Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

Cosmos

Creation scientist Dr. Danny Faulkner would like to see Cosmos devote some airtime to creationist theories.

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, the follow-up to Carl Sagan's 1980 television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, premiered March 9 and has explored our universe from the scientific lenses of astronomy, astrophysics, biology, and more. But Dr. Danny Faulkner, a creation scientist with a background in astronomy and physics, wishes the series would present the Creationist point of view as well.

Faulkner expressed his thoughts on The Janet Mefferd Show, which takes a Christ-centered look at current events. Host Mefferd asked if Cosmos will "ever give a Creationist any time," to which Faulkner replied, "Creationists aren't even on the radar screen for them; they wouldn't even consider us plausible at all."

"Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution," said Mefferd, "it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there. You know, the old, 'some scientists say this, others disagree and think this' -- but that's not even allowed."

"Consideration of special Creation is definitely not open for discussion, it would seem," Faulkner added.

Faulkner's comments come after the second episode of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, which covered evolution and the origin of life. Given evolution is not "just a theory," but rather one of the most reliably established facts in science and the foundation of modern biology, it is not exactly surprising that a science series would not present special creation as an alternative.

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

Source: Right Wing Watch

Permalink

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

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

You bet me to that comment!! DAM YOU!!! But yes, a total oxymoron.

Edit: By definition someone who believes in the creation theory totally disregards any scientific 'facts' regarding the creation of everything, a scientist is someone who works purely on scientific fact, so yes, by definition, this is an oxymoron.

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

Yes. Yes it is.

The reason these people aren't given any consideration is because their bullshit hypotheses are untestable and blatantly contradicted by every scrap of evidence of available to us.

The reason they don't consider guys like this plausible as he puts it is because they're not. They are wrong. End of story. And some scientists being stupid enough to say they don't accept the evidence for evolution does not mean they actually have a leg to stand on with their arguments. There are a disturbing number of people who still think the Earth is flat. But this guy would never ask a science show like Cosmos to give their lunatic ideas the time of day.

And just to address the request that people not attack others religious beliefs at the end of the article, I don't feel that's what I'm doing here. Largely because I'm addressing their beliefs as they pertain to science and evidence. If someone wants to believe in creationism, they're free to do so. They're still incredibly wrong, and demonstrably so, but they can go ahead and believe it. I have no problem with their religious beliefs until they try to force people to give them as much weight as scientific theories based on actual evidence and not 2,000+ year old religious texts.

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.

I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

See, I figured out a way, while watching, to give creationists some lip service.

"We don't know where life originated from. Perhaps some higher intelligence created it and put it on Earth, or perhaps it came from an asteroid from another world. We don't know."

Bam.

"Creationists aren't even on the radar screen for them; they wouldn't even consider us plausible at all."

Yeah... that'd be because it isn't plausible. It's crackpot religionism that ignores decades of research that proves that natural selection/evolution is real. It amazes me that here, today, we STILL have people who believe mankind was just formed out of nothing by some omnipotent being (and were white no less - Adam and Eve eh?), despite the fact that science has shown the evolutionary path it took us to get here.

Sofus:
I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

Ermmmmm, each to their own i guess...

There is no "creationist theories". In a scientific context, "theory is the highest level of truth. Socalled "creationist theories" do not pass this test and can at best be call a "hypothesis".

Edit: Please note the use of "AT BEST". You don't need to be the 5th person informing me that science need to be falsifiable.

I'm not against creationism because it's religion based. I'm against it because it's pseudoscience that has been debunked and refuted time and time and time again and doesn't have a single scrap of credible evidence to its name. We've been through this before with the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, where it was ruled by a judge to be a religious matter and not a scientific one. But it continues to press on and markets itself as science, like with homeopathy. Pseudoscience like this is harmful because it tricks smart people into believing stupid things and it can have disastrous consequences.

Scientists give equal time to valid, sound countering points of view. When Creationists can provide some sort of actual proof of their theories other than a several-thousand-year-old book that's been translated and edited dozens of times, and practice real scientific inquiry rather than present a thousand rationalizations for "God did it", then maybe they'll see airtime on something other than right-wing talk shows.

I've got nothing against anyone who's religious, but when you start trying to have your faith supplant real, useful science, then you're going to get shouted down.

Some random Asian lady threw a pamphlet on my table at Panera regarding how the Malaysian Aircraft was discovered by her lord UFO commander or something. I had to read it twice, it was whack as FUG!

I've got a a better idea: leave the fairytale bullshit out of the science show.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't science need more evidence to back it rather than just citing one source (a book of dubious origins). Is there ANY strong evidence to back up creationism, or is it just die hard Christians grasping at Fiction?

Seriously, there's probably more evidence to show life on earth was instigated by aliens than Jebus. Just give it up guys, you've got your evangelical ranting on early in the morning when nobody's awake, be happy there hasn't some kind of ironic reverse crusade. Embrace extinction with grace... like the Dodo.

Oh, there's the fallacy of equivocation again. Creationists love that one, don't they?

Creationism makes only two kinds of claims: Those which are untestable, and those which have been tested and found to be wrong.

I believe bible pages should be devoted to science-based theories of creation.
You know, for fairness.

And the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also want airtime as well.

image

Their 'theories' as just as valid if not more so than Creationists so they should get airtime as well.

The difference between actual science and Creationists is this:

When asked how life began, the scientific answer is: We don't know yet, but we won't give up until we find out.

The Creationist answer to every unanswered question ever is: God did it, and nothing will get us to change our minds.

The problem with Creationism is a simple one: It's worse than wrong, it's unfalsifiable. One of the cornerstones of science is that you need to be able to test a hypothesis to find out if it's correct or not. There is no way to test Creationism; ergo, it is not science.

I think these god-bothering nutjobs should have the right to exist, but they should also be prepared to face the fact that their religion is intended to stomp on questions, not answer them. Creationism is lunatic fringe level stuff. If I wanted a Cosmos that gave undue weight (undue meaning "any") to a creationist viewpoint, I'd go watch Family Guy.

Rhykker:
We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

I respectfully decline your request.

wait, a creationist wants someone to be fair for them?

that is beyond fucking ironic, maybe when they stop being stupid and use the term "Theory" in a scientific context correctly, and in turn actually start calling it "The Hypothesis of Creationism" or something, and probably bring any type of evidence that can be recorded and reproduced, you know, like what Scientists do, then maybe, maybe, they could get a glancing nod.

until then, go back to thinking the world is only 6000 or so years old.

cause, you know, it's not like we have proof the Earth is much older.

Kinitawowi:
I respectfully decline your request.

I genuinely laughed out loud. I also shared that Family Guy clip with friends when Cosmos premiered; classic.

I'm not one to refute religious beliefs, but just as much as I would never expect a Church to teach evolution, I don't expect a science program to teach religion.

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

Well, yes. I mean, unless he was one of those open-minded people who actually accepted, you know, science. But a Creationist into science is like a fish not only out of water, but in the desert on a horse with no name.

This is like a scientologist asking for an audience with the Pope, or Stephen Hawking getting up and walking like Dr. Strangelove, or god apologizing for the inconvenience. We'd love to see it, but we know it ain't gonna happen.

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?

EDIT: Okay everyone, I have my answer. Or should I say answers? Anyway, while most of the quotes were nice and polite in explaining my question, I have my answer now. My inbox has exploded, so please no more quoting. Thank you. :-)

No. How about we keep the crazies away from our educational TV. It's bad enough that religious nuts indoctrinate children from birth. As someone who grew up in a religious family, I'm extremely thankful for the education I was lucky enough to get. I've been able to open my eyes to how truly miraculous the universe is, and how amazing it is to learn the truths behind how the universe began to how we theorize it is going to end.

I still wear the cross on my neck that I've had since birth, not out of faith. But as a permanent reminder of the narrow minded and slightly bigoted person I once was. I have never been a better human being as I've become after I turned my back on religion. I feel like I've made so much more progress in my life since leaving it behind and educating myself.

So yeah. Keep religion out of the classroom and keep it out of our science documentaries. You have every right to have blind faith that some omnipotent guy in a robe with a white beard that totally isn't Zeus ejaculated the universe into existence over six days. Just like we have every right to keep your nonsense out of our educational material and believe that the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago and continues to expand.

Goliath100:
There is no "creationist theories". In a scientific context, "theory is the highest level of truth. Socalled "creationist theories" do not pass this test and can at best be call a "hypophysis".

The word is Hypothesis. The Hypophysis is another name for the pituitary gland, in the human body.

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

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

Rhykker:
We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

I don't even know why you put that up, because you should know only the most open-minded of people frequent The Escapist and they'd never insult a person or a religion...unless they don't agree with it, then they're just as bigoted as the people they say they're against.

Then, we might as well give airtime to every single belief on the planet, even though certain of those beliefs don't believe that those other beliefs exist in the 1st place, since some civilizations are older than some said beliefs.

Sniper Team 4:
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?

Evolution is short hand for lot of things unfortunately. Strictly speaking evolution means "species change" and that is a fact. It is also short hand for natural selection, which is a mechanic of evolution (along with selective breeding) and that is theory (as is selective breeding).

Semes:

Sniper Team 4:
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?

Evolution is short hand for lot of things unfortunately. Strictly speaking evolution means "species change" and that is a fact. It is also short hand for natural selection, which is a mechanic of evolution (along with selective breeding) and that is theory (as is selective breeding).

Ah, thank you for clearing that up. I always thought it was a little strange, but I understand now. :-)

Sniper Team 4:
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?

There is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well-constructed explanation of tests and observations (my wording may be a bit unclear, so perhaps someone else can do it better). Just because something is a scientific theory also doesn't mean people can take it as fact until something comes along to change everything (which has happened in history). Most scientists agree to some level that the idea of evolution and heredity is fact (though new discoveries that change how we see evolution works are still being made).

There's also a lot of other scientific theories people tend to hold as facts one way or another, such as cell theory (living organisms are made of cells, cells are the most basic unit of life, all cells reproduce from other cells) and atomic theory (all matter is made from atoms). Believe it or not, I've met people who think cells don't exist and microscopes are the way of Satan tricking us.

Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

It seems to me that 'appeal to authority' has been replaced by 'appeal for balance' as the go-to tactic for avoiding the need to engage in actual arguments, evidence, rebuttal etc. Happens all the time with climate change.

Sniper Team 4:
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?

I think you are confusing the term Scientific Theory with the general use of Theory.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

This is not to be confused the the general use of "Theory" which is used more like the word "Guess" which is "estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct"

So as you see, a Scientific Theory is more or less considered Fact and not a guess.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here