Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth The Media Science

Creationists Demand Equal Airtime With 'Cosmos' 667

Posted by timothy
from the 13-or-so-billion-years-then? dept.
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Travis Gettys reports that creationist Danny Falkner appeared Thursday on "The Janet Mefford Show" to complain that the Fox television series and its host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, had marginalized those with dissenting views on accepted scientific truths. "I don't recall seeing any interviews with people – that may yet come – but it's based upon the narration from the host and then various types of little video clips of various things, cartoons and things like that," said Falkner of Answers In Genesis who also complained that Tyson showed life arose from simple organic compounds without mentioning that some believe that's not possible. "I was struck in the first episode where he talked about science and how, you know, all ideas are discussed, you know, everything is up for discussion – it's all on the table – and I thought to myself, 'No, consideration of special creation is definitely not open for discussion, it would seem." To be fair, there aren't a ton of shows on TV specifically about creationism says William Hamby. "However, there are entire networks devoted to Christianity, and legions of preachers with all the airtime they need to denounce evolution. Oh, and there was that major movie from a few years back. And there's a giant tax-payer subsidized theme park in Kentucky. And the movie about Noah. And entire catalogs of creationist movies and textbooks you can own for the low low price of $13.92.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creationists Demand Equal Airtime With 'Cosmos'

Comments Filter:
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:09AM (#46550583) Homepage Journal

    TV is not a government entity, you want equal time, pay up. You have no rights of speech with a privately owned business. You want your time in the spotlight during prime time, go out and make a show that doesn't suck, then pay for its spot to air. Its quite simple. Quit with the 'entitlement' mentality already.

    Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:13AM (#46550599)

      If we demanded equal time in church gatherings. I mean fair is fair right. So you creationists wouldn't object to that? In that case I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 22, 2014 @10:14AM (#46550923)

        What about *equal* tax exemption status for Science organization that the Churches have been enjoying?

        • by plover (150551) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @10:45AM (#46551129) Homepage Journal

          I'd rather have equal taxation for churches.

          • by kheldan (1460303) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @12:20PM (#46551755) Journal

            I'd rather have equal taxation for churches.

            Yes yes yes this this THIS times a million!

            We need to start taxing 'religious' organizations the same way we tax every other business -- because that's what they are: businesses. Have been for a long, long time now, and it's time everyone stopped sticking their heads in the sand and admitted that. "Oh but that money is to do charitable work!" some are going to say, but I call bullshit on that. Know what they do with that money? They spend it on politics, and on building extravagant churches! Enough's enough, time for them to pay up like everyone else, and time for them to get their religious noses out of politics.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by ganjadude (952775)
              personally I want to see taxes get slashed accross the board and spending at a federal level cut by a drastic number as well. Let the people and states keep their money
            • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @02:12PM (#46552561)

              "Yes yes yes this this THIS times a million! "

              No, no, no... billions and billions of times. (Yes, I know: Sagan never actually said that.)

              Here's the problem with that, and it's such a HUGE amount of history that it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. But it seems that it does, so here goes:

              History says very clearly that once you allow government to get involved with religion, or religion with government, pretty soon you have government-mandated religion, or religion-run government. And both of those are Very Bad. Religions have never -- ever, ever -- been good heads of government. And it's pretty obvious why government-mandated religion is just as bad.

              That is why we have effective separation of Church and State in the US. But many people misunderstand it.

              Contrary to what many people seem to think, the reason for that separation is not to "keep religion out" of everything. At all. It is intended to prevent any kind of official government sponsorhip of a particular religion. Our Founders were intimately familiar with religious persecution, and it was their intent to prevent it. But it was not their intent to suppress religion.

              Example: a nearby city government had prayer before every meeting. The prayers were generally given by a Catholic priest, probably just because there was a big Catholic church just down the street. Some people objected, and it went all the way up to the State Supreme Court. This is what the court said (paraphrase):

              "There is no law or clause in the Constitution preventing you from having prayer. However, you ARE prohibited from supporting any PARTICULAR religion. Offering Catholic prayer before every meeting is de facto government sponsorship of a particular religion."

              The city's answer: now, any religion that wants to participate can get put on their list. They either rotate through the list or draw them at random... I'm not sure which. But the upshot is that they still have prayer before every meeting, but it isn't necessarily Catholic or even Christian. I remember once they had prayers from the local Baha'i faith.

              Now, nobody has any reason to object and there are no problems. Even the atheists don't seem to have a problem with it.

              • by kheldan (1460303)
                You misunderstand me: I don't want the Separation of Church and State to be erased. I sure as hell don't want "state mandated religion" or "state endorsed religion" or any such thing. For the record, in my opinion, organized religions are the ones who are trying to erase that Separation, and they're doing it by intentionally getting their sheeplike congregations to vote the way the churches want them to vote, and they're collecting monies from the same people to give to political candidates and to support b
              • by guises (2423402)
                I think you may have misunderstood the comment. What we have now is lack of separation - the state, usually the courts, decides what is and is not a religion or a religious establishment and consequently how it will be taxed.

                What people are pushing for is an end to this practice - treat all non-profits the same way, including religions. This means that your weird cult will have to fill out a little more paperwork to get its tax exempt status, but you don't run the risk of some orthodox judge denouncing yo
              • by Tom (822) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @04:35PM (#46553415) Homepage Journal

                History says very clearly that once you allow government to get involved with religion, or religion with government, pretty soon you have government-mandated religion, or religion-run government. And both of those are Very Bad. Religions have never -- ever, ever -- been good heads of government. And it's pretty obvious why government-mandated religion is just as bad.

                Yes, but you missed the point by exactly 180 degrees there.

                Government giving special status to religions (by tax excemption) is the opposite of government staying out of religion. What the GP wants is that religion has no special status and is treated just like everyone else, and that would be less government involvement with religion, because it does away with the special treatment and registration, and reduces the interface between them. Now they aren't special little kids anymore, they're just taxpayers just like everyone else.

          • by number6x (626555) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @01:22PM (#46552239)

            I'd rather have equal taxation for churches.

            @plover...

            In the Bible, Christ preaches that his followers should pay their taxes. You know 'Render unto Rome what is Rome's...". I believe that fundamentalist christian churches should volutarily be paying taxes, even if the law does not require it.

            After all the bible tells them to do it!

          • Funny that they have a fit if you dare even suggest taxing churches but didn't their own book say "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?
        • by jythie (914043)
          You know, from an economic policy and growth perspective, that might not actually be such a bad idea..... research organizations that are non-profit can already claim tax exempt status, but giving them the same range as religious organizations could really encourage some movement forward.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I agree; we have to avoid this deep indoctrination of children without choice; every christian church gathering as should share time equally between their own brand of Christianity, Kibology, Eventualism and the Pastafarians. Other religions such as Hinduism, Islam and The Cult of the Earth Godess should be added as and when representatives are available.

      • by firex726 (1188453) <firex726@NoSpam.yahoo.com> on Saturday March 22, 2014 @12:50PM (#46551995)

        And for each viewpoint...

        So we got Christians, Atheists, FSM, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, Scientologists, etc... Keep things going and it'll only be like one second for each every service day.

    • by O('_')O_Bush (1162487) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:14AM (#46550601)
      I would oblige them. Give I.D.ERS equal time... just, give it to the Luciferians. I am sure the Creationists will shut up mighty quick.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.

      How is this creationist nonsense in the public interest?

    • by microbox (704317) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @10:21AM (#46550959)

      Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.

      The George Marshall Institute [marshall.org], (an anti-environmentalists, pro-tobacco think-tank), threatened networks and newspapers with legal action over the fairness doctrine [wikipedia.org], the spirit of which is that public media is a public resource, and that both sides of debates should always be present.

      This was back in the commie-Reagan era. There were real communist threats back then. Reagan wanted to build the absurdly expensive and naive strategic defense initiative [wikipedia.org], aka "Star Wars", and pretty much every scientist in America said it was a stupid waste of money and could never work. And even if it did, then the Soviets would be forced to respond with some other ridiculously expensive piece of technology. (The Soviets saw Star Wars as a complete joke.)

      So... how to do silence a consensus of scientists? Well, the tobacco industry had been doing just that for 30 years by then. Get a few true ideological believers: (e.g., Frederick Seitz) and make a whole lot of noise, and if the newspapers/tv don't play along: sue them with deep corporate pockets.

      This worked. Mass media started to give false balance [wikipedia.org] to an industry funded effort to rape the tax payer of trillions of dollars on a stupid missile defense system that had no chance of working.

      Then Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine (giving birth to right-wing radio), the Soviet empire collapsed, and the ideological believers moved on to other targets. Specifically: fighting regulations on passive smoking, acid rain, and the ozone whole... and of course climate change. In all cases the tactic was exactly the same, and this very small coterie was/is massively funded in spreading "doubt". You can read a ridiculous amount of grizzly details in Merchants of Doubt [merchantsofdoubt.org].

      The point is that we create society however we want, and the load whining of creationists is just part of the game.

      • Merchants of Doubt and Sagan's Demon Hunted World should both be standard HS Science textbooks.
      • by ubrgeek (679399) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @11:49AM (#46551527)
        > The Soviets saw Star Wars as a complete joke.

        Actually, I think they were OK with Star Wars. Pravda gave The Phantom Menace two thumbs down.
        • by ultranova (717540) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @02:12PM (#46552557)

          Actually, I think they were OK with Star Wars.

          Hmm...

          C-3PO: a bumbling, whining, annoying, cowardly intelligentsia ("I'm familiar with over 6 million forms of communication") who's only saving grace is ultimate loyalty to R2.
          R2-D2: super proletariat, a factory worker who saves the day through its superior manual labour skills over and over again. Where royalty is ineptly captured (Leia) and priesthood is either struck down (Obi-Wan) or nearly goes to the dark side (Luke), and capitalists (Han) only join the fight out of greed and return to avoid a mutiny of the downtrodden underclass (Chewbacca) when they aren't actively betraying each other (Lando), R2 tirelessly carries the rebllion towards the glorious new Red Dawn.

          Never thought of it that way, but yeah, I guess Lucas really was a communist spy. And the prequel trilogy is as it is because he no longer has his KGB contacts write his propaganda for him.

      • by number17 (952777) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @11:50AM (#46551533)

        and that both sides of debates should always be present.

        If we are going to display all sides, including religious theories, I propose that we start with the Flying Spaghetti Monster [wikipedia.org] theory.

      • by Dachannien (617929) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @11:50AM (#46551535)

        (The Soviets saw Star Wars as a complete joke.)

        Not true. Gorbachev was scared shitless over SDI, and it was really the only big sticking point in negotiations that could have reduced nuclear weapon stockpiles far more drastically in the 1980s than what actually happened. The Soviets responded to the threat of SDI by ramping up production of ICBMs and nuclear warheads, on the theory that it would be cheaper to overwhelm SDI with ridiculous numbers of targets than to try to devise a technological countermeasure or to produce an SDI of their own.

        For reference, I highly recommend this book [amazon.com].

    • by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @11:02AM (#46551237)

      TV is not a government entity, you want equal time, pay up. You have no rights of speech with a privately owned business. You want your time in the spotlight during prime time, go out and make a show that doesn't suck, then pay for its spot to air. Its quite simple. Quit with the 'entitlement' mentality already.

      Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.

      Exactly; but this isn't about equal time so much as advancing their view that their POV is being stifled because it is Christian (although technically the Catholic Church ended the argument over creationism by saying basically evolution and the idea of a creator driving the process aren't mutually exclusive) and a way for them to get press. There is a fundamental strain of Christianity that needs to feel persecuted and seeks to characterize any action they dislike as persecution to bolster their feeling of being right in their beliefs. After all, Christ was persecuted so if I am persecuted then I am following in Christ's footsteps.

      Of course, many of the folks lamenting the lack of a creationist viewpoint would go nuts over the suggestion of brining in the theories of Scientology, Eric von Danakin, TGFSM, or any other viewpoint but their own.

    • by VernonNemitz (581327) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @11:37AM (#46551449) Journal
      When they can offer equal EVIDENCE, then they might be deserving of equal time. So far, though, all they have is hearsay --worthless in a courtroom, and worthless in science.
    • by civilizedINTENSITY (45686) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @11:39AM (#46551457)
      Airwaves are a public resource, and so privately owned issues pretty much end where they hit the antenna. I'd make the argument that it isn't in the public interest to promote crazyness. I support the public interest, but that doesn't mean every whack-o's mutterings are worthy of promotion.
  • Deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lagomorpha2 (1376475) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:11AM (#46550585)

    Equal time to creationists on Cosmos, equal time for actual knowledge (read: science) on all televangelist broadcasts. That sounds like a fair compromise.

    • Re:Deal (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:38AM (#46550705)

      Further more, every Christian preacher should devote 75% of each sermon to advocating Atheism, Islam and Satanism, so that dissenting views get "equal airtime" there too.

      • They'd get less than that. There are roughly 18 different denominations. So an hour long broadcast (with no ads, intro or credits) would give 3.33 minutes/ea.

        You can't just group "Christian" together, as there are many major denominations. It gets simpler if you combine them farther back in their history. I'm pretty sure if a block of time was given to "Abrahamic religions", that would cause a holy war, as that includes Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, and Bahai.

        You can't just base it on major denomination

    • by JWSmythe (446288) <jwsmytheNO@SPAMjwsmythe.com> on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:50AM (#46550749) Homepage Journal

      I'd *love* to see that.

      The FCC could force religious broadcasting channels to give equal time to well founded scientific shows. Like, science without any sort of religion involved at all. Every television show with religious content can be forced to contain an equal part science, presented by a person with a scientific background and no theology is allowed in that part.

      That would pretty much derail every religious show broadcast.

      I know what they want though. They want half of the Cosmos show, so they can preach during it. I wouldn't watch it, if half the content is ancient mythology.

      I wonder if we could extend this to everything on television (cable or broadcast). Then we could have a perfect clusterfuck.

    • by jez9999 (618189)

      Not really a desirable compromise, because how many people actually watch those bullshit preaching channels compared to primetime TV?

      Equal time for scientific views in church sermons and preachings, now that would be a sweet deal.

  • not a debate (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:12AM (#46550587)

    not a debate you would have anywhere in europe, not even in Rome....
    the vast majority in europe would just start crying in laughter at the idea of creationism, because it's just so incredibly infantile...

  • just wait... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by itsme1234 (199680) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:12AM (#46550591)

    Neil deGrasse Tyson seems to follow Sagan's old show and lines of reasoning. This means the worst is yet to come for "special creationists".

  • If they want to sell the fiction that 'flu strains don't change and pests can't get resistant to pesticides then they should pay for their own soapbox just like any other scam.
    • by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:32AM (#46550677)

      If they want to sell the fiction that 'flu strains don't change and pests can't get resistant to pesticides ...

      That is not what creationists believe. They accept that organisms can adapt to their environment. They just deny that these adaptions can lead to entirely new species.

    • Ahh but they accept those things because that is "microevolution" as opposed to what they call "macroevolution" which they claim would have to be something like a dog giving birth to a pig.

  • No. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scottnix (951749) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:14AM (#46550603)

    Because Cosmos is a science show.

  • Two Minutes Hate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:17AM (#46550617) Homepage
    Yaknow, I used to think the Two Minutes Hate from Orwell's 1984 was the least realistic, most suspension-of-disbelief breaking part of the book. It just didn't make any sense and the idea of people getting up in front of others to show how much they hated Big Brother's enemies was just ridiculous. But now that I'm older, hell...what else is this story other than despising those who think differently than we do? We write something to show how much we support the prevailing point of view and then move on with the rest of our day. And keep an eye out for that bastard Emmanuel Goldstein, you never know where his agents are.
    • by Lairdykinsmcgee (2500904) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @10:13AM (#46550913)
      It's not hate, it's recoil. Time and time again, Creationism seeks to undermine legitimate scientific thought in order to shout its psychobabble at us and expect us to call it 'legitimate science.' Those who recoil aren't doing it out of hate or disgust, but well-founded fear-- the fear of what will happen when religious ignorance dresses up as science for Halloween and people actually take it seriously. It's not just ignorant though; it's irresponsible, because it affects public policy. Texas representative Joe Barton SERIOUSLY said that the 'great flood' from the Bible was evidence of climate change not being influenced by human activity. These are the ideas that are truly terrifying because they poison people's minds and any responsible scientific mind would do everything it could to assist in debunking these ridiculous ideas. Again-- not hate, recoil-- recoil out of fear on behalf of the whole of society.
  • Sorry, this is Fox (Score:2, Informative)

    by Opportunist (166417)

    You got the wrong network, for made up stories you'd have to turn to Fox News.

    • Oh sorry, is that the wrong kind of creationism?

    • by houghi (78078)

      Fox News: where the news is made up and the facts don't matter.

  • Fine. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The quickest way to discredit a moron is to hand him a microphone.

  • by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich@@@aol...com> on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:30AM (#46550663) Journal

    Religion, magic, witchcraft, and other hocus pocus have no part in science.

  • I want to get up in front of people and tell them the truth. And I want to do it in your churches. And I want a cut of the money you collect as well.

    Sound okay?

    • And I want a cut of the money you collect as well.

      I'd be just fine with taxing like other entertainment businesses. There's no reason that a company that promotes sing-along concerts about Jewish fairy tales should avoid the IRS, while "poor" Disney has to pay taxes on screening its Star Wars flicks. Both are just peddling the same merchandise.

      I'm fine with anyone choosing to practice whatever gobble-gook religion that they think they believe . . . as long as they try to force it on others. I am not fine with them making a business out of their religio

  • Church (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kenshin (43036)

    If they wanna be fair, then Cosmos should be given equal time in their church.

  • by kruach aum (1934852) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:36AM (#46550693)

    Believing that something is not possible is not good enough grounds to warrant inclusion in anything. There are reasons why some things are not discussed on shows about science, and that is because they are either irrelevant to the subject at hand or proven to be untrue. I don't know where this idea of every point of view being equal has arisen from, but it's fucking terrible in its ignorance. The whole reason every moron and his puppet made of hair and excrement wants their claims discussed as an equal to scientific claims is because of science's epistemic integrity. If their ideas had epistemic integrity of their own, they wouldn't care about science as an authority.

    • by oscrivellodds (1124383) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @10:07AM (#46550869)

      Some time in the last 40 years things changed in the US. When I was in high school in the mid 70s, if you were a dope they told you so, often in front of the rest of the class. Tests were handed out in order from highest to lowest scores so everyone knew who did best and worst. Back then it was understood that some people will never be smart and it was OK because the world needs ditch diggers, too. Kids were often flunked and held back in school when they didn't master the basics. Somewhere in that 40 year period people decided that that was a bad practice. Belief was raised to equal importance with knowledge, or I should say the meaning of knowledge was lost and confused with the meaning of belief, at least among school administrators. Now everyone's opinions have to be respected, even when they are obviously wrong. All critical thinking is gone because it is "discriminatory", as if discriminating between good ideas and bad ideas is a bad thing.

      I find it an interesting coincidence that right wing politics and religion have partnered during the same period. A lack of critical thinking is exactly what those groups need most to maintain control of the people who follow them.

  • Nice try (Score:5, Informative)

    by liamoohay (765499) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:36AM (#46550699) Journal

    "No, consideration of special creation is definitely not open for discussion, it would seem."

    Nice try, except scientists have considered creationism. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould has written screeds analyzing creationism scientifically. The issue isn't a lack of consideration, but rather that such scientists have thoroughly refuted creationism. I actually wouldn't mind a series scientifically analyzing creationism in principle, perhaps along the lines of some of Gould's work, but I somehow doubt that such a public flaying would satisfy the good folks at AiG.

    • Scientifically analyzing creationism wouldn't effect believers who insist their faith in their belief trumps any and all reason: You simply cannot reason with believers who have turned off reason because it is a threat to their beliefs.

      It's a tautology: I believe what I believe because I believe it. I have faith in what I have faith in because I have faith in it. There is no reasoning when reason itself is rejected.

  • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:40AM (#46550711)

    Noah?

    This Noah?
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt19... [imdb.com]

    With Russell Crowe, Emma Watson, visual effects galore and explosions - that Noah?

    Yeah it may have some connections to the story of Noah, but then '300' had some connections to the actual story of the Battle of Thermopylae.. I don't think either should be taken too particularly seriously as exemplary of the source material.

    • by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @11:06AM (#46551255)

      Noah?

      Somebody call?

      Whoompa, whoompa, whoompa

      Noah!

      Who is that?

      It's the Lord, Noah

      Right!

    • By any account that I've heard, Aronofsky's _Noah_ is a fairly literal portrayal of the Bible, which leaves the bible-literalist complainers outing themselves as idiots who don't actually know the contents of Bible they claim to take literally.

      As for _300_, most people forget the framing device of Dillios addressing soldiers before the battle of Plataea with inspirational stories about Thermopylae, basically says "You think we're fucked now? The 300 at Thermopylae were truly fucked and almost made it. 10,00

  • by Zaphod-AVA (471116) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:43AM (#46550717)

    It's hard to get equal time considering the material.

    "And now we will take some time to discussing the evidence that supports the theory of creation.

    (long uncomfortable pause)

    Well, that's done. Back to science!"

  • by Primate Pete (2773471) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @09:55AM (#46550781)
    that the only reasonable explanation for the lack of equal time is that God doesn't want the creationists to have it. How could a just and righteous creator hang his PR department out to dry like this? One might make the mistake of thinking that it is all just bullshit and that we reasonable people won't gain anything by engaging with the creationists...
  • "Creation" (Score:4, Funny)

    by CanEHdian (1098955) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @10:14AM (#46550921)

    The dissenters should just commission their own series, perhaps called Creation.

    It opens with a bright blue eyed boy of about 4 years old, sitting on his knees on the carpet, toy rocket in hand, talking to what is presumably his great-grandfather who is seated in a comfortable chair, sipping from a cup of tea in his right hand, a copy of the Holy Bible on one of the armrests. "Grampy," the boy asks, "where did the world and all the stars come from?"

    The man puts his other hand on the bible. "Boy," he says, "the answer to that and all other questions is right in here!" He puts the cup of tea on a side table and picks up the bible, thumbing through it, then closing it and holding it up in front of the boy. "It's all here because God wanted it to be here. He said: Let there be light! And there was light. And the next 5 days He spent building everything you see, including us. And on the 7th day He rested."

    The boy ponders over this for a second, then frowns. "But Grampy... then where did God come from?" The man's face turns into an angry scowl, he lifts up the bible high into the air as if to strike down the young man with it... then screams "Blasphemy! How dare you ask such questions! Off you go, get out of my eyes!"

  • by Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @10:14AM (#46550927)

    Creationists have all the air time and chance to express their views anyone could ever wish for. Equal time, what a bunch of crap.

    As for the "our views aren't being considered", this is a SCIENCE SHOW, it deals with scientific evidence. The day creationists can show ANY EVIDENCE that the Earth is young, that life forms didn't progressively evolve from simpler to more complex, that there is no single unifying tree of life, etc then they can complain that they haven't gotten a proper scientific airing. Given that they have NOTHING, no contrary testable hypothesis, no evidence that stands up to any scrutiny, etc they've got no leg to stand on. Its too bad for them that their Flying Spaghetti Monster is not science, but it isn't our problem.

  • by Jim Sadler (3430529) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @11:17AM (#46551321)
    Sadly Christianity in the US has sects that might as well be in a Looney Tunes cartoon. It starts with rabid, primitive ministers who preach absurd sermons. They take one word, not understanding the meaning, and form cults from the linguistic confusion. LeBron James played an inspired basketball game the other night. It was wonderful to watch. He may have been inspired by god, Himself. That does not imply that Lebron played a perfect basketball game. there is a huge difference between inspired and perfect. The men who wrote the Bible were inspired. The King James version in particular is a work of the highest art. That does not imply that the bible is perfect. After all, it was written by men who were just like LeBron james inspired but not perfect. Further the message of the Bible had to be delivered in a way that people could understand it. Terms that are understood to men in the 21st. century would have meant nothing at all to men 2,000 years ago. But take a backwoods Baptist minister wound up in full religious fervor and he can take a Bible and twist it into nonsense beyond all reason. As America has declined we have more and more wrectched people who simply latch on to straws trying to survive. The doctrines that they latch onto would be an abomination to Christ and are not part of the Christian faith. But we all understand that no matter how much proof of evolution emerges that backwoods nut of a minister can simply claim the proofs were created by the devil and are all false proofs. If anything it was that minister who was created by the devil to deceive the followers.
  • by macpacheco (1764378) on Saturday March 22, 2014 @03:10PM (#46552869)

    The reality is creationism shouldn't get any time because this debate has been done and it got no traction.
    What matters is the mainstream scientific community, peer reviewed publications, scrutinized by the worldwide biology / genetic PhDs of the world. In that arena creationism has been thoroughly debunked.
    Cosmos isn't a scientific discussion program, it's a scientific education program. So unproven theories should not be given any credit in such a medium.

    Of course, Cosmos is a TV show, the National Geographic could choose to show it. But I doubt the current producers would accept to show credible scientific theories side by side with creationism.

    People that believe in creationism as hard scientific data usually don't have much of a measurable IQ, BTW.
    Teaching creationism at church sunday school is one thing, but in high school, nonononono !

  • by evanism (600676) on Sunday March 23, 2014 @12:37AM (#46555703) Journal

    Or is there a channel for make believe and fairy tales?

All warranty and guarantee clauses become null and void upon payment of invoice.

Working...