Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Creationists Demand Equal Airtime With 'Cosmos'

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the 13-or-so-billion-years-then? dept.

Earth 667

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Travis Gettys reports that creationist Danny Falkner appeared Thursday on "The Janet Mefford Show" to complain that the Fox television series and its host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, had marginalized those with dissenting views on accepted scientific truths. "I don't recall seeing any interviews with people – that may yet come – but it's based upon the narration from the host and then various types of little video clips of various things, cartoons and things like that," said Falkner of Answers In Genesis who also complained that Tyson showed life arose from simple organic compounds without mentioning that some believe that's not possible. "I was struck in the first episode where he talked about science and how, you know, all ideas are discussed, you know, everything is up for discussion – it's all on the table – and I thought to myself, 'No, consideration of special creation is definitely not open for discussion, it would seem." To be fair, there aren't a ton of shows on TV specifically about creationism says William Hamby. "However, there are entire networks devoted to Christianity, and legions of preachers with all the airtime they need to denounce evolution. Oh, and there was that major movie from a few years back. And there's a giant tax-payer subsidized theme park in Kentucky. And the movie about Noah. And entire catalogs of creationist movies and textbooks you can own for the low low price of $13.92.""

cancel ×

667 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I demand pigs! (1, Interesting)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 7 months ago | (#46550581)

tasty large hogs!

Re: I demand pigs! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550791)

You could always just go find your mom

Demand all you want (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#46550583)

TV is not a government entity, you want equal time, pay up. You have no rights of speech with a privately owned business. You want your time in the spotlight during prime time, go out and make a show that doesn't suck, then pay for its spot to air. Its quite simple. Quit with the 'entitlement' mentality already.

Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.

Whatabout we demand equal time of our views inside (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550599)

If we demanded equal time in church gatherings. I mean fair is fair right. So you creationists wouldn't object to that? In that case I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550923)

What about *equal* tax exemption status for Science organization that the Churches have been enjoying?

Re: Demand all you want (5, Funny)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 7 months ago | (#46550601)

I would oblige them. Give I.D.ERS equal time... just, give it to the Luciferians. I am sure the Creationists will shut up mighty quick.

Re: Demand all you want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550733)

It's too early. At first, I thought you said Lutherans.

To the Westboro folk... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550797)

and others, there's not much of a difference there :)

Re:Demand all you want (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550629)

Well, I wanna see a documentary about how the contamination of watercourses in Palestine can be eliminated.
I wanna see a documentary on PBS about how nuclear and chemical pollution fed into the wadis by the Israeli industries enevitably ends up in Palestinian water table.
Well, then I wanna see a CNN of Fox report on the VAST oil and gas deposits in Palestinian territorial waters.

Is it any wonder the Israelis block the Palestinian (fishermen) from going out more than 2 miles, and isn't that illegal?

Its not really a creationist threat, its more of an existential reality.

Re:Demand all you want (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550899)

Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.

How is this creationist nonsense in the public interest?

Re:Demand all you want (5, Insightful)

microbox (704317) | about 7 months ago | (#46550959)

Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.

The George Marshall Institute [marshall.org] , (an anti-environmentalists, pro-tobacco think-tank), threatened networks and newspapers with legal action over the fairness doctrine [wikipedia.org] , the spirit of which is that public media is a public resource, and that both sides of debates should always be present.

This was back in the commie-Reagan era. There were real communist threats back then. Reagan wanted to build the absurdly expensive and naive strategic defense initiative [wikipedia.org] , aka "Star Wars", and pretty much every scientist in America said it was a stupid waste of money and could never work. And even if it did, then the Soviets would be forced to respond with some other ridiculously expensive piece of technology. (The Soviets saw Star Wars as a complete joke.)

So... how to do silence a consensus of scientists? Well, the tobacco industry had been doing just that for 30 years by then. Get a few true ideological believers: (e.g., Frederick Seitz) and make a whole lot of noise, and if the newspapers/tv don't play along: sue them with deep corporate pockets.

This worked. Mass media started to give false balance [wikipedia.org] to an industry funded effort to rape the tax payer of trillions of dollars on a stupid missile defense system that had no chance of working.

Then Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine (giving birth to right-wing radio), the Soviet empire collapsed, and the ideological believers moved on to other targets. Specifically: fighting regulations on passive smoking, acid rain, and the ozone whole... and of course climate change. In all cases the tactic was exactly the same, and this very small coterie was/is massively funded in spreading "doubt". You can read a ridiculous amount of grizzly details in Merchants of Doubt [merchantsofdoubt.org] .

The point is that we create society however we want, and the load whining of creationists is just part of the game.

Deal (5, Insightful)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 7 months ago | (#46550585)

Equal time to creationists on Cosmos, equal time for actual knowledge (read: science) on all televangelist broadcasts. That sounds like a fair compromise.

Re:Deal (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550705)

Further more, every Christian preacher should devote 75% of each sermon to advocating Atheism, Islam and Satanism, so that dissenting views get "equal airtime" there too.

Re:Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550907)

Satanism isn't really a religion through, it's more of an ultra-libertarian philosophy of a sort.

equal time is a lot of subdivisions. (2)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 7 months ago | (#46550931)

They'd get less than that. There are roughly 18 different denominations. So an hour long broadcast (with no ads, intro or credits) would give 3.33 minutes/ea.

You can't just group "Christian" together, as there are many major denominations. It gets simpler if you combine them farther back in their history. I'm pretty sure if a block of time was given to "Abrahamic religions", that would cause a holy war, as that includes Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, and Bahai.

You can't just base it on major denominations. There are roughly 313 groups of religions, which would cut the 60 minute show down to about 11.5 seconds each.

But not every church of every sect agrees on everything. So we may have to break it down to the IRS recognized religious organizations. All 1.8 million of them. So each one would get a whopping 0.002 seconds. So not even a single frame.

The author of the article may want his church included, but so will the Westborough Baptist Church, Church of Scientology, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Church of Euthenasia, and Church of the Subgenius. (I think those last two are still recognized as religious organizations for tax purposes) .

As an ordained minister of the First Church of Smythe, the Universal Life Church, and others I printed out online, I will need multiple timeslots to represent the beliefs of my followers, which may or may not be consistent with any other organization.

Or, they can all just go do their own thing on their own dime.

Equal time for all! Whoo! (3, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 7 months ago | (#46550749)

I'd *love* to see that.

The FCC could force religious broadcasting channels to give equal time to well founded scientific shows. Like, science without any sort of religion involved at all. Every television show with religious content can be forced to contain an equal part science, presented by a person with a scientific background and no theology is allowed in that part.

That would pretty much derail every religious show broadcast.

I know what they want though. They want half of the Cosmos show, so they can preach during it. I wouldn't watch it, if half the content is ancient mythology.

I wonder if we could extend this to everything on television (cable or broadcast). Then we could have a perfect clusterfuck.

If you want a show that's half mythology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550817)

Just go watch 'Vikings' on the history channel. Between the bleeding bible as an omen, and the 2nd wife making the prophecy about the eye, fair and impartial historical drama it seems not to be.

And they're representing it as *FACTUALLY ACCURATE*!

Re:Deal (2)

jez9999 (618189) | about 7 months ago | (#46550893)

Not really a desirable compromise, because how many people actually watch those bullshit preaching channels compared to primetime TV?

Equal time for scientific views in church sermons and preachings, now that would be a sweet deal.

not a debate (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550587)

not a debate you would have anywhere in europe, not even in Rome....
the vast majority in europe would just start crying in laughter at the idea of creationism, because it's just so incredibly infantile...

What show did they watch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550589)

Gee, I wonder what that 3 minutes about intelligent design part about and the 8 minutes about the eye that talks directly at the watchmaker argument that keeps getting trotted out by creationists.

Re:What show did they watch? (4, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46550643)

It's fairly easy to show how the eye evolved. That's been debunked ages ago.

Actually the eye is a perfect proof that it WAS evolution rather than creation. Because our eye is perfected for seeing under water, a smart creator (and I guess God is supposedly not an idiot according to creationists) would have created an eye that's better suited to seeing on land rather than increasing the work overhead for the brain to compensate for the shortcomings of the eye we have.

Re:What show did they watch? (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 months ago | (#46550707)

Naw, the eye thing is passe for creationists. Their new tactic is claiming that "intelligence only comes from intelligence". It's from the book "Darwin's Doubt" from the Discovery Institute. Big best-seller on the god-botherer circuit.

Here's the way the argument goes (I'm not kidding): "A human brain is like a computer. And only intelligent entities can design computers. Thus...Intelligent Designer!" In other words, "there is too much information in DNA for it to have come from anywhere but the mind of Jehovah because screw Hindus".

Yep. That's it. Game over. Pwned. Until you suggest that it means the Intelligent Designer must have also come from a previous Intelligent Designer so we're looking at polytheism all the way down. Then, the argument rapidly devolves into, "The Christian Deity is the only possible explanation".

I'm telling you, I prefer the Young Earth creationists, who at least put their mythology right up front. They're honest about "God made it". These ID people are trying to subvert reason and science to get to the same place as the Young Earthers in the most dishonest way possible. All while pushing this notion of "teach the controversy", which is basically code for allowing people to proselytize for a particular religion in public schools.

Re:What show did they watch? (3, Insightful)

Coeurderoy (717228) | about 7 months ago | (#46550759)

The fun thing about "inteligent creation" is that the argument is "xyw is too complicated to evolve "naturally" it needs something even more complicated to "make it"...
Of course how the "more complicated stuff" was created does not need any explanation...

But a least it gives some arguments for a compationate God, since s/he does not smite them in anger for keeping on telling him, her, it how to do its job...

Re:What show did they watch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550871)

Here's the way the argument goes (I'm not kidding): "A human brain is like a computer. And only intelligent entities can design computers. Thus...Intelligent Designer!" In other words, "there is too much information in DNA for it to have come from anywhere but the mind of Jehovah because screw Hindus".

Actually, screw Christians as well: the ancient topos of the demiurge precedes Christianity. See, for example, Platon's "Timaios". Of course, Platon's concepts of love (focused on man-to-boy relationships as the most worthy ones) are not otherwise entirely compatible with the Christian canon...

just wait... (5, Interesting)

itsme1234 (199680) | about 7 months ago | (#46550591)

Neil deGrasse Tyson seems to follow Sagan's old show and lines of reasoning. This means the worst is yet to come for "special creationists".

Re:just wait... (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46550633)

If "special creationists" is like "special children", then I'm kinda scared. You mean there is an even more idiotic version of them?

Re:just wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550741)

Hey now, lets not insult "special children" by comparing them to creationists.

Re:just wait... (5, Funny)

Sique (173459) | about 7 months ago | (#46550943)

No, there are Special Creationists (concerned with space and time) and General Creationists (which also include mass into their prayers).

Re:just wait... (2)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | about 7 months ago | (#46550765)

What did you expect, the Executive Producer was married to Carl Sagan and helped him write Cosmos.

Re:just wait... (3, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 7 months ago | (#46550897)

I found the ending story of episode one, about how Sagan inspired him, rather depressing. It couldn't happen today, certainly not in the UK - we're a country paranoid about pedophiles to the point that no teacher dares so much as look at any under-eighteen student. It's just too dangerous.

Pay for their own show (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 months ago | (#46550593)

If they want to sell the fiction that 'flu strains don't change and pests can't get resistant to pesticides then they should pay for their own soapbox just like any other scam.

Re:Pay for their own show (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 7 months ago | (#46550677)

If they want to sell the fiction that 'flu strains don't change and pests can't get resistant to pesticides ...

That is not what creationists believe. They accept that organisms can adapt to their environment. They just deny that these adaptions can lead to entirely new species.

Re:Pay for their own show (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550727)

And their denial is founded in no actual facts. They have simple created an imaginary boundary that nature does not acknowledge.

Re:Pay for their own show (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 7 months ago | (#46550747)

Which is like saying you can only add 1s together to get small numbers (aka "microevolution) but not big numbers (aka "macroevolution"). It's an absurd position. New species arise through the accumulation of lots of small changes not the silly "chimp giving birth to a human" fallacious argument that creationists spew.

Re:Pay for their own show (3, Funny)

jez9999 (618189) | about 7 months ago | (#46550937)

There's no crocoduck. You can't explain that!

Re:Pay for their own show (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 7 months ago | (#46550691)

Ahh but they accept those things because that is "microevolution" as opposed to what they call "macroevolution" which they claim would have to be something like a dog giving birth to a pig.

Fundamental Physics Law (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550595)

An object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force.

Evolution is a contradiction.

That is all, heretics.

Re: Fundamental Physics Law (1)

James Ruiz (3570201) | about 7 months ago | (#46550645)

I hope this is a joke, otherwise I'm very sad.

Re: Fundamental Physics Law (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46550659)

Not a joke, and also not in the Creationist camp either, is Nagel => http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception-ebook/dp/B008SQL6NS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395494879&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+nagel [amazon.com]
One views with some amusement that the magnitude of Evolutionist dogmatism roughly equals that of the Evolutionists.
For the record, I'm kind of disinterested in the topic.

Re:Fundamental Physics Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550809)

Sigh. I love when the morons try to use science to prop up there nonsense. The Earth is not a closed system. It constantly exposed to "outside forces." For one, there is this big, burning ball of gas just 93 million miles away from us.

Equal time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550597)

So should scientists demand equal time when TV stations air church services?

No. (5, Insightful)

scottnix (951749) | about 7 months ago | (#46550603)

Because Cosmos is a science show.

Creationists are wrong. (1)

kodabmx (2473710) | about 7 months ago | (#46550607)

Creationists are wrong. End of. Just like the church was wrong about the earth being at the centre or the solar system. If creationists want to believe everything was created they must change their way of thinking about it. I don't believe in a deity but if there IS a God perhaps it created the universe?

Re:Creationists are wrong. (-1, Offtopic)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 7 months ago | (#46550657)

Yeah, Creationists get your ass to the back of the bus with the AGW deniers.

Well the church did have a reason not to believe G (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about 7 months ago | (#46550769)

Since the big proof that Galileo had that the Earth moved was his theory of the tides. Unfortunately it predicts there's one tide a day, it's at the same time every day, and it's the same height.(IE It gets pretty much every observable fact about tides wrong.)

Being True to the Original (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550613)

Carl Sagan stated in the Original Cosmos in no uncertain terms that evolution was a fact, and not a theory.

Neil deGrasse Tyson seems to be staying true to the original and expanding on it a bit.

Two Minutes Hate (3, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 7 months ago | (#46550617)

Yaknow, I used to think the Two Minutes Hate from Orwell's 1984 was the least realistic, most suspension-of-disbelief breaking part of the book. It just didn't make any sense and the idea of people getting up in front of others to show how much they hated Big Brother's enemies was just ridiculous. But now that I'm older, hell...what else is this story other than despising those who think differently than we do? We write something to show how much we support the prevailing point of view and then move on with the rest of our day. And keep an eye out for that bastard Emmanuel Goldstein, you never know where his agents are.

Re:Two Minutes Hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550787)

You cannot equate science to war propaganda.

Re:Two Minutes Hate (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 7 months ago | (#46550933)

You can equate creationism to war propaganda.

That's probably what it's really for. It's something to stir up the faithful and give them something fear. Otherwise they might assimilate or just wander off to another church.

The way evangelicals treat evolution always reminded me of 1984.

Re:Two Minutes Hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550901)

And keep an eye out for that bastard Emmanuel Goldstein, you never know where his agents are.

His name is Edward Snowden.

Re:Two Minutes Hate (5, Insightful)

Lairdykinsmcgee (2500904) | about 7 months ago | (#46550913)

It's not hate, it's recoil. Time and time again, Creationism seeks to undermine legitimate scientific thought in order to shout its psychobabble at us and expect us to call it 'legitimate science.' Those who recoil aren't doing it out of hate or disgust, but well-founded fear-- the fear of what will happen when religious ignorance dresses up as science for Halloween and people actually take it seriously. It's not just ignorant though; it's irresponsible, because it affects public policy. Texas representative Joe Barton SERIOUSLY said that the 'great flood' from the Bible was evidence of climate change not being influenced by human activity. These are the ideas that are truly terrifying because they poison people's minds and any responsible scientific mind would do everything it could to assist in debunking these ridiculous ideas. Again-- not hate, recoil-- recoil out of fear on behalf of the whole of society.

Sorry, this is Fox (2, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46550627)

You got the wrong network, for made up stories you'd have to turn to Fox News.

Re:Sorry, this is Fox (-1, Flamebait)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 7 months ago | (#46550695)

Amusingly, Fox News was a great place to see the intolerant side of science.
"The Independents" did a good little piece on climate change.
A climate "scientist" not only refused to debate, but refused to be on the set with an AGW "denier" and chastised them for even having his fellow dissenting scientist on the show to express his views. How dare they give him equal time when "97% of all scientists agree"! Blasphemers!

Combined with Bill Nye's hostile attitude to every question, it did not make a good showing for science.
It looked a lot more like Catholics vs Protestants brought to the 21st century.

Re:Sorry, this is Fox (0)

Noxal (816780) | about 7 months ago | (#46550703)

Fuck you.

Re:Sorry, this is Fox (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 7 months ago | (#46550803)

Brilliant retort.

Re:Sorry, this is Fox (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550829)

Providing equal airtime leads to people thinking that each side has equal weight and so that the real answer is a compromise between the two extremes, a form of false compromise[1]. This leads to thinning in effect that the anti science side is mostly right, if they play their rhetorical cards right. This is a problem even with non partisan moderation but for fox news.... will the climate scientist get anything like even treatment? Why should a climate scientist support an interview that will, at best, undermine him and portray an "armchair expert" as his equal by its very nature?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

Re:Sorry, this is Fox (5, Insightful)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 7 months ago | (#46550961)

Yes, science is intolerant of stupidity. It has to be or it wouldn't work.

Science requires critical thinking, learning, knowledge (not to be confused with belief, a frequent problem among religious and stupid people). It is based on reason and facts in the form of data. It recognizes the limitations of that data and seeks to improve it through more study, research, and experiment and will quickly throw away old ideas when they are shown to be wrong.

Yes, it is discriminatory. Yes, it is intolerant. These are both characteristics of disciplined intellectual effort and minds. These characteristics have led to all the technological advances that the human race currently enjoys, and many of the miseries (including AGW).

Ancient Aliens (1)

Mad Bad Rabbit (539142) | about 7 months ago | (#46550725)

Oh sorry, is that the wrong kind of creationism?

Fine. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550635)

The quickest way to discredit a moron is to hand him a microphone.

Re:Fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550965)

And yet FOX "News" is still in business.

AGW activists vs. Creationist (0)

oldhack (1037484) | about 7 months ago | (#46550647)

What's the difference? Creationists don't demand government handout.

Re:AGW activists vs. Creationist (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 7 months ago | (#46550715)

The Creation Museum is government subsidised. Not because it's creationist, though. It's classified as a tourist attraction - the state grants them special treatment on the grounds that they bring in tourists that then benefit other businesses.

Free points! (0)

CajunArson (465943) | about 7 months ago | (#46550653)

Free hypocrisy points to all the posters who bash these guys but would gladly sign up for the Obama brown-shirt core to enforce "fairness" and "equality" on Fox new or to censor Rush Limbaugh but now feel that their pigs are far more "equal" than those other pigs they disagree with.

P.S. --> Since I'm not a hypocrite, I don't think these creationists deserve "equal time" any more than I think whack-job Global Warming religionists who want to put so-called "deniers" or even people who think Global Warming is real but isn't apocalyptic in concentration camps should be given "equal time".
Oh, no, I'm not exaggerating either: https://theconversation.com/is... [theconversation.com]

Re:Free points! (0)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 months ago | (#46550683)

Do you really think everyone matches one of two camps?

FYI: Atheist and Libertarian-Republican-Conservative leaning. (I don't subscribe to any party, I THINK for myself and judge individually) and no, Obama-care is hurting everyone except welfare people... which I believe I may need before long as things go on as they are.

Re:Free points! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550763)

Obamacare doesn't hurt me at all and I'm far from on welfare. Hell, it makes it easier for me to start a business if I ever get tired of my day job. Providing insurance to employees is no longer a cost borne only by employers with a conscience. Obamacare leveled the playing field there.

Everything *credible* is on the table (5, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 7 months ago | (#46550663)

Religion, magic, witchcraft, and other hocus pocus have no part in science.

Re:Everything *credible* is on the table (-1, Troll)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46550783)

Indeed, science is its own religion, magic, all manner of hocus pocus and witchcraft all rolled up into one.

Re:Everything *credible* is on the table (2)

w1mp (210200) | about 7 months ago | (#46550847)

Ancient weapons and hokey religions are no match for a trusty blaster at your side, kid.

I demand equal time in your churches! (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 months ago | (#46550671)

I want to get up in front of people and tell them the truth. And I want to do it in your churches. And I want a cut of the money you collect as well.

Sound okay?

Church (1, Insightful)

Kenshin (43036) | about 7 months ago | (#46550673)

If they wanna be fair, then Cosmos should be given equal time in their church.

Why is this even a story ? (-1, Offtopic)

stoopendous (3588307) | about 7 months ago | (#46550689)

"Random idiot wants to be on television" This is not "News" nor is it "Stuff that matters"
Sorry - but i am tired of everyone (including Slashdot) wanting to tell the 'other side'
Cosmos is a wonderful show in it's own right, not in contrast to those bozos.

Not everything is up for discussion (4, Insightful)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 7 months ago | (#46550693)

Believing that something is not possible is not good enough grounds to warrant inclusion in anything. There are reasons why some things are not discussed on shows about science, and that is because they are either irrelevant to the subject at hand or proven to be untrue. I don't know where this idea of every point of view being equal has arisen from, but it's fucking terrible in its ignorance. The whole reason every moron and his puppet made of hair and excrement wants their claims discussed as an equal to scientific claims is because of science's epistemic integrity. If their ideas had epistemic integrity of their own, they wouldn't care about science as an authority.

Re:Not everything is up for discussion (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 7 months ago | (#46550833)

I don't know where this idea of every point of view being equal has arisen from, but it's fucking terrible in its ignorance.

In another setting, it manifests itself in the Fairness Doctrine, which some political entities try to use to take Rush Limbaugh off the air. The idea is that the airspace is a public resource to be used for the public 'good,' all ideas should be explored, "I will defend to my death your right to say so" (followed by more picketing in safe, first world countries), etc. etc.

Re:Not everything is up for discussion (5, Interesting)

oscrivellodds (1124383) | about 7 months ago | (#46550869)

Some time in the last 40 years things changed in the US. When I was in high school in the mid 70s, if you were a dope they told you so, often in front of the rest of the class. Tests were handed out in order from highest to lowest scores so everyone knew who did best and worst. Back then it was understood that some people will never be smart and it was OK because the world needs ditch diggers, too. Kids were often flunked and held back in school when they didn't master the basics. Somewhere in that 40 year period people decided that that was a bad practice. Belief was raised to equal importance with knowledge, or I should say the meaning of knowledge was lost and confused with the meaning of belief, at least among school administrators. Now everyone's opinions have to be respected, even when they are obviously wrong. All critical thinking is gone because it is "discriminatory", as if discriminating between good ideas and bad ideas is a bad thing.

I find it an interesting coincidence that right wing politics and religion have partnered during the same period. A lack of critical thinking is exactly what those groups need most to maintain control of the people who follow them.

Nice try (5, Informative)

liamoohay (765499) | about 7 months ago | (#46550699)

"No, consideration of special creation is definitely not open for discussion, it would seem."

Nice try, except scientists have considered creationism. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould has written screeds analyzing creationism scientifically. The issue isn't a lack of consideration, but rather that such scientists have thoroughly refuted creationism. I actually wouldn't mind a series scientifically analyzing creationism in principle, perhaps along the lines of some of Gould's work, but I somehow doubt that such a public flaying would satisfy the good folks at AiG.

Re:Nice try (2)

eyepeepackets (33477) | about 7 months ago | (#46550831)

Scientifically analyzing creationism wouldn't effect believers who insist their faith in their belief trumps any and all reason: You simply cannot reason with believers who have turned off reason because it is a threat to their beliefs.

It's a tautology: I believe what I believe because I believe it. I have faith in what I have faith in because I have faith in it. There is no reasoning when reason itself is rejected.

"And the movie about Noah" (3, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 7 months ago | (#46550711)

Noah?

This Noah?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt19... [imdb.com]

With Russell Crowe, Emma Watson, visual effects galore and explosions - that Noah?

Yeah it may have some connections to the story of Noah, but then '300' had some connections to the actual story of the Battle of Thermopylae.. I don't think either should be taken too particularly seriously as exemplary of the source material.

Re:"And the movie about Noah" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550815)

I don't think either should be taken too particularly seriously as exemplary of the source material.

Funny, I feel the same way about creationists.

Re:"And the movie about Noah" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550969)

the bible may have some connections to reality, but i don't think it should be taken too particularly seriously as exemplary of the source material.

It's hard to get equal time considering (5, Funny)

Zaphod-AVA (471116) | about 7 months ago | (#46550717)

It's hard to get equal time considering the material.

"And now we will take some time to discussing the evidence that supports the theory of creation.

(long uncomfortable pause)

Well, that's done. Back to science!"

Creationists Demand Equal Airtime With 'Cosmos' (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550731)

He should allow other scientists to present the other half of the data he consistently omits. Until then, he's only a deceiver looking to make converts to his personal religion: "And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf" (Exodus 32:24.) No one believed Aaron when he said that, and no one believes Tyson when he says the same thing about the "Cosmos."

The one thing creations don't have (1)

troll -1 (956834) | about 7 months ago | (#46550743)

How come these creations never have any equations to explain what they're talking about? This is science --> http://physics.info/equations/ [physics.info]

Re:The one thing creations don't have (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550963)

They have the bible, the word of God. Why would you take that of Hilbert or Ramanujan over that?

At any rate, Darwin's work is pretty much deductive and does not contain a lot of equations. Those were, more or less, retrofitted by looking at what happens in nature. And nature is God's creation, so why take its word when you can use God's word instead? Skip the middleman.

Of course, the "skip the middleman" approach looks a bit flaky, considering that the average believer needs middlemen to translate from Aramaic, Hebraic and/or Greek, and then ignores the translations actually rather thoroughly in order to let other middlemen tell him what this is supposed to be about.

Paul made a royal mess of the meaning of the teachings of Christ, the Old Testament and their relation, and the Church(es) made a further royal mess of Christianity as founded by Paul.

Bad Example(tm) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550753)

Using the Christians as ones that deny evolution is a huge mistake. The Christian Church (since 1996 by Pope John Paul II) have already accepted the concept of evolution.

Maybe the time doesn't evolute for them either?

Re:Bad Example(tm) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550851)

That's the Catholic Church. There is no single Christian Church. People didn't even use "christian" as an identifying term until about the 19th century, when they realized if all their various sects and denominations banded together, they would be the major influence in the U.S.

Go ride your 'magic' wagon at 100 kph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550761)

It should be mentioned on the show in the same breath as "People used to believe the sun went around the earth, and that some kind of supreme being created the universe", there, 5 seconds, really 5 more than it deserves.
Honestly, these people should not be allowed to use ANYTHING which came from science, no electricity, no 'magic' wagons which travel 100kph on the 'freeway'.

They can use the religious channels (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 7 months ago | (#46550775)

There are quite a few cable channels devoted to religion, at least on the cable provider we have here. Why don't they use those.
Maybe Roger Ailes can give them some time of Fox News as well.

It would seem.... (3, Funny)

Primate Pete (2773471) | about 7 months ago | (#46550781)

that the only reasonable explanation for the lack of equal time is that God doesn't want the creationists to have it. How could a just and righteous creator hang his PR department out to dry like this? One might make the mistake of thinking that it is all just bullshit and that we reasonable people won't gain anything by engaging with the creationists...

I was going to blame Bill Nye (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about 7 months ago | (#46550785)

You know, for giving them attention with that "debate" earlier this year. But let's be honest, they're going to do this shit no matter what.

Evidence Based Air Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550807)

I might sound like a science 1% but more evidence should equal more airtime.

My biggest problem with the Cosmos remake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550841)

It's boring. The special effects are pathetic and have little to do with science. How do you make physics, astronomy and biology boring in the the year 2014? It can only be explained by a creator that makes stupid people as well as smart people. And thanks for taking us back to the 80's with the journey through the blood stream. Definitely a series that will die young due to artificial selection.

Equal airtime from whom? (1)

FunkyLich (2533348) | about 7 months ago | (#46550845)

From a subspecies of H.Sapiens with a hig-sigma level of certainty to have difficulties in removing parentheses from an algebraic expression when there is a minus sign before the parenthesis? I do not think so.
Equal airtime from a subgrup of human society as a whole who are intelligent enough to use that same "equal" sign/notion between the words "trust" and "faith"? I don't think so.
Equal airtime from followers of a certain moral-set that basically boils down to a freedom for them to yell all day long near your ear while dismissing your freedom to not listen to them? I don't think so.
Have these degenerate life-forms read books such as "A Brief History of Time"? Or "The Particle at the End of the Universe"? Or "The Genome"? Can they understand what does the results of BICEP2 mean for human knowledge? I don't think so.

I don't mind them barking all day long. I only want them to do it within their own fucking playground. I for one do not give a single hair of my armpit to teach how the world works to people who willingly refuse to do it. Let them rot within the gooey mind-masturbation they chose to live. Just keep them off my own grass!

Flying spaghetti monster (1)

pr100 (653298) | about 7 months ago | (#46550859)

Equal airtime for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

http://www.venganza.org/ [venganza.org]

Wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550863)

Answers in Genesis is a serious website? I thought its just a troll or parody or something. People seriously believe this stuff??

Lets just stop (1)

morcego (260031) | about 7 months ago | (#46550875)

Lets just stop pretending these guys are worth listening to, and stop giving them an illusion of credibility, shall we?

Let them fade into obscurity and talk to their own flock. We don't give flatearthers this kind of attention. They are just making noise to promote themself. Like their site, which is featured prominently in this article (and which I'm sure a lot of people clicked on).

THIS is the kind of attention they want.

It's "Piss Off the Educated and Enlightened" Time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550915)

"I want this world not to have meaning because a meaningless world frees me to my own erotic and political pursuits." Aldous Huxley

"my own erotic (homosexuality) and political (statism, tyranny) pursuits"

A worldview in which all that exist are space, time, matter, energy and chance allows people to pursue their own perverted and tyrannical ways.

"Creation" (3, Funny)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about 7 months ago | (#46550921)

The dissenters should just commission their own series, perhaps called Creation.

It opens with a bright blue eyed boy of about 4 years old, sitting on his knees on the carpet, toy rocket in hand, talking to what is presumably his great-grandfather who is seated in a comfortable chair, sipping from a cup of tea in his right hand, a copy of the Holy Bible on one of the armrests. "Grampy," the boy asks, "where did the world and all the stars come from?"

The man puts his other hand on the bible. "Boy," he says, "the answer to that and all other questions is right in here!" He puts the cup of tea on a side table and picks up the bible, thumbing through it, then closing it and holding it up in front of the boy. "It's all here because God wanted it to be here. He said: Let there be light! And there was light. And the next 5 days He spent building everything you see, including us. And on the 7th day He rested."

The boy ponders over this for a second, then frowns. "But Grampy... then where did God come from?" The man's face turns into an angry scowl, he lifts up the bible high into the air as if to strike down the young man with it... then screams "Blasphemy! How dare you ask such questions! Off you go, get out of my eyes!"

This is all a bunch of horsecrap (2)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | about 7 months ago | (#46550927)

Creationists have all the air time and chance to express their views anyone could ever wish for. Equal time, what a bunch of crap.

As for the "our views aren't being considered", this is a SCIENCE SHOW, it deals with scientific evidence. The day creationists can show ANY EVIDENCE that the Earth is young, that life forms didn't progressively evolve from simpler to more complex, that there is no single unifying tree of life, etc then they can complain that they haven't gotten a proper scientific airing. Given that they have NOTHING, no contrary testable hypothesis, no evidence that stands up to any scrutiny, etc they've got no leg to stand on. Its too bad for them that their Flying Spaghetti Monster is not science, but it isn't our problem.

An opinion is like an asshole. Everybody has one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46550929)

An opinion is like an asshole. Everybody has one. That's why a mere opinion is not worth putting on TV, unless you can make a coherent argument for your opinion. Just "I disagree" is not enough. Just "I believe differently" isn't enough either. "Accepted scientific truths" are accepted because someone did the work and found evidence in support of these theories and no evidence disproving them. If you've done the work and found evidence (not "but the Bible says it was so and so), then write a paper about it, get it published and it will go on TV by way of becoming "accepted scientific truth".

it IS all on the table (1)

sribe (304414) | about 7 months ago | (#46550945)

Creationism was discussed extensively by scientists, 100 years ago. I guess he missed those debates, and their conclusion.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?