Mychal Massie’s Incoherent Screed »« Glenn Beck is Right About Something!

Ooh, Creationism for the 21st Century!

The Worldnetdaily is promoting a new show that will be seen on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, hosted by one of their columnists, David Rives. It’s called Creation in the 21st Century and they want you to know that it will be totally scientific.

Theologians have long questioned the dogma of Darwinian evolution, particularly when its adherents have trumpeted the theory as evidence God is no longer needed to understand the universe.

But in recent decades the classic, Darwinian narrative of man descended from primordial ooze through the process of random chance and mutation has drawn criticism from another, perhaps more surprising sector: from the world of science.

Now those scientists are being given a voice through a renewed, weekly television program on Trinity Broadcasting Network called “Creation in the 21st Century,” which debuts in its new format Wednesday, Jan. 8, at 12 noon ET.

Now hosted by David Rives, creator of the weekly WND video commentaries “The Heavens Declare the Glory of God,” this new incarnation of the classic TBN program will feature interviews with top scientists around the world discussing the controversial topic of creation science.

Of course, they have a very different definition of “top scientists” than actual scientists do. To them a “top scientist” is not one who has done groundbreaking work or published important research, it’s anyone with a vaguely scientific-sounding degree (they especially love engineers) who will tell them that science supports a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Comments

  1. roggg says

    Well bravo for them, giving a voice to scientists so they can finally throw off the tyrannical shackles of their own consensus.

  2. says

    “But in recent decades the classic, Darwinian narrative of man descended from primordial ooze through the process of random chance and mutation has drawn criticism from another, perhaps more surprising sector: from the world of science.”

    The discovery of DNA and learning how it works — discoveries are still being made today, and there is a lot more we can still learn about it — have forced us to modify our understanding of evolution to the point where it no longer resembles what Darwin proposed. So yes, they’re right on this. Classic Darwinism has pretty much been tossed aside, to be replaced with much more substantive evidence in favor of evolution.

    But then, adapting theories to fit facts is not exactly a strong point with Talibangelicals.

  3. colnago80 says

    Of course, they have a very different definition of “top scientists” than actual scientists do. To them a “top scientist” is not one who has done groundbreaking work or published important research, it’s anyone with a vaguely scientific-sounding degree (they especially love engineers) who will tell them that science supports a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    Like Sir Lancelot’s hero, Roy Spencer.

  4. says

    The fundies think scientists treat Darwin’s writings as they treat the Bible, as (supposedly)inerrant, unalterable Truth. They don’t get that science’s motto could be “Specifications subject to change without notice.”

  5. says

    I would love to see someone in the scientific community do an episode by episode fisking of this series. Hell, the average undergraduate biology major could do it.

  6. Nick Gotts says

    The discovery of DNA and learning how it works — discoveries are still being made today, and there is a lot more we can still learn about it — have forced us to modify our understanding of evolution to the point where it no longer resembles what Darwin proposed. So yes, they’re right on this. Classic Darwinism has pretty much been tossed aside – Gregory in Seattle@4

    Well, no. Darwin’s key achievements were:
    1) Assembling so much evidence for the hypothesis of common descent that it swiftly became the scientific consensus and has remained so ever since.
    2) Proposing natural selection as the main process explaining adaptation, and realising its immense implications. Because he did not understand the mechanisms of inheritance, this was not accepted in his lifetime; and this was quite reasonable: if inheritance involved a blending process, as Darwin believed, it’s not at all clear natural selection could produce adaptation, because beneficial changes might well get “blended out”. But after the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics at the turn of the 20th century, and the subsequent mathematical work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright on population genetics, Darwin’s view of the central role of natural selection was vindicated, and has remained consensus science ever since.

    While there have certainly been refinements since (such as the discovery of the ubiquity of neutral mutations), Darwin would rightly regard the current consensus as a triumphant vindication of his work.

  7. dingojack says

    ” It’s called Creation in the 21st Century and they want you to know that it will be totally scientific..”

    “God made the world in seven days
    Well, that’s one week to be specific
    Now, that’s what I call scientific
    Say Hallelujah, sing His praise ” – Creation Science 101. Roy Zimmermann.

    Dingo
    ——-
    * But the real question is will they be able to operate the ‘find and replace’ function correctly this time?

  8. says

    descended from primordial ooze through the process of random chance and mutation

    Differential survival and reproduction is not the same as “random chance” – you can always tell someone doesn’t understand evolution at all if they use the word “random” in the description. Those are the kind of people who think you walk down the street and randomly avoid walking into things.

  9. alanb says

    Theologians have long questioned the dogma of Darwinian evolution…

    And this is much more relevant than the opinions on the matter by, say, HVAC mechanics or NASCAR drivers because theologians get their info directly from the Holy Spirit.

  10. says

    “It’s called Creation in the 21st Century and they want you to know that it will be totally scientific.”

    I believe that the broadcast (or cable, satellite, whatever) WILL be totally scientific–after all, you fuck with physics and physics will always come out on top. As for the content of the program–sorry, no. Not only will it be unscientific, it will be illogical and either mischaracterized, improperly analyzed or completely fabricated–and likely, all three of those things.

    “I would love to see someone in the scientific community do an episode by episode fisking of this series. Hell, the average undergraduate biology major could do it.”

    I think I could do it, armed with nothing more than my C average in HS biology and a lot of reading in the last 59 or so years.

  11. magistramarla says

    Martin Wagner @ #8
    “I would love to see someone in the scientific community do an episode by episode fisking of this series. Hell, the average undergraduate biology major could do it.”

    I hope that PZ notices this. I would think that it would be a great project for his classes.

  12. freehand says

    alanb:

    Theologians have long questioned the dogma of Darwinian evolution…

    And this is much more relevant than the opinions on the matter by, say, HVAC mechanics or NASCAR drivers because theologians get their info directly from the Holy Spirit.

    Fundamentalist theologians* aren’t even experts in their own fields. At least NASCAR drivers can say reliable things about how to race cars.

    * Some non-Fundies may actually be able to speak intelligently about religion in history and culture. In college we didn’t know whether our religious philosophy professor was a believer or not; he wouldn’t say.

  13. freehand says

    Yeah, they think that evolutionary science is a personality cult like their religion. I’ve seen attempts to “refute” evolutionary theory by casting aspersions on Darwin’s personality. They’ve also tried to claim that Darwin “recanted” on his deathbed. They act as though we aren’t playing fair by not dropping a whole field of science based on such nonsense.

    They are not merely confused by the concept of scientific methodology; they don’t seem to grasp that there is an objective world that doesn’t go away even if they wish really, really, hard.

  14. raven says

    descended from primordial ooze through the process of random chance and mutation

    Differential survival and reproduction is not the same as “random chance” – you can always tell someone doesn’t understand evolution at all

    Yeah, that isn’t evolution. Evolution is random mutation combined with natural selection.

    Just about every sentence is wrong and a lie. But it is the same centuries old fundie talking points and so boring it is only good for mild amusement. I’m sure they will ask if, Were You There and, if humans descended from monkeys, then Why are there still monkeys?

  15. says

    “Creationism for the 21st century” makes me think of the same old 20th century Creationism, except the dramatizations are done with low budget 3D CGI instead of low budget 2D cell sheet cartoons.

    freehand @16:

    Yeah, they think that evolutionary science is a personality cult like their religion. I’ve seen attempts to “refute” evolutionary theory by casting aspersions on Darwin’s personality. They’ve also tried to claim that Darwin “recanted” on his deathbed. They act as though we aren’t playing fair by not dropping a whole field of science based on such nonsense.

    They are not merely confused by the concept of scientific methodology; they don’t seem to grasp that there is an objective world that doesn’t go away even if they wish really, really, hard.

    Observations like this have led me to speculate that Creationists don’t believe in or even understand the concept of objective truth. To them, it’s all a subjective popularity contest.

    One version I sometimes see: They think of scientists the way some people think of actors and writers. Reality is a movie in its brainstorming phase, and they’re the focus group. The worst part is that they’re not trying to argue their case because it makes a more plausible, internally consistent, or even interesting story. They’re arguing to alter scenes and characters as a means to inflate their egos and lash out against people they don’t like. They want snuff porn of straw men caricatures and self-insert Mary Sues going on sadistic power trips.

  16. Chiroptera says

    Will the title sequence show a microscope? ‘Cause that’s the way I determine whether a show is scientific or not.

  17. busterggi says

    raven @ 17 – I have wondered lately how creationist would answer the question, “If god’s plan was to create beings in his image conplete with free will & souls then why did he create monkeys?”

    Still, I look forward to the episode in which Matt, Cliff & Bobo appear to give their scientific views.

  18. John Pieret says

    Nick Gotts @ 9:

    A very good, succinct summary! “Classical Darwinism” included Darwin’s frequent acknowledgement that he didn’t have all the facts necessary to demonstrate a complete picture of evolution, if that could ever be done. There isn’t any question that Darwin would be tickled pink by evolutionary science today and his contribution to it (which he would, charactistically, regard as modest).

  19. says

    But in recent decades the classic, Darwinian narrative of man descended from primordial ooze through the process of random chance and mutation has drawn criticism from another, perhaps more surprising sector: from the world of science.

    This is just the old “evolution is a ‘theory in crisis’” canard that creationists have been pushing for decades. In their minds, scientists are always on the verge of abandoning evolution in favor of biblical creationism. It’s a just a matter of time. Right.

  20. ttch says

    peterh wrote:

    Thanks for the warning. I wonder how many of these points they’ll touch on: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    Where the link is to “An Index of Creationist Claims” with over a hundred such, like “Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview” and “Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis)”.

    I once gave a friend a copy of Larry Kusche’s The Bermuda Triangle Mystery – Solved. The format has each chapter beginning with a couple of paragraphs outlining one of the claimed “mysterious” disasters in the Triangle, with the rest of the chapter debunking it. My friend read the outlines and gave the book back, convinced that there was indeed a deep mystery!

    Just a warning that any fundies you point the Creationist Claims outline to may simply have their current misunderstandings reinforced by it.

  21. Michael Heath says

    Gregory in Seattle writes:

    The discovery of DNA and learning how it works — discoveries are still being made today, and there is a lot more we can still learn about it — have forced us to modify our understanding of evolution to the point where it no longer resembles what Darwin proposed. So yes, they’re right on this. Classic Darwinism has pretty much been tossed aside, to be replaced with much more substantive evidence in favor of evolution.

    This is wildly wrong. These creationists are not, “right on this” and “classic Darwinism” has not been “tossed aside”. Nick Gotts accurately covers a couple of points that reveal what’s transpired since Darwin lived that vindicate his ideas and observations. That we now understand of how the mechanics of evolution works; where Darwin’s claim of common descent and the idea of natural selection have been vindicated. Yes there are ideas that Darwin had that have since been falsified, but those are trivial to his major contributions.

    In addition, as Jerry Coyne reported in his book Why Evolution is True, we too often fail to laud biogeographical research by both Darwin and his contemporary Alfred Russell Wallace. Both reported observations on the status of extant life on different types of islands that compellingly falsify the notion of creationism; in the mid-19th century.

  22. felidae says

    I got a shock the other day when I clicked on a Youtube link that turned out to be a video by a person refuting HELIOCENTRISM! So, the nuttiness isn’t just limited to evolution. It turns out there are dozens of videos purporting to defend geocentrism–just go to Youtube and enter geocentrism in the search box and see for yourself
    Religious nuttiness seems to be boundless

  23. howardhershey says

    I often wonder, given their repeated use of ‘mutation’ and ‘random’ when talking about ‘natural selection’, if creationists know the meaning of the word ‘selection’?

  24. felidae says

    Geocentrism video–if you think the opposition to evolution is nuts, stuff like this takes it to another level of crazy

  25. says

    #20: It’s guys in white lab coats that validate “scientific” presentations. No girls, just guys. Girls can’t be scientists because they’re girls.

    The geocentric guy really convinced me except I got dizzy watching him swivel on his chair.

  26. Michael Heath says

    felidae writes:

    Geocentrism video [embedded @ 28] –if you think the opposition to evolution is nuts, stuff like this takes it to another level of crazy

    I don’t find this to be another level of crazy. This geocentrist is using the very same logic creationists use to reject evolution, including some members of Congress (some of whom use the same logic to deny climate change). In fact this geocentrist is being more consistent and principled in his faith than creationists who accept heliocentrism.

    Of course rejecting evolution and any other scientific theory because it refutes the Bible’s version is some combination of idiotic and insane. But just like Fred Phelps vs. conservative Christians who are congregants at churches that deny gays equal rights, this guy’s practicing cafeteria Christianity at a level far below most Christians.

    One of the ironies of fundamentalism isn’t the depths one can sink, the most committed are more consistently principled than the cafeteria Christian types. No, the biggest step towards insanity is the very first step; that’s were all the dancing and avoidance one has to do to avoid cognitive dissonance. The deeper you get, the more consistent you become. This geocentrist gets this, so he doesn’t suffer from the cognitive dissonance creationists do who are also heliocentrists.

  27. says

    I know she’s in very bad odor with a majority part of the atheist community (including me), and for good cause, but I’d still like to see erv take on David Rives and his pet not-really-scientists. I’d pop a whole kettle of corn for that show.

  28. stripeycat says

    Is this freely available anywhere? I’m thinking I may have a date with a bottle of pinot noir and a reporter’s pad if I can watch this without giving them any money at all.

Leave a Reply