The “Science Channel” is running a show called “Morgan Freeman’s “Through the Wormhole” that is basically creationist propaganda. I’m extremely disappointed. I sent them this letter. I wonder if they will reply.
Morgan Freeman’s “Through the Wormhole” is NOT SCIENCE and should not be on a “Science Channel”. If you want to assert that a deity exists then use the same scientific standards that are used to prove that black holes exist. I don’t know who got to you on creationism but I no longer respect your channel.
Maybe we should get the Mythbusters to make a final call on the existence of God?
You think I’m a skeptic? Prove it!
Marc Perkel–“you know” if you put up the misleading headline on purpose to drive hits, that would be one issue. If you really thought the show was promoting creationism, (other than by not presenting a fact filled show and therefore really dumbing down everyone about everything) then it looks like the verdict is you are wrong and you completely projected your own bias, bad form.
In either case, you should be more clever to achieve whatever your desired result is.
Can we will ourselves to become better people?
One hopes.
#29 Buzz,
“How did you “watch… the first show about Black Holes”
It’s quite simple, really. Bobbo FELL THROUGH a black hole half way through watching the show ABOUT black holes and returned a week earlier!
The upside, Bobbo knows about the show.
The downside, he didn’t take next weeks stock quotes back with him.
The paradox: Now we have two Bobbo’s running around.
Twice the Bobbo-age!
28, GlassHalfFull,
No, it was the cosmic chicken who laid the cosmic egg. Duh!!!
I believe in a sort of “blended” approach to the origin of all things and of man in particular; that there is a creator and something like a devil, and something like evolution, and all play a role. But I have to say- all the anti-religious, anti-Creationism types strike me as drunken, dope-smokin’ bitter a-holes. Someone here prove me wrong. I beg of you.
#33–Ah Yea== the experience pretty much left me without a memory of my sojourn, but the stretch marks are a bitch.
#35–Rich==you demonstrate once again that its rare to find anything cogent following the words “I Believe.”
You guys are watching science on TV and expect it to be very in depth and scientific? Come on, don’t be more STUPID. You’re simply making the comment for shear lack of any ideas.
If you want more in depth, read journals and science magazines. Read BOOKS for pete’s sake.
If you don’t understand the connections being made in this show, you may be viewing it with a less-than-full grasp of what was being revealed, connected and explored.
Lisi has worked out a Theory Of Everything that has elegance, mathematical gravity (pun intended) and the ability to predict next steps. This show was the best public reveal of it I’ve seen, even though the simplified graphics are metaphorical. Lie group math is not something you can explain in a ten minute segment, but they did good and made the connection that even if his model is wrong, it strides forward in a Much Better Direction than purely math exercises have in the past (String Theory, for instance).
Apparently Marc and Bobbo missed the density of this segment in droves.
The segment with Rich Terrile (JPL scientist) was fun for me, because I know him slightly and have used him as a resource in my own science-based projects.
I was interested to see how his recent work has connected the notion of a pixel-based simulation display to the physical universe, at least at the Planck level. This is the first show, I believe, that has made this connection–ever!
The only segment in the entire show that comes even within a vague scent of this story’s sub-headline is the Anglican priest, Polkinghorne I think, who used to be a physicist. His participation anchored the title question in a way that let every single other element of the story fly higher and faster by comparison. He was the microwave anchor for a story that traveled through visible light into gamma rays, if you catch the metaphor.
I think both Marc Perkel and Bobbo the Billy Bob missed the thread, internal connections, open sense of inquiry and Freeman’s own very personal sense of deeper wonder and more penetrating investigation in this series.
None of the low-end science/cosmology shows have gotten into the topics this show revealed. What you usually get are the self-promoting, lower-ranked popularizers like Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I think these two are more the speed of Perkel and Billy Bob.
Freeman’s show went to the doers, the discoverers, the original sources, not the talk-abouters.
I wonder why blog commenters have to resort to calling religious believers ugly names. Why all the hatred? It seems to me that we are all trying to find truth as to why we are here. Some see it thru science, others thru a spiritual path. No One has all the answers.
Remember, Science is a religion in some sense as well. It has a set of rules which govern what is real to it. Observable, repeatable, phenomenon, etc. Our university systems have their own religion as to acceptable modes of behavior.
As I have gotten older, I have realized that the more you know, the more you realize how little you know. Seems like lots of people posting comments here need to age quite a bit.
#38–bbbuuuuuuuuzzzzzzzzzzz!==hah, hah. Yes, indeed. I’m sure the metaphors and analogies make the points you raise. (Rolling My Eyes!) Thats the interesting thing about metaphors and analogies–very ambiguous vehicles that huckster can drive anywhere they wish.
I’ve already posted I didn’t pay much attention to it. Talking about how some people come to a recognition of the need/possibility of a creator belongs in a show about psychiatric illnesses, not a show illuminating the universe.
But I take your view. I’ll actually watch it when it comes on again and give it an honest chance. I don’t even have to agree with your views myself, but is there enough there that your view is not a scam, humorous or otherwise? Then I’ll question why a pop culture medium put on such a high fallutin show?
#39–daiku and other woodworkers==oh Reeeaally!
What ugly names when infidel and eternal damnation is your gold standard? Why do YOU and your ilk call every assessment you don’t like “hatred.” Expand your vocabulary.
Its pretty well established thru a variety of approaches that there is no truth in the spiriutal path. Comfort?==yes, but not truth. Name one “truth” of religion that is one the true/false continuum? Its not there so try again.
Science is a religion only to the degree you don’t have the mental/educational tools/discipline to not view everything in the universe as a form of religion. Why do you hate science so much?
Silly conclusion you draw there from your increasing dithering irrelevancy. The older I get the more I realize there is much I have learned, and yes, even more to learn than I had ever thought==but the short comings of religion have been firmed up nicely. Its not a zero sum game. Hopefully, most people will recognize they know more, and have even more to know. Knowledge grows.
Silly rabbit.
#40
Holy fck Bobbo, can you STFU if you don’t know WTF you are referencing to? If you didn’t watch the show, SHUT THE FUCK UP already. Whatever you say is irreverent because you DIDN’T watch the show for more than 5min.
So whatever ideas you may have regarding the show, shove it and STFU. Save your comments for something you know and have experience in.
Jesus Christ, what an asshole. Time and time again.
#41–theIdiotONe==hey, stop the dog piling. I carefully watched for the first 15 minutes and lost interest, half watched for another 15 to confirm my impression, then started doing something else while I listened to the show hoping it would get better.
To me, it was bad science and bad theology. While tv is pop culture, there are some good shows. Cosmos, Naked Science, Mechanical Universe, of course most of the Nature Shows. For theology, there is more depth in a show right now called “Closer to Truth” and I was mentally comparing Freeman to that show thinking he was just skimming the surface comparatively.
I reject your notion that comments on a show cannot be made unless one paid rapt attention and have a transcript in front of them–as long as when called out on getting specifics wrong, I own up to it, which I did.
IdiotONe–my conclusion is still valid as my own take on the show and GIVEN that opinion, why would I have kept the specifics in mind?
Silly Rabbit.
Thanky, Bobbo. Now if we can whisk the self-imposed veils off of Marc Perkel’s eyes, a degree of accomplishment may be in the wings.
I have the feeling, though, that Marc, who has committed to a completely inappropriate letter to the Science Channel, will feel compelled to justify his “beliefs” that this show deserved to be labeled a sell-out to the “All Beliefs, All The Time” crowd.
Amazing how beliefs in the hand of someone who thought they were striking out against the inappropriate belief population can lead them to completely ironical behavior.
Marc, just so there is zero mistake: The whole declaration you made is 180° away from the reality of this show.
You not only missed that, you ran full speed in the opposite direction. That’s what beliefs do to people. They shut off analysis, inquiry and logic. Your mistaken belief was that the show was pandering to the folks who have no analytics, inquiries or logical thought.
Wow! You win the the whole ironing board.
Buzz–no, thank YOU! I assume Marc fell into the same perception trap I did: “This ain’t like I’m used to seeing/hearing/enjoying on the Science Channel or on a scientifically oriented show. I’d pay more attention before I pounded out a letter though.
but thats the problem with “general opinions” that don’t ground themselves with a specific list of particulars. You see that here all the time with the refuge being “I believe nonetheless, that blah, blah, blah.”
Facts should make a difference, but so often they don’t.
Lets See. Am I waiting for anything?===something about some “truth” that religion has provided mankind? This thread? Some other? “I believe, yes, I do.”
#39 Daiku. While there are a LOT of people who believe in various things (the entire population), the major attribute of Science over Religion is the highly successful quest for repeatable testing.
Religion offers zero test/repeat. That’s not a proof of diminished capacity, but a compelling fundamental difference.
Just because six billion people think any given common thought doesn’t begin to make it a proof of anything, either.
The more we age, the more we realize we, as individuals, don’t have ALL the answers, but that’s also the same effect you get when moving from naive belief to greater degrees of understanding.
My belief is that it’s better to have SOME answers than none at all. That seems self-evident to me, but that’s just me.
Science is NOT a Religion. It’s not the opposite, either. It’s in a completely different dimension of thought. As different as composing music is to digesting corn.
One of the more compelling stories in the show demonstrated how a very simple focused electromagnetic field can cause a normal brain to trigger completely otherwise stimulus-free beliefs, sensations, epiphanies and seeming connections to the presence of God.
In other words, a built-in God’s Presence generator delivered by and through the current state of evolution in our brain processes can be switched on and off repeatably.
If anything, religions are growing departments of Science (Vatican Pontifical Academy of Science for instance) far more than Science is growing departments of gullible belief.
Number 18 , you got it right. Look up “Demographic-economic paradox”
TV is deteriorating rapidly. My prediction. Three years from now, the Science Channel gets it’s highest ratings ever with the premier of Through the sperm hole! Of course, narrated by Morgana the slave-girl.
Buzz–that God’s Presence Generator may be there and if so it will have to be shown it is not a culturally imposed event. I can’t imagine otherwise!
Closely allied along those lines, is I think the Darwinian approach to why man forms these spiritual beliefs. I think the current best theory is that it is an artifact of our brain trying to establish cause and effect. That makes sense at least. Now we just have to find that part of the brain that says I’ve thought enough and I’m ready to stop thinking and go forward with just beliefs. Cut that part out of the brain and Moore’s law might apply to growth of human thinking and not just computer memory.
Some models may not have an upgrade path.
Hee, hee!
# 38 Buzz said, on June 14th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
If you don’t understand the connections being made in this show, you may be viewing it with a less-than-full grasp of what was being revealed, connected and explored.
…
None of the low-end science/cosmology shows have gotten into the topics this show revealed. What you usually get are the self-promoting, lower-ranked popularizers like Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
———————————–
I’ll have to agree. I didn’t get a single creationist vibe from the show, and some of the dialog and production value was pretty darned good. For TV science, it’s not bad at all. As a professional astronomer I didn’t get much new from it, but I did find it to be factual and entertaining.
# 9 Marc Perkel said, on June 13th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Next they are going to replace astronomy with astrology.
———————————————
Nope, that’s for the History Channel.
Since most of the Media is owned or controlled by Republican leaning monopolists, courting the right-wing religious fundamentalists. It shouldn’t be a huge surprise that one of their cable channels programs this superficially moral view.
Back in the days of the Scopes Monkey trial. It was the newspapers, controlled by some self-avowed atheists, who set up the whole thing to get their “evolutionist” view in the public eye. The teacher admitted to breaking the State’s law, no contest there. But his lawyer, paid for by the newspapers, turned it into a trail of the law itself. What was really at stake? Most probably lucrative school text book printing contracts, for the publisher, if Darwin was approved reading.
I have a similar gripe about the “Discovery Channels” as you do about the “Science Channel”. In that for years the chosen subject usually involved US military strength, war, weapons of war. Aerospace and military propaganda, for the most part. Hardly surprising, considering where the Discovery Channels network is headquartered, and who owns it. As one comedian use to call it (before the History Channel) “The Hitler Channel. All Hitler, all the time.” I think the “discovery” part was “try and discover something on this network that isn’t tied to defense spending.” Ha!
Glenn E. said
>>I think the “discovery” part was “try and discover something on this network that isn’t tied to defense spending.” Ha!
——————————–
OK, how about Mythbusters? Somehow I don’t think the military is about to build a sailboat out of duct tape. But, it was cool!
Get with the program. First, you had the subject matter wrong. Second, you missed the point of the show. Third, try working with people using what we hold in common for the betterment of the society rather than throw molotov cocktails at those who still hold to religion but otherwise want to help people rather than use them for their own enrichment.
Of course, you may disagree and believe like Ayn Rand, that anything you can do for yourself to better yourself, even if it is at the physical, moral or monetary ruin of others, is good. Well, then you’re screwed and should go away to live in your own hell and we’ll be better for it. Just like little Ayn said.
The “author” of this story is a total moron. Why he is allowed to post here is beyond all reason. His whole argument is stupid since black holes only exist in theory,since one has never been seen. Scientist have faith they exist much like people have faith God exist.
>>since black holes only exist in theory,since one has never been seen.
Nope. They exist. They are the only explanation for stellar orbits near the center of galaxies. Do yourself a favor and read about Chandrasekhar’s limit. There are plenty of references.
That they exist is a common fact in physics and astronomy today. Now tell me, how are you going to “see” one? You can see their gravitational effects on other stars, you can see the accretion disks around them, you can see the jets of matter ejected at the poles of the black holes that spin and are feeding on matter.
Guess you’re smarter and have more data than Stephen Hawking, et. al. Strange, I haven’t seen any recent publications by you in any of the journals…
What’s going to replace the BS I read on this blog?
Angry,
gOTO CAGE MATCH AND HAVE more fun..
Supply what you want o COMPLAING about and we can ALL debate.
WATCHUTALKINBOUT?
MorganFreemans is pimp.
Science channel used to offer factual and interesting programming. Now, Freeman and this unmitigated nonsense “Lost Gospels”; clearly the Science Channel is now sucking the tit of the religious right using the channel name to try and obscure the difference between factual science and faith based stupidity.
wow – such haters. so let me see if i have your logic straight: if one believes in a GOD then one is an idiot? by what reasoning do you make this conclusion? what does one’s belief or disbelief have to do with multi-dimentional quantum physics? i’d call your logic a non-sequitor. newton was a devout christian; einstein stated that a logical MIND was behind the universe – so according to you, they are both idiots … science and belief are NOT mutually exclusive to anyone except small minded atheists who do not have the mental accuity to even CONSIDER a transcendant mind. apparently one cannot hold a differing opinion from all of yours without appearing to be “stupid”, “idiotic”, and/or a “lunitic”. it is very UNscientific of you to dismiss, out of hand, data that exists outside of your narrow understanding … if i can’t touch it and measure it, it isn’t real. tell me, how DOES on touch and measure a quark? a black hole? how vast the universe is? you can’t measure it or touch it, but the emperical evidence that it exists is just as “faith based” as a christian’s belief in GOD.
glen e – what is your evidence that “…most of the Media is owned or controlled by Republican leaning monopolists, courting the right-wing religious fundamentalists.”? can’t you come up with descriptors other than what soros backed move-on.org gives you in your vocabulary list for the week? the vitriol and flaming hatred of people who hold differing points of view other than yours is palpable and quite childish – waaaaah!!! you said “no” and i don’t love you anymore! grow up – the world is full of people who can civilly disagree on differing points of view – apparently you are not one of them.