Two of our favorite Discoveroids have posted in response to the first episode of the new Cosmos series. It’s Casey and Klinghoffer — not just one of them, but both! O the joy!
Let’s deal with Klinghoffer’s piece first — it’s the shortest: Here’s the Cure for Cosmos. There’s not much to it, because he says it was written before he saw the show, but — like all creationists — he’s already got his mind made up. He says:
Here at ENV [the Discoveroids' creationist blog], we’ll have more to say about Seth MacFarlane’s revival of the Carl Sagan vehicle for scientific materialism after we’ve seen it. In the meantime, you may wish to have access to the antidote handy before grappling with the ailment itself.
The “antidote” to a show about science is — are you ready for it? — “Illustra Media’s series of stunning video documentaries on the theme of intelligent design in cosmology and biology.” If we recall correctly, David Coppedge is (or was) a board member of that outfit. Klinghoffer also says:
The single most relevant film is The Privileged Planet, but don’t forget [list of others omitted, but available at the Discoveroids' website].
So that’s the “antidote” to what could only be the poison of the new Cosmos series. It’s just what we expected from the Discoveroids’ journalistic slasher and poo flinger.
Now we come to Casey’s contribution: Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson: Same Old Product, Bright New Packaging . Casey says, with bold font added by us:
If there was any doubt that the rebooted Cosmos series, which premiered last night, would be politically charged and have a materialistic ideological message, consider what viewers saw in its first sixty seconds. The opening featured President Obama giving a statement endorsing the series. That’s not necessarily bad, except for what happened next.
What could possibly be worse than a plug from Obama? Hold on, here it comes:
Immediately following President Obama’s endorsement, the show replayed Carl Sagan’s famous materialistic credo from the original Cosmos series that “The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Does it violate the separation of church and state for the President of the United States to be portrayed seemingly endorsing Sagan’s materialistic viewpoint?
We assumed the Discoveroids would be furious that the show didn’t mention their intelligent designer — blessed be he! — but this is better than we ever hoped. Now they’re mimicking the idiots who write letters to the editor claiming that science is just another religion. It’s an incredibly stupid claim for a “think tank” that attempts to pass itself off as a scientific enterprise. Let’s read on:
The irony is that viewers were then immediately told by series host Neil deGrasse Tyson that science follows a “set of rules.” It should:
• “follow the evidence wherever leads,”
• “question everything,” and
• put things to the test.
Yes, that’s what Tyson said. And we already know what Casey’s going to say. Here it comes:
Again, that all sounds fine and good. But does science support Sagan’s belief that the “The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be”? At best, that’s a philosophical or metaphysical claim that goes beyond science. At worst, Sagan’s claim is refuted by science, since known natural laws are incapable of explaining certain peculiar properties of the cosmos, including the life-friendly fine-tuning of the universe, and the fine-tuning of biological information to yield complex structures. If the cosmos is “all there is,” then the cosmos cannot account for its own existence, nor the complexity of what’s inside it.
How many of you can immediately see why that’s an Ark-load of rubbish? Okay, we’ll spell it out. He’s alleging — not demonstrating — that the universe is fine-tuned for life. He’s presenting no evidence for his claims, and certainly no evidence that can be tested. All that he’s doing is what mystics have done from the beginning — he’s making a sweeping gesture and saying: “Look, it’s all a miracle!“
The rest of Casey’s post is long, and it’s boring. As expected, he complains about the tale of Bruno’s persecution. He says:
Why make the religious persecution of scientists some four hundred years ago a major focus of a widely publicized television series that is ostensibly about promoting science?
Maybe it’s because science is still under attack by religious fanatics — some of whom claim to be scientists. Then he says:
Actually, I’d love to see a TV show aimed at helping the public to understand the dangers of hindering academic freedom for scientists.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then he gives a long and familiar list of gripes about creationists (he refers to them as “Darwin skeptics”) who are the victims of what he calls discrimination. After that he complains about atheism — a topic that genuine scientists who advocate controversial new theories never even imagine might be motivating their critics. Think about it — when new theories get proposed and run into criticism, they’re never defended by the response: “You’re an atheist!”
All in all, it’s about what we expected from the gang in Seattle. Great job, guys! We’re looking forward to more.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
