Bill Nye: “Creationism is not Appropriate for Children”

[Yminale]

J. Allen wrote:

---

Existential truth has no place in science,

I'm not talking about science. I'm talking about human society.

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

You can't replace all "truths" with facts and anyone who claims so is lying.

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.

So it's ok to talk about religion collectively but not for Atheism. Anyway this agenda is well known within atheist circles. I should know. I've read many of their essays and heard some of their talks. They openly state among themselves that their agenda is to promote science and critical thinking to diminish and even end religion. Honestly if you haven't noticed then you are not paying attention.

You mean people like...

All of these people are controversial and divisive. Doesn't the controversy they generate prove my point.

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.

Things change but I wouldn't call them better. We have more stuff that we really can't afford. The illusion of progress is not progress.

This generally does not happen in a religion, because it is a closed system.

Debatable. Christianity in America for the most part has followed the general trends in society. Generational shifts often bring in new ideas.

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

I merely comment on the human condition. Humans are not as virtuous as many people think they are.

You're inferring things that no one has said.

I know exactly what you said. You are trying to "beg the question" when you already know the answer. My point is that there is no one answer.

[Nerys Ghemor]

Yminale wrote:

---

The bigger problem is evolution means no Adam.

Not true; someone had to have been the first to come to sapience of the sort that we recognize today. It also follows, based on what we know of human needs, that this individual would seek a mate of similar intellect, not just for survival reasons, but for the satisfaction of emotional and intellectual needs on both their parts. We can estimate when and in what region of the world this occurred, but as far as science goes, we aren't going to find any more than that, so far back into the past.

And thank you to MLB for reiterating the point that there need be no conflict between science and faith--only between science and literalism.

Similarly, to address another false dichotomy I saw here, it's also quite silly to insist that there is some sort of opposition between prayer and action. Prayer, IMHO, should be a spur to action and one of the ways it helps, in addition to what one most commonly hears, is to help prepare body, mind, and spirit for the tasks to be done or those in progress. Some people who pray may not be in a position to act, but IMHO, as the verse goes, faith without works is dead. If someone's using prayer as an excuse for inaction...well...to put it in Internet terms we can all understand: ur doin it wrong.


Oh, and on the point of illegality? In the US, anyway, I might remind people of the First Amendment. It simultaneously prohibits the government from allowing a system of belief or unbelief to be favored in the public schools (this would be establishment of religion or irreligion by the state), and prevents the government from making or enforcing any laws respecting the religious speech of private citizens (this would violate the citizen's right to free speech and religious expression), meaning that parents and private schools are free, as long as they do not incite violence, to teach what they believe is right. To make any law otherwise would not just be a violation of some obscure code--it would be a major constitutional violation. BOTH protections must be maintained...not just the one that each of the hardliners in this debate seems to consider most favorable to them.

[Yminale]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

Hardly.

If you want to be coy and feign ignorance that's fine but remember religion requires strict doctrinal obedience. Evolution doesn't make a special exception for humans.

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

I'm not telling you anything. It's the very tenements of your own faith. You can believe whatever interpretation you want but strict adherence is required if want to be a member of a religion or at least the illusion of it.

[Nerys Ghemor]

Yminale--I'm not sure if you are aware of this fact, but not all denominations support young-earth creationism. Some offer full support to the sciences. Speaking as though fundamentalist doctrine is the only major extant form of Christianity makes it look as though you did not take the time to do your research before posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theisti...n#Christianity

[J. Allen]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

^ Then they will be disappointed.

Curses! Foiled again!
I'll get you next time, Gadget! Next time!

Yminale wrote:

---

I'm not talking about science. I'm talking about human society.

A society built upon the foundations of critical thought, reason, and rationality, all of which are present in the sciences.

You can't replace all "truths" with facts and anyone who claims so is lying.

You can when those "truths" are bullshit.

So it's ok to talk about religion collectively but not for Atheism. Anyway this agenda is well known within atheist circles. I should know. I've read many of their essays and heard some of their talks. They openly state among themselves that their agenda is to promote science and critical thinking to diminish and even end religion. Honestly if you haven't noticed then you are not paying attention.

Has it yet occurred to you that I may be an atheist?

All of these people are controversial and divisive. Doesn't the controversy they generate prove my point.

No, because there will always be someone who will find themselves offended.

Things change but I wouldn't call them better. We have more stuff that we really can't afford. The illusion of progress is not progress.

Better food, safer energy, life saving medicines, higher standards of living, rapid innovation, worlds of discovery. Those aren't illusions. Religion didn't bring them. It took a lot of hard working men and women, in their respective fields, to bring it about, even in the face of orthodoxy, and the religions that felt such sciences were intruding upon god's domain.

Debatable. Christianity in America for the most part has followed the general trends in society. Generational shifts often bring in new ideas.

Mainstream Christianity is usually dragged, kicking and screaming, into each new era. Look at the current issue on same sex rights in the U.S. as a prime example.

I merely comment on the human condition. Humans are not as virtuous as many people think they are.

No one here has said they were. Again, you infer without addressing actual statements.

I know exactly what you said. You are trying to "beg the question" when you already know the answer. My point is that there is no one answer.

I am doing no such thing. For all of your "knowledge", you seem to know very little about what is actually being said.

[CorporalCaptain]

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

---

Oh, and on the point of illegality? In the US, anyway, I might remind people of the First Amendment. It simultaneously prohibits the government from allowing a system of belief or unbelief to be favored in the public schools (this would be establishment of religion or irreligion by the state), and prevents the government from making or enforcing any laws respecting the religious speech of private citizens (this would violate the citizen's right to free speech and religious expression), meaning that parents and private schools are free, as long as they do not incite violence, to teach what they believe is right. To make any law otherwise would not just be a violation of some obscure code--it would be a major constitutional violation. BOTH protections must be maintained...not just the one that each of the hardliners in this debate seems to consider most favorable to them.

Not sure if you are aiming this at me or not, but you didn't answer my question. If you meant "unconstitutional" when you said "highly illegal," then why not just say that that's what you meant. Illegal, highly or otherwise, doesn't imply unconstitutional, anyway. You don't need to remind me of the First Amendment; I've heard of it (at the very least).

[Yminale]

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

---

Not true; someone had to have been the first to come to sapience of the sort that we recognize today.

False. Humans didn't just suddenly show up. It was a gradual process that occurred over millions of years. You can't have one true human but an entire population that became more human through natural selection.

It also follows, based on what we know of human needs, that this individual would seek a mate of similar intellect,

Recent DNA analysis showed cross species mating all through the evolutionary process. Humans are not distinct. We share 99% of our genes with Chimpanzees.

And thank you to MLB for reiterating the point that there need be no conflict between science and faith--only between science and literalism.

Even the most liberal interpretation of Christianity requires certain absolute principles. There needs to be ONE God. Jesus has to be his son. There needs to be original sin or Christ's sacrifice will be meaningless. Evolution challenges these notions on many level.

Prayer, IMHO, should be a spur to action and one of the ways it helps, in addition to what one most commonly hears, is to help prepare body, mind, and spirit for the tasks to be done or those in progress.

But that's not the purpose of prayer. The Bible is pretty explicit of what prayer is. It's to commune with God to ask for guidance and divine aid. Any other benefits are ancillary.

[Gary7]

The trouble with religion is that in many respects there are rather ambiguous things said that I believe are actually symbolic references, yet they still may be interpreted literally (which brings about friction against science). For instance, God creating the Earth in 6 days, resting on the 7th. A day is defined by the full 360 degree rotation of the Earth on its axis. So, how can you even measure a day if you're in the midst of creating the planet that a day refers to? It makes no sense. The only obvious thing you can do to maintain any kind of credibility to the story is to infer that this is some symbolic representation of time. And then it goes hand in hand that other time references are not literal. Why not? Well, people have tried and it OVERTLY conflicts with scientific evidence. The planet is not a mere 7,000 years old. If we make an exception to the science and say that the carbon 14 dating measurement is flawed, then all of it is suspect and the science can't stand. Yet, various tests confirm that it is a trustworthy form of time measurement (with some margin for error, of course). The Earth is considerably older than what creationists profess and it must be recognized as such.

"God created human beings from dust". Well, obviously it can't be just any old dust because there needs to be biological matter. And what of the processes of life? The time frame from thought to incarnation of humanity was mentioned as if within a day or mere hours/minutes, but treating that symbolically it could have been a million years. It's also worded to be comprehended by a population with practically no scientific understanding of their world whatsoever. Thus, they should realize that evolution and natural adaptation are an integral part of the process that we managed to learn about on our own. It wouldn't be documented in any religious texts, because the people would have no frame of reference to understand it.

I'm bringing this up because it's possible for those hard wired to stick with religion can "reframe" how they see it to fit within the parameters of scientific evidence. Deism treats the creationism on a different scale and scope, so that it mostly fits within science and still within religion. Without this "middle ground" perspective, it remains a highly polarized contention--evolution or divine intervention--with little chance for compromise.

But then the real truth comes out... and you have people who won't budge on their beliefs, determined to stick with them through thick and thin despite contrary evidence presented. You just can't argue with such people.

[Gov Kodos]

The problem with religion, it's all unprovable fairy tales. None belong in a science class.

[CorporalCaptain]

Gary7 wrote:

---

I'm bringing this up because it's possible for those hard wired to stick with religion can "reframe" how they see it to fit within the parameters of scientific evidence. Deism treats the creationism on a different scale and scope, so that it mostly fits within science and still within religion. Without this "middle ground" perspective, it remains a highly polarized contention--evolution or divine intervention--with little chance for compromise.

This is more or less what theistic evolution is. It accepts scientific doctrine but subordinates it to religion to maintain the warm fuzzy connection with it. Just take every piece of scientific doctrine, append "by the hand of God" onto the end of it, and you have it.

[Yminale]

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

---

Yminale--I'm not sure if you are aware of this fact, but not all denominations support young-earth creationism.

Of course I know this but all Christian denomination support some form of creationism and the trend has been to more young-earth creationism.

Some offer full support to the sciences.

Main-line protestant denomination do support most not all science but they are a dying breed. Evangelicals and non-denominations which are the second largest denomination after Catholics certainly do not support evolution and most oppose climate change. I don't want to even talk about Catholics and the weirdness that exists there.

[Yminale]

J. Allen wrote:

---

A society built upon the foundations of critical thought, reason, and rationality, all of which are present in the sciences.

What did I say about overestimating the virtues of humanity.

Has it yet occurred to you that I may be an atheist?

Has it occurred to you that you are not paying attention.

No, because there will always be someone who will find themselves offended.

In the case of Dawkin, Harris, Hitchens and Randi, it's pretty specific.

Better food, safer energy, life saving medicines, higher standards of living, rapid innovation, worlds of discovery. Those aren't illusions.

Please, I provide medical care in an underprivileged area in the US. Don't talk to me about better food when there are no grocery stores or life saving medicines when no on has insurance. Like I said, things change but they don't get better.

Mainstream Christianity is usually dragged, kicking and screaming, into each new era.

But that's different then claiming Christianity is stagnant.

No one here has said they were. Again, you infer without addressing actual statements.

What they say is irrelevant. I understand human nature too well to care about people's stated belief. If that bothers you, too bad. (and I have being address your statements, if you don't like how I interpret them either clarify or stop being aggrieved)

I am doing no such thing. For all of your "knowledge", you seem to know very little about what is actually being said.

Has it ever occurred to you that I'm not addressing YOU specifically but trying to make a general point to the entire board. I quote you to reference those joining in.

[CorporalCaptain]

Point of terminology. In the United States, usually, and especially in the media, unqualified "creationism" is synonymous with "young Earth creationism," both of which are synonymous with "intelligent design." (None of this shit deserves to be capitalized, by the way, but not capitalizing is just my issue.)

[Yminale]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Point of terminology. In the United States, usually, and especially in the media, unqualified "creationism" is synonymous with "young Earth creationism," both of which are synonymous with "intelligent design." (None of this shit deserves to be capitalized, by the way, but not capitalizing is just my issue.)

Not true there is also old earth creationism which makes even less sense than young earth creationism. Theistic evolution is also grouped into creationism. Intelligent design is technically not creationism because it doesn't identify the creator. It could be God, FSM, Aliens or time travelers among many possibilities.

[CorporalCaptain]

Yminale wrote:

---

Not true there is also old earth creationism which makes even less sense than young earth creationism. Theistic evolution is also grouped into creationism. Intelligent design is technically not creationism because it doesn't identify the creator. It could be God, FSM, Aliens or time travelers among many possibilities.

No, what I said is most definitely true.

I wasn't talking about what the terms mean in the Ivory Tower. I was talking about what they mean in the media. When creationism made its big splash back in the 1980's, it was the young Earth kind exclusively. It was generally only spoken of in the press as unqualified creationism.