Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is that how the universe came to be is not a model of evolution.
You're right, it isn't, and I've never heard a scientist claim that it is.
I am not being cute here, I simply have never seen a documentary whose timeline never got as far as life, talk about evolution. I COULD be wrong and such documentaries exist. That's why I'm asking.
Now I do see a lot of scientific documentaries branching off into related ideas. It is pretty hard to explain a concept if there's no point of reference for it, and in addition, the inquisitive-minded will want to get the full picture and some interesting facts that aren't just hyper-focused on one specific idea for 55 minutes. You want the "whole story," not just one paragraph of one chapter.
(didn't want to do this as an ETA as you may already have read the above and moved along) Now, I DO see commentary on evolution for documentaries that are about life - i.e., a documentary about sexual attraction may (and often does) include commentary about how the way we relate to one another sexually had an evolutionary basis. Or, a documentary on how the human brain works will probably include a background on how the brain developed and changed over time into what we see today (and many also include theories on where it may evolve from here).
But not origins of the universe. At all.
By the way, your analogy is WAY off (even if there WERE documentaries with astrophysicists being asked to explain the evolution of life). An astrophysicist - who almost certainly has not confined his education JUST to astrophysicists - is more like a car salesman explaining about how auto loans work, since his career that includes selling cars has almost certainly also included things related to the selling of cars. A scientist, who obviously already has an inquisitive mind, has almost certainly taken intensive courses not only in what eventually became his career, but in other science fields. Someone inquisitive enough to want to make some branch of science his/her career is, like I said, just that inquisitive and it would be a pretty odd thing to see such a person having literally confined his education JUST to that specific subset of a certain branch of science.
You're right, it isn't, and I've never heard a scientist claim that it is.
I am not being cute here, I simply have never seen a documentary whose timeline never got as far as life, talk about evolution. I COULD be wrong and such documentaries exist. That's why I'm asking.
Now I do see a lot of scientific documentaries branching off into related ideas. It is pretty hard to explain a concept if there's no point of reference for it, and in addition, the inquisitive-minded will want to get the full picture and some interesting facts that aren't just hyper-focused on one specific idea for 55 minutes. You want the "whole story," not just one paragraph of one chapter.
I watched Neil deGrasse Tyson's "Cosmos" and he brings up evolution quite often.
Carl Sagan too, often talked about no God when talking about the universe and science. Won't he be surprised. LOL
An astrophysicist - who almost certainly has not confined his education JUST to astrophysicists - is more like a car salesman explaining about how auto loans work, since his career that includes selling cars has almost certainly also included things related to the selling of cars.
No, it is like a car salesmen trying to tell us about the theory of relativity in order to sell cars.
Nonsense. Knowledge is not limited to job titles. As a rule astrophysicists are highly intelligent and have a wide range of knowledge.
If a scientist has to explain to us there is no god, then they have moved the discussion from science to religion or anti-religion. It is not their place to inform the public if there is no god/God or not. It is their place to inform us concerning . . . . (drum roll) . . . . science.
I watched Neil deGrasse Tyson's "Cosmos" and he brings up evolution quite often.
Okay, I just looked that up. You're talking about a series here that tries to provide a scope.
Just taking a glance:
"Standing Up in the Milky Way" says it includes cosmic origins and evolution. That makes sense as it is done "encapsulated timeline"-style and includes life on earth.
"Some of the Things Molecules Do" seems to include both as well (the outline I'm reading doesn't specifically say that). Again, this episode was presented as a scope, it is not specific to cosmic origins but just happens to shove evolution in there all of a sudden - at least from what I'm reading. I can't accurately say as obviously I didn't watch the episode. But it seems unlikely.
"When Knowledge Conquered Fear" - again, focuses on man's history on earth and seems to go from there...?
This series (which looks very cool, BTW!) seems to be trying to present big sweeping scopes, not pinpointing just one idea (i.e. "how was the universe created? That's our focus today") - a la Carl Sagan. They are (it appears) attempting to put LOTS of information into any one episode and do it sweeping-saga style, so it only makes sense that some shows may run a giant race all the way from theoretical cosmic origins to life on earth (which is obviously going to include evolution...I mean these are scientists) to how that has impacted history.
Tyson is an astrophysicist, yes. He also appears to have a pretty big range of interests, right down to having his own hand in animal rights.
Here is a note to the casual observer: Usually when someone puts someone else down for what they post in calling them "naive hobbyists," is a clear indicator that such a one must resort to bashing his opponent (which by the way proves nothing) in order to get his very weak position across.
An astrophysicist telling us about evolution is like an uneducated car salesman telling us about the theory of relativity in order to sell the cars.
According to the anti-intellectual dogmatist, whose opinion obviously holds so much sway in scientific circles.
If a scientist has to explain to us there is no god, then they have moved the discussion from science to religion or anti-religion. It is not their place to inform the public if there is no god/God or not. It is their place to inform us concerning . . . . (drum roll) . . . . science.
It isn't Tyson's responsibility at all to inform or not inform in any specific way. His series was created based on his and others' (he is co-producer) interests and his (Tyson's) admiration of Carl Sagan's original Cosmos (apparently, this is just what I'm reading, I never met the man). He's presenting his series based on that.
He has no moral nor legal "requirement" to abstain from his opinions on God or a lack thereof, why would he? It's a series and it's entertainment, and he's (co)-producing and narrating it the way he wants to co-produce and narrate it.
He's not presenting it as a teaching course for credits or something and demanding that people subscribe to his views or they get an F.
I doubt that he's "informing" people that there is no God and they're suddenly going, "Holy cow - he must be right! I no longer believe in God," any more than ANY reasonable science ever convinces a "believer" that there is no God.
You could always change the channel if you don't like the show.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
