Expected creationist pushback over “Cosmos”

March 23, 2014 • 10:12 am

I’m sorry to say that I still haven’t seen “Cosmos,” as I’m up to my eyeballs in writing and reading for that writing, even in the evenings. All reports are that the first two episodes (the third, I guess, is tonight) were good, with a few quibbles from scientists about inaccuracies. The evolution show got good reviews, I’m glad to say, but creationists are, as expected, kvetching. In fact, according to the International Business Times, they want some time on the show.  Or at least Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham’s organization) does:

During an interview with Right Wing Watch, Danny Faulkner, a creationist and astronomy professor from the Christian non-profit organization Answers in Genesis, said the show is biased against creationist scientists and that there are plenty of scientists who consider creationism a valid theory for how Earth came to be.

“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all,” Faulkner told Right Wing Watch’s Janet Mefferd in response to her asking if “Cosmos” producers “ever give creationists some time.”

You can hear Faulkner on the Janet Meffert show here. (Note: I didn’t have the heart to listen to it, as my sentiments are expressed in the photo below):

Violin cat

The reason, of course, that scientists don’t consider creationism (and that includes Intelligent Design) implausible is because it is implausible. There’s no evidence for it, and so it doesn’t belong on a science show. Of course the issue of “bias” is raised, but it’s not “bias” to oppose creationism, any more than it’s “bias” to oppose homeopathy.  I’m wondering why the Discovery Institute isn’t complaining as well, for they consider ID to be straight science, and so should have even more grounds for complaint. My prediction is that they’ll remain silent about “Cosmos,” but it’s not a prediction I’m terribly confident about.

To his credit, host Neil deGrasse Tyson has said some pretty strong things against “dogma,” which in his case borders on pretty strong implicit criticism of religion. In an interview at Mother Jones magazine, for instance, he says this:

The stance of Cosmos, Tyson emphasizes, is not anti-religion but anti-dogma: “Any time you have a doctrine where that is the truth that you assert, and that what you call the truth is unassailable, you’ve got doctrine, you’ve got dogma on your hands. And so Cosmos is…an offering of science, and a reminder that dogma does not advance science; it actually regresses it.”

Note, though, that he claims he’s not anti-religion, but what is religion but dogma? Tyson also characterizes the Bruno affair as not really pitting science and religion because “Bruno himself was deeply religious person.” But that’s a bit disingenuous, for Bruno was burned for holding views heretical to the dominant religious powers, even though his heresy involved more than science.

But never mind. Although Tyson coddles religion a bit too much for my liking, the show doesn’t seem to do that at all—not from what I’ve heard.

In the meantime, there are a few parody videos: Tyson remixed for the creationist mind. Here are two called to my attention by reader Gregory. They’re labelled “Cosmos edited for Rednecks/Fox News,” but I’m not wild about the “redneck” monicker: many creationists don’t conform to the “redneck” stereotype at all, and in fact the term is a bit bigoted. But these mashups are still funny:

Part I

Part II

55 thoughts on “Expected creationist pushback over “Cosmos””

  3. Creationists got some time in the first episode. They ended up burning Giordano Bruno.

  4. Creationists wanting equal time for their “ideas” should be asked if they are willing to provide the same for evolutionists. I don’t think Ken Hamm is ready for “equal time” to address his misinformation.

  5. It’s so ridiculous that creationists are absolutely serious when they complain that their ideas aren’t presented. Hey, I have an idea too – I’m angry that NDT didn’t talk about Diana’s theory of how why the soles of my feet itch just when I put on my boots! How DARE they not air this along with all the other scientific theories and of course I say “other” because science is just guessing about stuff and then convincing people you’re right, right?

    Hey, creationists and those in hearing distance of creationists, how about you google this assertion that so many scientists don’t agree with the theory of evolution. Here I’ll help you with a google search. See that first link? Click on it. Read the second paragraph, I’ll read it for you:

    An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

    So STOP ASSERTING LIES!

      1. Thank you for fixing it! I know it’s a bit pedantic and maybe hypocritical to complain about somebody stealing a work of art that is a mashup/recut of an existing work, but considering that I never monetize on a video where I did not create, own, or have permission for every frame of sound and vision, the only benefit I can receive on videos like this are increased viewership. Again, Thank you for sharing, and thank you for being attentive… I’ve been a casual reader of your blog since you did the Kas Thomas ‘takedown’ last month. Keep up the good work!

    2. The embed code for parts I and II on your site are the same. I have posted the page link for part I, but could you send me the embed code (address easily available) so I can put the video in?

      Thanks.

      1. Sorry, Jerry, for my role in sending mirror URLs. I just grabbed what Youtube came up when when I searched there.

  10. I’m wondering why the Discovery Institute isn’t complaining as well, for they consider ID to be straight science, and so should have even more grounds for complaint. My prediction is that they’ll remain silent about “Cosmos,” but it’s not a prediction I’m terribly confident about.

    In fact, the Disco ‘Tute has been complaining bitterly too.

    I’m surprised, Prof Coyne, that you haven’t responded to the creationists’ demands for time on Cosmos with a demand of your own for time on The 700 Club.

    1. I’m not surprised. The 700 Club? Now that’s what nightmares are made from.

      If Creationists want equal time with science, we get equal time in the pulpits.

  11. (sorry if this gets posted twice)
    Thank you for sharing, but please use the correct link for the first video. This one is a mirror that someone posted without permission. Thank you!

    1. Yes, it was posted twice, and I apologize again. But I tried to embed video 1 using the embed link on YouTube, and it gave me video 2, which apparently has the same link. There’s some cockup, which I don’t understand, so I’ve simply, for the nonce, posted the link to the YouTube page containing part I.

  13. …many creationists don’t conform to the “redneck” stereotype at all, and in fact the term is a bit bigoted.

    Reminds me of this turmoil.

    1. Peter and Brian are watching TV when up comes a show titled “Cosmos for Rednecks”. The new clip with Tyson just repeats the title originally used by the Family Guy show, so in context I don’t think it’s bigoted. The new Tyson version is a pretty close repeat of that Family Guy Sagan version, including the extended “GOOOOOOOD’.

  15. True, perhaps Tyson isn’t as vocal against religion as he could be. but check this out this three-minute video where he discusses the “god of the gaps” argument:

    1. I liked the last bit:

      “If that’s how you wanna play the game, then I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontiers of knowledge”.

      (or something like that)

  16. Right Wing Watch shines a spotlight on right-wing nuttery. They don’t interview creationists and Janet Mefferd certainly doesn’t work for them.

  17. The DI and their environs are of course free to develop and air shows which present their views. Unfortunately such a program might even be picked up by the Discovery Channel, or one of the so-called ‘science’ channels.
    *Shudder*

    1. “The DI and their environs”

      Hey! I live across the street from the DI and I definitely do not share their views.

  18. I came across another Christian podcast discussing Cosmos, in which neither of the guests had seen seen it, and ended up as a rant from a very excitable host called Phil Vischer (Ep .94 if you must know).
    Phil did have a couple of points of fact that were omitted about Bruno, and I have to say, even I thought that the evil satanic priests were a little OTT and blatantly anti-religious. But, as always, it must hurt to have your worldview ripped to shreds on global TV.
    I watched it with my kids who asked all the right questions and said mind=blown at the end so Tyson pitched it pretty well.
    Ep 2 on evolution was brilliant and he seemed to have taken a lot of content from WEIT The Book (as I’m reading it at the moment) – so I’d say you should get a credit Jerry!

  19. Isaac Asimov discussed this point in an opinion piece in the New York Times over thirty years ago. He said that creationists don’t want equal time–they want ALL of it. After all, they have plenty of venues of their own to push their ideas, but that somehow isn’t enough; they need “equal time” in the class room too.
    Plus, they can threaten any one who doesn’t believe in their ideas with Hell. Scientists can’t threaten any one with Hell. For people brought up to believe that Hell is real (I was one), this can be a powerful [if illogical] argument. Considering that creationists have this weapon on their side, it is surprising that as many people (including religious people) accept evolution as they do.

  20. And let’s not forget the atheist rednecks who wouldn’t like the assumption that they are anti-science. I have a friend and a few acquaintances who proudly call themselves rednecks but also think religion is a bunch of nonsense.

  21. I think the first sentence after the sad violin pic needs to have a double negative removed. (Scientists don’t consider creationism to be plausible.)

    1. I’m glad you pointed that out. I was expecting to see Jerry quoted in some creationist screed.

    2. I knew if I scrolled down far enough I’d find someone else who noticed it.

      Some people claim to be making a sacrifice to the god of Tpyos when this happens. A god anyone can worsihp.

  22. I was disappointed with his stance on the existence of He had stated with a series of cartoons that there were the births of supernatural religious leaders e.g Christian and Muslim . There is not a shred of evidence to support these births. I was pretty disturbed when deGrasse Tyson was explaining the scale of cosmos time and said that jesus was born 5 seconds ago and mohammed was born 3 seconds ago . He became the ultimate religious supporter by doing this. Macfarlane. an atheist activist ,should have screened this. This is not Family Guy.

    1. I saw that part in a different way. To me it seemed to show that the religious figures are just tiny blimps in the history of the Universe. Like (and I am quoting from memory) Sagan’s ‘every religious figure is just part of this pale blue dot’.

      1. Maybe they are tiny blimps, but keep the flame of truth away from them, just the same. 🙂

      2. If your goal is to interest people in the cosmic calendar, you mention events on the calendar that would interest them.

        Mentioning the birth of historical figures (if not Jesus, then Mohammed certainly counts) is no different than mentioning when our solar system formed. That’s not a momentus calendar event, either – its mentioned only and specifically because it has meaning for the audience.

        I don’t think this makes him the “ultimate religious supporter” at all, its just good communications strategy. What’s more, like Felipe, I think religious figures lose conceptual importance by viewing them throught the perspective of the cosmic calendar, they don’t gain it.

    2. That didn’t bother me. The birth of Jesus is probably the one event in ancient history [assuming that it happened] that most Americans could date. Tyson could have said, “The emperor Claudius” and it would have been as accurate, but would most people know when that was? Even atheists date years from the birth of Christ (if you say B.C.E. and C.E. instead of B.C. and A.D., you’re still dating from Christ’s birth; a totally non-Christian system of dating would use a different event as a starting point).

      1. Nah, we’re just counting from a conventional Year Zero (with the slight complication that the numbering was established before the adoption of a zero numeral).

        Not intrinsically worse than the Fahrenheit scale (whatever that was) or the Standard Metre (still a bar of alloy when I was in high school).

        1. Actually, the metre is a good example. It was originally defined as a fraction of the circumference of the Earth. But we can still use metres when we are on the Moon or Mars or wherever. (Unless we are Americans, in which case we still use feet. :-P)

          /@

  23. “Note, though, that he claims he’s not anti-religion, but what is religion but dogma?”

    Well, Quakers and Unitarians try to have some semblance of religion without dogma, although I would readily concede there are shortcomings in those groups as well including occasional lacks of clear critical thinking.

  24. An especially powerful strategy, I think, was introducing evolution in episode 2 — with something most people and kids could relate to: d*gs. (and the fact that most breeds are only a few centuries old).

    Even little Butter the Himmy belongs to a line no oldeer than my father… the event dated to the year. So by showing how we obviously take advantage of mechanisms inherent in life, using something familiar, the extension to recognizing that the environment provides the non-random driving force behind all evolutionary change should not be such a great leap.

    Hopefully this should get the next generation off their knuckles, over the kicks and screams of their parents. Just shutting out the outside world, changing the channel, etc. won’t cut it forever.

    1. An especially powerful strategy, I think, was introducing evolution in episode 2 — with something most people and kids could relate to: d*gs. (and the fact that most breeds are only a few centuries old).

      That was, in fact, exactly what Darwin did in OOS. Tyson wasn’t just giving an effective argument for the capability of natural selection, he was giving the original historical argument for it. We do X, and anything we can do, nature can do too.

      1. I wonder then, if the eye candy, John Williamesque soundtrack, and occasional whooshing sounds will tip the opinions of the myth-addled. It’s clear Luskin et al. have already trotted out their shopworn objections.

    1. Well an old-earth creationist like Hugh Ross wouldn’t have much a problem being an astronomy professor or researcher. For young-earth Danny Faulkner based on http://creationwiki.org/Danny_Faulkner looks like he got his PhD in 1989, stopped all his secular astronomy publications, and went to publish for the young-earth creationists. However he taught at Univ SC Lancaster for 25 years so I’m quite curious WHAT he taught in the classroom. Would love to hear from former students if he taught old universe in class…yet believes otherwise (which is my guess.)

  27. “I’m not wild about the “redneck” monicker . . . in fact the term is a bit bigoted.”

    Having grown up in a significant concentration of redneckism, I have not perceived a concomitant, corresponding concentration of intellectual curiosity and cosmopolitanism. Not a few of them perceive themselves living in “God’s Country.”

Comments are closed.