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.
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.
bio-engineering
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.
Never heard of biochemical engineering? Why is this even moded up to a score of 2 already?
What other people think of me is none of my business
...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.
Genetic Engineering.
Agronomy
Any zootecniques
and a long long etc.
And, ceteris paribus, we are used by evolution much more than we use her. Its just the natural order of things.
NO SIG
What?
-SaNo
All of them.
In order to be a competent engineer, you must be capable of facing reality, even when it doesn't fit with your presuppositions. If you'd rather stick your fingers in your ear and yell "LA LA LA GODDIDIT!" then you've got no business dealing with anything that other people's lives will depend on.
Genetic engineering. We induce mutations via the same mechanisms they occur in in nature (e.g. mismatch repair, retroviruses, etc) and increase their frequency through selective pressure. That's evolution.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Computer science with genetic algorithms.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Or more correctly phrased: which field of engineering uses directly observable phenomenon in an objective matter to design things that will actually work?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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
Never heard of biochemical engineering? Why is this even moded up to a score of 2 already?
Sorry, but you only need to understand the theories of how things work "now". You only need to understand the mechanics of it all.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Also, structural engineering, materials engineering, when you factor in biomimetics.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
mu.
The Catholic Church doesn't teach Creationism.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Catholicism officially recognizes evolution to be correct. They're still having trouble with realizing there isn't a god, but you can see why that one is a bit harder for them.
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.
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.
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!
I don't have faith in my memory. I trust my memory. Unlike faith, trust us earned and subject to review. If I were to grow old and senile and found myself forgetting things, I'd be less inclined to trust my memory and more inclined to start writing more things down to get through my day.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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.
Well, engineers that solve problems in biological systems will use 'that'. But there is an additional problem with your comment. An engineer that accepts electrons can move through a metallic conductor when a voltage is applied because the evidence says so, but refuses to believe evolution despite the overwhelming evidence that it is true, is an engineer acting on faulty principles.
No, I don't trust them.
What other people think of me is none of my business
There's nothing wrong with believing in a higher power, but scientifically, there's no use either.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Disagree Mr. AC. I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on. Even my old college professor believes in god, but that doesn't stop him from publishing peer-reviewed articles about superstrings and quarks and the inflationary period (the very basis of creation). Perhaps you could enlighten us how our beliefs make us suck at our jobs. (insert crickets chirping in the silence)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Engineers need to understand the scientific method. If an engineer denies natural selection, he or she does not understand science and will not make a good engineer.
Bill "The Science Guy" Nye? No no no. It's "Bill Nye The Science Guy"! (Billlll Nyeeee the Scienceee Guyyy.)
No, it's called philosophical bullshit.
If memory was so unreliable, all that technology around you, the development of which definitely relies on the human ability to remember, correctly interrelate, and innovate... simply wouldn't be there. Ergo, memory is incontrovertibly demonstrated to be very effective and reliable.
Here's a pro tip for you: As soon as you have to reach into the murky waters of philosophical nonsense for excuses to shore up your superstitions, you've not only jumped the shark, the shark has bitten off your genitals.
Scientists and rational beings can. Religious zealots and irrational beings can't.
Did you hear about the 17 people beheaded by the Taliban for the crime of 'mingling'? And you expect the zealots to even have a rational conversation about evolution?
Not going to happen.
I would, but you should prove first that you exist at all (as opposed to being a figment of my brain). When you fail that, kindly remove yourself from existence.
How do you know that all this technology is around you? More specifically, how do you know that everything you are looking at does what you think it does?
Also, if philosophy is bullshit then we might as well crawl back to ~C4 BC and start again. This is why there are rarely any bright individuals in computer engineering classes: they simply don't see the value of any learning beyond how electricity works.
I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on.
While your belief system may not affect the quality of your work (although I'm not suggesting that it does not), did you ever consider if your "creator" wanted you to work on a missile launcher? Which faith do you subscribe to? Is it one with an admonition like "don't kill people"?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Also, Structural engineering has evolved over time (underwent evolution)... it's not like the international build codes magically came to be a superior ultimate being.
Human residences evolved from sticks and feces-laden mud all the way to hi-grade structural steel, carbon fiber reinforced concrete, carbon fiber beams, etc. to construct buildings as tall as the imagination can take us.
Creationism's whole basis is that a supreme being (GOD) simply put things where they are now. It reinforces the notion that people are incapable of coming up with brilliant scientific discoveries and achieve scientific enlightment because things came to be from a supreme being, not from your brain.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
You might be interested in this clip from Richard Dawkins' video "The Blind Watchmaker". It shows how an evolutionary algorithm was used to develop a structure for a gas line to supply sixteen different points without any back pressure and while using the least amount of tubing possible.
Yes! Stand up for ignorance!
Yes, teach them silly things that contradict reality and to be willfully ignorant.
He's no tyrant. However, there are more than a few wannabe tyrants among the US Christian community who feel they are charged by God to be a tyrant over others. And there are many, particularly those that push Intelligent Design, that don't want people to be capable of arguing in their own defense or contradicting the weak arguments of those they support.
No, but if you're willing to reject evolution in favor of irrational beliefs then your ability as a scientist cannot help but be compromised.
So, which field of Engineering uses the 'theory' of Creationism?
Reductio ad absurdum. You can only regress faith so far before you have to accept faith as faith. There are no solid foundations, except for the ones you find and accept for yourself.
Good-bye
"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?
Genetic engineering. We induce mutations via the same mechanisms they occur in in nature (e.g. mismatch repair, retroviruses, etc) and increase their frequency through selective pressure. That's evolution.
Actually, that is intelligent design. No doubt your mutations tell themselves you don't exist and they created themselves by evolution.
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
Belief in God and belief in evolution need not be separate things. You can completely believe in God while still believing in evolution. What the AC was pointing out is that most Creationists that completely deny evolution refuse to believe the evidence right in front of them. He said nothing about whether or not God exists, but nice try.
Chemical, electrical, mechanical, bio, structural, civil all use evolution in a variety of ways. A lot of computer modeling is done based on genetic algorithms, for instance.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Based on the transcript, I don't think that's what Bill Nye is saying here. From the video transcript:
Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.
He's not really talking about spiritualism, religion, or any other belief systems; he's talking about a small subset of people bent on eschewing very carefully collected, studied, and reviewed data because they perceive it as an attack on their personal belief system. The Science guy is concerned that bad and irrational decisions are being made under the guise of "its my religion". His purpose is not to decry religion, but to defend science, evolution specifically as it is the target of attacks. I think the thought process is less "don't let religion get into science" and more "think rationally about scientific matters." His plea for "...scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future." and "...people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems" is less about evolution versus religion and more about ensuring that future generations are trained to think logically; to think things through instead of standing on ceremony, that is, actually try to find the best solution, not just one that someone wants.
Does this mean he's against creationism in the classroom? Probably, because it's inconsistent with pretty much every other scientific model out there. But I don't think he's intending to harp on the idea of there being a creator; just people who want to push their agenda at the expense of education
" if philosophy is bullshit then we might as well crawl back to ~C4 BC and start again."
Im all for this, with minor changes.
" if religious bullshit is to be respected, then we might as well crawl back to ~C4 BC and start again."
There.
NO SIG
So what you're saying is that if we teach Creationism, then the kids will grow up to build perpetual motion machines? While the rest of us are stuck with pesky laws of physics? Hey, anything if it will get me my flying car faster.
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
I hear you and I logically agree with you. But I've witnessed many examples that show this not to be the case.
For example, when I was in engineering school the most brilliant of my fellow students was a strong believer in creationism. He once lent me one of his creationism textbooks. I dutifully read it and found it to be nonsensical and completely illogical. Yet he was firmly convinced this was the truth. I never have understood how someone who was getting straight A+ marks while taking a double course load could at the same time believe such nonsense.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
I agree. Why does a belief on God have to exclude an acceptance of evolution? Or vice-versa? I believe in God, I also think that evolution is scientific fact. If anything, the wonders of science strengthen my belief and increase my awe of Gods power. There are many mysteries I do not understand, both scientifically and theologically. But I have often wondered, Why couldn't God use evolution as part of the creative process?
I wish I could think of something witty for my sig.
Also, structural engineering, materials engineering, when you factor in biomimetics.
Also, software development, with each new language we mus master we continue to evolve into more hideous creatures with each passing day.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Whether we agree to that or not (I'm an atheist so I think Genesis has no more to do with reality than Aztec mythology, but anyways), the question is inevitably centered around the question of what to teach children in a science class. In my view, and in the view of people I know who are Christians, it is not appropriate to teach Genesis in the science classroom, not even in the context of "Genesis and cosmology/geology/evolutionary biology don't need to disagree."
Simply put, it is not appropriate to discuss religion in a science class. How a person reconciles their faith and science is a matter between them, their god, and if they choose, their pastor/priest/rabbi/mullah/whatever.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I am working on a degree in Chemical and Biological engineering and we definitely use evolution. There are even computer models now based on adaptation speeds for things like resistance to drugs etc.
Evolution is critically important to modern biotech work.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Mr. AC never said anything about a generalized belief in a creator, he was addressing Creationism, which is where fundamentalist religious belief causes people to refuse to belief in actual physical evidence that can be observed and verified, because they prefer to believe origin fairy tales that have no basis in reality and no evidence to support them, and tons of evidence that disproves them. Simply believing in a "creator" doesn't prevent you from accepting evolutionary theory; lots of religious people, including Christians (in fact, most of them if you consider them all instead of focusing only on Americans) have no problem with the theory of evolution, and regard the biblical creation tale to be mere metaphor, not literal truth.
In short, don't get your panties in a bunch.
It's called separating fantasy from reality -- congratulations on being capable of doing so.
Palm trees and 8
If you think a creationist is going to be scared of genetic algorithms, then you're fighting the boogeyman. You've made some serious leaps of logic that defy reality. A person can easily have a hard time believing that "humans evolved from ooze", yet still be able to easily comprehend and work with genetic algorthms. Thinking otherwise is so far removed from any reality that I've ever experienced, that it's just preposterous.
www.clarke.ca
Nye does a reasonably good job of teaching basic science; including the scientific method. Evolution is a product of said method. So Nye is not telling anyone to believe anything blindly, but he has long been an advocate of proper science education.
What exactly is your problem?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
False analogy.
There is no equivalence between the biblical story and the scientific evidence. Firstly, one is a story, the other is evidence. Secondly, the bible then goes on to make several incorrect statements about the order of events that happened on earth, not to mention getting the time scale very very wrong. The final nail in the coffin is the story of the Ark. There are more species alive today than could possibly be stuffed into the Ark - and we 'know' the size of the ark well from the bible. Not to mention all these carnivorous animals, once off the ark somehow didn't eat one of the two non-carnivorous animals hence making that line extinct before the waters even receded. Lastly, how on earth did the Koala, which only eats a few species of eucalyptus leaves - only found in Australia - walk the long trek from the middle east, not eating anything along the way, to Australia and promptly wait for the local trees to regrow their leaves so they didn't starve to death?
I am always amazed how people can believe such stories after mankind came to understand the actual diversity of life on earth. It is truly an embarrassment to believe these old stories.
What other people think of me is none of my business
So, this bacteria is sitting in this petri dish that's been sitting on a lab bench evolving increased toxin resistance for many generations, and he says to another bacteria "You know, someone created all this. His name is Bill Nye, and he hates the weaklings among us who can't tolerate the presence of XYZ. That's why he created all this, so he could weed out the weak, and someday, he'll pluck us from this place and bring us to Heaven, to serve his purpose."
So, they fired him from his engineering job because he was clearly crazy.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
It doesn't, and that's not what Nye is saying either. He's saying that your religious beliefs that directly dispute scientific facts makes you part of the less educated populace who makes decisions and vote in ways that are illogical.
Todd Akin's religious beliefs (and the loony doctor he listens to) makes him bad at understanding reproductive systems, and therefore bad at his job.
You and your old professor just got lucky that the bible is fairly quiet on missile systems and superstrings.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
No, that's not right. There STILL isn't anything wrong with believing in a higher power, even when you try to "impose" upon others. The problem there is you trying to impose. That's a huge problem. You shouldn't be forcing others to believe in your view. This is exactly what Bill Nye is talking about. That's poor logic reasoning. The problem is with the morons trying to force/impose others to believe what they believe. That's a seperate problem from the fact that they do believe in a higher power. You're the typical person that takes two different concepts, and lumps them into one, and then cries afoul of both, when realistically there is one problem. That's the type of talk that makes the religious people hate the non-religious people. Because instead of attacking their stupidity in forcing others to believe the same, we just attack their belief. Of course they get defensive over that. And frankly, even if we DID change their belief, they would still be assholes. Because then they'd just be people of a different believe system trying to force that down everyone's neck. The problem is NOT the "belief system" the problem is the "forcing" of the belief system.
No they would only say they were not created by a God and they would be correct.
Perhaps you could enlighten us how our beliefs make us suck at our jobs.
I'd love to, but you've already stated that you will ignore any and all evidence that goes against your presuppositions, while sticking your fingers in your ears (in this case to listen to crickets chirping apparently) to avoid anything that counters your beliefs. Incidentally, that, exactly, is why you're incompetent, and should never be allowed to work on something people's lives depend on. Frankly, if all you're working on is missile launchers, I don't care if your idiocy screws things up so that they short out and do nothing when someone tries to use them, but if you ever start trying to build skyscrapers or bridges, someone's probably going to die because you refused to accept some point of reality that had been abundantly proven, yet went against your 2000+ year old stone age dogma. If you won't look rationally at one piece of evidence, then the probability is very strong that as time goes on, to support your superstitions you'll start ignoring others, until it becomes a deeply ingrained habit, and people end up dead because of 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"
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.
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.
That's my only problem with Bill's video: it was guaranteed to trigger the knee-jerk response of "You can't tell me how to raise my kids!". It was spoken from the heart, and as such a lousy piece of propaganda. To convince Americans, you have to weave in freedom "you're free from long dead guys telling you how to live your life!" and money "using the theory of evolution at work makes you more money than if you don't". It's sad, but true.
On more abstract notes: actually, we can. You can tell your kids that there's a giant bearded guy in the sky who is responsible for everything that's happening, and we can tell you that you're wrong and reducing the odds of your kids being successful. If you think someone telling you that you're being an idiot is the same as a tyrant telling his serfs to fork over more wheat bushels, you have unlearned every lesson a serf has ever learned. And finally, Creationism is not the same as belief in god. One deals with the unknowable, the other is just a creation myth that some people decided to take literally.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Creationism has a pretty specific definition when we're talking about evolution. What you're describing, and what the Catholic Church tends to advocate is basically a form of theistic evolution. It is useful to have definitions for words so we can all speak the same language, and Creationism tends to be in a separate category from theistic evolution because Creationism, to one extent or another, inevitably denies key facets of evolutionary theory, whereas theistic evolution pretty much accepts all of evolutionary theory, but still keeps "God's hand" in affairs.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
uses the theory of evolution?
Outside of biology, evolution has informed our understanding of chemistry, psychology, cognitive science, computer science (especially artificial intelligence), linguistics, economics, math (especially game theory), and doubtless many others. As an example, the principles of natural selection inspired the creation of genetic algorithms, which have been widely used to tackle hard optimization problems.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
What they know is a lot of talking points and straw men that look like genuine knowledge to someone who isn't familiar with the subject matter. But this does not mean that they actually know the science behind the theories they claim to refute.
I think that dog breeds are one of the biggest examples of engineered evolution. Surely the most dogmatic (pun intended) of the creationists will have to admit that the present dog breeds were created by scientific evolution.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
In otherwords, you're totally and completely incapable of understanding the concept that teaching children that it's a bad idea to teach children that any science is wrong? Doesn't matter if you're telling them that evolution or physics or geology is wrong. Teaching them that any science is wrong will screw up their ability to be engineers or scientists in the future.
You're kidding, right? Since when has the progress of science been driven by conformists who are afraid to question widely accepted notions? Does the status of "a science" magically elevate ideas beyond the realm where mere mortals are allowed to question them? Do we have to believe in phrenology and phychoanalysis in order to preserve out ability to work as engineers?
Mr. AC never denied the existence of God. Accepting God is different from accepting Evolution. Your point still stands. We can still successfully make high-tech crap while still believing things that are not necessarily true (or even logical).
No, but the rejection of critical thinking and rationality necessary to defend the belief in the biblical creation story in the face of contrary evidence is something that stunts the mental development of children in all other areas of science and understanding. The belief in biblical creation is itself not the problem, but rather one of the most common causes of the problem. It would also be bad if they were taught to reject physics in defense of a geocentric flat earth story.
1. Science does not deal in Truth. It deals in the best explanation that fits the evidence.
2. That we may not be able to probe further back that the Planck time right now does not mean we will never be able to. Burying your god in the gaps of our knowledge invites your god to get smaller as the gaps are filled.
Which is as absurd a demand as saying "Show me every generation of the spoken language between Proto-Germanic and Elizabethan English with complete syntax and vocabularies."
One does not have to have a complete data set to be able to make inferences based upon the data we do have, and thus we can say with a high degree of confidence that "Elizabethan English is descended from Proto-Germanic" and "all extant life evolved from a common ancestor", when in both cases we can only make indirect inferences about what Proto-Germanic and the earliest common ancestor of life were like.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
I wouldn't say "most Americans". There's just a very vocal minority out there that presents itself as representing the majority.
Creationism is not the problem. It is merely the outward manifestation of it. The problem is mindless evangelicals that expect blind devotion and for you to check your brain at the door. This creationism nonsense is just the most visible part of their worldview. These people are extremists even by the standards of other religious people.
They're like the Amish except with no balls. They make a lot of separatist noises and then just whine and pretend they are somehow victimized by society.
It's also useful to note that this lot were the only people to defend those recent "legitimate rape" remarks.
Creationism is just a symptom of a much more fundemental problem.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The inherent difficulty in deciding that Genesis is metaphorical, especially with the American biblical literalists, is that without the fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, there is no Original Sin. If there's no Original Sin, why did Jesus have to die for our sins?
I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on.
It isn't your belief in a creator which matters, but your non-belief in the process of evolution (which, by the way, is not incompatible with the concept of a supreme being). The latter is indicative of a systemic inability to evaluate evidence in a rational manner. Those who cannot think rationally about the world cannot be effective scientists or engineers.
Even if you constrain your irrational thinking to only this single topic, it is a symptom of mental illness, no different than disputing the color of the sky.
You seem to be confused that there's a difference.
Santa is way better, he can also judge you magically from afar, but brings you toys every year.
Yep, the guy with multiple Ph.D's disagrees with the your particular brand of invisible sky daddy, must be a dumbass.
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
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!
I grew up in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church. We were all about killing people. We prayed for Armageddon, and members of my fathers church sought out positions within the USAF Strategic Air Command, so they would have the opportunity to be involved in the extermination of mankind to fulfill gods will. Fortunately I have come to reject the faith of my father and no longer bow before such evil.
> Belief in a creator does not negate the scientific endeavor.
Yes it does. Science is based on empiricism, not in belief in a 'Holy Book' without questioning.
If you train your children to accept things from authority on faith, you are off to a bad start.
I accept my memory as reliable. My acceptance is an act of faith.
The same applies to you, whether you want to admit it or not.
I read somewhere a recent poll said about 46% of Americans believed in Creationism. It may be a minority, but it was the slimmest of margins when 2 evolution beliefs (evolution guided by a creator, and atheistic evolution) added up to 47%.
Here's where I found it:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/27/bill-nye-slams-creationism/?hpt=hp_bn13
This is the kind of thread I save my Mod points for...
Awwww crap I posted.
No more than anyone else. Whereas the Religious Right has actual politicians in office pushing woman-hating laws.
While I have no love for such fairy tales, the First Amendment guarantees that won't happen.
Yeah but he's not nearly as powerful as the Religious Right is.
I'd argue that, far and away, deliberately keeping children ignorant by giving them tightly controlled, fundamentalist christian approved "educations" rife with nontheories like intelligent design is an actual threat to this nation.
Agreed. We should just cut the insurance companies completely and go single payer.
Indeed. And when it comes to health, when you have an emergency you can just die!
Except in a civilized world, we work to prevent people from dying needlessly. Even when idiots like Jenny McCarthy and the Anti-vaxxers push to allow communicable diseases to spread, and "christian scientists" convince their children that they really do want to die from their treatable ailment.
No, but they can certainly subsidize those terrible, cleaner options. Or we could go the other way and cut oil subsidies.
No, tyrrany is something else entirely. Go ahead though, let the Religious Right get real power. That will show you tyrrany.
Science depends on processing observations.
Processing observations requires trust in memory.
You thus cannot do science without memory.
You thus cannot use science to prove reliability of memory.
Your trust in your memory is thus an act of faith. As is your trust in science.
That's OK, though. Once you've accepted it, all science is good and proper.
Yes, we all had the thought in our first philosophy class "what if all memory is wrong!?!?!?". Then we hit double-digits in age, and got over ourselves. Some, on the other hand, still persist. Congratulations on being stuck in middle-school philosophy.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
And faith that remains in contradiction to evidence is mental illness.
You are free to believe whatever fantasies you want, but the real question is whether or not you are capable of setting aside those beliefs when it is time to do science or engineering work. If someone is just not capable of establishing such a separation, what are they going to do when other beliefs are challenged, a common occurrence in science?
Palm trees and 8
I simply don't trust people to FULLY think things thru when they are so sure about a bearded sky wizard who throws thunderbolts (or presses the 'smite' button).
it casts SERIOUS doubts as to the depth of your understanding of the world. 'god did it!' is never an answer anyone should seriously take. but if that is part of your deep understanding of the world, I propose you are not the deep thinker you seem to want us to believe.
intellectual cop-outs are a sign of weakness in the mind. given a choice, I would choose not to have you on a project if you believe in magic.
seriously, you should reconsider your belief system. it does hold you back even though you 'believe' otherwise.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
As a practising engineer, I would say I use computer models based on evolutionary principles such as genetic algorithms and genetic programming. So the underlying theory that things can change over time to fit their niche seems true, but I as the programmer set the world with all the rules in place. The fact that evolution works does not necessarily lead to the exclusion of a creator.
I am working on a degree in Chemical and Biological engineering and we definitely use evolution. There are even computer models now based on adaptation speeds for things like resistance to drugs etc.
Evolution is critically important to modern biotech work.
How do you feel about the fact that Creationism conferred an evolutionary advantage to its adherents?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
... 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:
Creationism is just a symptom of a much more fundemental problem.
I see what you did there.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
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.
No, actually, creationists do *not* believe in a rational ordered universe.
I am a physicist. I don't know what all the laws of physics are, but I believe that there *are* some inviolate laws of physics which apply uniformly throughout all that is. So far as we can tell, this is true: spectral lines in distant stars are the same as they are here, to very high precision, indicating that atomic and nuclear physics are the same. Electrodynamics and such work the same way inside stars as it does in all conditions we've found on Earth.
I suppose you could be a creationist and believe in a deistic universe, where a god chose the laws of physics and then wound up his universe and let it go. But modern creationists do not believe this: they are overwhelmingly Christian, and believe in such things as a god that actively intervenes on this little planet by making virgins pregnant, people turn into pillars of salt -- in general, they believe in miracles, even small ones like altering the genetic makeup of a species. This is the very opposite of a rational ordered universe: all these things, all these miracles, are inherently disordered, since they entail violations of the laws of physics by an entity outside of them. "F=ma, except when god says otherwise" is not a sound basis for a rational theory of the universe.
Or maybe he's really good at Computer Science, which last I checked, doesn't require you to believe in evolution. At least, not in any courses outside of those which might touch on computers and biology.
I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole of pointing out the better points of young Earth creationists, because I happen to think they're deluded. Still, I think it casts a poor light on their critics to start assuming that must have cheated to get ahead on completely unrelated subject matter. If there was ever an engineering discipline which could harbor a person with these beliefs and not challenge them, it would be computer science.
Once you start just assuming that they are pants-on-head retarded with no evidence, you begin to underestimate them, and you make yourself look arrogant to boot. Bill Nye has a decent point in general, but these people don't suffer from stupidity as much as from the inability to want to change their mind.
The point is Akin is using pseudoscience (and a religiously focused "doctor") to support his religious belief about abortion. His religious beliefs dictate his view, in direct contradiction to scientific facts, which is the problem that the video is addressing.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
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.
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.
You failed science class didn't you?
Science is about creating theories and working to prove or disprove them. Scientists never ask for unquestioning obedience, they want you to be able to verify their work. We don't give credibility to scientists that don't provide evidence or ways to duplicate their results.
Science isn't about magic or faith. All civilizations will eventually come up with the same scientific theories - the same obviously isn't true for religion. If we as a society want to progress forwards technologically and scientifically we need to push rational thinking and science on kids, not blindly believing centuries old myths.
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.
No, it is not. It is a scientific theory.
Let us stop right there. You don't even appear to know what evolution is. Evolution works on populations. In simple terms evolution can be defined as the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.
That the Earth is many times older than the Genesis account has been known since the 18th century. As I said to another poster, this absurd claim that we have to directly observe every moment is as absurd as demanding to know the syntax of every generation of spoken language from Proto-Germanic to Modern English.
The fossil evidence isn't even the only line of evidence. In general, the molecular data agrees with the fossil data giving us two independent lines of evidence; the twin-nested hierarchy. It has not been reasonable to attack evolution based on fossil evidence for over a century, and certainly not reaosnable to claim the relative scarcity of fossils (which there are far more of than you seem aware) for half a century.
I have no idea where you learned above evolution, but certainly not from any biology source. Every population has variability, it's always present. Some members of a population will be more able to survive the environment some will not. Those traits which tend even slightly to give a reproductive advantage will be selected for. Many traits are in fact neutral, and thus have reasonably good odds of simply being selected for (neutral selection or neutral drift), but can in fact at a later time either prove beneficial or harmful. Some genes in fact remain, but are suppressed through developmental processes (a whole other area that I challenge you to learn about), but can be re-expressed, thus leading to humans with long body hair all over their body or snakes with limbs and many other atavisms which are suppressed developmentally, even though the genes remain in our genome.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
since it was guided by intelligent humans that would mean dogs are intelligently designed. just saying.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Where did the capability of living organisms to adapt to their living environment come from? Evolution says random chance created a system that adapts to its environment. Okay, but the existence of an adaptable system is not proof for the creative power of random mutation, because anything random mutation can do, intelligence can design.
Again, you completely misunderstand the premise of evolution. It's not about organism "adapting" to their living environment. It's about the environment having a selection bias on specific traits (those that raise the probability of spreading one gene's; on a simplified level, those that lead to more offspring). A single organism does not adapt - it lives, reproduces and dies. The entire population adapts. That adaptation is inherent in the laws under which the system operates - it's not guided in any way, and it does not have a goal. It happens because: 1) mutations happen, and 2) natural selection happens. The existence of those two things - which is a verifiable fact - is sufficient for evolution. In fact, you'd have to come up with a reasonable explanation of how evolution would not happen in these circumstances.
Cars and operating systems do not evolve in that sense because they do not reproduce, and do not mutate. If they did, then, yeah, they'd evolve as well.
Now how plausible is it that random mutation can create functioning systems? It sounds easy, get something working and bootstrap from there.
That's until you start paying attention to just how easy it is to break the system with random mutation. Functionality is information, and information is subject to entropy. Random mutation is applying noise (entropy) to information - and you're expecting natural selection to somehow filter (information + noise) into (more information).
Your mistake is that you treat living organisms as some kind of intricate machines, where one cog out of place breaks the whole thing down. It's not how it works. In fact, most mutations are neutral with respect to fitness, so they don't get weeded out at all. Thus it's pretty easy for them to accumulate over time, and eventually their combinations producing either harmful or beneficial effects, which are then weeded out or strengthened via positive feedback loops that are inherent in the natural selection process.
Random mutation is applying noise (entropy) to information - and you're expecting natural selection to somehow filter (information + noise) into (more information).
Indeed - and what exactly is wrong with that picture? You're right that random noise by itself would not result in evolution, you also need a filter to separate "useful" noise from "useless" one. Natural selection is precisely such a filter, which defines "usefulness" as the ability to propagate its genetic material. Once you introduce that into the picture - and we know that natural selection happens, we've observed it in experiments! - trivial application of statistics will give you all the proof of evolution that you'll ever need.
These people are extremists even by the standards of other religious people.
Unfortunately I don't think you can call such a widely held belief extremist. CNN's article about this video references a Gallup Poll that found 46% of Americans believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." I find this incredibly depressing.
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.
Dog breeds are not evolution, perhaps in some liberal definition they are but any canine can breed with any other. Even wolves and breed with domestic dogs. Now if after 1000's of years we had come up with a line of animal derived from dogs but couldn't be breed with a dog then we might have something. Even if we could get to a dog that can breed with a wolf then we would have something. And size doesn't matter, if the sperm can fertilize the egg and get offspring that can also reproduce we have it. Horses + Donkeys = Mules is on the right track but still not quite there cause Mule + Mule = 0
It all starts at 0
I love philosophy most of all because it really angers shallow westerners.
So the reason you really love philosophy is because it pisses off shallow people? That's... pretty shallow.
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.
Creationists are not exactly stupid
You are correct: they are willfully ignorant.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
How is that arrived at by my reasoning?
I say we teach kids science as we understand it, with enough underpinnings as to the methods involved to at least give some understanding as to how to biologists have arrived at that point. There are not enough hours in the day to teach children in the way you demand, and what's more, there need not be, any more than having to go through every single medieval source to show Charlemagne existed is required to teach about the Carolingians or having to provide the syntax and vocabulary of every generation of spoken language from Proto-Germanic to Modern Dutch is required to teach that Modern Dutch is descended from the proto-Germanic mother tongue.
What you're really trying to argue for is teaching the controversy, but you don't want to come out and say it. Your motives are highly suspect, but, if you want to prove me wrong, then tell me why it isn't required to teach the syntax and vocabulary of every generation of spoken language from proto-Semitic to Modern Arabic and Modern Hebrew to be able to state that Modern Arabic and Modern Hebrew are related languages that descended from a common ancestral language.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Obviously, the education system is the work of the devil. Those degrees are only signs of how high you are in the devil's rankings.
(I feel like I'm gonna pay for that comment somehow...)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Creationists: Putting the Fun, Duh, and Mental in Fundamentalism!
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Have you seen a pug? That guy was a genius :)
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?
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.
Irrational thinking is not a symptom of mental illness. You disrespect genuine mental illnesses by saying so. Most psychologists would probably state that we are incapable of thinking rationally 100% of the time because it's a massive cognitive load and we have evolved (!) irrational but effective mental shortcuts.
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)
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."
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."
He is so right, forcing a child to believe in creation is child abuse.
loooool
If you think that's "left" you're delusional. Everything in the US Federal Government is right of center, all that differentiates them is to what degree and how pro-corporate they are.
I'm sure the Republican party will get right behind those same things. Oh right, they were behind SOPA/PIPA right up until the people of the country turned against it.
So jump across the aisle and the only thing that changes are the companies, and even then that isn't guaranteed.
You should. Only they'll start ramming Jesus down your throat, cut your ability to afford medical care, give more money to the richest in the country, and cut back your rights as far as they can.
You are utterly out of your gourd.
That's not what I saw. I saw that they had the power to tax, which they do. But please, bark up and down about how they "banned incandescent bulbs" to force us to buy CCFLs, when they didn't actually do that.
The way it has been described to me is that science only deals in truth in a provisional fashion; that is, all theories are open to modification based upon new data. That being said, theories like biological evolution and quantum mechanics are so well supported by so many different streams of evidence that one cannot imagine them being outright rejected. They may be incomplete, or may ultimately become subsumed into a larger theory (as Newtonian Mechanics was subsumed into General Relativity as a special non-relativistic extrapolation), but they explain so many observations that it is hard to imagine any body of evidence ever outright falsifying them.
So I suppose I overspeak when I say "science does not deal in truth", but there is a telling saying among scientists that "Proof is for mathematics and alcohol". Scientists are very wary to speak in terms of "truth" or "proof".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.