[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

NBC show: creationist?

In a recent post on the Dinosaur List G.S.Paul referred to the NBC TV 
show on human origins as a "creationist" program.  Although at least 
two strict creationists (Carl Baugh and Don Patton) appeared on the 
show, it actually promoted concepts starkly at odds with creationsm, 
especially the theme that that humans existed tens of millions of years 
ago.  This idea is not only opposed by most creationists (who generally 
believe that humans and all life forms were created by fiat only 
several thousand years ago), but is even more distasteful to them than 
"evolutionism" which places early humans at only a few million years 
    Therefore, major creationist groups such as ICR (Institute for 
Creation Research) and AIG (Answers in Genesis) were quite unhappy with 
the show, and issued negative reviews on it.  Also, Baugh and Patton 
are among the most disreputable creationists (even most creationists 
want nothing to do with them), but I would not be surprised if Baugh 
and Patton did not even know their comments would be used to promote 
anti-creationist ideas.  
    Of course, this invites the question: if the odd ideas in the show 
did not come from creationism, where did they come from?  Part of the 
answer may be that some of those who put the show together have ties to 
the Hare Hrishna religion, which evidently subscribes to the notion of 
hyper-ancient humans and the concept of time "cycles"--also promoted in 
the show.  For more information on this, you may want to check out the 
following article in the talk.origins archive: 


I also have a commentary of the show (with other Paluxy articles) on my 
web page at:


Oddly, the show producers apparently had trouple finding a single 
critical article on the Paluxy "man track" claims, claiming knew of no 
scientific rebuttals to them.  Even when they were informed (after the 
show) that dozens of mainstream articles had been written on the 
subject, they suggested that "the article" by Ron Hastings and me was 
questionable because we did not have degrees in archaeology.  Never 
mind that we have degrees in other fields of science; that the main 
issue is evidence, not credentials; that Hastings, I, and other 
mainstream workers have written not only one but dozens of articles on 
the topic; and that the producer's two "experts" have no valid degrees 
themselves, nor have published any scientific papers, and most 
disturbingly, claimed degrees they do not even have.  See my article "A 
matter of Degree.")  

NBC tried to relieve itself of any responsibility by claiming the show 
was maily for entertainment, even though the show hyped itself as 
legitimate, cutting edge science. Is the idea of millions of viewers, 
including many school children, being fed misinformation, 
pseudoscience, and a distorted view of science really NBC's idea of 
entertainment?  As someone recently suggested, before long NBC will 
probably do a story on the deplorable condition of science education in 


Glen Kuban