Creationism | Evangelical Christians | Ken Ham | Neil deGrasse Tyson | News | Science

Creationists Demand Airtime on ‘Cosmos’ for the Sake of Scientific Balance: AUDIO


Answers in Genesis, the Ken Ham-led ministry dedicated to creationism, hasn’t been too thrilled about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of the TV series Cosmos. After all, the show is centered on a scientifically backed exploration of the origin of life and our place in the universe and hasn’t once featured a creationist perspective! 

Answers in genesisRight Wing Watch reports that Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show on Thursday to criticize Cosmos, saying “creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all.”

Added Mefferd:

“Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution 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.”

Listen, AFTER THE JUMP… (new Cosmos trailer included)


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Yeah, they don't consider you "plausible" because you AREN'T plausible.

    Posted by: Kit | Mar 23, 2014 4:30:06 PM

  2. No, I'm sorry. There's no room for their baseless and utterly science-*INSULTING* beliefs. There is no "other controversial side that's being ignored"

    You might as well just say, as Lucy Lawless once put it, "A wizard did it"

    They have no business demanding airtime - they have nothing of worth to add. What next? The Klan demanding input on next year's Black History Month programming?

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Mar 23, 2014 4:31:18 PM

  3. Creationism is not science. It's simply a religious pseudo science that nobody takes seriously apart of a bunch of idiots

    Posted by: jjose712 | Mar 23, 2014 4:31:29 PM

  4. First, mostly, they're just making stuff up.

    But even if there is some large number of "scientists who don't accept Darwinian evolution" that doesn't mean they except young earth creationism, either.

    Some scientists "don't accept" Darwin because there are unanswered questions about things like speciation - which may mean that there is a more complex or slightly different more modern evolutionary theory or areas yet to be explored rather than that they deny the entire discipline.

    It's like saying that there are physicists who "Don't accept Newtonian physics" - true if you mean that they don't think Newton tells the whole story, and a flat out lie if you are trying to claim that they think elves run the universe with fairy dust.

    No joke creationists aren't on the radar screen for serious scientists.

    Posted by: Lymis | Mar 23, 2014 4:33:03 PM

  5. Typical US debate, in Europe we would laugh even thinking someone against the evolution.

    Posted by: lukebrux | Mar 23, 2014 4:34:07 PM

  6. They can make their own show, to be shown on the Bible Channel. If the commercial TV channels think their shows are viable, they should create one and sell it there. They don't need to hitch a ride on the "science bandwagon". It is funny that Cosmos is broadcast on none other than the FOX.

    Posted by: tkinsc | Mar 23, 2014 4:38:24 PM

  7. Um...just a guess here, but probably that's because your overall argument ISN'T scientifically plausible. When the scientific method, which is what science is built upon, validates the Creation story than sure you appear on all the shows like Cosmos that you want. Until then...

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Mar 23, 2014 4:41:19 PM

  8. large number of "scientists who don't accept Darwinian evolution"
    There are always some wackos in the science profession. We usually don't call them scientists any more if they are not using scientific methods to support their views any more. That's why their "theory" is unpublishable in science journals.

    Posted by: simon | Mar 23, 2014 4:43:53 PM

  9. It's a false equivalency. Superstition shouldn't be given equal time with science.

    Posted by: JonnyNYNY2FLFL | Mar 23, 2014 4:48:15 PM

  10. This isn't an argument for equal time they're not getting - they already get equal time on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. Then there are networks where their arguments are considered doctrine such as the History Channel, Fox News, and CBN. They're just shocked that this is the first time in a long time that such a prominent source isn't willing to kiss their ass by pretending they have anything to add to a scientific discussion.

    Posted by: Ira Zimmermann | Mar 23, 2014 4:52:34 PM

  11. "don't accept Darwinian evolution".
    Like saying scientists don't accept Newton's laws after Einstein. Modern theory is still based on the broad framework of Darwinism with some modifications of the details of the original theory. Scientists and engineers are still learning Newtonian mechanics and using it. No surprise that these creationists don't understand how science works.

    Posted by: simon | Mar 23, 2014 4:54:06 PM

  12. Religion isn't science. I don't have a problem with anyone having religious beliefs, just keep them to yourself. I don't want anything to do with them. Have your myth, believe it's fact....I choose to live in reality

    Posted by: Craig | Mar 23, 2014 4:59:53 PM

  13. Creationism is religion, not science. There is no need for "equal time" because creationism is based on myth and conjecture, not verifiable statistics and facts. I doubt if Creationists would ever let science intrude on their foolish TV programs like 700 Club or TBN or any of that execrable, evangelical nonsense.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Mar 23, 2014 5:13:00 PM

  14. Ask them if they're willing to give evolutionary theory some time during Sunday Mass!

    Seriously, if they want to argue scientific theory and facts, then they need to stop wrapping their religious beliefs in a transparent "scientific" cloak.

    But they don't. They just want to stop the inevitable banishing of ignorance from the minds of the American public. But they need to realize that organized religion and the special protections and benefits it was given and its power to control public policy is waning. #sorrynotsorry :D

    Posted by: Leonard | Mar 23, 2014 5:15:25 PM

  15. The creationists wear their ignorance like a badge of honor. About 500 years ago with the European discovery of the Western hemisphere, the ability to print books and the Inquisition rational men turned from churches to libraries and laboratories. The contributions of science to mankind are obvious. There's no going back. As for the religionists, their days are numbered.

    I really enjoy Neil Tyson's aggressive attitude on the talk shows.

    Let the creationists go to see the Noah's ark movie while Cosmos runs.

    Posted by: james st. james | Mar 23, 2014 5:16:43 PM

  16. Love Cosmos! Love Neil deGrasse Tyson! BAHHH on creationists!

    Posted by: Drummond | Mar 23, 2014 5:18:00 PM

  17. If only the airwaves weren't full of religious broadcasting each and every Sunday from 6 am to 6 pm before football comes on.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 23, 2014 5:31:42 PM

  18. Sheer stupidity. This show is about science, not religion. If they're going to talk about everyone's personal hopes, dreams and beliefs of creation that move beyond evidence, then they'll need to talk about magic, mythology and the flying spaghetti monster as well.

    Posted by: Marlon Manroe | Mar 23, 2014 6:00:19 PM

  19. I don't see what the big deal is. I feel like he explained quite clearly that they don't know the EXACT reason that life began. That leaves the possibility for something like intelligent design. But if they are crying because he doesn't mention the possibility of that young earth nonsense and Jesus riding around on dinosaurs then give me a break!

    Posted by: AJ | Mar 23, 2014 6:18:08 PM

  20. Creationists "demand" airtime? Ha, ha, ha, ha. ha....ho, ho. ho...!

    Posted by: john patrick | Mar 23, 2014 6:28:30 PM

  21. @Simon: a better analogy is the big bang model. The variation that seems to work best given last week's announcement of polarization measurements for the cosmic microwave background radiation is the simplest version that includes inflation.

    The original big-bang model was a simple solution to the field equations in general relativity with the assumption that the density of matter was uniform everywhere in the universe (averaging over galaxies) and that there were no preferred locations in the universe. That explained the expansion of the universe, but had a few problems that inflation and various other models tried to solve. While physicists would use different names for these models, all started with an extremely tiny universe that expanded. The idea was to see what each model predicted for things that we could measure (e.g., the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the early universe), with a goal of finding data that would eliminate some of the models.

    All of them (with the exception of a steady-state model that went out of favor pretty rapidly once the expansion was measured), would be ones the average person would call a "big bang" model. That of course wouldn't stop a religious nut from trying to claim that scientists disagree about the "big bang", simply because they had different names for different variants.

    Posted by: Bill | Mar 23, 2014 6:35:17 PM

  22. I was so thrilled to,sit down with my kids to watch this show. It is pitch perfect and puts things, including religion, into,perspective. It actually brought tears to my eyes seeing it thru their eyes. So happy to be raising two little atheist scientists with two dads!

    Posted by: Jack | Mar 23, 2014 6:50:50 PM

  23. Cosmos is flawed on so many levels! Not once have they mentioned Dumbledore or the extinction of unicorns.

    Posted by: terry | Mar 23, 2014 6:57:23 PM

  24. The spokesperson for the Christianists could be that noted actor and believer in mythology-Kirk Cameron. Mike Siever would be comfortable in front of the camera as he used to play a thinking human being on television.
    Sadly he gave that up for mythology.

    Posted by: Nick | Mar 23, 2014 6:59:09 PM

  25. The spokesperson for the Christianists could be that noted actor and believer in mythology-Kirk Cameron. Mike Siever would be comfortable in front of the camera as he used to play a thinking human being on television.
    Sadly he gave that up for mythology.

    Posted by: Nick | Mar 23, 2014 6:59:21 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «RuPaul Drives John Waters: VIDEO« «