Creationists grow increasingly desperate in feud with Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Oldgamer]

Creationists want religion out of Cosmos, unless of course it favors them.

Each week Neil deGrasse Tyson has been attacked by creationists and the religious right for anything he says that makes religion look bad.

In this week’s episode about electricity, Tyson discussed a Christian scientist, brushing off the importance of religious belief while engaging in scientific inquiry. Naturally, creationists don’t like that.

Michael Faraday was introduced this week to millions around the globe for his contributions to science, many of which benefit us all today in our everyday lives. Faraday was a devout Christian, and Tyson mentioned this, but as David Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute points out:

“Faraday’s faith is mentioned at the beginning but implicitly dismissed as having anything to do with his science. Cosmos shows us his impoverished family saying grace at the dinner table and explains that he ‘took [their] fundamentalist Christian faith to heart. It would always remain a source of strength, comfort and humility for him.’ That’s it—nothing more than a warm blanket on a cold night.”

Tyson is not lying or misrepresenting Faraday here. Faraday was a great scientist who knew how to check his faith at the lab door and study the actual data in front of him.

This upset Klinghoffer to no end. He goes as far as to mention his 12-year-old son, a fan ofCosmos, who is not allowed to watch any episode because of the content. You have to love the open mindedness of raising your kid to only believe what you believe.

Klinghoffer quotes MIT professor Ian H. Hutchinson:

“One example of the influence of [Faraday's] theological perspective on his science is Faraday’s preoccupation with nature’s laws. ‘God has been pleased to work in his material creation by laws,’ he remarked, and ‘the Creator governs his material works by definite laws resulting from the forces impressed on matter.’”

While this is correct, how would Tyson benefit the viewer by pointing this out? Faraday’s discoveries would not change based on his belief or the validity of his personal faith. Faraday calls them nature’s laws; he just happens to believe a God created them.

Klinghoffer continues:

“Tyson has gone out of his way, indeed twisting the facts, to depict faith as an obstacle to science. But when acknowledging its vital role in scientific history would be most appropriate, Cosmos invariably falls silent.”

It is Klinghoffer who twisted the facts, trying to make his readers believe that all of Faraday’s discoveries were based on his faith and not his devotion to the scientific method.

Tyson and the writers at Cosmos are not in some anti-religion conspiracy. They are simply delivering a dialogue about the world we live in. Creationists demand validity when none should be afforded to them.

A scientist like Faraday can exist today and indeed does. Scientists around the world hold their own religious views. The ones who are successful at science are the ones who are able to check their faith at the door and can work in the lab using the scientific method, not fairy tales.

Tyson has brought up religion a handful of times, to counter its stance against evolution, call out the claims that earthquakes are caused by moral issues, and remind everyone that in the past the church has gone so far as to kill those who used science to speak out against the Bible. However, Tyson and the writers at Cosmos have not made it a point to mention every scientist’s religious beliefs if they had no impact on the story at hand.

The Discovery Institute is simply embarrassed, as it was weeks before when its worldview was deconstructed on national television. In retort it stoops to ad hominem attacks of Tyson, MacFarlane and the writing team at Cosmos, who are telling a beautiful lesson week after week.

Organizations such as the Discovery Institute highlight why there is such a divide between religion and science. The fact that they take offense at a scientist having religious beliefs that do not influence his discoveries in the lab shows once again that truth is not their goal.

As in weeks past, when the data invalidate the claims, the next best response is to attack Tyson. And just as in weeks past, science prevails when it simply produces verifiable data over ancient myths.

Link to Article

Edite: I love this guy, he is great.. good article!

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Comments on articles. They're needed in P&N.

 

[Oldgamer]

Comments on articles. They're needed in P&N.

There done, happy now? LOL

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

There done, happy now? LOL

Yes, I agree.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Cosmos is about scientific facts, with a dash of personal life of said scientists. Tyson doesn't just spew data and figures, he also tries to explain what happened and what drove the person(s) to the state and conditions they were in, when they made their discoveries.

These SAME scientists, could not simply publish the following to back their discoveries; I have discovered atoms, all thanks to God! You too can discover something, just pray and worship God.

That would not work.

Also, if they don't like Tyson's show, let them cook up their own show. Just like they set up their own museum; http://creationmuseum.org/. As false and misleading as it may be, at least they are siting the Bible, on as to why they feel this view is correct.

 

[Oldgamer]

Cosmos is about scientific facts, with a dash of personal life of said scientists. Tyson doesn't just spew data and figures, he also tries to explain what happened and what drove the person(s) to the state and conditions they were in, when they made their discoveries.

These SAME scientists, could not simply publish the following to back their discoveries; I have discovered atoms, all thanks to God! You too can discover something, just pray and worship God.

That would not work.

Also, if they don't like Tyson's show, let them cook up their own show. Just like they set up their own museum; http://creationmuseum.org/. As false and misleading as it may be, at least they are siting the Bible, on as to why they feel this view is correct.

Fanatical religious people just can't stand facts and science. It is evident by trying to place religious teachings in school, and deny schools real scientific teachings. Shoot we have fanatics in other countries destroying schools and kidnapping girls from their schools. Science and education is are the two main things that religious nuts fear the most.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ah, another religious-bashing thread. This is what modern atheism has become.

 

[cyclohexane]

Faraday was a badass. He was very fortunate to be discovered by Davy, and have the opportunities that he did. Makes you wonder how many other impoverished geninues died without having reached their potential.

 

[brandonb]

I'm religious and I believe in evolution. I don't understand exactly how we got to where we are. There are still a lot of questions, but I believe in it in concept and think life evolved.

My priest says there is nothing in the bible that says evolution didn't happen, nor does it say the earth is only 6,000 years old. He says he personally doesn't believe we evolved from rats, but there is nothing in the catholic religion that says one way or another.

What does that say about us?

 

[jhbball]

Ah, another religious-bashing thread. This is what modern atheism has become.

LOL. Never get tired of butt-hurt Rob.

 

[Genx87]

I've really enjoyed his episodes on Netflix.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm religious and I believe in evolution. I don't understand exactly how we got to where we are. There are still a lot of questions, but I believe in it in concept and think life evolved.

My priest says there is nothing in the bible that says evolution didn't happen, nor does it say the earth is only 6,000 years old. He says he personally doesn't believe we evolved from rats, but there is nothing in the catholic religion that says one way or another.

What does that say about us?

Are you serious? How could the Bible say anything about evolution when it wasn't understood until the 19th Century? The Bible was completed in 98 C.E.

It says your priest is an idiot.

 

[brandonb]

Are you serious? How could the Bible say anything about evolution when it wasn't understood until the 19th Century? The Bible was completed in 98 C.E.

It says your priest is an idiot.

Because the bible doesn't say one way or another that evolution or creationism happened. See below:

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Nothing says creationism happened. 26 is the closest you can get. But it says "in our image, in our likeness, so they may rule over..." It doesn't specifically say he created us out of thin air with a snap of a finger. Only that mankind will rule over the animals like he rules over us.

And it specifically says he didn't create the animals, that the land created the animals.

 

[Retro Rob]

Because the bible doesn't say one way or another that evolution or creationism happened. See below:

Nothing says creationism happened. 26 is the closest you can get. But it says "in our image, in our likeness, so they may rule over..." It doesn't specifically say he created us out of thin air with a snap of a finger. Only that mankind will rule over the animals like he rules over us.

And it specifically says he didn't create the animals, that the land created the animals.

...and you wonder why religion in faltering in this world. They're, as you're doing, trying to marry their beliefs in the Bible with evolution by showing how the Bible sees it as "plausible".

The issue you run into, is that evolution states man started from animal -- the Bible teaching man was created apart from animal.

Like I said, this is an idiotic way to attempt to reconcile the two.

 

[Thebobo]

Well there you go.

BTW David Klinghoffer and all the other young earth idiots who want this crap tought in school can kiss my ass I have no time for idiocy.

 

[IronWing]

Like I said, this is an idiotic way to attempt to reconcile the two.

^^I agree with this. Attempting to do so perverts science and bestows unwarranted credibility on religion.

 

[cyclohexane]

...and you wonder why religion in faltering in this world. They're, as you're doing, trying to marry their beliefs in the Bible with evolution by showing how the Bible sees it as "plausible".

The issue you run into, is that evolution states man started from animal -- the Bible teaching man was created apart from animal.

Like I said, this is an idiotic way to attempt to reconcile the two.

Whether you personally believe it or not, evolution is a fact and is the cornerstone of modern biology and medicine.

I would respect you more if you truly stick up for your beliefs and refuse all medical treatments in the future.

 

[Retro Rob]

^^I agree with this. Attempting to do so perverts science and bestows unwarranted credibility on religion.

That's not my reason for saying that, though.

He's trying to keep his faith in the Genesis account as a creation story, while accepting evolution at the same time....he cannot honestly do both.

This is why they have to invoke arguments from silence to hide this sort of intellectual dishonesty...focusing only one what's NOT explicitly mentioned, instead of focusing on what is mentioned.

 

[IronWing]

That's not my reason for saying that, though.

He's trying to keep his faith in the Genesis account as a creation story, while accepting evolution at the same time....he cannot honestly do both.

This is why they have to invoke arguments from silence to hide this sort of intellectual dishonesty...focusing only one what's NOT explicitly mentioned, instead of focusing on what is mentioned.

Science-of-the-gaps doesn't work any better than God-of-the-gaps. I never cared for historical fiction for the same reason.

 

[Retro Rob]

Science-of-the-gaps doesn't work any better than God-of-the-gaps. I never cared for historical fiction for the same reason.

Agree.

 

[Thebobo]

That's not my reason for saying that, though.

He's trying to keep his faith in the Genesis account as a creation story, while accepting evolution at the same time....he cannot honestly do both.

This is why they have to invoke arguments from silence to hide this sort of intellectual dishonesty...focusing only one what's NOT explicitly mentioned, instead of focusing on what is mentioned.

Eh wha?

Honestly I would think he could do what ever he honestly wanted to do. Honestly its none of our buisness.

 

[Retro Rob]

Eh wha?

Honestly I would think he could do what ever he honestly wanted to do. Honestly its none of our buisness.

Agree.

 

[Anarchist420]

i believe that there was a higher power who created the earth and then later created the first neanderthal woman in siberia. but the vast majority of the world population today has mtdna that was formed from elements of the earth. there is no way that the first neanderthal woman can be traced back to the same womb as any monkey can be traced back to. and the higher power intended for those with mtDNA hgs UK, A, and D to be the master race and for the dolichocranial race to be slaves to the asiatic neanderthal race. unfortunately, the Roman Church and the modern State have overturned the natural law (i.e., democratic confederalism) by not only using force so that the dolichocranial race wouldnt be in its natural position of enslavement to the neanderthal race, but it has also given the former jobs in the State bureaucracy. there are a few asiatics, including obama and bill clinton, who had/have govt jobs, but that is because their enemy the State threatened them if they didnt serve it

 

[thraashman]

Ah, another religious-bashing thread. This is what modern atheism has become.

I'm an atheist and I don't see this as religion bashing. I see this as anti-science bashing. I may reject religion myself but I don't see how one's religion should preclude them from accepting scientific facts. If you're religious and science comes up with something that would appear at odds with your religion, well science isn't trying to disprove your faith. You should work to incorporate the science within your religion if you don't want it to break your faith.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm an atheist and I don't see this as religion bashing. I see this as anti-science bashing. I may reject religion myself but I don't see how one's religion should preclude them from accepting scientific facts. If you're religious and science comes up with something that would appear at odds with your religion, well science isn't trying to disprove your faith. You should work to incorporate the science within your religion if you don't want it to break your faith.

Fine, I respect your opinion.