Slashdot Mirror
Bill "The Science Guy" Nye Says Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children
timeOday writes "BigThink has released a video missive by Bill Nye ('The Science Guy') in which he challenges the low level of acceptance of evolution, particularly in the United States. He does not mince words: 'I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.'"
Bill Nye is awesome.
uses the theory of evolution?
Prove to me that your memory is reliable, i.e. show me how I can rely on my memory other than through faith.
Do not use your memory to form your argument, or ask me to rely on my memory.
Go!
George Fox Evangelical Seminary
Bill Nye said kids shouldn't be taught that certain scientific theories are wrong. He never even said creationism, once.
This headline is just sensationalist garbage.
Bill Nye: You are allowed to be an ignorant drain on our society but for the sake of your children's future, don't force them to ignore the things you're afraid of accepting and understanding.
-SaNo
Of course, most American parents don't understand evolution at all, so it will be impossible to fix this mess. If our population was better educated, we'd be ok, but both parties have done their best to destroy it while telling everyone they are fixing the problems.
...you can't reason with the irrational, so I doubt his point will sink in. If anything, it will likely cause them to react in anger ... "It's an attack on OUR BELIEFS!", and they'll dig their heels in a little deeper.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
I recently surveyed a few of my adult friends. Somewhat surprisingly most did not realize that the stars in the sky are "suns", most attributing their sparkle to reflection from our sun.
My parents are catholic (practicioners). I'm an atheist despite they doing everything they could to make a believer. I'm also an engineer.
Knowledge of the mechanisms of natural selection, the fossil record, and the tree of life isn't very useful in most fields.
When do "engineers that can build stuff, solve problems" ever use any of that?
Why do you tell? Let it happen! Please! I want to see a whole country go bancrupt. Please!
Fine. You go America. We'll just see what the power map of the world is fifty years from now once your post-awesome country is filled with idiots and therefore of no relevance in that world.
But. I would rather you did turn yourselves around as, even with your bad stuff, I think you're generally OK.
"we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems"
Even people who don't believe in evolution can still become engineers who "build stuff, solve problems"
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Evolution and God/Creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Teach Children what you believe in your home, and teach them that other people believe other things. Regardless of your religion you can and SHOULD teach good scientific principles, the scientific method, proper observation, mathmatics and critical thinking skills are all things we need (like Bill said) there is nothing about religion that should prohibit a home from teaching God and all of those things.
Can't you believe in God and evolution at the same time? I don't see why it's so hard. I am a Christian and I believe that God created the Earth, sun, planets, and the universe. But I don't think he literally did it in a week. Why can't we just agree that Genesis uses story-telling devices create a kind of "establishing shot" for Judaism/Christianity and get on with the more important parts of our lives.... like being kind to one another?
I will teach my kids whatever I want to teach them. I am sick of tyrants bossing me around as if I was one of my ancestors. - Furthermore: Belief in a creator does not negate thescientific endeavor. Many scientists over the years have believed in God or a god, even as they were unravelling the mystery of evolution and cosmology.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Design/build a bridge, building, microprocessor, software, chemical plant, airplane, ... you get the picture (and do it well).
What Bill Nye is really talking about, without saying it outright, is religion in general. He is calling out indoctrination by catechism.
More apt is panel #4 of this cartoon.
This is a fundamental aspect of many religions and is most commonly associated with Catholicism, though is also popular in many evangelical Christian churches.
-chill-
His statements are just about as ignorant as the people he is criticising. No wonder his greatest accomplishment was being a kids' show host.
Bill Nye talks specifically about denial of belief in the theory of evolution. While he doesn't use the word creationism, his comments can only apply to that "world-view" which he believes is contrary to the evidence around us.
This headline captures exactly the message of the video, I have no idea why someone would interpret that video otherwise.
I'm really perplexed with Slashdot. This article came out yesterday morning. It's been all over the news for the last 24 - 36 hours and we're only seeing it on /. now?
And is it really a topic for /.?
From the poor victimized Christians as they suffer the intolerant bigotry of those liberals who just won't let them do the Lord's work.
Really, how dare those liberals say they're all in favor of acceptance when they reject a religious theocracy.
I don't know if it's part of their expectations, but it seems Christians always want to make themselves out to be martyrs. They always want the rest of us to believe they're being fed to the lions. They don't grasp the concept of church and state, they think the Muslims are taking over, and they protest that their free speech is being threatened when the rest of us refuse to go along with their will. Apparently we can't say no to them without being bullies.
Part of an old post:
People who believe in the literal Word of God as the Bible remind me of the grand-daughter of a family friend --- he was a woodworker, old school, wanted me to be his apprentice so he could put me to work re-sawing wood rather than purchase a band saw. He made a cradle as a gift for the grand-daughter in question, for her to keep her dolls in --- she was very impressed when her mother told her, ``Your grandfather made this by hand.'' and immediately evinced a desire to see him and to see his shop and to watch him make something. The visit was arranged and upon arrival, the young lady was taken out to the shop and the large door rolled open, revealing rack upon rack of chisels, saws, hand planes, a simply unbelievable quantity of clamps and other hand tools --- the girl let out a shriek such as only a 5 year old girl can and yelled, ``Mommy! You lied! Grandpa doesn't make things by hand! He uses tools!''.
God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories which we have yet to learn about to make people and the world.
Moreover, those who believe that humanity is incapable of learning how God works are being blasphemous and not remembering the lesson of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:6) which indicates that humanity's learning capacity is without limit.
Believing in God doesn't mandate a belief in Creationism (though believing in Creationism requires the belief in God). Anyone whose faith is so fragile that it could be damaged by a rigorous class in evolutionary biology should go back to CCD or Sunday School or whatever their faith's equivalent is.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Adapt or Perish Mr. Nye.
Contrast
Let there Be Light
With
All of a sudden there was a big bang.
Ya, that really clears things up.
Bill "The Science Guy" Nye? No no no. It's "Bill Nye The Science Guy"! (Billlll Nyeeee the Scienceee Guyyy.)
First there was nothing! And then it exploded! Then there was the primordial goo and it came to life! After that there came the first microbe and then, after a long long long long long long time it became a Wall Street stock trader or a politician. Is this what should be taught to our children and called science?
Bill won't ever amount to anything as a scientist.
Now Dr Morgus, look at what he's done. Why I be he's headed for dry ground right now.
Let's see Bill turn New Orleans into the Aquarium of the Americas, higher order indeed, Bill doesn't even know the secret symbol.
If the man was serious he would ask parents to teach their children to be rational beings -- not to blindly accept whatever theory he find politically convenient at the moment.
There is no theory that should simply, at face value, be or not be accepted -- the facts tell you which ones to believe and which ones to reject. That is science.
Mr. Nye has confused his politics and his profession.
(Just a morning talk show on a music station, not some sort of bible-thumping show. It was just a random topic that went by)
DJ: "If evolution is true, then how come chimps don't evolve into people... any more?"
And that is what passes for scientific debate here in the You Ess Aye.
I don't think it's necessary to believe Darwinian evolution as the origin of the species to be a successful scientist. It is possible to "believe" in the observed existence of mutations and natural selection - the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, moths changing from white to black to white as the environment gets dirty and then cleans up - and still believe that the origins of the human species were other than random.
I think it's hard to simultaneously be a scientist and a young earth creationist, although I suppose you can hold the view that God created the universe 6000 years ago to exactly mimic a 14 billion-year-old expanding universe, and that everything we measure about the universe is consistent with a 14 billion year age because God is really smart. But given that that universe is indistinguishable from one which is actually 14 billion years old, you're also happy to believe all of astrophysics models the universe correctly, because you know God made a perfect fake.
"Sir, your foreman reports a large crack in the bridge."
"My belief system denies the existence of frangible bridges. It is safe."
Engineers who are willing to let political, religious, or ideological beliefs prevent them from drawing logical conclusions from observed data don't build things and solve problems: they destroy things and kill people.
If you want a real-world example?
"Sir, your engineers report that it is unsafe to launch the shuttle when it's this cold. The O-rings will crack."
"Underling, my political sponsor requires that a Teacher needs to be in Space because his boss's State of the Union speech won't sound as good if we delay the launch. It's worked before. Launch the shuttle."
In the case of Challenger, it was engineers trying to report their observations, and being overriden by management that was more interested in the politics/optics of a situation, but the same principle applies.
If an engineer is willing to reject the conclusions derived from following the scientific method in biology class, how can I, driving over his bridge, trust that he didn't also reject its results in metallurgy class?
I'll probably get modded down for this, but personally, I don't see a conflict between Creationism and Evolution. Are there forms of Creationism that can conflict? Sure, but that doesn't mean that the two are completely irreconcilable.
For example, if you look at the creation account in Genesis, and take into account that the word that translates as "Day" can also mean "period of time", "Age", or "epoch", and not necessarily a defined period of time, then you can easily interpret it as mirroring what science tells us about how the Earth was formed and life evolved.
Consider, that we started off with a massive release of energy, then the solar system coalesced from a cloud of dust and gas. As the Earth formed, vapors condensed into liquids, the land cooled and solidified, and the sky cleared (making the sun, moon, and stars visible). Plants developed, and then animals of increasing complexity developed, culminating in Man.
Tradition has it that the book of Genesis was written by Moses, who learned of the Creation directly from God. If you consider the level of understanding that would have been available in his time (Rabbinical tradition holds as being around 1300 BCE), the descriptions in Genesis are a rather good description of what modern-day science thinks on the subject today.
The important thing is to keep each subject in context. Moses wasn't concerned about describing the details of how life was created. For his account all that was necessary is to describe that it was created.
It's not necessary to pick one or the other. You can provide a balanced view of both sides to you children. I know my very-religious physicist parents did.
Whether or not you believe in one god, thousands of gods, three gods "in one," or whatever else should have absolutely no bearing on science, and should not even be mentioned while teaching a lesson about science. You can teach your kids whatever you want; but when my kids are in science class, they had better be taught science, and not anyone's religion. If you want your kids to learn that the theory of evolution is falsehood, home school them, send them to a private school, or whatever else -- and the rest of us will just continue to be astounded by their ignorance of science.
Palm trees and 8
Q: Why can't we just agree that Christianity is a 2000-year old superstition?
A: Because the insecure, the critical thinking-challenged, the ignorant, the gullible, and those seeking power all like the idea of a magical sky-daddy.
it is funny for you to see bill nye as the threat to your liberty when organized religion is the biggest liberty crushing enterprise ever
it is the same as this bullshit argument about "religious freedom" we hear about when the almighty catholic church might have to cover the reproductive healthcare costs of its employees. "religious freedom" from the perspective of the catholic church here is the "freedom" to be the freedom destroying oppressive force in question.
religious freedom is an oxymoron. there is no such thing as religious freedom. there is only the "freedom", ie, the slave's choice to give up your freedoms to a hierarchy of force that happens to dress in robes. who believes it holds absolute ability to interpret right and wrong based on what some grumpy old men (it's always men) think, who believe they have a monopoly on interpreting the will of a god. and if you disagree with them, force is used against you within the religious hierachy
this is "religious freedom"? there's no such thing. a true grasp on the concept of freedom and liberty requires that you reject organized religion in your life
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Amen!
Every argue with one? They know a hell of a lot more about evolution and the science then I could ever care about.
Belief or acknowledgement of evolution does not a well rounded person make. Bill Nye is living proof of that.
and he is of course as the current fashion requires dismissing the huge body of evidence that shows that There Is An Order to things
i would put that the first couple picoseconds of Time are beyond what Science can state as Truth and also show me an entire line of Fossils that show how a Proto-Quadraped became say a Horse (with complete skeletons at each stage).
oh and how is it that we are finding Fossils in ground that should have been washed off the Land surface a half million years ago??
Every Scientist needs to start assuming
In The Beginning [GOD|BANG]
and then go from there.
(oh and some sort of Plasma explosion can in no way shape or form prove that a Big Bang Occurred)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
deben dejar que gobiernen los que saben lo haran por ellos y por nuestros hijos. http://www.sexvideosxxx.net
How on earth can one say that creation is inconsistent with evidence? We have no evidence that was _observed_ two million years ago. We have observations from a few decades, and all else is extrapolation. Those who know the issues with extrapolating from data, and what can go wrong if ones assumptions as to the continuation of observed trends do not go as expected should be taught along with evolution. What should be taught is that, if everything always was as it is now, and our current theories of physics are exact, and there is no silly business going on that we cannot test experimentally (and this really is a big untestable assumption whose falsification opens a massive can of worms) then evolutionary origins give a theory that is consistent with evidence. But only consistency with evidence, and the past illustrated by the theory is only an apparent past, like the image of yourself in the mirror is an apparent 'you' that isn't really there. We do not, and cannot know conclusively where we came from, and there really are two possible approaches. One is the kind of creation story you see in Genesis or in other creation myths there, and there you have to assume that the universe did not, at creation time, look or work like it does now, but that it changed, either slowly or abruptly, in ways that may leave no material evidence, converge to the reality which we observe now (which is perfectly possible, and indeed is what happens in your Linux system every time you do a fresh install).
Science is, and should be, about what is happening in the here and now, and where they're going. Saying that things are consistent with an evolutionary origin tells us much about what is going on now and where it's going, which is why it's useful. It tells us nothing concrete about where we actually came from, since as explained above, that requires a massive extrapolation and hence a leap of faith as great as that of a hardcore Bible belter's belief in Genesis.
In short, teach philosophy of science, not just 'scientific facts', so that people understand scientific reasoning, its power and its limitations, and can decide for themselves. But please, please stop this pointless religion vs science war. Religion is about how you live in the here and now. The Bible is a guide to help you. Belief in it is part of a faith that allows your mind to get deeper in to the subtler aspects of the world around us, for those of a more mystical bent. The faith glues a community together, and the Biblical text gives innumerable powerful life lessons if read and taught properly. Get faith right, science right, philosophy right and there is no war between them. The science vs faith thing is as clueless as the protestant vs catholic thing: it misses the point, wastes time and gives the false impression that one is right and the other is wrong. The only antidote to this crap is true understanding. I did my PhD in mathematics, with a heavy amount of foundational stuff, read eastern, middle eastern and western spiritual texts, including the Bible, taught myself physics, psychology, economics and computer science from textbooks and find all inspiring and useful. Faith is a crucial part of how I live now, as is my grasp of physics, mathematics and model theory (which probably has a lot to do with how I can happily have multiple mutually incompatible worldviews in my head without issue). Anyway, I can't think how to conclude this little rant, just to note that level headed thinking that both sides respect is what is really needed.
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
Bill is a clueless idiot. Evolution is not in conflict creationism; only the "young earth theory" idiots. If it weren't for his ignorance about this he'd be an all-around intelligent guy. Oh well.
FAIL Bill, LOL.
It's not the people who don't believe this or that theory that are the problem. It is the people who don't care one way or the other. America is declining not because of a the hard core bible thumpers, America has always had plenty of them. America is declining because there are too many ignorant idiots who don't have to work hard or get an education cause the government is going to take care of them.
It led to an interesting discussion. I posted the following comment:
"I like Bill Nye's approach to a lot of scientific teaching, loved most of his TV show growing up, but he does not in any way put forward an argument for evolution or against creationism in this video. He simply waves his hand and says - without offering a logical, this 'leads-to-that' argument - that by not believing in evolution your world view is inconsistent. I'm afraid that doesn't pass muster for me, though I would be interested in hearing a more in-depth discussion on the subject from him.
Personally, I don't believe in *macro* evolution (one species evolving into another) - and yet my world view is 100% functional and, I believe, logical. The great thing in the end, though, is that if evolution is true my worldview remains intact: evolution itself is not integral to it one way or the other :) I believe God created the universe and everything in it, and while I believe He did it within the literal amount of time described in the Bible it would also be entirely believable that He did so over eons and used evolution in the process - it would not change the fact that He did it!"
My friend replied saying that just because I disagreed with the video didn't mean I should disparage it. I almost couldn't believe what he was saying: I felt like I had been very respectful in my comment, and I was responding to a video that I felt was disparaging my position (not the other way around). Thus I replied with this:
"I in no way meant disrespect! I tried to use very civil words in my comment above, and if I came across impolite in any way then I apologize.
However, I do find it somewhat funny that your reaction would be to accuse me of disparaging something I disagree with when that is exactly what the original video you linked to was itself. Bill Nye, who again I respect greatly for his skill at combining education and entertainment, put forward the following:
1) The idea that the denial of evolution is unique to the US - which I very much doubt, as both Christians and some other religions (Islam, in particular) tend to hold views that contradict with macro evolution.
2) That not believing in evolution - which we cannot measure and observe in a lab - is comparable to not believing in plate tectonics (which we can observe and measure).
3) That we need good scientists and engineers, and therefore should not teach our children creationism. This in effect implies that someone cannot hold a creationist viewpoint and also contribute in those fields, which is preposterous (I personally know several scientists and engineers who hold beliefs similar to my own, and who are still very effective in their work - and I have read the works of many others who are much higher up in their respective fields).
These things all disparage creationist viewpoints, without any actual argument from logic about why evolution is right. That was all I was trying to point out previously, and I tried to do so in every bit as nice and calm of a way as Bill Nye portrayed in his video."
I have not yet heard back from him again.
William George
"we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems"
Even people who don't believe in evolution can still become engineers who "build stuff, solve problems"
Not without a fair amount of mental gymnastics. I've always wanted to sit in on a "Christian Science" class and answer all the questions with "Because God wills it to be so". Seems like an easy A.
Additionally, we accept (as a thought exercise) that there is an omnipotent being, then it could create the universe in such a way that it would seem as if it had existed for eons before its creation. It's possible that such a being could have created the universe just yesterday, with all systems in place, all fossils in the ground, all memories in our heads, which would be completely indistinguishable from a universe that existed for billions of years. After all, such a being is omnipotent.
This does not mean that studying the systems and history of the universe would be fruitless. Of course, it would be completely impossible to prove or disprove, as such an omnipotent being would be capable of masking its existence if it so chose.
I will teach my kids whatever I want to teach them.
I don't think he ever said you can't. What we're talking about is what should be curriculum for students in the public schools. Fortunately you and I pay the taxes that fund these institutions, unfortunately that means we have to come to an agreement on what should be taught in said institutions. Furthermore, if you found Bill Nye to be a good educator with his programs and efforts then perhaps you should take his suggestions as more than telling you what to do. "Tyrant"? Please leave the hyperbole rhetoric to the politicians.
Furthermore: Belief in a creator does not negate thescientific endeavor.
No but we're getting to (well, some of us have crossed it long ago) the point where some of the things that science is teaching us blatantly contradicts several ancient doctrines. And while you can claim that believing the Earth is only 6,000 does not negate the scientific endeavor, it sure hinders an awful lot of fields. You can teach your children whatever you want in your home but in order for them to function in society or for higher learning institutions to accept them as scholars, we need to lay down some ground rules. I'll tell you what, I'll keep writing book reviews and you can tell us how much better off your child is for you teaching them creationism over evolution. Can the rest of us please move forward?
Many scientists over the years have believed in God or a god, even as they were unravelling the mystery of evolution and cosmology.
Sure they have! And some scientists have been racists, liars, bigots, adulterers, murderers, swindlers, politicians and even lawyers! But that doesn't make those actions or ways of life right. Read about the twilight years of Georg Cantor and we'll talk about how smart it is to consider everything a genius claims or believes in to be absolutely true. Unlike a cosmologist espousing about god or Georg Cantor claiming Bacon was Shakespeare, Bill Nye is talking about the scientific community's views on creationism versus evolution. And I can assure you that nobody is publishing in peer reviewed journals about creationism or intelligent design while peer reviewed journals dedicated to evolutionary biology are currently being peer reviewed the world over.
My work here is dung.
Who can argue with a Guy who creates a world in 7 days before he even has days to create it with? ....too bright, so he started over again and then got seriously confused. Guy then said "To hell with it. Let there confusion." and never looked back.
And Guy said: "Let there be days" and there were days and Guy saw that the days were
Yep, from what i hear a hand full of people can build an ark that weighs close to 9000 tons out of gopher wood in about a week's time and fill it with 100,000+ animals with food and shelter for all for over a year with only hand tools...
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
This is your big concern in a society where little Johnny can hardly do 8th grade math, let alone Physics 101 or even Earth Science?
While I agree with all the usual bantering that goes on around here about evolution should be taught (blah blah blah), you people are really missing the big picture. Today's science education isn't suffering because of creationism/evolution. It's suffering because kids don't bother with nearly any school work at all. Money isn't a fix. The community is more involved with their TVs than their children. This decline will continue as long as you continue to give merit to strawmen.
God told me your faith is really screwed up and I should help you. :)
Seriously though, "faith" is, in my opinion, the second most abused and misused word from the bible, "Hell" being the first.
I believe in God, but not religion; I have spent decades studying the bible (including multiple translations -- don't know which ones Lucifer may have tampered with) and faith is NOT needed, God wants you to find him, but he wants you to put in the effort too.
My favourite question for religious people is "What fruit did Adam and Eve eat?" -- It's answered on the very first page of most bibles, and yet so many will say "Apple"... How could anyone want to stand in front of God (or Jesus) and explain how they didn't even bother trying to understand the first page of the book that will bring them salvation? I'm terrified, whether God is real or not, I'm doing my best to make sure when I stand up I at least have a chance. And this is just one example, there are hundreds more still.
And considering how many churches Jesus went to, I don't think once a week church attendance may count for much :(
What is even funnier is that the Bible tells up how many people will go to heaven in Revelations (I know it is debated a lot, and many translations change it, and many churches have alternate theories, etc) but in the end, it states it quite bluntly. 144,000 will go to heaven, are you really that sure you'll be one of them that you would put it on faith alone? How many other millions are doing the same?
Anyways, good luck, and start reading that bible and asking the hard questions, the ones your pastor, priest, brother, or other religion leader doesn't want to answer or just hand-waves away and then you can know God (in my opinion) versus just taking it on faith.
Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?
If the practiced Sodomy in Sodom, did they practice Gomorrahy in Gomorrah?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
When all is said and done, we'll find that we were created by various alien races. So Evolutionists and Creationists let's chill out and enjoy the ride.
the expansion and contraction we see at long ranges could simply be the crest and trough of something like waves on the surface of the ocean, a minor local event in a universe infinite in time and space. that's what i believe
the big bang fits too neatly with creation myths of abrahamic religions
what proof do i have for my belief? none
just a sense from looking at history and how anthropomorphic thinking and self-centeredness gradually gives way to finding ourselves at the center of a vast, uncaring universe. i feel the big bang theory is the last gasp of mankind's religious prejudices about reality affecting our science
oh and look, the big bang theory started with a priest at a catholic school, of course. who else would see the creation of the universe in this way, in a mind saturated with the "let there be light" family of books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
the big bang theory will be upended. i have no proof
just a gut feeling from the trajectory of mankind's thinking and what reality has shown in contradiction. the big bang theory is another creation myth, like any other
it's turtles, all the way down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Survival of the Fittest is scientific justification for war, conquest, oppression and slavery. Survival of the Fittest used to be justification for sexism, racism and overt class privilege. Christianity is love they neighbor and do unto others. Darwinism is the right of force and power to do whatever it wants.
When Rome fell, the Catholic Church picked the Philosophical Torch from the Greeks. The history of western culture and human rights and Christianity cannot be considered without Christianity. The Catholic Church was the most powerful political entity on the planet for a thousand years or so. Until about 1820 or so when some fellow said 'God is Dead' all the best, brightest minds and most powerful politicians of the world believed in God and Christianity.
Don't get scared and hide yourself in ignorance and intolerance when the main stream media trots out a few redneck cartoon character christians. It is called Hick-sploitation. That is the name for this type of deception and opinion molding.
Might is Right. The ends justifies the means. Survival of the Fittest. This is the whole enchalada of what you embrace when you fly the Banner of Darwinism.
The proper thing to do is to read religion, philosopy, science and political theory and come up with a system of Morality appropriate to this time and place. Not some crusty old agenda that is nearly 200 years old.
The appropriate thing is for all of us to have a discussion and a say in what morals we want and how we want to live as a group. Or if God is really dead, do morals exist?
Should the republicans and Darth Cheney be deciding your morals?
How about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton deciding the morality for your wife and sister?
The 3 month fetus when taken out from the mother's womb will die.
The infant has survived that event.
When you're carrying a baby inside you and it will force its way out YOUR clacker, THEN you can decide what to do with YOUR body and give birth.
In the mean time, the LIVING WOMAN who is having the baby has HER body and HER right. Why should that be abridged because she has a foreign body parasite living in her?
PS 80% of fertilised eggs don't make it to the womb to gestate even to zygote stage. This means that NATURE is committing AT LEAST 4x as many abortions as humans.
This is the kind of thread I save my Mod points for...
Awwww crap I posted.
Who need faith? Why not have it both ways?
1. Start with the working assumption that your memory is completely unreliable. Reason through all of the conclusions about the nature of the reality that you can arrive at based on that assumption. (I'll wait here)
OK, now let's start with the opposite working assumption:
2. Assume that your memory has some validity. Now work through all of the conclusions about the nature of reality that you can arrive at based on that assumption (keeping in the back of your mind, of course, that your conclusions are all contingent upon that assumption).
That's OK, so is everybody else.
Im sorry, I have argued with my friends about this for hours... It simply backs you up into a logical corner where there is no rational means of escape. Its like arguing with a small child that simply wont admit its wrong, and starts thinking of other silly ideas to fill in the gaps.
It is possible to believe that God created the world and to be a very good scientist at the same time.
Left-wingers try to present a narrative where this isn't possible, in order to falsely use science as a proxy weapon against religion.
I used to think that pointing this out had a point - nowadays I don't think they can be cured as long as they live.
He said it himself "we" need them. Who we? Not the idiots we. They maybe dumb, but they ain't that dumb. They keep their kids stupid and they win.
I see what you are saying. Jesus was a carpenter, so you are saying Jesus crafted the different animals by hand. I understand your point now.
(poe's law disclaimer: yes I am joking)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
'I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.'
I love the arrogant presumption that my children are a public resource at the collective's disposal. The last I checked, they were individuals entitled to pursue happiness in any way that suited them, not resources at Mr. Nye's disposal tasked with building whatever kind of world he wants to live in. Maybe they have other ideas about what kind of world they want to live in?
Assholes like this guy worry me a lot more than any creationist.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Let us bow to our masters in white coats. They are infallible and without corruption. The business side of science never corrupts the scientific method.
http://pigeonchess.com/playing-with-pigeons/
-- Nicholas Humphrey, addressing Amnesty International
The comparisons from here on in get worse and worse as he continues to argue that freedom of speech should *never ever* be compromised....except to suppress ideas he disagrees with. The full speech is one long Author Tract about how we should implement utterly draconian Soviet-style anti-religious policies banning parents from bringing up their children in their own beliefs in favour of forcing them to bring them up in *his*.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
god is fiction you twat.
... fwiw, one of the most competent engineers that I know is a home-schooled dyed-in-the-wool creationist, has a gaggle of kids, goes to Church on Sundays. And not just regular-old-competent but rather a go-to guy for building stuff and solving problems whose ability to understand the interactions of a dozen complex systems is beyond question. That doesn't prove much, but working with a person like that reminds me on a daily basis that theology and engineering can be (at least for one person) completely orthogonal areas of life.
This reminds me of one of the planks of Mark Graber's post at Balkinization on amending the American People. Read the whole thing, but I've excerpted one relevant bit:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Your worldview is ignorant, and not based on where science is. Evidence for speciation has been around for decades. Do you always base your beliefs on nonsense that has to be over a hundred years old by now?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm an engineer and I believe we were created by a loving and merciful God. Jesus is pretty awesome :) To anyone who reads this post, and to all who don't you are loved!
The flying spaghetti monster is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories which we have yet to learn about to make people and the world.
Bunk,
There's no reason to believe in creationism OR a god.
Among other things not appropriate for children are Absolutism and Intolerance of conflicting perspective.
Atheists get pissed about religious people forcing their perspective on others but fail to see how they are doing the same. At the core of this whole debate is people failing to respect and be tolerant of others who do not share the same world view. That's what needs to be addressed. Otherwise, you may was well bring out the pitchforks and head up the witch hunt because that's how history is going to repeat itself.
Believe what you want, respect others may not see it that way. It's not OK to persecute people for being, or thinking, differently. Teach your kids that and everything will be better than it is now.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
2) That not believing in evolution - which we cannot measure and observe in a lab
Any Genetically engineered food you happen to be eating uses the same theory and principal as evolution. That food however, was made by humans in a controlled environment. Willful ignorance, and this is why I can’t discuss this with anyone... the easiest way to lose friends is to attempt discussing Religion or Politics
"Millions of years" "God doesn't exist" and "common ancestor" have exactly nothing to do with knowing about and using observable, repeatable, usable things that are actually science and not science fiction.
Bill Nye is just being a bigot if he think being a Creationist prevents you from using science.
Nothing science has actually observed does anything to negate the idea of intelligent design.
Intelligent Design is about understanding how God did it and how his creations work. Evolution (in the Bill Nye sense) tries to make God irrelevant which is just stupid and not science at all.
Work Safe Porn
They are THEY'RE humans.
What the fuck are you like?
When it comes to the "right" of the fetus over another human, THEIRS rules supreme. As soon as they drop out into meatspace their rights are ENTIRELY AT YOUR WHIM.
DO YOU REALISE HOW STUPID YOU ARE?
And you will be raising similar fuckwitted idiots if you get your way.
YOU are fine with tyrants bossing people around as long as YOU are the tyrant.
Face it, the emperor's naked. Scientists are just as bad as priests, maybe even worse, in that they want unquestioning obedience to their pet theory of the week.
Bill needs to get his head out of other people's assholes and worry about his own worldview, where we traded people in funny hats for people in lab-coats. Why does it matter what anybody believes? This is one of the core tenets of freedom - people can believe what they wish. Changing from one magic man to another won't make people less gullible.
Good engineering requires design and creation. The alternative is kludgy hardware and spaghetti code. Just sayin' :)
If your belief in God hinges on the particulars of how specieces developed in history, I'd say the real problem is how weak your faith is. People throughout history have had to endure far more crushing scientific findings that "the earth is more than 10k years old" which isn't even stated in the bible. How about a Heliocentric solar system? Germs? Cells? If I remember correctly the first time they found sperm under a microscope it was rather catastrophic to the idea of conception.
Teach faith in your church's sunday school. Teach real science in schools (we pay for that with our tax money - whatever fairytale you wish to propagate over the weekend on your own dollar is your own business).
No, the headline isn't a good summary. However, if it had read "Young-Earth Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children" it would have been just fine.
The belief that the world is billions of years old and that biological diversity has grown gradually through a process of mutation and natural selection is in no way incompatible with the belief that God created the world or that He has guided the process. From Asa Gray- said by Darwin to be Darwin's best advocate- to the present day, hundreds of millions of people, including a good number of evolutionary biologists, have held both of these beliefs.
Evolution is, however, inconsistent with an overly literal and naive reading of the first chapter of Genesis. Those misguided individuals who promote the idea that Genesis was a scientific account and try to force schools to ignore the mountains of evidence for evolution and/or to "teach the controversy" are a threat to basic science education. As a science educator Nye has an interest in helping combat that threat. But he is not trying to pick a fight with all theists here.
"faith" is just another name for a mental illness with the level of dysfunction directly corresponding to the certainty of the belief
you can bet that future generations will look back on this time with the same disdain and sympathy as we look back on the ancient peoples who sacrificed animals in order to make the sun come up the next day
I wish I had mod points for this one, someone vote the parent up.
Science and religion are not incompatible in the least. Science is not an attack against God, it is goal is to understand how the world and those beings that populate it were created and the rules that govern their existence. It does not have anything to do with the question if there was or was not a creator. It has no opinion on that as a matter of fact. Science and Religion address completely different classes of problems. I am a firm advocate of teaching evolution and countless other theories supported by evidence. I believe to teach anything else in our science classes is deep folly. It goes contrary to the scientific method, and will not make good scientists. Don't bring your why to my science class, its going to confuse the students horribly.
Religion is about the mystery and that which can not be known. I am a practicing Catholic, and I have a deep faith that there is a creative force behind the universe. That does not mean that I am naive and believe that stories told to and by an ancient people can be the whole truth. Try to explain things like the principle of least time, quantum mechanics, or the geometry of spacetime to someone five or tens thousand years ago. You can't, so you tell things in allegory and stories. If you believe that the bible is the exact word of God (which I do not), do you think he would try to tell it how it is? Or would he make broad brush strokes and make sure the principles are communicated without worrying about too much about the mechanism? Religion has little to do with how things were done, religion tries to answer something that can't be supported by evidence, but must be taken on faith.
Take science for what it is, the beautiful pursuit of how the world works and the rules that govern its creation and continued existence. Religion is about something else, it is about believing and having faith in something greater then oneself. For those that do believe, science shows us the brush strokes of our creator. It doesn't tell us that he does not exist. So quit worrying about the scientists and engineers of the world teaching your children that organisms have DNA that changes over time, and those mutations and adaptions bring about new organisms. It doesn't hurt their belief in a higher power, in fact it should only reinforce it.
Jeff | MemVance - Memory Advanced | View my blog on memory and study techniques
I like Bill Nye's approach to a lot of scientific teaching, loved most of his TV show growing up, but he does not in any way put forward an argument for evolution or against creationism in this video. He simply waves his hand and says - without offering a logical, this 'leads-to-that' argument - that by not believing in evolution your world view is inconsistent. I'm afraid that doesn't pass muster for me, though I would be interested in hearing a more in-depth discussion on the subject from him.
There is plenty of good popular science literature out there that answers this question thoroughly. You can start at Amazon.
Personally, I don't believe in *macro* evolution (one species evolving into another) - and yet my world view is 100% functional and, I believe, logical.
Your world view is not logical, because the separation into "macro" and "micro" evolution is not logical in the first place. Your definition is inherently flawed, because the very notion of "species" is an artificial human construct that is useful for categorization, but does not have any strict definition and does not correspond to anything definite in real world. As two distinct populations evolve, eventually they diverge far enough that we start calling them different species, but that boundary is pretty arbitrary. And basic logic indicates that if "micro" evolution takes place, then, given sufficiently large time period, it will inevitably transform into "macro" as differences accumulate.
The idea that the denial of evolution is unique to the US - which I very much doubt, as both Christians and some other religions (Islam, in particular) tend to hold views that contradict with macro evolution.
The largest Christian denomination, Roman Catholics, do not consider evolution to contradict their views - that's an official Catholic dogma. Most European Protestants don't have a problem with it, either, nor do the majority of Orthodox. So, in the Christian world at least, denial of evolution is pretty much a US-only thing - it happens elsewhere, but on a much smaller margin to the point where other believers consider such people kooks. Only in US 45% of all residents not only reject evolution, but believe in young Earth creationism.
Similarly, Islam is not anti-evolution. In fact, its creation story is more ambiguous, because it speaks of "stages" of creation rather than "days", so it's easier to interpret it metaphorically right away. Even historically, Muslims have actually been pretty acceptive of evolution, including evolution of man - just as with Christians, it can all be easily reconciled by considering evolution itself a divinely guided process, a God's tool of creation. Creationism in Islam is restricted to a few countries, like Turkey, and even there only to some fundamentalist schools of thought within Islam, not the entire population.
That not believing in evolution - which we cannot measure and observe in a lab
Of course we can measure and observe it in the lab - we routinely do just that on bacterial cultures and some insects.
Technically your number 3 is correct, but the sort of cognitive errors (such as in your number 2) by failure to accept reality, even in a limited fashion, would seem to have to potential to limit them.
Plate tectonics cannot be "put in a lab" either and require significant time scales also. Yet you put macro evolution (the instantiation of new species from previous species) which has been observed and measured also, in a different category.
Simply because it disagrees with an irrational (not based in observed reality with logical and critical thought applied) view you fail to even realize you apply a different thought process to it(or so I read into your post).
The vast amounts of evidence supporting evolution (both micro and macro) makes operating with any other assumption illogical and irrational without equally substantial and solid evidence.
Mcyroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Useful mathematics are always rigid scientific metaphor; philosophy is speculation on the fundamental nature of knowledge, existence and reality. Math is science. You can't develop it beyond the trivial without using scientific method (and even the trivial benefits from this.)
Consider the arrow of time; the physics math works in either direction, and as it turns out, there's evidence for that (as demonstrated by relativity and the observation vector across space-time when the observer is approaching or receding from the observed.) Because the physics is solid, we had reason to think that the specific metaphor, that is, the math, was telling us something solid as well, and so it was.
Really not on board with the idea that math is a product of philosophy. A product of thinking, yes. A product of speculation on the fundamental nature of things... no. It's the other way around. Math acquires relevance and respect when it *matches* the fundamental nature of things. Otherwise, it is meaningless. base 10: 2+3=4 is math; but it's meaningless, because it doesn't match the fundamental nature of reality. base 10: 2+3=5, on the other hand, is science and provides meaningful tools and context with science, or without it. Not so for philosophy -- unless philosophy is just parroting the science. And if that's the case... then philosophy's value is questionable at best.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I have no problem with teaching evolution in schools. It should be taught because that's how things work. However, I don't see what creationism has to do with engineering. Just go look at Cologne Cathedral, for instance, and you can see that great engineering can be accomplished without any knowledge of evolution.
Proverbs 21:19
Yeah, 'cause up until the theory of evolution came rolling around, taxpayers, voters, and engineers were incredibly incompetent. Amazing how belief in evolution completely changed the field of engineering, as well as increased voters ability to pick the wrong/right candidate, and force people to pay their taxes.
Personally, I don't believe in *macro* evolution (one species evolving into another) - and yet my world view is 100% functional and, I believe, logical. ... I believe He did it within the literal amount of time described in the Bible
Hell even your use of language is inconsistent, referring to one somebody as "He" and another as "he". That's the problem with crazy... you don't even realize that your world view is illogical and inconsistent.
I have not yet heard back from him again.
We isolate extremely crazy people into psych wards to protect from them doing harm. Your ex friend is doing the same thing, just on a much smaller scale... the safest way to deal with an irrational person is to just not interact with them. You just never know when something irrational like not capitalizing a pronoun is going to start the next Inquisition.
No, I just don't believe that speciation is evidence for true macro evolution:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind
William George
Evangelicals don't believe in "God". They believe in "God of the Old Testament", and in particular adhere to a literalist interpretation of scripture, both Old and New.
Yes, you can point out all kinds of issues and flaws in the theology. These issues have been known for millennia. Orthodox Christianity (i.e. the various Catholic churches) very early on accepted a partially metaphorical perspective, which makes it just barely compatible with modern science. But Evangelicals are not orthodox Christians, so don't try to use orthodox Christian interpretative devices.
Trying to explain to an Evangelical how science is compatible with belief in God is like a Muslim trying to explain to a Christian how Muhammed is a prophet, and how Islam is compatible with Christian historicism. What you and others are doing is proselytizing, whether you realize it or not.
The best way to handle zealots and fundamentalists is to leave them be. Confronting them only steels their resolve in their particular beliefs. The way to defeat ignorance is to contain it, and let it die quietly. It'll resurrect as some other kind of ignorance anyhow. It's the nature of civilization.
The creation story is only one of the allegories in the Bible. Let's pick another: Moses parted the Red Sea. Wouldn't that be an awesome way to facilitate, say, evacuations from hurricane-threatened regions? Think of the billions that could be saved by designing a flood control system on the principle of divine intervention rather than hydrodynamics.
Belief in a creator doesn't prevent you from solving problems or building stuff, right up to the point where you're willing to ignore empirical evidence in favor of your belief. Creationism happens to be the point where such dissonance is most obvious (things like parting the red sea, converting water to wine, or walking on water generally being considered one-time-only miracles). Willingness to ignore data to protect belief does not solve problems: it allows them to fester and grow - a string of 360 consecutive months with above average temperature? The will of god and nothing we can do about it. 40,000 people killed in car accidents? God's just calling people home...nothing you can do.
What about invisible pink unicorns, and all the other fairy tells? Pretend is fun.
We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
While I agree with his premise, I know several engineers that can build things and solve problems that are also fundamentalist christians. Most engineers, by their nature, deal with the here and now, not the past, whether 4B years ago or 10,000 years ago. So, while I agree with his premise, his implied conclusion does not directly correlate. That said, I am all for a scientifically literate society, mathematically literate, too.
Some responses to your points:
There is plenty of evidence already available for evolution, and addressing creationism is a fool's errand.
That's because your world view diverges utterly with reality. It actively rejects the mountains of archaeological evidence, the diversity of species we have, and the fact that bacteria grow resistant to our antibiotics damn near as we watch.
Only insofar as you don't actually wander down into scientific fields that completely break without the concept of evolution. Sadly, your worldview is not logical.
He's focusing on the US because that's where he lives. He also realizes that there's a destructive campaign to get Creationism, wrapped up under the false banner of "Intelligent Design," put into science classes. And I suspect he feels that he has a duty to speak out against such nonsense and to admonish people not to deliberately withhold knowledge from their children because it possibly contradicts their beliefs. And even if those other countries and religions reject evolution, it only means that they too are wrong.
He's right. You can measure evolution in a lab. Like plate tectonics, sometimes that lab is out in the world.
Correct. Literal creationism is used as an anti-scientific weapon by christian fundamentalists in the US.
There is zero evidence for creationism. There are mountains of evidence for evolution. The only side here that actually needs to defend themselves are the creationists.
Because as I foolishly attempt to here, arguing with a creationist as to why their deeply held beliefs contradict reality is often a frustrating, fruitless exercise.
To know God you have to study God's works. We call this Science. Darwin Studied God's works and showed us Evolution, That is God's work. If you can't cope with that you will never know God.
It is really unfortunate that people can't discuss these sorts of things and stay friends.
William George
Bill is absolutely right on this subject, but he should not be campaigning for Obama. Science and politics are not a good mix. What if Obama loses; where does that leave Nye? Not good.
What I find most objectionable about Nye's endorsements of Obama is that Nye is also head of the Planetary Society, an advocacy / education organization for planetary science. Obama has clearly demonstrated a hostility toward planetary science and science in general when he de-funded new planetary flagship missions and killed almost all Mars science; this was done at the same time that funding was increased for the pork-barrel Houston projects such as the Rocket to Nowhere (SLS).
But that is exactly what speciation is. You, or rather the liars at AIG, have created a private definition. Inventing private definitions to win debates is a form of dishonesty, in my view.
Have you ever pondered actually reading a book on evolution by a biologist. You know, sort of like how you would consult a dentist on dentistry rather than, say, a witch doctor?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well not really, because engineering takes a great deal of critical thinking for success, as well as a firm mental grasp on physics(most engineering, anyway). If someone can't conceive of the evolution of species, I have difficulty imagining them inferring complicated causal relationships based on the laws of thermodynamics. Engineering is more than brainless memorization, which is all the Holy Book really prepares one for.
Re: point 2, evolution can and has been observed in the lab. It's actually a fairly simple phenomenon to demonstrate with bacteria and antibiotics. With the right set of circumstances, antibiotic resistant bacteria will evolve rather quickly. Measurement of the process of evolution is pretty straightforward, though the exact method and data are dependent upon what you are trying to measure.
Re: point 1, evolution denial among western nations is really only prominent in the US. Yes, there are nations in the world that subscribe to it in some way but think on this: do you want to defend the idea by saying that it's okay because Iran has similar viewpoints? Can you name another western nation where it has such and influence on national politics?
Re: point 3, baseless rejection of theories will affect workers in different fields differently. For example, a Christian Scientist would probably do fine in civil engineering but would do very poorly in medicine. A young earth creationist would be unable to function in many disciplines of biology, archeology, and geology. A person that denies evolution will not do well in medicine or many areas of public policy, such as health.
No, I just don't believe that speciation is evidence for true macro evolution:
Of course not, because "macro evolution" doesn't exist outside Young Earth Creationist talking points. In biology, there isn't "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"; there's only "evolution" (which is supremely well documented, including speciation).
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Funny you should mention Sodom and the tone of the Bible, as having grown up firmly indoctrinated in the Christian church, the story of Lot and his wife were instrumental in me realizing that 1) a lot of it (no pun intended) is hooey, and 2) even if it's not, I don't want to follow this god.
For those who don't know, Lot and his wife were told to flee Sodom and Gamorrah before it was destroyed by God for being so wicked. They were told to not even look back at it by angels sent to help. On their way out, though, Lot's wife turned back and looked, and was instantly turned into a pillar of salt.
Obviously, the moral is not to screw around with God. If he tells you not to turn around and look at something, you'd better damn well not turn around and look or else the consequences could be severe. Practically speaking, though, I was never able to get past how insanely petty this was. This woman presumably had family and friends left in the city. There's presumably a lot of hoopla and chaos happening. Why did she turn around? Was it because she couldn't bear the thought of her family and friends suffering? Was it because she wanted to make sure that the rest of her family was going to make it out alive? Was it just a loud noise that caught her attention? Who knows? Maybe she thought the angels didn't literally mean don't look back, kind of like how even today we say, "I left my home and never looked back." In most cases you don't literally mean that you didn't turn around and catch one last glimpse of it, you just metaphorically mean that you moved on with your life.
At any rate, we have a woman who was probably just an average schmo, likely not particularly evil, else the angels wouldn't have bothered rescuing her. Her crime was taking one last glimpse of the family, friends, home, and life that she would never return to again. She was obviously a loyal follower of God, as she simply picked up and left based on the word of two strangers saying they were angels and her husband who, incidentally, offered two virgin daughters to the wicked men of Sodom intent on raping Lot's guests. So if you're keeping score, Lot offers up his two virgin daughters to be gang raped and gets to live a happy, productive life. Lot's wife commits the cardinal sin of turning around to see everything she knows destroyed by fire, and does she get any measure of sympathy or mercy? Oh hell no, she's killed (or worse, she wasn't and is eternally suffering, being forced to look back at the destroyed city) for something that anybody in their right mind should understand and would probably do.
Anyway, I empathize with Lot's wife, and like I said, this story made me realize that I don't want to follow a god that is so petty and vindictive that he would do such a heinous thing. If that means I'm going to hell, then so be it. Spending eternity slavishly following such a spiteful creature seems like just another definition of hell.
Yet here I am, thousands of years later, and people following this crap are teaching their kids to doubt science, that if the Bible is interpreted as A and science says B, you'd better go with A. After all, if God would punish an innocent woman by turning her into a pillar of salt, you don't want to fathom what he'd do to you if you believe in evolution. Bill Nye is right, teaching creationism to kids as anything other than a fanciful myth is crazy and a disservice to them, their community, and mankind as a whole.
BILL NYE
the SCIENCE GUYYYY
3
1) The idea that the denial of evolution is unique to the US - which I very much doubt, as both Christians and some other religions (Islam, in particular) tend to hold views that contradict with macro evolution.
Individuals not believing in evolution certainly isn't unique to the US, but the sheer number of such individuals is unusually high, especially for a wealthy, educated nation. The US is second only to Turkey in lack of acceptance of evolution. More importantly, the US is the only first world nation where we still have regular arguments about teaching creationism in school.
2) That not believing in evolution - which we cannot measure and observe in a lab - is comparable to not believing in plate tectonics (which we can observe and measure).
There are lots of other things that we can't easily observe in the lab do you doubt them too? For example, do you doubt how fossils form? You can't observe it happening, the process takes too long. You can, however, observe bits and pieces of it and from that extrapolate out the whole process. Similarly you can in fact see evolution working in the lab, the E. coli long-term evolution experiment is the prime example (where batches of e.coli unexpectedly developed the ability to metabolize citrate). But, and I mean as little disrespect as possible, you'll just claim that's 'micro' evolution, somehow not accepting of the fact that 1,000,000 micro-meters adds up to a full meter.
That we need good scientists and engineers, and therefore should not teach our children creationism. This in effect implies that someone cannot hold a creationist viewpoint and also contribute in those fields, which is preposterous (I personally know several scientists and engineers who hold beliefs similar to my own, and who are still very effective in their work - and I have read the works of many others who are much higher up in their respective fields).
I agree, the idea that individuals who hold creationist beliefs cannot advance science is incorrect. However, when you set up a system to constantly and relentlessly snipe at the largest, most well developed, most well researched, and most empirically verified theory in modern biology, you create an environment where kids are left very confused. They can choose to ignore the whole subject, despite the fact that it forms the underlying basis for all modern biological science. Or they can choose to look at the subject and reject the mountain of evidence that supports it. Well, the 3rd option is to walk away to one extent or another, from the faith their parents have taught them, which is why religious people feel under attack.
For what it's worth, I don't think you deserve the troll mod that you've been smacked with. I'm of the opinion that only abusive or flamebait comments should be modded down, and I don't think yours is either of those.
That article only describes what the layman would call micro-evolution. They are still the "same" plants, fruitflies, worms, etc. Speciation is fine given the right definition.
The only evidence for god so far is in the brain.....(google G-spot of the Brain)
People can create religious epiphanies and experiences at will (to people that are suscptible of course). Is that really god they see ? If it is i would consider that proof that god IS in fact man-made.
You speak of faith as if it is a good thing...
It is definately NOT a good thing.... Faith in things there is not a shred of evidence for is not a virtue... It is a mental illness...
Believing in something you have no evidence for, so badly that you can kill yourself and fellow human beings for it IS NOT A VIRTUE...
If you go on a bus and you see someone speaking to god you first reaction i ASSURE you will not be to pray along with him.... It will be "oh my god i gotta get off this bus!""
If someone is crazy enough to believe in any type of god with no proof, aside from a book, what others tell them, intuition, or the voices in their head, no amount of reasoning will convince them otherwise. It is futile. We are mere animals. We just recently discovered fire. It is turtles all the way down. I see your Vishnu and raise you a noodly appendage.
Yes. And we end up like we are... what we need are correct solutions, not feel good hopes.
Why? Because its all fictional make believe based on the fantasies of a book/religion. Its fake. Its not real.
Believing in creationism is exactly the same thing as believing in jack and the beanstalk. If you grew up and everyone told you the story of jack and the beanstalk was real then you would believe it was real as well. Creationism is just a fictional idea that isnt based on any kind of proven and worldwide known facts or science. Every single thing about creationism can be proved undeniably false. It lacks any and all real world knowledge or common sense.
Creationism does nothing but keep our species from being evolved because it cock blocks learning, knowledge, understanding and reason.
I'd love to have this in a pamphlet!
So if you believe in creationism you can't be a good engineer? In the real world, no one really cares what you believe with how the world was made, but rather if you can improve what's here now.
The term used in the Bible, in English at least, is "kind" rather than species. I'm not sure of the original Hebrew word, or what subtleties it conveys, but I suspect that the difficulties in discussing this stem from our imperfect classification system. We can make one group of flies, over generations, incapable of complete interbreeding... but do these 'new' groups of flies have any real distinction? Does one have an extra set of legs, or has one lost the ability to fly? (not that I would necessarily think either of those to be sufficient for a new 'kind', just trying to put out some examples).
Also, as I pointed out, I do think it is entirely possible that God used evolution in the creation process - I won't die for the young earth viewpoint :) What I would die for is the idea of intelligent design: that God orchestrated creation, whether in six days or in six billion years. I still happen to favor the young earth stand, but I am open to discuss and debate such things!
William George
"we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems"
Even people who don't believe in evolution can still become engineers who "build stuff, solve problems"
But the problem is people can never not be impartial about anything. Your thoughts, feelings, perceptions and personal beliefs always play a part in what youre doing, even if its science.
Sure you can be religious and smart but if youre trying to be a scientist in any field that challenges your personal beliefs then you will always either on purpose or subconcisiously skew your "science" to your viewpoints thereby not actually performing science.
Creationists much like religious people have no place in a modern world because all of their thoughts are predominantly moderate by old world thinking. We now live in an age where science, fact, reason and knowledge are what is important. You can not have any of those things with creationism or religion because they do not do anything except hold back our ability to learn and evolve.
Yes less then 31% of the people in the US are Scientifically literate. I got this fact from a pod cast on astronomy.fm Not sure who said it.
All of the human lexicon is made up of terms we (humans) have invented. What I am saying is that taking a group of flies and making two groups that no longer interbreed is not in any way evidence that single-cell organisms could eventually end up in something as complex as a fish, much less a human being. Separating these ideas of small changes within a type of organism from the idea that one organism can evolve into something totally different, bearing no resemblance to what it came from, is a legitimate distinction. You can all it whatever you like, but being pigeon-holed into using one specific term that you approve of while not allowing other concepts is a much worse form of dishonesty.
Further, I have read lengthy excerpts at least, if not always whole books, from biologists on both sides. I will freely admit that much of the detail and nuance (on both sides) is lost on me, as I don't have a deep education in the life sciences, but I follow along as best I can.
William George
Giving honor to God by capitalizing pronouns when referring to Him is a logical outflow of my belief that He is the 'original person', so to speak. The source and author of all other personhood. It would be similar to referring to a head of state with special terminology or respect, but on a much grander scale. How is any of that inconsistent?
Also, the friend of whom I spoke is still my friend (or at least I hope he is). I don't understand why folks can't discuss these sorts of topics without falling to the level of breaking relationships. Strike that, I actually can understand it - I just find it very sad: many negative emotions are brought up when confronted with truth that 'breaks' someones world-view, and those emotions change the way you react to a person involved in that process... I just wish people could get over that so that we can have more open discussions about these things. The same applies to politics, etc.
William George
You could have incredibly deep, intricate, and subtle theories about the nature of your god and the mythologies that surround him, but at the end of the day it's still make believe. Why not just forget it all and apply your intelligence to the real world? In another generation or two nobody will take the bible any more seriously than they take greek myths. Humanity is moving forward. We're living in exciting times, you know? We're getting a handle on the mechanisms of cell diversification. We've got computers that can model the celestial mechanics of galaxies. We've got a global network that allows millions of minds to collaborate in real time from around the globe and we can carry access to that network around in our pockets. We've got a nuclear powered laser blasting semi-autonomous robot exploring mars! Forget the superstitious hokum and come join us in the future. It's going to be amazing.
Creationism is what people that can not understand Science use as a crutch to turn people away from the true study of God. Creationism is like that of a tool of the devil him self.
Darwin in hid study of God showed us Evolution the work of the true God.
I just have to send this to my boss, who home-schools his kids in creationism.
On second thought, maybe I'll wait until the economy improves.
If "day" does not mean a necessarily defined period of time, then what is the point of specifying a precise number of "six" such non-units ?
It was six tasks that each took some arbitrary period of time, followed by an extra arbitrary period of time for "rest" (really ?). Specifying the unit of time seems superfluous and misleading in that case.
but it has not stopped me from being an engineer and solving problems. All the debate between creationism and evolution encompasses is how the universe got here. That has no bearing on how it behaves now and consequently doesn't stop me from designing a rocket to go the moon or a weapon of mass destruction or other techy stuff. My daughter is quite bright and intelligent enough to make her own decisions - by teaching her creationism, I'm teaching her my view of the world. It doesn't have to be hers (although I hope that it will be). It's absurd to think that someone who believes in creationism can't be an effective scientist or engineer. God sure had it pegged that haters would label believers in Him as haters. People's egos are waaaaay too huuuuuge to accept the simple truth. In the meantime, I'll just keep plugging along with my dimwitted view of the universe, happily solving all kinds of engineering and technical problems despite my handicap. I've yet to encounter a problem I've solved where not believing in evolution prevented me from solving it and the current list of problems I have yet to solve don't seem to suffer that either. I guess if I run into a problem I can't solve, I can always ask an enlightened, more evolved human to solve it for me.
Now - I'm not saying that evolution didn't occur, because it did.
Creationism does NOT make evolution impossible.
How long was a *day* to someone who is immortal? 24 hours? 24 years? 24 centuries? 24 million years? 24 billion years? who knows.
All we know is that life was created - the primordial ooze had to become energized to start the life process somehow.
When supposedly all there were, were Adam and Eve - how did their kids go out into the world to find their mates? They were the first to be in the creators image - but is that actually true.
Adam was created to be in his image, if the stories hold true, a perfect being. No single being can be perfect unless they can procreate. So perhaps Adam was initially hermaphorditic, and he was able to spawn children of his own.
The rib taken from Adam to create Eve was actually genetic code dropping the female sex parts from Adam, and placing them in Eve (otherwise a clone, of Adam).
They then later procreated in the 2 part process, having Cain and Abel - who then went out to take their mates from among Adams first offspring, who were also hermaphroditic (and more than likely capable of generating much higher levels of differences in genetic code for their offspring). This started the evolution of modern man.
Man evolved from lower life forms, but didn't become that perfect creation until it reached the level to rise above the rest of the animals.
Evolution and Creationism tell the same story, from different perspectives and for different audiences.
That's the difference.
So Bill, people teaching Creationism are teaching evolution, they just don't realize it.
lol - so apropos - keyword was atheism
"For what it's worth, I don't think you deserve the troll mod that you've been smacked with. I'm of the opinion that only abusive or flamebait comments should be modded down, and I don't think yours is either of those."
Thank you! I very much appreciate your saying that :)
William George
In my professional experience, electrical engineers tend to be a conservative group, particularly RF engineers. Often they compartmentalize the science they need and use to get their job done, and don't allow it to affect or inform their views on climate change, evolution, social issues, etc.
Has anyone else found that to be the case?
His plea will fall on deaf ears because hard-line conservative Christians believe so adamantly in creationism. Furthermore, Nye is competing with all the opposing propaganda that comes from the churches, Fox News, and the like. Ever wonder how bad it is?...Take a look at Jesus Camp or the HBO documentary called "Friends of God" or something like that.
That means I solve problems.
Not problems like 'what is religion?' Because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of theology.
I solve practical problems!
For instance, how am I gonna stop some big mean motherhubbard from convincing children to believe in Creationism?
The answer? Use a gun. And if that don't work... use more gun!
Belief in evolution is really just the marker trait. If you reject the objective evidence in exchange for a mythological story (where the actual scripture in no way suggests that evolution wasn't how the creation was accomplished) in the case of evolution, where WON'T you do the same? You either do or do not accept that where observation is at odds with belief, belief must change to accommodate observation, not the other way around. If you do NOT accept that, your thinking is fundamentally incompatible with science and engineering.
You are welcome to believe that God created everything. When confronted with the evidence for observation, you can say to yourself "AHA! So that's how he did it!" and everything is just fine.
On the other hand, if your first instinct is to deny the observation or claim that they are a trick of the devil, where does it end? If you implement an economic policy and it ends in tears, will you deny that evidence too and claim it's a trick of the opposition? If you implement a bridge and it gallops and collapses, will you look into why and build bridges differently after that or will you declare that God didn't want a bridge there? Will you take your new knowledge and apply it to existing bridges to see if modifications are needed or will you accept ion faith that they are just fine?
It's great that no matter what science discovers that you find a way to attribute it to a god. However, it leads me to ask what kind of god do you believe in?
It's clearly not the god of the bible, since you don't believe in creationism and presumably you reject slavery, stoning, burning goats, the subservience of women, and genocide. If god told you to murder your son, would you do it? Would you applaud someone else who claimed to murder his son on god's orders?
So if you reject the bible and manage to attribute god to every natural process, aren't you just deifying nature?
I think it has a longer history as a military acronym: fucked up beyond all recovery.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Science isn't important to everyone, so they won't care about this. You can live your entire life without knowing where humanity came from or how your iphone works. For the most part, you're asking the masses to care about a niche topic that most people don't give a shit about. Once they get past high school science, they don't want to step into another science classroom again, then they get bummed out in college cuz they gotta take animal biology or something.
I know people who don't believe in God or care about science at the same time. If you ask them about evolution they'll tell you they don't care. If you ask them about science facts they'll laugh at you and call you a nerd or whatever then buy you a beer.
I know the argument will be, "well their religion is impeding on our right to science," but look at it from another perspective. What has science really given us? -Ok, we fill space with pieces of metal with cameras.
-We made cars and electricity that are now polluting our world beyond belief.
-It increased the lifespan of humans and survivability which may or may not be leading to overpopulation, dwindling resources per capita, global warming, etc.
-Gave us better ways to kill eachother.
Most of the pros can also be seen as cons. I did a fellowship researching green energy and the question that always came up, was "what is the total impact on the environment?" We'd look at things that we think to be clean, but ask the question, "is the manufacturing/disposal process clean?" and so on...
The point is, science is only important to people who think it's important. A lot of people will say it's bad because of the total impact its had on this world. The same can be said for religion. I'm an agnostic, if it's not clear, but I'm starting to care less and less about which side is right, because I'm not sure it will really matter who is right. It's not like there will be a huge "in your face, you're wrong parade" by either side if God were to return to earth or be completely disproven somehow and everyone who was right will inherit a billion dollars or something. It's kind of a pointless fight.
In this universe such people and solutions will just poof into existence!!
After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes. The ancient hebrew/aramic word for know is Yeda and it means to know well. Of the 47 places yeda is used in no place does it strictly mean sex. In fact it is written that David knew god. Was david but fucking god, or did he just, well, know him.
In fact the cannanites were in a time of sporaic war with their rivals, which is why they had a gate keeper named Lot. Now Lot was a sneaky guy who didn't even live with his own people. When he let in two demanding late night strangers and hid them in his home, the people had every reason to be alarmed. Perhaps they meant harm to the village. Asking to meet them and learn their bussiness under such cshady circumstances seeme reasonable. And indeed they did come planning to destroy the place and ulimately did.
The word "them" in bring them out, is gender neutral. The towns people did not know if the strangers were all men, angels, or a family. The word for the towns people is mixed gender "all the people", and so the idea they would be raping anyone in front of their wives and kids seems absurd. Finally, when offered the claimed virgin (but married) daughters of lot, the less than horny towns people turned them down, not being interested in sex but safety.
Finally one can note there were not witnesses other than lot and his wife (and retinue) that escaped so we only have lots story, and that story seems to be plagerized form the book of judges where the same thing happens including offering virgin daughters to protect angels. If this were on CSI-Gomorrah today we would find out that actually lot got paid off to open the town gates to an invading army that razed the place and Lots wife was going to spill the beans so he killed her and told everyone she turned into a pillar of stone. Then he just recycled the story from Book of Judges when asked what happened.
Anyhow. No butsects in soddom. Eziekiel tells us exactly why got sent the destroying angels: the prideful 1%s didn't realize they didn't build their own wealth, society had, and they were not giving back.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Holy crap, this argument is just hiding behind, "HE'S MYSTERIOUS".
Belief in God means a dismissal of reason for however long it takes to convince yourself of your faith.
I am not religious, my son is asking me to explain the religious believes of some of his play-friends and the obvious to him collision with science. I explain that Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive.
I explain that Science does not teach "Absolute Truth" - it teaches to conduct experiments to measure and observe facts, then build theories to predict outcomes of future experiments, perform future experiments, confirm or deny theory. Nothing in the Scientific Approach requires for the facts to be "Absolute Truths" - they only need to be "Observable Truths".
Religion deals with "Absolute Truths" - it's not testable and measurable. It is Philosophy.
Maybe both should be studies at school - evolution in science class, creationism in philosophy class.
Engineers aren't scientists, and they especially don't care about evolution. An engineer can take some formulae describing how a particular phenomenon works, because god wills it to be so or otherwise, and design stuff.
Even most biologists can probably get away with not believing in evolution with no more than the usual irrationality required to dismiss evolution in the first place. An evolution-dismissing evolutionary biologist would require some serious mental gymnastics.
interesting and insightful
You realize that there are probably no more than a handful of biologists in the last fifty years that reject evolution, so I'm thinking here you haven't read very much at all from biologists against evolution.
At any rate, in the scientific language, macro-evolution refers to speciation and higher, so you're attempt to claim problems by word redefinition pretty much pins you to the wall.
What would you call the molecular evidence for humans and the other apes having a common ancestor, including ERVs, anything but evidence for macroevolution? Or does this simply go beyond you trying to prove evolution false by rhetorical games, and lean more on you just reject evidence that you don't like.
Go for it, Mr. Expert. I want you to explain ERVs common to great apes and humans in any other terms than common descent of those lineages.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Thank you.
But they are not the same. They are a different species. You have seen the genetic variability between two related populations diverge sufficiently for a new species to arrive. That is evolution in a nutshell. You're just using the tired old Creationist line about "kinds", but Creationists have become slightly more clever and don't choose to use their old claims without masking them.
But go on, here's a challenge for you. I want you to explain common ERVs in the same locales in the genome between humans and the other great apes in any other way but because the original insertion was in a common ancestor. Get to it, can't wait to see what you come up with,.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3) That we need good scientists and engineers, and therefore should not teach our children creationism.
I wonder how many people actually watched the video rather than just reading the Huffington Post headline. Bill did not say we shouldn't teach creationism, much less use the word. He said, and I quote: "Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science". Only for the fundamentalist Christian, who takes the Bible to be literally true, might a belief in creationism be mutually exclusive with accepting evolution as a valid and productive scientific theory.
Subscribing to young earth creationism doesn't necessarily mean the individual is unable to think critically in general. An alarming amount of cognitive dissonance would easily enable that belief to be written off by the believer as a simple exception in a world view that is otherwise near-identical to the world view shared by the rest of the first world.
Not all people bother to develop a coherent world view. It's not always important to them.
Creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. God damn people. You fuckers with binary need to learn not everything is a one or zero.
Eliminating creationism is extremely simple. Just explain life without a prime mover. Once that happens, creationism as a theory is gone. But to continually argue that creationism precludes or eliminates evolution is stupid. And wrong. And you know it.
Another liberal obama-lover attacking traditional christian values.
Reconciling evolution with Christianity requires a person to effectively reinterpret the book of Genesis. The religion was not created by people who did not take the creation myth literally. Why is it suddenly acceptable to interpret it that way now? That's not faith, that's convenient revisionism. It's rationalization.
Moreover, it sounds like you're misunderstanding the Tower of Babel story. God punished the builders of the Tower of Babel because he knew man's capacity was without limit and he didn't want us to reach the sky. So I guess that means that pursuing knowledge is a sin, which is a recurring theme in the scriptures, starting with the very first sin of eating from the tree of KNOWLEDGE which was the source of man's fall.
Christians were perfectly happy accepting science up until the moment someone told them the universe was massive and didn't revolve around them. Then they got angry. But eventually, they found a way to accept that belief by basically choosing to ignore that Hebrew cosmology lies at the heart of the old testament. Then they started happily accepting scientific advancement again until someone told them man wasn't made from clay. I wish I could predict when this wave of hysteria will subside and christians will once again choose to ignore some major component of their faith in order to reconcile it with reality.
The real question is, what will be the next scientific discovery to challenge christianity? What will trigger the next bout of histrionics and require christianity to, yet again, reinterpret some fundamental aspect of the doctrine of the faith. How long will it take for the religious among us to finally accept that revising their religion every time we figure out something new is only a temporary solution to an ongoing problem? Just accept the reality that it's a myth and move on. I don't see anybody having a hard time accepting that Zeus wasn't real, why is it so hard for us to get over Yahweh?
2.1 billion years ago, cells with nucleaus' started appearing, about 500 million years later, those cells became animals and 60 million years after that, some of these animals developed vertebrates.
It does sound funny and stretches the mind.
I mean, most of us have trouble remembering where we put our keys, but then we pretend like we can really wrap our heads around numbers this big...
Firstly, plate tetonics makes a great corollary. It's a past scientific dispute which had somewhat similar patterns of denialism, and of course, that we all accept as true today. Secondly, evolution can be and is measured and observed in labs today. Get some fruit flies and run your own tests, if you're skeptical. There are plenty that you can replicate for yourself. Thirdly, we obviously do need good scientists and engineers. I was raised as a creationist, and when I got to college, needed a solid dose of education to catch up on scientific topics in general. Granted, not everyone in every field needs to even understand biology...but many do, and most of us will at least need some scientific understanding to complete our degrees. No point hindering kids by teaching them BS.
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
Nye: "We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems."
Well throughout history I don't believe that Nye can provide any actual correlation of a scientific advance that required a belief in evolution other than the study of evolution itself. While evolution is interesting and I like to read about it myself, but it exists primarily to employ college professors and scientific pundits who make their living pushing it. A belief in evolution is not a prerequisite for any field of scientific endeavor, not even in biology or human physiology.
So according to Nye we can't have electrical engineers, mathematicians, etc. unless they have a belief in evolution. To me this is abandoning empiricism and elevating evolution to some sort of religion that if you are not a member of the faithful then you obviously wouldn't have the mental ability to become a member of the holy order of the scientist.
I imagine people will be able to discover new drugs, new consumer electronics, new fuel technologies, etc. whether they believe in evolution or not.
Next thing all you buzz kills are gonna tell me is that Santa Claus is fake.
After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes. The ancient hebrew/aramic word for know is Yeda and it means to know well. Of the 47 places yeda is used in no place does it strictly mean sex. In fact it is written that David knew god. Was david but fucking god, or did he just, well, know him.
I think the new translation gets it right. Context is key.
"Bring them out so that we may get to know them; have a little chat, and welcome them to the city"
âoeNo, my friends. Donâ(TM)t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But donâ(TM)t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.â
So you're saying Lot didn't want to introduce the strangers to his neighbors, and that's it? What's with the "protection" talk, and the attempt to appease?
If this were on CSI-Gomorrah today we would find out that actually lot got paid off to open the town gates to an invading army that razed the place and Lots wife was going to spill the beans so he killed her and told everyone she turned into a pillar of stone. Then he just recycled the story from Book of Judges when asked what happened.
If Lot could recite from the Book of Judges, then he's definitely a prophet. Or a time traveler.
Even people who don't believe in evolution can still become engineers who "build stuff, solve problems"
Yeah, and the thought of it scares me a lot.
Seems creationism, evoultion, big bang, Deity, all attempt to find a beginning. The interesting thing is you all hit the same roadblocks. if you believe in Big Bang then where did the elements and energy come from to make the big bang? It obviosly couldn't have been the VERY beginning. Same with Deity, even if they created everything, or had a hand in the big bang, etc... then where did they come from? I fail to see how finite humans have enough knowladge beyond their own beliefs (and yes if you believe the big bang theory it is still nothing more than your belief system) to say you know the universe began with X or Y or X is aarogant and stupid from anyone's point of view. Here's my advice, live your life the best you can, help people, and gain all the knowladge and understanding you can, be willing and able to help the human race, seek truth but don't be close minded (both believers in God, and those who do not believe are guilty of being close minded or of thinking they understand things when in fact they do not) everyone has the ability and obligation to be a contribution to ours, and our children's future. Be apart of it, and help lift yourself and others up.
Reminds me of Sinefield episode where the finish all the sentances "Yada yada yada..."
Which makes sense if you think about it. (As someone you know well, doesn't need the details, as they already know)
Evolution is not science in the traditional way.
Exhibit 1) Evolution isn't falsifiable. The reason you never hear any numbers associated with evolution is because numbers are inherently falsifiable. How many years does it take for a mutation? how many mutations occurred between point a and point b? How long did it take? How large would the population have to be for a 50% chance of that occurring within the specified time frame? These are all questions with answers. They just really really really don't want you to know the answers.
Exhibit 2) Evolution isn't forward science. All of what is traditionally called science creates a hypothesis and does experiments and then dares anyone to do an experiment that falsifies the theory. So if x and y then causation z will occur. All confirmation is always done after the hypothesis is created, thats what science is and what it has always been.
Exhibit 3) Evolution is backwards science. Evolution and the big bang are the only 2 examples I personally know of where a scientific theory is sold using backwards "confirmation". Rather than saying I believe that big bangs can occur in the future and this is how it would happen and here I have created one, the priest of evolution says I believe this and here is the argument that supports me and don't look at the stuff that doesn't and there is no way you can create your own experimental data because this has already happened. This is closer to politics or philosophy than to what we all know as science.
Exhibit 4) All believers of the evolution religion hide their real logic. Its A) I don't believe in God or super smart aliens and B) I exist therefore C) evolution must be true because look I exist I know I am right. If you talk to any evolution convert in depth you will get to this point after explaining the previous points. They will typically hide it as deep down they know its tribal magic science they believe in not real science following real rules.
Exhibit 5) If you are smart you realize spontaneous evolution is not less likely than evolution over time. The typical argument is look if a simple organism can preserve the state of a dna sequence then the derivative change will eventually occur. So if a rabbits always exist eventually one will mutate to a 5 footed rabbit. BUT they hide the fact that this involves 2 assumptions. 1) there needs to be a real path between every living thing that is stable so that mutation to mutation its actually possible in a non magic level of probability. 2) They totally ignore the competing factors, AIDS is a simple example, AIDS in a population of super sexual beings would eliminate the population over time completely due to secondary disease, a mutation to make you get aids at 40 but make you super sexy would destroy everyone who had sex with you eventually wiping out your entire circle of partners world wide and killing a species. Its not at all clear in a science sense if spontaneous evolution of an entire planet is more or less "Magical" than evolution.
Exhibit 6) The big bang is magic. Evolution has just pushed all the magic into one moment. Instead of design you get a magic event that just "happens" to unwind to create this massively unlikely evolution. Its a religious belief. It may be what happened. It may be that the Norse are right and an invasion of ice giants proves it one day. But its not science its magic.
Exhibit 7) Evolution is a quasi scientific explanation to how life got here. The universe is big. There should be others evolved. The odds of another civilization evolving 1 million years or even 1 billion years using spontaneous evolution before us is very likely relative to the other possibilities being discussed given how big the universe is. But the idea that another civilization evolved to super smart godlike aliens and then created us is not considered. Why? Does this offend the religious evolution beliefs? Certainly if evolution is likely this is a near certainty. Why isn't the super smart alien
Huh. I'm a natural cynic and I don't believe everything that is in the Bible's various incarnations as the word of God. In this case my cynical approach generates a distinctly positivist theory. By that I mean that I interpret the Genesis 11:6 lesson as "Nothing good will come from a language that your current rulers don't understand."
Imagine, 3000 years ago, a city-state's citizens aren't happy with their abusive nepot ruler and begin to usurp him via messages using a different language or code (think pig latin or something similar). Messages being passed around (orally since vast majority cannot read) that only the usurpers can understand could be very dangerous to a dictator. Seems like a good way to control the masses would be to tell them God frowns upon alternate languages. It has added bonuses...
-Creates linguistic unity among those being ruled, and forces conquered peoples to adopt the conquerors dialect
-Any believer who hears the usurpers secret language would make a stink and turn them in
-Foreigners will be easy to identify and isolate
-Enforcing linguistic rules through academics enhances the ruler's perceived divine right
The Bible's proliferation is strongly correlated to the "dark ages" and a lack of representative government for over 1000 years and I think the Tower of Babel "lesson" is a part of the reason why. Luckily for us, Christiandom went through the reformation and many those archaic beliefs were pushed to the wayside in order to make room for the things we see before our eyes every day that couldn't be explained by the written word. The earth circling the sun, geology showing how ancient this planet is, newly discovered lands with people who had their own "pagan" religions, etc...
Even today we see that many people cannot grasp the intricacies of the explanations for our world and this leads them to simpler models. Some people just want to be held by a warm embrace to the bosom of an organized religion. That is fine for them, but when someone starts trying to override science with religion in school, or apply cherry picked interpretations of an old book written by men, to explain scientific advances, it rubs me the wrong way.
After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes. The ancient hebrew/aramic word for know is Yeda and it means to know well. Of the 47 places yeda is used in no place does it strictly mean sex.
There are certainly a few places where it is used to mean sex. For example, "And Adam knew [yada'] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain" (Genesis 4:1) certainly draws a cause-effect relationship between the "knowing" and the "conceiving."
Even in the passage dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah, when the men of Sodom demand "Bring them out unto us, that we may know [yada'] them" (Gen. 19:5), Lot tries to appease the mob with his daughters. He says, "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known [yada'] man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." (Gen. 19:8) The plainest reading of this description suggests his daughters were virgins.
So you are correct that yada' [insert Seinfeld jokes here] doesn't always mean sex, it certainly can refer to a carnal knowledge.
Amen to that.
That's sort of what the Catholic Church did. One of the original amendments of god in the bible is, "Thou, shall not worship any other god than me", meaning no worshiping of deities other than the creator himself. Yet the catholic church has their pope, (a deity since they treat him as some holy or divine being). They even changed the bible so that amendment says something that suits them better.
Another interesting tidbit. In the constitution of the United States, it explicitly lays out the separation of church and state. Had the catholic church been a backer of the free the colonies, certainly a debt for their (economic) favors would have included them in the governance of the new land and today they would have significant influence in the most powerful nation in the world.
If god does/did support the Catholic church or Christianity, it would not be beyond the reaches of clairvoyance to be able to foresee the end of the reign of creationism and the Church, especially because the holy book seems to give such emphasis on the gods need/desire to be worshiped, and have compelled the leaders of the church in the 1780's and 1790's to stand beside France and fund a revolutionary war against Britain (a defector of the church in fact if memory serves) and claim a right that would place such encumbrances in the constitution of the new nation sufficient to secure the power and influence god and the worshipers would certainly covet.
After all, isn't that part of investing in nation-building? Securing your interests in the new nation? That's what the US did in Iraq anyway.
Having said all of that, I have no evidence that god does not exist; and conceding to her existence, she certainly does not favor Christianity, Islam, or any of the other religions that emerged from the old testament.
Building our relationship with god as individuals is important because when we can find strength, reason or courage and do what we believe needs to be done, we are stronger because of god. Perhaps irrationally stronger but who can claim that reason is better or more important than intuition?
I am an engineer, and I spend my days building stuff and solving problems, and a belief in evolution has nothing to do with my ability to perform this work. While I certainly believe in the concept of evolution and the FACT that evolution does occur, that does not mean or require that I believe man evolved from apes or any other create or species that has ever existed. Simply because evolution DOES happen in small ways now doesn't mean it DID happen in huge ways thousands to millions of years ago. Nor is a belief that God directed the creation of the Earth in any way contradictory to the theory of evolution. The fact is people are going to believe whatever "feels" right to them, and there's nothing wrong with that. The more intelligent a man, the more convince he should be that he doesn't know anything.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
Even Einstein realized there was a beginning to the universe. The question we all wrestle with, is what was the beginning? Jesus said before the world was, I Am. Evolutionists would say there was a massive firey explosion that started from a pinhead and we evolved from a spec on a meteor. For me personally, the fact that there's all these fossils, yet we can't find the millions of intermediary fossils we should expect to find in between all the Earth's layers, and the well documented life of Jesus solidifies my faith in God. I just can't imagine thinking we're all just a big accident flying around on a planet with no purpose. I also look to the people of the New Testament. They witnessed firsthand the prophecy of the Old Testament being fulfilled. These weren't simple card tricks or vague predictions, they were very specific and made thousands of years before Jesus. The fact that his disciples died such cruel deaths, and lived such hard lives, tells me what they were seeing first-hand was real. Real people don't allow themselves to be tortured to death for a lie they've been living. Study the life of Paul, and you'll see what I mean. God gave us all free will, so in the end all we have is ourselves to blame. If I'm wrong, I'll be with every other person after I die, or be turned into nothing. If you don't accept Jesus as your savior, and I end up being right, it's an unimaginable torment forever. Again, why risk that?
John 3:16
If god used these things to create the universe, then who and by what means was god created? and so on and so forth...
The term used in the Bible, in English at least, is "kind" rather than species. I'm not sure of the original Hebrew word, or what subtleties it conveys, but I suspect that the difficulties in discussing this stem from our imperfect classification system. We can make one group of flies, over generations, incapable of complete interbreeding... but do these 'new' groups of flies have any real distinction? Does one have an extra set of legs, or has one lost the ability to fly? (not that I would necessarily think either of those to be sufficient for a new 'kind', just trying to put out some examples).
Note that not being capable of interbreeding is also not a useful trait to distinguish species. We used to go by it a while ago, but we found out it to be not all that consistent in practice. Many species in the wild don't interbreed because of physiological differences but can technically produce offspring with artificial insemination. Some can become impregnated that way and will produce an embryo, but will be unable to give birth to it. Some will give birth, but the offspring will be sterile with a certain probability, which can sometimes go all the way to "practically certain". It's not clear how to count either of those. Not to mention ring species and such.
As I've mentioned earlier, this all is due to the fact that nature doesn't really have strict boundaries between species. This is the inevitable consequence of the process from which they are created. When you have a single interbreeding population, any genetic differences that arise are quickly spread around it. When populations diverge, their respective differences begin to accumulate, being different partly from chance (neutral mutations), and partly from natural selection favoring different mutations due to different environment. If you reunite the populations, so long as there is some means of establishing gene flow between them (direct or indirect interbreeding etc), they will again exchange their genes, and, given enough time, homogenize through natural selection favoring the same combinations in the same environment. Obviously, at some point the accumulated differences are so vast that there is no possibility of natural gene flow; at that point you can definitely say that the species are distinct. That puts the upper boundary on the notion, but not the lower one.
Actually, come to think of it, even the upper boundary is not that clear. We can now splice genes from one organism to another in a lab, even between vastly different ones (like plants and animals). Technically, this is gene flow, and if we keep doing it, and then let natural selection apply to the resulting creatures, given enough time, this would work the same way as natural interbreeding does. And who's to say what's "natural"? The difference between artificial insemination and gene splicing is not all that great, conceptually; and one could argue that, insofar as humans themselves are "natural" - being a product of a "natural" process of evolution - then so are their activities, and the products of their activities. Nature itself doesn't really care about the distinction of whether a tree burns because it's hit by a lightning, or because an ape cut it off and used it to build a fire. And genes don't care whether they're combined by a "natural" process of directing semen at where it can combine with ovum and exchange genetic material with it, or by a white-coated guy in the lab.
Also, as I pointed out, I do think it is entirely possible that God used evolution in the creation process - I won't die for the young earth viewpoint :) What I would die for is the idea of intelligent design: that God orchestrated creation, whether in six days or in six billion years.
That idea by itself is not contrary to the observed evidence, so I don't see why it would pose any problem for one's scientific endeavors. Of course, it is also not science in and of
One major issue that many fail to understand is that science cannot define truth. Science and Philosophy are two separate realms. Science is the process of creating and disproving theories based on currently known facts. The important limitation here is "current" and that theories can only be disproven, never proven.
What is the probability that a scientific theory will never be changed or proven incorrect in the future? This is an unanswerable question, as we don't know that which we don't know. We can't even produce a probability of correctness, yet still there is belief that currently held scientific theories are true.
The logically correct conclusion is that belief that current scientific theories are true is as much a matter of faith as belief in a god/gods. Faith that scientific theories will never be changed, faith that humanity will never discover some new fact that changes or invalidates current theories, faith that humans are capiable of discovering everything there is to know about the universe we live in.
As a parent, I should be able to teach my children whatever I please. This rant sounds like a bunch of nazis that want to dictate what your children should believe.
Just because this TV show host has the evolution religion (which many of the folks here seem to also have), does not mean he is 100% correct.
Just because Christianity is easy to disprove does not make the Torah wrong. The Torah is correct whether you like being responsible for your actions or not.
God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories
oh yes! he creates disease, pain, suffering. he's quite the DNA expert.
of course, he's as evil as can be! what else can you say about a 'god' who unleashes such evils to the world and just sits back and laughs.
oh, and according to many, if you make a mistake in choice, you will spend *forever* in pain.
yeah, real loving caring god you guys got there.
go ahead and rationalize it away with this or that quote. you won't accept the truth that our world is controller-less and always has been.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Engineers aren't scientists, and they especially don't care about evolution. An engineer can take some formulae describing how a particular phenomenon works, because god wills it to be so or otherwise, and design stuff.
Easy counter-example: if you truly believe that $GOD determines the True and Natural Order of things, and the bridge falls over, is it a failure of mathematics or $GOD's Divine Will?
Once upon a time, the study of the heavens and the gods was a pursuit in understanding our world and our place in it. It was a humble pursuit by humble people who only wanted to learn more about that which they did not understand.
Now it seems that, at least for the mass audience, religion has become a yoke, a system of limiting knowledge. And sadly, it seems to be for the purpose of maintaining societal hierarchies. Keep them dumb, that'll keep them poor. If they're poor, they'll be hungry. If they're hungry, they'll do what you say.
The CB App. What's your 20?
God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories which we have yet to learn about to make people and the world.
What sort of God do you refer to?
Do you really think that a good God would resort to 4 Billion years of "clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works" to make people? This positions imagines a malevolent God more akin to a devil.
Source?
The various fly and bacteria studies are not what I consider true indicators of the level of evolution needed to develop advanced lifeforms from single-cell organisms. I know of those tests, and do not in the least deny their direct findings... but taking that and then saying that from these results we can be sure that a single cell lifeform can evolve into a complex, multi-organ creature is what I call into question. That is what we cannot directly test and observe, while we can measure plate tectonics directly and observe the results of their interactions.
William George
St. Augustine agrees with Bill Nye::
Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories which we have yet to learn about to make people and the world.
The problem isn't what he's capable of. The problem you face is that he is unnecessary for anything and everything we observe in the real world. DNA and quantum mechanics and everything else work perfectly well without a guiding hand, and we do not have a single piece of scientific evidence pointing towards any unexplainable influences. Not one. Millions, billions of measurements, not one shred of finger of god.
Sure, maybe he's just playing hide&seek really well, but you know what? So do Eris Discordia and the FSM.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
For example, if you look at the creation account in Genesis, and take into account that the word that translates as "Day" can also mean "period of time", "Age", or "epoch", and not necessarily a defined period of time, then you can easily interpret it as mirroring what science tells us about how the Earth was formed and life evolved.
Genesis is hopelessly flawed, It is a earth and human centered creation account.
According to Genesis earth was created "epochs" before the Sun and stars! Also it is (as is religion in general) very ego-centric in that it teaches that all this (that is the universe) is created for humans... hog wash. Ego-centric religions must go the way of animal sacrificing religions... in the dust bin where they belong.
Actually, in ancient Hebrew "Yeda" is commonly used as a euphemism for sex. For example (My translation from Hebrew): "And Adam YEDA his wife Eve and she became pregnant and she had a son" (Genesis, chapter 4 verse 1)
he creates disease, pain, suffering. he's quite the DNA expert.
That is the problem with this contrived new-age approach (ie old earth creationism) is that God comes out looking very limited or evil entity. Of course the traditional explanation for these things you mention are the Fall. However these defects have been in existence long before there were any humans to "Fall". The gloss approach express in the grandparent is flawed on so many different levels.
It is myth people! Attempting to find coherence of a myth to reality is a fools errand.
Bill's major point seems to be that the next generation of scientists will be somehow rendered incompetent unless their worldview is based on an acceptance of the theory of Evolution as indisputable fact. He doesn't phrase it that way, but that's the impression I'm left with by this and other, similar, points of view. It would seem to me that many, if not most, fields of science could be performed perfectly well without needing to be grounded in that way. He says towards the end: 'we need engineers who can build stuff - solve problems' - as if to say: a child who is taught Creationism couldn't possibly learn maths, physics, chemistry to the degree required to become an engineer...huh!?
(Moving away from Bill Nye) As far as what's appropriate for children to be taught; schools should be required to teach a science curriculum that covers a set of topics that is common across the board. Beyond that, I don't think it's anybody's business to tell a parent what is right for their kids to be taught. If parents choose to send their kids to a school that teaches Creationism *in addition* to the core curriculum, then so be it.
"we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems"
Even people who don't believe in evolution can still become engineers who "build stuff, solve problems"
Only met one creationist engineer. Unsurprisingly nobody took him seriously once that came out, though his short-lived term at the company had to do with other more serious secular issues that he had.
I'm not an expert in biology, and never claimed to be :) However, a quick Google search of the terms you used pulls up several results that look well researched and which, via a cursory reading, appear to be written by folks who are experts. I have found such results on both sides of this argument, which tells me that this is not as firmly established of a conclusion as you might think. For example, check out this article (one of the better ones by the look of it, given the number of citations and general quality of writing):
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html
In the end, none of us were there when either God created the world, or life evolved, or a combination of the two. As such we cannot absolutely say what happened one way or the other. The upshot of that is that it also doesn't matter to the vast majority of modern disciplines: someone can be a perfectly good engineer, doctor, etc without needing to believe one way or the other on this topic! Now someone who didn't believe in gravity - that person I might not want building an airplane... or someone who didn't understand the size of viruses, allergens, etc building an air filter for use in medical applications. Bill Nye implying that because we need smart and well educated kids to continue our society we should teach evolution is a non-sequitur.
William George
Of course they are mutually exclusive.
One is based on the idea that we get truths from some Holy Book (of which there are many inconsistent instantiations, you pick one because some guy says this is the right one, and go to war if some other guys say no ours is the right one) or you get truths from empirical observation. No Magic Book, just hard work.
These are mutually exclusive views of what to base thought on. You cannot weasel around it. One or the other.
Choose.
I'm sure plenty of people didn't watch it, but the very title of the YouTube video is "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children". He also said,
"To the grown-ups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that is completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe - that's fine. But don't make your kids do it, because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems."
By doing this, he is implying that a creationist cannot 'build stuff', 'solve problems', or vote in a way that is responsible. This is quite insulting to me personally, and I think is counter-productive to any discussion of this subject. This is akin to an 'Ad hominem' attack in logic.
William George
Sure they can. They will build "Stuff'.. and solve "problems", just not ones that need solving and not stuff we really need. Just like there are alot of people in IT who can answer your tech support call, but wont solve your problem..
"Personally, I don't believe in *macro* evolution (one species evolving into another) - and yet my world view is 100% functional and, I believe, logical. "
It isn't logical. Because (A) speciation has been observed in modern times (for any sensible scientific definition of "species"), and (B) the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution by biologists is merely one of convenience, at the point of speciation. When you look at the details, there is no line between the two scales of evolution. It's arbitrary. If microevolution happens, sooner or later it's going to lead to speciation, and *boom*, you've got macroevolution. The only way to stop microevolution would be for genetic copies to be perfect, which isn't possible with real-world DNA/RNA systems. The only way to stop speciation if mutations happen would be to maintain genetic exchange between individuals in a population in the face of all sorts of processes for isolating small populations and letting them accumulate genetic differences. You'd have to have every creature trapped on an island somehow manage to interbreed on a regular basis with the individuals back on the mainland -- keep sharing those mutations around to maintain genetic compatibility. Same for every aquatic creature living in a lake somehow managing to interbreed with others in an adjacent lake separated by, say, a mountain range. Same for species across whole continents or multiple continents or oceans. Interbreeding is the only way to maintain exchange of the mutations between individuals in populations (in sexual organisms, anyway), and that would inevitably get increasingly difficult over some geographic area for some types of creatures. Once that exchange breaks down, you'll eventually have speciation. Once there is speciation, even if the populations get back together they may not be able to interbreed anymore, and they will forever go their separate ways and diverge from that point on.
The real question is how on Earth macroevolution could *not* happen, given what is currently understood about genetics and populations, let alone the selection process that will drive specialization in different environments. There is no scientific basis for what you say you accept versus not accept about evolution.
Believe what you like with regards to God. My opinion matches yours pretty closely (that if God wanted to create life via evolution, He could, or not), but your rationale for rejecting "macroevolution" doesn't make any *scientific* sense. It is indeed on par with not believing in plate tectonics. More precisely, a scenario where people believe in "microtectonics" because plate motion can be directly measured at rates of a few cm/yr today, but they don't believe in "macrotectonics", the idea that the accumulation of plate motion can create entirely new oceans thousands of km wide and whole mountain ranges where none existed before. Any scientist is going to say: But, but, it's the same darn process!
Just to clarify, you're saying that Lot, the nephew of Joseph's great-grandfather Abraham, plagiarized a story from the Book of Judges...a book about events that didn't take place until many generations later, AFTER Joseph was long dead, AFTER the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews, and AFTER Moses lead the 12 tribes of Israel out of Egypt? Basically, like saying that George Washington got battlefield tactics from a history book about World War I.
"These are mutually exclusive views of what to base thought on. You cannot weasel around it. One or the other."
Sorry, no. No weaseling needed. They aren't mutually exclusive. You're obviously biased against the Bible and transferring that prejudice to Creationism. Let the hate go dude.
Please provide a scientific definition of 'kind'.
I don't know if Bill could have just come out and say that. It would be offensive; better beat around the bush. Politically it's stupid to talk about religion (or politics lol). So he attacks the fruits of their beliefs instead. That only works because of a commonplace preconception of a distinct and favorable distance the concept of science has from religions; Bill is awesome.
Fundamentally creationism is the result of using the context of a religion and trying to explain observations and questions in that context. So for what its worth, a plausible definition would be applying creativity and imagination to explain an observations or answer a question in a religious context.
If you understand science to be a religion (and it fits the definition http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion except item 4 because scientist isn't in the list) modern scientific theories are also results of creationism insofar that an application of creativity and imagination are/were used to explain observations and answer questions in the religious context of science and its underlying belief(s). All scientific knowledge is based on at least one belief => that what is observed and/or measured is the truth. And while that may not be completely untrue, it also is not completely true; you just have to make up your own mind, take it on faith, or not.
Bill is an idiot.
This is a counter example of what exactly? It has nothing to do with evolution. Nor does it have anything to do with religion, except possibly for some kind of super extreme psychology that has a 100% external locus of control.
There are lots of great engineers who have plenty of irrational beliefs. So long as none of them are directly related to the practice of their trade, they don't matter. Engineers do not depend on their general critical thinking skills.
If the other side were defending their belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny would you say the same? Would you call for respectful discourse if it was the Santa-Bunny(TM) verses the FSM?
I agree there are blowhards of all types who take the easy ad hominem route to shut down debate. And I would agree with your call for civility if the issue was a private debate among friends, but when anyone's god is brought forth into the public square and held up as the model from which laws and public policy should be made?
I say F_CK THAT SH_T !!!
Once anyone brings their god into the public square, it's fair game for inspection, criticism, and even cold hard mocking. This is not to imply that mocking someone's god should be the first option, but reasoned debate will seldom carry the day when face to face with Blind Willful Ignorance masquerading as faith.
I'm less interested in getting the Fundie-Tards(TM) persuaded to join my side than I am in getting them to BACK THE F_CK OFF and stop pushing their third century BS in ways that render me a second class citizen and a lesser human being. If ridicule, mocking, satire, laughter or any other tool in the free speech arsenal can cause enough of the public to stop drinking the Fundie-Tard(TM) kool-aid; then load me up.
I suspect he meant "you sound like making a silly joke or a retard". Then you clarified it.
1) The US is the poster child of creationism. It's about the only developed country that has such a large segment of it's population reject evolution.
2) Evolution has been observed in the wild and in labs. Even the so-called 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. If such a foundation of science is beyond your comprehension, it puts the rest of your world view in question. You are either simply ignorant of the fact (which is not a crime) or willingly ignorant of the facts (which again tells me something dangerous about your world view).
3) See point #2.
And before you reply 'blah blah blah evolution is wrong! blah blah blah no evidence! blah blah blah science is faith!', why don't you begin by explaining this 'theory of creation' that you seem to hold so dear. See how well your 'theory' holds up.
Good luck!
Yep. Bill Nye is an ignorant jackass using his modest amount of celebrity to advance his political agenda. Any remaining respect I had for him just flew out the window.
"Given the overwhelming amount of evidence against this position, why?"
We all look at the world through our perspective, which is affected - or 'colored' - by the presuppositions we begin with. Because of that, the modern evolutionist sees all of this 'evidence' from a standpoint that presupposes the universe having existed for immense lengths of time. When things can be interpreted one way or another, they default to the interpretations that lend themselves to their already-established world view. No matter how logical an argument you build up, if the foundation you build upon (the presuppositions of your world view) are wrong then the conclusions you come to can be wrong as well.
I find that so many things which are claimed as evidence for evolution / ancient age of the world / etc can be explained in other ways with equally logical reasoning. For example, the layers of sediment that are claimed to indicate various epochs of world history could have been laid down much faster by massive flooding and the resulting deposits. Carbon dating, and indeed many forms of radiometric dating, are dependent upon our estimates of what the environment must have been like (ratios of carbon-12 to carbon-14 for example) - and if you start with different estimates you end up with drastically shorter ages, well in line with a young earth.
In the end, it comes down to the fact that none of us living today were there when any of this took place. I believe one person was (God), and the information He passed along in the books now collected as the Bible give an exact answer to most of the questions of origin. I believe in the validity of the Bible for a whole host of reasons, which are too numerous to describe here (but I can link you to books on the subject if you are interested) - and because I believe the Bible has held up in many areas which can be reasoned and compared to other historical documents then I don't have any reason to distrust it on the origin of life.
William George
You're going around saying the sky is green, despite more proof to the contrary than has ever been amassed for any other principle. Evolution is better understood than gravity and more certain.
To begin to remedy your deep ignorance, examine how algae and fungi (especially slime molds) can exist as both unicellular and multicellular entities, and switch between these states. See also this.
The first step here is admitting that you have been wrong in thought for a very long time, and doing penance by rectifying your ignorance, and setting aside fairy tales in exchange for facts.
...because over on the right-hand side I saw "Bentley the Bulldog Puppy is fussy" and I watched THAT video instead.
I then forwarded the link to the puppy video to 4 different chicas...now all 4 want to screw _me_ . THANX BILL YOUTUBE PUPPY NYE RANDOMNESS God!
First of all, old Earth and evolution are orthogonal. They are only related in that both are the natural outcome of applying scientific method to the available data. But there's no such thing as "evolutionist perspective" - there's the perspective that accepts the methodology, and there's the one that rejects it.
Sure, you can always come up with a self-consistent explanation of YEC. For example, you can say that God has just created all things as they are, including light travelling from distant stars, as if they were actually created billions of years ago and started shining then - which would be rather a necessity in any form of YEC (unless you're also willing to rewrite a good half of physics). The common point for all those explanations is that they are necessarily much more complicated than old Earth - for example, they need to introduce some arbitrary changes in conditions solely to explain discrepancies in observed data, with those presupposed changes not having any other evidence for their existence. In other words, it's a massive exercise in fudging facts to fit assumptions. That's not bad in and of itself, and we often do it elsewhere, but only when we don't have any better explanation. And when we have more than one, the one that has to make the least amount of assumptions to explain what we observe, and to predict future experiments, is the one that we prefer.
Of course, as soon as you drag the Bible into it, it becomes a matter of faith and not science. I am an atheist; I do not believe Bible to be divinely inspired in any sense, nor am I at all impressed with its predictive capability, so it's simply not something that I would consider in this discussion.
Note also that even some parts of the Bible may be shown to be true, or even predictive, it does not follow that others parts similarly are. For example, one can accept the literal correctness of every single word in the Bible insofar as it describes events, while rejecting any claims God makes about himself in the Bible (e.g omniscience or omnipotence).
You realize that the term know as used and meant in the KJV is matched in other language translations. It's only the fact that modern English has mostly lost this meaning of "To Know" that supports your flawed understanding. The historical meaning is true to the translation and intentions, and is matched by other language translations that pre-date the KJV.
Sounds like an asshole to me.
Well, people all around the world create their gods in their own image. Naturally, some of them end up with an asshole god.
So are we still talking about sodomy? I'm so confused...
:-P
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Liberals are perfect little government bitches that help make dictatorships possible.
They love to talk about "tolerance" unless it's teaching your kids about God (or anything they don't believe in).
They love to bash on Jews and Christians but Muslims (who want them dead and are against gays) are off limits.
Liberalism = insanity - they just make fun of people rather than discuss real issues because they don't really have much of anything to debate. They are morons.
They elected Obama who is bankrupting this country and turning it into tax land.
Obama wrote a racist book - but since it's against white people, it's ok for liberals. And they love how he hates Israel. Liberalism is a disease of ignorance and emotionalism.
Was david but fucking god, or did he just, well, know him.
I don't believe David was fucking God, but I'm pretty sure God was fucking David.
I mean, it was the Old Testament, God was a sadistic bastard back them, and fucked everyone.
He is so right, forcing a child to believe in creation is child abuse.
Nope, you'd fail. It's only because God wills it to be so when it's good and to our benefit. However we lost the last high school football game because Tommy is a klutz, not because God wanted us to lose.
Ie, too many people are inconsistent here. If they believe in God as a micromanager for all facets of the universe and everything that ever happens is His will then they'd have to reject free will for humans. If they accept that God exists but allows free will then they'd have to accept that God is hands-off manager and that bad things will happen that He did not cause. Granted these are complex theological debates that have gone on for centuries. However we have far too many fundamentalist Christians in the US who fully accept the inconsistent view that it's all God's will except for the bad stuff. It's a sort of children's Sunday school version of theology.
Really, you may laugh at this but I think a lot of these people are dumbing down Christianity also.
They probably had a Dremel and lots of duct tape too.
Holy carp anyGould how stupid do you need to be?
um you mean the prideful 90% don't you? Remember if God could find 10 just people in the town he would have spared the city.
God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum...
Wait, which god? Also, what is a god and how would you describe it's abilities and ways we can perceive it?
Evolution is scientific. Belief in a creator is religious. Belief in evolution is rational. Each of these statements is true in a way.
False.
No one who understand what science is believes in evolution. Science is not a system of beliefs, it is a system of evidence based reasoning. It is not proper to say "I believe in evolution", but rather "the theory of evolution is the hypothesis best supported by the evidence"...
I understand your core point, that "science is not a system of beliefs". However, it also bears noting that ambiguous use of this term "believe" can lead to unproductive bouts of talking past one another.
To wit, one may believe in science in the same way that one believes in gravitation or in the blueness of the sky -- in this sense, "belief" is more of a statement of expectation or a statement of one's view of the universe based on learned experience. Meanwhile, one can believe in a supernatural entity who is both all-forgiving and vengeful at the same time, which in most cases is *not* based on learned experience. The two meanings of "belief" are broadly similar, but the distinction is an important one.
(I say "in most cases" as there do appear to be instances of people who have had experiences related to such a being; meanwhile, I have also had extensive conversations about the subjectivity of reality with a close friend of mine who suffered from a schizophrenic disorder. I accept that reality is subjective and an individual experience. I also hold to the view that any subjective experience of reality that is not broadly shared with others is of dubious value in formulating reliable judgments about the world around me.)
Looked at differently, "belief" could be interpreted as a statement of trust in received wisdom. How many of us actually have experience carrying out the vast array of experiments upon which modern science is based? No one can, as there's simply too much to fit into one lifetime. We must, to some extent, take scientific findings as a matter of faith. The big difference between faith or belief in science, and faith or belief in (a) deit(y/ies), is that science can be replicated and verified, while supernatural events cannot be. Faith or belief in the supernatural must ultimately depend upon the authority of the person from whom such information comes. This may help explain the correlation between the rise of fundamentalism and the rise of authoritarianism in the US.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I have come to think that the unyielding rigidity of fundamentalism (be it Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Pastafarian, what-have-you) indicates a form of mental illness. I speak not in hyperboles -- a flat-out refusal to accept empiric reality represents a turn straight into pathology. Entropius's description here of the irrational universe and inherent disorder cleaved to by young-Earth creationists depicts an alarming rejection of reality and embrace of capriciousness.
How very worrying.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
>> We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
Off the top of my head ...
George Washington Carver - Creationist
Benjamin Franklin - Creationist
Thomas Edison - Creationist
Louis Pasteur - Creationist
James Prescott Joule - Creationist
Blaise Pascal - Creationist
Issac Newton - Creationist
Galileo Galilei - Creationist
Leonardo da Vinci - Creationist
Religious choice has nothing to do with science and engineering ability. Creationists have progressed mankind and asshats like this are just spitting in their eye. Let alone in the America's founding fathers eyes ... I mean seriously, who the hell is this guy to tell people how to raise their children. Talk about an un-American point of view. Maybe the United States isn't the best place for him.
To modern creationists ... science doesn't disprove God ... it just shows a glimpse of how the universe was created by God and discovery of the laws enacted to facilitate it. Most creationists stopped fearing science decades if not centuries ago ... although some lag behind the times and give us all a bad name the same way morons like this guy give atheists a bad name.
So creationism = "I don't know".
Whenever I don't know how something works, I can just say it is the doings of a god(s). That way I can stop worrying about it. This formula has worked for thousands of years - why stop now?
"Note also that even some parts of the Bible may be shown to be true, or even predictive, it does not follow that others parts similarly are. For example, one can accept the literal correctness of every single word in the Bible insofar as it describes events, while rejecting any claims God makes about himself in the Bible (e.g omniscience or omnipotence)."
This is almost correct, and would be except for one point: Jesus' death and resurrection. If Jesus rose from the grave, then that in and of itself would be evidence in favor of the claims God makes about Himself. If that one point is not true, all of Christianity falls apart... but likewise, if true then it would revolutionize our understanding of the world (and I would contend that it has). Consider these points:
- If Jesus had not risen, then why would the authorities who crucified Him not simply display His body as proof when it was claimed that He had come back from the dead?
- If His close followers had not seen Him after His resurrection, why would they have gone on to do what they did? Of the eleven disciples left after the crucifixion, ten of them were killed in horrible ways later on for their beliefs. None of them got rich off it, or gained political power (some of that came much, much later). Why would that many people who all *knew* whether the beliefs they were spreading were true or false be willing to go on to die for it... unless it were true?
There are many other resources on this topic I would happily share, some written by folks where were atheist and out to prove the Bible wrong, if you are interested.
William George
I think we could come closest with something along these lines: 'each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits'. It was described this way in an article I read -
"Perhaps each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits. Look at people, for instance. Each of us has certain traits that we may admire (or abhor): brown hair, tall stature, or even a magnificent nose like mine. Whatever the trait, someone else has exactly the same trait, but nobody has the same combination of traits that you do or I do. Each of us is a unique combination of non-unique traits. In a sense, that’s why it’s hard to classify people. If you break them up according to hair type, you’ll come out with groups that won’t fit with the eye type, and so on. Furthermore, we recognize each person as distinct.
We see a similar pattern among other living things. Each created kind is a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups. The platypus, for example, was at first considered a hoax by evolutionists, since its “weird” set of traits made it difficult even to guess what it was evolving from or into. Creationists point out that each of its traits (including complex ones like its electric location mechanism, leathery egg, and milk glands) is complete, fully functional, and well-integrated into a distinctive and marvelous kind of life."
This was taken from a discussion on the topic here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind
William George
but.... thre verses later
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing.... —Genesis 19:8
known here is clearly a 'sexual' reference.
also
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. —Jude 1:7
46137
All of your points are terrible. Every single point you present a pretty concrete claim, but on each I can think of pretty substantial examples that contradict them. I would recommend you some books, or to go back to school, but if you can make a post like this I have to assume you have no desire to understand.
Many Christians hold views that do not in the least contradict macro-evolution. The Catholic Church, for instance.
Finally one can note there were not witnesses other than lot and his wife (and retinue) that escaped so we only have lots story, and that story seems to be plagerized form the book of judges where the same thing happens including offering virgin daughters to protect angels. If this were on CSI-Gomorrah today we would find out that actually lot got paid off to open the town gates to an invading army that razed the place and Lots wife was going to spill the beans so he killed her and told everyone she turned into a pillar of stone. Then he just recycled the story from Book of Judges when asked what happened.
Not to nitpick, but "The Book of Judges" comes a ways after the story of Lot which happened in Genesis. Lot was a contemporary of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac who was the father of Jacob (Israel), whose descendants (the Israelites) came out of Egypt and established themselves in Canaan with "Judges" hence the name - The Book of Judges. So perhaps the Book of Judges (supposed centuries after Lot) are the ones recycling part of Lot's tale?
An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician are on a train in Scotland. The astronomer looks out of the window, sees a black sheep standing in a field, and remarks, "How odd. Scottish sheep are black." "No, no, no!" says the physicist. "Only some Scottish sheep are black." The mathematician rolls his eyes at his companions' muddled thinking and says, "In Scotland, there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which appears to be black from here."
This is almost correct, and would be except for one point: Jesus' death and resurrection. If Jesus rose from the grave, then that in and of itself would be evidence in favor of the claims God makes about Himself.
It does not. If Jesus died and was resurrected, all it demonstrates that one particular person is capable of resurrecting once after dying. It does not demonstrate that he is God, much less an omnipotent once.
(I wouldn't be at all surprised if we will be capable of doing the resurrection trick with recently deceased people in the next couple hundred years or so)
Then again, I do not believe that the recounting of events in the Gospel is literally true in every single word, though it's likely to be based on some real events. Specifically, short of the Gospel, there's a considerable shortage of contemporary or near-contemporary sources that mention resurrection.
So just because it says that Jesus died and was resurrected, or that other followers went around and died for their believes, doesn't necessary make me treat it as true. Some probably did; Paul, for example, was a definite fanatic, and surely there were others like him (esp. if Jesus selected them based on criteria of blind loyalty). Specifically:
Why would that many people who all *knew* whether the beliefs they were spreading were true or false be willing to go on to die for it... unless it were true?
They didn't have to know; they only had to believe. And human belief is a thing so flexible that it can, at times, be scary. Many Christians believe in Jesus through some "personal experience" they've had; but it's clearly not something material, that an outside observer can watch and record - the only observable thing is the change of behavior. Well, and the activation of certain neural centers in the brain, once we've started exploring that area Who's to say the apostles didn't have their own "personal experiences"?
He's a top engineering student and a devote Muslim and he doesn't believe at all in evolution. When they can take a mind like his and turn him against reason so completely I have no problem believing that anti-scientific beliefs will be around in the world's population groups for as long as humans exist.
There are probably tons of atheists who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old; after all, just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that the Earth (and everything on it) didn't spontaneously come to exist in a single moment not all that long ago...
Running to an anti-evolution site to handwave away evidence. Shocking.
Okay, specific examples:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001026
Explain them some other way. Do you think God inserts ERVs at specific points in animals already seen to be closely related by phylogeny just to test faith?
And as to your last paragraph, I guess even you know how weak your argument is, so it's time to trot out epistemological nihilism. I dunno, can you be absolute sure that I don't exist and you're just debating with yourself? You see where that kind of ludicrous thinking leads, to the denial that any knowledge can be reliably determined.
At any rate, kids should be taught to science in class, even if they're going to become tax attorneys and never use it again, just as they should be taught accurate history (as accurate as we can determine at that time), even if they're destined to be beautician. To argue against teaching knowledge because its application may not be obvious, or applicable to everyone, is a backwards way of trying to justify teaching things that are known to be wrong in any given field.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes they are mutually exclusive. For starters, there are no evidence of a god. Even appealing to the idea of a prime mover does not mean that the prime mover was a god. And for that matter, what prime-moved the god? (Oh yes, I forget, it always existed, right?)
Evolution is based on facts.
Creationism is based on shit people make up.
So humans are apes, right? Part of "ape kind".
But it appears to me that even accepting your classification, it's worthless. Even Linnaeus's system inherently recognized relationships between presumably distant ancestors. How do chordates hang out in the "kind" system. How do you separate birds from dinosaurs, fish from amphibians? Because you've constructed a completely self serving system that doesn't actually classify anything save in a fashion that meets some bizarre literal reading of Genesis, you create a system of no utility whatsoever.
If I look at the genome of two species and see that they hold about 98% common in genes, and not only that, despite some chromosomal differences, it appears that the loci of most of the genes can be mapped one to the other, how does that fit into "kinds"? You can reject common descent and the twin-nested hierarchy if you like, but at least it makes solid predictions which we can then go test. "Kinds" is little better than a child's form of classification, if that. I think even the Greeks had better classification systems than you put forward here. Do you realize how embarrassed you should be?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The subject line was supposed to read "Creationism faith!" (oh, and I left out the /sarc tag... but that was on purpose; I'm hoping for some downright incredulous responses!). :p
Aw, Geez... that's twice that /.'s eaten the "not equal to" symbol that was supposed to be between "Creationism" and "faith;" don't I feel stupid...
God was not there.
Batman was. There is no evidence to prove batman was not there at the start, and I believe that batman was there, based on the teachings of Detective Comics.
A proper science class should ensure kids understand that science is the best process we have for determining what is true or not. Additionally, science excludes all notions of 'faith' as contributing to that method.
This has a corrosive affect on religions belief.
You are forgiven as you know not what you do.
Always black and white with this subject when the multiverse is grey...
Belief in God is fine. It feeds the soul. It speaks to the world of spirit. It's a really great thing. But it's a really rare belief system that demands it's practitioners to be -in the moment- and holding spirit with presence. The Bible points us toward that state of mind, but too many are worshiping the words instead. That leads to absurdities like expecting the words to literally explain all that is in a dynamically changing environment.
Belief in Science is fine. It feeds the mind. It speaks to the world of experience and logic. It's a really great thing. But it's a really rare belief system that demands it's practitioners to be willing to toss aside all theories to consider another. Science demands that we treat all our scientific knowledge as theories, but too many are clinging to our models as facts, and the map is never the territory. This leads to absurdities like scientism and the belief that science can fully explain all aspects of our existence and consciousness.
Life contains many mysteries. Use all your lenses, including science, spirituality, and any other reality tunnel you've got, to see the mysteries from many perspectives.
So how did offering his daughters resolve that?
I'm not sure "know" in a general sense (the non-sex sense) makes sense in the context of his offering of his daughters in place of the men.
Why would he though? He's God! He can just zap us in to existence! Surely, that's better than having distant cousins eat each other just so they can survive. We've defeated evolution to some degree. Evolution in its pure form is unimaginably brutal.
The religious suffer from a cognitive bias where they assume that any contradicting evidence is more proof of their man in the sky. The point of the Origin of Species was to give us a mental framework that required no man in the sky!
Science shows that your God tries very, very hard to look like the null hypothesis; which is, complete and total none-existence.
The agreement between our current scientific understanding of evolution of life and the Book of Genesis is pretty good considering that Genesis was written 4,000 years ago by several uneducated authors who had likely never traveled more than a few miles from their home village and were relying on even earlier oral traditions. The creation sequence described in Genesis is 1) light, 2) Earth's rotation to provide day and night, 3) dry land on the Earth, 4) plants and vegetation, 5) moon and sun to mark night and day, 6) fishes and birds, 7) mammals and all kinds of terrestial creatures, 8) Man. Our current scientific understanding of the evolution of life is 1) big bang to create all space, time, and mass, 2) stars form, 3) pre-earth forms, 4) moon forms from impact of planet with pre-earth, 5) oceans condense, 6) early life, both photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic, arrives in ocean and on whatever 'land' exists in warm earth with no polar ice, 7) life evolves in oceans to more complex multi-cellular forms, invertebrates, and then vertebrates (fishes), 8) More dry land forms and life forms colonize it, 9) mammals, 10) man. The key thing is that both creation accounts rely on a sequence of events arising from creation out of nothing at all which is counter-intuitive to our imagination working alone. If you put most of us down in a little village 4,000 years ago and asked us to describe creation, we would likely either say 'it's always been this way,' or 'the gods formed everything from the raw materials at hand.'
What a bunch of garbage. Who does Nye think he is, telling people what to teach their kids, especially when it comes to something as sacred as their religious beliefs. This country was founded upon the principle of freedom, including very specifically the freedom to worship as you choose. I am concerned at the growing societal pressures attempting to force people to give up their beliefs.
Not that this undermines your overall point, but I get tired of hearing this. I'm tempted to blame Indiana Jones but I'm not certain that's the origin of this meme. Science very much does deal in truth. Capitalizing the "T" doesn't make it some mystical transcendent concept. A descriptive proposition is true to the extent that it accurately describes reality. Science is all about coming up with accurate descriptions of reality, and is therefore all about the search for truth.
How you should make the point I think you're trying to make is to say that science does not "state as truth" as the GPP wrote; it searches for truth. Since there is an infinite amount of truth to be found (in an infinite universe), it can never say that it has found all of the truth, but it can say with various degrees of certainty that "that's the truth over there". And most importantly, if it doesn't know where the truth on some question is to be found, it's happy to admit such, rather than make up some bullshit just so it can claim to have found the truth; but at the same time, it always assumes that there is some truth to be found, even if it hasn't found it yet.
"The answer is probably..." and "We don't know yet" are the twin mantas of science.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Or neither. This is a core construct in our society, and each side should get equal time and the individual should choose which they believe in.
Not offering both sides to a particular issue for debate is anti-science in itself.
I happen to think creationism is a crock, but that's my decision and i wouldn't want either side forced on to me so i was unable to make that decision ( forced by the absence of the other )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is possibly the greatest thing said all year besides the news saying SOPA has been dropped.
as I don't have a deep education in the life sciences, but I follow along as best I can.
Which, and I genuinely don't mean disrespect, wouldn't appear to be very well.
Yup, the Sodomites wanted to rape the intruders. That was definitely wrong.
I rather think the offer of the virgin daughters to the prospective rapists was just as wrong.
Both these were only trivial wrongs compared to the actual breach committed by the Sodomites, which was to transgress against the rules of hospitality upon which civil society was founded. In context Lot's offer was arguably the very opposite of wrong, (though that may not be obvious to C21st eyes).
Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.-- Gen 19:8 [emphasis added]
So important is it for Lot to make good his promise of hospitality that he offers up his daughters (perhaps he should have offered his goats ... or were they more valuable?). The fact that the Sodomites refused even this generousity merely exacerbated their serious transgression. That's why they got nuked.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
If we're allowing that any intelligence behind the universe may be incomprehensible (and the universe it's behind thus likewise incomprehensible), then we're down to an unprovable assumption either way: either we assume the universe is comprehensible, or we assume it is not. Since we can only make an assumption either way, there can be no logical argument for or against either proposition.
But there can be a pragmatic one.
If the universe may or may not be comprehensible, but we can't know and can only assume either way (and must, by our actions, tacitly make one assumption or the other), then there are four possibilities:
- We assume the universe is incomprehensible, and it is, so we never comprehend it and never could.
- We assume the universe is incomprehensible, but it's not, so we never comprehend it even though we could have if we had tried.
- We assume the universe is comprehensible, but it's not, so we never comprehend it no matter how hard we try.
- We assume the universe is comprehensible, and it is, and eventually we manage to comprehend it.
The only chance we have of ever comprehending the universe is if we (at least tacitly) assume that it is comprehensible. So since we're making a baseless assumption either way, pragmatically we ought to make the assumption the operation under which at least gives us a chance, instead of just giving up from the outset. That is the real harm of "God did it" explanations: they give up on understanding and just suggest that we cannot understand. It's a quitter's answer.
Thus given that assumption that the universe is comprehensible, the workings of any God there might be behind it must be as well, at least insofar as they effect the universe and are thus evident to us at all. So to the extent that the evidence suggests there is no comprehensible design behind the universe, the evidence suggests that there is no design behind the universe at all. "There's a design, we just can't understand it" is merely giving up trying to understand.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Sounds like an asshole to me.
Well, people all around the world create their gods in their own image. Naturally, some of them end up with an asshole god.
So are we still talking about sodomy? I'm so confused...
:-P
Short answer: Yes. Any discussion about "the" bible is necessarily a discussion about butt-fucking, anal deities, sexually transmitted diseases and how these things reflect upon people whose imagination is so perverse and perverted that they are ready, willing, and able to believe in this utter and complete nonsense.
To sum up, god created the world, sheep, man, the anus, the penis, the woman and the vagina, and sexually transmitted diseases IN THAT ORDER. (Read Genesis, you'll see it's in there. Even if some items are not mentioned by name, the world was obviously first, followed by animals, THEN man, who was not gender differentiated, but had a digestive tract, and hence an exit for the alimentary canal, or the asshole, as we call it today. Only when woman was separated from man, did man get a gender, which means the anus came first, the penis later, the same day and probably hour as woman. Woman having been created in her current form originally, unlike man who had to be altered, woman and her vagina were created simultaneously. Obviously there is no sense making STD's before there were two different sexes, so they HAD, logically to be last.) Wow. Listen to me trying to apply LOGIC and REASON to Judeo/Christian mythology...
But if the nonsense in "the" bible, (like it's somehow special, or like they like to pretend how there's only ONE, when there are in fact dozens, if not hundreds of major different versions,) is to be taken at face value, that's the order things had to be done in. It's not like "God" created syphilis, THEN woman... that's just nonsensical. Incidentally, how DO Jew/tians (Jews and/or Christians) explain the sudden appearance of viruses? Let me guess, the little red guy with the tail and horns who looks suspiciously like depictions of "Pan"...
Yes they are mutually exclusive. For starters, there are no evidence of a god. Even appealing to the idea of a prime mover does not mean that the prime mover was a god. And for that matter, what prime-moved the god? (Oh yes, I forget, it always existed, right?)
Evolution is based on facts.
Creationism is based on shit people make up.
You're right, there is no evidence of a God. You're right, the idea of a prime mover doesn't mean the prime mover was a God. What prime moved the God? No idea. And the rest of your quote was just prejudiced BS.
ID doesn't require an omniscient and omnipotent God. Claiming that ID and evolution are mutually exclusive just shows how little you actually know about what you are railing against.
Uh mental gynmastics is just what is needed to understand most of the complicated math and physics. People who understand science usually don't understand it automatically, it takes work and failing a whole bunch and then convincing yourself that, yes, the textbook is right. You need to be able to warp your mind into believing things that aren't obvious. Most complicated stuff doesn't make sense until you've thought about it a long time. I'm not saying this to say that religion makes sense or that religion is the truth. I'm just saying that science takes mental gymnastics too. In science, people repeat mental gymnastics using math and people repeat mental gymnastics using life experience that is subjective to their own lives.
I'm on the science's side here, but I would have set up some serious consultants to come up with better phrasing than ..."because we need them." I expect that choice of words to only harden the stance of hard-core believers.
Just to clarify ... you are saying that Genesis was committed to its final written form before the stories which are retold in Judges were part of the oral tradition of the ANE?
That being said the idea the yeda in the context of the narrative in Gen19 has a meaning that is anything other than a sexual one is drawing an impossibly long bow.
Don't confuse the narrative's internal chronology (fiction) with the actual chronology (history) in which individual stories arose. Perhaps OP would have better referred to the story which also appears in Judges, but presumably pre-dates both.
How do you explain the fact that Lot asked the people of Sodom not to do such wickedness? (Gen 19:6).
You also need to explain why Lot offers his daughters INSTEAD (it is clear that Lot thought the men of Sodom had sexual intentions).
Would you claim that Genesis 4:1 was not strictly talking about sex? The NET bible specifically links the use of the word in Gen 19:5 with Gen 4:1.
Perhaps Eve became pregnant some other way?
Also, I accept that the KJV might be ambiguous, but it is far from being the best translation available these days. Most other translations agree that a sexual act is being referred to here in Gen 19. These translations would not follow the KJV if they thought the translation was doubtful. The footnotes in the NET do admit that there is some debate over what is meant, but gives clear reasons for why they chose the wording they did. None of it has to do with the KJV. You need to give textual critics a bit more credit than that.
Whilst I can see your logic, it sounds like it is you who is using the KJV to promote your interpretation. One simply cannot take one meaning of a hebrew word and apply it verbatim to all uses of the word. Just like english, the meaning of a word can depend on the context. Translations such as the NET do not take this sort of thing lightly, and when all translations agree, it kind of puts the burden of proof on anyone claiming otherwise.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes. The ancient hebrew/aramic word for know is Yeda and it means to know well. Of the 47 places yeda is used in no place does it strictly mean sex.
There are certainly a few places where it is used to mean sex. For example, "And Adam knew [yada'] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain" (Genesis 4:1) certainly draws a cause-effect relationship between the "knowing" and the "conceiving."
No it does not. To mean that requires a phrase or adjective as you just proved! It clearly shows that you need to supplement the description with the word Conceive or it would not make sense. To know someone intimately is not so say you want to fuck them, it is intimacy. If you add the word conceived now you are saying it was sexual intimacy. But without the adjective sexual, the word simply means what it means which is to know well.
But don't take my word for it, look in a torah or look up the aramic or the greek.
Even in the passage dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah, when the men of Sodom demand "Bring them out unto us, that we may know [yada'] them" (Gen. 19:5), Lot tries to appease the mob with his daughters. He says, "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known [yada'] man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." (Gen. 19:8) The plainest reading of this description suggests his daughters were virgins.
So you are correct that yada' [insert Seinfeld jokes here] doesn't always mean sex, it certainly can refer to a carnal knowledge.
So then david did butt fuck god? I'll alert the pope and all the rabiis, and ayatollahs of your discovery.
I urger you to google the phrase Yeda Yahweh. Either there a lot of people who want to fuck god or maybe you have it wrong?
Meanwhile here is what others say:
" "Yadha" never means "same-gender sexual activity" in any of its mearly 1000 appearances in the Bible."
"There is no Old Testament text in which yadha' is said to refer to homosexual coitus. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for both homosexual and bestial intercourse, in addition to
coition between man and woman. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha' in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. As it is, we have no grounds to assume that the wrath of the Almighty was turned against these cities because homosexual practices occurred there."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Clearly they would offer that no matter how much humans through their own personal intelligent design and modify dogs appearances they never stop being dogs as evolution says they should.
Evolution never says that, and the analogy to natural selection is to think about how much greater the modifications of nature could be if working on the principles of success rather than the trivial human inkling of noticed traits in breeding animals. Darwin noted to great lengths the changes by dog breeders and pigeon fanciers go to illicit in their relevant stocks and points out that given geometric growth potential and linear growth actuality that a great many animals that could exist, do not exist because they lose the struggle for existence and any edge in that will pay huge dividends to those descendants with that same benefit and so the natural propensity for life is to improve over time. Which in no way implies dogs becoming non-dogs but rather dogs becoming a rather large group with many very different species without that group given natural selection and millions of years.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
but.... thre verses later
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing.... —Genesis 19:8
known here is clearly a 'sexual' reference.
also
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. —Jude 1:7
No sorry. You are referring to modern english bibles where this mis translation has been inserted. GO back to the hebrew and you will find that they said "virgins" not "not known man". The references to fornication do not particularly refer to homosexuality. Besides do you seriously think Ezekiel would have not mentioned this if that had been the issue??? really? kind of a big omission.
Let's face it Cananites and Benjamites and ishmalites were all just losers in the battle to write their own history. It's like the Hatfields writing about the McCoys. The Hattfields are going to say what a bunch of filthy motherfuckers the McCoys were. Don't make it so.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Actually, in ancient Hebrew "Yeda" is commonly used as a euphemism for sex. For example (My translation from Hebrew):
"And Adam YEDA his wife Eve and she became pregnant and she had a son" (Genesis, chapter 4 verse 1)
Okay what other words could fill in the that blank and make perfect sense? How about "loved"? Why even say she got pregnant? why not say Adam YEDA his wife and she had a son"? Unless perhaps that would be ambiguous?
This is like the oldest "that's what she said" euphamism being over applied. Yeda appears in the bible hundreds of places with no secual connotation. at most there are ten places where it is used in a context for sex and in 100% of those there is a supplemental phrase to indicate it means sex was involved. So no it's not a common euphemism. It's a rare one applied to a very common work that means "know" not "screw".
Yeah, but they built in Creative mode.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Get Bill Ney to explain the incorruptibility of catholic saints. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorruptibility
Using a story to emote faith, rather than rational argument.
How quaint.
who can claim that reason is better or more important than intuition?
Reasoning tells you how to investigate, intuition tells you what investigate. It's the difference between believing what feels true, and what is true.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
How do you explain the fact that Lot asked the people of Sodom not to do such wickedness? (Gen 19:6).
You also need to explain why Lot offers his daughters INSTEAD (it is clear that Lot thought the men of Sodom had sexual intentions).
The word "wickedness" is mistranslated from the Hebrew as well. Wickedness does not imply satanism as it does today. the literal word is "to break" custom or abrahm's laws. In this case the custom is a man is obligated to protect guests under his roof including giving his own life if necessary. To force him to give over those under his obligate protection would break custom. Lot thus took extra-ordinary measures. Apparently this was not unprecedented however as giving over a woman to appease an unruly crowd with sex was also used in Judges 19. There are many examples of extreme hospitality to strangers in the bible starting with Abrahams injunctions, and there are multiple examples of mass killings when hospitality is abused. (ask the sodomites, or the benjamites or the people of Gileah.)
Lot himself was considered an asshole by the people he worked for (cananites) as well as by his relatives. If there is any validity to their feelings about Lot then perhaps this also explains why he would think offering his daughters was a grand idea.
Just like english, the meaning of a word can depend on the context.
my point exactly. The over whelming context here is that Ezekiel tells us exactly why god wanted to destroy Sodom. He never mentions homosexuality. Supporting this are lesser contexts. There are excellent words for sexual congress especially prohibited congress like bestiality in hebrew and used elsewhere in the bible but these are not used. In context the towns people would not have know the gender or angel status of the strangers (and it appears the aramic uses a genderless term as well). The passages says it was all of the people, not all of the men, that were gathered. So were the children going to be raping as well? If they were sex crazed then why the refusal of the daughters? Would not their concern over their safety from late night strangers hidden by a untrusted man and a gate keeper who of all people should know better, be a much much much more plausible explanation for "All of the people" turning out instead of, say, a few horny drunks? That's the context.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
However, when you set up a system to constantly and relentlessly snipe at the largest, most well developed, most well researched, and most empirically verified theory in modern biology
I hear this all the time. I can't think of a bigger lie you could use to describe the situation.
Evolution is better understood and better documented, than, say, photosynthesis? Metabolism? Cellular Mytosis? Respiration? Germination? EVOLUTION IS THE LEAST-DOCUMENTED, WORST-UNDERSTOOD, LEAST-PROVEN BIOLOGICAL PROCESS WE STILL POSTULATE AS A SPECIES.
I've sat down, in a lab, in Highschool, and watched some of these things happen in a microscope. I actually OBSERVED it happening. I've seen animals give birth. I've seen seeds grow. I've watched a person breathe and stay alive by breathing. Some of these things, in fact, go against evolution, but that's not this discussion. Apparently NONE OF THESE OBSERVATIONS HOLD A CANDLE TO PEOPLE BULLSHITTING ME ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS OVER THE COURSE OF MILLIONS OF UNDOCUMENTED, UNOBSERVABLE YEARS.
I have NEVER, EVER in my life, nor has ANYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET ever witnessed evolution firsthand. We have never seen a frog species become lizards. We have never witnessed lizards become birds. We have never witnessed fish become frogs or mushrooms become plants. My ant farm only grew ants. My squash seeds only grew squash plants. You mention that bacteria has gotten over a citrus allergy -- that's not proof enough. That is NOT the leap it requires for animal species to beneficially change in the time periods we allot for evolution to work.
No, my friend. If you want to prove to anyone that evolution is real, all you have to do is raise a few thousands of generations of fruit flies in perfect blackness. If they are born without eyes in the thousandth generation, then evolution, as we know it, holds water. If they don't -- then we still don't know what the fuck we're talking about, because that would go against everything we understand about what evolution HAS TO BE in order for our biosphere to remotely function the way it does.
Otherwise, you are trying to throw clothes on a naked emperor.
How do you explain the fact that Lot asked the people of Sodom not to do such wickedness? (Gen 19:6).
You also need to explain why Lot offers his daughters INSTEAD (it is clear that Lot thought the men of Sodom had sexual intentions).
How would you explain that Lot raped his own daughters? Gen. 19:36
Lot is a sicko.
Imagine some sicko who is ethnically different from you lives nextr door, everyday he walks by your house giving you the stink eye and eyeballing your pre-pubscent daughter lasciviously, he keeps shouting that your religion is poison and telling you that you are gonna die and god is gonna kill you. One day he sneaks some men wearing turbans in at midnight to his house.
You are worried. What do you do?
Later on after everyone in town is murdered, and he is having incest with his daughters, he tells your next of kin his wife "died" mysteriously.
At this point would your kin believe him if he told them you were an angel rapist and some angels killed you?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
[1] http://pastebin.com/PesPA0VL
The concept of the supernatural is incoherent. If it interacts with the natural world, we can observe it through those interactions just like we observe any other part of the natural world, and it's as good as natural itself. If it doesn't interact with the natural world, then it doesn't interact with us, seeing as we live in the natural world, and we can never have any experience of it whatsoever and have no reason to stipulate its existence or for that matter care whether or not it exists since for all intents and purposes it may as well not.
In any case all we have to go on is our experience of the natural world, and a choice to either assume there is some sense to be made of that experience, or to assume there is no sense to be made of it. We can't really know either way, we can only assume, but to assume the latter is simply to give up on trying to make sense of it (even if we potentially could), so we rationally must always assume the former, and try to make sense of it as best we can. That means assuming that there are explanations, but never assuming what they are (for assuming a given explanation stops you from trying to make sense of things just as much as assuming there are no explanations does); just moving gradually forward with progressive tentative hypotheses. In other words, doing science.
Anything else is irrational, and someone disagreeing with that "premise" doesn't change that. It's possible to start from an incorrect premise, and it's possible to argue about premises. it just pushes the argument back further, from science to epistemology in this case, and I think I have a pretty sound argument here in favor of a scientific epistemology. I've only glossed over it very briefly here, but I'm happy to write you an essay about it if you have a problem with this short version.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The idea that the denial of evolution is unique to the US - which I very much doubt
Let me just stop you right there. It is certainly, unequivocally, definitely unique to USA. In other developed (as in "industrialized", "high tech") parts of the world, a politician saying that he does not believe in evolution would get politically mauled and ridiculed, for good reason. He/she would be passed of as "insane", since it is by definition "insane", in light of the world we live in. There is nothing to doubt - it is fact.
In many countries (Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland comes directly to mind) there are parties calling themselves "Christian democrats". If they as much as uttered that they would want religion to treated as science and religious theories taught in scientific subjects in schools, they would be out on their asses before they could say "amen". From your statements, you obviously have no idea of what religion looks like in other developed countries. You would probably be surprised to know that most members of these parties probably wouldn't even say that they "believe in God" - but in the principles among Christian values. They are traditionalists, and it is possible to believe in Christian morals without thinking that there is any factual essence to the stories in the bible.
It is pre-enlightenment to have these ideas perpetuated. The rest of the industrialized world can't believe (since it contradicts reason - see how that works?) what is still happening in USA. It's not that we think "all Americans are idiots" - of course not. But we do think the discussions you have on a national level where Christian make-believe is treated by many as on par with science, are "insane". It is unfathomable that there is a large population who still, at least 300 years past their absolute expiration date, continues to "believe" in this.
"In God we trust", Christian creationism, circumcision, general anti-science movements... And this in a country that at the same time are at the forefront of science endeavors and have been so for at least 80 years. That you haven't had a new civil war is beyond me. That you don't split your country up in different fractions is beyond me.
Given that Lot describes his daughters as "did not know a man" ("Lo yad'oo ish"), it is quite clear that "yada" is this context means sex. This is in fact quite common in biblical Hebrew and is sometimes used even in modern Hebrew, mainly in poetry.
at least they were built by evolutionists.
You be quiet about that meek shall inherit the earth now. Fox News says God told them that we have to be rich and hate the poor now to get into the heavens.
Or maybe his entire story was bullshit from the start. Consider what comes next in his tale:
"Genesis 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
My interpretation? Lot was a pedophile, and needed a cover story to explain why "somebody" set the town on fire and killed his wife so he could run off into the hills to fuck his underage kids in a cave without anybody catching on.
Yep, from what i hear a hand full of people can build an ark that weighs close to 9000 tons out of gopher wood in about a week's time and fill it with 100,000+ animals with food and shelter for all for over a year with only hand tools...
No, no, it's a metaphor or a parable or a mistranslation or a typo.
Any time there's some particularly egregious nonsense in the Bible, all the excuses come out.
"No, obviously God didn't create the Universe in six Earth days. When the original Hebrew says 'six days' it is a misinterpretation of a phrase meaning 'roughly six, but may be more, and possibly a lot more units of any time period whatsoever' and therefore clearly means 'fourteen billion years ago'. "
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories which we have yet to learn about to make people and the world.
Yes, but if you can use DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics to explain how the world was made, why do you need a God at all?
If you have two dishes, one of tagliatelle, oil, garlic and black pepper, and the other of tagliatelle, oil, garlic, black pepper and God, and they taste the same, what is the point of adding God?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This is exactly the thinking that Bill Nye is talking about, you have mentioned passages from the bible/koran/etc as if they were facts, not the fairy stories that they actually are! Next you'll be saying that your invisible sky daddy is real, he's about as real as my orbiting chocolate teapot!
Sorry, but Bill Nye is a hypocrite. He is a denier of the scientific method in regards to climate research. His views in this regard are nothing more than cargo cult science as the great Richard Feynman, a real scientist, once described.
Evolution is only a theory. Creationism is a successful Fantasy Role Playing Game.
We need more Luddites that believe what I do is magic and voodoo and will sacrifice their 18 yr old daughters to me to continue giving them iPads and toasters that work!!!!
The belief that the world is billions of years old and that biological diversity has grown gradually through a process of mutation and natural selection is in no way incompatible with the belief that God created the world or that He has guided the process.
Yes, it is. Repeating this drivel over and over and over has become the latest fashion of putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala".
Evolution is the death sentence to any and all religious creation myths because it removes the necessity of creation. If life can evolve on its own, and we have no evidence of any outside influence (godlike, alien or anything else), then the most likely answer is that it has, and anyone claiming otherwise carries the burden of proof.
So unless you have any evidence for evolution being "guided" or whatever, you're just someone who can't let his pet myth go despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
That's something of a non sequitur, though.
I completely see where you're coming from—if there is no necessity for a God to make the world be as we see it, then Occam's Razor says that we should assume that there isn't one.
However, that only means that it's less likely that there's a God. It doesn't disprove the existence of God. I mean, that's sort of the whole problem with God in science: He's unfalsifiable.
I understand your desire to disabuse people of what you see as a dangerous delusion of belief in God, but logically, your argument that these two things are "incompatible" simply doesn't hold up.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Perhaps "reliable" is too likely to be read as "always 100% correct", and I apologise for that.. I didn't want to confuse the basic question, but what you've said is quite true.
You can indeed show that memory is not always reliable.
But you can only do that once you have assumed by faith that memory is at least mostly reliable.
You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
teach children to investigate, explore and seek proof. Why to we waste time and energy poisoning them with the idea that they should "believe" anything, at all, ever?
Yes, Bill Nye is so wise...I'll turn over my children now... please make all of my decisions for me.....
Stalin, Mao, Lenin, all thought the same way.
We know there were cannanites. We know roughly where sodom and Gomorrah were located and ruins have been located there. We know these cities perished. OP did not say angels were present or real. OP suggests that story is a conflation of common legends (e.g. book of judges). OP suggested fictional TV show explanation for alternative interpretations of reported events. So what offends thee?
... to evolve.
Bill Nye Claims: "don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems."
Then maybe you should stop killing them with abortion and contraception? It's well known that intelligent atheists fail to breed.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Sorry, but we can both observe and measure evolution in a lab, and have done so consistently. The mechanisms through which the process of "evolution" works have been exploited by humanity since at least the Agrarian Revolution -- witness the diversification of "wolf" and "dog."
The really interesting thing is when we see things resembling evolution in non-living systems -- like the AI researcher whose models began deactivating themselves during the culling phase of the selection period to increase their chances of survival.
Evolution and Creationism co-exist. Who created evolution ? God did !
and we all know that like a liberal he is an expert at child psychology among every other topic in the world and their views are the only ones that should count.
If they can't even accurately predict what the weather is going to be like in two weeks, I don't think they can accurately guess what happened millions of years ago. Just saying. So I think I'll take everyone's opinion on this matter with a pinch of salt. Sometimes humans think they are better than they really are.
I don't believe the world is millions of years old. I think this is a theory based on instrumentation that is not always correct. We all know that computers and even microscopes can make things look one way or another when they aren't. It's my right to disagree, and I think that as absurd as it may sound, your belief in evolution requires a bit of faith just as my belief in creationism requires some. I think it would be respectable of everyone not to teach it as fact but a belief. In fact, it shouldn't be required of anyone to sit through classes that are based on beliefs because it's your right to believe or not believe in anything you want, regardless of how ignorant you sound.
Telling lies to your children isn't appropriate either Mr. Bill Nye. By the way explain How intricate the brain is? Explain how the planets are so precisely arranged that the scientists can precisely pinpoint where they want to land a spaceship. Explain the intricate design of your eyes Mr. Bill Nye. So, Mr. Bill Nye, if you came across a house in the wilderness, you say to your self...it just came to be there by chance, NO. you realize it had to be designed. With intricate design comes a designer. Maybe Bill evolved from a monkey...notice his way of thinking.....wanna a banana Bill? Romans 1:18 thru 23; 18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. 20 For his invisible+ [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s* creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship,* so that they are inexcusable; 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. 22 Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things. Even Bill Nye cannot explain how things came to be......but he is a science guy.....so funny. Bill can't even use his own brains to figure these things out.
And I am not an Unknown annonymous coward.
By David O'Rourke
What about his implied claim that only Evolution taught Engineers are capable of understanding the world? This seems rather narrow, being that the engineers that built the Great Pyramids, Great Wall of China, and Roman Aqueducts almost certainly worshiped their own pagan gods. This is also to say nothing of the Muslims and Hindu's that moved mathematics and algebra forward as well as giving us our number notation. Their beliefs and worldview didn't cripple their understanding of science.
After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes.
Indeed, that's the problem with the NIV. There's a place in Acts describing how they all shared possessions, the KJV says "thay had everything common." NIV says "everything IN common" which is not what the original Greek says.
Eziekiel tells us exactly why got sent the destroying angels: the prideful 1%s didn't realize they didn't build their own wealth, society had, and they were not giving back.
Indeed, you find the evil of greed all through the bible. It says "the love of money is the root of all evil". Yet so many 1%ers actually think they're going to heaven. Perhaps they will, if they can get their camel full of possessions through the very small gate they called the "eye of the needle".
I can never figure out how someone can consider himself both a conservative and a Christian. Jesus was a liberal, Caiphas (the one who condemned him to death by torture... er, which political group is for the death penalty?) was a conservative. So conservative that they crucified Christ for his progressive ideas.
Free Martian Whores!
Breeding *out* traits - like the diversification of the wolf and dog - is not evolution. It is changes within a broad species or lifeform grouping, and it does not introduce any new genes, traits, etc. The same is true of the fly experiments. Evolution - in the Darwinian sense - would require new information / genes / etc to be introduced into a population without grafting on from an external source... and without manual, human intervention. That has not been empirically verified.
William George
Bill's video missive was all fine until he issued his appeal to parents to not teach children their own belief's. It's the same as if Bill had said that there's no evidence for Judaism and so parents should not raise their children as Jews. Ridiculous. Yes, the world needs engineers. And yet the world also needs artists, musicians, and even people with religious faith. Science itself needs people with a good morale and ethical point of view, and fundamentally in our world, the instilment of these values comes from religion. Religion might not be the only source, but it is the dominant place from which these values come.
Bill, and all of the /. community, should recognize that NO theory in science is sacrosanct. The fundamental approach to science is its openness to other ideas that challenge the accepted belief. It is that basic approach that leads to advancement. And it means that being closed minded and intolerant of others is anti-science.
Darwin's theory of evolution is not a law. Its a theory. It is generally accepted by science as true. It is the best explanation for the facts at hand. But is it proven that humans evolved from non-human forms by the facts and data that we have, or is it just a proposal based on sets of data points and the supposition that those points form a curve that leads to modern human form?
Scientists need to use their self-proclaimed higher intellect to be open, respectful, and tolerant. Just because someone else doesn't subscribe to the same ideas as Bill Nye the Science Guy doesn't make them deserving of Bill Nye's contempt. Nor does it give him the right to tell parents how to raise their children.
Bill Nye is a joke. I used to really like his shows and got my kid and others to watch. He had a decent way of getting scientific ideas across to kids and making it enjoyable for most of them. BUT ....
He only uses science when it suits his views. He is very closed minded and ignorant on several issues. I agree with him on creationism being a belief and evolution a theory that could be disproved (hasn't been yet but could still be, that is the way science is).
On the subject of global warming he totally ignores basic science and goes on his own BELIEF that CO2 is the problem and man made CO2 in particular. There is ZERO proof to that theory that has held up to any scrutiny. From the infamous hockey stick chart to the feedback that CO2 was supposed to have on water vapor (the elephant in the room) all have been shown to be wrong. The chart was bad statistics, selective data sources and appalling code that would spit out a hockey stick with random noise injected. The feedback that was supposed to be huge is in fact neutral or slightly negative. Sorry Bill you lose.
Indeed, you find the evil of greed all through the bible. It says "the love of money is the root of all evil". Yet so many 1%ers actually think they're going to heaven. Perhaps they will, if they can get their camel full of possessions through the very small gate they called the "eye of the needle".
You cite one of the best known phrases in the bible, that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to reach heaven. And yet it is so ignored: it's meaning were not perfectly clear, but not welcome.
It is funny to note however that Camel is a mistranslation of Gamel, which means rope. I like the camel image much better since it is so memorable, but I guess rope does make a lot more sense for what was really said.
Other amusing mistranslations are the Leper Jesus dined with was a Jar maker, not a leper at all. and then there's that unic, who was just a traveler not a unic.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Religion was created for 1 reason, to relinquish the fear in death...people fear their own demise, so they create a false idea to help them better cope with the inevitability of death. No one wants to believe that when they die it is absolute, but we have all been around long enough to finally grow up and face reality, we are born, we live and then we die just like nature intended, so these religous fanatics can stop trying to get us to believe in a figment of their imaginations and jump on the reality train, now the way I see it is if your so affraid of dieing then stop praying to the skies and help the rest of us in trying to figure out how we can prolong our own lives in the form of science not fairy tales...
Whether the writings were inspired or not depends on your belief system, but we do know that the writings were selected by a committee. I believe it was a Roman who set up the committee. Originally an Atheist, he "saw the light" and decided to assemble the writings, what to include and what should be left out.
So... Bill Nye is saying that if you teach your kids about creationism, they will be scientifically illiterate? He must be off his rocker. I know there are extreme cases where parents try to shelter and brainwash their kids, but that's a different issue. How about we present our kids with what we believe and why, and show them what other people believe and why, and then let them figure out what they believe? I happen to believe in a creator, and I also happen to be an electrical engineer. My father is a pastor who taught me about creationism as well as the big bang theory. It didn't prevent my enthusiasm for science. Actually, the fact that there are so many different theories is what motivated me to learn and study science more. Bill Nye may know science but he needs to study some logic perhaps.
Because the word sodomy dates back to....1300 and the KJB dates to 1600?
It was a nasty translation indeed. So nasty it broke the time space bearer.
hmm looks like someone just honored their spiritual contract with evil, this happens a lot in the entertainment biz, someone talks smack about God or Jesus or God's creation, and they're all over television and movies with a bunch of offers.
I wonder if he ever considered that the titans of science where for the most part...Christians.
Not 'Knowledge' but 'Knowledge of Good and Evil':
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
I only want to see they he got the gorillas in...
If you believe that you can understand God, wouldn't that mean that you are one?
At the end of the day Evolution is just a theory as creationalism is. No one has ever, EVER been able to PROVE evolution. They just assume it is and we know how that can turn out - To be WRONG. My personal theory is we mutate though cosmic rays, not selection. Hey, before you pick up the poison pen, it's a theory just like the others. The difference is I'm probably right. I have a feeling I'm a lot smarter than Darwin was.
are you just reading strongs concordance and substituting alternative meanings at will?
textual critics do in fact think about these things when translating a verse. How do your hebrew/greek credentials as well as knowledge of the culture of the day stack up against theirs?
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Hello, I believe the universe can be billions of years old. I have no problems with evolution. Still, I still believe in a literal Creation.
If science and theology disagree, this normally means theology is incorrect.
This is a powerful article for this discussion
God spoke to me
The OT was already compiled before christ was born. You can see Josephus' quotes for that.
The NT was compiled in the early 2nd century, and the compilation was completed in the following centuries (I'm not sure of the specifics off hand). In any case, for the books we know to be authentic (most of Paul's writings for example), they were written in the late 1st century. We have eye-witness accounts from people who knew the original authors.
The study of this stuff is quite interesting, but also it can prove quite revealing about how trustworthy the bible really is (or isn't).
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
>God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories which we have yet to learn about to make people and the world
The more that is understood about the creation, modification and origin of e.g. DNA the further back in the process
your starting point will have to be. The tools used by your God will become smaller and smaller, and more abstract
'Yes, we now know how DNA came about, but you know, God could also use as his tools to make people, the world and the whole Universes, known and unknown'
> those who believe that humanity is incapable of learning how God works are being blasphemous and not remembering the lesson of the Tower of Babel
>(Genesis 11:6) which indicates that humanity's learning capacity is without limit.
In a space of infinite size, with time stretching infinitely before and behind us, there is the opportunity for an infinite number of things; including things that
we could *never* comprehend. Of course, we'll never know that, since we don't understand them, and remain blithely arrogant of the fact that we know everything.
Stupid humans.
I'm gosgog.
Evolution continues to evolve from factual observance and intelligent minds!
Creationism evolved from folks who had limited ability minds to either discover & find out why! As a result all religions emanated from GREED. Leaders who realized that mankind (womankind too!) were nervous because they realized to some extent that the Human Body is only a shell that contains a mind. So where the hell did the mind go when the body ceased to function?? iT MADE THEM NERVOUS! So those bright bastards who wanted to get rich and Powerful came up with, Religion, Insurance and various other forms of extortion Like Mafia. LETS FACE IT MOST FOLKS BELIEVE IN RELIGION BECAUSE THEY HOPE THINGS MIGHT BE BETTER WHEN THEY'RE DEAD! I now reside in staunchly "Catholic Country... you won't believe these dumb bastards! Then look at the Idiots in the MUSLIM world. Hey if you have to have GOD(S), just be like the Greeks or the Hindus...much more Fun and dont waste money on funerals etc, Spend it having a good time ALIVE!!
Im surprised just how many /. folk seem to come from church / creation backgrounds.
Like many of you I was brought up on this type of indoctrination and as I have gotten older (i am currently in my mid 20's) have questioned more and more of it. I think many of you are failing to give religion the 'respect' it deserves... I dont think any particular mainstream religion is true anymore, but I also fail to see how evolution / naturalism can account for matter in general and life in particular, seriously how could it given our current understanding of cosmology? and the huge leap between evolution of physical matter to evolution to an imaterial consciousness... Some form of religion makes much more sense IMHO... But the problem is, each particular religion can be shown to be bogus, which leads me to my current position, which is god/s or whatever initiated the big bang and guided evolution or provided consciousness to creatures but otherwise has never interfered again, which explains the lack of miracles present in the christian church at least...
Anyhow. No butsects in soddom.
Impressive story, but there has to be a money shot, which is why Lot's daughters laid with him. So, no sodomy, but yes incest!
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
"Knowledge of Good and Evil" is a subset of all knowledge. And if you think about it, if Adam and Eve didn't know what is good or bad before eating the fruit of that tree, how would they know it was wrong to disobey God and eat the fruit. Punishing someone for something they could not possibly know was wrong is in itself wrong.
Mr. Nye, Out of what shall they build things? Oh! Out of all this "stuff" that just so happens to be everywhere. This stuff that we can't seem to completely disassemble, duplicate, or even fully understand. Your world would seem to be made up of two kinds of people: 1. Those who think that all this "stuff" just poofed into existence-or was always here* lying around. and: 2. Those who think that it was deliberately planned, engineered, and created specifically to interact in such a finely detailed and controlled way that those of us inside this reality do not have the ability to see the seams. I would suggest that the second group, if properly educated, would be much better at interacting with this "stuff." Personally, I believe that the first is much like a bunch of fleas denying the existence of a Dog, but I digress. What if the digital construct, or simulation scenarios postulated by some are correct...sort of. What if God transcends the concepts of digital, analog, chemical, organic, etc. What if in His realm light is downright pokey. What if He deliberately set up a construct in which the most curious of concepts could be brought to life and tested: The possibility of failure. Pretty liberal for One who can only know perfection, don't you think? What if the ability to begin to understand this "stuff" was tossed along with Heavyside's apple cores and orange peels when he threw out Maxwell's multidimensional math and rewrote his work - omitting most of it? (The parts he couldn't understand?) Please explain all this Mr. Nye. I don't understand maths, I just know what I like. SG *Please tell us "Engineered Reality" idiots just exactly where "here" is. While you are at it could you also say what's outside? Hebrews 11:3 (vortex atom? Spun-up energy, you know, like invisible yarn.)
Just in case you don't know this, Answers in Genesis is considered a joke by everybody who isn't a Young Earth Creationist. Seriously, we've all seen the site, and we all laughed for a few minutes before we started cringing at the thought of how many people actually believe that. You will never convince anybody of anything by posting a link to AIG; it's equivalent to just saying, "I don't know what I'm talking about and am going to ignore everything you say."
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Eziekiel tells us exactly why got sent the destroying angels: the prideful 1%s didn't realize they didn't build their own wealth, society had, and they were not giving back.
Good point.
Kind of like the only act of voliance that Jesus did was kick the banker's ass out of the temple.
There is both. God created the world. He made the earth and let it evolve. When man reached a level that pleased god, he gave that man a soul, cloned him, and then let them multiply to present day status. There was no missing link. The human species has evolved from an early human animal. Fin
The comments here sound a lot like the Republican national convention. A bunch of people parroting platitudes to each other, knowing everyone else agrees. Except there's also the "i'm smarter than most other people" snobbishness going around.
True. Who is Forrest Mims?
are you just reading strongs concordance and substituting alternative meanings at will?
textual critics do in fact think about these things when translating a verse. How do your hebrew/greek credentials as well as knowledge of the culture of the day stack up against theirs?
Well since it's clear there is no butt sex in Lot's tale. Ezekiel never says it. The Torah rabbinical annotations agree. And in this case were down to arguing about just a single word "Know" that in overwhelming preponderance does not mean anal rape, I'd say I'm on very good grounds.
However the best evidence I know for the homosexual interpretation comes from the Quran, which seems to say this explicitly. However we have to realize the Quran is distant in time and space from the supposed writing of the events. This would however indicate the mistranslation predates all modern scholars carefully deciding on the right interpretation.
But serious single word errors are common and have huge consequences. How did for example the scholars translate "Jar Maker" to "leper" and "Traveler" to Unuc? Those are fairly well documented translation errors still in use.
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Ecclesiastes 1:18
Stay stupid my friends!
Let me tell you how to live your life so you do not have to go and think for yourself it is easier that way.
Also, the word 'town' or 'village' here is a little stretched in its usage. I remember reading Twain's Innocents Abroad where he remarked on the size of the 'kingdoms' of the holy land. I believe he said something to the effect that he and his small party of tourists could concur six or seven in an afternoon without the aid of the ladies in the party and by nightfall they could have an empire. His point was that the word 'kingdom' was translated from a word meaning a few houses and their surrounding plots and vineyards. The 'towns' of Sodom and Gomorrah were probably just a couple houses and their gardens so destruction of these places would have been an evening's work and not much would have been lost.
Translation is a funny, funny thing.
...wait, then why do textbooks have derivations? Can't you just follow those to the source. Sure, it can be difficult, but there is no need to convince yourself when the proof is on the page. If it's wrong, you can even challenge it because the error is on the page.
GO back to the hebrew and you will find that they said "virgins" not "not known man".
That gives even further emphasis to "yeda" being a euphemism for sex beyond the "wicked thing" remark from Lot. Now there's proof you're being an unreasonable troll.
If they were sex crazed then why the refusal of the daughters?
Because they craved angel anus. If they weren't sex crazed, the offer of the daughters makes no sense whatsoever.
Well, based on this, definition kinds don't exist, thus proving creationism incorrect I guess.
TL;DR: quick, mod this down, it's proposing an unorthodox way of thinking
Let me start off by saying I don't believe in Evolution, but neither am I a Creationist.
I take issue with Creationism for different reasons than Mr. Nye. At the same time he's painted this black and white where it isn't. I think that's harmful. His statements imply that non-belief in evolution is irrational and harmful. I wish to point out that non-belief in evolution is rational and not harmful. Please take my statements at face value without assuming I'm part of some politically active group that may drive you crazy. I'm most likely not and whoever it is may drive me crazy too.
Below I paraphrase statements he made from the video. I hope to have captured the spirit of what he said if not every word.
1. Denial of evolution is unique to the United States.
2. The United States is still where most innovation happens.
These statements are painted in broad, national, politically-charged strokes. I personally know people from Japan, Spain, Korea, China, France and England that don't believe in Evolution. The latter statement is clearly subjective. But since he believes the 2, what's he worried about? The facts he believes do not support his hypothesis that this will hurt the US. This seems to be a political argument rather than a scientific one.
Evolution is the fundamental idea in life science. Like trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates.
Tectonic plates have effects on a time-scale observable to man. Evolution, even if it were true, does not happen on a time-scale that is within the human lifespan (granted, viruses have changed into slightly different viruses but I don't think that's Evolution anymore than breeding Chihuahuas is Evolution). Bottom line: This is comparing apples to oranges.
Physics gives us power plants. Medicine gives us, well, medicine. Evolution gives us arguments about Evolution.
If you don't believe in evolution your world is a mystery instead of an exciting place.
That's a loaded statement. This is basically tantamount to saying "if you don't have the same world view as me, you're a fool and you're missing out." He doesn't have any real argument here. I don't believe in Evolution and the world is an exciting place and no more mysterious for lack of Evolution. Just because Mr. Nye can't imagine alternatives doesn't mean his is the only legitimate choice.
The world becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution dinosaurs, fossils, etc
The fossil record's support of evolution is not nearly so cut and dry as Mr. Nye implies.
Again, he can't imagine an alternative, so it must not work. I'm sure he's met people without plausible answers. I propose an alternative explanation to Evolution for the structural similarities between the bones of birds and dinosaurs.
If you see structural similarities between the iPhone and the iPad, do you conclude the iPad evolved from the iPhone? They're non-living of course but they had the same designer, so there was a similar thought process. The living machines in nature similarly have the same designer. Is that not a plausible explanation for the structural similarities we see?
People can identify Porsches, Van Gogh paintings and numerous other things when they've come from the same designers. Why should living things be random?
Obviously this is not an exhaustive argument about Evolution, but I put forthe the above is a logical, non-complicated and non-mysterious line of reasoning.
Distant stars deep time
Yes, science is wonderful and has much to offer. What do these statements have to do with believing or not believing in Evolution? I'm fairly confident someone could devote their life to studying the stars and Evolution would never become part of the discussion. Likewise Physics and Chemistry.
These are just more loaded statements. He's implying just because you do not accept one theory you must reject all science.
I say to the grown
IMHO, creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Why cannot the creatures be created, and have the ability to evolve in their environment.
Bill Nye's secular humanism is inappropriate for children.
All in all, Bill Nye comes across as an angry athiest, pissed off at Christianity and trying to twist evolutionary theory to bash Christian beliefs.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Evolution doesn't really explain anything. Why is there a Universe? Why is there Consciousness. Why is there any life at all? None of these questions are explained by evolution. So, why is evolution pushed so hard by the liberals who run our schools? Two reasons. One, religions are worshipping Dogma. If religions were worshipping the creative almighty, then people who claimed to be religious would be trying to be creative: artist, writer, musician, sculptor, comedian, etc. Most Priests are frauds who want your money, and worship. Worse yet, horrible acts of inhumanity are perpetrated by people who claim to be religious, but aren't really. Second, As Obama said a few weeks ago, "If you're rich, it's not because you made it happen, it's because somebody helped you get there." The liberal College Professor subscribes to this idea with Evolution, which teaches that we're all an accident, a genetic mutation, which is absurd, and again, an attempt to get your money. Without the absurdity of liberalism, student loans that aren't paid back, college professors would be poor. Creationism is a much more pro-active philosophy for life than Evolution. If you want to read a great book, that explains a lot of things like the secrets of Life and Death, read "The Healthcare Guide for Republicans", ebook at Amazon. mensunion org
all this anti-Christian bigotry. and yet evolution has NO explanation to the origin of the universe. We Christians do :)
This is where I lose respect for /. commentators on this issue and others like it. Most of it is just plain ridicule. Don't try to be reasonable here. Their minds are maid up and any one with your point of view is an idiot. It doesn't matter if what you say here is actually true. And, there, you get branded as a 'troll' for your trouble. QED.
Right,
because 'science literacy' equates to a 'better person' - no bias there Bill.
how bout 'better schools' and 'better parents' and 'better character' = better person (i..e for being voters/taxpayers and people that can 'build stuff')
because none of the people that 'build stuff' & do stuff, and vote intelligently, or lol PAY TAXES (can i get out of paying taxes for not being scientifically literate? i dont know that big govt would want to go down that road)---
--- none of these have spiritual beliefs right? right.
Believing in Science, or Believing in nothing, is still a belief system, it is still a prejudice, a bias, a non-objectiveness.
whats sad amongst all these posts is the level of disrespect given to anyone that disagrees, or wants to practice their nationally granted freedoms. Seems somewhat telling of the character issues of the proponents of the 'just science' crowd.
I am often amazed at how people offer answers based on so little observation - which I believe is the antithesis of scientific theory. Most of the discussion regarding the relevance of the Bible is at best misinformed and for the most part deliberately vitriolic and intended to completely discredit it as a source of any knowledge.
I find both Faith and Science necessary and compatible. They are both means of knowing reality - one gives me the why of things and the other answers the what, the who, the when, and most importantly the how of things. You are wrong when you state that obedience and faith are not found in science - there is obedience to the method,and faith in its results. Most important of all for science is the faith in man's reason that it is possible to make sense of and understand the world. If the method is not faithfully followed then how can we be certain?
Science is not equipped to answer the why, that is the domain of Faith - it is what all human beings desire - whatever they call it - to know why. In anticipation of the most obvious objection - not everyone asks why, not everyone wants "the why." It is irrelevant only because they have made it so - at one time it was a question they asked but now choose not to. Just because they choose not to ask the question does not make the need for the answer disappear.
"Little observation and much reasoning leads to error; much observation and a little reasoning to truth." Carrel, Alexis
I'm not a big fan of socialized medicine, but I also don't believe it is the end of the world.
I am amazed that the majority of people who are 'foaming at the mouth' crazy in their opposition to socialized medicine are also 'foaming at the mouth' crazy in their support of socialized religion. Not all, but there does seem to be a strong interest on socialized religion from the right wing in America...
I have no interest in socialized religion.
Keep searching for balance and understanding. God and religion are not the same thing. Religion is an activity of man, not of god. You might have been taught that doubting and questioning is a bad thing.
In the Bible Jesus is quoted as saying:
But remember that according to Christian belief Jesus was just a man, not a god. Jesus had his doubts and was not 100% sure of his own beliefs:
If Jesus was 100% sure he would survive death on the cross, then he really wasn't sacrificing anything through his death. Christian belief says that the sacrifice Jesus made gives mankind redemption or forgiveness from sin and pays for mankind's salvation. Well if Jesus was 100% sure he wouldn't really die, then there was no sacrifice, and then there is no redemption and no salvation. So in Christian belief, Jesus's moment of doubt is the central defining moment.
So if you have doubts about your beliefs that should not be a problem. Jesus had doubts. Any Christian that thinks you should have no doubt isn't doing what Jesus did. If you are going to base your beliefs on books written by humans, remember that even the best of us are fallible. Jesus was not happy with the way religion was practiced in his time. You can also be unhappy with the way religion is practiced in your time. Just try not to die for your beliefs, live for them instead.
Science is not Perfect and doesn't have all answers. Science is our study of life and the Universe around us but we haven't been doing it long enough to claim we really know how the Universe actually started. lf the Universe is Billions of years old then how much can we possibly know in our miniscule few hundreds of years of Scientific Observation? Only Human arrogance can make such grand statements. We have dozens of THEORIES and not as many proveable facts as we've all been led to believe. A TRUE Scientist has to be open minded enough to belive that ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Charles Darwin may have been the 1st Creationist, before he passed away he converted to Christianity. l'm not saying ANY particular Religion is the absolute Truth, but Real Science has to have the possibility of some sort of lntelligent Life that could have started our Universe. There are still many questions that we just can't answer, for example: "the Law of Cause and Effect" if Something can not come from nothing...then What "Caused" the BIG BANG to happen? Where did the Original Matter and Energy come from and how did space go from Inorganic matter to Organic matter? Why does the Universe move like a giant clock that is counting down? Why is our Respiratory waste product of Carbon Dioxide what gives life to plants and their waste product is our Oxygen, our source of life? What a strange coincidence! lf it takes 2 people to make 1 Person then what would it take to make our Entire Universe, Our Planet Earth and All of the various and complex forms of Plants, lnsects, Sea Life, Animals and Humans??? "lt Simply Just Happened by Chance" of the Big Bang theory just Does NOT seem like a Truly Valid Scientific Explanation...does it?
Consider the cognitive load (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_load) represented by the religious world view. Compare and contrast that with the cognitive load of other modes of knowing. Additionally, consider the conservative nature of the religious mode--it's great for addressing problems of hundreds or thousands of years ago. Perhaps not so good at addressing the problems of today, especially those that are really quite different in type or scale than the ancient problems. Additionally, consider the consequenses of incorrect action--If the God-Is-Coming-Don't-Worry-About-The-Environment crowd is wrong, things can get quite bad for many people relatively soon (possibly beginning already, likely within the next decade or two. Certainly by next century). If the evidence-best-thinking crowd is wrong then the worst case of embracing it is slower-than-expected economic growth in the short term, but possibly brighter longer term due to the investment and increase in knowledge.
Me? I'm not too into the stories that are easily manipulated by authoritarians, whether intentionally or not, and that rely primarily on me trusting them to not be fooling me, and to not be fooling themselves. I'd rather live on the raw edge of our best efforts to come to grips with reality itself, rather than falling back to the safe cozy narrative of my forebearers.
Surprisingly, a large percentage of fundamentalist Christians are engineers.
This doesn't mean a large percentage of engineers are, but it is worrisome, nonetheless.
It has been my experience that people who follow a technical specialization curriculum tend to avoid a liberal education, and when questions of origin and morality come up, they fall back on the rhetoric they learned as children, regardless of how good they are at solving engineering problems. Most don't concern themselves with the moral implications of their work as long as they do what they are paid to do, and as long as the paycheck is enough to buy the toys they want. Ignoring philosophy is not the same as considering it, and our consumer/cashflow culture makes it easy to ignore morality and replace it with canned responses.
I am an electrical engineer, a programmer, and a reasonably intelligent voter. I have huge issues with any so-called scientist (he is a celebrity now, not a true scientist) who chooses to raise a theory to the level of a scientific law without repeatable observable proof (impossible in this case). I am not saying his faith is wrong (and yes to unconditionally believe in the un-provable is an act of faith, not reason). I am saying ignoring other possible (I said nothing about being probable) theories is against the very meaning of science. His given statements are no better than the statements and actions of the Catholic Church towards Galileo and other abused scientists of their time. Luckily, he has no true power to start enforcing the pogrom he seems to desire. For now I will ignore the ravings of this d-list star and e-list scientist, and hope he retakes an introductory science class. One that will reteach him the difference between a theory and a law, and why we differentiate between the two.
I always wondered if that story was actually meant to explain some odd stone/salt formations in the desert somewhere. I mean like the flood "explaining" the reason for rainbows?
but taking that and then saying that from these results we can be sure that a single cell lifeform can evolve into a complex, multi-organ creature is what I call into question. That is what we cannot directly test and observe,...
I've been following this discussion far longer than I had ever intended.
I have been impressed by your rational and reasonable, polite replies. It's a welcome sight for such a hot button issue. :-)
One thing that caught my attention, is the 'That is what we cannot directly test and observe,...' statement.
While you may be partially correct[1], do try to keep in mind that most, if not all, evidence in evolution suggests that the changes you are labeling 'macro evolution' usually take longer than mankind had anything resembling modern science.
[1] It depends on what your parameters are for the definitions of 'directly test and observe' are.
We have fossil evidence, backed up by radiological dating, we have observed speciation in the wild....all something to take into account.
If you are talking 'running this in a lab' over the weekend, then no, you will not observe 'macro evolution' happening. Think millennial, epochs, ages, whatever. The experiment required to test 'macro evolution' would need to run thousands of years for any useful amount of data, forget it in your lifetime.
If I have mistaken your POV, I am sorry, and humbly will accept correction.
I do not mean to question your faith, only point out that evolution needs to be viewed from a time perspective that makes no real sense to equate to a human life, or even a double handful of current human generations, and that seems to be hard for us to accept. YMMV.....
signed,
rts008, on a Public Terminal, and strange keyboard...*sigh*
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
You missed the best that part. What did Lot's daughters do to him in the hills after they left Zoar? Genesis 19:30-38. That is some messed up shit, why would he tell the story of that.
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response! I very much appreciate polite exchanges of thoughts on issues, as you seem to :)
I think what I was trying to point out with the fact that we can't observe full-blown evolution in the lab within a human life (or even many) is that because of the timescale required we can never be absolutely certain of evolution - just as we cannot travel back in time to observe the big bang, or a more recent creation event by God. Thus none of us as humans can ever be 100% certain in the scientific sense of any of these things... and yet some people argue so hard that evolution is for-sure, with no alternative but insanity.
Now you are right that there are a lot of evidences we can look at to give us ideas as to what happened in the past, and to back up theories we may come up with. The problem here is that the way we look at those things - fossils, ratios of radioactive isotopes, sedimentary layers, etc - all depend on the world view with which we approach them. For the evolutionist, they all look like great proofs of the belief in an ancient universe... but for someone like myself, they look like great evidence for a world-wide, cataclysmic flood. We can't observe either theory directly, because they require scales beyond our human ability (time for evolution, and planetary-level destruction for something like observing a Biblical flood) which we therefore cannot recreate.
Likewise, the ideas behind radiometric dating hinge on decay rates being constant (which it looks like may not be the case, though so far observations are only showing minute deviation) and that we can properly estimate the ratios of isotopes in the original environments - which, again, cannot be directly observed.
Because of these things, it seems to me that it is very possible to be a productive, thinking individual in society - no matter whether one believes in evolution or not. That is the issue I took with Bill Nye's video: he paints with a very broad, and I believe inaccurate, brush. I like his style of teaching, and loved his show as a kid, but I think that if he really cares about the future of education and the sciences in America then there are other things he could do that would be much more productive than trying to squash competing origin theories :)
William George
I guess I'm just more willing to accept a scientific theory than another explanation in this case. :-)
IMHO, you have presented reasoned points, and while I may not fully agree, I respect your viewpoint.
Something all sides of a disagreement seem to often forget in the heat of the argument: the diversity and differing viewpoints of mankind seems to be one of our greater strengths as a species.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Eziekiel tells us exactly why got sent the destroying angels: the prideful 1%s didn't realize they didn't build their own wealth, society had, and they were not giving back.
I see what you did there (I think).
When he let in two demanding late night strangers and hid them in his home, the people had every reason to be alarmed
This is a FAR more reasonable reason for every man (young and old) to surround the house than that they all wanted to give head to angels. I mean, seriously?
Funny that the one who whistle blowed that is a devout Christian, woops there goes your whole argument.
Why might you ask? Well, since pretty much every (state and federal) government for the last 50 years has put in policies that claim to promote in education the mythical high paying science/engineering pathway. In reality such programs have been consistently cut or left to exist as a hodge podge of disparate islands clinging on hoping they can maintain some sort of funding to survive another year.
Saying you value something and then vanishing the money and support for it is the norm. Nye is dreaming if he thinks Democrats or Republicans and for that matter the American people care about stuff from the land of STEM.
Or you are really bad at your jobs and just rationalize what you do, like this unprovable supernatural thing in the sky you worship.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
. .that what what is called evolution today is really scientific? Have you really looked at all sides of the scientific part of the argument? Even Darwin (ever read his book?), although he believed new species often came from natural selection, did not try to use it to prove that some original species came from nothing. He thought that was rather a stretch to say from what he had seen. I like Darwin. He made excellent observations. I wonder if he would agree with everything his writings are used to support.
Suggesting a problem with evolution has probably alerted the Slashdot opinion police. With their twitching fingers always ready to click, mod down and quash any opinion or belief contrary to the acceptable Slashdot norm, I doubt my blog has any chance for survival in this hostile forum. But I'm not a troll, I only wish to register a minority opinion. People used to be able to in this forum – without the majority shouting them down in lynch mob fashion. But I better start my point about the other side – that should sound friendly.
Many (but not all) Creationists demonstrate sloppy workmanship in their study of science or their own Bible. Is it a shock or surprise that many are stuck in their traditions so deep that even if incontrovertible proof not supporting a tradition came up, they would try to crush such opposition starting with personal attacks on the individual suggesting such changes. I've been on some of their forums also. Many of them believe that the earth was created in 7 days but it is the result of a mistranslation of the original Aramaic language in the first verse of the Bible. What it really says is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth became without form and void. There is no verb of “to be” in Aramaic. Go ahead and Google it. Why is it so important? If the seven days were to fix what the earth became, there had to be something before (read animals that left bones) that needed to be replaced. In accuracy of language one word can make a big difference. The devil is in the details.
Now the unfriendly part. Entrenched evolutionists are also very difficult to reason with. Traditions have built up in the scientific world not much different from the idea that the sun revolves around the earth. To criticize evolution is to blaspheme the God of Science. Oh my. Evolutionists seem to always like to look at things from a high level perspective. The story goes that there was a primordial soup in which organic molecules formed by chance that by chance formed into systems that became one celled organisms and eventually animals. But talk to some high level biochemists with Phd's to hear what they think of the probability of that. Here's one link.
http://www.unravelingtheword.info/HomePage/Home/ProbabilityOfLife.htm
To summarize, this paper assumes ALL of the oceans are a primordial soup and gives the probability of forming a typical 400 amino acid chain for a protein (in 10 billion years) as being 10 to the -570th power.
“. . .any attempt to build a probabilistic model for protein formation, based on independent concatenation of amino acids, would assign probability zero to this event and discard independent trials as a plausible mechanism. “Chance” is not a reasonable mechanism to form a single average length protein, much less all the other proteins, DNA, RNA, and membrane molecules needed to produce a living cell. . .”
So please, try and convince me. Or, do the usual, start the yelling, call me a troll, heretic, and quickly mod me down and out. And put another notch in your Naugahyde science belt for being a hero. Or, mod me up at least enough for debate – if that is still permitted in Slashdot. As for Bill Nye. . . I think he is at his best teaching elementary science, not politics.
Believing in God doesn't mandate a belief in Creationism (though believing in Creationism requires the belief in God).
Nonsense - do you deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ? Heretic !!