Creationist slams Neil deGrasse Tyson’s ‘Cosmos’ for ‘blind faith’ in scientific theories

By Travis Gettys,

A creationist has reviewed the new “Cosmos” reboot, featuring astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, and it may come as no surprise that she wasn’t terribly impressed.

“If the first segment is any indication, [“Cosmos”] will attempt to package unconditional blind faith in evolution as scientific literacy in an effort to create interest in science,” said Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, a physician and Answers In Genesis researcher.

She praises some aspects of the program, such as its “colorful” graphics and “charismatic” storytelling, but Mitchell complains that the program spent too much time describing phenomena that contradict biblical teachings.

“We hope that future segments will spend more time showing actual scientific observations — such as the brief part of this episode showing where earth is in relation to the rest of the universe,” Mitchell said.

She said that segment reminded her of the “Created Cosmos” feature at the Creation Museum, in Petersburg, Ky.

“In Created Cosmos we see how we as people of earth stand in relation to the immensity of God’s Creation,” Mitchell said. “So seeing the enormity of what God in His power created, we get a better perspective on God’s great love for us.”

Mitchell ironically dismisses some of the theories presented by Tyson on the program as unscientific dogma.

“The ‘observational evidence’ to which Tyson refers is not, however, observations that confirm big bang cosmology but interpretations of scientific data that interpret observations within a big bang model of origins,” she said. “The big bang model is unable to explain many scientific observations, but this is of course not mentioned.”

The creationist was particularly troubled by the theory explaining the origin of life presented by Tyson.

“Abiogenesis — the origin of life from non-living elements through natural processes — is essential to naturalistic evolutionary dogma,” Mitchell said. “Yet abiogenesis has never been observed in science. Moreover, abiogenesis violates the natural laws that govern everything known to chemical and biological science.”

“Invoking blind faith in evolutionary principles, Tyson therefore says, ‘We still don’t know how life got started. For all we know it may have come from another part of the Milky Way. The origin of life is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of science,’” Mitchell said.

Creationists believe that mystery has already been solved and explained thousands of years ago in the Bible, she said.

“We maintain that God our Creator was the only eyewitness to the time of origins and that He has given us the truth about how He created everything in His Word,” she said. “He is the one that created the natural laws that govern the physical world and make science possible.”

Mitchell said Tyson had overlooked the only relevant source to the universe’s origins by scanning the galaxy and studying its physical properties.

“Drawing correct conclusions about the unobservable past requires evaluating ideas about the past within the framework of the Creator’s history,” she said. “Drawing correct conclusions about our own nature, how we should live our lives, and what will happen to each of us when we die also requires that we get our information from the Word of the Source of life, the One who created the cosmos.”

Original article

This entry was posted in Cosmology, Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Creationist slams Neil deGrasse Tyson’s ‘Cosmos’ for ‘blind faith’ in scientific theories

  1. Bobbi says:

    bloodboughtwr, firstly, at the very least you could spell my name right. It’s written on the page. How difficult can it be? Secondly, why should I address Dr Mitchell’s arguments when she is clearly not qualified to discuss what she has anyway? Thirdly, this is not a debate, this is a discussion so there is no such thing as a ad hominem fallacy. bloodboughtwr, you did exactly what you accused me of doing. You didn’t address anything that I said or anything that Dr Mitchell said. Sadly, you have shown your lack of intelligence and wasted space on this page with your comment.

  2. lollume says:

    how’s abiogenesis a necessary premise for evolution? and she’s a physician? lol !

  3. So Bobbie you are going to resort to the Ad Hominem fallacy? Address the arguments not her views.

  4. Bobbi says:

    So what Dr Mitchell is claiming Dr Tyson does is rely on blind faith? Dr Mitchell, as a person who thinks ‘that accurate history never violates biblical history, that correct scientific understanding of our past will never contradict God’s eyewitness account in the Bible, and that genuine understanding of God’s Word builds faith in Jesus Christ.’ can you please explain, scientifically, and falsify the making of a human out of spit and dirt or out of a rib; or a serpent talking; or how a world full of plants grow without sunlight; or the making of all living things from NOTHING but speech; or the many other things that creationists/christians are required to BELIEVE RELYING ON BLIND FAITH? At least non creationists have scientific method, not claiming to know anything with 100% certainty, keeping an open mind in case the EVIDENCE shows us something different and are willing to say ‘we DONT know but we will keep searching for the answers’. Claiming to have all the answers just because some ancient people wrote copies of some mythology on some papyrus, animal skins and bronze items is not science. It is BELIEVING WITH BLIND FAITH. And for those that read this, please check out Dr Mitchell’s bio. She is a medical Doctor, not an astrophysicist or a biologist or an archeologist or any of the scientists actually qualified to comment on such topics. Typical of a creationist, thinking that just because you put Dr in front of your name that people will think you have something important to say on the issue. Dishonesty, Dr Mitchell, dishonest!

  5. ryan59479 says:

    Of course they did. How could they possibly support something that subverts their narrative?

What you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s