Cosmos and the religious backlash against it.

reply to post by greencmp


I'm assuming there's a joke there

ArtemisE
reply to post by greencmp

 

I'm assuming there's a joke there

You think?

You should be glad that I feel comfortable enough to make such a joke here, I wouldn't be quite so cavalier if this was a "hatin' on the non-believers" religious thread.

I also wanted to point out that racism could be a factor.

Hey boymonkey and others -
it's not all Christians/religious folks - it's the Young Earth Creationists.

There's an ongoing thread about it over in Origins and Creationism. You'll find quite a bit of "who is complaining" information on there - re both members and also the YECs Ken Ham & Co.

Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

boymonkey74
But I and many have noticed a massive backlash against the show from religious folk saying it is all BS....

I haven't seen a massive backlash. I just checked online and I haven't even seen a small to middlin' backlash.

Who benefits from the perception of a "backlash?" Cosmos does, that's who. It's a new show on a major network and most new shows fail, the "backlash" is generating some publicity for the show. Checking the returns on Google searches about this backlash shows that It's primarily the Huffington Post writing stories about this, take them out of the mix and there's practically nothing about religious backlash.

AOL owns the Huffington Post. AOL also owns Adult Swim and Seth MacFarlane does quite a bit of business with Adult Swim.

The episodes were in the can last year but this creationist "backlash" is publicized a week before an episode is going to air in which Tyson spends two minutes dismissing creationism? It's an advertising campaign and not a very good one at that.

Woodcarver

What part of spirituality is compatible with science? Science has absolutely nothing to say about it. Where is there a scientific model of spirituality?

You say that but...

WoodcarverThe foundation of any science is based from observation. You must start there.

There you go. People who are able to find science and spirituality to be compatible do start there. Sure, there are those who just run on brainwashing and faith but most adults I know who are theologically-minded are basing their beliefs on observation.

Woodcarver
There has always been a heavy push by the religiously minded to twist scientific data to further their agenda. The heat that Cosmos is drawing is just another example of ignorant people refusing to listen (or perhaps unable to understand) what they are being told.

You wrote this to refute a person who said they can reconcile their own spirituality with science. You start out by saying that is impossible and then you end by complaining that people won't do that.

BuzzyWigs
Hey boymonkey and others -
it's not all Christians/religious folks - it's the Young Earth Creationists.

I have to correct you here. The initial "backlash" wasn't even Young Earth Creationists, it was one guy named Danny Faulkner appearing on the "Janet Mefford Show", I've never heard of either of them.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.upi.com...

www.salon.com...

www.rawstory.com...

These stories are almost identical and to me looks like a presser instead of a normal story.

reply to post by Goteborg


Danny Faulkner is associated with Ken Ham - I did see the interview, it's contained in my thread over there, and he's clearly linked to Ham.
Answers in Genesis; Ken Ham/Danny Faulkner

We have many staff members who are continually traveling around America and overseas to present biblical truths in a variety of settings. A week and a half ago, our staff astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner once again was a leader of a raft trip down the Colorado River inside the Grand Canyon. In the evening, using his portable but powerful telescope (a Questar 3.5 inch), he was able to give talks on how astronomy points to the accuracy of the Bible and to the fact that our world is obviously created. He also did daytime programs of solar observations.

Thanks for playing, though. Take the time to LOOK AT the other thread OP, and you'll see plenty of connection.
But you didn't look, did you?

Didn't think so.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Goteborg

 

Danny Faulkner is associated with Ken Ham - I did see the interview, it's contained in my thread over there, and he's clearly linked to Ham.
Answers in Genesis; Ken Ham/Danny Faulkner

Thanks for playing, though. Take the time to LOOK AT the other thread OP, and you'll see plenty of connection.
But you didn't look, did you?

Didn't think so.

edit on 4/1/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

I'm subscribed to your thread and have posted in there too. I showed you 4 articles with identical wording giving one name. I could have showed you twenty. I know a press release when I see one, thanks for playing though, you've been great

reply to post by boymonkey74


I am Dyslexic so every time I see Tyson's name, I get it jumbled and read "Neil De Tycoon". But that's just me.

Anyway, I follow the guy on Twitter. He's anti-religious anyway. Maybe he just doesn't like to be argued with? But he needs to be smart enough to realize that just because he says something is so, doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree. The same way with all of the anti-religious and religious, just because you say something doesn't mean someone else is going to agree.

Can you bounce over to my thread, and then comment on how many "scientists" jumped in to automatically dispute over the banana/human connection? Do you remember that? It was just there this past weekend. People think the discussion stopped because "Science answered it all".

But tell me, do you have anything that rules out the possibility of God doing it? Scientifically, what rules God out? Anything?

Not even Tyson can answer that. His personal anti-belief is not enough and that's what the "Scientific" side is going to have to grasp, personal anti-belief is not enough, and that's the charge made against believers, "your personal belief is not enough to prove".

Boymonkey, how do YOU personally believe? Disregarding all the people who will come on here and tell you that you are wrong if you think differently, how do you personally believe? From everything you have ever known or experienced in your life that have no simple answers and are mysteries to you, what is your personal belief?

reply to post by Goteborg

I'm subscribed to your thread and have posted in there too. I showed you 4 articles with identical wording giving one name. I could have showed you twenty. I know a press release when I see one,

So do I, have written them before, I know how they work.

I know you did post in that thread, I recognized your name...
and now I'm astounded to see that you are separating the two.
Ken Ham and Danny Faulkner belong to the SAME CLUB - the Young Earth Creationists. What do you not get about that?
I just provided you a link beyond the interview/radio show clip!! And you even included it in this reply to me - yet you are denying they are affiliated!!

What gives, man?
Either they are connected, or they are not. And they clearly are.
Fail.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Goteborg

 

I know you did, I recognized your name...
and now I'm astounded to see that you are separating the two.
Ken Ham and Danny Faulkner belong to the SAME CLUB - the Young Earth Creationists. What do you not get about that?
I just provided you a link beyond the interview/radio show clip!!

Stop talking about Ken Ham. This is the article you used to justify "Creationists" back-lashing against Cosmos:

www.rightwingwatch.org...

I took this straight from your OP in your thread. This is the one you used and it's a clone of the other links I posted. Ken Ham ain't anywhere in there. Danny Faulkner is though, just like I commented on earlier.

reply to post by Goteborg

Ken Ham ain't anywhere in there. Danny Faulkner is though, just like I commented on earlier.

DANNY FAULKNER is affiliated with Ken Ham's ANSWERS IN GENESIS.

It's by simple association that the two are linked. He is ANSWERS IN GENESIS staff astronomer.

Got it?
I sourced several links including the radio interview, which contained the clip, and also SAID THAT HE IS PART OF ANSWERS IN GENESIS. If you didn't realize Ken Ham is Answers in Genesis, then that's fine. Just say so.

They

Are

Connected.

I'm done commenting on your thread in someone else's thread.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Good. I'm in boymonkey's thread, and the other thread answers directly his question.
Whether you are here or not is immaterial, it only matter because you are delivering erroneous information - the OP asked where the backlash is coming from - I told him how the ruckus began. It was right after Ham's debate with Bill Nye, who can also bee viewed on youtube sitting WITH Tyson while Tyson is talking about the backlash!

Sheesh

Didn't like my sources? Here's another one:

The Creation Museum Wants Some Airtime on Neil deGrasse Tyson's 'Cosmos'

Fresh of of its Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate, Answers in Genesis (the organization that brought you the Creation Museum) is demanding some airtime on Cosmos, the Neil deGrasse Tyson reboot of the classic Carl Sagan science series currently airing on Fox. Their argument? Basically, it's that the science program is not balanced without the inclusion of their religious beliefs. Although this will never happen — Tyson has personally ruled out debating Creationists on the issue of evolution — it's just the latest example of how the show is worrying a particular set of evangelical Christians in the US.

"Do they do any interviews with scientists themselves," Janet Mefferd asked Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis on Thursday, "and do they ever give creationists some time?" Faulkner responded that

“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all.”

Religion denying science?

That's a first.

Oh, wait...

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Thanks for bringing the info over to this thread, i already asserted my opinions on that particular one i do believe.
I find it comical.
But if they get time on cosmos i will stop watching cosmos. I don't want to see religious dogma on a science show.
As for the "why don't they interview scientists" because its boring. Every documentary is like that, and cosmos is more so an experience than a documentary. They want to engage and make the audience think and feel, and NDT is very personable. I watched a talk he had at a university there and damn, he is a fine gentleman, and has quite the sense of humour as well.

Might go watch it again, getting a knowledge boner hahaha

Here's one more bit of evidence that they are directly connected:

Dr. Faulkner directs our Stargazer’s Planetarium programs inside the Creation Museum, plus he oversees our Johnson Observatory—with its two 16-inch telescopes (and other powerful telescopes). Dr. Faulkner also is the producer of our new planetarium show called Fires in the Sky at the museum, a program on comets which we just released a few months ago.

Follow the link to find out more about our museum’s astronomy programs.

reply to post by AzureSky


Thanks, I'm glad you are aware of it.

I don't think the OP will be bothered by my contributions when he gets back.

reply to post by boymonkey74


I agree with ya, mon...

I don't see why or how God is being dissed - the show is worthwhile, for sure. Tyson does, however, in the fourth episode, talk about how a 6,500yo universe is disputed simply by the amount of stars we see, and knowing how distant they are.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Am I the only Creationist (Intelligent Design) that doesn't read Answers in Genesis?

I think I read them once, but aren't they Young Earthers? I don't know this Danny Faulkner you guys are talking about and Ken Ham just seems a little to hammish for the camera. I need to catch up, I'm way behind on this Young Earth stuff. Maybe I have them confused with someone else. I like to listen to Chuck Missler because he's funny, but even he offers theories that sometimes I don't understand.

Do people automatically assume that those of us who do believe in Intelligent Design are Young Earthers? That's what people are always saying to me "Where's the proof the earth is only 6,000 years old?" That always seems to be the first assumption about me. The next thing is "The earth isn't flat". Well I know it isn't, but somehow that's what people assume about me.

I think there needs to be a distinct separation that people can see, so when someone says "Intelligent Design" doesn't mean they are Young Earthers. Maybe that's where the confusion lies? What do you suggest for those of us who are not Young Earthers call ourselves so people don't get confused?

Ken Ham "this is not my wife, it's just a picture of my wife". That can also be used like this "The Bible is not God, it's just a picture of God".

I heard Ken Ham say that in a debate on a youtube video, that's not his wife, just a picture of her. But this Danny Faulkner, no idea who the man is. And if I don't know him then he must not be important or relevant. It took me four years to discover who this Justin Bieber was that everyone was talking about and I've never seen a Twilight movie. I'm really way behind.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Am I the only Creationist (Intelligent Design) that doesn't read Answers in Genesis?

You know, I also have room for Intelligent Design, even while I believe that science is amazing. Tyson does not say anywhere (on the show) that there is no God...and he needn't do so. He does however address the medieval superstitions that modern science has explained - such as comets not being 'portents of evil'.

The AiG people are a specific type of 'creationist' - those who believe the Earth is only 6k years old.

I think there needs to be a distinct separation that people can see, so when someone says "Intelligent Design" doesn't mean they are Young Earthers. Maybe that's where the confusion lies? What do you suggest for those of us who are not Young Earthers call ourselves so people don't get confused?

I agree with you, there needs to be some crowbarring between those who embrace, or at least don't dismiss the idea of "Intelligent Design" and Young Earthers who for obvious reasons feel very threatened and 'dissed' by science's findings.

I know that they are not the same. It would be great to have a clear delineation between them. Unfortunately, you know what they say - the squeaky wheel....

I honestly don't see any conflict except for the Young Earth bible-literalists who insist on their notion as the only possible truth. My dad believed in God and LOVED watching Carl Sagan....
the two, in my view, are not incompatible.