Comments

  1. says

    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?

  2. Lymis says

    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.

  3. tkinsc says

    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.

  4. JohnAGJ says

    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…

  5. simon says

    large number of “scientists who don’t accept Darwinian evolution”
    Really?
    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.

  6. Ira Zimmermann says

    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.

  7. simon says

    “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.

  8. Craig says

    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

  9. jamal49 says

    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.

  10. Leonard says

    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 😀

  11. james st. james says

    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.

  12. Marlon Manroe says

    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.

  13. AJ says

    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!

  14. Bill says

    @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.

  15. Jack says

    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!

  16. Nick says

    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.

  17. Nick says

    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.

  18. alex says

    In the 80s, some parent complained that Creationism wasn’t being taught in my public school. To quell the growing controversy, my teacher arranged for someone from a local church to come in and talk creationism. (That probably would never happen today.) That parent came to “supervise” the conversation.

    What the teacher didn’t tell the parent (or the school principal) was that he also invited someone to talk about the “Theory of Extra-Terrestrial Creation”. That speaker presented her evidence (like seen on the “Ancient Aliens” TV show) while the parent and pastor fumed. Of course, us middle-schoolers all decided that we were descendants of aliens.

    The moral of the story: Be careful when asking for equal time. Sometimes you lose followers to another group with a more compelling argument.

  19. Birdy says

    Just because something like 1 – 2% of so-called “scientists” don’t agree with scientifically proven facts about the origins of life, doesn’t mean they get screen time to defend their ideas. Really, would we even bother with a recount if an election resulted in the same numbers? Unless you don’t buy into the idea of numbers, and counting, and basic math…

    The entire series is based upon scientifically proven data, or proven data that logically leads to a theorem. Facts just “are.” Facts aren’t debatable.

  20. Bill says

    @alex: Curiously, a few years ago at the Pride event at the San Francisco Civic Center, near where the parade ended, there was a small area for the minimal-funding or non-profit groups. They had some quakers (?) on one side and across from them was
    “Meet Nude Men” and a “Creationist” group that claimed we were descended from space aliens. Some other religious group might have been in between.

    The juxtaposition was really funny.

  21. Tarc says

    Since creationism is religion, not science, they should settle for the thousands of hours of nonsense they already air. Evolution is the most proven scientific finding of humankind, and since all science is the result of the same method, I’d welcome evolution deniers to eschew all of the findings of science, don their skins, and head back to the caves.

  22. Tarc says

    Essentially ‘scientists’ that don’t believe in evolution are really religious zealouts masquerading. That’s not to say that scientists cannot be religious (about 70% are just like the Pope – religious and understand evolution is the ‘how’ of humankind).

  23. Tom says

    The creationists are entitled to demand anything that they want. The scientific community and sponsors of this program have NO responsibility to finance a rebuttal of the programs position or material. If the creationist position is “so correct” they will have no problem finding financial support to generate and broadcast their own rebuttal position on this topic.There is no entitlement program for alternate opinions of the truth!!!!! Look at the constitution.

  24. Quicksilver says

    Apparently that pesky scientific method thing still eludes them. Ya know: gather data, find similarities in data, formulate hypothesis about possible cause or connection for similarities, test hypothesis, reformulate hypothesis if tests fail, release material so others can lather, rinse, repeat.

    Creationist method:
    1) Data? Everything everywhere.
    2) Hypothesis? Unknowable all-powerful diaphanous super-thing did it.
    3) Tests? See #2
    4) Peer review? See #2
    5) Conclusion? We’re right. See #2

    Everything creationists believe: big steamy pile of #2.

  25. emjayay says

    In case you missed tonight’s episode – the one the promo is about but doesn’t explain at all – it’s about how the laws of physics Newton described replaced the previous beliefs of cultures all over the world of some supernatural creation and arranging of what we see in the night sky.

    In other words, there he goes again…explaining how it’s all science, not some sky god. He does mention about how, given all that people had no idea of, the previous concepts were completely understandable.

    Between Cosmos and Family Guy in particular and even the Simpsons, the Christianists should be boycotting Fox entirely. I always figure they just don’t get the toons or they aren’t really paying attention.

  26. UFFDA says

    Creationism has been scientifically proven to be stupid. Stupid has been scientifically proven to be popular. And popular is all that matters to the stupid.
    There’s no way in and there’s no way out. Forget it.

  27. Not A Creationist says

    Creationists get the following number of hours of creationism on Fox each year

    (24*365) – (42/60 excluding ads) * (# of Cosmos Episodes) = 8750.2 hours.

    That’s 8750.2 hours of creationism. And they are complaining about balance?

    Heck if they complain about balance, then I complain about balance too. Get rid of your creationist nonsense for 50% of the Fox broadcast. I need to see 4375 more hours of evolution and science on Fox.

  28. Wirrrn says

    -No, there is nothing remotely scientific, let alone factual, about Intelligent Design or the Young Earth Theory, so f@ck right off back to your prayer groups for the victims of the predatory priests of your divine imaginary friend.

  29. codyj says

    he is WRONG, a ‘creationist perspective” was indeed shown..on episode 4,of ‘Ding Dong School” (with Ms. Francis) airdate 3-20-1952.. This show was aimed at the pre- kindergarten crowd…. (because by FIRST GRADE,they KNOW BETTER! ha ha ha)

  30. codyj says

    he is WRONG, a ‘creationist perspective” was indeed shown..on episode 4,of ‘Ding Dong School” (with Ms. Francis) airdate 3-20-1952.. This show was aimed at the pre- kindergarten crowd…. (because by FIRST GRADE,they KNOW BETTER! ha ha ha)

Leave A Reply