Creationists Demand Equal Airtime Over Cosmos Content

[Disposed]

O'reilly is the joke. And yes, he actually said that.

O'Reily like Glenn beck is a fraud. They say things like that for ratings. I highly doubt they believe any of it. Hannity and the rest on the other hand I'm not so sure of.

 

[Yossarian22]

What the pants are you talking about? Evolution has been observed.

I like how all these religious people keep spouting "it's just a theory." Let me correct you by saying it is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is directly supported by the scientific process of testing and by peer review. It is always going to be defined as a theory because there is no way to observe the original conditions of which the hypothesis was made. We cannot physically observe the big bang, the creation of planet Earth, or the evolution of man. However, hundreds of years of compounding evidence support what the theory is. That is the difference: science is supported by the preponderance of evidence, while Creationism points to a book that was written by and for man to call it fact.

Extending from that, it also really bothers me when someone inserts "faith" into scientific discussion. Science is not a religion, it is an evidence-based process used to understand the universe in which we live to better our lives. By contrast, religion has always historically been about control. There is no problem with having faith in deific beliefs, but don't try to bring faith into a scientific discussion.

Thank goodness for some sanity.

 

[nilepez]

O'Reily like Glenn beck is a fraud. They say things like that for ratings. I highly doubt they believe any of it. Hannity and the rest on the other hand I'm not so sure of.

Of the conservative talking heads, the only one that ever struck me as a straight shooter was Scarborough. Shep Smith seems OK too, but he seems like more of a reporter than commentator. That said, I haven't seen either of them in years.

 

[King of Heroes]

What does religion have to do with science?

No really, WHAT DOES RELIGION HAVE TO DO WITH SCIENCE?!

I'm hyper religious, and even I know the two don't mix

What's really depressing is that this wasn't always the case. Isaac Newton is a good example of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

I don't know how accurate that list is, but there was a time where being a scientist didn't necessarily require you to be in conflict with religion (in fact I seem to recall a few significant scientific endeavors that were backed by the church). Something I wish we could go back to.

 

[TMCM]

What's really depressing is that this wasn't always the case. Isaac Newton is a good example of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

I don't know how accurate that list is, but there was a time where being a scientist didn't necessarily require you to be in conflict with religion (in fact I seem to recall a few significant scientific endeavors that were backed by the church). Something I wish we could go back to.

There are still many scientists who are very religious. I think it was a catholic priest that discovered red shift. A good friend of mine is very religious and has a masters in nuclear engineering and is working on his masters in mechanical engineering. To those types of people I think they see science as the logical explanation of how "God did it". He sees big bang theory and evolution not as a denial of god's existence but as proof of it.

 

[SRTie4k]

There are a handful of religious scientists who also believe that the universe is so complex, that life as we know it had such an impossibly small chance of actually coming into existence, that it had to require some type of intelligent intervention in order for everything to have come together just perfectly in the way that it did. Having that belief doesn't necessarily conflict with one's duty as a scientist to wonder why and try to prove why, it's just simply a way to look at the larger picture until it is proven otherwise.

 

[Armenius]

There are still many scientists who are very religious. I think it was a catholic priest that discovered red shift. A good friend of mine is very religious and has a masters in nuclear engineering and is working on his masters in mechanical engineering. To those types of people I think they see science as the logical explanation of how "God did it". He sees big bang theory and evolution not as a denial of god's existence but as proof of it.

That is a very sensible way of looking at things. I could appreciate those with faith seeing science as revealing a creator's blueprint. But these nuts demanding equal air time don't have any sense. They extend their belief in the Bible by cherry-picking facts out of scientific explanation to give what they believe meaning and dismiss those who think otherwise. I know they use ocean salinity and unusual fossil records to explain how the Earth is only 6,000 years old or whatever.

 

[ManofGod]

That is a very sensible way of looking at things. I could appreciate those with faith seeing science as revealing a creator's blueprint. But these nuts demanding equal air time don't have any sense. They extend their belief in the Bible by cherry-picking facts out of scientific explanation to give what they believe meaning and dismiss those who think otherwise. I know they use ocean salinity and unusual fossil records to explain how the Earth is only 6,000 years old or whatever.

Look, either the Bible is 100% totally correct or not at all. Cherry picking things out of the Bible pretty much makes whatever that thing being taken out of the Bible as of no value at all. Things can be wrong and still sound very sensible.

Science also cannot prove the existence of God because it is based on the belief that there is no God. (Naturalism to be exact.) Intelligence and having intelligent assessments does not mean that someone has to agree with you. Otherwise, calling someone a derogatory term weakens your argument right then and there.

 

[teh_chem]

So...what's stopping them? Buy airtime, make a video of what you want to say, and let broadcast partners decide if they want to air it. Not seeing the big deal here.

 

[mavrocket]

Science also cannot prove the existence of God because it is based on the belief that there is no God. (Naturalism to be exact.) Intelligence and having intelligent assessments does not mean that someone has to agree with you. Otherwise, calling someone a derogatory term weakens your argument right then and there.

The only people who believe that science is based on the belief that there is no God is attempting to use "science" as a reason that God doesn't exist.

Religion, faith and science are three different things, and saying that one overrules or silences the other is pointless. Just like a preacher says a scientific theory is wrong because his religion tells him otherwise, an atheist says religion is wrong because his science says otherwise.

Fact of the matter is, you do not have to be an atheist to practice science, and you don't have to be religious to practice faith.

There are those of us who practice faith and science, because in our heart of hearts, we cannot deny God. Not out of fear or "brainwashing", as the self-righteous hate-filled atheists would say, but truly out of faith.

 

[Armenius]

Look, either the Bible is 100% totally correct or not at all. Cherry picking things out of the Bible pretty much makes whatever that thing being taken out of the Bible as of no value at all. Things can be wrong and still sound very sensible.

Science also cannot prove the existence of God because it is based on the belief that there is no God. (Naturalism to be exact.) Intelligence and having intelligent assessments does not mean that someone has to agree with you. Otherwise, calling someone a derogatory term weakens your argument right then and there.

My turnaround saying "nuts" was referencing the original article and Answers in Genesis. And I stand by it because they claim to speak for all Christians by defending what they think every Christian believes. They are one of those fringe groups who believe there is a "war on religion" when the fact of the matter is fewer people are organizing their faith as time goes by.

Also, quoting myself:

... They extend their belief in the Bible by cherry-picking facts out of scientific explanation to give what they believe meaning and dismiss those who think otherwise.

I am saying that they are picking out facts in science to support their beliefs while leaving everything else out that would otherwise disprove their explanations. Science does not prove or disprove the existence of a god, so I do not understand why a fringe group of people has to attack an informative program that doesn't insert any religion into the discussion at all.

 

[Disposed]

Religion is a made up tool to asset control over the ignorant.

/thread

There's a reason the Bible was kept in a language the masses couldn't read for the majority of it's life. For all the good it did anyway people are just that stupid.

 

[Pringle]

There's a reason the Bible was kept in a language the masses couldn't read for the majority of it's life. For all the good it did anyway people are just that stupid.

Oh, was this the reason? That sounds completely plausible

 

[SRTie4k]

Religion is a made up tool to asset control over the ignorant.

/thread

There's a reason the Bible was kept in a language the masses couldn't read for the majority of it's life. For all the good it did anyway people are just that stupid.

At least we've now established that it doesn't take religion to make someone hateful and ignorant.

 

[chockomonkey]

My turnaround saying "nuts" was referencing the original article and Answers in Genesis. And I stand by it because they claim to speak for all Christians by defending what they think every Christian believes. They are one of those fringe groups who believe there is a "war on religion" when the fact of the matter is fewer people are organizing their faith as time goes by.

Also, quoting myself:
I am saying that they are picking out facts in science to support their beliefs while leaving everything else out that would otherwise disprove their explanations. Science does not prove or disprove the existence of a god, so I do not understand why a fringe group of people has to attack an informative program that doesn't insert any religion into the discussion at all.

I just got through the second episode of cosmos last night, and I can see why religious groups would call it out. I'm not saying I agree with them, but the show did directly call out religion. As a religious person it bugged me how they did it. While at the same time saying that religion is the old explanation they go on to talk about how random mutations just happen and that's a fact. They should have said that they still don't know why they happen, because we don't.

 

[chockomonkey]

It's on the cosmos creators for trying to push an agenda. They didn't' have to turn this into a science vs religion debate.

 

[tempertantrum]

I am coming out a five year hiatus of posting because the level of ignorance about the nature of science in this thread offends my science teacher sensibilities.

A "theory" is NOT the same as a "Theory" (note the capital T), and neither of these are the same as "facts." Evolution is not a theory - it is not simply idle speculation. It is also not "proven," as any scientist will tell you, you can't "prove" anything, only disprove or provide overwhelming evidence supporting something. Little t theory just ideas about how something works. It's very unfortunate that this every day term is conflated with Big T Theory, or explanations as to how things work that are supported by a monstrous amount of evidence with virtually no evidence to suggest it is wrong. Facts are the evidence - they are direct observations. No opinion, belief, or idea will ever be a fact. Because we can't "prove" anything, and because we know that our understanding will be refined over time, scientists are reluctant to ever use terms like "proven," instead describing things in terms of certainty. No, they can't be 100% certain... but being 99.9999% certain isn't the same as faith in religion, where the only "proof" is people's personal feelings and a millenniums old text that was written decades or hundreds or thousands of years after the events they describe, and it's contradicted by all other evidence. Creationism is a modern interpretation of an unsupported book. It is not science. Period.

Let's put this into context: I'm sure we all have theory's about how, exactly, the NSA is hacking into our computers. (Notice the little t.) There are facts that have come out about what actually happened - many of which are from documents leaked by Snowden, documents from the FISA courts, etc. As more and more evidence is gathered, we get a better and better idea about what exactly is going on behind the scenes. At some point, there's enough evidence to say "This is what is happening/happened in the NSA." We're talking thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of experiments later (as in the case of Climate Change, for example, there are hundreds of thousands of data sets supporting it) we can call it a Big T Theory. That theory will be refined, and change (just as our Theory of gravity has been refined to take into account more detail, such as what happens at high speeds and under more intense gravitational fields). New Theories (backed be mountains of evidence, of course) may then crop up, and further refine our understanding. Always, always, always, it is evidence based. Anything not evidence based is not science - it is speculation, belief, etc. Also, if no evidence will ever sway your mind, you are not doing science.

Creationism is NOT a science, it is not backed up by evidence, and there is plenty of evidence suggesting it is not real. It should not EVER be taught in public schools, unless you want to have a Religions of the world course, in which the little t theories of religions from around the world are all taught. People's religion beliefs can have "equal airtime" in a religious context, but don't ever try to pretend it is science. Also, can EVERYONE please stop misusing the terms theory, Theory, fact, and science?

 

[ManofGod]

I am coming out a five year hiatus of posting because the level of ignorance about the nature of science in this thread offends my science teacher sensibilities.

A "theory" is NOT the same as a "Theory" (note the capital T), and neither of these are the same as "facts." Evolution is not a theory - it is not simply idle speculation. It is also not "proven," as any scientist will tell you, you can't "prove" anything, only disprove or provide overwhelming evidence supporting something. Little t theory just ideas about how something works. It's very unfortunate that this every day term is conflated with Big T Theory, or explanations as to how things work that are supported by a monstrous amount of evidence with virtually no evidence to suggest it is wrong. Facts are the evidence - they are direct observations. No opinion, belief, or idea will ever be a fact. Because we can't "prove" anything, and because we know that our understanding will be refined over time, scientists are reluctant to ever use terms like "proven," instead describing things in terms of certainty. No, they can't be 100% certain... but being 99.9999% certain isn't the same as faith in religion, where the only "proof" is people's personal feelings and a millenniums old text that was written decades or hundreds or thousands of years after the events they describe, and it's contradicted by all other evidence. Creationism is a modern interpretation of an unsupported book. It is not science. Period.

Let's put this into context: I'm sure we all have theory's about how, exactly, the NSA is hacking into our computers. (Notice the little t.) There are facts that have come out about what actually happened - many of which are from documents leaked by Snowden, documents from the FISA courts, etc. As more and more evidence is gathered, we get a better and better idea about what exactly is going on behind the scenes. At some point, there's enough evidence to say "This is what is happening/happened in the NSA." We're talking thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of experiments later (as in the case of Climate Change, for example, there are hundreds of thousands of data sets supporting it) we can call it a Big T Theory. That theory will be refined, and change (just as our Theory of gravity has been refined to take into account more detail, such as what happens at high speeds and under more intense gravitational fields). New Theories (backed be mountains of evidence, of course) may then crop up, and further refine our understanding. Always, always, always, it is evidence based. Anything not evidence based is not science - it is speculation, belief, etc. Also, if no evidence will ever sway your mind, you are not doing science.

Creationism is NOT a science, it is not backed up by evidence, and there is plenty of evidence suggesting it is not real. It should not EVER be taught in public schools, unless you want to have a Religions of the world course, in which the little t theories of religions from around the world are all taught. People's religion beliefs can have "equal airtime" in a religious context, but don't ever try to pretend it is science. Also, can EVERYONE please stop misusing the terms theory, Theory, fact, and science?

Next time, you may just want to stay in you hiatus.

 

[pcjunkie]

Next time, you may just want to stay in you hiatus.

Come on, I really liked his Theory of the ignorance in this thread.

 

[ManofGod]

Come on, I really liked his Theory of the ignorance in this thread.

You did make me laugh. Have a Good weekend!

 

[Proteos]

Science also cannot prove the existence of God because it is based on the belief that there is no God. (Naturalism to be exact.).

I wasn't planning on joining this debate, but your comment is false. Science does not prove or disprove there is a God because science deals with observables. The existence of God would be proving the existence of the meta physical, aka something unobservable. There are no scientific theories that express that God does not exist because of this very reason.

 

[tempertantrum]

Next time, you may just want to stay in you hiatus.

LOL.... Dude... do you even logic?

And that, ladies and gentleman, is yet another piece of evidence supporting my little t theory that ManofGod is a ignorant troll who doesn't get "science" or "logic." If only I could ignore. But then, how would I gain enough evidence for my theory move up to Theory level?

 

[DeathFromBelow]

I just got through the second episode of cosmos last night, and I can see why religious groups would call it out. I'm not saying I agree with them, but the show did directly call out religion. As a religious person it bugged me how they did it. While at the same time saying that religion is the old explanation they go on to talk about how random mutations just happen and that's a fact. They should have said that they still don't know why they happen, because we don't.

We do know why mutations happen. DNA isn't absolutely perfect at copying itself. Tyson showed one example of a typical DNA copying error in the segment on fur color. Those happen all the time. Mutations can also be caused by cosmic rays, ionizing radiation, and toxins that disrupt DNA reproduction/error correction.

 

[ManofGod]

LOL.... Dude... do you even logic?

And that, ladies and gentleman, is yet another piece of evidence supporting my little t theory that ManofGod is a ignorant troll who doesn't get "science" or "logic." If only I could ignore. But then, how would I gain enough evidence for my theory move up to Theory level?

Wow, good thing you know me so well. It's like I am looking a mirror, is so uncanny. Well, you have already made your mind up so, there is goes. On the other hand, creation is logical and well thought out as well as orderly.

 

[tempertantrum]

For some reason I want to link the Bill Bye vs Ken Ham debate...

This is exactly it - the major reason why most scientists didn't want bill and Ken to "debate" is because there *is no debate." Creationists win simply by being on the stage with a scientist or a proponent of science. Much like climate change skeptics (ie deniers) and cigarette companies wage a war of doubt by simply finding ways to suggest that there is a debate, but not actually providing contrary evidence to the idea that man caused climate change or that smoking causes cancer, letting Creationists onto the stage of science inappropriately legitimizes their unsubstantiated "theory."

 

[tempertantrum]

Wow, good thing you know me so well. It's like I am looking a mirror, is so uncanny. Well, you have already made your mind up so, there is goes. On the other hand, creation is logical and well thought out as well as orderly.

If the mirror is as warped as your idea of "science," than can you even call it a mirror? Two sides of a coin, maybe, but not a mirror. You see, you simply will not sway your belief in your version of "god", and I will not sway my belief in evidence. The difference is I (like Tyson) will change my believe as soon as you, or anyone, can provide me with *evidence* that doesn't consist of "I have a book that someone wrote based on stories passed down for generations that say God said so," or "I have personally felt God's presence in my life."

 

[Tawnos]

Look, either the Bible is 100% totally correct or not at all.

Black and white fallacy. It's entirely possible that parts of the Bible are true and others are false. There's nothing that requires it be intrinsically 100% true or false. Otherwise, the different orders of creation (not to mention light being created before the light source, and plants before the sun) in Genesis would render the entire thing false. If that's a position you really want to take, so be it, but it means that any invalidation of any one part renders the entire thing untrue.

What makes you claim that the bible has to fit that either-or divide?

 

[ManofGod]

Black and white fallacy. It's entirely possible that parts of the Bible are true and others are false. There's nothing that requires it be intrinsically 100% true or false. Otherwise, the different orders of creation (not to mention light being created before the light source, and plants before the sun) in Genesis would render the entire thing false. If that's a position you really want to take, so be it, but it means that any invalidation of any one part renders the entire thing untrue.

What makes you claim that the bible has to fit that either-or divide?

You cannot pick and choose what you want out of the Bible and throw out the rest. If it is not 100% true, then there is no point in it at all. Genesis is literal regardless of what someone wants to believe or not. Also, there is not different orders of creation, light was created before the sun, moon and stars.

What makes me claim it is that the Bible fits together like a puzzle. Jesus came to redeem the lost. However, the lost occurred originally at the beginning of creation due to the first sin. If you make the book of Genesis say something other than what it does, the Jesus did not come to redeem anything at all. The Word of God is unchanging and those who take things out of context to try to disprove it are simply wrong.

 

[chockomonkey]

You cannot pick and choose what you want out of the Bible and throw out the rest. If it is not 100% true, then there is no point in it at all. Genesis is literal regardless of what someone wants to believe or not. Also, there is not different orders of creation, light was created before the sun, moon and stars.

What makes me claim it is that the Bible fits together like a puzzle. Jesus came to redeem the lost. However, the lost occurred originally at the beginning of creation due to the first sin. If you make the book of Genesis say something other than what it does, the Jesus did not come to redeem anything at all. The Word of God is unchanging and those who take things out of context to try to disprove it are simply wrong.

The bible was written a long time ago. Just like any historical text, you can't interpret it with a modern mindset.

 

[maverikv]

If you truly believe that god created everything, including humanity, giving us our intelligence and our curiosity and our sense of wonder, it makes no sense to strictly adhere to the bible. God gave us the tools to discover the wonder of his creation. If something we discover contradicts our current interpretation of our translation of a translation of a conglomeration of myths from the bronze age, what makes more sense? That the book is right and science is wrong?

I mean that's just like, my opinion. I think its all made up. No disrespect.

 

[tempertantrum]

The Word of God is unchanging and those who take things out of context to try to disprove it are simply wrong.

So... God's word doesn't change. This is, of course, proved by the Bible, were God first says the state of the world is beyond redemption and consequently kills all but a few people in a massive flood, and then later says he will forgive all people who believe in Him. Also, Genesis must be true and literal - because despite the fact that God supposedly created everything, as described in the beginning of Genesis, and then somehow Cain goes away from the community he grew up in, and somehow meets other people, who are clearly there but weren't created by God. ::sarcasm::

I repeat: Do you even logic?

This is why this isn't even a "debate." The Bible can't get it's own facts straight, let alone produce a Scientific Theory.

 

[ManofGod]

The bible was written a long time ago. Just like any historical text, you can't interpret it with a modern mindset.

First off, the idea of not interpreting it with a "modern" mindset is just plain wrong. But, at the same time, you need to understand the context in which said event or events did occur. That way, you can understand what is being said.

 

[chockomonkey]

First off, the idea of not interpreting it with a "modern" mindset is just plain wrong. But, at the same time, you need to understand the context in which said event or events did occur. That way, you can understand what is being said.

That's all i meant, really.

 

[ManofGod]

So... God's word doesn't change. This is, of course, proved by the Bible, were God first says the state of the world is beyond redemption and consequently kills all but a few people in a massive flood, and then later says he will forgive all people who believe in Him. Also, Genesis must be true and literal - because despite the fact that God supposedly created everything, as described in the beginning of Genesis, and then somehow Cain goes away from the community he grew up in, and somehow meets other people, who are clearly there but weren't created by God. ::sarcasm::

I repeat: Do you even logic?

This is why this isn't even a "debate." The Bible can't get it's own facts straight, let alone produce a Scientific Theory.

Not everyone who was born was listed in the Book of Genesis. Logic, man, logic.

 

[Mr. K6]

First off, the idea of not interpreting it with a "modern" mindset is just plain wrong. But, at the same time, you need to understand the context in which said event or events did occur. That way, you can understand what is being said.

But you have no idea that they did occur. The Bible for all anyone can prove is a bunch of made up nonsense. Anyone with a shred of intelligence or reason can see that and no one can prove otherwise. So while you continue to cling to the fantasy you were indoctrinated with, the rest of the world has moving on.

I am coming out a five year hiatus of posting because the level of ignorance about the nature of science in this thread offends my science teacher sensibilities.

A "theory" is NOT the same as a "Theory" (note the capital T), and neither of these are the same as "facts." Evolution is not a theory - it is not simply idle speculation. It is also not "proven," as any scientist will tell you, you can't "prove" anything, only disprove or provide overwhelming evidence supporting something. Little t theory just ideas about how something works. It's very unfortunate that this every day term is conflated with Big T Theory, or explanations as to how things work that are supported by a monstrous amount of evidence with virtually no evidence to suggest it is wrong. Facts are the evidence - they are direct observations. No opinion, belief, or idea will ever be a fact. Because we can't "prove" anything, and because we know that our understanding will be refined over time, scientists are reluctant to ever use terms like "proven," instead describing things in terms of certainty. No, they can't be 100% certain... but being 99.9999% certain isn't the same as faith in religion, where the only "proof" is people's personal feelings and a millenniums old text that was written decades or hundreds or thousands of years after the events they describe, and it's contradicted by all other evidence. Creationism is a modern interpretation of an unsupported book. It is not science. Period.

Let's put this into context: I'm sure we all have theory's about how, exactly, the NSA is hacking into our computers. (Notice the little t.) There are facts that have come out about what actually happened - many of which are from documents leaked by Snowden, documents from the FISA courts, etc. As more and more evidence is gathered, we get a better and better idea about what exactly is going on behind the scenes. At some point, there's enough evidence to say "This is what is happening/happened in the NSA." We're talking thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of experiments later (as in the case of Climate Change, for example, there are hundreds of thousands of data sets supporting it) we can call it a Big T Theory. That theory will be refined, and change (just as our Theory of gravity has been refined to take into account more detail, such as what happens at high speeds and under more intense gravitational fields). New Theories (backed be mountains of evidence, of course) may then crop up, and further refine our understanding. Always, always, always, it is evidence based. Anything not evidence based is not science - it is speculation, belief, etc. Also, if no evidence will ever sway your mind, you are not doing science.

Creationism is NOT a science, it is not backed up by evidence, and there is plenty of evidence suggesting it is not real. It should not EVER be taught in public schools, unless you want to have a Religions of the world course, in which the little t theories of religions from around the world are all taught. People's religion beliefs can have "equal airtime" in a religious context, but don't ever try to pretend it is science. Also, can EVERYONE please stop misusing the terms theory, Theory, fact, and science?

Well said my friend. I bolded the last paragraph because it's a great summary.

 

[ManofGod]

But you have no idea that they did occur. The Bible for all anyone can prove is a bunch of made up nonsense. Anyone with a shred of intelligence or reason can see that and no one can prove otherwise. So while you continue to cling to the fantasy you were indoctrinated with, the rest of the world has moving on.

Well said my friend. I bolded the last paragraph because it's a great summary.

Indoctrinated with, good one. So, exactly how long have I been a Christian? Also, the world? Have you actually taken the time to see outside the borders of your only little country, the USA? Perhaps see that more people were persecuted (tortured, maimed, killed) for their faith in Christ in the 20th and up until now than in all the rest of history combined?

Look, whether I convince you or not is not my job, just being the messenger is all I can do. However, take the time to look around and see what is going on, you may just be surprised.

 

[Low Roller]

I just got through the second episode of cosmos last night, and I can see why religious groups would call it out. I'm not saying I agree with them, but the show did directly call out religion. As a religious person it bugged me how they did it. While at the same time saying that religion is the old explanation they go on to talk about how random mutations just happen and that's a fact. They should have said that they still don't know why they happen, because we don't.

In addition to generally explaining modern science as we currently understand it, the show also presents a history of the scientific enterprise. The history of science is littered with conflicts against religious dogmas, often at the peril of early scientists. The show highlights those past struggles for context and ties them in with current resistance to science and what it tells us.

As such, one of the favorite examples the intelligent design crowd likes to trot out is the complexity of the human eye, and how such a thing could never happen without the guiding hand of some invisible man in the sky. The show does a wonderful job directly confronting this assertion, explaining the history of the evolution of the eye. It was an absolute evisceration of the intelligent design hypothesis creationists like to use. That segment was very reminiscent of the original Cosmos. Sagan didn't pull any punches 35yrs ago, and it's good to see Tyson doing the same.

Changing gears, here's a couple of my favorite quotes from these men:

Carl Sagan on the compatibility between science and spirituality -

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”

Tyson on those who point out the many things science has yet to explain as evidence of God's existence -

If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

 

[Mr. K6]

Indoctrinated with, good one. So, exactly how long have I been a Christian? Also, the world? Have you actually taken the time to see outside the borders of your only little country, the USA? Perhaps see that more people were persecuted (tortured, maimed, killed) for their faith in Christ in the 20th and up until now than in all the rest of history combined?

Look, whether I convince you or not is not my job, just being the messenger is all I can do. However, take the time to look around and see what is going on, you may just be surprised.

I've been around the world and then some, but what does that have to do with what we're discussing? Also, religious wars and violence over the centuries don't have a tie in either. So instead of countering any of my statements you attempt to deflect with preaching, nice failure. Once again, the Bible is a a bunch of stories made up by anyone for all we know and no one can prove otherwise.

 

[kbrickley]

You cannot pick and choose what you want out of the Bible and throw out the rest. If it is not 100% true, then there is no point in it at all. Genesis is literal regardless of what someone wants to believe or not. Also, there is not different orders of creation, light was created before the sun, moon and stars.

What makes me claim it is that the Bible fits together like a puzzle. Jesus came to redeem the lost. However, the lost occurred originally at the beginning of creation due to the first sin. If you make the book of Genesis say something other than what it does, the Jesus did not come to redeem anything at all. The Word of God is unchanging and those who take things out of context to try to disprove it are simply wrong.

Why can't you pick and choose ... the Council of Nicea did ... even if you give the "Word of God" folks the benefit of the doubt, the Bible was still written by man (not God) ... man is by his nature imperfect (maybe he got something wrong) ... also, even God can't impart an understanding of things to man that are beyond his technical comprehension ... perhaps the Bible reflects primitive man's interpretation of events that were beyond his ability to understand

There are certainly events in the Bible that must have some basis in reality ... that does not mean that they had to occur exactly as they were written in the Bible ... was there a city equivalent to Sodom and Gomorah (probably), was it destroyed (probably), was it destroyed by God or by some incomprehensible natural disaster (probably the later) ... was there an event that inspired the Flood (probably), were there small groups of survivors who were left to tell the tale through oral storytelling (probably), was it local disaster or was the planet actually covered to the highest mountaintop in water (physics, biology, and chemistry would indicate the former) ... you can go on and on

 

[Mr. K6]

I just got through the second episode of cosmos last night, and I can see why religious groups would call it out. I'm not saying I agree with them, but the show did directly call out religion. As a religious person it bugged me how they did it. While at the same time saying that religion is the old explanation they go on to talk about how random mutations just happen and that's a fact. They should have said that they still don't know why they happen, because we don't.

Actually we do. We know a lot about why random mutations happen. Where did you get that idea from?