Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Last week, I wrote a post titled “Cosmos” Host Neil deGrasse Tyson Speaks Out about the News Media, Flat Earthers, Science Deniers, Climate Change Skeptics, Religion, and Dogma. Tyson—an astrophysicist, director of the Natural History Museum’s Hayden Planetarium in New York City, and the host of Fox Networks’ new science series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey—appeared on a multi-part series on Moyers and Company in January. Tyson and Bill Moyers explored a variety of topics—including the nature of an expanding, accelerating universe (and how it might end), the difference between “dark energy” and “dark matter,” the concept of God in cosmology and why science matters.
In the final episode of the series—which I’ve posted below the fold—the two men discuss science literacy and why it’s so critical to the future of our democracy, our economy, and our country’s standing in the world. Their discussion lasts about twenty minutes.
“Science is an enterprise that should be cherished as an activity of the free human mind. Because it transforms who we are, how we live, and it gives us an understanding of our place in the universe.”
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
********************
~ Submitted by Elaine Magliaro
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/neil-degrasse-tyson-media-climate-change_n_4933814.html
“I think the media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but doesn’t really apply in science. The ethos was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view, and then you can be viewed as balanced…you don’t talk about the spherical earth with NASA and then say let’s give equal time to the flat-earthers.
Plus, science is not there for you to cherry pick. You know, I said this once and it’s gotten a lot of Internet play, I said the good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.
I guess you can decide whether or not to believe in it, but that doesn’t change the reality of an emergent scientific truth.”
Annie quoted Tyson saying: “I said the good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
This is subterfuge… another way of saying: if we slap the label of science on it, then you know it’s true.
Oh, how convenient. The courts ruled creationism is not science. I guess it’s not true then.
Huffpost has more cookies than Nabisco.
david, You can point out propaganda to a propagandist and they just won’t see it, or admit it. As you know, being correct is almost irrelevant to that ilk.
Tony,
Creationism isn’t science. Why should it be discussed as an opposing scientific view on Cosmos?
Now I understand Annie, you’re agreeing with Tyson where he says that:
—
“I think the media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but doesn’t really apply in science. The ethos was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view…”
—
The notion of the “marketplace of ideas” and the airing and vetting of opposing views “doesn’t really apply in science.” And how awful that someone would actually complain of such a thing anyway.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/22/creationists-airtime-cosmos-neil-degrasse-tyson_n_5009234.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Creationists demand airtime on Cosmos, yet ANOTHER complaint.
Annie, it is really funny to read an article alleging creationists DEMANDING AIRTIME and being unable to find any such demands. They mention Professor Faulkner, but no quotes of him demanding airtime, only comments from him about how the topic is not open discussion as Tyson claims. They link to another article that is even more outrageous, claiming that creationists demand EQUAL airtime, but again, no quotes of any creationists DEMANDING EQUAL AIRTIME. It is hard to take the Huffington Post seriously when they skew the news so badly.
You and others use loaded words, such as DEMAND, EQUAL AIRTIME, COMPLAINT, etc., when really we are only talking about the obvious, and that is that creationist interpretations are censored from the discussion while claiming that everything is up for discussion (including the sci-fi idea of finding life on Titan).
Dredd, thanks for your comments. And thanks for the links to your blog. I will read it. I appreciate greatly you taking the time to do the work.
Dr. Charlton, I read Kitzmiller v. Dover, the issue in the case was simply whether ID was or was not creationism by another name. The issue was distinctly not whether ID represents an accurate picture of some aspect of physical reality. Quite frankly I’m uninterested in the first question and, being what it is, it has nothing to do with what we all have been discussing. Good head fake though.
Elaine,
Scopes reborn!
Creationism Controversy: Understanding and Responding to Creationist Movements
National Center for Science Education
http://ncse.com/creationism
Excerpt:
“Creationism” refers to the religious belief in a supernatural deity or force that intervenes, or has intervened, directly in the physical world. Within that broad scope, there are many varieties of creationist belief. Some forms of creationism hold that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth. Such “anti-evolution” creationists have been leading opposition to the teaching of evolution since the 1920s.
Taxpayers fund creationism in the classroom
By STEPHANIE SIMON
| 3/24/14
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934.html
Excerpt:
Taxpayers in 14 states will bankroll nearly $1 billion this year in tuition for private schools, including hundreds of religious schools that teach Earth is less than 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve strolled the garden with dinosaurs, and much of modern biology, geology and cosmology is a web of lies.
Now a major push to expand these voucher programs is under way from Alaska to New York, a development that seems certain to sharply increase the investment.
Public debate about science education tends to center on bills like one in Missouri, which would allow public school parents to pull their kids from science class whenever the topic of evolution comes up. But the more striking shift in public policy has flown largely under the radar, as a well-funded political campaign has pushed to open the spigot for tax dollars to flow to private schools. Among them are Bible-based schools that train students to reject and rebut the cornerstones of modern science.
Decades of litigation have established that public schools cannot teach creationism or intelligent design. But private schools receiving public subsidies can — and do. A POLITICO review of hundreds of pages of course outlines, textbooks and school websites found that many of these faith-based schools go beyond teaching the biblical story of the six days of creation as literal fact. Their course materials nurture disdain of the secular world, distrust of momentous discoveries and hostility toward mainstream scientists. They often distort basic facts about the scientific method — teaching, for instance, that theories such as evolution are by definition highly speculative because they haven’t been elevated to the status of “scientific law.”
And this approach isn’t confined to high school biology class; it is typically threaded through all grades and all subjects.
One set of books popular in Christian schools calls evolution “a wicked and vain philosophy.” Another derides “modern math theorists” who fail to view mathematics as absolute laws ordained by God. The publisher notes that its textbooks shun “modern” breakthroughs — even those, like set theory, developed back in the 19th century. Math teachers often set aside time each week — even in geometry and algebra — to explore numbers in the Bible. Students learn vocabulary with sentences like, “Many scientists today are Creationists.”
davidm2575
Dredd wrote: “So here is all I can recover from what I posted: Overall, while a slight majority of the pastors surveyed fall under the label of Young Earth Creationism (54%), sizeable portions of clergy accept Progressive Creation (15%) and Theistic Evolution (18%).”
If you look at the actual survey results …
================
I am the one that provided the link to the poll results, after having read them.
There is no ambiguity in the 54%, but there is nuance in that type of poll because there are 450 denominations with different interpretations of just about anything that can be interpreted.
And that poll fits quite logically with the Gallup poll that found 46% of all Americans are Young Earth Creationists.
That you are skeptical, don’t believe it, worship, or no longer wear robes is irrelevant.
Dredd, just because you provided the link does not mean that you are paying attention to the data. Only 19% from that survey said they believed with certainty that the earth was less than 10,000 years old. Another 35% believed that God created life in six 24 hour days, but they doubted the concept of a young earth. The 54% is from adding the 35% + 19%. So the statement that 54% of these pastors are young earth creationists is wrong. I know this was stated in the report, but it is another one of those cases where the data do not support the researchers’ claims.
Dr. Stanley, assuming, for the sake of argument that what you say immediately above is accurate as pertains to all the comments made and that all of us, excepting you, are childish brats projecting right and left, what makes you think that you can shame people into right conduct let alone right thinking? And what is right conduct and right thinking and shame (or peace and love and joy) anyway after your materialistic and anti-metaphysical evolutionary worldview does it’s work of “scientifically” cutting itself off from the moral absolutes that can only legitimately flow from a creator god? By what authority do you declare right from wrong? There is no right and wrong in cause and effect or in the near infinite number of prior chemical reactions that brought you from mineral to conscious mind via the medium of the primordial soup. And how does a mere conjurie of meat, even one in a human package” escape your inescapable materialistic determinism. We can’t help but be whatever we will be, right?
And, of course, I intend no personal offense. I only write in order to demonstrate the contradiction. And I’m still going to read that case. Good night.
Chuck,
Amen!
I suppose I could stick this observation into any comment thread on this blog, but picked this one at random. People, I have seen more projection today than I would expect at a six-screen cinema. I have seen more mature interactions among seventh graders.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.”
Tony Vieira
Religion is mocked on this blog on a weekly basis at least, and, of course, the target is almost always Christianity. The ammo for this mockery is purportedly found in the fruits of the “scientific method” anthropomorphically speaking with a unified voice as it reveals to us the truth of physical reality.
I am a trial lawyer and have done this work exclusively for nearly 25 years. I have litigated and tried tobacco, asbestos, hormone replacement therapy, benzene, beryllium, med mal, and many many murder cases. In this time I’ve tried more than 300 cases to verdict.
My experience, therefore, is in the day-to-day testing of the veracity of truth claims and in particular “scientific” truth claims. I know the things that I’ve seen.
Over this entire time I have dealt with scientific questions. I have seen biased and lying PhD after biased and lying PhD. I have seen each lay claim to the “scientific method.” On each each occasion experts take the stand and claim that their side is the side doing “good science” and that their side is the side following “the scientific method” – and each side comes to opposing conclusions. This same dynamic extends outside the courtroom and into the peer reviewed journals and them into the textbooks. I see this as I see these same experts cherry pick what research they choose to “believe” and as I see large corporations fund “fund” researchers and journals in order to ensure the “scientific” validation of a predetermined agenda. Bias and perversion and agenda driving what you all would call objective science.
The notion that science is a singular body of knowledge that speaks with one voice and answers all questions of physical reality accurately is nonsense.
The notion that there is a singular and generic scientific method that applies to all disciplines, except in the most vague and therefore meaningless sense, is also nonsense.
=================
True enough, even though having some anecdotal components.
Remember that both religion and science must be “mocked” anytime either one wishes to get cozy with government and then issue the rules.
But also do not forget that our jury system, which you have used an incredible number of times, is a remedy against government, not against religious or scientific institutions (Why Trial By Jury?).
Because in a larger sense all our “knowledge” is in some degree composed of “trust” and/or “belief” (The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?).
Nick,
If you have such a hard time with Ms. Elaine, have you thought of moving to another blog? It appears that you dislike her, so you disregard the civility rules that you claim to hold near and dear to your heart. You don’t want to appear like a hypocrite, do you?
Giovanna claims, “The science touting atheists/agnostics on this site seem to think that agreeing with every scientific method makes them more intelligent and “open minded,” than one who claims to be a Christian.”
This sounds like you asking for permission to continue to beat the tribal drum, Us v Them, “christians” (as if there is only one flavor of that) v “athiests/agnostics.”
You also seem to have swept practically every other religion/non-religion off the table, which means most of humanity. Your post speaks volumes to that kind of blind exclusion.
Creationism is not science. It is not an “either/or” proposition. Attempts to make it so only diminishes people of faith, not the other way around.
Because what you call “spouting new theories all the time” is an acknowledgement we live in a universe that is not static, including our awareness of it. No one is forcing you to believe any theories. You remain free to reject them all, for reasons of your own making. Your vote still counts the same in our free society.
The modern world, impossible without science, will continue on. The goal of actual science is never to shut down a point of view, but to consider all views. Circling back around to “dead ideas” is permitted. Close-minded, however, it is not. That seems to be projection on your part.
Exactly, Elaine.
Giovanna,
Many Christians are scientists. I attended parochial schools for twelve years. I was taught about evolution in biology class in high school. I don’t think most people here have a problem with religion. Speaking for myself–I believe “religion” becomes a problem when religious fundamentalists demand that creationism be taught in science class.