I put this in GD because there’s a possiblity it might spur some debate, but that isn’t really what prompted this question. Anyway, here goes:
Did anyone happen to catch the PBS evolution program that was on last night. I saw only a few minutes of it. They were showing one after another person saying how flimsy the evidence is, etc.
I knew that what most of what they were saying was horse hockey, but I still found it fascinating to listen to. It was all very convincing, if you’re hearing it for the first time, and don’t hear any counterpoints.
Now the questions:
This appeared to be part of some documentary that was a good number of years old. What was it?
Also, I didn’t see much of it. Did they (PBS) give any meaningful counterpoints to the arguments raised against evolution, or were the counterpoints the previous days’ programs?
(And, just in case you’re wondering, I am an evolutionist.)
PBS has been showing a whole series of shows this week about evolution. Most of the shows were about the evidence for evolution. Last night they had an episode that was entitled “What about God” or something like that. I guess I was not paying attention to it very hard but most of what I heard was people saying the knew that they were decedents of Adam and Eve and not some monkey, that fossils evidence showing sea life in places without seas proves the Flood story in the bible or biologists at a Christian University trying to reconcile the fossil evidence with their beliefs in the bible story of Genesis.
Yeah, that was probably PBS’ hand-wave to the Creationists in order to atone for the pretty cool three-part series they’ve been showing all this week.
I’ve noticed in the past that on my local PBS station, WETA, they often follow up any shows dealing with evolution with an early-80s documentary which attempts to trash evolution of humans in glorious Jack Chick style. If I remember correctly, it spends a lot of time on Piltdown Man (which was exposed as a fake half a century ago and is no longer cited by any reputable scientists–except creationists, of course), and it also shows some crackpot fellow putting Lucy to rest by essentially contradicting everyone else in his field by simply saying, “Lucy didn’t walk upright.” It uses virtually the same “list” used in the Chick Tracts, with a hand dramatically crossing out each straw-man as it is trashed. Utter shite, by the way.
Sofa, just to point this out to you: this sentence can be read to say you include creationists as reputable scientists. Just thought I’d point it out to you lest some one take it as acceptance of creationism as valid science.
Dammit, I didn’t see your thread. I woun’t have started one of my own.
I think one of the guys from the Creationist’s side of the show is doing a chat on the Washington Post’s website. He’s been at it for half an hour as of now.
Thanks for pointing that out, my Dead Milkman friend. Even if there were a reputable creation scientist, (as far as I know there are not, but just in case…) Piltdown Man is just not a reputable subject for anyone to discuss anymore, except in its own fraudulent context. It’s sort of like disparaging this year’s Yankees because the Chicago White Sox threw the 1919 World Series.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SterlingNorth *
His best post so far:
Do such people really not see how utterly ludicrous such “reasoning” is? Yeah, we weren’t there to see things evolve. But you know what, we weren’t there to see God speak to Moses or Noah, or see Him create the Earth, or any other “Biblical” event, either! I just don’t understand how these people’s minds work.
But, besides that particular bit of inconsistency, I wonder if they likewise dismiss forensics as hogwash, since, like any other “historical” activity, forensic examiners attempt to piece together events form the past based on current evidence.
Sometimes, it seems to me that reasoning, whether inductive or deductive (both of which are required in the pursuit of historical sciences), is a foreign concept to such people.
That seems to me to be setting up a bit of a straw man. I’ve read several articles about the concept of “intelligent design” gaining some credence. I’ve gotta believe those guys would agree to an interview.
I have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to argue for either side of the issue; but it seems to me that if you want to say the issue is closed, then do the 3-part series and stop there. If you want to discuss or debate it, then give equal time and resources. Following a brand-new, cool-looking three-part series with a cheesy 20-year-old video is dirty pool.
The “What About God?” episode last night spotlighted a young-Earth creationist I’d never heard of before, by the name of Ken Ham. (He kinda looked like Abraham Lincoln, except without the top hat.) Most of the episode, however, focused on students at Wheaton College. Wheaton is a Christian university where all professors are required to sign a statement of faith which says, among other things, that they believe Genesis is a literal account of the creation of the world and of human beings.
In the course of the episode, several students at Wheaton who had studied geology and/or biology were questioning their Creationist upbringing. What bugged me was that one kid, who had turned **pro-**evolution, got in a debate with his family about the merits of evolutionary theory, and misrepresented evolution in some of the same ways that so-called Creation Scientists often do! He said something along the lines of, “according to the evolutionists, the universe began with the Big Bang,” and I just about wanted to throttle him and yell, “THE BIG BANG HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION! Nor does the formation of the solar system, nor does the appearance of the first living organisms on the Earth! Evolution only gets involved AFTER beings that can make crude copies of themselves exist! Cosmology, and astronomy, and abiogenesis, are NOT EVOLUTION!!”
Intelligent Design is merely a ‘God in the Gaps’ theory that doesn’t really serve a purpose other than to attempt (like the ‘Creation Science’ folks) to battle the ‘evil forces behind that Evolution Nonesense’.
I agree, but I don’t think that there is a series on any of their cobbled together ‘new’ theories.
I’m sorry if I come off as a bit harsh, but I have yet to see a resonable alternative to the Evolutionary Theory that uses factual, current, and honest evidence.
On another note, I had a discussion about the final episode of the series and I came to the conclusion that Creation Science should be included in text books.
Use it as a working example of the Scientific Method. Here you have two Hypothoses and evidence that has been gathered to support them. The Creation Scientists don’t know what they’re asking for. It would be the worst blow to their cause and to any intelligent followers who come across it.
Hey, I grew up just a few blocks from good old Wheaton College! Good times… good times… Anyway, yes Wheaton is, by most measures, a hard-core Christian institution. I make this assertion from the knowledge of the people who choose this academic path. However, I had not heard of the affirmation that the faculty must sign professing thier faith in the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.
Wheaton College faculty members do sign a doctrinal affirmation. Among other things, they affirm the verbal inspiration of scripture, and its inerrancy in the autographs. But they are not committed to any particular understanding of “literalness”, with regard to the text of Genesis.
It’s my understanding that the notion of six, 24-hour days of creation was never included in any of the great historical creeds of the Christian faith. It’s not really until the Scopes Monkey Trial (or thereabouts) that you find a large number of Christians insisting on Genesis as an actual nuts-and-bolts account of creation.
To me, creationism v naturalism seems like a clash of irreconcilable epistemic presuppositions: Things – in the broad, existential sense – either require or do not require reference to a God-concept, in order to be explained. Once you decide on a starting point, what you do later with the facts turns out to be something of a fait accompli.
I don’t know. I’m not an ontologist. I’ll leave the arguing to you folks who have more of a zest for it. I just wanted to give a quick clarification about the docrinal affirmation at Wheaton College.
Lest anyone else make this mistake again, the Evolution series was 4 parts, not 3. Actually, 8 1-hour episodes shown on 4 nights.
The “What About God?” finale didn’t amount to much, as we didn’t hear many pro-Creationist arguments, and nothing in the form of refutations. For example, Ken Ham’s silly assertion that the fossil record looks like what you’d expect from a global flood. Perhaps the series took the view that refuting such claims gives them undeserved attention, but leaving it unanswered makes Ham look like a legitimate scientist to too many people.
The episode kept returning to two main points, though neither was thoroughtly elaborated. First, the Louisiana high school students insisted there was credible evidence for “special creation,” enough to be taught in biology class. One girl said she was surprised that anyone could deny such a mountain of evidence. Frankly, I’d like to see it. Maybe her teacher was correct, and those students didn’t have a good grasp of what science really means.
Second, the Wheaton students were struggling with their faith in creationism on the one hand, and the undeniable evidence of evolution in their science classes. They kept asking “When did God inject an ape with a soul?” (Apparently this is the Vatican’s position on the issue, BTW.) Such an event is difficult to imagine, even absurd, so they have trouble accepting evolution. (This is also funny, considering the previous hour was devoted to explaining how the human mind could have evolved.)
Frankly, I find it easier to subtract God from the whole equation. A lot of inconsistencies drop away. But the Evolution series did have an agenda of appeasement, as this Slate review maintains. Notice how atheist Richard Dawkins was briefly featured in the show – but not long enough to explain his own idea of memes.
I agree, but I don’t think that there is a series on any of their cobbled together ‘new’ theories.
**
[/QUOTE]
Then make one. Again, I don’t really much care about the whole c/e debate per se. But PBS has, IMO, two ethically honest choices: Come right out and say “we support side A, and side B has no credibility,” and then act accordingly. People will know where you stand. Or if they wanted to act impartially, then you spend time and money presenting side B’s views with the same quality production you gave to side A.
Following a well-produced 4 hour series with a 20-year old video is an attempt to create the appearence of objectivity when none exists.
