+1 Funny because there's no +1 Facepalm

I will give them equal time. If they can produce equal evidence.

It's based on the bible. What more evidence do you need?

None. The bible says so. Don't believe me? Just look in this here bible.

Does this mean they'd welcome equal time on shows like The 700 Club, everything on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, half the crap on the Hallmark Channel, and every televised church service?

Not that such should be accepted, as it gives some credence to their idiotic view of "balance" or that religion is at all on a par with things that are testable, have evidence, etc. Still, imagine replacing the closed captioning with "this is bullshit because" and "this isn't even biblically accurate"* below as the preacher shouts and waves his bible.

* This is just a pet peeve I have when I have to attend services with family over the holidays. For all the crap religion spews about science not staying the same (a convenient misunderstanding about how science works), they can't even keep their own stories straight if they want to bend scripture to a specific point, or they just want to wholesale make shit up about what biblical characters said/did when they aren't appearing in the actual text.

Do note that in this context "creationists" means "one creationist guesting on another creationist's show."

They want equal time? Well, by my calculations, they'll need to just shut the fuck up for the next 6,000 years or so.

Only if the part with their myth is blacked out with an emergency science broadcast everywhere but Oklahoma.

Are there Oklahoma stereotypes that I am unaware of? Is this one of them?

While there are probably stereotypes you don't know about, the Fox affiliate in Oklahoma City "accidentally" aired a news promo over some rather inconvenient facts about evolution.

You can get more on that link about how the right wing want to make sure other nagging bits of science don't get into the heads of those who might someday vote.

Time to rebuild my karma... Hello everyone.

Hello, damnit!

YAY!!!!

That said- they aired it on fox. They should expect this, probably because it reached some of the people who need it most.

Yes, for all the intellectually bankrupt crap that Fox airs, you got to hand it to them for backing and airing Cosmos.

The original Cosmos had a profound, life-long impact on me when I was 10, so if this one can reach even 1% of Fox's normal audience, it will be a very good thing, indeed.

I was expecting a link to The Onion.

Dreams of a saner world, my friend.

I say that about many of the headlines in actual news these days. People accuse me of being cynical, yet it's hard not to be in a world where satire is reality and farce is fact.

Must suck to work at The Onion. Every day, "Damn, that shit already happened1"

Why? If it's in the bible that should be all the convincing needed.

LOL!!!!!

Since the image features Sarah Palin, I'm sure everyone's eagerly awaiting the premiere of her new show on April 3rd:

You can probably fill out your Jingo card with this thing.

Okay, so apparently I don't grok how to embed videos here. Here's a link to the YouTube page.

I think science should start demanding more airtime on all Bible channels.

Glad to see you made it.

Man, this show is going to get even worse as it goes on for creationists. It's being produced by Seth Macfarlane, who seems to be using it as a platform for both reinvigorating a show he used to love as a kid, and for giving creationists the middle finger. This article shows how some people complained that for a few minutes in the first episode they talked about evolution, well the entire second episode was about it. The episode started by debunking one of the favored arguments for creationists: the complexity of the eye. It also spelled out how the selective breeding of the hundreds of types of dogs parallels to how natural selection creates the variety of life in the wild.

I'd hazard to guess the third episode will be just as inconsiderate to religious beliefs, it's titled "When Knowledge Conquered Fear". It'll probably have several stories like the one from the premier of Giordano Bruno.

The money is MacFarlane, but the writing and production are the same group as the original Cosmos, as in Sagan's widow Ann Druyan and Steven Soter, one of the producers of the original series. They and Neil Tyson had been trying to get the show running since 1996, and it was MacFarlane's money and love for the original that got it produced.

Really, it is not a middle finger to creationism- it's science and truthiness. Just because creationists disagree with it, does not make them right, nor does it mean science should acknowledge their delusions other than to debunk the fuck out of them.

If MacFarlane is keeping his hands off the production, good on him. It almost makes up for his cookie-cutter animated cancers taking up bandwidth on our various means of video delivery.

And I will admit he's occasionally funny, but I think his work would be better as a Robot Chicken-style animated sketch show, as his characters are often the weakest part of his productions.

I'm going to have to take the side of the uncool plebs and say that ~50% of American Dad is watchable, if not funny. Rodger and Steve are pretty good characters.

While I'd never say you aren't entitled to your opinion, I would point out that you have to dig pretty deep into either show to find any differences beyond "family with idiot dad, wife who would get a divorce if she were actually sentient, awkward and cynical kids, talking pet, mad scientist, minority supporting cast, and irrelevant referential humor."

American Dad is more political and definitely a left-leaning show. Otherwise they're the same.

I'd like to see a list of some of those, "so many scientists who don't believe in Darwinian evolution," along with their academic backgrounds and claimed areas of expertise. and while we're at it, which parts of evolution by natural selection they think are mistaken, and their alternate theories and evidence to support them.

As I understand it, there's lots of disagreement about some of the subtler aspects of the mechanisms by which evolution takes place, but not the basic concept itself.

I think part of the problem is that "scientist" isn't something exclusive that requires a license or a demonstration you actually understand science and go about doing things involving research or testing. The other part is "so many" is, as usual for creationists, quite vague. I could fill a conference room with "scientists" and that sure does look like a lot until you compare that room's population with that of those actually working in the sciences.

Well for one, economists count as scientists, and how are you going to convince people that minimum wages and rich people paying taxes will ruin the economy without economists?

Or, god help us, engineers. They, like some other disciplines, seem to lend themselves to causing those who practice it to believe the same principles can be applied to weather, biology, evolution, human behavior, and worst of all, politics.

Dumble, Circus, that's exactly why I said, "along with their academic backgrounds and claimed areas of expertise"!

Yeah, and their prevalence in places they don't belong above and beyond their colleagues is why I mentioned engineers.

I think the Creationists should give equal time to Creationists.

I saw the Bill The Science Guy vs Hamm Debate...and not once did Hamm bring up the possibility of Lord Vishnu taking a nap....