Slashdot Mirror
Origins Mini-Series Airs Tonight
SeaDour writes "The much-anticipated NOVA mini-series Origins begins tonight on PBS (check local listings for time). Hosted by Neil de Grasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City, the ambitious show plans to journey all the way to the Big Bang and back again, "blending astrophysics, geology, chemistry, biology and even paleontology to knit together insights about the structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself." MSNBC has an interesting write-up on the show that's been four years in the making."
make me glad we still have Public Television. Sure, we have things like the Discovery Channel, but even that suite of networks has been taken over by ratings. I've noticed that the most recent documentaries are somewhat shallow, and sound bite driven. The Learning Channel used to be great, seems like all they have on now are wedding planner shows and interior decorating. What does that have to do with learning? I'm not claiming PBS is the greatest channel in the world, but at least they still value education.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
You mis-speak before you even finish your first sentence. The problem for people who cannot accept the process of theory, evidence, new theory is that their position has no foundation upon which to rest. The overwhelming body of evidence does not support their fringe theories. This bothers them to no end so they try to frame evolution as but one "point of view." It is not a point of view, it is a theory that is backed up by a huge body of evidence. Creationism is not an "equal" belief - it is a belief that has no concrete evidence behind it.
Probably a mindless troll, but I'll bite. WTF !?!? Science is science, period. It's only 'liberal' in the narrow mindset of people who think the earth is 4000 years old, and the fossil record is a trick by god to test someone's faith. It's called liberal because some people get so defensive when it points out the errors in their misguided, fantastical, untestable notions they cling to -- since the universe is too complex or scary to them.
The great thing about science is it doesn't have a preconceived notion to hold onto - if a theory is sound it holds up, if not, it is replaced or adjusted with further testing and observation by the originator or other scientists. Science itself does not have an agenda like an institution such as the vatican does.
Now, trying to teach 'creationism' in schools as anything but pure fiction, THAT'S political.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
The problem with apologetics is that they attack the same areas of uncertainty inherent in all of the natural sciences. But due to the fact that evolution speaks to the origin of man, it is the one held to the highest standard of consistency.
The field of physics is full of contradictions and surprises. Not many fundementalist organizations take issue with electronics, for instance, and how the theoretical foundations of the science make your computer work.
Most criticisms of evolution attack the scientific method without completely understanding it.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Sagan criticized the Cold War, and so he would criticize the misguided "war on terror" (which followed decades of propping up fundamentalist regimes to combat communism). The way to bring peace to the world is to lead by example, to educate, to promote free speech, to restrict the proliferation of all types of weapons, to reduce inequality, and to limit corporate meddling in other nations' affairs.
But of course science and politics are completely unreleated according to today's standards. I fear all we can hope for from this series is a watered down version of the science and none of the politics. With that attitude, is it any wonder that just three months ago, 48 Nobel Prize winners complained that "the Bush administration is undermining the nation's future by impeding medical advances, turning away scientific talent with its immigration practices and ignoring scientific consensus on global warming and other critical issues"? [source] Sadly, most scientists only bother to speak out when it is too late, if even then.
Croporations do not want educated populaces, as educated people are bound to be critical and will question endlessly public policies.
This is one reason why the USA is extremely religious, because organized ignorance is the best way of having docile populations that will not thwart the powerful people who dominate it for their own benefit. Kings have known for centuries that religion is the best way to prop-up authoritarian regimes who let a small elite rip-off the rest of the population.
As of peace, what better way than war to make people endure far more than they would consider accepting in times of peace???The bedrock of science is that an idea or hypothesis is falsifiable. That is, one does not assume the outcome in the phrasing of the question.
Scentific creationism violates this principle because the root of creationism is the belief in the inerrancy of the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Once the answer has been assumed, what is the point of the question?
Evolution did not develop this way, rather it was developed by many scientists who asked the basic question, "What is the origin of life?" The answer is not assumed, as in creationism.
At any time scientists may develop theories that question or even contradict evolution based on the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation and refinement or refutation of the original observation. We haven't found compelling evidence to do so, but there is nothing in science that says evolution is the end all be all. Science is self correcting in that any evidence along the chain of discovery that refutes the original observations will cause the process to begin again. This process is conspicously absent from scientific creationism, which seems wholy concerned with finding evidence to invalidate evolution and boolster creationism, however tenuous.
It is sad, really, that some people believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I think the problem stems from the belief that science has something to say about religion, and religion has something to say about science.
For example, evolution. There are still lots of unanswered problems with this theory. In a few years, there will likely be a few changes to this theory, as the data improves.
Yes, it's true that there are controversies within evolution and biology that need to be worked out, just as there are in, say, reconciling quantum physics with relativity. But these are advanced topics that teachers generally don't have time to get to in K-12 science classes.
Just b/c Newton didn't get everything right doesn't mean we don't teach the commonly accepted Theory of Gravity. (Those who are interested can learn more about relativity on their own.) And just b/c there are still unanswered questions in biology doesn't mean that schoolkids shouldn't learn the standard model of Darwinian evolution. After they've learned enough of the fundamentals, they can then start reading about advanced topics in biology and see what the thornier issues are.
At the K-12 level, there is NOTHING that should be controversial about the Modern Synthesis, which combined Darwinism and Mendelian genetics more than half a century ago. All evidence over the last 50 years from molecular biology, developmental biology, and paleontology has simply strengthened the Synthesis.
Why does biology need to meet a higher standard of evidence than other sciences?
I've always had aproblem with this viewpoint. You say: look at how complex life is! It couldn't have arisen by natural processes.
So you posit a God, Intelligent Designer, whatever, to be the entity that solves this little problem. It's perfectly simple you see, God did it (TM).
So now let me turn the question back on you: You mean there is a being intelligent and powerful enough to create all the life as we know it (and then some)? You can't escape the next question:
HOW THE HELL DID THIS BEING COME INTO EXISTENCE???
Ahhh, but you say: "God doesn't need a creator, he/she/it is a self-existent entity." Well that's all fine and dandy, but now you have two little problems:
1) This is an ad-hoc response. You have absolutely no supporting evidence to back up this claim. That's it, argument over.
2) The very reason you have given for the need for God's existence is the complexity of life, but then you go and posit an even MORE complex entity to create life, yet refuse to apply your same argument to it. This is iconsistent.
Face it: you believe in God because you WANT TO, not because the evidence compels you. That's fine, but at least admit it.