Bill Nye: “Creationism is not Appropriate for Children”

[Robert Maxwell]

Yminale wrote:

---

If you read between the lines, I think that's exactly what he's saying. Religion only works if it's presented as unerring eternal TRUTH. Present that in any other way and its essentially meaningless. There you have the conflict between atheists and believers.

Atheists aren't being honest. They know promoting critical thinking will weaken religions because religions require the absence of critical thinking. In the end that's their agenda, to slowly strangle religion to obscurity. Of course they are using America's fear of losing our scientific superiority as a way to promote their agenda.

I am sick and tired of religious people acting like they are so deeply, thoroughly persecuted in Western cultures. You have an astonishing degree of freedom to believe and practice as you wish, and yet when it is suggested that we teach actual science, it is seen as an effort to stamp out religion entirely.

Well, if your belief system is so weak it can't stand up to the facts of reality, maybe you should consider how flawed that belief system is rather than blame scientists for simply trying to expand our understanding of the universe.

And it's funny how religious people line up along with everyone else to benefit from the marvels of modern science and technology, in terms of medicine, communication, and everything else. But oh, we can't talk about evolution because that's against God.

There are not enough to give such bullshit the derision it so fully deserves.

[Yminale]

J. Allen wrote:

---

Religion? Maybe. Spirituality, certainly not.

I don't think humans will ever lose their sense awe or desire for existential truth. That being said we should separate religion from spirituality. Spirituality is deeply personal and individualistic but the issue is the communal nature of religion. A shared truth is what makes a religion and difference in truth is where in theory religious conflicts occur.

As for conflict, last I checked, I'm not the one trying to shoehorn mythology into the science class.

No but atheist want to use science to promote a certain world view. Whether it's right or wrong is not the issue. I just think Atheist should be honest about it.

You're essentially telling me that kids learning to think critically may one day cast aside the religion they have found to be lacking in evidence. Tell me again why that is a bad thing?

I can't say it's good or bad. Essentially you want me to justify the value of religion and I can't do that.

[gturner]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

I am sick and tired of religious people acting like they are so deeply, thoroughly persecuted in Western cultures. You have an astonishing degree of freedom to believe and practice as you wish, and yet when it is suggested that we teach actual science, it is seen as an effort to stamp out religion entirely.

We've been teaching evolution in schools for well over a century. The new suggestion from Nye is that we don't let parents teach their kids religion. That would put quite a damper on the "astonishing degree of freedom to believe and practice."

Another point is that evolution and modern science are not something we learned because it was just spoon fed to kids. It was developed through hard thinking, in which scientists had to convince themselves of things that were contrary to their own beliefs, instincts, and understanding. Trying to take the easy way out by mandating orthodoxy won't improve critical thinking skills, skills in which far too many of today's scientists are already horribly lacking, which is perhaps one of the reasons that an alarmingly high percentage of scientific papers are junk that can't be replicated even by the scientists who published them. That in itself is an interesting scientific subject.

[J. Allen]

Yminale wrote:

---

I don't think humans will ever lose their sense awe or desire for existential truth.

Who says anything about losing their awe for anything? Still, I will point out that "existential truth" is just a flowery term for "I don't understand it, so I'll just make shit up to explain it". It's like "homeopathic remedy", in that it seems like it has the cure, when all it really has is a way of taking in the gullible and the disadvantaged.

That being said we should separate religion from spirituality. Spirituality is deeply personal and individualistic but the issue is the communal nature of religion. A shared truth is what makes a religion and difference in truth is where in theory religious conflicts occur.

Hence my statement where I separated the two.

No but atheist want to use science to promote a certain world view. Whether it's right or wrong is not the issue. I just think Atheist should be honest about it.

Do they? You know this for certain? When I say I'm being honest you don't accept that I am being honest?

I can't say it's good or bad.

I can. It's good when people throw away myths in favor of facts, and I'm not asking you to justify the value of religion, I'm saying that believing a myth out of ignorance is bad, while accepting scientific data through critical thinking is good. It's not that difficult a concept.

Essentially you want me to justify the value of religion and I can't do that.

If religion is only valuable if it is unquestioned, or loses value when questions are asked, what does that say about the religion and the people who choose to follow it?

Or, to paraphrase Mr. Asimov, "your ignorance is not just as good as my knowledge".

[Yminale]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

I am sick and tired of religious people acting like they are so deeply, thoroughly persecuted in Western cultures. You have an astonishing degree of freedom to believe and practice as you wish, and yet when it is suggested that we teach actual science, it is seen as an effort to stamp out religion entirely.

I don't think it's an irrational fear that teaching critical thinking/science will lead to an end in organize religion. Europe has shown that the higher the percentage of science literacy the lower the percentage of church attendance. The same thing has been shown comparing states. The better your science curriculum is the fewer people identify themselves as religious.

Well, if your belief system is so weak it can't stand up to the facts of reality, maybe you should consider how flawed that belief system is rather than blame scientists for simply trying to expand our understanding of the universe.

Well if the stakes are eternal life vs. eternal damnation, flaws or not you are going to fight for your beliefs. True believers don't need an understanding of the universe now because all will be revealed in the end.

And it's funny how religious people line up along with everyone else to benefit from the marvels of modern science and technology, in terms of medicine, communication, and everything else. But oh, we can't talk about evolution because that's against God.

Religious people don't see the marvels of human science as the work of humans but gifts from God and they could care less if they exist or not. That's why they don't care about science education. Honestly from their point of view nothing science provides equal to eternal life and communion with God.

[J. Allen]

Yminale wrote:

---

I don't think it's an irrational fear that teaching critical thinking/science will lead to an end in organize religion. Europe has shown that the higher the percentage of science literacy the lower the percentage of church attendance. The same thing has been shown comparing states. The better your science curriculum is the fewer people identify themselves as religious.

Well if the stakes are eternal life vs. eternal damnation, flaws or not you are going to fight for your beliefs. True believers don't need an understanding of the universe now because all will be revealed in the end.

Religious people don't see the marvels of human science as the work of humans but gifts from God and they could care less if they exist or not. That's why they don't care about science education. Honestly from their point of view nothing science provides equal to eternal life and communion with God.

You are honestly saying that you're worried because people are becoming so educated, that they're discarding religion in favor of scientific evidence. You feel this is a bad thing.

[CorporalCaptain]

The idea that nothing in this world matters relative to the next is the same sort which breeds cults that dispense poisoned Kool-Aid to all their followers. Beating such cultists back is the good fight. Bring it.

[Yminale]

J. Allen wrote:

---

Who says anything about losing their awe for anything?

I'm agreeing with you. I'm just clarifying the issue for others.

Still, I will point out that "existential truth" is just a flowery term for "I don't understand it, so I'll just make shit up to explain it".

Existential truth goes to issues that we can't objective study and analyze. What's the purpose of the Universe? What's the meaning life? What happens when we die? What is love? What is good?

Atheist like to dismiss these concerns because there can't be an objective answer but they exist for people nonetheless.

Do they? You know this for certain? When I say I'm being honest you don't accept that I am being honest?

I'm not sure if you understand what the natural end point is. Many Atheists do but they don't want to express it. They don't want to say "We want to promote science and critical thinking and the natural consequence is the end of religion". If they said that the public would balk.

I can. It's good when people throw away myths in favor of facts, and I'm not asking you to justify the value of religion, I'm saying that believing a myth out of ignorance is bad, while accepting scientific data through critical thinking is good. It's not that difficult a concept.

People use to support Eugenics, the Tuskegee experiments, lobotomies and a host of all kind of bad ideas with that logic.

Science isn't perfect, data is never complete and scientists are both flawed and biased.

Even within evolution there was a crap load of racism and political ideology that took decades to remove.

If religion is only valuable if it is unquestioned, or loses value when questions are asked, what does that say about the religion and the people who choose to follow it?

It states that people are human. Some of us like the uncertainty that asking questions bring but I suspect that the majority don't like uncertainty and confusion. I think skeptics and atheist over sell science. It's what we don't know that makes science amazing, not what we do know. Science can never provide certainty because there is no certainty in science only probabilities.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

we can't talk about evolution because that's against God..

And the thing is, evolution doesn't have to be against God.

FWIW, I'm a Christian who agrees with the basic thrust of the gist: evolution and science should be taught in schools, and religious belief put forth in the churches and homes. As long as that's done, I don't see a problem with any of it.

For me to believe evolution is anti-God would be to put a constraint against Him - i.e. that God could not have set evolution in motion. That's something I can't do.

Sorry if I wasn't trolling enough, but I'm too tired.

[Yminale]

J. Allen wrote:

---

You are honestly saying that you're worried because people are becoming so educated, that they're discarding religion in favor of scientific evidence. You feel this is a bad thing.

Any time you have a radical change in human society, you have to wonder what the future consequences are. I'm a liberal not a progressive. I don't think change for the sake of change is a good thing. Humanism is just as vulnerable to human corruption as Christianity and Islam. Critical thinking only works if you know your biases and have the appropriate amount of information. If you don't you have rationalization.

[Yminale]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

And the thing is, evolution doesn't have to be against God.

Evolution is agnostic. It doesn't require God. You could rationalize it and say God put everything in motion but if you believe in an active God and not a passive one, like most people than you can't support evolution. People like to shoehorn purpose in to evolution but this is just wishful thinking.

For me to believe evolution is anti-God would be to put a constraint against Him - i.e. that God could not have set evolution in motion. That's something I can't do.

The bigger problem is evolution means no Adam. No Adam means no original sin. No original sin means no universal doctrine of forgiveness aka Christ died in vain because people theoretically could be sinless. Evolution basically threatens the very core of salvation since that mean Jesus is not the only way to heaven. Now do you see why people fight so hard.

[J. Allen]

Yminale wrote:

---

Existential truth goes to issues that we can't objective study and analyze. What's the purpose of the Universe? What's the meaning life? What happens when we die? What is love? What is good?

Existential truth has no place in science, and such "truths" aren't always factual. If you want to ponder the reason behind it all, that's fine. Those are questions humanity has been asking itself since we crawled out of the muck.

The problem is replacing fact with "truth". That's where critical thinking comes into play.

Atheist like to dismiss these concerns because there can't be an objective answer but they exist for people nonetheless.

You sure do speak a great deal on what Atheists like to do and think. It's as if you've decided they're all the same and not worth speaking about on an individual level.

I'm not sure if you understand what the natural end point is. Many Atheists do but they don't want to express it. They don't want to say "We want to promote science and critical thinking and the natural consequence is the end of religion". If they said that the public would balk.

You mean people like Richard Dawkins? Lawrence Krauss? Stephen Fry? Christopher Hitchens? Carl Sagan? James Randi? Isaac Asimov? Douglas Adams? Sam Harris? Bertrand Russell? Tim Minchin? Kip Thorne? Mark Twain?

All of them famous atheists, and who have made their opinions well known, yet are still well received by much of the general public?

People use to support Eugenics, the Tuskegee experiments, lobotomies and a host of all kind of bad ideas with that logic.

Science isn't perfect, data is never complete and scientists are both flawed and biased.

Even within evolution there was a crap load of racism and political ideology that took decades to remove.

Of course things can and do go wrong. We're human, and we're very fallible. Still, the evidence does win out, and things do change for the better.

This generally does not happen in a religion, because it is a closed system. Religious archetypes only move once the culture around them begins to abandon them. This is how such religions try to remain relevant, and in the process of that change, there is conflict, and people are burned/killed/shunned/enslaved/hated/oppressed/despised.

It states that people are human. Some of us like the uncertainty that asking questions bring but I suspect that the majority don't like uncertainty and confusion. I think skeptics and atheist over sell science. It's what we don't know that makes science amazing, not what we do know. Science can never provide certainty because there is no certainty in science only probabilities.

The only appropriate response to this is a facepalm. You actively pride yourself on the virtues of ignorance.

Yminale wrote:

---

Any time you have a radical change in human society, you have to wonder what the future consequences are. I'm a liberal not a progressive. I don't think change for the sake of change is a good thing. Humanism is just as vulnerable to human corruption as Christianity and Islam. Critical thinking only works if you know your biases and have the appropriate amount of information. If you don't you have rationalization.

You're inferring things that no one has said. You have done this a few times. Quit reading between the lines and read the actual text. It's so much nicer to get answers to actual questions rather than ruminations on what you think I "really" said.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Yminale wrote:

---

evolution means no Adam.

Hardly.

Yminale wrote:

---

if you believe in an active God and not a passive one, like most people than you can't support evolution.

It's not your place to tell me what I "can" and "can't" support.

[J. Allen]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Hardly.

It's not your place to tell me what I "can" and "can't" support.

Remember, MLB, it's the Atheist who wants to take away your right to choose your own path.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Then they will be disappointed.