Posted on 03/17/2014 11:17:25 AM PDT by EveningStar
Last night, I watched the second episode of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" (the reboot of the 1980 series). It was entitled, "Some of the Things That Molecules Do."
One of the things Tyson dealt with in this episode was evolution.
Now, I myself do subscribe to the theory of evolution, but I found Tyson's treatment to be offensive, condescending, and smarmy.
I thought it was an in-your-face chip-on-the-shoulder response against skeptics of evolution.
I thought this was supposed to be a science show, not a political show.
But this is just my opinion. What is your opinion?
If you missed the episode and wish to see it, it will replay on the National Geographic Channel. You can also watch it online at Fox and Hulu.
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.
It’s easy to mock God when one’s a fool.
Questions of “HOW” God did something are always welcome when they are sincere. Even if they’re wrong, God is gracious to the sincere seeker.
The mockers get the laugh treatment themselves. See Psalm 2, f’r instance.
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.
ZOTTED! Waterhill = Account suspended.
Why! Why! I don’t get it. That was like the stupidest thing I’ve seen a FReeper do in a long time. He wasn’t a FRoob either. Lost his marbles I guess.
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.
...Jack Horkheimer...
I forgot about him.
Very old school science and no politics.
:-)
The resulting dog breeds would have to have MORE genetic information instead of less in order for selective breeding of dogs to mean anything more than... well... selective breeding for existing traits.
"He's dead, Jim."
Yeah, the ones that “almost fly” will survive to breed more dogs that “almost fly” better than their parents...
It's also an excellent example of the power of repetitive INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Dog breeds are the direct result of intellegent beings INTERRUPTING nature to accomplish intentional results. As an "evidence" of natural selection, it's utterly laughable.
Ah, yes. That pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics... Not to mention the First Law of Thermodynamics... Also, that pesky, Law of Biogenesis...
Might be temporary though. Too much Redneck Ale maybe. It could have been put more diplomatically. Someone being used cynically as a “black token.”
Oh, I saw that the post got lulled. So he got the zot too? I dunno, maybe the bars open early where he is....
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.
When Christians lose their temper they will tell you that you are about to go to hell... and that’s about the worst.
I don’t advocate indiscriminately slinging even hell threats around. God has plenty of tactful ways of showing fools they need to stop being foolish, right on this mortal coil. But that ace is in the hole when it is needed.
Prolly a week in the cooler.
If the next episode takes on “global warming deniers,” I’ll be two shows away from getting B-I-N-G-O.
Thankfully lots of nice people have preserved old Star Hustler episodes on YouTube. The best 5 minute show ever made!
Intelligent design is “not a scientific theory” but it never intended to be one. It is meta-scientific. I believe it would be appropriate to bring the history of the sciences up as a topic in social studies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.