Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN

[Mark_Nguyen]

Finally watched it. Felt I wasted my time. There was little to no actual DEBATE, and the the best answers to the questions they managed to sneak through the format bascially boiled down to "God did it" to "I don't know, but it wasn't God". Neither was particularly acceptable to me.

I believe that an appreciation of science fiction, fantasy, etc. - which most of us on this board share - inherently lends itself to the mindset that there MIGHT be a higher power out there, be they aliens with super-awesome technology, time travelers, or even a being that could be called a "God" from our perspective and current judgment. I personally can believe that there MAY BE someone or something out there that could have created the universe. I have personally seen no real evidence, and do not personally believe there is a "God", but the absence of explanation for fundamental questions of existence suggest to me that there MAY be someone or something behind it.

Likewise, I believe that humans AND nature AND a possible someone or something behind it all are fallible. Thus, a "God" could have done a lot of really good and bad things, and even if it was to some plan, that it could have been a mistake; and similarly that anyone a "God" may have spoken to, or through, could have gotten it wrong too. Ham's late declaration that he essentially believes only the "good parts" of the book, that align with his world view, really irked me. On the same note, whenever Nye said that something really "concerns me" when we all know he WANTED to say "I think that's bullshit" had be smile.

Between the two, I believe that Ham was the better orator and debater, but Nye was more correct, if you can really call the "debate" a true one. The real winner is the museum and their tickets sold and people advertised to. Oh, and we're discussing it. Yay us. :P

Mark

 

[sojourner]

Oh boy.

 

[publiusr]

Disgusting.

My lady friend is having to take care of her nephew, who showed me a creationist text book at his Christian school.

This is why we need to support public education.

Ironically, the big enemy may not be creationists who honestly believe all this drivel, but the new wave of skeptics--a lot of whom are drepressingly libertarian/conservative Ayn Rand types.

In Alabama, mainstream Darwinian textbooks were required to have warning stickers on them. Now this didn't concern me as much in that the nerds like me would know what it was all about--the jocks wouldn't care, etc.

The only folks to pay attention would be the same folks who like to read the photo credits, the table of contents and the acknowledgements--very few. People of faith got their little pat on the head and were sent on their way.

Now when (then) Republican Gov Bob Riley allowed property tax rates to go up--he still got re-elected--so the institution of public education was protected--new textbooks had, and if someone--oh, I don't know--forgot to put new stickers on new pro-Darwin texts--ah, who cares?

The play is the thing. Even in Trussville Alabama--a very Red community, they voted for a new tax to help schools.

More depressing are the Ayn Rand type skeptics.


If I'm a pro-science public school teacher, and I seen Penn Jillette walking towards me--I don't know how to take him.


He might pat me on the back with one hand, then stick a shank in me with the other. He hates all this religious nonsense, and that's fine, but he hates taxes, gov't and infrastructure more--and that is frightening.

So he might congratulate me on a Kitzmiller vs Dover type lawsuit, then turn around, get on Glenn Beck, and say "see, this is why you can't trust gov't."

Then he supports voucher and charter schools to undermine public schools, and the next thing you know, our tax dollars go to textbooks like what my cousin has now.

The whole purpose of public education is to confront children with ideas and ideals they do not get from home. And libertarians--no matter how Neo-Darwinists they are--aren't helping.

I remember when it was said that Pat Robertson acknowledged the reality of AGW before Michael Shermer of SKEPTIC Magazine did. We've debunked all the other gods--so Mammon should be next on the list.

I think the reason folks don't get evolution is the whole warm pond model, where something just kind of happens. Now we know about chemosynthesis, smokers, impact theory, etc. Nature as Hermes trismegistus--the alembics of the deep.
Ironicaly, had this model come out when people believed in spontaneous generation, it would have been accepted more.

But an atheist in the popular American imagination is not someone who doesn't believe in god--that is your uncle Jim who drinks and doesn't go to church.

Instead, people envision a member of a hellfire club--all puffy shirt and arrogance--like Penn, maybe?

Now, conservatives confuse Darwin and Jesus--they talk about this market which seeks its own level (evolution) but think the Earth 6,000 years old.

The lesson of Genesis to folks is that knowledge is bad--but it was greed that got us thrown out of Eden (as it were). We went from a prepared place and were cast out into a Darwinian wilderness, and that isn't how we should live.

The story I think is a memory of how we destroyed the fertile crescent through agriculture--as we almost did here with the Dust Bowl.

Now survival of the fittest we apply to humans, but think no animal evolves.

What we need is a little more Christ in Wall Street.

As for Darwin? I never liked Darwin's ideas. The Right uses the law of the jungle to keep folks poor.

In fact, I hate them so much that I want them out of Wall Street and back into the jungle and the textbooks where they belong.

Conservatives have the lessons of Darwin and the Bible bass ackwards.

Human gov't is what should be based on intelligent design--not the law of the jungle.

We deserve better than that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think the reason folks don't get evolution is the whole warm pond model, where something just kind of happens.

No, it's much more basic than that. People feel debased and insulted by being descended from lesser animals. It runs contrary to the assumption of humanity's innate superiority over the rest of nature that people take for granted and that is typically reinforced by American religions.

Next on the list is the time-frame involved. Human evolution is all but static over an individual's lifespan. People as a rule aren't great at extrapolating beyond what is in their immediate experience.

 

[DarthTom]

Oh boy.

You know what's discouraging as well about an Arc Based exhibit is no doubt the film, Noah will further reinforce some people's belief that the Noah parable in the bible is literal truth.

 

[sojourner]

Wouldn't it be great if the film had a big disclaimer at the beginning, "This film is a work of fiction and not based on any real events"?

I think that would piss off most of the potential audience though.

 

[Deckerd]

Oh boy.

You know what's discouraging as well about an Arc Based exhibit is no doubt the film, Noah will further reinforce some people's belief that the Noah parable in the bible is literal truth.

I doubt it. The Noah story is easily one of the most obvious allegories in the bible. There are several theories about which flood it was based on, including when the Mediterranean was formed, but there's a clear line backwards to how it was invented in the first place.

 

[DarthTom]

I doubt it. The Noah story is easily one of the most obvious allegories in the bible. There are several theories about which flood it was based on, including when the Mediterranean was formed, but there's a clear line backwards to how it was invented in the first place.

Someone [people] donated $63 million to setup an exhibit in the Creationist Museum displaying the Arc Story as literal truth. Also, Ham a creationist, 'scientist,' presented the flood story as literal truth in this debate.

Also the film, Son of God made over $26 million over the past weekend depecting Jesus life story including the multiple miracles.

I never Deckerd fail to under estimate the faithful's ability to believe in water walking - dead raising - water into wine miracle working believers of the Son of God.

Why wouldn't many also believe in the flood story allegedly his father caused - which is somewhat reinforced by this film.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Someone [people] donated $63 million to setup an exhibit in the Creationist Museum displaying the Arc Story as literal truth.

That's utterly false.

What's happened is that Williamstown, Kentucky is selling $62 million in junk bonds to finance the project. People who buy the bonds will be repaid by revenue from the "museum", or not repaid if the project collapses. It's not a donation; it's a speculative loan [link]. The investment would have collapsed if enough money wasn't raised [link]. Apparently they got enough, but not all of the $62 million, and they're not saying how short they were [link]. We'll see.

Anyway, never underestimate people's capacity to overestimate how much people are donating?

Note: The io9 article linked to above got the name of the town wrong. The correct name is Williamstown, Kentucky.

 

[T'Girl]

This is why we need to support public education.

Public financing of education is a good idea, but it should be tied to a educational voucher system so the parents of a schoolchild would have control of which public or private (or home) school their child attends.

It would give the family more control over the curriculum provided.

 

[Venardhi]

This is why we need to support public education.

Public financing of education is a good idea, but it should be tied to a educational voucher system so the parents of a schoolchild would have control of which public or private (or home) school their child attends.

It would give the family more control over the curriculum provided.

Fuck that.

Children should be protected from the ignorance of their parents.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

This is why we need to support public education.

Public financing of education is a good idea, but it should be tied to a educational voucher system so the parents of a schoolchild would have control of which public or private (or home) school their child attends.

It would give the family more control over the curriculum provided.

Parents should have a say in which school their child attends, agreed.
BUT all schools should adhere to a standard secular curriculum.
If a school is privately run (I include church schools here) they should be free to offer additional classes similar to sunday school or whatever, but shielding the students from real education and teaching religion instead of natural world scence is all kinds of wrong.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Schools that teach Creationism or Intelligent Design or seek to "teach the controversy" with regard to evolution shouldn't be permitted to exist. If adults want to indulge in that crap, fine, but subjecting children to it is derelict at best and abusive at worst, and the government should not endorse it in any way.

 

[DarthTom]

Schools that teach Creationism or Intelligent Design or seek to "teach the controversy" with regard to evolution shouldn't be permitted to exist. If adults want to indulge in that crap, fine, but subjecting children to it is derelict at best and abusive at worst, and the government should not endorse it in any way.

To play devils advocate - parents can opt their children out of sex ed classes. Would you be opposed to fudi Christians opting their children out of evolution discussions/teaching?

In other words. Should parents be able to limit the scope of their child's education that aligns with their religious beliefs in public schools or at a minimum be permitted to excuse their child from certain types of instruction?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Schools that teach Creationism or Intelligent Design or seek to "teach the controversy" with regard to evolution shouldn't be permitted to exist. If adults want to indulge in that crap, fine, but subjecting children to it is derelict at best and abusive at worst, and the government should not endorse it in any way.

To play devils advocate - parents can opt their children out of sex ed classes.

They shouldn't be able to do that, either.

Would you be opposed to fudi Christians opting their children out of evolution discussions/teaching?

Yes, absolutely. Children are not the property of their parents.

In other words. Should parents be able to limit the scope of their child's education that aligns with their religious beliefs in public schools or at a minimum be permitted to excuse their child from certain types of instruction?

No. Not at all. Education is information. Education is critical thought. Anyone who is afraid of those things is an enemy of humanity and has no business either raising children or teaching them.

 

[DarthTom]

^^^

I generally agree with you Robert Maxwell. However, parents I believe do have a lot of flexibility on how to raise their children - short of abuse. I'm not sure the courts would agree with you that not teaching sex ed and/or evolution science raises to the level of child abue.

That said, I think children should have to attend most if not all classes that are required in public schools with the cavet that if fundi parents don't like the public school curriculum they are perfectly welcome to enroll their children in any accredited private Christian school that follows their belief systems.

 

[gturner]

Accreditation is apparently overrated or we wouldn't have so many moronic incidents like this one going on: A school conducting a fire-drill "by the book" made a girl stand outside in -25 degree F wind chill while dripping wet in a bathing suit, and wouldn't let her seek shelter or put on clothes because that would mess up the drill. She suffered frostbite, of course. I guess the school officials were wanting to see natural selection in action.

And of course "sex-ed" seems to all to often consist of the sex-ed teacher banging her students in the parking lot.

 

[Davros]

This is why we need to support public education.

Public financing of education is a good idea, but it should be tied to a educational voucher system so the parents of a schoolchild would have control of which public or private (or home) school their child attends.

It would give the family more control over the curriculum provided.

Private school is a luxury and you shouldn't get a tax subsidy for choosing it.

 

[T'Girl]

Children are not the property of their parents.

Children are not the property of the state.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Children are not the property of their parents.

Children are not the property of the state.

Children aren't the property of anyone, however both parents and the state have particular responsibilities to them. A well-rounded education free of religious interference is one such responsibility.