General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums3 Reasons Science Deniers Are Freaking Out About Neil deGrasse Tyson's "Cosmos"
http://www.alternet.org/3-reasons-science-deniers-are-freaking-out-about-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos***SNIP
1. Denying the Big Bang: In the first episode of Cosmos, titled "Standing Up in the Milky Way," Tyson dons shades just before witnessing the Big Bang. You know, the start of everything. Some creationists, though, don't like the Big Bang; at Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis, a critique of Cosmos asserts that "the big bang model is unable to explain many scientific observations, but this is of course not mentioned."
Alas, this creationist critique seems very poorly timed: A major new scientific discovery, just described in detail in the New York Times, has now provided "smoking gun" evidence for " inflation," a crucial component of our understanding of the stunning happenings just after the Big Bang. Using a special telescope to examine the cosmic microwave background radiation (which has been dubbed the " afterglow" of the Big Bang), researchers at the South Pole detected " direct evidence" of the previously theoretical gravitational waves that are believed to have originated in the Big Bang and caused an incredibly sudden and dramatic inflation of the universe. (For an easy to digest discussion, Phil Plait has more.)
2. Denying evolution: Sunday's episode of Cosmos was all about evolution. It closely followed the rhetorical strategy of Charles Darwin's world-changing 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, beginning with an example of "artificial selection" by breeders (Darwin used pigeons, Cosmosused domestic dogs) to get us ready to appreciate the far vaster power of natural selection. It employed Darwin's favorite metaphor: the "tree of life," an analogy that helps us see how all organisms are living on different branches of the same hereditary tree. In the episode, Tyson also refuted one of the creationist's favorite canards: the idea that complex organs, like the eye, could not have been produced through evolution.
3. Denying climate change: Thus far, Cosmos has referred to climate change in each of its two opening episodes, but has not gone into any depth on the matter. Perhaps that's for a later episode. But in the meantime, it seems some conservatives are already bashing Tyson as a global warming proponent. Writing at the Media Research Center's Newsbusters blog, Jeffrey Meyer critiques a recent Tyson appearance on Late Night With Seth Myers. "Meyers and deGrasse Tyson chose to take a cheap shot at religious people and claim they don't believe in science i.e. liberal causes like global warming," writes Meyer.Over at the pro-"intelligent design" Discovery Institute, they're not happy. Senior fellow David Klinghoffer writes that the latest Cosmos episode "[extrapolated] shamelessly, promiscuously from artificial selection (dogs from wolves) to minor stuff like the color of a polar bear's fur to the development of the human eye." In a much more elaborate attempted takedown, meanwhile, the institute's Casey Luskin accuses Tyson and Cosmos of engaging in "attempts to persuade people of both evolutionary scientific views and larger materialistic evolutionary beliefs, not just by the force of the evidence, but by rhetoric and emotion, and especially by leaving out important contrary arguments and evidence." Luskin goes on to contend that there is something wrong with the idea of the "tree of life." Tell that to the scientists involved in the Open Tree of Life project, which plans to produce "the first online, comprehensive first-draft tree of all 1.8 million named species, accessible to both the public and scientific communities." Precisely how to reconstruct every last evolutionary relationship may still be an open scientific question, but the idea of common ancestry, the core of evolution (represented conceptually by a tree of life), is not.
Ilsa
(61,697 posts)Christians have murdered for less.
malaise
(269,157 posts)Kids are watching Cosmos and loving it.
Historic NY
(37,452 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)I don't understand why but FOX broadcast programming seems to be at odds with the so called cable news channel.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Run by wholly different groups of people.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)of the publications companies such as the newspapers and Harper Collins publishing. So he owns both.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)As far as entertainment is concerned, his primary interest is apparently "Does it make money?"
progressoid
(49,996 posts)21st Century Fox, which holds mainly TV and film properties, and News Corp, which was left with the newspaper and book publishing units. Both stocks kept pace with the broader U.S. stock market, which had an impressive 2013, helping to boost Murdoch's net worth by more than $2 billion in the past year.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)NBC or MSNBC.
I don't understand why people are so eager to say that it doesn't matter. It does.
While we're at it, does anyone know what Cosmos replaced?
7962
(11,841 posts)It was a huge expansion that created the universe. But what did it expand INTO? Does that make sense? If you blow up a big ballon it expands outward into the room your standing in. What did the universe expand into? What was THERE when the pinpoint blew? Probably too big for my mind to comprehend!
longship
(40,416 posts)There was no "into" in which to expand. It really cannot be explained any better. Cosmology can be mind twisting. That's why the usual visual portrayal of the Big Bang as an exploding ball of fire is not helpful. It's not correct, but how in Sam Hell else would you portray it?
Myself? I leave it to the experts. We've got top people on the case.
catbyte
(34,438 posts)trying to figure the cosmos out. I'd start thinking, well, if there was the Big Bang, where did the stuff for it come from? If it was just a little dot, how did the dot get there? If God made the dot, who made God? And on and on and on, LOL. Then I just stopped torturing myself, realizing that my puny little human brain could never grasp a concept that profound.
longship
(40,416 posts)Feynman: "because nothing is unstable."
Which neatly describes how the Big Bang happened. It was inevitable because of the instability of empty space.
catbyte
(34,438 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)our brain takes Cartesian space for granted.
VWolf
(3,944 posts)Imagine you are a 2-dimensional being, living on the surface of a balloon. You have no knowledge of the "interior" or "exterior" of the balloon. You just have the surface of it, in which lives all that you know and love. Now, we 3-D folks can clearly see that the surface of the balloon is curved and expanding, but our 2-D friends haven't got the luxury of our vantage point. However, there are ways they can intrinsically determine that their world is curved. For example, they can construct a large circle and compare its circumference to its diameter. If the ratio is pi, their world is (at least locally) flat. If it is not, their world is curved.
The difference between us and them is that we have "embedded" their 2-D world into our 3-D one. They have no such luxury.
The same holds for us. If there were 4-D creatures out there, they would be able to see the curvature of our universe quite easily. We, on the other hand, need to rely on intrinsic measurements.
What's even more interesting (if their world is spherical) is that they can walk out in a "straight" line away from a point and eventually return back to that point without ever changing direction. They would be taking a path on the surface known as a great circle (or geodesic). Of course, if the balloon is expanding fast enough, they would have farther and farther to go as they set out on their journey, perhaps never being able to return to their point of origin.
A great book on all of this is Abbott's Flatland. It was required summer reading back when I was in high school.
riversedge
(70,289 posts)Where did the 'stuff' that blew up come from? assume it was gases but still....
When I think about it--my question IS your question: What was THERE when the pinpoint blew?
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)One of the theories is that space is always expanding at faster-than-light rates, and the big bang was a spot where spatial expansion actually slowed down. In that model, what we call "inflation" of our universe was that process of slowing down to non-FTL speeds. This theory implies that outside of our universe, space is continuing to expand and there are other pocket universes where inflation has (temporarily) slowed down. Those other universes are moving away from us WAY faster than light because of the intervening inflationary space.
A pet theory of mine, and what other answers to your question seem to be hinting at, is that prior to the big bang, there was physically no space - no dimension of area or volume, and no time. When the big bang happened, a sort of bubble formed where space came into existence and rapidly expanded. Also, time would have come into existence at the big bang. Disconcertingly, this means that the volume of the universe, even now, is surrounded by no-space, no-dimension - encompassed in a geometrical point.
I like the second theory because it kind of gives time the status of being a "thing" that came into existence along with space, and the two seem to be parts of the same thing - spacetime. There isn't a lot of evidence for it though, and there is actual evidence now for the first theory. However, given the relationship between time and space, I wonder how time works in the inflationary space between pocket universes. The first theory seems to just push the question about what time is further out of reach.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)All we know is that the Big Bang started our Universe.
I'm certain that there is way more beyond our Universe, or at least there have been universes before our own. That's not scientific, it's just my opinion.
As I see it, our Universe was created by an existing physics, so there couldn't have been nothing before our Universe began. If the existing physics was able to create our Universe, then what was there to prevent that same physics from creating other universes?
As I've heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say in the past: "nature doesn't make things in ones". I'd say there are universes in all of existence (multiverse) as there are atoms in our Universe. Our Universe is likely a tiny speck in all of existence.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)St Augustine (354-430) is generally considered to be one of the finest theologians in the history of Christianity. One of his lesser known works is his De Genisi ad Litteram, a title usually translated as "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis". In it, he wrote (my translation)
Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.
Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case "without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance." (1 Timothy 1 ) (How do I turn off smilies?)
Augustine is saying that an overly literal interpretation of Genesis is both bad science and bad religion.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Thanks for the offering; and for taking the time to do your own translation.
My experience has been that ''religion,' as we see it happening, is really a childish interpretation of metaphors AND actual truths, if only we could see into it. What one might call 'real religion,' and what I would call spiritual practice, for lack of a better term right now, IS, in fact, a science, to be studied and practiced. It is an 'inner' science,' rather than an outer science.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)...to explain that the math behind ID is only valid for ideal thermodynamic systems. For realistic systems (out of equilibrium or filled with a FINITE number of particles) an anomaly occurs that allows to circumvent the ID-argument.
And:
Scientists are working right now (experimental and in simulations) on an Origin-of-Life theory that focuses on exactly the thermodynamic argument that ID is trying so hard to ignore.
Basically: The massive loss in entropy needed to create complex organic structures (amino-acids, complex hydrocarbons) from simple anorganic structures might have happened during a thermodynamic situation far from equilibrium: When an icy comet with chemicals crashed into the ground, the chemicals formed complex organic molecules.
longship
(40,416 posts)With Chris Mooney (The Republican War on Science) and Indre Viskontas host the podcast.
Highly recommended.
avebury
(10,952 posts)show. Fortunately I can catch up with On Demand.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)I might pick up the first one right after Matthews. Not going to miss anything...just more speculation on missing plane.
hatrack
(59,592 posts)Rock ON, Dr. Tyson!
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)well done.
ananda
(28,875 posts)It just is what it is, a natural phenomenon
caused by human stressors.
Rex
(65,616 posts)the idea of creating something from nothing, "impossible!" they cry. Really? God created the universe in 6 days, no mention of him using building materials...just something from nothing. Can you explain this? Well...God works in mysterious ways. Exactly, welcome to the Universe!
Gothmog
(145,496 posts)The fact that the religious nut cases are upset about this show makes me smile