Origins Mini-Series Airs Tonight

SeaDour writes "The much-anticipated NOVA mini-series Origins begins tonight on PBS (check local listings for time). Hosted by Neil de Grasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City, the ambitious show plans to journey all the way to the Big Bang and back again, "blending astrophysics, geology, chemistry, biology and even paleontology to knit together insights about the structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself." MSNBC has an interesting write-up on the show that's been four years in the making."

Cosmos?

[suso]

So is this supposed to be as good as Cosmos was? Maybe then I'd turn my satelite back on.

Re:Cosmos?

[sgant]

really, the description of this series sounds like it was lifted straight off of the Cosmos description.

But I'll certainly tune in! Sounds great.

Re:Cosmos?

[Sponge Bath]

sounds like it was lifted straight off of the Cosmos description

Maybe they will have an introduction by an anamatronic Carl Sagan.
Don't groan, both meat sack Sagan and robo Sagan are made of 'star stuff'.

Re:Cosmos?

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

The Ship of the Imagination is now boarding for destination "My chances of ever getting laid"!

Re:Cosmos?

[Eloquence]

Sagan's work was not only scientific, it was also political. I see no evidence that this is the case for this new production. In Cosmos, Sagan fought for the protection of the environment, criticized religious fundamentalism and pseudoscience, and warned of the dangers of nuclear war. If we had someone like Sagan today in the field of science, they would point to the huge domestic problems in the United States (poverty, largest prison population in the world, loss of civil rights, abuse of teenagers in "correctional facilities", sexual hysteria ..) as well as the world political situation and ways to build a peaceful society through cooperation and the teaching of secular values.

Sagan criticized the Cold War, and so he would criticize the misguided "war on terror" (which followed decades of propping up fundamentalist regimes to combat communism). The way to bring peace to the world is to lead by example, to educate, to promote free speech, to restrict the proliferation of all types of weapons, to reduce inequality, and to limit corporate meddling in other nations' affairs.

But of course science and politics are completely unreleated according to today's standards. I fear all we can hope for from this series is a watered down version of the science and none of the politics. With that attitude, is it any wonder that just three months ago, 48 Nobel Prize winners complained that "the Bush administration is undermining the nation's future by impeding medical advances, turning away scientific talent with its immigration practices and ignoring scientific consensus on global warming and other critical issues"? [source] [nwsource.com] Sadly, most scientists only bother to speak out when it is too late, if even then.

Re:Cosmos?

[cosmol]

In Cosmos, Sagan fought for the protection of the environment,

I must have missed that part. Can you refer me to the relevent episode?

criticized religious fundamentalism and pseudoscience,

That doesn't sound political to me, as those mindsets are the antithesis of pure science

and warned of the dangers of nuclear war

Sagan did have this on his agenda, though it was usually only implied in passing remarks. Still it doesn't seem very political.

Mixing science and politics is dangerous. Science should

Re:Cosmos?

[lombre]

According to Websters: Fundamentalism - A system of beliefs based on the interpretation of every word in the Bible, both old and new testaments, as literal truth.

This is not practiced by the catholic church.

Your definition of creationism being something like "God created / is the cause of the universe etc." is not in conflict with science.

Fundamentalists believe that everything was created exactly (not figuratively) as it says in Genesis. If you believe in the Big Bang or that the Earth is more than 5

Re:Cosmos?

[Pig Hogger]

Sagan criticized the Cold War, and so he would criticize the misguided "war on terror" (which followed decades of propping up fundamentalist regimes to combat communism). The way to bring peace to the world is to lead by example, to educate, to promote free speech, to restrict the proliferation of all types of weapons, to reduce inequality, and to limit corporate meddling in other nations' affairs.

Croporations do not want educated populaces, as educated people are bound to be critical and will question endlessly public policies.

This is one reason why the USA is extremely religious, because organized ignorance is the best way of having docile populations that will not thwart the powerful people who dominate it for their own benefit. Kings have known for centuries that religion is the best way to prop-up authoritarian regimes who let a small elite rip-off the rest of the population.

As of peace, what better way than war to make people endure far more than they would consider accepting in times of peace???

Re:Cosmos?

[Pig Hogger]

Ouch. This must be the Slashdot equivalent of going about with a KICK ME tee-shirt...

The former Soviet Union was, and China is, atheist. They are also textbook examples of authoritarian regimes. I don't see the correlation.

Okay. Read slowly then.

How about a correlation of my own? Are you familiar with the term "bread and circuses"? The Roman Empire propped up corrupt regime after insane emperor by providing the populace with the finest in debauchery and cruel diversions. They also, in a proto-s

Re:Cosmos?

[ArsSineArtificio]

Okay, I'll be really easy on this one: Name the son of a U.S. president who became himself president of the USA less than 40 years after his father was kicked-out of the presidency.

*pushes buzzer* John Quincy Adams!

Do I win a tin foil hat too?

Just what does GWB believe in?

[mcmonkey]

P.S. When did GWB "impede medical advances?" Oh, I see - he refused to DIVERT TAX DOLLARS TO FETAL STEM CELL RESEARCH! So that IMPEDES scientists, who apparently have NO OTHER WAY of obtaining funding! Trust me, if FETAL (as opposed to adult) stem cell research had much potential, the pharmaceutical firms would be pouring MILLIONS into it - because they'd get billions out later.

Alrighty then. What's your stand on the war in Iraq? Sure, Saddam was a bad guy...with all those WMDs...I mean, with all thos

Should be a good night of television

[Rude Turnip]

"...structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself..."

My ultra religious in-laws visiting me this week are in for a little torture tonight :)

Ha ha ha, you see, because

[Syncdata]

...all us religious types are uptight Dean Wermer lookalikes who shake our fists at this "science" and "methodology" you crazy kids talk about nowadays.

Read "Inherit the Wind". I'm a catholic, and I have no problem rectifying evolution and the big bang with creationism. Something had to set those events into motion neh? Could it not have been grand design?
Offtopic, I know, but I'll be tuning in, and I doubt I will suffer any theological distress over such scary topics as chemistry and astrophyics.

In th

Touchy

[aztektum]

Imagine if someone put sugar in your gas tank. Shotgun riot.

He's making an observation about his "ultra religious in-laws"

This wasn't a generic comment meant to slam the entire religious establishment. I would imagine he has more insight into their reaction to this show than you.

Score:-1, Stop Whining

Re:Ha ha ha, you see, because

[Pig Hogger]

I'm a catholic, and I have no problem rectifying evolution and the big bang with creationism. Something had to set those events into motion neh?

So, you mean to say that the Big Bang was god's fart?

These are the forces...

[Colonel Cholling]

Doctrinally a bit of a mess, though. Well, all this stuff about the rocks forming over billions of years. Not exactly an A-one theory with our lot. Oh, not criticizing, no, just... not the creation as we see it...

Oh, and I am sorry about the "...of fish."

Re:Should be a good night of television

[superyooser]

Anybody who purports to explain the "structure of the universe, the creation of planets and the foundations of life itself" is definitely ultra-religious in my book.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Black Parrot]

> It's not just the "ultra religious" who have concerns about the feasibility of macroevolution resulting in the world as we know it. Take a look at Darwin on Trial or Darwin's Black Box, both written by credible scientists, not religious fanatics.

FYI, Phillip E. Johnson is a retired law professor, not a credible scientist.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Max Thrust]

I actually know Mr Johnson through his son...and I would say he falls into the 'religious fanatic' area.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Tablizer]

There is already one glaring flaw on the opening page:

(begin quote)

The theory of evolution depends upon three conditions.

1. Life Happens
2. Creative Mutations
3. Lots of Time

Let's look at each of these conditions, one at a time.

(end quote)

They left out recombinatorial DNA (sex). This is an important element of evolution. It allows more efficient "non-fatal" experiments than pure mutations would. It is especially helpful for more complex organisms.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Arguing that because something is complex it must have been created by "intelligent being" (i.e. God) is not an acceptable scientific argument and would disqualify him in "pursuite of knowledge using accepted scientific principle". It is like saying "because I don't understand how rain forms, it must be God's tears" - no difference in fundamental logic. Just pointing out weanknesses in evolution won't do it either because its strength so overwhelming (how it fits with almost every scientific field from As

Re: Should be a good night of television

[SeattleGameboy]

Big Bang theory predicted 3' Kelvin background cosmic radiation. And what do you know, when they measured background radiation of the universe, it turned out to be 3' Kelvin. That, my ignorant friend, is how a conjecture becomes a theory and how science works. Just because you call it a theory, does not make it a theory. In science, theory is something that is proven by the facts. Come back to me Intelligent Design predict something and it is proven to be true.

Re: Should be a good night of television

[Quelain]

Here's one reason not to believe it:

How did this nice valley we live in come to exist?
Religion: the gods carved it at the beginning of time.
Science: erosion.

What's that bright warm thing up in the sky?
Religion: that's the sun god!
Science: it's a star, like any other.

Where did all these animals come from?
Religion: one day, *poof*, there they were, and there's this cool story about a magic boat too...
Science: 3.5 billion years of evolution.

What caused the big bang?
Religion: Oh that's easy, our god did it.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jejones]

Sigh. Creationists are like Uri Geller, thinking that if they rub Paley's Watch enough it will start ticking again. "Intelligent design" is just the latest variant.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Monkelectric]

The biggest proof that macro evolution is possible, is a research field I'm involved in called Genetic Programming [genetic-programming.org]. Using a system that is directly analagous to biological evolution, computers are directed to discover solutions to problems. Wanna know the SCARY thing? It works like crazy. Here's a quote:

"There are now 36 instances where genetic programming has automatically produced a result that is competitive with human performance, including 15 instances where genetic programming has created an entity that either infringes or duplicates the functionality of a previously patented 20th-century invention, 6 instances where genetic programming has done the same with respect to a 21st-centry invention, and 2 instances where genetic programming has created a patentable new invention.".

Now the computational power of these computers is faily meager. I think the largest cluster applied so far has been 1000 pentium 350's. The "computational" power of a population of species is massive. If quantum computers can be developed, and genetic programming algorithms can be written in such a way that takes advantadge of the properties of quantum machines, we *really* will be entering a new era in humanity (however there is no indication this is possible or not possible, I am just speculating)

Re:Should be a good night of television

[FlimFlamboyant]

Using a system that is directly analagous to biological evolution, computers are directed to discover solutions to problems. Wanna know the SCARY thing? It works like crazy. Here's a quote:

Where did the computers come from? Oops. Get back to me when a computer constructs itself from a chunk of silicon.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[RedCard]

I like genetic programming. I like the whole concept of genetic algorithms (GA). However, I think you are stretching things a little when you say they can be used to prove macroevolution. The fact that GAs provide a different way of tackling problems does not imply that this is the same way that nature tackles problems. GAs can be 'scary' until you understand them. Once you realize that any 'odd' results coming from them are necessarilly encoded in the solution space which you've provided, they get a l

Credible Scientists?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>Take a look at Darwin on Trial or Darwin's Black Box, both written by credible scientists, not religious fanatics.

Philip Johnson is a lawyer and not a scientist of any kind. Behe may have been a "credible scientist" at some point, but he is certainly not one now, at least not in relation to his advocacy of Inteligent Design (tm) and what he tries to articulate as "Irreducible Complexity," a concept for which he has yet to provide an example. Both Johnson and Behe qualify as "ultra religious". Behe

Re:Should be a good night of television

[smclean]

What you and the previous responses seem to ignore about the parent is the fact that he did not say anything about evolution at all.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[smclean]

I think he was implying that they will be upset about the rift between the historical accounts given by science and religion.

Your response makes it sound as if he implied that people who believed in evolution could not be religious, when he wasn't even anywhere near the neighborhood of saying that.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Waffle Iron]

Why do you assume that just because someone is religious they do not believe in evolution?

He probably knows his in-laws better than you do.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[geomon]

The problem with apologetics is that they attack the same areas of uncertainty inherent in all of the natural sciences. But due to the fact that evolution speaks to the origin of man, it is the one held to the highest standard of consistency.

The field of physics is full of contradictions and surprises. Not many fundementalist organizations take issue with electronics, for instance, and how the theoretical foundations of the science make your computer work.

Most criticisms of evolution attack the scientific method without completely understanding it.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[b-baggins]

That's because physics is an experimental science. Archaeology, anthropology and paleontology are not.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[aminorex]

Quite true. But a fair number of criticisms attack the falsification of evidence which is pandemic in the field. "Icons of Evolution" is quite an illuminating read. Fact is, both sides of the debate are full of ideologues more committed to their preconceptions than to the discovery of truth or the humility to admit that they don't know. Pseudoscience and
fallacy, sometimes outright intellectual dishonesty, although we generally make the charitable assumption of folly instead, pervade any highly charged c

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Bingo Foo]

How does one reconcile the theory of macroevolution (species, over time, have evolved into more ordered organisms - humans - from less ordered organisms - one-celled animals) with the second law of thermodynamics (the natural tendency over time of any closed system is to enter into a *less* ordered state)?

The Earth is not a closed system. We are part of a driven out-of equilibrium system, with the sun's energy hitting our planet in a directed way and re-radiating in an isotropic way. Out of equilibrium process can create local regions of increasing order at the expense of dumping their entropy elsewhere.

Forget evolution for a minute and ask how anything grows at all. From a thermodynamic perspective, how does an acorn+soil+water+air become an oak tree? Can it be possible without appealing to the supernatural? Yes. The sun's energy comes in, and performs useful work, some energy becomes chemically stored through combinations of water and carbon dioxide in cellulose and carbohydrates plus oxygen, before the rest of the energy is re-radiated as mostly infrared back out to the environment. Overall this process increases the entropy of the universe (even though locally the oak tree becomes more ordered than soil+water+air), but most of that entropy is radiated away from the earth.

This is a coarse-level thermodynamic description, not a biological description, but your question was on the thermodynamic possibility. You'll notice that none of what I said here directly addresses where the genetic information and enzymes, etc. in the acorn came from, but it should show you an example where natural physical dynamics produce local order in an out-of equilibrium system. This can, in principle, be used to support the theory of evolution.

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Dirtside]

So the universe has (for billions of years) been increasing in overall entropy... The universe was at a less entropic state when it was "created" then it is now?

That sounds like creation to me :)

Maybe this is why creationists get so little love -- the extreme tendency toward random non sequiturs. :)

Nothing I (or the great-grandparent poster) said has anything to do with why the universe began. Assuming it's even meaningful to utter the phrase "when the universe began," then yes, when the universe b

Re:Should be a good night of television

[jhwang]

This is an old canard; there is no conflict between the 2nd law and evolution. As you stated, entropy increases in a CLOSED system. The earth is not closed as energy is constantly streaming into it from an external source--the Sun.

Think about development. When a single-celled embryo differentiates into an adult multicellular creature--does this contradict the 2nd law? I suppose you might say something about the developmental program requiring the information in the DNA...

OK, a better example is quoted here: "Order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptio ns .html#thermo

And of course, talkorigins has plenty of other good links on this topic:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Re:Should be a good night of television

[Jonathan]

Are you suggesting that the Theory of Evolution is more solid than electronics?

Yes. Some electronic devices work, some don't -- but no matter what antibiotic you want to use, bacteria will evolve resistance. This isn't a matter of faith. Perhaps evolution was only a theory in Darwin's day, but you can sequence bacteria from a culture before exposure to antibiotics and after and you'll see genetic change -- that's evolution. Evolution's an experimental science now.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

3...2...1...Aaaand...

[spin2cool]

Cue rabid fundamentalists... NOW!

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[suso]

My 6th grade science teacher was an ultra fundamentalist (ironically). When we got to the part about the big bang in the text book, he just started talking about how doesn't believe in all that and the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Sigh, silly backwater Indiana town.

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[tool462]

The earth IS 6000 years old. It has just been 6000 for a few billion years now. Just like my grandma has been 25 for the past 50 years. ;-)

6,000 years source

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

James Ussher (1581-1656) Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, etc. established the first day of creation as Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. He did this through calculation of the many "begats"in the Bible as well as correlation with Middle Eastern history. His calculations were actually incorporated into an authorized version fo the Bible published in 1701. If you google his name be sure to spell it "Ussher".

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[bourne_id]

I have had the misfortune to now live and teach in two states that have a really conservative attitude towards presenting theories such as the big bang and evolution (Don't!). Why is it that these ultra-fundamentalists (to borrow your phrase) can't at least acknowledge that what scientists observe what seem to be universal physical laws, and then draw their conclusions from observations using those laws? That is how geologists come up with the age of the Earth, and astrophysicists come up with the age of

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Txiasaeia]

"Why is it that these ultra-fundamentalists (to borrow your phrase) can't at least acknowledge that what scientists observe what seem to be universal physical laws, and then draw their conclusions from observations using those laws?"

I'm sorry, did somebody observe a Big Bang while I wasn't looking? How can you observe "universal physical laws" and relate them to the Big Bang if the Big Bang was an extraordinary event (i.e. doesn't happen every millenia, or even every year)? Answer: you can't. The Big B

Re:3...2...1...Aaaand...

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

Okay, so I'm going OT on this but it has to be said. There really needs to be some way in /. to allow raising the view-priority of a parent post based on some selection in the child post. Take the parent post as an example. On my screen it looked like DAldredge (2353) was replying to spin2cool (651536). When clicking on spin2cool's home, I see a nice reasonable home page -- nothing controversial. In reality however, DAldredge is replying to the (hidden on my screen) ancestor suso (153703), whose home

Cosmos redux?

[everklear]

Sounds like an update of "Cosmos", which is mentioned at the beginning of the article. I hope it is. That was one of my most cherished programs when I was a kid. I'd love to see this be carried out in the same spirit.

Make Carl proud.

Re:Cosmos redux?

[cosmol]

looks like it will be Cosmos with CG animation and a hip soundtrack.

Though Cosmos had great non-cg animation and a good soundtrack too.

I just hope it's not like that string theory series that was all style and no substance.

Hayden Planetarium

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say I have low expectations for this since when I did go to the Hayden Planetaium at the NY Natural History Museum (it was featured in KPAX). The show sucked.

They have the huge star machine, and it was only used for like 5 minutes out of the hour long show. The rest was just LCD projectors projecting video on the dome. It was so dumbed down I think even public school students could understand.

When you have a kick ass setup and location like the Hayden you should really give awe-inspiring show

I hope this is good!

[Banner]

There hasn't been a good NOVA series on in a while, especially not on Cosmology. I have my hopes up for this one...

Re: I hope this is good!

[Black Parrot]

> There hasn't been a good NOVA series on in a while, especially not on Cosmology.

ISTM that NOVA now offers "human interest" stories about scientists, rather than actual science programs.

> I have my hopes up for this one...

I'm going to watch it, but I'm not getting my hopes up. A few years ago PBS did a miniseries on evolution, and though it included some interesting stuff (like the film of two flatworms trying to bonk each other) it came across like a clip show, without any clear structure or f

Re:I hope this is good!

[LurkerXXX]

Forgot to tape it?

Watch it online then...

The Elegant Universe [pbs.org]

That's all very interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

...But will they solve the riddle of why two socks go into the dryer and only one comes out?

Re:That's all very interesting...

[Zerbey]

They're Most likely:

1. On the floor in front of the dryer.
2. Still in the washer.
3. On your bedroom floor.

Or less likely:

1. Inside your dryer, between the drum and the outer casing
2. On a planet inhabited by strange aliens with an obsession for socks.

Now, what I want to know is where all the biros go.

Things like this...

[nebaz]

make me glad we still have Public Television. Sure, we have things like the Discovery Channel, but even that suite of networks has been taken over by ratings. I've noticed that the most recent documentaries are somewhat shallow, and sound bite driven. The Learning Channel used to be great, seems like all they have on now are wedding planner shows and interior decorating. What does that have to do with learning? I'm not claiming PBS is the greatest channel in the world, but at least they still value education.

Re:Things like this...

[Ayaress]

Discovery doesn't do anything like this anymore. Take a look at their lineup. Lots of good shows (American Chopper, Mythbusters, etc), but not a lot of science anymore. They're dominated right now by home decorating and gearhead shows, with a few crime investigation shows thrown in for the CSI crowd. Heck, Mythbusters is probably one of their most scientific shows still on the air. I suppose its better than a few years ago when they were big on the occult and pseudoscience (how many times did they have to r

correction for stupid mistake:

[Ayaress]

Mythbusters is probably one of the most scientific shows still on Discovery, not on the air. PBS and a couple other channels still have good science, and I hear Discovery has a science spin-off channel, but my carrier doesn't offer it.

Re:Things like this...

[Ayaress]

How would it be a good thing? Or are you one of those ultra conservatives you say are so keen on shutting down PBS? Anyway, they get money from me every time pledges roll around. It gets split up, though. I usually pick a few shows I like pledge a bit for each one, and then look at my tuition bill and see that I pay a $250 media fee that goes to the university's PBS station WFUM and feel a bit better about only having $25-30 to donate.

Re:Things like this...

[deglr6328]

I want to donate to my local PBS station so they can pay for showings of really good shows like the one descibed here, I really do. But when "pledge week" comes around what do I see on 24 hours a friggin day? Yes, that's right, Depak fucking Chopra and chorus line of other pseudoscientific wooly headed psychics, new agers and "inner peace" practitioners. All with the mantra of "well we get high viewership numbers when we show these things...". I'm sorry but until they get their head out of thier ass and rea

Space, the Infinite Universe

[Cyno01]

"It's a simple question, if the moon were made of ribs ... would ya eat it? ...I know I would."

only see half of it..

[martin]

as I'm only in LA till Wed 8pm when my plane leaves for the UK..

Oh well, will prob be on in the UK in a few months anyhow..

Re:only see half of it..

[Visceral Monkey]

You should be able to find in on torrent sites like suprnova.org within a few days.

I recommend:

[eBayDoug]

Recording this show and watching it during each Presidential debate. You will become an astrophysicisist, and well the new President will be, ahhh....., well....., new.

HDTV?

[Sponge Bath]

I checked my listings and it is playing on the PBS HD channel in Austin (KLRU). Does anyone know if the content is HD? I can't find that detail on the station's web site.

Re:HDTV?

[AceCaseOR]

It is. PBS has been broadcasting all it's big specials and programs in HD these days (National Geographic Specials, Nova, Nature, etc.).

Re:HDTV?

[AGTiny]

I think it's only in widescreen SD. :( I'm DVR'ing it anyway though, looks like it will be cool.

Related Book

[nacturation]

I just finished reading Bill Bryson's A Brief History of Nearly Everything [amazon.com] which covers just about the exact same topics. It starts out with the creation of the universe, and works itself forward in the timeline, covering formation of the planet, early life, cambrian explosion, etc. until it ends up with the advent of homo sapien. Not a bad read.

Re:Not Everything

[Bagels]

Kind of misleading... you've got that link set to show the lowest-rated reviews first. The dissappointed reviewers simply aren't in the book's target audience, from what I can tell.

Andy Knoll

[evenprime]

I'm really looking forward to hearing Andy Knoll's comments about the origin of life.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html [pbs.org]

spoiler: how the mini-series ends...

[donutz]

*********
spoiler warning! do not read below. If you do, you'll be disappointed that you already know how the show will end before you've even seen it. Well now that we're able to get past the lameness filter, here's the answer (scroll down...)
*********
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Answer: 42

"creation of the planets"?

[ChipMonk]

Doesn't that imply a Creator?

Oh, you're talking about the formation of the planets!

Re:"creation of the planets"?

[Steven.Brady]

Doesn't that imply a Creator?

Oh, you're talking about the formation of the planets!

Ahhh... but doesn't that imply a formationator of the planets?

Oh, you're talking about the congealment of the planets!

Will also be available on DVD (and VHS)

[anishi]

If you miss the show, you can still get it on DVD and VHS sometime around November 15th from here. [wgbh.org]

Another Ideological Rant

[aminorex]

If SeaDour's description is anything but misleading, this looks like a massive undertaking in propagandizing pseudoscience.
I wish these fundamentalist ideologues weren't so well-heeled, because the consequences of their PR are terrible. Indoctrinated ignorance is very difficult to dislodge.

Similar PBS Series Rebutted

[superyooser]

In 2001, PBS/Nova produced a seven-episode series called Evolution. It was thoroughly rebutted [answersingenesis.org], but much of the same kind of atheist propaganda will be disseminated again through this latest re-education campaign of The People's Broadcasting System.

Re:Sadly, this will either be pre-empted by...

[sgant]

Frankly, Nip/Tuck is a legitimate excuse for missing such nerdy/intellectual public broadcasting Nova fun. Why? Boobies! Hotties! BOOBIES and HOTTIES, MAN!

Meh...it's still on regular cable, which means covered boobs. Boobs are better uncovered than covered.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

Re:another point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

You mis-speak before you even finish your first sentence. The problem for people who cannot accept the process of theory, evidence, new theory is that their position has no foundation upon which to rest. The overwhelming body of evidence does not support their fringe theories. This bothers them to no end so they try to frame evolution as but one "point of view." It is not a point of view, it is a theory that is backed up by a huge body of evidence. Creationism is not an "equal" belief - it is a belief that has no concrete evidence behind it.

Re:another point of view

[lpangelrob2]

All right, I'll bite.

What is the problem with alternative explanations for natural phenomena that we observe? The concrete evidence we have is what we can measure, from a strictly scientific point of view. Evolutionary theory puts the pieces together to determine our origin as starting from simple building blocks building up to complex ones, while creationary theory assumes we all started complex and explains the observations from there. People seem to get riled up over the assumption, but I haven't read that many arguments against the explanations (there are a few, I know.)

Looking at Darwin's case study... Not being a biologist, it is hard for me to determine the extent that evolution shapes the animal environment versus natural selection. If you started with a whole bunch of species, it's not too hard to imagine the best species adaptable to their environment sticking around and surviving. I know the evolution argument... that's what I grew up on.

Another hot topic is actually *questioning* carbon dating (gasp!)... what is the accuracy of carbon dating? Would what the site asserts (Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process) be true? I would really appreciate it if people on both sides got more to defending their sides than just saying "This isn't true."

Come on. There's real questions, observations, and theories out there. Stop trying to box the scientific questions that a study of creationism can pose into mere fables. And creationists should stop trying to say that evolution was completely invented either... but you can understand the resistance when that's all that's been taught for the last 40 years.

Re:another point of view

[rodgerd]

What is the problem with alternative explanations for natural phenomena that we observe?

Because they're crap. This isn't a matter of taste, like whether you enjoy Green Day or the Dead Kennedys more. Or do you feel that our understanding of gravity is no more or less valid than the idea that we are kept on the ground by invisible mites who pull us in?

The scientific method allows us to conjecture, observe, test, and accept or reject based on how well our ideas pan out. Anyone willing to make the effort c

Re:another point of view

[orthogonal]

Increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting Darwinian macroevolution due to lack of evidence.

And two of them are biologists.

Real biologists other than the fabulously foolish punctuationalist (and Marxist character assassin of E.O. Wilson) Stephen Jay Gould don't distinguish "macroevolution" from "microevolution". The "Cambrian explosion" is a mere artifact caused because organisms existing before the Cambrian didn't have shells that readily fossilize.

The explanatory power of neo-Darwinism has the potential to finally give us power over our own lives, and predictably, Michael Behe and his ilk are still making the "Argument from Personal Incredulity": "I can't conceive how an eye ^W^W a partial rotor could be favored by natural selection, so, since I can't figure it out, there must be a God ^W^W an Intelligent Designer."

Two hundred years ago William Paley couldn't conceive of how such an instrument of perfection as an eye could be formed by the blind processes of natural selection -- and he had a decent excuse, he lived before Darwin; but today we have the Darwinian model and today we have credible computer model of precisely how an eye could evolve, and how even rudimentary and partial eyes can be advantageous to an organism. There's no longer a credible excuse to prefer superstition.

So the "Intelligent Design" crowd waves their hands and says, well, ignore those eyes, but what about free-spinning rotors powering bacterial flagella? What about them? A partial rotor able to rotate through only, say, 180 degrees is still advantageous to any bacterium that needs to move.

Three billion years of evolution gives plenty of time -- and plenty of trials that didn't work out so well, to explain the variety of life of earth.

If you need the security blanket of a God, well, enjoy it. But don't pretend your emotional needs are science.

Re:another point of view

[Pig Hogger]

On the contrary, there are many arguments in favour of creation or design of life. Increasing numbers of scientists are rejecting Darwinian macroevolution due to lack of evidence.

We would like a detailed run-down of scientists who do. Merely pointing out this as a fact will not stand to scientifically minded people.

You are on Slashdot, here, where people are educated and not preaching in front of an ignorant southern baptist congregation in Hicksville, Alabama.

While we have numerous examples of chan

"evolutionary foolishness"?

[apachetoolbox]

"Statements by Non-creationist Scientists -- Even they do not believe evolutionary foolishness"

riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Pig Hogger]

riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!

In those times, days lasted a billion years each... :) :) :)

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[apachetoolbox]

Buried dino bones could be explained by a large flood and the resulting sediment covering whatever used to breath air. Which also lays down the necessary conditions for fossilization.

And thats one of the biggest problems with religous nuts and evolution, they critize the scientific method without understanding it. It's like arguing with a 3 year old that eating candy all day is bad. No a flood couldn't account for the dino extinction, even a million floods couldn't, lets ignore the fact that floods on tha

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Yunzil]

Buried dino bones could be explained by a large flood and the resulting sediment covering whatever used to breath air.

How did the large flood know to sort the bones so that, eg, we never find a Cretaceous dinosaur in the Cambrian layers?

Why can we find fossilized tracks in these layers that were under hundreds of feet of water?

Why can we find what are essentially fossilized wind-blown sand dunes mixed in the layers laid down by the flood?

Re:"evolutionary foolishness"?

[Tsiangkun]

Assuming the Bible to be true . . .

When the "large flood" occured, what happened to all of the plant life than could not survive immersion in water ? Did Noah bring two of each plant on board too ? Where did the incredible variety of plants come from ?

When the large flood expanded the oceans across the entire earth, how did the aquatic animals adjust to the changing salt concentrations in the water ? Were the aquatic animals aboard the arc too ? When did animals loose this incredible ability to ad

Re:another point of view

[sonicattack]

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:

http://www.flat-earth.org/ [flat-earth.org]

www.timecube.com [timecube.com]

Re:another point of view

[Pig Hogger]

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:
http://www.flat-earth.org/ [flat-earth.org]
www.timecube.com [timecube.com]

From Timecube:

Humans exist as CUBICS, not entitie s, for the 4 corner stages of rotating human metamorphosis do not occur at the same time for the individual - except for family Cube. You are educated stupid, indoctrinated evil, and can't even acknowledge th

Not a whif of science to "scientific" creationism

[Hamster Lover]

The bedrock of science is that an idea or hypothesis is falsifiable. That is, one does not assume the outcome in the phrasing of the question.

Scentific creationism violates this principle because the root of creationism is the belief in the inerrancy of the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Once the answer has been assumed, what is the point of the question?

Evolution did not develop this way, rather it was developed by many scientists who asked the basic question, "What is the origin of life?" The answer is not assumed, as in creationism.

At any time scientists may develop theories that question or even contradict evolution based on the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation and refinement or refutation of the original observation. We haven't found compelling evidence to do so, but there is nothing in science that says evolution is the end all be all. Science is self correcting in that any evidence along the chain of discovery that refutes the original observations will cause the process to begin again. This process is conspicously absent from scientific creationism, which seems wholy concerned with finding evidence to invalidate evolution and boolster creationism, however tenuous.

It is sad, really, that some people believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I think the problem stems from the belief that science has something to say about religion, and religion has something to say about science.

Re:another point of view

[king-manic]

I have been through those arguement a lot. Knowing a lot of fundies from being in a baptist congregation. I'd have to say none of them have a single clue about science. The ones who argue for creationism here are more intelllegent but have no idea how ludicrous their arguments sound to 1- a statician 2- a biologist 3- logistician 4- geneticist. I am a little of each and it sounds liek utter BS even though I'm a baptists.

Re:Feh...

[DAldredge]

No, they are too busying trying to get drinking made illegal. Guess they need to read the Bible. ;->

Re:Balance

[Morpeth]

"does not get political and kowtow to the liberal viewpoint on things such as Big Bang"

Probably a mindless troll, but I'll bite. WTF !?!? Science is science, period. It's only 'liberal' in the narrow mindset of people who think the earth is 4000 years old, and the fossil record is a trick by god to test someone's faith. It's called liberal because some people get so defensive when it points out the errors in their misguided, fantastical, untestable notions they cling to -- since the universe is too complex or scary to them.

The great thing about science is it doesn't have a preconceived notion to hold onto - if a theory is sound it holds up, if not, it is replaced or adjusted with further testing and observation by the originator or other scientists. Science itself does not have an agenda like an institution such as the vatican does.

Now, trying to teach 'creationism' in schools as anything but pure fiction, THAT'S political.

Re:Balance

[Gadzinka]

Science itself does not have an agenda like an institution such as the vatican does.

Now, you are mistaken, Mister. I am an atheist in a Catholic country, but I try to ``know my enemy''.

Vatican for a long time has been claiming that evolution is a mechanism created by God, in order to make his creation (the Earth and Universe) perfect, self-sustainable.

It's the specialty of American Protestant churches to take the Bible literally, claiming that Earth is 10k years old etc.

Robert

Re:Balance

[jhwang]

For example, evolution. There are still lots of unanswered problems with this theory. In a few years, there will likely be a few changes to this theory, as the data improves.

Yes, it's true that there are controversies within evolution and biology that need to be worked out, just as there are in, say, reconciling quantum physics with relativity. But these are advanced topics that teachers generally don't have time to get to in K-12 science classes.

Just b/c Newton didn't get everything right doesn't mean we don't teach the commonly accepted Theory of Gravity. (Those who are interested can learn more about relativity on their own.) And just b/c there are still unanswered questions in biology doesn't mean that schoolkids shouldn't learn the standard model of Darwinian evolution. After they've learned enough of the fundamentals, they can then start reading about advanced topics in biology and see what the thornier issues are.

At the K-12 level, there is NOTHING that should be controversial about the Modern Synthesis, which combined Darwinism and Mendelian genetics more than half a century ago. All evidence over the last 50 years from molecular biology, developmental biology, and paleontology has simply strengthened the Synthesis.

Why does biology need to meet a higher standard of evidence than other sciences?

Re:Balance

[cosmol]

The only "liberal bias" in COSMOS is where Sagan repeatedly implies that it would be a bad thing if humans destroyed themselves in a nuclear war.

Scientific theories [should] have no relation to political alignments.

Re:Balance

[llamaluvr]

Intelligent Design has precious little to do with the Bible. It involves researching origins to see what evidence there is for an intelligent designer. It doesn't care who or what that intelligent designer is- it only cares about what it did in making us and the universe. It's not just for fundies- crap, some of it's logical underpinnings are rooted in medieval Muslim philosophy.

What principle demands that any theory involving an intelligent creator must be systematically dismissed from scientific inqui

Re:Too bad for them...

[Jormundgandr]

It's just a theory guys, like the other ones. Sure I think holographic theory and some of the others are cool too, but you need to watch out for all the "the establishment doesn't believe in my work" lines those guys throw out. Seriously, holographic theory made the cover of Scientific American last year. So don't go calling a popular theory with a lot of evidence behind it "misinformation". It may turn out to be wrong in the end, but the people putting it on aren't trying to mislead anyone.

Re:Please be aware

[bloggins02]

I've always had aproblem with this viewpoint. You say: look at how complex life is! It couldn't have arisen by natural processes.

So you posit a God, Intelligent Designer, whatever, to be the entity that solves this little problem. It's perfectly simple you see, God did it (TM).

So now let me turn the question back on you: You mean there is a being intelligent and powerful enough to create all the life as we know it (and then some)? You can't escape the next question:

HOW THE HELL DID THIS BEING COME INTO EXISTENCE???

Ahhh, but you say: "God doesn't need a creator, he/she/it is a self-existent entity." Well that's all fine and dandy, but now you have two little problems:

1) This is an ad-hoc response. You have absolutely no supporting evidence to back up this claim. That's it, argument over.

2) The very reason you have given for the need for God's existence is the complexity of life, but then you go and posit an even MORE complex entity to create life, yet refuse to apply your same argument to it. This is iconsistent.

Face it: you believe in God because you WANT TO, not because the evidence compels you. That's fine, but at least admit it.

Re:Creationist Resources

[LPetrazickis]

It's important to note that Christians don't have to be Young Earth Creationists.

Also, why does carbon dating keep getting dragged out in these things? IIRC, it's only useful between 80000 and 8000 BCE. That's useful for anthropologists who track the spread of modern Homo sapiens around the world, but pretty much useless for actual palaeontologists.

Finally, please give Darwin a rest. Yes, he was the first to see the forest that is evolution instead of just peering at trees, but his theories are rather

Re:What I find most interesting

[Dimensio]

That so many of those who accept evolution as true become so extremely irritated with those of us who do not. Why do you care whether we believe in evolution or creation?

I don't have a problem with you believing something bizarre and absurd. I have a problem with creationists who deliberately misrepresent and outright lie about the study of evolution to "refute" the theory. I have a problem with creationists who claim that evolution covers things like the origin of the universe and the ultimate origins