Hollywood TV Producer Slams Creationists, Traditionalists on Twitter
Voting is encouraged, unless you don’t agree with me – then you can go pound sand. That’s essentially the message ABC TV producer Danny Zuker tweeted on October 26. “Next Tues. please vote,” the “Modern Family” writer tweeted. “Unless you're a racist/homophobic/evolution denier. U should probably just go to the dentist.”
Zuker, whose Twitter profile states he is a “TV writer/producer” who is “currently working on ABC's “Modern Family,” frequently tweets about the show, its characters, and the actors on the show. Odd, that a very politically intolerant tweet would appear from a writer of an extremely tolerant, progressive, sitcom.
Only in its second season, “Modern Family” is a hilarious comedy that has picked up six Emmy’s including “Best Comedy Series” “Writer’s Guild Award” and “Director’s Guild Award.” The show follows the interactions of a 21st century “modern” family complete with a gay couple (who are recent adoptive parents), an intact nuclear family, and an interracial couple with a significant age gap.
The show’s gay couple was praised by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation for the recent on-screen kiss shared between actors Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Eric Stonestreet. It has been called "groundbreaking" by the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
“Modern Family,” with its six Emmies and heaps of praise from critics, is enjoying broad commercial success. Beyond toleration, mass audiences have accepted and embraced its off-beat take on the modern American family. Sad that Zuker wouldn’t show the same good will to those with opposing viewpoints. (h/t to Greg Ray)
- Erin R. Brown's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Modern Family? More like modern Sodom.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 12:25pm.
Danny boy, your program will never make it onto my television. Ever.
You can win every Emmy they hand out, and you have no chance. Because you hate me, and hate my family, I don't have to receive your garbage.
--Mike
If I was a liberal
Submitted by mattm on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 12:37pm.
If I was a liberal and suddenly discovered that I was on the same side as raving lunatics like this guy, I would have to seriously question my belief system...
BTW - I'd like to see this punk debate just one of these 700 plus scientists who don't accept Darwinism.
A universe allegedly born out of random-chance processes...
Submitted by stage9 on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 1:44pm.
yet governed by universal laws....how does that work?
Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to the theory of evolution whatsoever.
Dr. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Penn State University, asked more than 70 eminent researchers if evolution played a role in their research. They all said no.
He then examined the biodiscoveries of the last century -- the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others, to determine whether the theory of evolution played any part, and this is what he discovered:
"I...queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. . . . From my conversations with leading researchers it had became [sic] clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology."1)
Astrophysicist, Dr Jason Lisle:
"The rise of technology is not due to a belief in evolution... Computers, cellular phones, and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics, which God created."
He then asks this pointed question:
"How can a belief in evolution (that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines, which are clearly intelligently designed?"
Good question.
The universe can't both be governed by laws of physics and logic and yet be random and chaotic at the same time.
Only the faith of fiction, or should I say hollywood ala Cameron and Zuker, could make that sort of world workable.
1)P. Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” The Scientist 16:10.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Sure it can: quantum
Submitted by Francisco on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 3:40pm.
Sure it can: quantum mechanics ... The theory of evolution is quite useless for modern biological discoveries, in the same way history of technology is useless for technological discoveries... that is not why it is part of the canon...
simply put is the best _scientific_ _theory_ (emphasis on both words) we have to explain the origin and diversity of life. But yes, it could be put away tomorrow without any major impact on science... If that ever happened, just bear in mind it would be a political, not scientific, decision
There are literally hundreds of scientists...
Submitted by stage9 on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 3:32pm.
who would disagree that evolution is the "best scientific theory to explain origin and diversity."
As a matter of fact, such a statement is relative. There are other explanations apart fromf evolution that are equally as valid but are locked out of the debate due to ideological prejudices.
For instance, in public schools, biology is filled with a naturalistic mindset, eliminates God from having any hand in the origination of life, and presents theory as fact with little or no verifiable explanation or support.
Sometimes what they provide as evidence is grossly outdated or even blatantly untrue, such as the peppered moths and the Miller-Urey experiment.
Not only that, evolutionists argue from silence. For years the coelacanth was regarded as strong evidence for an extinct transitional form. Well, that was until one was cuaght in a fishing net in 1938 and blew the entire theory. While evolutionists convenently brushed off the discovery, it was too late; thousands of kids had already been taught that the coelacanth as a transitional form was a "scientific fact". Up until that point, any argument to the contrary was viewed as unscientific.
This is the problem with origins science. The entire field is built upon presuppositions (biases) and theories that cannot be substantiated in the present using the scientific method. Yet they are passed off as fact. Evolution has always and conveniently bent and flexed to accomodate problems like the coelacanth.
One of the reasons that human evolution is such a hot issue in Western culture stems from the direct conflict it has with biblical Christianity. In the creation account of Genesis 1 and 2, man is created in a position above the animals--in the very “image of God.” In evolutionary philosophy, man is a mere accident in the experiment run by time, chance, and natural laws. Man occupies no more important a position in the universe than does an asteroid floating through space. This notion runs contrary to the emotions of most people, but that may simply be arrogance due to our highly evolved brains.
When you begin to peel back the layers, you begin to see that evolution and social theory work in unison in the West. Liberals for instance will more likely stand in opposition to religious ideals than Conservatives because they are more secular in their thinking. Liberals are more apt to ignore the "Creation" reference in the Declaration of Independence (TWICE) or seek to rewrite the Constitution, or declare that America was founded on secularism instead of Christian principles. In doing so they put themselves in conflict with even the Founding Fathers, most of whom were devout men.
So, evolution is not simply a theory of origins, it's a theory of how things are and should be. And THIS is where the conflict comes in. Is God the Creator from whom all rights extend as our Founding Fathers declared, or is the universe an accident with humankind being nothing more than a byproduct of time plus chance -- no soulishness, no purpose, having no more value than slugs (ala EarthWatch)?
There is a contrary explanation for the universe. "In the beginning God (intelligence...) created the heavens and the earth (...created something) ..."
Something has never been created by nothing...
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
So does this mean man is
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 4:13pm.
So does this mean man is 10,000 years old as Creationists believe, or 200,000 years as opined by naturalists?
stage9, It seems that you
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 11/02/2010 - 6:11pm.
stage9,
It seems that you do not distinguish between scientific theories and non-scientific theories.
An origin theory, for example, which incorporates a supernatural entity isn't a scientific theory. That isn't, however, the same as saying that it isn't a true theory - just that it isn't scientific.
As for evolution being presented as fact - it shouldn't be. No scientific theory which uses induction - and that's most of them - can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Consequently, evolution - along with relativity, quantum mechanics or just about any other scientific theory - can't be said to be fact.
A teacher which presents any of these as fact obviously doesn't understand what science is about and regardless, pointing out this type of behavior certainly doesn't constitute a criticism of evolution itself.
You criticize evolution because it can't make us of the "scientific method". The problem with that is twofold. First, the so called "scientific method" is sort of a simplistic cartoon of how science supposedly works and the fact is, it isn't a very accurate description. Second, there are many areas of science which can't directly test their theories - planetary geology, galactic evolution, cosmology, and others. Would you criticize these areas of work as well?
The fact is, that these areas of work can be tested indirectly. A theory which is scientific will have unique derivable consequences - something which a theory that incorporates supernatural agents doesn't have. In many cases, some of those consequences can be directly tested. Is that proof? No. But then, as mentioned, no sufficiently complicated scientific theory can be proven as fact.
As for your suggestion that evolution is somehow suspect because it has changed over time to accommodate new evidence- name me a scientific theory that hasn't. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's how scientific progress works.
Your argument about the connection between evolution and social theory is a hollow one. No scientific theory can incorporate God and still remain scientific. Consequently, no scientific theory can support your views of God or mans place in the universe.
stage9, You say: The
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 11:54pm.
stage9,
You say:
The universe can't both be governed by laws of physics and logic and yet be random and chaotic at the same time.
A few comments:
1) "Chaotic" has a specific meaning in science and it isn't synonymous with "random". Classical chaotic systems (as opposed to Quantum ones) are deterministic but lack predictability. In other words, they are governed by laws.
2) The word "random" usually implies a lack of knowledge about a system. If I drop a bunch of coins, I could in principle determine all of their outcomes if I know all of their initial positions, orientations and speeds and all of the forces acting on them. But since I don't, their outcomes seem "random" to me. But that doesn't mean there aren't laws governing the outcomes.
3) It turns out microscopic systems do have a randomness to them which doesn't seem to come from a lack of knowledge - it seems sort of built into nature at that small scale. Despite that, Quantum Theory does a very good job of outlining the laws which govern those systems. In fact, it's our most accurate scientific theory.
By the way - to nitpick a little - empirical reality isn't governed by the laws of physics - the laws of physics are derived from models which attempt to mimic the regular patterns we see in empirical reality.
Science is the way it is because of empirical reality, not the other way around.
Chaos is chaos
Submitted by nolotrippen on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 10:39am.
Sometimes science gets "cute" (according to my college Physics professor) and the "scientific" use of the word "chaos" is just that.
You're right about the coins or anything else that appears to be random but isn't (we just don't know the variables). You can say the same of any game of chance. There really isn't any chance at all, just the appearance of it.
This is also a relatively new use of the word "chaos."
If it looks like chaos and acts like chaos, it's probably chaos, aka random, unguided, undesigned changes through time leading from nothing to Heidi Klum.
“It is almost impossible to distinguish a politician from a gangster.” (Will Durant, 1931)
I predicted tea parties would return. Now I'm predicting dueling will return.
nolotrippen, Since stage9
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 6:39pm.
nolotrippen,
Since stage9 was talking about the laws of physics, I assumed he was using words like "chaos" and "random" within a scientific context.
Within science, "chaos" and "random" are not the same thing. Chaotic systems have certain specific characteristics. Truly random systems (as opposed to ones that are seemingly random as a result of a lack of knowledge) are non-deterministic. Chaotic systems are deterministic.
Superficially, chaotic systems and random systems might seem similar, but fundamentally, they are different.
I think even your college Physics professor would acknowledge that.
There's a nice way and a not
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 2:05pm.
There's a nice way and a not so nice way of calling out Creationism believers, and unfortunately Zuker chose the not so nice way.
But I have a hard time believing he'll lose any viewers over this, for the sole reason that die-hard Creationists wouldn't be watching a show with an openly gay couple anyway.
Just what is a tolerant Progressive?
Submitted by ritewingman on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 2:20pm.
"Odd, that a very politically intolerant tweet would appear from a writer of an extremely tolerant, progressive, sitcom." Sorry, "extremely tolerant" and "progressive" really shouldn't appear in the same sentance, let alone the first being the adjective of the second. This Zucker guy is just one of the many Hollywoodites attempting to force their "morality" down America's collective throat (I will resist any pun that could be made by that visual imagery and Zucker's favorite pastime). I have no desire to see a show which is so obviously meant to convey Hollywood's own perverse idea of what today's "Modern Family" either does or should resemble. And for you liberals (who missed the HMS Logic when it left the docks), that doesn't mean I don't have the right to judge it. I also haven't viewed any "snuff films" but can say that they also are wrong. Anyway, it's become pretty obvious that Hollywood for the most part makes movies and TV shows to 1) impress each other, and 2) attempt to indoctrinate normal Americans into Hollywood's own sick belief system.No, Hollywood makes movies
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/27/2010 - 3:25pm.
No, Hollywood makes movies for money. It's the bottom line that matters, and certainly not the message.
The Left Cares Most About Victory, Totalitarianism
Submitted by rammingspeed on Thu, 10/28/2010 - 2:14pm.
I think some of the new breed of Hollywooders are truly leftists with an extreme agenda, and care more about using their are to get out their message than to make money. I really believe that. These new people have been molded since birth (Alec Baldwin, John Cusack two prime examples of coming from trickle down leftist indoctrination) to hate and and destroy America as it is now constituted.
They are failing fast, of course, because now that the hard core left is in power and steamrolling us with their neo-socialist policies, the truth is coming to light. Their days are numbered, but they truly do care more about f-ing up America than making money.