Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

reply to post by flyingfish

There is a conspiracy theory that Tyson is actually filmed in high speed so he doesn't come off as stoned.

I have hooded eyes as well. I hadn't heard that theory!

Although I have to say, well.....thought expanding.

BuzzyWigs
Wow, just noticed this brand new article.

Ken Ham & Co want equal airtime on the new Cosmos show.

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is now complaining that the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime for evolution deniers. - See more at: Source

This is a very short little article that cross-references the following prior items:
Arizona Republicans Propose Anti-Evolution Education Bill - See more at: www.rightwingwatch.org... Arizona

Texas Board of Education Chair Suggests Schools Teach 'Another Side to the Theory of Evolution' - See more at: www.rightwingwatch.org...

Texas Conservatives Demand Science Textbooks Incorporate 'Creation Science Based On Biblical Principles' - See more at: www.rightwingwatch.org... f

It also has a link to the radio interview so people can listen. It's only 1:05, and includes the exchange delineated in the article.

I think it would be interesting to let them do it. I'm certainly no Young Earth person, but I do have room in my head for the idea of Intelligent Design. (Of course the rep from the Answers in Genesis is claiming that it wouldn't even be on their radar for the show.)

My dad was a huge Sagan fan, and "The Elegant Universe" stuff...when he died, he was a believer in God, but no religion...
I love watching Morgan Freeman, and the Cosmos show seems it will be very entertaining. On the one hand, I don't really want all of the mystery solved. On the other hand, I do...to relieve my frustration; but that's the human condition, and there isn't much we can do about it, it seems (certainly it's not for lack of trying out all sorts of ideas).

What do you think, ATS? Should they give equal airtime on the show to theological theory? Or have a different show?
After all, it is FOX (of all bizarre turnings of events - why did FOX pick this up? They really confuse me. Maybe they are trying to be balanced by airing this show even when their "News" is so vitriolically 'rightwing'?) Maybe they're feeling the heat?

edit on 3/21/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: fix the links and close the parantheses

edit on 3/21/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: add bold to supplemental articles

creationists have no place in education of any kind. There theories are based on faith and not science and their whining and complaining is the only reason they have any say at all.

Time to fight back against ignorance and say no to these creationists.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


If they allow creationists on Cosmos, scientists should be allowed equal time in church services.

reply to post by openminded2011


Yes, that's what a lot of people have said.

Have you seen the post about them buying commercial/ad time?

They could do that.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Love this story. Conservative fundy christians are just the gift that keeps on giving..

Since the new "Cosmos" is produced by Family Guy's Seth MacFarlane, I thought that this classic little piece of hilarity was perfect to share:

(NOTE: No offense whatsoever to self-proclaimed rednecks! All in fun, nothing but love!

Oklahoma Fox station accidentally cuts evolution scene from 'Cosmos'

www.latimes.com... GFIJ

I remember watching the Colbert report not long ago when Neil was on. He was on due to his new show Cosmos of course. It was about a week or two ago or so. Perhaps some of you saw it.

Any who, Steven Colbert brought up the idea to Neil to have flat lander's onto the show to give it some balance. And Neil ended up saying something like this. "Well, you may have the right to say what you want in this country, but that doesn't make what you have to say correct."

The thing about creationism, is that it just lacks evidence.

Also that fellow Ken Ham had a debate with Bill Nye not long ago also. Bill himself said that he would be inclined to believe creationism as long as there was evidence to back it up. However, on the other hand, Ken said that he wouldn't reject his beliefs pretty much no matter what.

And Neil also later said on the Colbert report, that the beauty of science, is that it is what it is. It gives you answers even if you want to believe it or not. The universe and the study of science itself has no bias, or motives. It's just there waiting to be observed and recorded.

Creation is based on faith and belief.

Science is aimed towards finding evidence and consistency.

You can't have both at the same time. it would just be a sacrilege.

reply to post by Honcho


It was a good show. The words he said were good enough for this.


That definitely made me chuckle.

Also the thing about allowing creationists on the show, is that you have to decide which creation story you're going to allow equal air time too. There are a lot of religions in the world. Do they all get equal airtime or only the Christians?

reply to post by Junkheap


Wow, Seth MacFarlane does something good for once.

As for creationists wanting to be on Cosmos...they have 10+ channels to make their own show

Have their show star Ken Spam to expound their beliefs...I thought they got their comeuppance with the Bible show on History? And the movie with Hot White Jesus?

flyingfish
reply to post by CornShucker
-- snip --
I kid..

Star!!

Good one, I like it.

I haven't watched the new "Cosmos" series, and probably won't, unless I just hapen across it. I'm sure that Dr Degrass-Tyson does an excellent job, and the new CGi should make it captivating. But sometimes, in ones life, there is just not any substitute for the original, and that's the way I feel about Cosmos. It's a book that changed my life. I would think it shouldn't be a problem to have some "Creationists" on the show. Not during the entertaining part of course, but maybe at the end, just give them a few minutes to whine. And who knows, maybe having people going out to buy a book or a dvd about rational thought and elightenment instead of spending they're time reading a book dripping with the blood of millions of innocent people might not be such a bad idea after all.

reply to post by tencap77


Why are you content with the original Cosmos? Unlike religion, science changes all the time. What was reported and talked about on the original show is out of date and new information can be presented. You would undoubtedly learn new information. Also, Creationism isn't science, they get no time to whine about anything on that show. They can whine about it on any number of other shows, but until Creationism uses real science to prove their account, they get no timeslot to speak their views on a show about science. I hate when people think we have to acquiesce to other people's demands because they are loud and obnoxious whiners. Just because someone is whining about something, doesn't mean we have to do anything about it or that what they are whining about is correct.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Well, first things first. Read the book, before I watched the show. Second. I like science. I used to say it was my "religion", but not anymore, partilly, thanks to, reading Cosmos!. I think giving access to people who want to talk about creationsism is fair, but only for the reason i stated. maybe exposing a narrow mnd to something new can help widen that minds perspective. As such, I have the original Cosmos on DVD, and one of the original books from the first publication run. I'm glad to see there is a "new" Cosmos available ofr people to watch on TV, since watching that is obviously better than watching real housewives or the kardashians. Anyway, I hope the new series does well, I may see it, I may not. been watching a ton less TV these days. and life is good! have a great day!

Also, a lot of what was in the book was not about "Science" but was more historical in nature and as such, doesn't change, unless it's going in a U.S. common-core text book. I guess I don't percieve the "Cosmos" TV show as being a hard science shin the first place. there's a whoe lot more to the Universe than science. I would have never learned, for instance, that "Red Shift" was discovered with the aid of a mule skinner.

Tyson weighs in on plea for Cosmos to show more "balance" by covering creationism.

Tyson derided the idea as being akin to giving the Flat Earth Society equal time. Ridicule is the appropriate response to the ridiculous.

Rather than hand the microphone over to the usual crowd of mountebanks and charlatans and give them some freebie air time to sell their defective product, Tyson dedicates this episode to the telling of a single story in the history of science that provides the strongest counter-argument to creationism or any other mystical explanations for reality.

And Tyson goes on to say...

To embrace creationism, or even to validate it in any way, is to close a door on the expansion of human knowledge. It is to shrug our shoulders and pronounce the natural world forever beyond our ability to grasp. It is to replace curiosity with ignorance, wonder with fear and progress with stagnation.

And that's why creationism can go get its own damn show.

Does not look like the creo's are going to get any air time on Cosmos, unless it's derision.

LINK

flyingfish
Tyson weighs in on plea for Cosmos to show more "balance" by covering creationism.
-- snip --
Does not look like the creo's are going to get any air time on Cosmos, unless it's derision.

LINK

(I hope this doesn't get me nailed as being off-topic. It isn't easy for me... I think in tangents and what I see as relevant is, at times, considered off-topic or distracting)

His style may be a bit (possibly a byte) different than Sagan's, but I can see the real possibility of me becoming a fan...

My nature made it very difficult for me to work for the little "Christian" computer company I worked for in the late 1980s-early 90s. I'm one of those that NDT spoke of that isn't threatened by science. I'll skip completely over my frustration with the way that what Jesus actually said takes up very few pages in what turned out to be a pretty big book and go to Creation, since that IS on topic...

I am always open to being corrected by someone more knowledgeable than me, but was the concept of "Zero" even around as the concept of Genesis was being passed down through the generations by spoken word tradition? If not, how could a simple man pass on to others an idea that embodied concepts like eons or millennium?

A man scratching his living from the earth and what the trees he'd planted bore could grasp simple concepts like days. An allegory of fantastic amounts of time would have been pointless to try to get across.. (im[h]o)

All any man(or woman) can do is take what they are given and try to make sense of this life. Love One Another has always sounded like wise advise to me...

P.S. My twin brother and I loved the Museum of Natural History (mid 1950s), but the coolest thing was walking out of the HP after being lost in the night sky and being hit by the mid-afternoon sun. One of my biggest regrets is that none of our kids or grand-kids will ever get the chance. Three days wouldn't be a fair visit...

Krazysh0t
Creation science is anything BUT science. Therefore it doesn't belong on a science show. End of story.

Er.. your science isn't even science - it's theories mostly unproven.

I do think the scientific community has a Responsibility to state these are Only unproven theories and that there are other theories that likewise remain unproven about Creation that many other people believe. I cannot see fault giving balance in this manner.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I do think the scientific community has a Responsibility to state these are Only unproven theories and that there are other theories that likewise remain unproven about Creation that many other people believe.

That would only confuse the people that don't have the education to understand the difference between theory( in layman terms), hypothesis, and a scientific theory. They would probably go telling people they are only theories.

The show gives the best explanation for the origins and intricacies of the universe based on the evidence. There is no need to go confusing people. Those that do understand the difference in those terms are educated enough to know that there are groups that have different ideas. If people do not know already about those ideas found in "sacred texts" especially in Merika where there are more Religious centers than convenience stores then they are either to young to understand the show or will never understand the show.

JohnPhoenix

Krazysh0t
Creation science is anything BUT science. Therefore it doesn't belong on a science show. End of story.

Er.. your science isn't even science - it's theories mostly unproven.

I do think the scientific community has a Responsibility to state these are Only unproven theories and that there are other theories that likewise remain unproven about Creation that many other people believe. I cannot see fault giving balance in this manner.

This makes no sense. I'm assuming you don't know the difference between theory, hypothesis, conjecture, and law?

Theories are proven. The proof is the multiple lines of independent evidence that all lead to the same conclusion (don't conflict in findings). Theories are "scientific fact". Theories can be "disproven" with the discovery of new conflicting data, but until that time they are backed up with enough evidence to "prove". A theory is just a concise description of all lines of evidence.

Please tell me which of these "theories" are "unproven"?:
Cell Theory
Germ Theory
Evolutionary Theory
Atomic Theory
Big Bang Theory
Special Relativity
General Relativity
Quantum Field Theory
Gravitational Theory
Colour Theory
Plate Techtonics
Collision
Molecular . . .

Creation is not a "theory", as far as science is concerned. It's not even a hypothesis because there is no way to test for it. In essence, it's nothing more than a story. Superstition. No evidence to present and no way to test the validity of its claims. Why would the scientific community have a "responsibility" to tell people about issues that have nothing to do with science? Does the banking industry have a "responsibility" to inform people to eat three square and get plenty of rest? No, because it has nothing to do with their industry.

Just because people choose to believe in superstition, it doesn't mean those who don't have to give any validity to it.