Creationists Demand Equal Airtime With 'Cosmos' 667
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.""
Demand all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Whatabout we demand equal time of our views inside (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:5, Insightful)
What about *equal* tax exemption status for Science organization that the Churches have been enjoying?
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather have equal taxation for churches.
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Im not arguing for no taxes, im not some anarchist. I simply want the states to handle the brunt of governmental duties and the federal government to stick to its constitutional duties.
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:4, Insightful)
"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. "
First, churches are not their followers... the followers do pay taxes.
Not on money they give to their church. So it's really 2 tax exemptions, the one for the individual deducting money given to the church and one for income to the church not being taxed. If the church were a business (it's not, it's a virus - the only goal of a church is to grow) it would have had to pay taxes on the income and the individual would have to pay taxes as well, Meanwhile, the rest of us pick up that tax shortfall (and pay for the "quiverfull" families).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:4, Insightful)
offering weekly moral instruction to children
Particularly laughable. In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine. Not appropriate 'moral instruction' for a modern era. Keep the fairy tales out of science programming, end of story.
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:5, Interesting)
Particularly laughable. In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.
Ask True Believers about this, and they reply with variations on "Oh, that part of the bible does not count." Really.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey now! Let's not forget incest, screwing your wife's servants, murdering people for various evils such as being gay, and (let's not forget the New Testament) wives being subservient to their husbands, literally "as the Church serves Christ our Lord". I think if I ever even hinted I should have the equivalent of divine authority over my household, my girlfriend might stab me. Can't say she'd be wrong to, either.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I can confirm I've heard similar rationalising.
Everything from getting embarrassed and changing the subject to "That part doesn't apply in today's modern age"
How do you rationalise it to yourself if it isn't the bury your head in the sand technique?
Re: (Score:3)
Rationalize what? I mean the stories are little more than history and they are delivered in yhe context of covenants- each chonollogically new covenant replacing the older ones.
What you likely are experiencing is people who have no idea how to deal with someone too ignorant about the subject to comprehend the meaning of including the old testament with the new testament.
By the way, it doesn't apply now is the correct answer. Its because of the covenants if you missed it. You really should take a bit of time
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:5, Informative)
In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.
I get that you might have some difficulty accepting that its not to be taken literally, its a common disorder among techies, we have a difficult time accepting that not everything means exactly what it says sometimes since we tend to work in technical absolutes as much as possible ... but if you are so utterly stupid that you think it 'approves' of those things then I realize I'm wrong, you're not that stupid, you're that ignorant.
Let's just take a look at mass murder. I'm sure you remember the story about the walls of Jericho [biblegateway.com], right?
Then the Lord said to Joshua, "See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.["] ... Joshua commanded the army, "Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted* to the Lord ... so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys... Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord's house... So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.
Maybe that doesn't fit the exact description of genocide, but it is GOD commanding mass murder.
This is my favorite sentence from that chapter:
All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord and must go into his treasury.
See, the Creator of the Universe needs some cold hard cash, similar to today. You'd think he'd be even better than the fed at printing money being the all powerful ruler of everything, but alas, no.
Regarding the actual definition of genocide, this [biblegateway.com] is him saying to commit genocide:
For the day has come to destroy all the Philistines and to remove all survivors who could help Tyre and Sidon.
Show me where, in anything that I just posted, that it says not to take it literally, because it looks literal to me. Or do you mean that your pastor told you not to take it literally?
The bible as a work of literature has its exemplary moments, and I would encourage everyone to read it, from start to finish. But as a book on morality it is severely lacking in that you can never tell what to take literally, and what to not take literally. I guess use your own judgement? Well, you don't need the bible to do that.
*The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:4, Interesting)
1/3 of American Christians do think the bible should be taken literally, according to various polls. 56% think the bible should "have a greater role in society", yet - 57% didn't read the bible at all the year the poll was taken. 75% of people in the USA think the bible is the word of god, or inspired by god.
If you accept the Bible to be the "word of god", and most Americans do, then you are NOT taking it metaphorically. But, on the other hand most Americans haven't actually read the whole bible and only hear the "good" parts in church, as selected by their pastor. The evidence is overwhelming that most USA christians have a simple, literal, or almost literal, belief in the bible. They are not taking it metaphorically.
Once you decide that the bible should be taken "metaphorically" how does one decide what it really means? How does one decide which parts should be ignored? How does one decide which parts are good? It appears that most theologians are using rational, post enlightenment ideals, to cherry pick the good parts from the bible, and explaining away the parts that are evil, or contradicted by science as metaphor. Once you start down this path you are pretty close not needing the bible at all for your moral outlook, and discarding the iron age myths in favour of modern secular morals will seem a sensible step.
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:5, Insightful)
... once all of the science organizations start running various charities, food shelves, hospitals, orphanages, offering weekly moral instruction to children ...
You mean like finding answers to health, nutrition, construction problems the way scientists, physicians and engineers do? Or like passing on modern ideas on philosophy and morality in stead of ancient and outdated scripture, the way academia does?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, what I mean is what I wrote: running charities, food shelves, hospitals, orphanages, and so on. Developing academic knowledge of the variance in protein content of a particular wheat variety doesn't actually feed people. You have to give them food for them to be fed. Developing a better bonding process for shingles so that they last 30 years instead of 25 years doesn't actually house people. You have to give them a place to sleep in a building for them to be housed. Scientific work is both useful a
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:4, Insightful)
You appeared to be arguing that the differences in tax status of religious vs scientific institutions, such as they are, are justified because some of the former act charitably some times. I don't mean to diminish that at all, by pointing out that efforts of modern scientists also contribute a great deal of practical and immediate value. And, by that measure, the tax status difference can not reasonably be justified, imho.
Values such as you mention have not become obsolete, but following them blindly because some old book says so has. The reason I live by "do unto others..." despite being an atheist is it makes basic sense to me. I find I keep having to point out the obvious, not being a christian (or whatever) doesn't mean I oppose all of its ideals as a matter of principle or something.
I find valuable lessons, alongside unbearable smallmindedness, in the various holy scriptures, in the same way as I might find them in (other) fairytales, aphorisms, plays, poems, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course no one but a church could possibly hope to run charities, food shelves, hospitals and orphanages.
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:5, Informative)
Being a scientific organization is one of the major listed justifications for tax exempt status - assuming the other criteria are met.
The part in bold there is kind of the point. Scientific organizations--actually educational organizations of all kinds--can indeed apply for non-profit status, but they have to prove they meet the standards. Churches are assumed to qualify a priori.
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:4, Insightful)
To qualify for tax exempt status churches also have to meet various criteria [irs.gov]. (.pdf)
I will also note that everyone on Slashdot loves to quote the Constitution, but tend to be forgetful about some clauses.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution [wikipedia.org]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[
There seems to be historical and documentary evidence that freedom of religion was important in the founding of the US.
Re: (Score:3)
It certainly was and is. But that in now way gives one religion more sway then any others, or even those who choose not to believe.
Please stop repeating that crap. Nobody choses to believe or not to believe anything. Did you "chose" to believe in gravity, rain, oxygen or electricity? Or did you simply encounter enough evidence that you were convinced through no intentional decision? Did you sit down one day and dicide not to believe in unicorns, pixie dust or wood nimphs? Or did you never find enough evidence to convince you that they exist.
Nobody choses to believe or not believe something. They can chose to ignore or fabricate evidenc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that churches are allowed to actively lobby for a cause while maintaining their tax exempt status. While a church is not allowed to, for instance, lobby for a particular candidate, they can lobby for a particular cause that is relevant to their faith (such as same sex marriage).
By contrast, if a scientific group lobbies for something such as reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, replacing fossil fuel plants with nuclear and renewables, or more stringent oversight by the USDA on GMO's eco
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Demand all you want (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Demand all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Demand all you want (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I think they were OK with Star Wars. Pravda gave The Phantom Menace two thumbs down.
Re:Demand all you want (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Demand all you want (Score:5, Informative)
(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].
Re:Demand all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Demand all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Demand all you want (Score:4, Insightful)
Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
equal time is a lot of subdivisions. (Score:3)
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
Equal time for all! Whoo! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:If you want a show that's half mythology... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've given up on the name of most channels being accurate. None of them really show what they claim. Hell, even the guide channel isn't just a guide, it's a commercial with some guide information on it.
I go to Comedy Central for News, and Fox news for comedy. Syfy is B movies and wrestling, and Discovery/History/A&E have shows about guys who make duck calls, and wackadoodles talking about aliens. CSPAN is to see rich white politicians argue for their purchased opinions, if they bother to show up to work. Well, no other channel can you watch a mostly empty stage for hours on end. It's almost like reading Slashdot and expecting News for Nerds.
The only channel I ever expect to be as advertised is "Off", and I lose fewer IQ points watching it.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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".
Re:just wait... (Score:5, Funny)
If "special creationists" is like "special children", then I'm kinda scared. You mean there is an even more idiotic version of them?
Re:just wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:just wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
I found the ending story of episode one, about how Sagan inspired him, rather depressing. It couldn't happen today, certainly not in the UK - we're a country paranoid about pedophiles to the point that no teacher dares so much as look at any under-eighteen student. It's just too dangerous.
Pay for their own show (Score:2)
Re:Pay for their own show (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Pay for their own show (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is like saying you can only add 1s together to get small numbers (aka "microevolution) but not big numbers (aka "macroevolution"). It's an absurd position. New species arise through the accumulation of lots of small changes not the silly "chimp giving birth to a human" fallacious argument that creationists spew.
Re:Pay for their own show (Score:4, Funny)
There's no crocoduck. You can't explain that!
Re: (Score:3)
But there is a duck billed platypus. Can you explain that?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"Tell me, Mr. Darwin, which of your ancestors do you believe was an ape?"
Old example, but a classic and the same kind of "thinking" that fundamentalists still use today. It's not a strawman.
In fairness, macroevolution [wikipedia.org] is an interesting field of study, for all that it's driven by the same process (just on a greater level) as microevolution. The line is often drawn at speciation - that is, when genetic communities of common ancestry can no longer produce viable offspring with members of the other community bu
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Cosmos is a science show.
Two Minutes Hate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two Minutes Hate (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, this is Fox (Score:2, Informative)
You got the wrong network, for made up stories you'd have to turn to Fox News.
Ancient Aliens (Score:2)
Oh sorry, is that the wrong kind of creationism?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sorry, this is Fox (Score:4, Insightful)
Providing equal airtime leads to people thinking that each side has equal weight and so that the real answer is a compromise between the two extremes, a form of false compromise[1]. This leads to thinning in effect that the anti science side is mostly right, if they play their rhetorical cards right. This is a problem even with non partisan moderation but for fox news.... will the climate scientist get anything like even treatment? Why should a climate scientist support an interview that will, at best, undermine him and portray an "armchair expert" as his equal by its very nature?
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Re:Sorry, this is Fox (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, science is intolerant of stupidity. It has to be or it wouldn't work.
Science requires critical thinking, learning, knowledge (not to be confused with belief, a frequent problem among religious and stupid people). It is based on reason and facts in the form of data. It recognizes the limitations of that data and seeks to improve it through more study, research, and experiment and will quickly throw away old ideas when they are shown to be wrong.
Yes, it is discriminatory. Yes, it is intolerant. These are both characteristics of disciplined intellectual effort and minds. These characteristics have led to all the technological advances that the human race currently enjoys, and many of the miseries (including AGW).
Fine. (Score:2, Insightful)
The quickest way to discredit a moron is to hand him a microphone.
Everything *credible* is on the table (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion, magic, witchcraft, and other hocus pocus have no part in science.
I demand equal time in your churches! (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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)
If they wanna be fair, then Cosmos should be given equal time in their church.
Not everything is up for discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not everything is up for discussion (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
"And the movie about Noah" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:"And the movie about Noah" (Score:5, Funny)
Noah?
Somebody call?
Whoompa, whoompa, whoompa
Noah!
Who is that?
It's the Lord, Noah
Right!
Re: (Score:3)
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
It's hard to get equal time considering (Score:5, Funny)
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!"
It would seem.... (Score:3, Funny)
"Creation" (Score:4, Funny)
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!"
This is all a bunch of horsecrap (Score:3)
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.
Creationists Can Not Read! (Score:4, Insightful)
This debate has been over for decades (Score:3)
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 !
Wrong channel - he need Fantasy and Fiction (Score:3)
Or is there a channel for make believe and fairy tales?
Re:What show did they watch? (Score:5, Informative)
It's fairly easy to show how the eye evolved. That's been debunked ages ago.
Actually the eye is a perfect proof that it WAS evolution rather than creation. Because our eye is perfected for seeing under water, a smart creator (and I guess God is supposedly not an idiot according to creationists) would have created an eye that's better suited to seeing on land rather than increasing the work overhead for the brain to compensate for the shortcomings of the eye we have.
Re:What show did they watch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Naw, the eye thing is passe for creationists. Their new tactic is claiming that "intelligence only comes from intelligence". It's from the book "Darwin's Doubt" from the Discovery Institute. Big best-seller on the god-botherer circuit.
Here's the way the argument goes (I'm not kidding): "A human brain is like a computer. And only intelligent entities can design computers. Thus...Intelligent Designer!" In other words, "there is too much information in DNA for it to have come from anywhere but the mind of Jehovah because screw Hindus".
Yep. That's it. Game over. Pwned. Until you suggest that it means the Intelligent Designer must have also come from a previous Intelligent Designer so we're looking at polytheism all the way down. Then, the argument rapidly devolves into, "The Christian Deity is the only possible explanation".
I'm telling you, I prefer the Young Earth creationists, who at least put their mythology right up front. They're honest about "God made it". These ID people are trying to subvert reason and science to get to the same place as the Young Earthers in the most dishonest way possible. All while pushing this notion of "teach the controversy", which is basically code for allowing people to proselytize for a particular religion in public schools.
Re:What show did they watch? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fun thing about "inteligent creation" is that the argument is "xyw is too complicated to evolve "naturally" it needs something even more complicated to "make it"...
Of course how the "more complicated stuff" was created does not need any explanation...
But a least it gives some arguments for a compationate God, since s/he does not smite them in anger for keeping on telling him, her, it how to do its job...
Re: (Score:3)
But a least it gives some arguments for a compationate God, since s/he does not smite them in anger for keeping on telling him, her, it how to do its job...
That sentence blew the personal pronoun component of my cognitive language corpus straight out the side of my head. Two hose clamps and some duct tape later, I think it's still leaking.
You might want to bone up on the Wiki entries for Personal Pronoun [wikipedia.org], the Gender Specific Pronoun [wikipedia.org], Gender Neutral [wikipedia.org] and Cult of Androgyny [wikipedia.org]. Once you make your way through all that you'll know why gentlemen of refined wit and impeccable manners refrain from making remarks to anyone. About anything. We just stare and drool.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
One views with some amusement that the magnitude of Evolutionist dogmatism roughly equals that of the Evolutionists.
For the record, I'm kind of disinterested in the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
The Creation Museum is government subsidised. Not because it's creationist, though. It's classified as a tourist attraction - the state grants them special treatment on the grounds that they bring in tourists that then benefit other businesses.
Re: (Score:3)
From the Cosmos show, the key ingredient of all life is the DNA factory in the cell. Where the DNA is stripped and duplicated and new cells are created. This is true for all life...
Except some viruses, which have no DNA at all. Some have DNA. Some have only single-helix RNA. Some have double-helix RNA. They're the last surviving remnant of the simpler system from which DNA life evolved. DNA life was so successful in its expansion across the planet it obliterated its precursor (essentially by eating it).
The unanswered question, is how does this DNA duplication factory happen by accident? Not to mention the accidental creation of DNA in the first place.
The only way we will ever see that in action "in the wild" is by exploring other worlds. Unless and until we find DNA precursor life on another world, we will only have laboratory
Re: (Score:3)
Why? There's a lot of things I can't avoid and others I can. I do have a good and relatively clean genetic background. I eat as healthy as I know how with my wife cooking most meals at home -- she even makes our bread for us. I have fresh vegetables and lots more homemade stuff than most people get these days. And I certainly pay through the nose to get it -- my wife stays at home and I am a single income earner. That's an extreme compromise I admit, but the benefits are also pretty obvious.
I stay as f