Brian Cox - Wonders of life - What is life?

Things I heard from Brian Cox:

Something seperates life from every other process in the universe - DNA, [true]

yet evolution occurs in all systems. [false]

Death aids the process of cosmic evolution. [false]

Life operates according the the laws of physics and nothing more. [false]

Humans live for max 122 years. [120]

Only living things have the ability to encode and transmit genetic information. [true]

Orangutans are our close genetic relatives. [depends on what relative means]

DNA contains the entire history of a species from the beginning of life to the present [false]

I dislike the idea of popular science, I think it degrades the transmission of knowledge. It also allows gurus to develop, whom naive viewers will believe without questioning. But this is the staple of corporations like the BBC, so much so now that it is seen by the public as an obligation. The problem is not necessarily popular science shows, in theory it is a good idea. But when I say it degrades the transmission of knowledge, I urge you to watch Brian Cox's show "Wonders of life". All you need to do is listen to him, watch how he acts like your best friend, and how it is filmed is made specifically to support evolutionary theory.

Instead of watching this show, I watched family guy. But when it had finished I began to listen to the TV. This is where I heard some of the outrageous statements above. You see, thanks to popular science, nature is irrevocably tied to evolution, and nowadays thanks to creation scientists and Intelligent Design folks, they are responding by pushing evolution even more than they have done before. They're afraid you see, they're afraid that people will hear the arguments of creationists and not balk and laugh. So they are now making more and more science shows, desperately putting evolution in all of them. EVOLUTION, EVOLUTION.

I hope that somebody puts that show on youtube, Its incredibly important as an example of how insidious evolution is. I'm going to put an opinion out, and it is controversial - but I would imagine that alot of these TV scientists are in fact communists, or even luciferians. They worship this stuff and treat it as a religion. I'm not even going to bother refuting what is written above right now, but I will update after watching the full episode, and if it appears on youtube I will embed it here for you to see. The disturbing trend coming from BBC Science is far towards the Neizche 'God is dead' theory. I cannot actually count how many times Cox said "We don't need mysticism" "Physics provides the answers". Where does he get off saying that? These folks continually acts as if they know everything - even when they say "We don't have all the answers", they say it with such pride. They say it with pride because Religion is expected to have all the answers, but because evolution is 'science' they can get away with not doing so.

This is why the new age is intricately linked to evolution - it allows exploration - now everyone can find their own path, create their own idols - just like before. The modern age is shaking off the shackles of Roman Catholicism and national religion and embracing post-modernism with glee, the result will be a gradual return to paganism of old, and probably an embrace of eastern religion. People don't want a religion which claims to have all the answers, they want a religion that says "search within". Evolution allows this, whether it be in astronomy, chemistry or physics. Its this ambiguity that makes it so popular.

Let me also say, it is 95% supposition and 5% fact. Perfect for the post-moderns.

stay around for more updates.

No videos yet, however those folks at the guardian seem to share my opinion on 'popular science' without even realising it. Prop some famous face up on a science show and people will believe it.
Have a read here

"Granted, Brian Cox is popularising science with his various endeavours, but this could be a step too far. Just because someone is popular, does this justify them being portrayed as an authority in areas where they lack relevant expertise? We've yet to see Bradley Wiggins host Strictly Come Dancing, or Mo Farah judge the Turner prize. Is this any different?"

Theres a second article that says David Attenborough is passing the Torch to Brian Cox

And a third

"I want big numbers from him, ending in illion. Give me zeros baby, lots of them.Here we go – 13.7 BILLION years ago, that's better. I remember that one from last time; it's when the universe was formed. And every single joule of energy around today was present then, because of the first law of thermodynamics"

The Mirror seems to think that this is 'sexy science'.

"When you're watching him, there's a sense that you aren't wasting your time, no matter what the topic.  You might not understand it all, but Professor Cox will break it down to a level that you can keep up with, so that you will definitely walk away having learnt something.  In this first episode, I learnt that whilst it's hard to gob into a test tube and still look sexy, it's not impossible. Nice one Bri."

The Telegraph says it well

"The programme’s sophisticated use of graphics, and Cox’s patient repetition of his conclusions, all added to the sensation that this is a series that is actually going to tell you something. For the BBC to unveil both this and The Story of Music over a single weekend reveals a pretty impressive commitment to public service broadcasting. Long may it last."


One thing I find rather promising is the comments, there are folks that are on to it [From the Telegraph comments section]

FickleFreddie: "It was mush...i watched it and they scratch around trying to grapple with how it all got started and they all seem to be still scratching their proverbial heads."

Platoscave: " Speculates more than an medieval theologian."

mefatha: "Cox repeats the tired and simplistic message; "DNA is the recipe for life"
When he must know that DNA codes for proteins. Human DNA in vitro, will produce all of the proteins that a human being contains but not a human being.
The real deal is much more complex and that complexity is being hidden under the stone of 1950s language."

And there are those who loved it - yet felt a little bit "saddened"

musicalguy:"Thanks, Sarah, for a bright, enthusiastic, if slightly over-gushing, review.
Perhaps the surprise that life itself may have been the inevitable consequence of the laws of physics reminds one of Basil Fawlty exclaiming "What do you want, a degree in stating the bleedin' obvious?" -- it's not obvious, of course, but it would be more surprising to hear that life is *not* consistent with the laws of physics. [Of course, it isn't - law of biogenesis]
I was a bit saddened to see Prof Brian Cox traveling to Peru to poke fun at people who were honouring their ancestors; that was a bit unnecessary, but remember he is a humanist (according to Wikipedia). 
But for someone who teaches us that we are nothing more than a chemical reaction going on, he has achieved much more, and lifted the interest in science much more than the average chemical reaction, including me. And I'm old enough to know that spitting is rude ;)"


Popular Posts