Should 'Cosmos' give more airtime to creationists?

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

No, it is a science show.

So should Christians give more airtime time to evolutionists?

I would think it would depend on the topic of the program.

Any topic on the fallacy of evolution or the Big Bang theory minus God? Because that's what the Cosmos series does. It eliminates God from the equation. That's ok for the producers and unbelievers. But the moment God is mentioned it's a problem?

One cannot have ones cake and eat it as the old proverb goes....

 

If creationists are going to talk about evolution, then yes, it might be a good idea to include experts.  If creationists are going to talk about God and their creation myth, then evolution and big bang might be included to add context. 

 

I watched the first episode of Cosmos, and creationism was included in an animation in the form of an early scientist being burned at the stake for going against the church (careful what you wish for...). 

 

If Cosmos should include creationism, where does it stop?  Should they include all creation myths?

[a-seeker]

Can someone explain the difference between creationism and that which is being communicated on the show?  Is creationism 6-day creationism (YEC) or is creationism merely ascribing the origins of the Universe (i.e. Big Bang) to a God.  If the latter, then I would say no.  That is a theological/philosophical question.

 

Even if it were the first, I would still say no, because that is an exegetical question.  However, the show should recognize any scientific evidence that does not support the Big BAng, or evolution, or whatever is assumed.  But it must do this on scientific grounds, not Biblical.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

 I watched the first episode of Cosmos, and creationism was included in an animation in the form of an early scientist being burned at the stake for going against the church (careful what you wish for...). 

 

 

 

 

I also don't think science shows should include history.  Rarely are they based on reliable historical data; scientists are not historians of science.

 

clb

 

 

[jerryR34]

 

 

 I watched the first episode of Cosmos, and creationism was included in an animation in the form of an early scientist being burned at the stake for going against the church (careful what you wish for...). 

 

 

 

 

I also don't think science shows should include history.  Rarely are they based on reliable historical data; scientists are not historians of science.

 

clb

 

 

For the Cosmos show, it was in context.  There is a history of science.  For centuries, the church asserted the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited it.  People were killed for bringing forward observational data that contracted the church.  We couldn't actually learn about our universe until that bias was overcome.

[Sevenseas]

 

 

 

 I watched the first episode of Cosmos, and creationism was included in an animation in the form of an early scientist being burned at the stake for going against the church (careful what you wish for...). 

 

 

 

 

I also don't think science shows should include history.  Rarely are they based on reliable historical data; scientists are not historians of science.

 

clb

 

 

For the Cosmos show, it was in context.  There is a history of science.  For centuries, the church asserted the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited it.  People were killed for bringing forward observational data that contracted the church.  We couldn't actually learn about our universe until that bias was overcome.

 

 

 

Do you suppose that bias would reverse engineer itself so that God might get equal consideration?

 

The 'church' did not act on God's behalf much of the time if we examine history and are versed in the 66 books known collectively as the Bible.

 

Bias often seems to be the indicator of ignorance in opposing views.

 

But who would admit to that................

 

 

ps:  I'm not understanding why believers would expect this program or any other of this nature to support what they believe

 

 

I'm part of the 'they' but I see no reason to boycott or ignore or have expecations or input into something that was never intended to be a vehicle for faith

 

Speaking of faith, I don't think it's a far stretch to be surprised at the faith of many scientests

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

 

Do you suppose that bias would reverse engineer itself so that God might get equal consideration?

 

 

Science advanced exponentially when it went from being a philosophical pursuit to the scientific method of today.  A big part of that was taking anything metaphysical out of the equation.  Why would we want to take a step back to people being burned at the stake for going against the bible and bleeding people to release the "bad Humors"? 

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

ps:  I'm not understanding why believers would expect this program or any other of this nature to support what they believe

 

 

I'm part of the 'they' but I see no reason to boycott or ignore or have expecations or input into something that was never intended to be a vehicle for faith

 

Speaking of faith, I don't think it's a far stretch to be surprised at the faith of many scientests

 

I agree with all of this.

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

 I watched the first episode of Cosmos, and creationism was included in an animation in the form of an early scientist being burned at the stake for going against the church (careful what you wish for...). 

 

 

 

 

I also don't think science shows should include history.  Rarely are they based on reliable historical data; scientists are not historians of science.

 

clb

 

 

For the Cosmos show, it was in context.  There is a history of science.  For centuries, the church asserted the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited it.  People were killed for bringing forward observational data that contracted the church.  We couldn't actually learn about our universe until that bias was overcome.

 

I agree (I think you already know this) that it was the sciences which forced the Church to rethink its model.  But the relations between scientists and the Church are often misconstrued and over simplified.  I do not know the case of Bruno.  But the popular story line fed to us of the Galileo trial is quite ridiculous.  It was not merely that Galileo suggested heliocentricism (Copernicus did the same!).  It was that he introduced it as a fact, as opposed to a theory, and expected things to change over night.  The Pope at the time was actually fond of Galileo; he asked that Galileo also represent the Ptolemaic model.  Galileo published a dialogue in which he had a character that was clearly the Pope support the Ptolemaic model, and made him look like an idiot.  There is much more to the story.

 

clb

[Sevenseas]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you suppose that bias would reverse engineer itself so that God might get equal consideration?

 

 

Science advanced exponentially when it went from being a philosophical pursuit to the scientific method of today.  A big part of that was taking anything metaphysical out of the equation.  Why would we want to take a step back to people being burned at the stake for going against the bible and bleeding people to release the "bad Humors"? 

 

 

 

Hmmm...you may have missed the rest of that thought?

 

The 'church' did not act on God's behalf much of the time if we examine history and are versed in the 66 books known collectively as the Bible.

 

Bias often seems to be the indicator of ignorance in opposing views.

 

But who would admit to that................

[jerryR34]

 

  The Pope at the time was actually fond of Galileo; he asked that Galileo also represent the Ptolemaic model.  

 

Sounds eerily familiar...like the "teach the controversy" of the ID/Creationist movement.  Again, do we want to go backward.