Slashdot Mirror


Creationists Demand Equal Airtime With 'Cosmos'

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.""

3 of 667 comments (clear)

  1. Nice try by liamoohay · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

  2. Re:Demand all you want by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Informative

    (The Soviets saw Star Wars as a complete joke.)

    Not true. Gorbachev was scared shitless over SDI, and it was really the only big sticking point in negotiations that could have reduced nuclear weapon stockpiles far more drastically in the 1980s than what actually happened. The Soviets responded to the threat of SDI by ramping up production of ICBMs and nuclear warheads, on the theory that it would be cheaper to overwhelm SDI with ridiculous numbers of targets than to try to devise a technological countermeasure or to produce an SDI of their own.

    For reference, I highly recommend this book.

  3. Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the bible slavery, polygamy, genocide are all fine.

    I get that you might have some difficulty accepting that its not to be taken literally, its a common disorder among techies, we have a difficult time accepting that not everything means exactly what it says sometimes since we tend to work in technical absolutes as much as possible ... but if you are so utterly stupid that you think it 'approves' of those things then I realize I'm wrong, you're not that stupid, you're that ignorant.

    Let's just take a look at mass murder. I'm sure you remember the story about the walls of Jericho, right?

    Then the Lord said to Joshua, "See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.["] ... Joshua commanded the army, "Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted* to the Lord ... so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys... Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord's house... So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.

    Maybe that doesn't fit the exact description of genocide, but it is GOD commanding mass murder.

    This is my favorite sentence from that chapter:

    All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord and must go into his treasury.

    See, the Creator of the Universe needs some cold hard cash, similar to today. You'd think he'd be even better than the fed at printing money being the all powerful ruler of everything, but alas, no.

    Regarding the actual definition of genocide, this is him saying to commit genocide:

    For the day has come to destroy all the Philistines and to remove all survivors who could help Tyre and Sidon.

    Show me where, in anything that I just posted, that it says not to take it literally, because it looks literal to me. Or do you mean that your pastor told you not to take it literally?

    The bible as a work of literature has its exemplary moments, and I would encourage everyone to read it, from start to finish. But as a book on morality it is severely lacking in that you can never tell what to take literally, and what to not take literally. I guess use your own judgement? Well, you don't need the bible to do that.

    *The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.