Abiogenesis on the TV

Yes, you've been missing some good stuff. It tends to cosmology and planetary formation/geological history, and this may be more of the same rather than a detailed examination of theories of abiogenesis.

History Channel is all over the map. Around Easter they do a bunch of "Science of the Bible" crap, but then they have also produced the Univese series, which I thought was just great.

I have this on my schedule tonight.

*sigh*

I'll have to wait until it is available on iTunes, I guess. We can't get the History channel here in Italy. At least, AFN doesn't carry it.

Um, "Ice Road Truckers" is pretty good. Lots of scien...um, lots of histor...well, I'm not really sure what the show has to do with either science or history. Still, it's not bad.

I agree with #2 Mike H. History Channel will show crap one evening like UFO and/or Bigfoot hunters, and on another evening they'll show a special on the exploration of Mars. They do throw tiny doses of skepticism in the UFO/Bigfoot shows but not enough.

Unfortunately the History channel still shows enough junk science shows that the average person won't be able to differentiate this from junk science.

(.)(.)

I'm a "Modern Marvels" junkie, but that show rarely does biology stuff.

History Network in Canada is the same, as is the National Geographic, which shows everything from crazy ass christian "history" through excellent stuff on genetics. They're all whores to the idiot masses.

Mike Haubrich wrote:

...but then they have also produced the Univese series, which I thought was just great.

I'm not sure, but I smelled the whiff of a pro-religious skew in "the Universe" when they did their show on how the big bang became generally accepted by cosmologists.

How big a deal really was Georges Lemaître, the Roman Catholic priest, who promoted his "cosmic egg" theory? How big a deal were the religious arguments when there was a debate between steady state and big bang?

"The Universe" was quite good, if more on the elementary level. "Modern Marvels" is uneven, but I've enjoyed many of them.

The woo on History channel is annoying, but not as annoying as "Psychic Detectives" on Court TV was immediately before or after a good evidence-based program. It appears that when Court TV changed to "Tru TV" they gave up the woo.

Still, the schlock has never deterred me from watching the good programs on both channels. They're out to make money, and I don't demand that they be what they're not.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Norman, #10: An interesting article in the 1932 "Modern Mechanix" about Lemaître's idea. Sensationalistic, but it hits some of the important points of the Big Bang ideas (like "What came before?"): http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/01/11/blast-of-giant-atom-created-o…

Mike is right. They're all over the map. Universe is quite good, they have some programs about early humans, 10,000 BC and, I believe, "War of the Cavemen," though I could be messing up the title of the second one, that appear to be interesting. On the other hand they do have the science of the bible, had a program talking about "proof" for Noah's Ark, and a bunch of other speculative crap that has no scientific or historical basis and would be better programming for TBN or some other religious channel rather than the History channel. What really bugs me is History International has the Naked Archaeologist. Thank heavens it's only a name rather than a mission, but the guy spends his time going to sites in the "Holy Land," and making massive leaps beyond any supporting evidence claiming that they are proof that the stories in the Bible are true. I believe he's one of the idiots who claimed to have found Jesus' tomb.

I've actually had creationists quote him as evidence that the Bible is supported by archaeological discoveries. I spent futile hours trying to explain to them that the guy is basically an "Indiana Jones," for the Biblical set. Fun to watch, if you're into that stuff, but any resemblance between him and a qualified, competent archaeologist is purely coincidental.

dogmeatib said:

Fun to watch, if you're into that stuff, but any resemblance between him and a qualified, competent archaeologist is purely coincidental.

LOL - is that review available for shameless stealing?

Fun to watch, if you're into that stuff, but any resemblance between him and a qualified, competent archaeologist is purely coincidental.

Simply because he isn't. During that whole Jesus' tomb controversy he repeatedly stated that he is not an archeologist, just a journalist and filmmaker and that it was for the real archeologists to determine the nature of that tomb. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to come through too clearly in his "Naked..." series.

I think HT's "How the Earth Was Made" was excellent.

I agree with the sentiment expressed above that the History Channel is all over the map when it comes to scientific studies. They'll show something like The Universe one day, and then yet another lame Nostradamus special the next.

I'm a big fan of Modern Marvels as well. My favorite episode was "Modern Marvels: The Pyramids". The next best has to be "Modern Marvels: Natural Wonders", where they talked about awesomely modern thing like termite mounds. Most people are under the mistaken impression that termite mounds are what scientists call "ancient", but if you open a modern termite mounds you'll see that many of the little buggers are carrying ipods, or even sitting behind tiny computers looking at termite porn.

The History Channel is showing a program on How Life Began tonight.

Shouldn't that be 'a program on how life will begin tonight'?

I generally avoid The History Channel because I never know which one of these shows is going to be a waste of my time. Sometimes it's obvious but other times it's not. Too bad there isn't a website you can go to -- like "Science Reviews The History Channel" -- to check things out before spending an hour watching nonsense.

Never mind their programs on witches, UFOs, and cryptozoology; this is why I try to only watch the Science Channel, which is unique in not actually having bullshit programming. (Aside from their brief foray into advertising Expelled a few months back.)

The History Channel is showing a program on How Life Began tonight.
Shouldn't that be 'a program on how life will begin tonight'?

Shouldn't that be 'a program on how life is speculated to be going to begin tonight'?
nah, I guess not.

How could anyone watch the Naked Archaeologist? I get too creeped out by the weird look he gives that belly dancer in the intro.

On another note, does anyone know where exactly he lives? I'd like to move to a place with an elevator belly dancer. I know he's Canadian. Can any Canadian out there confirm or deny that elevator Belly dancers are par for the course in Canada?

Thanks in advance.

I know he's Canadian. Can any Canadian out there confirm or deny that elevator Belly dancers are par for the course in Canada?

I have seen a surprising amount of random belly dancing, none of it however has been in, on or about elevators. So I think that rules out that being common in at least Southern Ontario.

On this subject, I thought this very recent announcement was exciting:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html

I don't feel like working today, so I have another important question. Is there anyone out there that's addicted to pseudoscientific program? It doesn't matter if it's Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or Gorefoogula; I'm watching. Nothing makes my day more than finding a rerun of In Search Of. I have the same problem with religious programming (The 700 club, Jack Van Impe...). They're all so disturbingly fascinating. My favorite dinosaur, hands down, is the Rexella Van Impe.

I've been on the Universe show a couple of times, and it's generally pretty good -- their hearts are in the right place, even if they don't always get the science 100% right. Each episode is produced by a different independent company, and there aren't any scientists overlooking the operation.

More importantly, the reason this show and others like it exist is that the History Channel has figured out that people like to watch science shows -- even more than shows about Hitler! Let's hope the word gets out.

@#26

Jose asked:

"Is there anyone out there that's addicted to pseudoscientific program?"

I love Ghost Hunters on SciFi. I know it's all BS, and some of it is so ridiculous it makes me laugh out loud, but that's part of the fun of it. It's just entertainment.

History Channel sometimes has some decent stuff, but they tend to water it down with crap. Discovery Channel, last I checked, had completely gone into woo-land. Science Channel is better... it's as if they actually review the programs for science content before broadcasting them.

DLC @ 29 True, the Science Channel is the better of the bunch, but when they have bible and moron church commercials in between programs on astronomy or other science programs, this boils my blood and tends to render the programming disingenuous.

One episode from the Universe series that impressed me was where they looked at succeeding theories for the universe and emphasised the point that as science got better the presiding world-views were disgarded.

I was surprised when the program made the point that scientific discoveries and proofs would erode the religous hold on knowledge. This episode also made a case for what consitutued a Theory, and pointed out that current knowledge is built on the shoulders of previous work.

From a layman's perspective I thought this sereis did a very good job of explaining the vastness of the universe, and current graphics simulations help to visualize these ideas.

They hadn't been totally written off of my role-call until I saw a -- wait for it -- Dianetics commercial on their channel last night.

I looked at my wife, looked back at the tv, and walked away.

Can any other Canadian verify that we're actually getting this show? (Or could an American verify that the show isn't really a trojan horse for Creationalists?) Since my parents have The History Channel in their Rogers Cable lineup, I called them and asked if they could tape it for me. But from 8pm to 11pm tonight (June 16) and from midnight to 3am on June 17, that station has 'Kingdom of Heaven' listed, which covers the religious crusades. And instead of showing 'How Life Began' during the weekend, The History Channel is apparently showing... 'Forrest Gump' in that time slot.

I have Bell ExpressVu, which has a search feature. So even though I don't get The History Channel (unemployment means cutbacks), I did a search on the title. And 'How Life Began' doesn't appear to be in the lineup for any of the channels for the coming week.

But somewhere in Canada, I have the option of lining up to see 'Expelled'. According to a local papers, Ottawa is either too smart a city, or just not hurrying to show Stein's movie. (Possibly because it bombed worse than 'Catwoman'?)

Some awesome sociological studies on CGI rendered Neandrathols. Historically accurate UFO Science, and very high-brow Ghost investigations that were too hard for me to understand, and also some stuff about monsters that must have been from Nature Magazine or something.

Hopefully they got the god stuff out of their system in the first few minutes.

Simply because he isn't. During that whole Jesus' tomb controversy he repeatedly stated that he is not an archeologist, just a journalist and filmmaker and that it was for the real archeologists to determine the nature of that tomb. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to come through too clearly in his "Naked..." series.

Thanks Steve, yeah, I know he isn't an archaeologist, problem is in the show he doesn't make that clear at all. In fact he tends to pose and posture as if he is and, like I said, make broad sweeping statements of analysis that he has absolutely no evidence to support.

LOL - is that review available for shameless stealing?

*chuckle* Feel free.