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

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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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: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???