Pity the man who calls himself wise.
I thought this was supposed to be a science show, not a political show.”
If Tyson or Seth Macfarlen are involved then it should be assumed from the start that it would be political.
That is why I’ve not watched one second of this. I keep telling people that Tyson is not some great promoter of science. He is a internet creation that owes the fact that anyone cares who he is to the multitude of hipster leftists online that have turned him into some sort of science god like they did with Bill Nye.
I mean what has his great contribution to science been other than running a planetarium?
I wish Jack Horkheimer was still alive so he could have done the show. There is a guy that wouldn’t dare cheapen this subject to push a political agenda.
I saw the first episode and shut it off when he spoke “In jail, of course” when he brought up their out of context story of Bruno.
I predict this show will be nothing but an environmentalist and global warming propaganda piece.
What I like about human science is that it pisses Islam off. Christians don’t riot, blow themselves up or cut peoples heads off over evolution or whatever. The beauty of Christianity and the words of Christ is you have freedom of choice.
Consider this, to remove any ‘creator’ from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any ‘thought or intelligence’ from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.
…atheism isn't exempt from analysis or critique of its real world consequences. Atheism is a metaphysical stance -- there are no gods and no God, there is no intrinsic purpose to existence, there is no natural moral law, there is no accountability in an afterlife. Those are quite explicit and consequential assertions, just as the negation of those assertions -- that there is a God, that there is a purpose to existence... -- is an explicit and consequential assertion. Atheism lacks liturgy. It does not lack beliefs and consequences. It lacks belief in God; it does not lack belief in the intrinsic consequences of God's non-existence. As Nietzsche emphatically noted, if God is dead, everything changes.
- Michael Egnor
…that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.Why is this important? The US Constitution assumed all human rights were bestowed to us by our Creator through Natural Law . A Humanistic belief would assume rights and morality are bestowed to us by ‘mankind’ based on circumstance - morality is a man made, relative, and an illusion. A wise man once observed that while belief in God after the Holocaust may be difficult, belief in man after the Holocaust is impossible.
- Sir Arthur Balfour
Excerpt from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1844, p. 464:
As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflect intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the world-view of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoke critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. The common used expression “the book of nature” referred to the universal practice of viewing nature as a revelation of God’s power and wisdom. Christians were fond of saying that they accepted two divine revelations: the Bible and the book of nature. For desists like Thomas Paine, the book of nature alone sufficed, rendering what he called the “fables” of the Bible superfluous. The desire to demonstrate the glory of God, whether deist or – more commonly – Christian, constituted one of the principal motivations for scientific activity in the early republic, along with national pride, the hope for useful applications, and, of course, the joy of science itself.
If the next episode takes on “global warming deniers,” I’ll be two shows away from getting B-I-N-G-O.
“I myself do subscribe to the theory of evolution”
How much does the subscription cost?
Intense programs of breeding (and inbreeding) frequently increase the organism's susceptibility to disease, and often concentrate defective traits. Breeders working with English bulldogs have strived to produce dogs with large heads. They have succeeded. These bulldogs now have such enormous heads that puppies sometimes have to be delivered by Cesarean section. Newfoundlands and Great Danes are both bred for large size. They now have bodies too large for their hearts and can suddenly drop dead from cardiac arrest. Many Great Danes develop bone cancer, as well. Breeders have tried to maximize the sloping appearance of a German Shepherd's hind legs. As a result, many German Shepherds develop hip dysplasia, a crippling condition that makes it hard for them to walk. When breeders try to force a species beyond its limits, they often create more defects than desirable traits. These defects impose limits on the amount of change that breeders can ultimately produce.Darwin's theory states that the unguided force of natural selection is supposed to be able to do what the intelligent breeder can do. But even a process of careful, intentional selection encounters limits that neither time nor the efforts of human breeders can overcome. Consequently, critics argue that by the logic of Darwin's own analogy, the power of natural selection is also limited.
Darwin's theory requires that species exhibit a tremendous elasticity -- or capacity to change. Critics point out that this is not what the evidence from breeding experiments shows.
- Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism
Examples of beneficial human mutations in evolutionary literature :
1. Sickle Cell Anemia
2. Cystic Fibrosis
3. Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency
4. Tay-Sachs Disease
5. Autism
6. Rape
7. Murder
8. Stupidity
How would being condescending to creationists make it political? That's still a scientific subject.
My opinion?
A person would be considered a fool if they proclaimed that all of man’s machines built in all of man’s existence arose spontaneously and accidentally as a random product of “nature” with no possibility whatsoever of an intelligent designer or builder, and yet the official, central dogma of “science” is a similar proclamation that all life in Earth’s biosphere (a situation a trillion times a trillion more complex than man’s puny accomplishments) is merely the mindless, capricious product of a grotesquely improbable and accidental “nature”.
On the other hand, I think we can make an intelligent guess as to where the earth’s biosphere came from. All we have to do is analyze the one example we do have available to us of evolutionary intelligent design, namely the evolution of all that which has been created by mankind and how that has occurred, and then comparing that to the structures and processes of earth’s biosphere and all that it contains.
In fact, we see the same design principles, structures and processes embodied in biologic life that we ourselves have used to create our own manosphere, which includes the totality of all man-made machines, systems, infrastructure and processes on earth. We see the principle of modular construction in life, as embodied by the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria. We see the reuse of common structures and processes throughout large numbers of highly varying life forms and at multiple levels. We see that chromosomes are a form of computer programming using chemical codons for coded byes and ribosomes as the computer.
We see that simpler life forms existed before more complex lifeforms, and that there has in fact been an evolutionary progression from simpler to more complex life forms over time, just as we’ve seen the evolution of discrete component digital computing evolve in the 1940’s to the current massively integrated forms we have only 70 years later. Of course, when I use the word “evolution”, I mean “intelligently directed evolution”, not accidental evolution, with the latter of course actually being an oxymoron.
I’ve intensely studied computer programming, biologic processes and mechanisms and many other sciences for that matter, and to me, there is no doubt whatsoever that we and all other living parts of the earth’s biosphere were deliberately made by a higher intelligence than our own, and made in the same fashion as what we ourselves have made.
Personally, I believe we were made by beings somewhat similar to ourselves and only a million years (or maybe much less) more advanced than ourselves. And yes, that believe does indeed beg the question as to where THAT bunch of beings came from, but personally, I am satisfied just to know where we came from and not necessarily where everything came from.
On the other hand, we could always preform an experiment and see if we could get life to arise spontaneously again. However, that would take a long time, so instead, let’s perform a thought experiment, but instead of shooting for biologic life, let’s go for something simpler, say a nano-sized CF-53 Panasonic i7 laptop with Windows 7 Professional x64 with integrated nano-solar cells for power.
First, we fill a billion (or so) beakers full of the elemental powders from which the above were formed, put some sea water in, and then bombarded the laptop soup in the beakers with lightening for a few hundred million years (or so).
What are the chance of getting our nano-laptop and OS. Pretty good, right? After all, that’s a WAY simpler setup than a self-replicating cell.
Do you think that we would eventually obtain a single integrated circuit chip forming in the beaker? And then the chip should eventually EVOLVE all by itself into the laptop (with operating system) after being bombarded by cosmic rays for a long time after that? After all, bombarding an integrated circuit (or cell) with cosmic rays would be like bombarding an Intel i7 fabrication plant with 20mm depleted uranium shells from an A-10 Warthog, and expecting to get an i9 processor coming out of the factory afterwards.
If organic life formed by accident in a similar scenario, then certainly there should be no problem with obtaining the laptop and operating system in a like fashion, because after all, the laptop and OS are a few thousand trillion times simpler than, say, the Homo Sapiens species and our occupancy of our symbiotic biosphere. In fact, we should obtain the laptop and OS much faster because they are so much simpler.
I wonder how long we’ll have to shake our beakers?
The original with Carl Sagan had me beg my parents to buy me a telescope.
My parents took me to Hayden planetarium one school break. I read everything I could on this subject. I taught myself and read, helping me get better grades, and a life long love of watching stars and planets and reading science fiction.
Sagan might have his faults, but like I said, he made me fall in love with both astronomy, and science fiction when I was in 4th grade.
I can’t see Mr. Tyson doing that to me
“[...] I found Tyson’s treatment to be offensive, condescending, and smarmy.”
Yeah, I have tried to watch another “science” show with him on it (one of the many “universe” shows I think). He came across exactly as you indicated. To me, it doesn’t seem that he is a real scientist; he tries to hide it too much. Not “ghetto” enough perhaps? (Sorry, couldn’t resist....)
Carl Sagan would be proud.
Tyson’s a smug a$$hole. his smug cloud rivals clooney’s.
Comment at tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com
Libs-are-fuktards • 41 minutes ago
The only reason BathhouseBarry appeared
was they told him there was a segment
about Uranus.
“I thought it was an in-your-face chip-on-the-shoulder response against skeptics of evolution.”
Good way to describe this sort of thing.
Ping for later...
I thought this was supposed to be a science show, not a political show.
***
I thought the same, as well, before I saw episode 1. Did not take me long to figure it out, though, so I stopped subjecting myself to viewing it, and I will not be watching any other episodes.