Neil deGrasse Tyson Is Really Starting To Scare Conservatives
Neil deGrasse Tyson Is Really Starting To Scare Conservatives
By Amanda Marcotte
Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:10 EDT
The wingnut panic over the show Cosmos is incredibly amusing to me. It’s understandable, because Neil deGrasse Tyson is really good at being clear and concise about science and he eviscerates right wing attempts to muddy the waters with precision. I particularly liked this quote from an interview on Inquiring Minds: “I claim that all those who think they can cherry-pick science simply don’t understand how science works,” because science, unlike theology or musical taste, isn’t a matter of just taking what you like and leaving the rest behind. What is interesting—and threatening—about Cosmos is it asserts interconnectedness of science. Evolution and the “big bang” theory are inseparable, and knowing how old and vast the universe is makes it much, much easier to understand how evolution works.
This runs strongly counter to the conservative approach to science. Conservatives don’t want to be perceived as anti-science, so they claim a general support for it and then just suddenly and coincidentally have “reservations” about science that runs against their political interests. So you have people who wouldn’t dare dream of saying that physics as a field is wrong, but somehow still manage to convince themselves the that laws of physics are suddenly suspended when they point to the conclusion of man-made climate change. Or they have to accept that sexual reproduction, by its nature, creates descent with modification, but they somehow decide that this can’t be true over vast expanses of time. Cosmos makes that kind of cherry-picking hard to pull off. Tyson knows that if you understand, for instance, how dog breeds came to be, you understand evolution and can’t reasonably deny that, over much longer periods of time, you could get way, way more genetic diversity through natural selection.
In my post last week about these issues, I asked why Christian fundies are much less interested in building the case against the old-and-vast universe, even though they clearly don’t believe in it any more than evolution, than they are trying to sow doubt about evolution. This, even though the age and the size of the universe tend to argue against their god more than even evolution does. I neglected to mention that I suspect the main reason is tradition. The fight between evolutionary biologists and fundies predates many of the theories about the universe and certainly predates the popularization of those theories. It’s an arbitrary accident of history. You know, like a lot of evolved features are.
I cannot emphasize enough the arbitrary nature of the attacks on evolutionary theory. Fundamentalists are not interested in crafting legitimate criticisms of science. They just want to cough up a bunch of random “reasons” to disbelieve the science so that their followers can latch onto that as an excuse for why they reject science, and that’s it. That’s why they put astrophysics mostly on “ignore” and focus on evolution, because all their followers need to know is that “criticisms” exist and they can feel good about believing a bunch of bullshit.
More:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/18/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-really-starting-to-scare-conservatives/
= new reply since forum marked as read
"Therefore it is false!"
Like there is any evidence for Creationism.
I did notice while viewing that he started with planned selection, then moved onto unplanned selection. As a cat lover, however, I was put off by his obvious bias towards canines over felines. 
more clearly. I read somewhere that canines have a more "slippery" DNA which allows for the massive range of differences, as opposed to the smaller extent of differences we have made in cats.
But interesting point.
tell me the link is okay. It couldn't find that link, so I didn't click it.
Anyway, I was talking about wild cats and wolves before they bonded with man. The wolves were already socialized. The cats were basically solitary. The canine-human bonding came thousands of years before the feline-human bonding (even if feline domestication came almost 10,000 years ago). Once both became domesticated, the socialization with their own species and with man became something different. Domestic cats are far more social than wild ones.
BTW, I love cats and dogs and have no preference. Er, the domesticate ones. I'm very happy to steer clear of the wild ones!
As everyone knows, kitty's are a gift from god.
Usually the term 'golf clap' is a slow, low, sarcastic clap meant to show derision. Kind of the opposite of what you meant.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=golf%20clap
But here goes ....
So far, I liked the original Cosmos better. 
I can't explain why. Perhaps it's because I watched the original during my grade school days and it was all new to me. Perhaps it was the choice of music in the original (I LOVE Vangelis). Perhaps it's because Carl was from my neck of the woods. I really don't know.
That said, the new Cosmos comes a very, very close second IMHO.
Eager for more of this good stuff. Watching it, I thot to myself, God is soooo BIG!!! Why cannot we accept that maybe God set it all up this way? I like a big God. I love learning about the stuff on Cosmos. It is a long time since I was in school and frankly the science knowledge has grown so much that I feel I am starting all over. Great experience to watch these shows. Only two so far, but I have learned lots. The tree thing was a delight!
