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."

Comments

Cosmos?

[suso]

So is this supposed to be as good as Cosmos was? Maybe then I'd turn my satelite back on.

Re:Cosmos?

[sgant]

really, the description of this series sounds like it was lifted straight off of the Cosmos description.

But I'll certainly tune in! Sounds great.

Re:Cosmos?

[Sponge Bath]

sounds like it was lifted straight off of the Cosmos description

Maybe they will have an introduction by an anamatronic Carl Sagan.
Don't groan, both meat sack Sagan and robo Sagan are made of 'star stuff'.

Re:Cosmos?

[Eloquence]

Sagan's work was not only scientific, it was also political. I see no evidence that this is the case for this new production. In Cosmos, Sagan fought for the protection of the environment, criticized religious fundamentalism and pseudoscience, and warned of the dangers of nuclear war. If we had someone like Sagan today in the field of science, they would point to the huge domestic problems in the United States (poverty, largest prison population in the world, loss of civil rights, abuse of teenagers in "correctional facilities", sexual hysteria ..) as well as the world political situation and ways to build a peaceful society through cooperation and the teaching of secular values.

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.

Re:Cosmos?

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

The Ship of the Imagination is now boarding for destination "My chances of ever getting laid"!

Re:Cosmos?

[cosmol]

In Cosmos, Sagan fought for the protection of the environment,

I must have missed that part. Can you refer me to the relevent episode?

criticized religious fundamentalism and pseudoscience,

That doesn't sound political to me, as those mindsets are the antithesis of pure science

and warned of the dangers of nuclear war

Sagan did have this on his agenda, though it was usually only implied in passing remarks. Still it doesn't seem very political.

Mixing science and politics is dangerous. Science should remain agnostic to the prevailing political climate, or it risks being subject to that ever-changing climate.

Re:Cosmos?

[Pig Hogger]

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.

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???

Re:Cosmos?

[Pig Hogger]

Ouch. This must be the Slashdot equivalent of going about with a KICK ME tee-shirt...

The former Soviet Union was, and China is, atheist. They are also textbook examples of authoritarian regimes. I don't see the correlation.

Okay. Read slowly then.

How about a correlation of my own? Are you familiar with the term "bread and circuses"? The Roman Empire propped up corrupt regime after insane emperor by providing the populace with the finest in debauchery and cruel diversions. They also, in a proto-socialist manner, made sure that the roman citizens (tough luck on the conquered) were provided for.

Thanks for your correlation which only strengthened my own. Bread and circuses are provided by the MPAA, the RIAA and the US TV networks. The MPAA is quite apt at providing the american public with the finest (okay, maybe not in debauchery) cruel diversions...

This is the exact sort of "empire" the left wants to build in America.

Well, so far, it's the right who has been doing exectly that (though luck on the conquered)... And the empire-building has been going on nicely with globalization, where other countries are forced to adopt U.S. ways...

Your way makes no sense unless a hereditary regime is in power.

Okay, I'll be really easy on this one: Name the son of a U.S. president who became himself president of the USA less than 40 years after his father was kicked-out of the presidency.

Now, can you spell D_Y_N_A_S_T_Y ????

(And it rhymes nicely with nasty, too)...

Re:Cosmos?

[lombre]

According to Websters: Fundamentalism - A system of beliefs based on the interpretation of every word in the Bible, both old and new testaments, as literal truth.

This is not practiced by the catholic church.

Your definition of creationism being something like "God created / is the cause of the universe etc." is not in conflict with science.

Fundamentalists believe that everything was created exactly (not figuratively) as it says in Genesis. If you believe in the Big Bang or that the Earth is more than 5000 years old etc. then you are not a fundamentalist.

Re:Cosmos?

[Eloquence]

I must have missed that part. Can you refer me to the relevent episode?

The relevant episode is XI: The Persistence Of Memory, where he describes whale behavior, and explains the threat to whales posed by humans, not least simply because of the noises our motor ships make, which disturb the whale communication network. He correctly points out that we barely have a solid understanding about life on Earth, which is still as true as it was then.

Re:Cosmos?

[ArsSineArtificio]

Okay, I'll be really easy on this one: Name the son of a U.S. president who became himself president of the USA less than 40 years after his father was kicked-out of the presidency.

*pushes buzzer* John Quincy Adams!

Do I win a tin foil hat too?

Should be a good night of television

[Rude Turnip]

"...structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself..."

My ultra religious in-laws visiting me this week are in for a little torture tonight :)

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Black Parrot]

> It's not just the "ultra religious" who have concerns about the feasibility of macroevolution resulting in the world as we know it. Take a look at Darwin on Trial or Darwin's Black Box, both written by credible scientists, not religious fanatics.

FYI, Phillip E. Johnson is a retired law professor, not a credible scientist.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[smclean]

What you and the previous responses seem to ignore about the parent is the fact that he did not say anything about evolution at all.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[geomon]

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.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Waffle Iron]

Why do you assume that just because someone is religious they do not believe in evolution?

He probably knows his in-laws better than you do.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jejones]

Sigh. Creationists are like Uri Geller, thinking that if they rub Paley's Watch enough it will start ticking again. "Intelligent design" is just the latest variant.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Monkelectric]

The biggest proof that macro evolution is possible, is a research field I'm involved in called Genetic Programming. Using a system that is directly analagous to biological evolution, computers are directed to discover solutions to problems. Wanna know the SCARY thing? It works like crazy. Here's a quote:

"There are now 36 instances where genetic programming has automatically produced a result that is competitive with human performance, including 15 instances where genetic programming has created an entity that either infringes or duplicates the functionality of a previously patented 20th-century invention, 6 instances where genetic programming has done the same with respect to a 21st-centry invention, and 2 instances where genetic programming has created a patentable new invention.".

Now the computational power of these computers is faily meager. I think the largest cluster applied so far has been 1000 pentium 350's. The "computational" power of a population of species is massive. If quantum computers can be developed, and genetic programming algorithms can be written in such a way that takes advantadge of the properties of quantum machines, we *really* will be entering a new era in humanity (however there is no indication this is possible or not possible, I am just speculating)

Re:Should be a good night of television

[FlimFlamboyant]

Using a system that is directly analagous to biological evolution, computers are directed to discover solutions to problems. Wanna know the SCARY thing? It works like crazy. Here's a quote:

Where did the computers come from? Oops. Get back to me when a computer constructs itself from a chunk of silicon.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[aminorex]

Quite true. But a fair number of criticisms attack the falsification of evidence which is pandemic in the field. "Icons of Evolution" is quite an illuminating read. Fact is, both sides of the debate are full of ideologues more committed to their preconceptions than to the discovery of truth or the humility to admit that they don't know. Pseudoscience and
fallacy, sometimes outright intellectual dishonesty, although we generally make the charitable assumption of folly instead, pervade any highly charged controversy. Which conditions are no less true now that the religion of scientific materialism holds the social and academic high ground than they were before Nietzsche, Marx, Frank and Weishaupt, when corrupt churchmen held that strategic advantage.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Tablizer]

There is already one glaring flaw on the opening page:

(begin quote)

The theory of evolution depends upon three conditions.

1. Life Happens
2. Creative Mutations
3. Lots of Time

Let's look at each of these conditions, one at a time.

(end quote)

They left out recombinatorial DNA (sex). This is an important element of evolution. It allows more efficient "non-fatal" experiments than pure mutations would. It is especially helpful for more complex organisms.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Max Thrust]

I actually know Mr Johnson through his son...and I would say he falls into the 'religious fanatic' area.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Bingo Foo]

How does one reconcile the theory of macroevolution (species, over time, have evolved into more ordered organisms - humans - from less ordered organisms - one-celled animals) with the second law of thermodynamics (the natural tendency over time of any closed system is to enter into a *less* ordered state)?

The Earth is not a closed system. We are part of a driven out-of equilibrium system, with the sun's energy hitting our planet in a directed way and re-radiating in an isotropic way. Out of equilibrium process can create local regions of increasing order at the expense of dumping their entropy elsewhere.

Forget evolution for a minute and ask how anything grows at all. From a thermodynamic perspective, how does an acorn+soil+water+air become an oak tree? Can it be possible without appealing to the supernatural? Yes. The sun's energy comes in, and performs useful work, some energy becomes chemically stored through combinations of water and carbon dioxide in cellulose and carbohydrates plus oxygen, before the rest of the energy is re-radiated as mostly infrared back out to the environment. Overall this process increases the entropy of the universe (even though locally the oak tree becomes more ordered than soil+water+air), but most of that entropy is radiated away from the earth.

This is a coarse-level thermodynamic description, not a biological description, but your question was on the thermodynamic possibility. You'll notice that none of what I said here directly addresses where the genetic information and enzymes, etc. in the acorn came from, but it should show you an example where natural physical dynamics produce local order in an out-of equilibrium system. This can, in principle, be used to support the theory of evolution.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jhwang]

This is an old canard; there is no conflict between the 2nd law and evolution. As you stated, entropy increases in a CLOSED system. The earth is not closed as energy is constantly streaming into it from an external source--the Sun.

Think about development. When a single-celled embryo differentiates into an adult multicellular creature--does this contradict the 2nd law? I suppose you might say something about the developmental program requiring the information in the DNA...

OK, a better example is quoted here: "Order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptio ns .html#thermo

And of course, talkorigins has plenty of other good links on this topic:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Arguing that because something is complex it must have been created by "intelligent being" (i.e. God) is not an acceptable scientific argument and would disqualify him in "pursuite of knowledge using accepted scientific principle". It is like saying "because I don't understand how rain forms, it must be God's tears" - no difference in fundamental logic. Just pointing out weanknesses in evolution won't do it either because its strength so overwhelming (how it fits with almost every scientific field from Astronomy to Geology to Zoology) that minor discrepancies (if you could even call it that), does nothing to devalue it. That my friend is how science works - truth prevails (after many years of trials and tribulations and proofs). Not by some wackos who submit conjectures (unproven) and call it a theory (proven).

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Big Bang theory predicted 3' Kelvin background cosmic radiation. And what do you know, when they measured background radiation of the universe, it turned out to be 3' Kelvin. That, my ignorant friend, is how a conjecture becomes a theory and how science works. Just because you call it a theory, does not make it a theory. In science, theory is something that is proven by the facts. Come back to me Intelligent Design predict something and it is proven to be true.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Rude Turnip]

I just missed like the first half of the show reading these posts...thanks a lot you bastards :)

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Jonathan]

Are you suggesting that the Theory of Evolution is more solid than electronics?

Yes. Some electronic devices work, some don't -- but no matter what antibiotic you want to use, bacteria will evolve resistance. This isn't a matter of faith. Perhaps evolution was only a theory in Darwin's day, but you can sequence bacteria from a culture before exposure to antibiotics and after and you'll see genetic change -- that's evolution. Evolution's an experimental science now.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[superyooser]

Anybody who purports to explain the "structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself" is definitely ultra-religious in my book.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jcr]

Equating "religion" and "faith" doesn't take away from what faith is. It's the conviction of the preponderance of evidence.

Um, NO.

Faith is belief despite the absence of evidence, or even against available evidence.

-jcr

Re:Should be a good night of television

[daniel_newton]

OK, a better example is quoted here: "Order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system."

That order is not "real" information.

The difference between dna and a snowflake is like the difference between "abcabcabcabcabc" and "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog".

Re:Should be a good night of television

[RedCard]

I like genetic programming. I like the whole concept of genetic algorithms (GA). However, I think you are stretching things a little when you say they can be used to prove macroevolution. The fact that GAs provide a different way of tackling problems does not imply that this is the same way that nature tackles problems. GAs can be 'scary' until you understand them. Once you realize that any 'odd' results coming from them are necessarilly encoded in the solution space which you've provided, they get a lot less spooky.

We computer people tend to be myopic. I used to think that GAs provided a good analogy to biological evolution processes, too, but I now believe that there is a heck of a lot more going on in nature than GAs - and more than can ever be accounted for by GAs alone. There are deeper biological layers of complexity and processes at work here.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Dirtside]

So the universe has (for billions of years) been increasing in overall entropy... The universe was at a less entropic state when it was "created" then it is now?

That sounds like creation to me :)

Maybe this is why creationists get so little love -- the extreme tendency toward random non sequiturs. :)

Nothing I (or the great-grandparent poster) said has anything to do with why the universe began. Assuming it's even meaningful to utter the phrase "when the universe began," then yes, when the universe began, entropy was lower than it is now. Whether the universe was created by some intelligent entity, or simply sprang into being for no reason whatsoever, or was born out of an egg lain by an enormous turtle, who knows? That's not what we're discussing, and whether or not evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics (it doesn't) has nothing to do with it!

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Quelain]

Here's one reason not to believe it:

How did this nice valley we live in come to exist?
Religion: the gods carved it at the beginning of time.
Science: erosion.

What's that bright warm thing up in the sky?
Religion: that's the sun god!
Science: it's a star, like any other.

Where did all these animals come from?
Religion: one day, *poof*, there they were, and there's this cool story about a magic boat too...
Science: 3.5 billion years of evolution.

What caused the big bang?
Religion: Oh that's easy, our god did it.
Science: We dunno yet.

Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

3...2...1...Aaaand...

[spin2cool]

Cue rabid fundamentalists... NOW!

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[tool462]

The earth IS 6000 years old. It has just been 6000 for a few billion years now. Just like my grandma has been 25 for the past 50 years. ;-)

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[bourne_id]

I have had the misfortune to now live and teach in two states that have a really conservative attitude towards presenting theories such as the big bang and evolution (Don't!). Why is it that these ultra-fundamentalists (to borrow your phrase) can't at least acknowledge that what scientists observe what seem to be universal physical laws, and then draw their conclusions from observations using those laws? That is how geologists come up with the age of the Earth, and astrophysicists come up with the age of the universe.

Frustrated,

JMD

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Txiasaeia]

"Why is it that these ultra-fundamentalists (to borrow your phrase) can't at least acknowledge that what scientists observe what seem to be universal physical laws, and then draw their conclusions from observations using those laws?"

I'm sorry, did somebody observe a Big Bang while I wasn't looking? How can you observe "universal physical laws" and relate them to the Big Bang if the Big Bang was an extraordinary event (i.e. doesn't happen every millenia, or even every year)? Answer: you can't. The Big Bang is a "theory" that has not been observed in nature, so there's no way of telling whether it actually happened or not. Yes, you can conjecture this and that and look at various gases and the like, but there's no hard proof that it happened.

What gets *my* goat is that people call the Big Bang a theory, but get mad when people say that it's only a theory. Huh? The Big Bang requires just as much faith as does the existence of God.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Pickas]

Proper scientific theories provide a possible answer based upon observable phenomema, make predictions about possible future observations and provide tests that can confirm said theory.

The only explanation that ID provides is that something causes whole species to pop into existance - properly designed and fit for purpose of course.

We have changed whole regions of landmass to make them unfit for their original biological inhabitant - why hasn't something come along and inundated our metropolis' with some form of city-dwelling orangotan?

When we have to avoid stepping in urbanite monkey poo scientists will consider this a real contender.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Warlock48]

religious theory is a posteriori, whereas scientific theory is a priori
I didn't write that, and I don't think that's a correct summary of the definitions given. Try again!

Both sci and non-sci types of theories emerge from observation. But what makes sci theories valuable is that you can predict stuff from them.

red shift of 3K
Once again, you're collapsing two things. It may be a genuine error, but it shows a general way of being for those trying to push religious views on the world. Or I've not been precise enough and I apologize.

Let me rephrase it then: First there's observation of the red shift, from which a theory of the big bang can be invented, poof. Then this theory predicts that there should be an average temperature of 3K (-270C or -454F) across the universe. Then some space probe takes measures and comes with this result of 3K, which gives confidence that the theory works... But yes, it's still a theory, and maybe one day we'll find another one that works better.

Now, take a non-sci theory... Say a god created the universe as it appears now, and gave a push. That doesn't help in predicting the temperature, does it? So there's no actual value other than pushing the explanation one level higher, to something that's by definition impossible to prove or disprove.

Do you see the distinction? If yes, wouldn't you agree that marking the distinction by using different words would help everybody understand it and not make the same mistake again?

Cosmos redux?

[everklear]

Sounds like an update of "Cosmos", which is mentioned at the beginning of the article. I hope it is. That was one of my most cherished programs when I was a kid. I'd love to see this be carried out in the same spirit.

Make Carl proud.

Hayden Planetarium

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say I have low expectations for this since when I did go to the Hayden Planetaium at the NY Natural History Museum (it was featured in KPAX). The show sucked.

They have the huge star machine, and it was only used for like 5 minutes out of the hour long show. The rest was just LCD projectors projecting video on the dome. It was so dumbed down I think even public school students could understand.

When you have a kick ass setup and location like the Hayden you should really give awe-inspiring shows that have a modest amount of educational value for someone who has a post-secondary education. Not stupid stuff narrated by Harrison Ford.

All in all the Hayden sucked.

I hope this is good!

[Banner]

There hasn't been a good NOVA series on in a while, especially not on Cosmology. I have my hopes up for this one...

That's all very interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

...But will they solve the riddle of why two socks go into the dryer and only one comes out?

Things like this...

[nebaz]

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.

Re:Things like this...

[deglr6328]

I want to donate to my local PBS station so they can pay for showings of really good shows like the one descibed here, I really do. But when "pledge week" comes around what do I see on 24 hours a friggin day? Yes, that's right, Depak fucking Chopra and chorus line of other pseudoscientific wooly headed psychics, new agers and "inner peace" practitioners. All with the mantra of "well we get high viewership numbers when we show these things...". I'm sorry but until they get their head out of thier ass and realize that I watch PBS for the shows which are scientific, logical, rational and INTERESTING they will not be getting my money.

Re:Things like this...

[aggiefalcon01]

That's something I've been annoyed about for some time. Just how many variations on "a group of people invade your house and redecorate/reorganize!" or "a group of people make a car really cool" or "a group of people make a wacky machine".

That or, "A Makeover Story" followed by "A Dating Story" followed by "A Wedding Story" followed by "A Baby Story". For grins, I've often wanted to make "An Eating Story" to be followed by "A Taking-a-Big-Dump Story".

I'd love to watch programs detailing the power creation & management of the Mars Rovers (or the Voyagers, for that matter). Hell, NASA TV nowadays, half the time you turn it on and it's dumbed-down Jerry-Springer style crap.

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Space, the Infinite Universe

[Cyno01]

"It's a simple question, if the moon were made of ribs ... would ya eat it? ...I know I would."

"evolutionary foolishness"?

[apachetoolbox]

"Statements by Non-creationist Scientists -- Even they do not believe evolutionary foolishness"

riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!

Re:another point of view

[sonicattack]

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:

http://www.flat-earth.org/

www.timecube.com

Re:Balance

[Morpeth]

"does not get political and kowtow to the liberal viewpoint on things such as Big Bang"

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.

Re:Balance

[cosmol]

The only "liberal bias" in COSMOS is where Sagan repeatedly implies that it would be a bad thing if humans destroyed themselves in a nuclear war.

Scientific theories [should] have no relation to political alignments.

I recommend:

[eBayDoug]

Recording this show and watching it during each Presidential debate. You will become an astrophysicisist, and well the new President will be, ahhh....., well....., new.

Related Book

[nacturation]

I just finished reading Bill Bryson's A Brief History of Nearly Everything which covers just about the exact same topics. It starts out with the creation of the universe, and works itself forward in the timeline, covering formation of the planet, early life, cambrian explosion, etc. until it ends up with the advent of homo sapien. Not a bad read.

Re:HDTV?

[AceCaseOR]

It is. PBS has been broadcasting all it's big specials and programs in HD these days (National Geographic Specials, Nova, Nature, etc.).

Ha ha ha, you see, because

[Syncdata]

...all us religious types are uptight Dean Wermer lookalikes who shake our fists at this "science" and "methodology" you crazy kids talk about nowadays.

Read "Inherit the Wind". I'm a catholic, and I have no problem rectifying evolution and the big bang with creationism. Something had to set those events into motion neh? Could it not have been grand design?
Offtopic, I know, but I'll be tuning in, and I doubt I will suffer any theological distress over such scary topics as chemistry and astrophyics.

In the future, try to be as tolerant as you would undoubtedly have your in-laws be.

Re:only see half of it..

[Visceral Monkey]

You should be able to find in on torrent sites like suprnova.org within a few days.

spoiler: how the mini-series ends...

[donutz]

*********
spoiler warning! do not read below. If you do, you'll be disappointed that you already know how the show will end before you've even seen it. Well now that we're able to get past the lameness filter, here's the answer (scroll down...)
*********
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Answer: 42

Re:another point of view

[lpangelrob2]

All right, I'll bite.

What is the problem with alternative explanations for natural phenomena that we observe? The concrete evidence we have is what we can measure, from a strictly scientific point of view. Evolutionary theory puts the pieces together to determine our origin as starting from simple building blocks building up to complex ones, while creationary theory assumes we all started complex and explains the observations from there. People seem to get riled up over the assumption, but I haven't read that many arguments against the explanations (there are a few, I know.)

Looking at Darwin's case study... Not being a biologist, it is hard for me to determine the extent that evolution shapes the animal environment versus natural selection. If you started with a whole bunch of species, it's not too hard to imagine the best species adaptable to their environment sticking around and surviving. I know the evolution argument... that's what I grew up on.

Another hot topic is actually *questioning* carbon dating (gasp!)... what is the accuracy of carbon dating? Would what the site asserts (Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process) be true? I would really appreciate it if people on both sides got more to defending their sides than just saying "This isn't true."

Come on. There's real questions, observations, and theories out there. Stop trying to box the scientific questions that a study of creationism can pose into mere fables. And creationists should stop trying to say that evolution was completely invented either... but you can understand the resistance when that's all that's been taught for the last 40 years.

Will also be available on DVD (and VHS)

[anishi]

If you miss the show, you can still get it on DVD and VHS sometime around November 15th from here.

Re:another point of view

[orthogonal]

Increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting Darwinian macroevolution due to lack of evidence.

And two of them are biologists.

Real biologists other than the fabulously foolish punctuationalist (and Marxist character assassin of E.O. Wilson) Stephen Jay Gould don't distinguish "macroevolution" from "microevolution". The "Cambrian explosion" is a mere artifact caused because organisms existing before the Cambrian didn't have shells that readily fossilize.

The explanatory power of neo-Darwinism has the potential to finally give us power over our own lives, and predictably, Michael Behe and his ilk are still making the "Argument from Personal Incredulity": "I can't conceive how an eye ^W^W a partial rotor could be favored by natural selection, so, since I can't figure it out, there must be a God ^W^W an Intelligent Designer."

Two hundred years ago William Paley couldn't conceive of how such an instrument of perfection as an eye could be formed by the blind processes of natural selection -- and he had a decent excuse, he lived before Darwin; but today we have the Darwinian model and today we have credible computer model of precisely how an eye could evolve, and how even rudimentary and partial eyes can be advantageous to an organism. There's no longer a credible excuse to prefer superstition.

So the "Intelligent Design" crowd waves their hands and says, well, ignore those eyes, but what about free-spinning rotors powering bacterial flagella? What about them? A partial rotor able to rotate through only, say, 180 degrees is still advantageous to any bacterium that needs to move.

Three billion years of evolution gives plenty of time -- and plenty of trials that didn't work out so well, to explain the variety of life of earth.

If you need the security blanket of a God, well, enjoy it. But don't pretend your emotional needs are science.

Re:another point of view

[rodgerd]

What is the problem with alternative explanations for natural phenomena that we observe?

Because they're crap. This isn't a matter of taste, like whether you enjoy Green Day or the Dead Kennedys more. Or do you feel that our understanding of gravity is no more or less valid than the idea that we are kept on the ground by invisible mites who pull us in?

The scientific method allows us to conjecture, observe, test, and accept or reject based on how well our ideas pan out. Anyone willing to make the effort can do this. It works.

Not a whif of science to "scientific" creationism

[Hamster Lover]

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.

Re:"creation of the planets"?

[Steven.Brady]

Doesn't that imply a Creator?

Oh, you're talking about the formation of the planets!

Ahhh... but doesn't that imply a formationator of the planets?

Oh, you're talking about the congealment of the planets!

6,000 years source

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

James Ussher (1581-1656) Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, etc. established the first day of creation as Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. He did this through calculation of the many "begats"in the Bible as well as correlation with Middle Eastern history. His calculations were actually incorporated into an authorized version fo the Bible published in 1701. If you google his name be sure to spell it "Ussher".

Re:Too bad for them...

[Jormundgandr]

It's just a theory guys, like the other ones. Sure I think holographic theory and some of the others are cool too, but you need to watch out for all the "the establishment doesn't believe in my work" lines those guys throw out. Seriously, holographic theory made the cover of Scientific American last year. So don't go calling a popular theory with a lot of evidence behind it "misinformation". It may turn out to be wrong in the end, but the people putting it on aren't trying to mislead anyone.

Re:Balance

[jhwang]

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?

Re:What I find most interesting

[Tiny Elvis]

What I find interesting is that you can read the minds of these viewers to know that they 'accept it without any question whatsoever'..

Your three requirements preclude the big bang and evolution ONLY if interpreted in the most literal way possible.

Effects of the big bang and evolution CAN be observed. Theories related to big bang physics and biology/speciation/natural selection/whatever can be postulated and tested, and those tests can be repeated.

You might as well claim your great grandfather couldn't have existed:

1) You can't observe him!!
2) You can't test him!!
3) You can't repeat him!!

Furthermore, your objection based on the laws of thermodynamics is uninformed and has been answered countless times.

Re:What I find most interesting

[Timex]

1) You can't observe him!!
2) You can't test him!!
3) You can't repeat him!!

That's a red herring. It has nothing to do with the conversation.

My point is that there are people that accept the THEORIES of evolution and the Big Bang as "fact", when they cannot be repeated.

Repeating tests are nice, in that they show that the subject reacts the same way when a certain set of steps are done, but it doesn't prove anything by itself.

REPEATABLE means that one should be able to start at a point and do things to DUPLICATE what is being observed. Creating the universe from nothing, for example, has never been duplicated, and is therefore not repeatable. Nobody has ever created one species out of another.

Re:another point of view

[king-manic]

I have been through those arguement a lot. Knowing a lot of fundies from being in a baptist congregation. I'd have to say none of them have a single clue about science. The ones who argue for creationism here are more intelllegent but have no idea how ludicrous their arguments sound to 1- a statician 2- a biologist 3- logistician 4- geneticist. I am a little of each and it sounds liek utter BS even though I'm a baptists.

Creationist Resources

[intheory]

I am happy to see other creationists, open-minded agnostics, or at least cynics of Darwinian evolution posting at /.. I personally hadn't thought much about the importance (or validity) of a literal, Biblical Genesis until a group at church (a non-denom church in Georgia at that) started watching Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis videos recently.

Since then, I've done some other research (Darwin's Black Box, Tornado in a Junkyard, articles from the Christian Research Institute, and so on.

Before the tired tirade of "fundamentalist / Christian wacko / moron / anti-science" begins, it is important to note that Christians can be scientists too, and visa versa. It seems to me that more and more credible, scientific evidence has scraped and scratched its way to the surface that calls out many of the theories that the secular world has taken for granted regarding the origins of the world, life, and intelligence. Without arguing nitty-gritty details, it is interesting enough to look at the questions of biochemical processes, discrepencies in geological and fossil records, the fundamental flaws in carbon dating, and the political motivations of secularists

This is obviously a poor attempt at a thoughtful statement, but I just wanted to throw a couple things out. I would encourage anyone with similar questions about discrepencies in carbon dating, fossilization, speciation, etc... would at least consider the scientific rebuttals to Darwin and other secularists.

Re:Creationist Resources

[LPetrazickis]

It's important to note that Christians don't have to be Young Earth Creationists.

Also, why does carbon dating keep getting dragged out in these things? IIRC, it's only useful between 80000 and 8000 BCE. That's useful for anthropologists who track the spread of modern Homo sapiens around the world, but pretty much useless for actual palaeontologists.

Finally, please give Darwin a rest. Yes, he was the first to see the forest that is evolution instead of just peering at trees, but his theories are rather dated and puritanical. Go pick on Dawkins or Gould or whoever.

Just what does GWB believe in?

[mcmonkey]

P.S. When did GWB "impede medical advances?" Oh, I see - he refused to DIVERT TAX DOLLARS TO FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH! So that IMPEDES scientists, who apparently have NO OTHER WAY of obtaining funding! Trust me, if FETAL (as opposed to adult) stem cell research had much potential, the pharmaceutical firms would be pouring MILLIONS into it - because they'd get billions out later.

Alrighty then. What's your stand on the war in Iraq? Sure, Saddam was a bad guy...with all those WMDs...I mean, with all those ties to al Qaeda...I mean, he tried to hurt GWB's daddy!

Anyway, why divert tax dollars to take care of Saddam? If it's such a good idea, the private sector will just pick it up, right?

And what's with a department of homeland security and this tax money we're spending on intelligence? If there's really a terrorist threat, private security firms would be pouring MILLIONS into it.

And on the issue of EMBRYONIC stem cell research, GWB did not stop all federal funding. There is continuing funding for research with existing cell lines. If this is really such a dead end with no potential for practical applications, why continue funding? If an embryo really is a little person, why does GWB thing we should continue to experiment on them?

It's a bad idea to fund new cell lines, but a good idea to fund existing cell lines? Talk about a flip-flop. If GWB had been the first beat cop to Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment he would have stopped the killing, but let Dahmer finish eating the people already in the fridge.

Re:Please be aware

[bloggins02]

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.

Similar PBS Series Rebutted

[superyooser]

In 2001, PBS/Nova produced a seven-episode series called Evolution. It was thoroughly rebutted, but much of the same kind of atheist propaganda will be disseminated again through this latest re-education campaign of The People's Broadcasting System.

Re:Not Everything

[Bagels]

Kind of misleading... you've got that link set to show the lowest-rated reviews first. The dissappointed reviewers simply aren't in the book's target audience, from what I can tell.

An idea for how to theorize about origins...

[WilliamGeorge]

Either the universe exists, or it does not. If it does not, then everything you see and read (including this!) are simply figments of your imagination. If that is the case, there is not only no purpose to further discussion, but also no foundational basis on which to discuss. Therefore, we will assume, for the purposes of this writing, that the universe does in fact exist. You exist. I exist. This document exists (if only in digitized form). So, there are two possibilities: the universe (or some form of it) has always existed, or it was, at some point in time, created. If it was created, then its creator(s) either had always existed, or were in turn created by something (or someone) else. Again, either way, there would have to have been a being (person, mind, intelligence, etc.) that had "always existed". So we have those two choices: either a matter-and-energy mixture has always existed, and from it has sprung intelligent life (us humans at least, if you want to call us intelligent) or an intelligence (or group thereof) of some form has always existed and it created the universe.
So, the question now becomes: which of these two is more logical and/or more likely? Well, to answer that question we should think a little bit more about the properties of the two possible existants. The second, an intelligence of some form, is rather vauge: all that can really be known for sure is that it (I will use singular forms of pronouns from now on for convienence sake, though keep in mind that there is no limit as to the quantity or quality of creators, if it/they exist, or at least none has been established yet) would have a level of what we would call "mental" ability far beyond anything we can imagine. It is even possible that this "mental" power would be enough to create the universe, since this being would not neccessarily be bound by any physical laws (these are, after all, a part of the universe, and it is concievable - in fact, essential - that these would have been created too in this case).
The universe, however, is fairly well known to us. It contains a fixed amount of matter and energy. We can observe that it contains, at a minimum, thousands of galaxies each with billions upon billions of stars, many with the potential to house a planetary system. Our Solar System is one, with a myriad of planets and other orbiting debris, and with at least one planet which contains (intelligent?) life. We also know that the universe is governed by physical laws, like the law of gravity. These laws govern how the matter and energy work. There is even a law that covers how the matter can be converted to energy and vica-versa (I know, there is debate about Relativity Theory, but even if the law as we know it is incorrect then there is a correct one we simply have not discovered yet).

So, again, which is more logical and likely: a self-existant intelligence of incredible (infinite?) power, or a massive, complex, self-existant matter-energy universe with laws governing the actions that take place within it? That I am going to leave up to our wonderful /. discussion... at least for now :)

Re:What I find most interesting

[Dimensio]

That so many of those who accept evolution as true become so extremely irritated with those of us who do not. Why do you care whether we believe in evolution or creation?

I don't have a problem with you believing something bizarre and absurd. I have a problem with creationists who deliberately misrepresent and outright lie about the study of evolution to "refute" the theory. I have a problem with creationists who claim that evolution covers things like the origin of the universe and the ultimate origins of life when arguing against it. I have a problem with creationists who want to shove a religious agenda into a science classroom. I have a problem with creationists who want to construct a bizarre non-scientific explanation for the origin of the species and demanding that it be given equal time.

It's not the beliefs of creationists that bother me, it's their desire to foist their non-scientific beliefs into science classrooms and their patent dishonesty when attempting to support their agenda.

Now please, spare me the fallacious arguments regarding "belief". I'm not so stupid as to believe that "belief" that a chair will support my weight is the same as belief in a god. Please look up the equivocation fallacy.