in the Universe needs so much spare change from people. So called 'Megachurches' make millions every year in the USA alone, but beardy cloud man still needs more. Probably gambling debt from all that dice playing Einstein was trying to cover up.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
BanicRhys said:
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?
First off, the idea that we know as much about the universe as we did in the bronze age is false. Just flat out untrue, and I have trouble taking you seriously if you actually think that, but I'll treat your post seriously none the less.

Here's the problem with those "less popular ideas" you accuse people of disregarding: the people arguing for them have presented no evidence to support them, they're based on thousands of year old religious texts, and no evidence we've accumulated about the way the Universe was created or works actually supports anything they say. And to top it all off, their "hypotheses" which aren't flat out proven false are generally untestable and therefore useless on any real scientific level.

Whereas we have observed and discovered direct evidence of things like Evolution, and now the Big Bang which indicate that those things do exist, and did happen. We may not understand all of the mechanisms behind them yet, but they're accepted scientific theories because we've been able to test and verify them sufficiently that we know they are the most likely scenario's.

The same can't be said for creationism. And I want to point out that the most vocal creationists are rarely people who simply say that God created the universe and physics took over from there. These are most often people who believe in a literal interpretation of creation as described in the bible. These people are wrong. This isn't something that's even up for debate really. We know that the creation of the Earth and all life on it did not happen the way the bible says. This is established scientific fact. If they actually had an argument, they'd be spending their time coming up with testable hypotheses, gathering evidence, and seeing if it supports their ideas. They don't do this though.

To suggest for even a moment that their arguments are just as likely to be true as established scientific theories is false. There's no other way to put it. They haven't made their case, they haven't found any actual evidence to support their claims, and they haven't been able to discredit any of the actual theories which have become accepted. Until they can do any of those things, they're nothing more than con artists or the victims of religious con artists themselves.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
Indeed, but what we have at work here is a philosophical round about that was created specifically to disregard everything you can demonstrate and replace it with whatever you feel like inserting. In these sorts of debates the creationist will claim that we "know" nothing, their definition of "know" being that of absolute certainty. They will then claim that absolute certainty cannot exist (except for a special pleading fallacy with God as the subject). So since we don't "know" anything, every idea is equally valid. Of course nearly no one who makes this absurd philosophical argument actually holds to it in any instance where they "know" something. It simply gets trotted out as a way of not having to actually address an argument with anything of substance. Arguments composed of logical fallacies and absurd philosophical musings tend to only serve as a smokescreen to hide the flaws in unfounded conjecture or ignorance.

Of course you likely know all this already, I'm mostly rambling in case someone else does not see what's at play here.
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
1,129
0
0
Ratty said:
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.
I'd never insist Creationism is a science and I'm one of the people who believe in it. I believe in Evolution too. Oh dear God I just contradicted myself. I'm a sane religious person who doesn't dismiss certain sciences but still believes in happenings like Creationism! Yeah if you couldn't tell I'm sick to freaking death of stuff popping up like this and then I come under fire because I so happen to be a believer. Anyone who claims themselves as a Creation Scientist is ignorant. Now a "Creationist" as in someone who believes in The Creation fine. There are some of us out there who actually believe certain things in the Bible are more metaphorical than literal. Who knows? Perhaps The Big Bang and The Creation are one and the same thing? One day the Universe is just there.

An interesting theory was shown to me one day by a Religion Professor at University of Dallas. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have some form of second coming or coming of the savior at the end of the world. While she was explaining this she drew two parallel lines and then had them slowly intersect showing that while we may follow different beliefs and practices they are all converging on the same point in the end. Who's to say that The Big Bang and The Creation aren't similar to that? I'm mad at these threads showing up here. I'm mad because I know the majority rule of the place and then I suddenly feel alone when I'm the one guy on the opposite side of the fence trying to inject logic or at least some decency into the thread but get jumped on because I share the unpopular opinion.
 

vagabondwillsmile

New member
Aug 20, 2013
221
0
0
Ninmecu said:
Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?
Mmm I would say it's an oxymoron only in and of itself. There are plenty of creationists that work in medicine, tech, engineering, etc. Adventist hospitals and cancer centers, for example, are pretty damn impressive - the religion has nothing to do with the application of medical tech. So I think many times it's more of a situation of, here is this researcher, or here is this doctor, or this engineer and he or she also just happens to have creationist beliefs. Just like another researcher may be Jewish or Hindu or anything else.

Only when it comes to robing creationism - as a system of religious belief - in the cloth of science would it be an oxymoron (because we aren't able to examine it by applying the scientific method), rather than as a blanket statement for any individual who maybe does work in the sciences and also just happens to be a creationist as a matter of personal religion.

I do think it's interesting that it seems only the American religious right is so forceful about shoe-horning an ideology into whatever venue it can in order to justify it and pass it off as examinable, provable law of the universe. This doesn't happen with any other religious group. I wonder why.

At any rate and to the point of the article, if this is such a big deal to the vocal minority among the creationist community, why don't they make their own show? It's always, "Science in schools? We want equal attention! Constitutional separation of Church and State be damned!". "Shows about the universe on television? Give us some air time on the show that you created and paid for! We're entitled to have our voice heard via your venue and funding!". Just - why not make their own show and leave other people's shows alone?
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
CriticalMiss said:
Gorrath said:
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.
It never ceases to amaze me that a being that supposedly created everything in the Universe needs so much spare change from people. So called 'Megachurches' make millions every year in the USA alone, but beardy cloud man still needs more. Probably gambling debt from all that dice playing Einstein was trying to cover up.
You never cease to amuse me CM. Thankfully, Heisenberg caught Einstein red-handed and old Special Pleading Fallacy was rumbled. Being that I'm a towering nerd, I've always loved the line from Star Trek V where Kirk asks, "What does God need with a starship?" That single line was one of the first instances where I started to really contemplate whether what I'd been force fed my whole youth was actually true.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
Gorrath said:
You never cease to amuse me CM. Thankfully, Heisenberg caught Einstein red-handed and old Special Pleading Fallacy was rumbled. Being that I'm a towering nerd, I've always loved the line from Star Trek V where Kirk asks, "What does God need with a starship?" The single line was one of the first instances where I started to really contemplate whether what I'd been forcefed my whole youth was actually true.
As much as Star Trek V isn't a great movie, that is a great line that succinctly sums up a lot of questions about God that beg the question of whether any God described in human religion is actually real, or if so, whether they deserve our respect and devotion.

Why does God need a starship? Why does God need people to worship him? Why does God eternally punish those who don't? Why does God spend most of the old testament killing his own creation for being imperfect? Why does God need to have a son and then have him sacrificed to be able to forgive us? And I could probably go on.

Of course, no good answers exist for these questions. Instead people want us to believe he works in mysterious ways. Except his ways as described by the bible, the old testament in particular aren't all that mysterious. They're just immoral.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
KazeAizen said:
An interesting theory was shown to me one day by a Religion Professor at University of Dallas. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have some form of second coming or coming of the savior at the end of the world. While she was explaining this she drew two parallel lines and then had them slowly intersect showing that while we may follow different beliefs and practices they are all converging on the same point in the end. Who's to say that The Big Bang and The Creation aren't similar to that? I'm mad at these threads showing up here. I'm mad because I know the majority rule of the place and then I suddenly feel alone when I'm the one guy on the opposite side of the fence trying to inject logic or at least some decency into the thread but get jumped on because I share the unpopular opinion.
If it soothes you at all, I once made it my mission to dig and dig until I found the intersection between religious belief and science. After all, it seemed, if both are an attempt to deal with questions of reality, they must share some common ground, right? And they do share common ground, on specific claims. I spent quite a lot of time sitting in a space that I think is a lot like where you sit now. What I discovered is that, where you are at and where I was, the debate becomes a philosophical one about belief. That debate, I think, is one worth having.

I'd ask your indulgence for those that harshly reject your notions of God though. We do live in a world where people, even today, find that their specific brand of religion (or that of their family) did many dubious or even vile things to them. I myself feel as if a great part of my youth, which could have been spent learning about science, was instead filled with nonsense, bigotry and hatred. I won't jump on you and I try not to jump on anyone, but this strong visceral reaction many people have to religion is often born of great misdeeds done to people in very personal ways. I always try to caution that an attack on ideas should never be and never be construed as, an attack on an individual. I can respect and even love you, and yes I do mean you, as a person, while vigorously, even savagely debating your philosophy. I may not share your point of view, but you are not alone. I am with you, as a part of humanity. We are all of us brothers and sisters.
 

mitchell271

New member
Sep 3, 2010
1,456
0
0
"Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution..."
I think you're confusing scientist with general populace. Protip: scientists require PhD's (and homeopathy isn't a science). You'll notice that even the goddamn Pope agrees with evolution, who are you to argue with the leader of your massive cult?
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
1,129
0
0
Gorrath said:
If it soothes you at all, I once made it my mission to dig and dig until I found the intersection between religious belief and science. After all, it seemed, if both are an attempt to deal with questions of reality, they must share some common ground, right? And they do share common ground, on specific claims. I spent quite a lot of time sitting in a space that I think is a lot like where you sit now. What I discovered is that, where you are at and where I was, the debate becomes a philosophical one about belief. That debate, I think, is one worth having.

I'd ask your indulgence for those that harshly reject your notions of God though. We do live in a world where people, even today, find that their specific brand of religion (or that of their family) did many dubious or even vile things to them. I myself feel as if a great part of my youth, which could have been spent learning about science, was instead filled with nonsense, bigotry and hatred. I won't jump on you and I try not to jump on anyone, but this strong visceral reaction many people have to religion is often born of great misdeeds done to people in very personal ways. I always try to caution that an attack on ideas should never be and never be construed as, an attack on an individual. I can respect and even love you, and yes I do mean you, as a person, while vigorously, even savagely debating your philosophy. I may not share your point of view, but you are not alone. I am with you, as a part of humanity. We are all of us brothers and sisters.
I won't deny some of the more religious families can be harsh to their kids. Our natural instinct once we hit a certain age is to rebel to an extent. Funny thing is in the past the church was actually a heavy commissioner of explorations of various sciences. So there is some overlap right there. The debate is one worth having but no one wants to debate it anymore. I once posted a thread, which I sort of regret now, asking should religion as a whole just be done with. Over 75% said yes that religion should just go away all together. 75%!

I try to indulge them. I try to listen to people who don't share similar beliefs as me. Very few though have anything intelligent to say. Most are just angry for what you are describing most likely. An environment that shoved it in their face and caused them some form of harm in the past thus they hate the very notion of it while then using examples from the Renaissance era to back up their reasons why the church is a vile terrible thing. I won't deny that it was messed up back then and that we've had stumbling blocks in recent years but everywhere I turn someone calls the whole thing, specifically the Catholic church, the largest organization of pedophiles in the world. Thank you for actually having an intelligent response and bringing to light some interesting stuff for me. I half expected to get a savage response from someone.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Vivi22 said:
Gorrath said:
You never cease to amuse me CM. Thankfully, Heisenberg caught Einstein red-handed and old Special Pleading Fallacy was rumbled. Being that I'm a towering nerd, I've always loved the line from Star Trek V where Kirk asks, "What does God need with a starship?" The single line was one of the first instances where I started to really contemplate whether what I'd been forcefed my whole youth was actually true.
As much as Star Trek V isn't a great movie, that is a great line that succinctly sums up a lot of questions about God that beg the question of whether any God described in human religion is actually real, or if so, whether they deserve our respect and devotion.

Why does God need a starship? Why does God need people to worship him? Why does God eternally punish those who don't? Why does God spend most of the old testament killing his own creation for being imperfect? Why does God need to have a son and then have him sacrificed to be able to forgive us? And I could probably go on.

Of course, no good answers exist for these questions. Instead people want us to believe he works in mysterious ways. Except his ways as described by the bible, the old testament in particular aren't all that mysterious. They're just immoral.
Those were the questions I started asking, and as you say, no acceptable answers were forthcoming. I found that people I had been taught to respect out of reflex had very suspect reasoning and even more suspect motivations. I was given vague hand-waving answers to difficult moral questions. At first, I was told to go read my Bible and pray. So I did what I was told, I read the whole book, and now I had even more questions when my prayers were not answered in any way I found meaningful. Once I came with these new questions, they told me to STOP reading the Bible, or rather, to read the bits they wanted me to read and to interpret things the way they told me to interpret them. At eleven years old I stood in front of a pastor and raised my brows as he tried to give me contextless answers to what was moral about a pair of she-bears ripping children apart for making fun of a guy for being bald. That evening I was left wondering, if an eleven year old child could be left totally unconvinced by these weak answers, bereft as they were of any logic or moral reasoning, how in the world did any adult believe in it?

I still don't have an answer to that question.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,804
0
0
Brotha Desmond said:
TheSYLOH said:
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.
And why would that be a bad thing? Provided it is done in a rational and respectful manner and in context of the show's content.

If religious fundamentalists threaten things like scientific education, important for a show like Cosmos, why not attack them for it. They sure attack science a lot, that's for sure. The incredible sensitivity surrounding that sort of thing is something I'd really like to see removed. If rational debate is no longer possible then where will we be.
MinionJoe said:
InvisibleMan said:
? and I'm sure soon we will hear from the alchemists wanting to have some air time on the show, too!
Gold was transmuted from mercury via neutron bombardment back in 1941.

Here's the peer-reviewed journal on that very process:

http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.60.473


Now that's cool.
 

Megalodon

New member
May 14, 2010
781
0
0
KazeAizen said:
I'd never insist Creationism is a science and I'm one of the people who believe in it. I believe in Evolution too. Oh dear God I just contradicted myself. I'm a sane religious person who doesn't dismiss certain sciences but still believes in happenings like Creationism!
Apologies if I've misinterpreted here, but this reads like you do dismiss some fields of science? Which ones?


Yeah if you couldn't tell I'm sick to freaking death of stuff popping up like this and then I come under fire because I so happen to be a believer.
If you don't actually believe that the universe was magicked into existence 6000 years ago and that all the animals were popped into existence in their current state. then you're not really the intended target of most of the ire here, although its hard to avoid some general religion bashing thanks to the internet and people have strong feeling about this. It's that specific, objectively incorrect, belief and its proponents that seek to undo so much of the progress we've made over the years, that is truly objectionable.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if people want to believe the universe was created by a personal deity, 6000 of 14 billion years ago. But when they try to insinuate that belief into where it doesn't belong, and try to poison the well of knowledge with their unsubstantiated story of preference, that's when it becomes an issue.

Anyone who claims themselves as a Creation Scientist is ignorant. Now a "Creationist" as in someone who believes in The Creation fine. There are some of us out there who actually believe certain things in the Bible are more metaphorical than literal.
Slight tangent here, but which bits of the bible are metaphorical, which are literal? How do you tell the difference?

Who knows? Perhaps The Big Bang and The Creation are one and the same thing? One day the Universe is just there.
My personal opinion here is summed up by the Carl Sagan clip I posted earlier in the thread. I don't see the need for a god in that process, because it then begs the question of where did the god came from etc. If you do, go nuts, as long as you're not proclaiming your opinion is the only truth without the evidence required to back up that claim, I don't really care.
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
Sniper Team 4 said:
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?
As others have said, we know species change, so evolution is a fact. The theory of natural selection explains how it works, and is extremely robust.

It may also be that evolution was more often called a fact after the fruit fly experiments that showed speciation of fruit flies in a laboratory, so we don't just know that organisms change from fossil records and all that other evidence, but we've actually observed it in the lab in a controlled experiment. Saying that evolution didn't happen after this experiment is not much different from a person saying the earth is flat after humans orbited the earth.
 

Brotha Desmond

New member
Jan 3, 2011
347
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
If religious fundamentalists threaten things like scientific education, important for a show like Cosmos, why not attack them for it. They sure attack science a lot, that's for sure. The incredible sensitivity surrounding that sort of thing is something I'd really like to see removed. If rational debate is no longer possible then where will we be.
21st century America.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
KazeAizen said:
I won't deny some of the more religious families can be harsh to their kids. Our natural instinct once we hit a certain age is to rebel to an extent. Funny thing is in the past the church was actually a heavy commissioner of explorations of various sciences. So there is some overlap right there. The debate is one worth having but no one wants to debate it anymore. I once posted a thread, which I sort of regret now, asking should religion as a whole just be done with. Over 75% said yes that religion should just go away all together. 75%!

I try to indulge them. I try to listen to people who don't share similar beliefs as me. Very few though have anything intelligent to say. Most are just angry for what you are describing most likely. An environment that shoved it in their face and caused them some form of harm in the past thus they hate the very notion of it while then using examples from the Renaissance era to back up their reasons why the church is a vile terrible thing. I won't deny that it was messed up back then and that we've had stumbling blocks in recent years but everywhere I turn someone calls the whole thing, specifically the Catholic church, the largest organization of pedophiles in the world. Thank you for actually having an intelligent response and bringing to light some interesting stuff for me. I half expected to get a savage response from someone.
In my case, my parents were very open and didn't try to force anything on me or my siblings. They just wanted us to have some exposure to religion to make up our own minds. I love them for that, and many other things. My grandparents, who we were left in the care of, and who I also love dearly, were much more responsible for the push towards Christian belief. The youth group we were a part of was all about squashing independent thought and learning repetitious dogma. We were schooled in the new testament but also encouraged to treat homosexuals as sinners (with no explanation as to why homosexuality was worse than the sins we were all supposedly committing all the time). It was simply a form of bigotry and prejudice backed up by Biblical decree from the old and new testament. So my story isn't particularly vile, just dubious, but I know of many others like myself who lost something in those years we were forcibly indoctrinated. I need not appeal to some Medieval example of the harm the church can do, I lived through enough of it to know. I tell you all this simply to explain why I view the church the way I do, not as an accusation that you're some brainwashed cultist or moron. You have your own experiences, and I respect that, as they are no less important than my own.

I should also note that I am an agnostic atheist, a skeptic and a religious person. I happen to adhere to a religious philosophy that has no deity and no supernatural belief. I think religion is best described as what one does, not what one believes. Belief has very little value when compared to what action results due to that belief. I find Christianity to be no more or less valid than any other religious practice of similar stripe. What I, and so many others take issue with isn't the belief, though we may find the tenants themselves questionable at best, the problem is with the actions of some based on their professed belief.

When a group of people try to co-opt a science class by injecting creationist propaganda into it, I don't just blame the people who are doing this, I look at why they think they should. Christianity teaches one to be evangelical, even at the expense of one's own life. I find this notion, in actual practice, to be incompatible with a secular society. So if you are the sort to hold to your religious views and are able to live and let live in this secular nation, I'd embrace you. But, those who religiously go about working to do what their religion commands, even if it conflicts with a free and open nation, I must take action against, and I cannot ignore the beliefs they hold that inform that action. So I must be critical not only of the people but of their religion as well. I do not attack the religion out of hatred from the wrongs it did to me, but because I don't want to see those same wrongs done to others.

But be proud of your religious belief, tell others what you think and listen in turn. Love your neighbor even if he dismisses you or thinks you a fool. Enjoy yourself and indulge in your religious practice without shame. Just make sure that whatever you decide to practice, it does not work toward subverting the secular society in which we live. So long as we stay true to secularism, we can all live peaceably by whatever creed we deem fit for us. In the case of this story, that means not pretending as if some religious belief belongs on a show about science. But you already know that, and have said as much, and for that I respect you.
 

Pinkamena

Stuck in a vortex of sexy horses
Jun 27, 2011
2,370
0
0
I wouldnt mind a mention about it at all, as long as it's not presented as a scientific theory.
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
1,439
0
0
Eh, I say it depends on what he wants to say on the show.

If he wants to call attention to the great statistical improbabilities of life on earth being possible and then of life spontaneously-generating from inorganic matter, and then point out that this leads some scientists to infer the concept (note: I said "concept," not "hypothesis" or "theory") that there may be some intelligent design behind the processes, then that's fine, as long as its made clear that the science stops once you make the leap to the inferential concept; it's not a hypothesis or theory because it's not testable, and therefore, not science.