Cosmos Evolution Scene Purposely Cut?

Cosmos Evolution Scene Purposely Cut

Cosmos evolution scene purposely cut? Many are wondering if a commercial airing right in the middle of Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining the first instance of life leaving the sea was an error or subtle editing. Fox affiliate KOKH-TV was hosting the show during the cut that occurred in Oklahoma, prompting many to think that the high population of religious conservatives in the state may have been a factor for limiting the amount of time spent discussing the evolution theory. Given the extremely sudden cut from scientific discussion to a local news station commercial, heated debates have flared up over whether or not the change was indeed the human error claimed by KOKH-TV, or an attempt to keep the idea from spreading among Oklahoma citizens.

Evolution versus creationism has been a hot topic for decades before the reboot of Cosmos aired, especially in some states. But the most important thing to keep in mind during these disagreements is that no one is trying to change anyone’s mind. The topic is very sensitive, but given the history of controversy in the state, many have jumped to the conclusion that the commercial was absolutely intended to block the evolution scenes from airing. KOKH-TV has tweeted that the jump was the result of human error and apologized, but the specific timing of leaving the show and returning just after evolution is discussed has kept the rumour mill circulating.

The question of whether or not the Cosmos evolution scene was purposely cut comes at a time when the debate between Creationism and Evolution is at a recent high. Ken Ham of the Creation Museum and Bill Nye the Science Guy recently held a widely publicised debate on the credibility of creationism versus evolution. While the debate itself did not offer any final answers one way or the other, it did serve to get the public thinking about something that has been in the background for several years. While some believe that faith is all you need, people on the other side of the fence are quick to dismiss the idea the creationism as fanciful.

Although the right to believe what you will is ingrained in the U.S. constitution, there is fierce debate over what is taught in schools, as we all know young minds are quite malleable. Some states insist that Creationism be taught as the only possible way life could have originated, but other say that evolution, despite small grey areas, must be taken into account as well. Ideally, neither idea would be presented as the only possible explanation for life on Earth as well currently know it, but instead both would be presented beside the other and the students would be implored to use their critical thinking skills to decide what they want to believe.

The likelihood of this is slim of course, because frankly each side is impossible to prove beyond doubt. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence shown in Cosmos and other scientific materials, Evolution is still touted as a theory, open to interpretation and fine tuning. Similarly, Creationism relies on the faith of those that carry it. Whether or not we discover the true origin of life is beside the point however if we cannot agree to disagree and allow each person to make their own decisions.

By Daniel O’Brien

Sources

The Los Angeles Times
KPLR 11
NY Daily News

12 Responses to "Cosmos Evolution Scene Purposely Cut?"

  1. Philip Bruce Heywood   March 16, 2014 at 10:22 pm

    If you will bear with me I will address each commenter’s remark in turn.
    Firstly, J. Maxwell by his wording is not an advizor to the NKVD/Gestapo, so we might let him off with the advice not to exaggerate.
    SNIZZ: “Evolution is science. Creationism is religion.” So if a spook was to evolve from whatever spooks come from (rancid sphaghetti?), that would be scientific? Meanwhile, the First Law of Science says, matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. This eliminates spooks, even if the spaghetti is totally sus.. But because creationism is religion and has nothing to do with science, and because science demands that matter has to have a creator, and cannot mysteriously arrive out of nowhere to give us spooks …….people who believe in spooks are scientists and people who believe in a First Cause are soggy noodle thinkers? Spot your absurdity? How do you ever get to sleep on dark, haunted nights?
    PADDY:? “Hey, it’s 2014.” Uh huh. Read the science literature. Species are ‘locked’ — they can’t just turn into each other over time. The mechanisms involved are beginning to be perceived. Real science. Facts and figures. Proteins of sex cells and that sort of thing. Guess what it takes for the ‘lock’ to be tripped? A real life chemical reaction, occurring at a moment in space-time. Real chemistry, empirical. Species are an outcome of information technology, married with life. The info.tech we can quantify; the life we cannot. What is being quantified in 2014 destroys Darwinism forever. It concurrently vindicates the info-tech. transformer (‘archetype”) concept of Sir Richard Owen. Owen was the world’s leading palaeontologist, who identified Darwin’s specimens for him. Natural selection is manifestly impossible as the driver of speciation, as Owen stated. However, info.tech. involving the reading and incorporation of environmental requirements into DNA is now seen to be theoretically possible and provides a way forward.
    VOODOO: “Creationism is nothing but primitive superstition.” The superstition embraced by almost every respected foundational scientist from Bacon through to Einstein and a hundred in between. None of them attributed the universe to spooks and voodoo.
    S.D.: “Perhaps the science writer should consult with the NCSE (National Center for Science Education)” Consult with them yourself. You will discover that “Evolution” in their one-sided vocabulary equals Nature creating itself, no empirical facts and figures required. Should this be challenged, they take it as a personal affront. Queer deity, this “Evolution”! Like all invented deities, he must not be questioned or explained! NCSE has lost the plot. If it hasn’t, get back to us. Find whether they will now accept empirical fact in relation to speciation, Will they accept that Darwinism is not equal to Evolution? Darwin was a theologian come late to that scene, his notions were already discredited by the leading scientists and thinkers of the time, and Sir Richard Owen had already foreshadowed the true mechanism of speciation. Without spooks!
    R.M.:Your approach does not seem to indicate totalitarian tendencies. Good luck in untangling the definitions — of what, a confused Public asks?
    KJ: .”………nothing in reality shows that some god made stuff up with a wave ….” Of course not. You made the universe. Or was it noodles, or the Easter Bunny? Get it clear. Are you responsible for noodles, or are noodles responsible for you? Cheer up, there are good things out there.
    J.L.: “To believe in the absence of fact is evidence of mental illness.”
    Provide in writing and forthwith the empirical facts of what must have happened at speciation. The necessary chain of events – DNA, RNA, autoimmune systems, sex cells, step by step procedure. Show how environmental requirement became a numerical code. Show how the entire genetic information for the species suddenly was fixed as part of the information that is the species . Explain the procedure of the physical manifestation of the first representative(s) of a species. Do not contradict any law of genetics/biology/physics. Do so before heading off to some despot’s regime to advize him on putting dissenters in mental institutions. Only, by your own definition, you are mentally ill. You have made the old, old mistake of confusing an idea (and ideas can gain quasi-religious status) of confusing a quasi-religious idea with mathematics and measurement. Science is mathematics and is mathematically quantifiable. Rants are rants.

    Reply
  2. Philip Bruce Heywood   March 16, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    The post is in fact well written and logical. In contrast to the comments you received. These commenters direct from Soviet Russia, Mao’s China, or North Korea? Sickening, same old anti- freedom carp and rant.

    Reply
  3. Justin Maxwell   March 13, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    “But the most important thing to keep in mind during these disagreements is that no one is trying to change anyone’s mind.”

    That has to be the dumbest, most naive statement ever. Wow. Also, ditto the above comments.

    Reply
  4. Snizz   March 13, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    There are so many things wrong with this article. Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. Science is taught at school, religion is taught at church. “…because frankly each side is impossible to prove beyond doubt…” It’s also impossible to prove beyond doubt that there isn’t a flying spaghetti monster orbiting the earth, does that mean we should teach the Pastafarian origin theory in schools as well?

    Reply
    • Tez   April 10, 2014 at 4:27 pm

      agreed! Why aren’t we teaching Pastafarian origin theory in schools?!?

      Reply
  5. Paddy McQ   March 13, 2014 at 4:13 pm

    Mr. O’Brien says… “Evolution is still touted as a theory, open to interpretation…” WRONG! The Theory of Evolution is NOT the Hypothesis of Evolution. The word “theory” here means “the study of”. Evolution by Natural Selection is considered fact by the scientific community with new discoveries (fine tuning) happening regularly. Hey, it’s 2014.

    Reply
  6. Voodoo Nonsense   March 13, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    The author portrays evolution and creationism as equally viable, which is ridiculous. Evolution is demonstrable both in the laboratory, and through overwhelming fossil evidence. Creationism is nothing but primitive superstition.

    Reply
  7. Stephen Diehl   March 13, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    This is a ridiculous and very poorly written and reasoned article. The evidence absolutely is in and evolution is absolutely a FACT. I’ve got news for O’Brien: he has no business being a science writer if he still doesn’t understand that a “Theory” in science is not the same thing as the word “theory” in the vernacular. What means a guess or a hypothesis in everyday usage is not even close to the same thing. Wow, what a blunder!
    Perhaps the science writer should consult with the NCSE (National Center for Science Education) and review the subject matter. The Theory of Evolution is overwhelmingly proven and is a fact.

    Reply
    • Rick Martin   March 13, 2014 at 4:22 pm

      I cringe every time the word “Theory” is used. I think scientist should come up with a new word describing a “hypothesis that rises to the level of theory based on overwhelming evidence!”

      Reply
    • Tez   April 10, 2014 at 4:24 pm

      I agree… the context of the word “theory” in science should be explained within this article … I’m surprised this is a science writer comparing the two ‘theories’ with equal measure … appeasing powerful charlatans… how sad it is still happening 🙁

      Reply
  8. Kiljoy616   March 13, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    Creationism is made up woo, nothing in reality shows that some god made stuff up with a wave of her hand.

    Reply
  9. John Lester   March 13, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Mr O’Brian is in error with his conclusion “because frankly each side is impossible to prove beyond doubt”. There is very little to doubt considering the mountain of evidence for the existence of evolution. On the other hand there is absolutely no factual basis for creationism as an explanation of natural world. To believe in the absence of fact is evidence of mental illness.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.