By Recently, one of our readers was watching Extreme Machines on the Science Channel with his son. The inevitable ads came on — and he saw an advertisement for the Creation Museum, the anti-science young-earth creationist museum.
He couldn’t believe his eyes. He had to rewind twice to make sure he wasn’t seeing things. He also snapped a picture:
How can the Discovery Channel (who runs the Science Channel) accept this kind of advertising? Are they that desperate for money?
Perhaps next month we’ll start seeing ads for the Flat Earth Society on their channels. Or maybe public service announcements on how children shouldn’t be immunized.
They’re the Science channel! And yet they are promoting a religious organization whose entire purpose is to convince people that evolution is a lie, the earth is 6,000 years old, and believing in a zombie named Jesus is the only way to get to their celestial paradise.
For shame, Discovery.
Update from Discovery Communications President, John Ford: In this case, the Science Channel didn’t sell the ad, it was sold by one of our satellite or cable affiliates, who control several minutes per hour of ad time (likely DirecTV). We have zero control over the time they sell, just as broadcast networks can’t control what their local stations sell in “their” local time. Hope that explains it.
Skippy: Of course they don’t. That would require knowing history. And... 
nazani14: “For the Jews” sounds like a land claim to me. I’d rather go with the penny or the Kensington rune... 
timmy the dying boy: If these are the non-crackpots I’m glad he... 
Jabster: “On a related note, does anybody else get pissed-off at women who have kids and behave like they’re somehow special or... 
Yoav: My guess is that the majority of Beck’s xtian fundie followers don’t really know his a mormon (they obviously... 
Malvond: Maybe you guys have seen this before, but there’s a song about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tJRzBpFjJS8 
Tee: It may sound great on paper to have the individual self invest but most would think... 
84 Comments
Well they need to make money somehow I suppose. Though, if you put that idiocy against the normal DC programming, it looks simple minded.
I’m not surprised. The History Channel’s doing the same kind of thing. Draws in viewers, I guess. So far the National Geographic Channel has held the line pretty well, but I expect it to cave eventually.
Yeah, I am so tired of the hearing about the History channel investigating the ark or moses or eden. Their advertising about the dark ages talked about a “godless” time and I really doubt that the catholic church vanished for 700 years…
I’d love to see the History Channel do a documentary about secularism through US History, but I won’t hold my breath waiting on that one.
On the one hand I’m annoyed at seeing ads for religious groups (to whom education & critical thinking are anathema) on channels that are supposed to further LEARNING; on the other hand, I can’t deny that placing such commercials in time slots around “documentaries” about religious subjects is entirely appropriate (no matter how distasteful I find the marketing of willful ignorance).
I think the History channel’s reports on religious stuff is good because it often relies on real scholarship that sheds light on why modern belief gets it wrong. For instance, their piece on Eden discussed the primitive culture of eastern Turkey that gave rise to the Eden story, thus placing it in context and de-mystifying it. I like that.
It’s not always the subject matter that gets me. Some of these things need to be looked into. What irks me is that so often they try to leave the question open at the end, even when one position is self-evidently ludicrous.
What? They called the Dark Ages a “godless” time! I must have missed that one…
As long as it’s only an ad, it doesn’t piss me off too much. Even kids know that ads are made of lies anyway.
The National Geographic Society has had its unfortunate moments in the past (I think they even promoted Piltdown man) but in the end money is money and the Creation museum’s money is as good as anyone’s, I guess. You can’t really expect 100% scientific integrity from a wide-audience publication.
Do they actually have the option to turn down the ad?
At least in Italy, if you offer ad space you must offer it to whoever asks, as long as the ad itself is legitimate.
Yes, they do. I worked for a large telecommunications firm that turned downed hosting Ashley Madison (they help married people cheat) due to the nature of its business.
But commercials flat-out lie to us all the time; for example, if you think you can get the hair colour Revlon or L’Oréal promises, and that their spokespeople are flaunting, out of a box, I have a timeshare on the Larsen-B shelf I can sell you. :)
The problem is not devious ad agencies, but a society that nurtures credulity.
Money is money, they could be assuming that it will have no effect on their educated audience.
Or there could be rules saying they have to accept any ad, or it could be placed there by the carrier cable company etc), and not Discovery.
Your final point is probably the case; good call.
It’s an Ad for Pete’s sake. An Advert. and so what if it’s by an ‘anti-science young-earth creationist museum’ I thought you were open to ideas, at the very least you would allow people to listen and make up their minds based on information??? I’ve a good mind to call you a scientist fundie,
I think the reason he’s so hard-assed on the museum is there is no real information to back up the claims it makes. I mean come on, humans working along side dinos?
Discovery channel is supposed to have an interest in educating people. With such an add, he’s showing that it is merely an other business. I’m not against the ad, I’m sad at realizing yet another “money is money” example.
“scientist fundie” include scientists who are christian fundies? Did you mean “scientific” fundie? Does that exists, appart from anecdotic cases?
Are you open to stupid ideas? Others might not be so open to “ideas”.
If more ads like that pops up then the credibility of the science on that program is going down fast. Would you believe a science site that is sponsorded by anti-science people?
The way I see it, DC gets money from advertising and the Creation Museum preaches to people who are the least likely to ever visit it. I’m okay with it.
It may have been a “local insertion” ad. Some ads are bought at the local level, with individual cable systems, and played during certain commercial breaks that are set aside for this. The network has no idea what’s playing in those slots, since people in different areas are all seeing different ads, depending on what was sold locally.
The photo shows a “DirecTV” logo. Doesn’t that mean it’s satellite TV? If that’s the case, there is no local level, or individual cable system.
Nonsense…DirectTV does local ad inserts as well…you just go to DirecTV to buy them.
See: http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3i149b78bd47280165fb79f94cb64db947
ad sales doesn’t care where the ads come from. they work off commission so if they can sell it and make some good money off it they usually do.
Do you get this bent out of shape when you see an infomercial that’s advertising a product that doesn’t work?
TV stations are out to make money. Money from a YEC spends the same as money from an evolutionist. Seems like the proverbial mountain out of a molehill to me.
I find it a bit less annoying than the History Channel producing shows about dilettantes who have supposedly found the Ark of the Covenant or “decoded” the story of the Exodus. It’s not just the content. It’s also the fact that a channel which bills itself as dedicated to history is showing something that is actually pseudo-history.
In this case, the Discovery Channel bills itself as an educational channel, and their running an add for a “museum” that is self-admittedly dedicated to indoctrination. They aren’t specifically endorsing the museum, but it still seems to run counter to their mission.
The infomercial products usually don’t tell me that i’m forever doomed if I dont believe that they work.
“bow before the food dehydrator, for the beef jerky of rightousness is the one true way to eternal life!”
I don’t think this commercial is explicitly saying that, even if the group that produced it would if you asked them.
But it’s just an ad. It’s not an endorsement.
The reason I brought up the infomercial was to make an analogous point. I generally like ABC, but they run infomercials on the weekends, which I find dishonest and deplorable.
But I don’t make the logical mistake of thinking ABC is somehow endorsing the product the infomercial is promoting and then blame ABC if/when the product is a piece of junk.
agreed, it’s just a money thing. Even if the economy was great, they’d probably still be running the ad because they were paid to. Heck, they may even have it in their advertising policies that they will not descriminate against ad’s….or something.
But it’s just an ad. It’s not an endorsement.
I think the difference is getting harder and harder to see.
It was clear a century ago, when advertisements were mostly about providing information: “Here’s our product, here’s all the wonderful things it does, and here’s where you can buy it.”
It was still pretty clear fifty years ago, when commercials were trying to create demand: “If you have ring-around-the-collar, you’ll face social ostracism. Buy Wisk today, or become an exile!”
But today commercials are largely about “branding”: “We’re Target, look at our stylish, trendy ads! We used to be a boring company that competed with Wal-Mart and K-Mart, but now we’re Stylish! and Trendy!”
That’s why you see so many car companies sponsoring nature shows on PBS. It’s not that the viewership of Nature is really buying that many SUVs, but that Ford is trying to remake its image as a green company. To do that, they’re piggybacking on PBS and Nature, hoping some of their environmental aura will rub off. Ford could get twice the viewership or a better demographic on another station, but this way they can improve their “brand”.
The Creation Museum could probably get a better straight ROI by advertising on another station that caters to a more religious demographic. But by playing on the Discovery Channel, which has an educational theme and a fair reputation, they can improve their image and look more like a real educational institution. The Museum is using the Discovery Channel’s brand to improve their own. And the folks at the Discovery Channel have to be aware of this, and they’re allowing it to happen.
Two things can happen with PBS and Ford: Ford will start being associated with environmentalism, or PBS will start looking like a corporate shill. Frankly, I think the latter is what’s happening. If the Discovery Channel isn’t careful, they could wind up with a brand like the History Channel: a station whose commitment to education is only an inch deep.
That’s about the most logical comment in this thread. I agree with everything you’ve written.
Agreed, Don – vorjack makes the best point. This should be sent to Discovery Channel as a warning to them about the dilution of their brand while enhancing the brand of The Creation Museum. Kinda makes whatever money they get less important.
I don’t understand why it is so difficult for some people to accept scientific theories, and why they stick so strongly to their religious ones, especially in the 21st century. I spent most of my childhood in a predominantly Hindu society (read: South Asia). It has its own story of creation, but in schools, we are content learning that it is one of many beliefs/theories, and that evolution and the Big Bang and all are the generally accepted scientific theories. Heck, in 6th grade, we learned what the Hindu, Christian, and Islamic views are on creation in social studies class. As 11 year olds, we already knew to treat it as something that very old religious texts gave us, and not to accept it as fact, but as an explanation that sufficed for people of the time the text was written in.
It baffles me that people much older can’t seem to figure that out and keep spouting religious dogma in the face of a rapidly changing world.
I met a Hindu Creationist once. Interesting contrast to the usual Christian Fundy Creationists.
I think it would be quite interesting to take creationists from all the major religions and put them in one room to see if they arrive at any conclusions. Ofcourse, I’m guessing none of them are going to change their minds, but it would make for an interesting and lively discussion. :D
A quick note -
Nepal was a Hindu nation until, I believe, 2 years ago. From talking to people there, I discovered that their public schools didn’t teach the Hindu Creationist view (at least for the most part, there might have been exceptions of course) but just taught the scientific view of the world (maybe there weren’t enough creationists to push forth the view?). Odd how Christian fundies here in the US, a secular nation, want Christian creationism taught in public schools… (And not just want, but do so in some school districts).
Yah, put them all in a room with each other, leave out a few handy heavy objects, lock the doors and wait an hour or so… Then call the cops when you hear the thumping and screaming start.
Wrong, call the cops after the thumping and screaming stop!
What a great comeback godsfavoritecolor. I’m sure I would have thought of it but you were here first. Kudos to you.
(Sorry about the slightly off-topic comment above).
About the ad, I’m guessing what somebody above said about it being local might be right. I can see two reasons for that: whoever is in charge of placing the ad is a fundie and trying to get people to change their minds, OR s/he isn’t a big fan of fundies and placed it where it would be treated with the most ridicule and surely would not visitors
If not, Discovery might have found it kind of funny to place it there. :D
edit:
*surely would not get visitors
Except for Showtime’s “Bullsh*t” (and maybe “House, MD”) there is really no program on television that questions the sacred cows of religion, new age belief and sudo-science. Most Americans to some degree still believe in the stuff and these networks are not going to tick off of large group of the American public by making Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason” into a series, or reenacting the resurrection of Christ on “Mythbusters”
Even PBS is part of the problem, with programs starring new age gurus like Deepak Chopra and the pro-islamic “Empire of Faith”
The only shows that seem to question religion are cartoons: South Park, Family Guy (Brian, the dog, recently came out as an atheist). We’re supposed to believe that real life people must all be religious, I guess…
Well, House’s a pretty outspoken atheist in the show – he mocks a nun quite openly in one of the episodes… but she gets off the hook pretty lightly, since that isn’t the focus of the show.
call them and complain. 240.662.2000
I sent an email to them. Very not cool Discovery channel
They’re a profitable enterprise and shouldn’t censor easily. They probably believe their viewers are smart enough to filter out this crap anyway.
I believe most “creationists” are like most Christians – they believe, but only think about it on a surface level, never giving it serious thought or even caring a whole lot. The Creation Museum (that I am going to visit in a few weeks with a pastor friend of mine who is similarly nonbelieving, just to poke fun at them) reveals the extremism that creationism actually involves. The more people realize how crazy creationism sounds – 6,000 year old earth, etc. – the more the concept will fade away. So more power to The Creation Museum!
Flat Earth Society? This is satire, right? Kinda like the “Onion”?
Unfortunately no.
This is the fine print from The Flat Earth Society:
“The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one’s self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut.”
From reading only this and not delving any further onto their site, it sure seems that something is amiss.
Just FYI
Perhaps that site is a parody. It was, however, a real movement and there are people convinced of it today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
I didn’t doubt you or the reality that such a group could actually find an audience.
I was so curious I wanted to see what their line was. I’m one of those “fine print” people, I guess. Perhaps the site is a parody of the actual society?
Melissa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society#Flat_Earth_Society_today
I think it’s just a forum now. Here is a FAQ:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0
(Their “line” is that the Earth is flat and the whole roundness thing is a conspiracy.)
I think you are being too hard on Discovery. Running an advertisement is hardly a ‘promoting’.
However, I would think that an entertainment company whose product is science would be insulted by a pseudoscience like creationism. It is very likely that their advertising department is full of, guess what, advertising people. Outside of the science community, many people do not understand (or care) how/why creationism is actually not science.
Since, as mentioned above, networks do turn down ads, airing an ad on your network does indicate approval in a way, or at least a lack of opposition towards something. Advertising people surely don’t always have the final say over what does or doesn’t air.
The fact that many people don’t know or care about creationism being a science is important: some people might think that if it’s shown on the Discovery Channel, it can’t be that bad. It doesn’t matter if it’s ad execs who made the decision or not. Maybe The Discovery Channel is pressed for cash and hoping to be bought out by the Discovery Institute??
It is possible, though, that it was a local or DirecTV ad that Discovery had no control over. In which case, the people who approved it either have an agenda, are clueless, or have a sick sense of humor by airing the Creation Museum ad on DC.
Since, as mentioned above, networks do turn down ads, airing an ad on your network does indicate approval in a way, or at least a lack of opposition towards something
I think there’s another somewhat weaker alternative than the lack of opposition. If it’s going to make money for the business execs (which ads do), and it’s not promoting something that’s blatantly offensive, discriminatory, etc., then the ad will air.
In other words, I don’t think we are forced to interpret this as an implicit, tacit endorsement; it’s all about the money, plain and simple.
I don’t think we are forced to interpret this as an implicit, tacit endorsement; it’s all about the money, plain and simple.
I agree that it’s not meant to indicate an implicit or tacit endorsement of creationism. I’m just saying that they felt it was okay to air the ad, when they could have easily rejected it.
If indeed Discovery approved the ad, it means that the ad is not offensive to them, or that they need the money enough to let it pass, or that they possibly don’t want to be labeled as anti-religious by rejecting it. I feel that letting a creationist ad get onto a science channel is offensive, just as I’m sure an ad for “The God Delusion” would be deemed offensive in a church bulletin.
If there had been an ad promoting bestiality, for example, it would have been rejected I’m sure as being offensive. A channel supposedly promoting science should find a creation museum objectionable, if not offensive. I don’t think airing the ad means they are trying to promote creationism; I just disagree with their decision to include it on a channel like that.
The ad space may have been sold by a sattelite or cable provider, not the Discovery Channel itself. The providers often sell space on the system which includes multiple channels. The channels don’t really have control over those particular slots.
So while the ad may have appeared on the discovery channel, it could be that the worst they can be accused of is allowing their channel to appear on a system run by people with bad judgment.
EVERYONE! Please contact the Discovery Channel and complain.
As disgusting as I think the Creation Museum is, I do not believe Discovery should have rejected the ad, nor do I think there’s any point complaining. If people are offended, perhaps they should raise money for a rebuttal ad.
TV stations, like newspapers and other media, should always be neutral about advertising, including controversial advertising, unless the content violates community standards for decency.
I think that the Discovery Chanel is running into the same problem that most people run into when they try to be fair and respectful. I’m sure Richard Dawkins would never ever be able to buy advertising time on the broadcast of some megachurch service, but, because the Discovery Chanel apparently supports free speech, it allows that ad. It’s the same reason that NPR broadcasts 4 hours tributes to president Ronald Reagan, but Rush Limbaugh has never mentioned a nice word about Bill Clinton. You simply cannot compromise your moral stance on things like free speech and expression to gain an upper hand, even if others will to gain an upper hand on you.
Is anyone really watching the Discovery Channel for science programming? It’s fluff.
I can’t believe it! After they had worked so hard to establish their credibility with such documentaries as: “The Bible Code,” “Return of Son of the Bride of the Bible Code,” “Martians Built the Pyramids,” and of course, “Hitler’s Biggest Boners.”
If a Creation Museum ad ran during Mythbusters, all of the irony in the universe would be collected into one place at one time, causing it to collapse into a singularity from which not even sarcasm could escape.
I’ve seen this ad. Hopefully it’s just a way for the fundie museum to waste its money. The channel placement is just ironic.
In a similar vein, has anyone noticed a proliferation of Scientology ads? I’m in St. Louis, and they have tv spots on just about every channel.
My sister stopped there with her family and they all thought it was hysterical.
I do find a problem with the dilution of “science” and the scientific process by this type of organization. Religions should be taught in schools as a Social Studies course, not as Science. They are a faith, not science. Hib’s comments are interesting.
It’s so expectedy hippocratic of these creationists to use a science channel for promoting themselves..
As a past Baptist extremist and creationist, I can tell you that creationists don’t think of science and creationism as separate. Think their way – if it WAS true, then creationism would BE science. I can also tell you that creationists are not all idiots, bumping into each other in retarded marches, spouting beliefs on the level of flat-earth belief. When I became a Christian, then a Baptist, then a creationist, I was an electronics engineer geek, working on cruise missile radar altimeters, subscribing to science magazines, reading for hours each day. My belief in creationism was well thought out, and I could debate it for hours and hours without ever resorting to pap or even the Bible.
While arguing for creationism once, a friend of mine (both of us engineers) responded to my question of what the odds would be that all of this in the universe happened by accident. He said, “one hundred percent, because it did.” That, my friends, sounds no different than any religion, and became a great anecdote to tell my Christian friends and laugh. He strengthened my faith in creationism.
We must not make it seem that science has all the answers, that scientists know everything there is to know – that’s absurd and makes science into its own religion. At every point in history scientists thought they knew it all, just like today, but today we laugh at the ignorance of past scientists. In two hundred years we will look like skull-drilling blood-letters in comparison to the new sciences, and we again will think we know it all.
My suggestion is to do two things in order to confront the threat to truth that creationism presents. One, be respectful of creationists, and odds are good they’ll be respectful of you, and have an intelligent conversation. Two, admit to the reality that the theory of evolution is incomplete, kinda ridiculous-sounding in its own right (complex humans came from worms, zombie Jesus – both silly sounding on the surface), and is in-process. This removes the arrogance creationists see in scientists, and allows creationists to think rationally for a change, without the anti-science walls they’re trained to put up. From personal experience, I can tell you that it works to chip away at creationism instead of slamming it with ridicule.
This was an interesting post, thanks. Can you tell more about what made you discard creationist beliefs?
To be honest, I didn’t discard ALL my creationist beliefs. I am a deist – I believe there is a design and spiritual meaning to life of some sort, but that whatever intelligence is behind it has no need to communicate with us. So I believe that whatever process of life-change that has occurred, some form of evolution-type process, has an intelligence behind it. But that’s where I leave it and I’m fine with not knowing the full details. I also don’t try to get others to believe it, either, because it doesn’t matter to me what my neighbor believes, only that he does not try to force HIS beliefs on me or my children.
I also never believed the earth was 6,000 years old. That’s crazy. I put it more at 10,000 years. LOL. Seriously, though, my path away from creationism began with my path away from Christianity, which began by my realizing that, if a god really put Christians on this earth as his representatives, and based the afterlife of billions of souls on the actions of these Christians, then he was a major failure. The thousands of Christians I got to know during my 10 years of Baptist faith were just too incompetent, selfish, and usually downright evil to believe they represent an all-good being. So, discarding Christianity and therefore the Bible, my mind needed somewhere else to “land.”
With my faith in question, I started questioning all my beliefs, which I’ve done pretty much all my life anyway. And I just could not make the evidence of some form of evolution fit with a single creation event. I also studied evolution more, and realized it is not the simplistic theory it started as, and there are fantastic arguments for a more cooperative-evolution system than just chance. In other words, I found better science than I had been taught in grade school in the 60s and 70s. As a reasonable person, given reasonable arguments, I changed my beliefs.
It’s entirely possible that I will continue this path and become full-Atheist and lose all belief in any design. My 24 year old son is already there, and conversations with him are a big part of my self-analysis. But I have a problem to deal with, regarding personal experience with ghosts, that I would have to decide was hallucinations of some sort, and I’m not ready for that, especially since many details of my experiences have been confirmed by others. So, while I won’t use personal experience to try to change the minds of others, I will use it in my own mind, and I’m happy where I am at the moment.
Thanks for sharing Chuck. :-) I guess I could be considered kind of a deist too in that I think there is a “first cause” type of energy or entity or something that generated everything else.
Thanks Chuck. This is a really important idea, and you’ve said it better than I would have.
Hi. I run the Discovery Channel. Two things:
The GM of the Science Channel runs the channel, I don’t. We’re jointly owned by Discovery Communications.
In this case, the Science Channel didn’t sell the ad, it was sold by one of our satellite or cable affiliates, who control several minutes per hour of ad time (likely DirecTV). We have zero control over the time they sell, just as broadcast networks can’t control what their local stations sell in “their” local time.
Hope that explains it.
The ad was sold by a cable or satellite affiliate in “their” allocated time, over which the channel has no control. Several people guessed the right answer already in their posts.
Happy trails.
I wrote to Discovery after I read this, and today, they replied:
Glad to know they are at least responsive.
Yea same here.
Dear Viewer:
Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your concern about the integrity of our networks and for taking the time to write.
We have researched this particular situation and it has been determined that this commercial was not supplied by the Science Channel or its advertisers. This ad was likely to have been scheduled by your local service provider. Your comments and concern are taken very seriously.
Please know that they will be immediately forwarded to our executives and Ad Sales teams for prompt review.
Thank you for expressing interest in our programming.
Sincerely,
Viewer Relations
The Science Channel
I find it refreshing that our culture is coming to a place that scientific theories based on God’s Word can be openly discussed.
The faith that our culture has placed in the failed theory of evolution is beginning to fade.
It is unfortunate that many cannot open their minds to the fact that other plausible theories not only exist but put evolution to shame. They desperately hold on to a theory that they constantly have to modify as they ridicule anyone who would speak otherwise.
It would almost seem that they have a stake in it. It almost feels like brainwashing or corruption at a very high level. Of course the only theory on origins we allow to be taught in schools is evolution so our children have no option. No real discussion is ever brought to the table.
We can see by many of the comments here that when a real discussion is brought up and the theory of evolution is seriously challenged, people are upset. I thought they were scientist, concerned about the truth, or is it indeed something more.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t quite get the concept of the scientific method. Modifications are GOOD, when they’re based on new empirical evidence.
Do tell, though — how, exactly, is evolution a “failed theory?”
“I find it refreshing that our culture is coming to a place that scientific theories based on God’s Word can be openly discussed”
Yep. In the near future, scientific theories will also be democratic. We will vote, for example, if the earth is round or flat -based on god’s word, of course (I don’t know what is going to happen to those antidemocratic dissidents who won’t accept the conclusion).
Non-theories based on God’s Word can be openly discussed, of course. But you won’t find any biologist defending your point. There is not a controversy in scientific circles, as there is not an alternative theory with enough proofs supporting it.
“Of course the only theory on origins we allow to be taught in schools is evolution so our children have no option”. Here in Spain, we teach darwin and lamarck, too very different theories -and explaining why lamarck’s one was discarded. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact: the theory answer how evolution works.
“We can see by many of the comments here that when a real discussion is brought up and the theory of evolution is seriously challenged, people are upset.”
I have never seen the theory of evolution seriously challenged. Can you give an example of that?
“I thought they were scientist, concerned about the truth, or is it indeed something more”
It is something more, they have explained a lot of times before those things that commenters are asking again. They don’t have always enough patience. I mean, it seems like creatards way of doing a discussion is:
1.- I have irrefutable proof that all what biologists have being doing for 2 hundred years is BS.
– Can you explain those proofs?
2.- Explain something they have read somewhere, with no new ideas
– Refutation of your old ideas here.
3.- I don’t understand a word, I don’t know what means “scientific theory”. But it says so in the Bible.
– Bible is only a book.
4.- You are doing satan’s work!
5.- Go to another forum to begin again with point 1)
When you have been 30 times on the same discussion, you can get angry at them pretty easily
Yep that about sums up the totality of all the arguments for “goddidit” that I’ve every seen. The biggest problem always seem to be not that the arguments against evolution are either ill thought out or just untrue but the inability to see that goddidit should be able to stand as an argument on its own. Currently all you seem to see is evolution isn’t true because of X, Y and Z so goddidit must be true. The example I like to give is that the big bang is accepted not because steady state was shown to be untrue but because the big bang ties in with evidence and was predictive.
Agree. Even if theory of evolution was shown as incorrect, that doesn’t means “goddidit” is an alternative theory; it is not even a scientific theory.
They fail to understand what is a theory. They fail to understand what means “scientific method”. They fail to understand anything about logic. They fail to understand probability laws. They don’t know anything about biology.
But hey, his opinion has to be considered as good as any scientist’s work!
Nope. Sorry, we are not speaking about a political party or about moral decisions. Science is not democratic, you have to prove things.
What the hell is “scientific theories based on God’s Word?” That’s like “scientific theory based on the farts of my Shih Tzu.” One has nothing to do with the other. If it’s based on “God’s Word,” it’s not “scientific theory,” by definition.
I suppose YOU know what God’s Word is, Nathan, and everyone else, like the Muslims, the Mormons, the Jews, the Bhuddists, the Hindus – the billions and billions of people who don’t believe the Christian Bible – are wrong. Why? Because you say so.
I hope you didn’t take any of my comments about my doubts about some aspects of the Theory of Evolution (a true scientific theory based on evidence, not some ancient mystical book) as proof that “The faith that our culture has placed in the failed theory of evolution is beginning to fade.” It’s simply not true. My belief that there is some level of design behind evolution does not mean evolution is wrong. To deny evolution is to deny more data than any other theory in existence. And it is NOT beginning to fade. The more the data about evolution is properly taught (like in New England, and not like in South Carolina and Alabama), the more people accept it.
I think it is hilarious that you accuse us of “having a stake” in our beliefs, when, as a Christian, your whole life is based on having a stake in your beliefs. “It almost feels like brainwashing or corruption at a very high level” is the perfect description of Christianity. Think about it – YOU believe what you believe because someone told you about it and there is an ancient book about it. YOU go to weekly meetings to hear more about it, since YOU must be taught because there is no evidence or science to refer to. YOU read and reread your ancient book to get more immersed in your beliefs. And YOU believe that those who don’t believe what you believe are destined for eternal flames. That’s brainwashing at its best.
“our children have no option” is a ridiculous claim. Parents can teach their kids whatever they want. I am sure, if you have kids, that you take them to your weekly (or more often) meetings, plant them in a room of other kids and adults who’s job is to indoctrinate them in what YOU believe, and then tell them that GOD said it’s all true. And I’ll bet in that room the teachers tell the kids the Theory of Evolution is a lie, while in classrooms they do NOT say that creationism is a lie. Big difference.
Every accusation in your post is a complete description of your life, of Christianity. Hilarious that you turn it around and accuse us of those things. It’s like the Republicans who still say Democrats are “tax and spend” when the GOP outspent Democrats in the last 10 years in record amounts.
So far evolution has not been “seriously challenged” here in this forum (or anywhere I’ve seen), and hopefully you’ll answer peoples’ request to back up that challenge with something.
I don’t agree with the discussed museum’s views, but they will make money on the controversial aspect alone. However one must ask the question: Why have such notable minds as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking not officially ruled out the aspect of a supreme mind or an overall
controlling force in this universe or others? Because the math doesn’t support it either way. Yet. Knowing what we know about DNA and the nature of code one must ask, who wrote it? There is no fossil record of man and dinosaur walking the planet at the same time. But then there is no evidence that there has been no type of intervention, help or tampering in our evolution. Our own science fiction and our scientists explore the possibility of terraforming dead planets. Are we stardust? Are we an experiment? What ever our origins, we all came from the same place. I truly wish we would concentrate more on where we are trying to go instead of where we came from. Look at us. The Dark Ages have not yet ended.
Discovery would run an ad for a strip club if the strip club was willing to fork out the dollars, any station probably would. It’s not about the clashing views, it’s about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.