AIG Reacts to “Cosmos” Episode 10

This makes things complete. Earlier we posted Klinghoffer Reacts to “Cosmos” Episode 10. Now we have a response from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (ol’ Hambo’s online ministry), and the author is Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, a creationist gynecologist. Her article is Cosmos Review: “The Electric Boy”.

As you already know, she’s writing about the 10th episode of Cosmos: A SPACETIME ODYSSEY, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, which aired on Sunday. Titled “The Electric Boy,” it was mostly about the life and work of Michael Faraday. Aided by her gynecological and scriptural expertise, she says, with some bold font added by us:

The episode was not without evolutionary speculation presented as fact — the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs — but most of the program focused on the experimental science that laid the foundation for modern light-speed communication technologies.

Mitchell devotes the second half of her article to complaining about bird evolution. She insists that:

In God’s Word we learn that God created birds on Day Five and land animals on Day Six of Creation Week, about 6,000 years ago. Therefore they cannot be related through evolutionary descent.

We’ll ignore that material for a couple of reasons. First, you’ve heard it all before; and second, it has virtually nothing to do with Episode 10. Here’s what she says about Faraday:

The program closed with a famous Faraday quotation: “Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.” The mystery of how invisible electricity produces invisible magnetic force must have indeed seemed too wonderful to be true to many people of 19th century. But Michael Faraday understood that the Author of His salvation is our wise, consistent, all-powerful Creator God.

Ah, so that was the key to Faraday’s scientific insight! Let’s read on:

His belief that God was the Creator of all the scientific phenomena he studied helped him realize the various forces God created would be interactive and consistent with each other. There had to be a “unity of forces” because there was only one all-powerful Creator.

Armed with that knowledge, we expect that any day now the creation scientists at AIG will explain the long-sought connection between general relativity and quantum mechanics. A solution has eluded the best scientists for generations — see Quantum gravity — but surely AIG can provide the answer. The creationist gynecologist continues:

James Clerk Maxwell’s mathematical genius combined with Faraday’s discoveries laid the foundation for much of the technology that shapes our lives today. But Maxwell was also an outspoken opponent of Darwin’s increasingly popular evolutionary claims. Maxwell furthermore used his mathematical genius in the fight against evolutionary thinking in astronomy, demonstrating scientific flaws in LaPlace’s nebular hypothesis of how the solar system could have formed through natural processes.

No one thinks of Maxwell in connection with biology, and we have no knowledge of his work “in the fight against evolutionary thinking” in astronomy. Here’s more:

Maxwell and Faraday saw no conflict between the science they devoted their lives to exploring and the Creator God they trusted and served. They understood that because God was the Creator, they could expect the natural world to behave consistently and follow the scientific laws they were discovering.

Yeah, right. But what about all the miracles that overturn those natural laws and do impossible things the creationists say happened, but that nature can’t do — like six-day creation and the Flood? The creationists’ chaotic cosmos is the opposite of what they now claim was Faraday’s view of things.

Then she devotes a few paragraphs to denying the evolution of birds. Finally we get to the end:

While any program presenting the story of the people and experiments responsible for our modern understanding of electromagnetic fields must allow that two Bible-believers — Faraday and Maxwell — were the pioneers that taught us how to harness the electron to serve our needs, clearly the program’s writers sought to depict the evolutionary path “real” science took by featuring a series of popular personalities who have rejected the Creator, our Lord Jesus Christ, whose Word and creative work has inspired so many great scientists like Faraday and Maxwell.

That’s it. That’s what Dr. Mitchell says. In our humble opinion, she should have stayed with what we imagine was her specialty — the treatment of sin-caused female afflictions.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “AIG Reacts to “Cosmos” Episode 10

  1. docbill1351

    Our dishonest gynecologist writes:

    Maxwell furthermore used his mathematical genius in the fight against evolutionary thinking in astronomy, demonstrating scientific flaws in LaPlace’s nebular hypothesis of how the solar system could have formed through natural processes.

    This is simply a lie. Nice job, Lizzy, that you can bring forth into the world complete lies as well as babies.

    Five minutes on Wikipedia brushing the rust off an old mind reveals that Maxwell did no such thing to LaPlace’s nebular hypothesis. On the contrary, Maxwell demonstrated that rather than condensing out of a cloud of gas, the planetary nebula had to have larger particles with angular momentum. That was the part that LaPlace, in his time, was unaware of.

    But it is a total, complete and deliberate lie, “Dr.” Lizz, what you wrote. No dinner for you tonight!

  2. waldteufel

    I rise to defend Doctor Liz the creationist speculum shiner and gynecologist!
    I don’t think she’s bright enough to actually know and understand the drivel she puts out. Her god-soaked fantasy world, I think, precludes her ever learning anything about what a powerful tool science is. I really don’t think she’s being purposely mendacious — just intellectually lazy and careless. After all, her invisible wizard told her everything she needs to know right there in her Wholly Babble.

    That lack of intellect, coupled with what is most likely a legitimate M.D. degree makes her a useful addition to Hambo’s quiver of useful fools.

  3. “His belief that God was the Creator of all the scientific phenomena he studied helped him realize the various forces God created would be interactive and consistent with each other.”
    I’m happily waiting for the AIG physicists whose belief etc. will help him/her realize how gravitation as created by god is interactive and consistent with the other forces. But if Dr. Mitchell doesn’t mind (also if she does) I won’t hold my breath.
    Ah – SC himself made this joke already; but still I repeat it – it’s a good one.

    “Maxwell was also an outspoken opponent of Darwin’s increasingly popular evolutionary claims.”
    Dr. Mitchells screws the 9th Commandment, as the good creacrapper she is.

    http://charlespetzold.com/etc/MaxwellMoleculesAndEvolution.html

    “it has been found possible to frame a theory of the distribution of organisms into species by means of generation, variation, and discriminative destruction.”
    Not exactly something any creacrapper would embrace.

    “I rise to defend Doctor Liz”
    Very good, Waldteufel. Every creacrapper needs his/her defender on this site. They need to be defended all the way to the funeral of creationism. And who are better equipped to do this job, under supervision of SC himself, than us faithful followers of this nice blog?

  4. To have earned an M.D. degree means that she must be capable of studying and understanding the opposing viewpoint in order to draw a fair conclusion.

    I’m thinking she cheated on tests….

  5. waldteufel

    Can you imagine Doctors Liz and Danny earnestly and prayerfully inspecting every word of Genesis, then joyfully gasping that they have discovered in scripture the secret to the unification of gravity as expressed in General Relativity and quantum mechanics?

    Naw. Me neither.

  6. Bird evolution? You have to admit, you never saw that one coming.

    Dr. Mitchell done gone and maked my brain box all hurty.

  7. I sure hope Hambone goes out and gets a proctologist as one of his commentators some day. The irony would amuse me.

  8. Our Curmudgeon introduces Dr Elizabeth Mitchell—

    “Aided by her gynecological … expertise, she says, with some bold font added by us: …”

    Good sir, methinks you missed an excellent opportunity here—

    “Aided by her gynecological… expertise, she says, with some bold font added by us: proceeds to make a complete [edited out] of herself: …”

    The nebular hypothesis was first proposed by Emanuel Swedenborg and later independently by Pierre-Simon Laplace (not ‘LaPlace’). Maxwell critiqued the idea based on his belief that differential rotation would disallow condensation and accretion of matter.

  9. Hah! I have an authoritative source to hand which can beat anything ole Hambo has got!

    …But I need some time to recover from Waldteufel’s epithet of “the creationist speculum shiner”…

  10. lanceleuven

    To paraphrase Archimedes:

    “Give me a shoehorn long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall contort anything into my creationist nuttery”

  11. Garnetstar

    Perhaps not, myatheistlife. Doctors can sometimes pass their exams and become accredited by force of brute memorization alone. No reasoning required.

    Also, during her internship, a friend of mine learned some joking sterotypes of different specialties from the other MDs: these were the ones that the attendings, residents, etc. called each other. For gynecolosgists, the capsule characterization was “Stupid people who hate women.” Well, Mitchell seems to fit the first criterion.

    For surgeons it was “Surgeons’ hands are quick and nimble; surgeons’ brains could fit in a thimble.” Sort of explains Egnor and the seeming prominence of neurosurgeons in the creo-crowd.

  12. @myatheistlife

    I can tell you that you don’t necessarily have to be a critical thinker to get an MD. There were some people in my med school class who were not very bright and whom I would never trust with my healthcare. They were good at memorizing and good at taking tests. That plus an attitude of willingness to please and at least an outward appearance of being hardworkers got them through school. I don’t know how they fared in residency but I know even there we had some people who clearly could not think. Fortunately my program did expel some of them (or at least did not renew their contracts beyond their intern years) but I know they ended up in smaller programs that were more desperate for warm bodies to fill openings.

    This type of person is everywhere. They can regurgitate any information put in front of them without understanding much of it. Sometimes that’s enough to make it through life without really hurting any patients but they essentially never wake from the fog of childhood concrete thinking.

  13. Apologies… should have refreshed before posting my last comment. Agree with garnetstar. We used to call the orthopedists knuckledraggers who did their residency at the hardware store. (One of my best friends was an ortho resident so it was all in good fun). Its not just in medicine though. Look at all the creationists with PhDs. Its not many compared to the overall number of people involved in science and science based fields But still more than you’d expect.

  14. Garnetstar

    TJW: my friend’s colleagues called the type of doctor you’re speaking about “007s–licensed to kill”.