Absolutely Absurd: Creationist Demands Airtime on ‘Cosmos’ to Offer Balance Against Science

Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-shockedLet me just go ahead and get this disclaimer out of the way – this article is not satire.  I know, when reading that headline someone might really think that it’s something from The Onion or even one of our satire pieces.  But sadly, this is a true story.

Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum apparently believes that Neil deGrasse Tyson’s relaunch of Cosmos is essentially worthless… because it doesn’t feature a creationist counter argument.

I don’t blame you if your head just exploded.

Faulkner said, “Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all.”  That’s because your ridiculous beliefs aren’t plausible at all! 

Following that “brilliant” claim they went on to say how there are “quite a few scientists” who deny the theory of evolution.  Really?  Just because you can find an extremely small percentage of scientists who doubt the theory, that doesn’t mean that they’re at all credible.

The theory of evolution is accepted by 97% of scientists.

So, sure, you can find a “decent number” of people to say that evolution isn’t real.  Assume that we find 500,000 scientists, and 3% of those didn’t believe in evolution.  That’s 15,000 scientists.  Sounds like a lot, right?  But not when you consider that just 3% of scientists doubt the theory of evolution.

There aren’t always “two sides to every story” just because someone doesn’t agree with something.  Especially when 97% of scientists (you know, some of the smartest people on the planet) agree that something is fact after analyzing all the evidence and facts.

And let’s not ignore the point that Cosmos is a science show.  It’s supported by investors and advertisers.  It doesn’t have to “show balance.”  Especially when that “balance” is being sought by people who don’t believe in science.  

That’s what these people seem unable to grasp.  Creationism is not science.  There are certain parameters that must be met for something to be “scientifically viable” and creationism doesn’t meet any of those.  Saying, “Well, the Bible says…” is not scientific in any way.  The Bible is not a damn science book.

It’s absurd that these people continue to try to insist that proven scientific information, that’s accepted by the vast majority of scientists, should be discussed in the same context as people who offer zero scientific backing for anything they believe.  Then the only “evidence” they have is a book that essentially has absolutely no proof for anything that’s written inside.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • John

    It seems the creationist set can’t grasp basic math, either. Ninety-seven is greater than three. Granted, the 97% of scientists who back evolution have more weight than the supposed 3% who think evolution is a joke.

    • Eddie Krebbs

      John, I find the idea of having a creationist rebuttal ridiculous (and suspect that the creationist would just love to profit from the publicity and cred of appearing on Cosmos). However, I’d hesitate to compare it to a vote – what if 90% of the people voted for a flat earth ?

      • john

        it isnt just 97% of “people” who say so…it is scientists….opinion doesnt matter when compared to facts

      • James Egge

        “scientists” also agreed the earth was flat, that it sat upon the back of a turtle, and that stars were little holes poked in a big, black curtain. Keep memorizing and conforming…OR start to think for yourself and research. Evolution is just the new religion on the block seeking dominance.

    • GMUPatriots

      The problem is that, in the USA at least, we’ve allowed the idea that everything is a democracy to flourish. Science is not a democracy. Simply because you have an opinion does not make it valid and it doesn’t mean your opinion should be taken seriously.

      The 97% figure isn’t as important to me as the fact that none of the creationists have ever published a paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

      • Gary Menten

        You are spot on about science not being a democracy. One of the most basic tenets of true scientific research is that we have to follow the evidence no matter where it leads us or how discomforting we may find the conclusions.

        The entire reason why ID is not scientifically valid is that it goes about everything in reverse. It first set a conclusion, then created a hypotheses to permit this conclusion, then selects observations that would seem to validate the hypothesis without testing them scientifically.

      • James Egge

        See the above rebuttal to the charming mantra “following the evidence wherever it leads…”

      • James Egge

        You are entirely misinformed. Creationist have published many papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I’d give you the links but you need the practice. Search out: Willem J. Ouweneel, Wayne Frair, Siegfried Scherer, Grant Lambert, Dr D. Russell Humphreys, Robert Gentry…to name a few.

      • James Egge

        Here is an interesting expose of what Scientists that happen to hold a Creation viewpoint run into:

        Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

        In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions ’. e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

        Humphreys’ letter and Ms Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

        On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article ‘Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps’ to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a ‘slight bias’ exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

      • James Egge

        Here is another example of censorship and NOT following the evidence wherever it may lead us:

        Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones – the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old. Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning. And more than some can tolerate.

        After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. It won’t be restored.

      • Gary Menten

        It’s strange how creationists claim that radiometric testing is unreliable when it suits them then turn around and claim it’s perfectly valid at others.

        Strange how the people who made this stunning discovery were somehow passed up for the Nobel prize they so richly deserved for having in one shot, disproved Evolutionary Theory. Or maybe the test results were not independently verified and/or are fraudulent?

        Strange how what you claim is found an endless number of creationist websites, but not a single peer-reviewed scientific journal.

      • Sean Rutherford

        Your comment essentially says that none of their peer-reviewed works have been validated by other scientists. Perhaps because they were untestable, unsubstantiated, incorrect & ridiculous?

    • JulieRN

      I would propose that the 3% aren’t truly scientists.

      • James Egge

        Galileo was apart of the 3% — I suppose he wasn’t a real scientist and didn’t do real science? Cattle and sheep roam in herds…think for yourself.

    • James Egge

      Since when is the majority usually right? Also, finding more people who agree with you actually doesn’t add “weight” to your point of view. Polls do not reveal truth, they reveal opinion based on education and indoctrination. Since the macro-evolutionary theory has monopolized the now-secular public school system and mass media, what would you expect to find? The Government run school mills certainly aren’t designed and financed to church out Bible-believing, God-loving Creationists now are they? The “new school” teaches students WHAT to think and very little about HOW to think as they manufacture popular opinion. I wouldn’t necessarily be proud of that. How is it working for North Korea? Iran? China?

  • LeeAnneClark

    Just more evidence of the continued dumbing down of America. PEOPLE: if you want to learn about religion, go to church. If you want to learn about Science, watch Cosmos.

    • Gary Menten

      On your second point, I agree with you. I’m not sure that America is being dumbed down however. In the 1950’s, the biblical creationist view was so generally accepted that few people would dare argue against it openly even though their was already ample scientific evidence to the contrary of creationism. To be Godless was to be equated with Communism.

      Since then, not only has our scientific knowledge base grown enormously, but our ability to communicate it through mass media has also grown. Where once only scientists understood much about science, today through the efforts of people like the late Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and others,
      I think there are many, many more informed people who are unafraid to challenge creationism. This obviously leads to friction and conflict as the guardians mysticism and nonsense desperately try to reverse progress.

      • LeeAnneClark

        Wow, great comment! I soooo want to believe you are right. I do see your point.

      • Gary Menten

        Believe me, I hope I’m right too.

      • James Egge

        “believe” and “hope” — great religious words.

        Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1 as “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Are you sure (absolutely) that you aren’t holding on to a faith-based religious ideal masquerading as science?

      • Jon Henri Matteau

        I love people who use a quote from their scripture and think it is a valid point when there “proof” is already discredited.

      • Jim Bean

        I don’t know. When I look around and see all the things man has created, I’m quite impressed. Then, when someone tells me that everything else I see is the result of pure coincidence and that he knows for absolute fact that he is the most advanced creature in all the universes, I’m skeptical. Doesn’t work for me intellectually.

      • Gary Menten

        First of all, nobody can possibly know that man is the most advanced creature in the universe, and the chances are in any case, overwhelmingly against this. Look carefully at what human kind has discovered and accomplished just in the last 100 years then ask yourself what would a civilization that is 1000 years more advanced than us have accomplished. ask yourself then what might a civilization a million years than us might accomplish. How about a billion?

        As to coincidences….mutations are random, selection, be it natural or artificial is not. And to boot, extinction is the rule, not the exception. The fossil record bears this out.

        Second, you haven’t thought about it enough. The time scale of evolution allows for an enormous amount of coincidence and an enormous amount of mutation.

      • James Egge

        In faith-based science no one can know anything, can they? Also, the time scale of evolution (which keeps moving further and further back as needed) still cannot account for the amount of order, design, and working information found in biology, geology, cosmology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, etc. Perhaps it is time to add a few trillion years to shut the free thinkers up? Or, perhaps, we should just jump to one minute less than infinity and call it a day?

      • Gary Menten

        1. Kindly define what exactly is “faith-based” science? How does it differ from ordinary science? Well let me tell you…..you do it backwards by deciding what your finding will be first (i.e. God created the universe 6000 years ago) then making up a hypothesis that supports this (life forms are so complex that there must have been an intelligent designer) then finally rounding up some observations that the hypothesis is supposed to explain (whales are very different from beetles.) Never once do you test your theory because it is untestable.

        2. The timescale of evolution is not changing to compensate for what we have not yet been able to adequately explain by proper scientific means nor is there any evidence of design, intelligent or otherwise, except where man has been involved in selective breeding of plants and animals. Thanks for your opinion.

  • TaxPaying American Voter

    There are limits to one’s intelligence, but no limit on the quantity of stupid when ignorance, religion and the need show others just how this combination is a horrible idea!!

  • Pipercat

    Here Mr. Faulkner, have some cheese….

  • Guile Williams

    Give the man some pi and send him on his way.

  • Frank

    It’s simple the big bang is a theory with supportive evidence that it happened that way including very recent discoveries supporting it. Creationism has many places were it fails including no way to back it up other than one source. Take away the one source and you have no way to come up with the same conclusion. With the big bang it can still be proven by taking away one or several of the reasons for the support. With all of the reasons supporting the big bang put together it does have the strongest possibility of being correct right now. Till Creationism can meet the same standard it can’t be considered as factual.

  • Sunny Ray

    Got some people knocking at my door last week asking me if I believed in creation… Then, seeing that I was being polite trying to get rid of them they started asking me questions like “how come we don’t see any evolution on man or dogs?” yes yes! that is exactly what they asked me!! So I went grab some history (and prehistory) books, and art history books as well for them. I told them since they are giving me some lecture I had to give them some too, but I told them to stick with the basis, not to try to go too deep, that should be enough to make them a little brighter, and I shut the door (gently ;)).
    Now, I really need to share some things from their mini book, I couldn’t go through the whole thing, that is just not doable, but here are some gems:
    -God is the creator of all things but most people know very little about him (him???)
    -god is a person, an individual…. and his existence is not limited by time…
    -Each of the six days of creation could have lasted for thousands years…
    -God created the perfect man and woman who were capable of self-awareness, love wisdom and justice….
    Etc and etc… one last thing, when they are trying to explain some kind of evolution within plants or animals, they talk about variations…
    BTW, I’m keeping their brochure in the toilets, in case I run out of toilet paper!

    • What exactly is “pre-history”? That term is laughable.

      • Sunny Ray

        Prehistory is the span of time before recorded history or the invention of writing systems.

      • The term prehistory would, in the mind of a creationist, only encompass no more than ~2000-3000 years.

        Since Moses is the author inspired by God to write Genesis, between ~1400-1300 B.C., I think all the “prehistory” got filled in.

        All you have to do is compare what Genesis says about creation and conduct your own research keeping in mind that since neither of us were there, we can only use what we can observe today and the lack of evidence of any mutations – anywhere.

        It is much more important, however, to look past this difference of origins that we have and look instead to where our future is. The uniqueness of the bible exists in the fact that it is a complete and congruent story spanning more than 1500 years in writing, containing 66 books by 40 different authors. No where else can you find a single text written over such a span of time with consistent details by so many authors. Indeed, it is a divinely inspired book.

        The importance is for us to resolve where our future is headed. Whether we agree or not on evolution versus creation, we could both agree that this world is broken – people are murderous, thieving liars out for one thing, themselves.

        We are all sinners and have a debt to pay. This is indeed a biblical truth; if I am wrong, then I certainly have lost nothing. But what if you are wrong? We must recognize that we are sinners and the debt of that sin is death – plain and simple. The only problem is that man cannot pay that debt and remain separation from God in the end.

        That is why God so loved the world [mankind] that He sent His One and only Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.

        You see, God will not destroy a person’s spirit, their soul. Once the soul is created, it is permanent. But it is up to you – He gave you the ability to choose life everlasting in His presence, or torment and eternal separation in the lake of fire.

        As a sinner, I broke His laws – I’ve lied, stolen, envied and even committed adultery. I used to be addicted to marijuana – but by His grace, He rescued me from those things and now I live free of the bondage of sin. His mercy saved me from the death that awaits those that deny Him.

        God’s grace and mercy upon you, may He bless you.

      • david

        Amen to that , Evolution can and will never answer the deeper meanings in life -i.e. Where were Going, why were here , who we are. Evolution is best described in the Columbine massacre when to young kids took natural selection and survival of the fittest to its extreme conclusion-after all Evolution science is a false religion based on unproven millions of years in which nothing was observed or tested.

  • What Ho! Studio

    Notice that it never says what field that those 3% of scientists are in. It’s easy to believe in creationism if you never have to challenge it in your field.

    • Orion

      Poli-sci

    • Matthew Reece

      If you look at many creationist academics, they have Th.D. degrees rather than degrees in the fields they claim to seriously challenge.

  • GMUPatriots

    I believe that there’s only been one paper published in a peer reviewed journal that attempted to deny that humans are responsible for climate change. Even if there are 3 percent of scientists who deny evolution, have any of them ever published a paper? If so I’d love to read it, I’m sure it’s quite entertaining.

    • Dante DiCamillo

      I think James Egge more then adequately addressed your sophomoric question sir…….you ought to keep your fear of judgment and anger towards your creator from interfering with scientific conclusions.

      • GMUPatriots

        LOL! You fundies are hilarious. You attempt to cover for your lack of knowledge with vocabulary. You quite obviously don’t know the definition of a scientific theory and there is zero actual legitimate science on your side. None. Ken Hamm and his ilk aren’t scientists, they’re cranks.

  • Tyler

    That 3% could easily be made up of the scientists that are employed by the Vatican. The Catholic church for years employed many priests as scientists to find “proof” of what the bible says. They have degrees like real scientists, but none of the work they’ve published says anything close to what real science would conclude. But fundamentalists also justified slavery through the bible. So if you wanna do really shady shit, just say the bible said you could. Catholicism, effing things up for thousands of years. Woot Woot!

    • Ignatz

      [That 3% could easily be made up of the scientists that are employed by the Vatican.]

      The Catholic Church is not creationist, but fully accepts the theory of evolution, and has for quite a long time. A Jesuit Priest was one of the discoverers of Peking Man. And a monk founded the science of genetics.

    • Ton_Chrysoprase

      “The Catholic church for years employed many priests as scientists to find “proof” of what the bible says.” .

      I don’t agree with a lot the Catholic Church says – including the claim that there is a god and I am open to persuasion, but the CC is traditionally not at all concerned with factual truth of the bible. As far as they are concerned the bible is a nice book with cute stories that are “true” min a metaphorical sense while not factually accurate.

      • JulieRN

        Yes, I took a theology course at a Catholic institution, and among other things, they taught that the Bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly walked the earth. It was written to provide moral lessons more than “science.”

      • James Egge

        You were taught that? So, your teachers are your final authority on all matters of faith? Did you know there actual evidence that proves just how false that concept is? Don’t be a sheep.

      • Wow …reminds me of why the Vatican outlawed any religious expression other than Latin until they were finally forced to accept the KJV.

        It is easy to accept something as plausible if it means you don’t have to do any research to discover the truth for yourself.

    • JulieRN

      And not just Catholicism.

  • Ignatz

    Most of those 3% are in a completely unrelated scientific field. Most of the scientists in the Institute of Creation Research are engineers.

    • Gary Menten

      Not to mention that some of them, perhaps most of them, have produced work that is at best, not scientifically valid, at worst, outright fraudulent.

  • Gary Menten

    Equal time?

    1. Cosmos will have 13 one-hour episodes. Televangelists broadcast their messages on TV year-round, seven days a week for people who are either too lazy to go to church or so devout that going once on Sunday isn’t enough and feel the need to be bamboozled several times a week.

    2. Speaking of church…wherever you are in America, I’m sure there’s one preaching stuff that conforms to your religious view not far from you, having sermons several times a week plus hosting Sunday School classes in case you’re too lazy to teach your kids what you think God wants them to know.

    3. If we ever discover any valid scientific data confirming creationism or Intelligent Design, life after death, the existence of God, alien abductions, psychic powers, pyramid power etc, we promise to include it the next update of Cosmos. I’m sure Carl would have wanted it that way.

  • rina

    what really troubles me is no one wants to present the TRUTH. I have read so many books with dragons and elves and centauars….MAGICAL CREATURES ARE REAL PEOPLE. I shall not rest until animal planet airs a unicorn special.

  • Andy Kinnard

    Follow the money, folks: the Creation Museum got enough money out of the Bill Nye debate (in donations after the fact) that they were able to fund the stalled Noah’s Ark model/exhibit. They’re just hoping deGrasse-Tyson will fall for the trap and engage them. It’s like putting gay marriage on the ballot used to be: a guaranteed winner that energizes the regressive base.

    • Gary Menten

      I got the same impression from the debate. It will not have changed a single mind in the audience to the other side, but I’m sure the bible thumpers in the audience were motivated to waste their money on Ken Ham’s vacation theme park.

      • James Egge

        We don’t thump our Bibles anymore…it’s hard on the binding.

    • James Egge

      If I raised 73million dollars and was a crook…let’s see…oh, I know! I’d build an ark to teach people about the Bible?? I’d be a terrible crook I guess. How about this…follow the money AND the logic. Make sense? Wow.

  • reretired

    Creationism isn’t just bad science, It’s bad theology. It posits that a “Supreme Being” could not create a world fueled by constant change and evolution. The “book” teaches us many things, like beware of snakes, but it was written by men to communicate ideas long ago. I find it hard to believe that all of those teachings were litteral, eternal and universal. I would suggest that if you want to have a static dogmatic, authoritarian, and conservative theology, check in with your nearest I mam.

  • Ton_Chrysoprase

    Are they prepared to have each church set aside time in their sermon to explain alternative scientific views of their creation myths?

  • NM2000

    It’s higher than 97% in the life science fields–you know, the people who deal with it every day.

    This is from a Newsweek article all the way back in 1987:
    “By one count there are some 700 scientists
    with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S.
    earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the
    general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared
    ‘abruptly’.”

    700 against, 479,300 for. A fraction of a fraction deny it. And most of those, when you look at their backgrounds beyond their degrees, were creationists who went into biological sciences to get a degree which they fundamentally disagreed with just to be able to wave it around and say “I have a degree in biology and I still disagree!”

    It’s sad.

  • Robert Ferrante

    Those darn ‘Muricans!

  • mia cara

    Speaking on theory evolution… If we came from ape then why do ape still exist?

    • Joe

      We didn’t evolve from the apes we know today. All of us (chimps, oragutangs, gorillas, and other apes) evolved from a common ancestor.

      • Mia cara

        Wasn’t the planet Pluto once considered a planet it turns out to be a moon? I Think scientist can make mistake too.. I guess there are things that even scientist will never figure out.. I’m not against science nor for it.. Just very curious..

      • Joe

        That isn’t what happened with Pluto.

        We had found a large object that at first we called a new planet, Pluto. We continued to study it and realized that it had a different orbit than the other 8 planets and was smaller than was initially calculated after we discovered some of its moons and could calculate it more accurately. At first we stuck with calling Pluto a planet cause we didn’t have a good name for it, and we would just put an asterisk next to its name when describing it as a planet, that it was slightly special. Then we started discovering other large objects similar to Pluto, some of them actually larger than Pluto.

        They were something in between planets and asteroids that we didn’t have a clear classification for; we didn’t know if we should call them asteroids, planets, planitoids, sub-planets. But if we called Pluto a planet, then some of these new things could be arguably planets as well. It was never clearly defined by science earlier. So we decided that we needed to clarify the classification system for objects in the solar system because of these new objects found or else we were going to end up with dozens of planets but weren’t really planets.

        After the new criteria and rules were set, Pluto no longer met the criteria for a planet, but instead was classified as a dwarf planet along with 4 other former ‘large asteroids’: Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.

      • Joe

        That is what science is. Making observations about the universe around us which leads to new ideas and questions, using logic and reasoning looking for possible answers and explanations for those questions, then testing them and analyzing the results and determining if the hypothesis was correct. If the hypothesis was wrong, we keep looking.

        If it was right, and we can consistently reach the same conclusion through other tests and scrutiny on our discoveries it becomes scientific theory, at least until something comes in to disprove it. In science, a theory isn’t a guess or unproven or speculation as it is often used in the rest of the world. In science, its an accepted principle and collection of facts to explain things. There may still be unanswered questions about it and new discoveries to be made about it, but what is known is considered fact as it has been proven through observation, testing, and verified retesting and observation.

        The concept of gravity for example is called the theory of gravity. We know gravity is real. We can observe it simply by dropping it. We’ve tested it. We’ve discovered that every object with mass has an attraction to every other object with mass. But we don’t know all of the why it happens yet. As we discover the why, we revise the theory of gravity.

        The concept of evolution is also a theory. We’ve observed it. We can see it happen through the fossil records. We know how it happens, genetic mutations occur between generations. As more and more generations come around the various mutations persist (or don’t) and more come into play. As more and more mutations occur, eventually the generations become different enough from the hundreds (or thousands) of generations before it that we may classify it as a different species.

        Its not like an ape suddenly gave birth to a human. The apes and humans common ancestor gave birth to something that was slightly different in genetic code. Its children pass that variation to their children as well as possibly a couple more. Every birth from every plant or animal does that.

        Usually these variations do nothing important or noticeable. Sometimes they help the offspring survive better than others or more desirable to mate with. Sometimes it hinders it. That is how natural selection occurs, when you get these variations that do allow the creature to survive better and pass on these variances to its offspring.

        Different offspring have different variations and separate out to different groups or tribes. Maybe some variations lead to better hunting at night, some lead to better tree climbing ability, some lead to better at running on open fields, some lead to better swimming ability, so the groups separate out to the areas that benefit them. Some more successful than others.

        Over time they become different enough from their great-great-great…-great-great grand parents that we classify them as a different species. Its not quick. It usually takes dozens or even thousands of generations, but that’s how many types of chimps, orangutans, humans, etc came from a common group of ancestors.

      • James Egge

        Haha! That is a good one. Where did you memorize that? Can you give one shred of evidence? Or am I not to question the holy faith of Evolution?

      • Joe

        Feel free to question science all you want. That’s how science works: drawing answers to questions from the evidence presented to you or discovered by you. Faith on the other hand is a belief in something without evidence to back it up.

        Now as far as evidence out there for it, you have google and science classes available to you just like the rest of us, and considering you figured out how to get to this site, I assume you can figure out how to google and research on your own, just as I did. Credible evidence and scientific articles on the studies, tests, and experiments aren’t hard to find or understand if you really care about educating yourself and actually learning something on the subject.

  • brent

    wow, you progressives ARE dangerous! i always just thought you were well-meaning, but slightly misled people. however, you spew non-stop nonsense about things which you clearly have never studied, and you do it with arrogance, contempt, and vitriol. i challenge you to offer one example in the whole of the fossil record of transitional forms. there are none (that kind of math is not that challenging even for us math-challenged id’ers!).
    it doesn’t make sense to you that scientists do not readily accept things they cannot prove? that, therefore, when they are in a realm (history) which they cannot prove and test, they end up WAY off base? that because their very methodology is their own religion, they are biased toward anyhting outside that realm of testability? that makes complete sense to me. if you would like to see a little of the hubris and non-scientific thinking, and academic bullying that goes on in the “scientific” community, i challenge you to watch ben stein’s “expelled: no intelligence allowed.”
    you might want to consider that those with whom you disagree are not necessarily inferior to you. buuuuuuuut, i fear that would go against your “progressive” roots… which dig deeply into the soil of genocide and selective “breeding.” in light of the tone i have read here, i will have to side with those who told me that this was the character of your movement. “how DARE you in seriousness disagree with PROVEN facts?” give me a break. some people actually read, so you will have to be more convincing than simply touting the party line and casting aspersions.

  • James Egge

    The macro-evolutionary theory is not science either: it is speculation/imagination BASED on science (the present is the key to the past). “Cosmos” is another example of pure religion masquerading around as pseudoscience at it’s finest. The “priests” of this cult have hijacked the now-secular public school system and the mass-media to force their religion down your throat under the cloak of “intellectualism.”

    Think for yourself. Question everything. Don’t just memorize and conform like these religious nuts would have you to do.

    Search: 10 best evidences from science for a young earth. Search radiohalos. Search bent rock layers in the Redwall Formation. Search sea fossils in the Himalayas. Search soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. Search the faint sun paradox. Search helium in radioactive rocks. Search the problems with radio carbon dating and the censored radio carbon (14c) dating of dinosaur tissue. Search salt levels in the sea. Search DNA in “ancient” bacteria. Search Incan cave painting of dinosaurs.

    And always remember: Creation vs Evolution is NOT Religion vs Science. It is Creationist interpretation of the scientific evidence vs Evolutionist interpretation of the same evidence. The only difference? We don’t censor the evidence that doesn’t “fit” our model.

    • James Egge

      This NOT to say that ALL of Cosmos is religious. I have enjoyed the truly scientific potions of the show. My 8-year son and I have been watching the series together to hone our discernment and free-thought skills: whenever something is said that is speculation or simply cannot be observed or proven…we call it out. By the way — we call A LOT out (and enjoy a few good laughs at Tyson’s expense along the way…”nuthead” is the word my 8-year old came up with.).

    • James Egge

      And by religion and religious I mean faith-based. Faith, being defined in Hebrews 11:1, as “…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I’d say that is a generous definition for the theory of macro-evolution.

  • Faith in God not evolution

    If it was fact it wouldn’t be called The theory of evolution. Science means that the result of a “thing” can be repeated with the same result ever time. Not so with evolution.

  • Stewartjay

    God’s not dead

  • I don’t even have to finish reading this article to know your position.

    Evolution is a theory for a reason – it cannot be proven. The Big Bang is a theory for a reason – it cannot be proven.

    The Creationist point of view is already plainly support both by *good* science and the biblical account.

    You don’t want to believe in an intelligent Creator because you are afraid to be held accountable.

    • Andy Kinnard

      I sure hope that post was satire.

      • The Bible is not satire, neither was my post.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I didn’t suggest the Bible was satire, but I had hoped your post was (because it gets the facts about the scientific method exactly backward).

      • Science must be separated by: 1) observation, and 2) historical.

        Certainly, neither a Creationist nor an Evolutionist can “observe” the creation of the earth. Therefore, we must rely on historical science and then compare this to what observational science tells us through the process of the scientific method.

        Darwin’s hypothesis – plants, animals and man evolved from a single organism – presupposes something that can neither be observed nor is based on *any* historical data. Therefore, any science that emerges based on Darwin’s assumptions are not even considering the true processes of the scientific method.

        Maybe Darwin asked, “how did man come to being?” His next logical step would be to research the background of our origin. If he had researched an authoritative background of our origins at the time – Genesis 1 – he would have seen then that God said, “let the earth produce vegetation …according to their kind”, “the large sea-creatures and every living creature…according to their kinds…and every winged bird according to its kind”, “let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds.”

        Darwin failed to do this and instead decided that because he variations within a species (Finch beaks) that the finch had “evolved.” Indeed what Darwin observed would have fit in with God’s creation – the finch had not evolved but carried a mutated characteristic within the species, not an entirely new species – it is still a finch.

        Because Darwin failed to properly research what information was known at the time, the rest of his scientific process is completely flawed.

        As regarding my previous post – I had made no mention of the scientific method. The uniqueness of God’s creation is both science and engineering. I challenge you to give me anything credible from your own research that should lead me to believe that we were not intelligently designed.

      • Andy Kinnard

        You’re too far gone; I’m not even going to bother except to point out the obvious: The Bible has never been an authoritative scientific text, never.

      • I didn’t say the Bible was an authoritative “scientific text”. I referred to it as an authoritative background of origin – i.e., a solid foundation from which to launch a scientific study.

      • Andy Kinnard

        No. A non-science text cannot serve as the foundation for scientific research. You’re deliberately mixing domains as if there weren’t two vastly different standards of validity in scientific and religious realms.

      • Absolutely it can. Unless you believe the very first scientific text evolved out of thin air, the first such text had to rely on something other than a scientific text.

        Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

        I submit that non-creationists have deliberately separated the domains – of science and biblical doctrine – in an attempt to hijack science and take ownership of it.

        Science defined in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary:
        1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.

        Science defined today:
        1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

        The definitions have changed – the former demanding that the comprehension or understanding must include truth or facts, whereas the latter excludes the requirement of truth or fact.

        Evolution is a theory not based on any truth or fact. The only truth in Darwin’s study is that he noticed that the finches had different sized beaks. From there he assumed that man evolved from apes. If that were so, then human DNA would have some record of it; not to mention some intermediate fossils should exist. The theory of evolution actually defies two well established laws of science: entropy and bio-genesis.

      • Gary Menten

        No it is not. it’s simply a collection of stories of unknown authorship. Aesop’s fables or the Tales Of The Arabian Nights have just as much validity.

      • I would also suggest that rather than focusing on what we differ on, we should in fact look at where we are the same.

        We are both human and carry some innate common traits. One of those traits inherent in our nature is to break laws – have you ever stolen anything? I have. Have you ever been jealous or envious of others’ things? I have. Were you ever disobedient to your parents? I was.

        These are the laws given to us in Exodus 20 – the Ten Commandments. You don’t have to believe in God to recognize that what we have done is break those laws. Breaking these laws is sin and we are all sinners.

        What we all must do is come to terms with the fact that there is an afterlife. If I am wrong, then so be it – I have done nothing that causes adverse judgment against me and therefore have done nothing wrong, ever! However, if God is true and He says there is an afterlife, and you are wrong, then we can resolve the outcome also according to His word – all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

        But then we also find in John 3:16, “for God so loved the world [mankind] that He gave His One and only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.”

        His sacrifice was to pay the wages of sin – a balance of debt that says it is appointed unto man once to die and then after that the judgment.

        I would much rather consider this argument before continuing with futile debates on creation. The whole point of creation was for man to have a relationship with God. Adam and Eve sinned and brought corruption on the rest of humanity. Christ, as the final and perfect sacrifice, died in place of you and me to pay that debt.

        Don’t let an argument over creation versus evolution deny reconciliation of a debt that man simply cannot pay.

        I pray God’s grace and mercy be on you.

      • Andy Kinnard

        So, don’t argue with you over the topic at hand (to which you chose to repond), just adopt your belief system, huh? You DO realize that that very demand is the crux of the problem, right?

      • I didn’t demand that you adopt my belief system. On the contrary – I proposed arguments for which we can reason together. In my view, the problem of evolution versus creation is secondary to coming to terms with one’s future; is there an afterlife?

        It is a viable question and I followed up with two scenarios: 1) what if I am wrong? and 2) what if you are wrong?

        If I am wrong, then you’re right and I’ve wasted my efforts and life; I’ll be dead, though, and it won’t matter anyway. In this supposition, there is no Hell, Heaven, God or Christ.

        If you are wrong, then what? One must then suppose that Heaven and Hell do exist and the choices you make will determine your destination.

        Christ said, “I am the Way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6)

        I agree with you 100% – this very idea IS the crux of the problem.

    • Gary Menten

      1. You have no grasp whatsoever of the meaning of the term “theory in it’s scientific context. Nothing in science can be proven. It can only be demonstrated or disproved.
      2. There is absolutely no valid scientific evidence supporting the creationist point of view and never has been. What creationist’s continue to call valid scientific evidence has been all been debunked as pseudo-science or worse outright fabrication. You can not produce a single valid scientific experiment that validates creationism.

      • 1. You’ve made assumptions about me that you cannot confirm.
        2. You cannot produce a single valid experiment that validates evolution.

        I do not need to provide a scientific experiment to prove creation – all things were created according to their kind. This is observable within creation today. Cat pairs have cats and dog pairs have dogs.

        You say that nothing in science can be proven. I submit that you are wrong; if something is not disproved (and thereby demonstrated to be true) then that thing has been proven.

        It is the evolutionist that attempts to discredit God’s authority and therefore it is the evolutionist who must prove God wrong.

        What evolutionists continue to call valid scientific evidence is fabricated upon the assumption that Darwin followed the proper scientific method when he produced the circumspect theory of evolution. There was no attempt on Darwin’s part to follow the 2nd step; therefore the theory of evolution is invalid.

      • Gary Menten

        Pffft. You don’t understand what you said.

      • If you believe that I do not understand what I said, then read again and compare to your previous post. It is clear what I did.

        I simply modified the arguments you gave me. Yes, I twisted what you said to form my own argument. So if you believe I do not understand what I said, what does that say about what you said?

        We both believe that the other is wrong; we both have a conviction that our individual belief is right and standing by those convictions is admirable. We must start with a reference of where we are both agreed.

        With this in mind, I propose that the problem exists because we are sinners; I am a sinner – I have lied, stolen and cheated (among other things). This we have in common, all have done these things. Whether you want to call it sin or not is irrelevant. But these are morals that are introduced upon humanity by something.

        The more important issue is whether or not you believe there is a God. But in doing so you must consider two questions, only one of which can be correct: 1) is God wrong? or 2) is God right?

        If you say God is wrong and that is what you believe – meaning I am wrong, too – then it is my time that is wasted. The result then is nothing gained, nothing lost. However, in considering this possibility, you must consider the other question.

        What if God is right and there is a Heaven and Hell? This must be considered. So, if I am right and God exists, then one must consider the consequences of sin. God says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and that the wages [debt] of sin is death [eternal separation of your soul from God].

        God does not destroy a soul, or consciousness once created. We are both given the same choice – receive Christ and accept His sacrifice that paid the debt and receive everlasting life, or deny Christ and exist in torment eternally upon judgment.

        I have weighed in the balance the questions I raised. I have weighed the consequences of the end results of each question. I challenge you to do the same.

        For God so loved the world [mankind] that He gave His One and only Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. (Jn 3:16)

      • Gary Menten

        I’m seriously not going to waste my time arguing with you. You are too far gone. Enjoy you Bible studies and go in peace.

      • I pray God’s peace and blessings be upon you.

  • fights

    i love how atheists lie about Christians and say we “don’t believe in science”. We believe in science because we believe in the Creator of science, God, who created through the use of his creation SCIENCE. Let me name a few Christian scientists for you, lest you forget, or are to boneheaded to know better: Pascal, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, Francis Bacon, etc.

  • Wisp

    97% of SCIENTISTS (of all branches of science) DOUBT (not the same as “reject”) the Theory of Evolution.

    What’s the percentage with those of areas that have any relevance to the fact of Evolution?
    What’s that percentage among biologists, geologists, paleontologists, geneticists, ethologists, botanists, zoologists, and the like?

    What percentage of cosmologists think the universe is 6kyo?

  • upload

    The story is inaccurate. There was no demand, just a point made that only one side of the debate is presented. And creationists do believe in science, we just see a different aspect than evolutionists. And it’s sad that you can’t simply disagree with people of faith, but stoop to calling us ignorant and backward (not in so many words, but the result is the same). Don’t ever question why we can’t have reasonable and civilized dialogue about ANYTHING in this country when you see us as beneath you simply because we believe differently than you.