In a report from the Huffington Post, dated 3/22/2014, it is reported that Creationists are demanding equal time on the Fox series "Cosmos", hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Though some philosophers of science regard Creation Science and Intelligent Design theory as legitimate science, but that it is bad science, what makes these Creationists really think their faith-based ideas and theories of a universe and life created by an intelligent designer can compete in the world of good science, wherein ideas are tested through observation and experimentation, where the ideas that fail are tossed, and the ideas that pass are accepted by science as fact, and where theories are amended when new and better evidence is presented ? Something that is lacking in Creationism, which refuses to change with the presentation of new information. They simply find a dishonest way of forcing new ideas to fit with the foundation of Creation Science (viz., the Bible). What are all of your all's thoughts on the matter ?

Tags: Cosmos, Creation, Science

Views: 477

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How about giving us a link to the Huffpost article?

If ID proponents had something that could pass scientific muster, it'd be one thing.  Put bluntly, They DON'T.  They just want their bullshit beliefs to go on the same stage with hard knowledge which has been examined, tested, analyzed, corroborated, and gone through the gauntlet of peer review.  There isn't so much as one facet of creationism which could survive such a process, because if it could have, outfits like the Discovery Institute would have done so already and would be crowing about it all day long.

If the blowhards who want to claim they're being dissed by Cosmos want to share the limelight, they can EARN that right.

Even when I listened to the argument during the trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover, I could not follow Intelligent Design lawyers' and scientists' reasoning. It was like hearing the words, but not making sense. 

When I was a kid, my dad was a builder and I liked going to the projects with him. When setting out a foundation he told me to put the markers in so he could build it. He told me to sight in on a cloud, and that would give me the position for the first footing. I don't know how many years I believed him. One day I figured out it was joke. I wonder how long before Intelligent Design scientists figure that out. 

Or, is there more to their belief than I can fathom? I listen to that fellow who helped Hitchens with his DNA and he doesn't make sense to me either. There is something I am missing, or he has delusions. 

Sorry, I am having trouble with words and names these days. Hard to write with that handicap. 

In the Dover decision, judge Jones characterized the argument of the ID defense as "breathtaking inanity."

Here are a few more of Judge John E. Jones III's statements as recorded in the news:

“Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: December 21, 2005

HARRISBURG, Pa., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

“Kalim A. Bhatti for The New York Times

“A Town in the Spotlight Wants Out of It (December 21, 2005)

"Evolution Trial in Hands of Willing Judge (December 18, 2005)

"In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.

“Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Here's an idea. If they want equal time on a program they didn't fund, create, or participate in, then there should be equal time for evolution on "The Old Time Gospel Hour," Robert Schuller's "Hour of Power," Joel Osteen's TV show, that of Jack Van Impe, and the broadcast of every bouffant haired, money grubbing, televangelist. Don't hold your breath.

PERFECT! Yes, exactly, and there are so many good people to be included in their programming. I've never seen any of these shows, and am sure dozens of freethinkers would be happy to tell a story of nature that is so far more exciting, full of wonder, intriguing, suspenseful as they have. Oh, would that not be fun! Except ... I don't want to watch any of their shows, even if they have some good secularists on. 

"The Old Time Gospel Hour," Robert Schuller's "Hour of Power," Joel Osteen's TV show, Jack Van Impe". Pat, you are a real strategist!

Jack Van Impe can be perversely fun to watch just for the entertainment value of him and his co-host wife, Roxella.  I admit that I find him and his show mesmerizing.  I can't imagine the mindset of the people who actually believe the audacious shit he spews. 

FA, Rexella's hot! Well, in a mindless, vacuous, parasitic, Stepford wife, sort of way.

If "crazy" has a certain look, Jack and Roxella display it beautifully.  There's something in the eyes of both of them that is both creepy and hypnotizing.

 

I just watched a minute or two of Jack Van Impe and Roxella. She does a great imitation of that woman that Loren likes so much ... You know, the wax-faced woman with an ultra feminine voice. 

I couldn't watch past Roxella's introduction!

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service