Bill Nye: “Creationism is not Appropriate for Children”

[Amaris]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

 

[Amaris]

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.

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]

evolution means no Adam.

Hardly.

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.

 

[Amaris]

evolution means no Adam.

Hardly.

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.

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.

 

[Yminale]

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]

Re: Bill Nye: “Creaetionism is not Appropriate for Children”

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]

evolution means no Adam.

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.

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.

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/Theistic_evolution#Christianity

 

[Amaris]

^ Then they will be disappointed.

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

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]

Re: Bill Nye: “Creaetionism is not Appropriate for Children”

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]

Re: Bill Nye: “Creaetionism is not Appropriate for Children”

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]

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.