PBS's “Evolution” regurgitated

[Deacon]

PBS plans to air another 'Evolution' series on Sept. 28 and 29.

The title of the 4-hour miniseries is Origins .

Over two days the series will muse over four cosmic beginnings:
of planet Earth,
of life,
of intelligent life,
and of the universe itself.

As the computer animations of the events emerge on your screen, various details of the genesis of the universe are revealed as (if) it was recounted by eyewitnesses.

Timed to be presented to our school-aged kids in science class as if it were fact.

Rob

 

[Helen]

Here's a bet: they will present things as true that are already known by mainstream science to be false....it doesn't even have to be opposed by a creationist. If this 'series' is anything like the last one (they are not really trying to air the same one again, are they???), there will be plenty of informed laymen and scientists who will let people know how ridiculous parts of it are.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Helen, in your opinion, what was the most glaring science error in the original evolution series that is already known by mainstream science to be false?

 

[Deacon]

I only watched a small portion of the first program. I was disappointed because they presented many social theories about early man as if they were factual when in fact they were mere conjecture based upon very limited data.

I suspect that this presentation may follow a similar vein.

Animation is a strong tool. Animated presentations are so persuasive that many may be susceptible and confuse theory with known facts.


Rob

 

[The Galatian]

I didn't watch it last time. However, when the popular media gets to science, they usually get it wrong.

There are many good books on the subject which are written by people who are knowledgable and able to communicate a sometimes difficult subject to laymen.

I suspect television is the wrong medium for that.

 

[BobRyan]

It was a forgery but still we should take its content seriously.

It is fantasy but let's swallow it like it was Da Vinci Code "fact".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Why don't you tell us what the "forgery" was and give support for your assertion.

Won't hold my breath as I am still waiting for some factual support for you archy conference assertion.

 

[A_Christian]

Why don't you look alittle deeper yourself UTEOTW, and you just might see at least one or two problems
yourself...

 

[UTEOTW]

I probably could. These television specials usually are produced for a lay audience and therefore play to the lowest common denominator. Which means that things are not presented as robustly as they could be. In some instances things are not as well as they could be because it would take too much time and be too complex. Things become simplified and something is lost. It is the nature of the medium. (Bad joke. Why is TV considered a medium? Because it is not rare and not well done.)

I think that the worst things that such shows are guilty of is being too simple. For example, if you are doing a show on human ancestors, you may simply have an animates Australiopithicus walking around. You do not have time to present all the data that shows that they walked on all fours nor to break it into the various species and show the different traits that each possesed. And once you consider that some of your finds will be from side branches, you may even have some peices of data that contradict one another.

But, i would specifically like to know where you, or the others, find fault. It could make a good discussion. Maybe they gloss over something they should not have and we can look at both sides. Maybe you think something was wrong but we can provide additional factual support. Who knows? Just watch and bring us your problems. I won't be able to watch tonight but maybe I have some TIVO space left and can record it for later.

 

[A_Christian]

The fault I find is that this is exactly how evolution is presented in Public schools across the country. The fact is that what is being presented is evolutionary DOGMA at best and propaganda in the very least. There is no room for disagreement. This is what sickens me. Lambs led by the nose to the slaughter...

 

[Gina B]

I missed whatever was on yesterday, I'm getting ready to watch tonight's though, which is starting in a minute. Well, now it started...will comment on it later!
Gina

 

[Gina B]

That was kinda disappointing. They didn't really go into anything, simply presented the simple "facts" any public school student would have read by 6th grade, pretty much.
Jack Cohen added an element of humor though, he reminded me of how I can be, and why most people will never watch a movie with me. His comment in reference to a movie about aliens was basically:
"It's biologically impossible for a parasitic alien to live in a human. Anyhow it was bigger than the human heart, and you'd definitely know if something bigger than your heart was living in your chest".
I'm always saying "that couldn't happen in real life", or "don't worry, the good guy will win in 10 minutes or less, since the movie only has that much time left". Humans are so predictable when they try to create scenarios!

Gina

 

[Gup20]

AiG has a review of the PBS series:

Part 1 = http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0929PBSOrigins.asp

Part 2 = http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0930pbs_pt2.asp

Here is an interesting snippett:
Both parts of the series employ an interesting analogy: the supposed 4.6 billion years of Earth’s past are compared to a 24-hour clock. Using this scale, we are told that human beings come on the scene only in the last thirty seconds of history. Yet, Jesus said that human beings have been around from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). If we compress the approximately 6000 years of true history as recorded in the Bible down to 24 hours, then humans existed within the first fraction of a second of history—right at the beginning as our Lord has said. It is clear that Jesus did not accept the timescale promoted in the “Origins” miniseries.

 

[The Galatian]

That won't work. You see, God tells us in Genesis what is present at the beginning. And he tells us that male and female came along later.

Jesus is not speaking of the beginning of creation here. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Genesis.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
That won't work. You see, God tells us in Genesis what is present at the beginning. And he tells us that male and female came along later.

Yeah, about six days later.

When did you come along?

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes, regarding the idea that male and female were literally there in the beginning:
That won't work. You see, God tells us in Genesis what is present at the beginning. And he tells us that male and female came along later.

Yeah, about six days later.

Wouldn't matter if it was a few billion years or so later (it was). Fact is, we can't take that statement as literal truth, since Genesis directly refutes a literal understanding of it.

When did you come along?

Doesn't matter. What matters is when male and female first came along. And as you see...

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Wouldn't matter if it was a few billion years or so later (it was). Fact is, we can't take that statement as literal truth, since Genesis directly refutes a literal understanding of it.
[/QB]

Since everyone is entitled to hold their own opinions and beliefs about life, the "fact" is that one may take either your word or God's word as "literal truth."

The "fact" that you personally choose to directly refute a literal understanding of Genesis only serves to prove the "fact" that anyone else can choose to directly refute your "literal" belief in 'billions of years.'

 

[The Galatian]

Since everyone is entitled to hold their own opinions and beliefs about life, the "fact" is that one may take either your word or God's word as "literal truth."

You aren't God, karl. And He is not obligated to meet your expectations.

The "fact" that you personally choose to directly refute a literal understanding of Genesis

Like most Christians, I recognize that the text itself refutes a literal understanding of it.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
You aren't God, karl. And He is not obligated to meet your expectations.

Like most Christians, I recognize that the text itself refutes a literal understanding of it. [/QB]

I'm not even Karl, Karl. you seem to be confusing me with yourself.

Unlike most Christians, you seem to be attempting to synchretize your personal interpretation of the Biblical text with non-Christian interpretations of it.