Creationists are holding everyone else back
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Somehow having order in the universe is not appropriate? Teaching children that the world is not random is somehow negative?
Bill doesn’t want to address how inconsistent the evolutionist (RE: origin of life) worldview is. For example: evolutionists assume the future is like the past without logical basis.
“For example: evolutionists assume the future is like the past without logical basis.”
Yes indeed, the “evolutionists” assume that the laws of Physics don’t change.
On what logical basis does the secular evolutionist assume that things don’t change? The Christian/creationist worldview accounts for the uniformity of nature by stating that God holds the world consistently. The secular evolutionist says that we live in a random change environment and cannot account for laws of Physics staying constant. It is intellectually inconsistent for the secular evolutionist to state that the future will be like the past and that empirical science can be trusted moving forward.
ron, where does “moving forward” come into the picture in evolutionary studies?
I’m happy to rephrase / clarify.
It is intellectually inconsistent of the secular evolutionist to state that the future will be like the past and that empirical science (eg results to experiments) can be trusted 50 years later.
How interesting that you focus on two words instead of addressing the issue at hand (the inconsistency of random chance where scientific laws stay constant).
I was asking you to clarify because you seemed to be making a rookie mistake. And I still think you were.
Your rephrasing doesn’t make any more sense, tough, than the original. You are grasping at straws.
Enlighten me. On what logical basis can a secular evolutionist scientist make the claim that the experiment conducted in 1960 will yield the same result in the year 2012?
If what you have, ron, is god-of-the-gaps-style reasoning such as
then you don’t have very much.
Somebody is working hard to prove the point…
Ron, one word answer. Astronomy.
@ Composer99
Nye is not saying the Christian/creationist worldview consists only of a God who created things unknown (accounting for gaps in knowledge). He recognizes that the Christian/creationist worldview accounts for all the known and agreed to elements in life (from math/science to logic/morals) in addition to those things yet undiscovered.
Perhaps you’re claiming I’ve made an argument from ignorance where lack of contrary evidence proves my claim. I’m simply claiming the secular evolutionist worldview is logically inconsistent. I claim this to refute Nye who says the Christian/creationist worldview is logically inconsistent. (In a secular evolutionist worldview, why would logical inconsistency be negative?)
The focus of the argument is the logical consistency of worldviews and which worldview may best help children understand the world/universe.
The secular evolutionist (as you call it, your term, not mine) point of view is the scientific method and what it gives us. Please explain the logical inconsistency in a system that systematically corrects its own logical inconsistencies.
GL,
Like Higgs Boson?
Or more years than anyone can comprehend?
These are admissions of logical inconsistencies confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
Why even insist that things be logical if one doesn’t believe that there is order in the universe? Why strive to be logical if not to understand the logic of creation? Stated differently: The scientific method is based on logic, but if the origin of life is not logical, but random chance, why use logic to explain creation?
What about the Higgs Boson?
More years of what than “anyone” (meaning I assume you) can comprehend?
You have one more chance to say something interesting in a comment. If you don’t you will be dismissed. If you complain about suppression of your free speech you will be dismissed even if you do say something interesting.
Think carefully before you hit that “submit comment” button.
If I may, I would like to address the claim that the assumption that physical laws don’t change over time is a logical inconsistency. This can be address on two fronts:
1. This assumption can be tested to an extent. Any change in the physical laws will falsify the assumption, yet there has not been a single observation where they changed. Since there has not been an observation that supports the claim that the laws change with time, it is logically unreasonable to accept such a claim.
2. Observations from astronomy show the same physical laws at work billions of light years away. It could be claimed that the physical properties of light itself also changed along the way, but here we can apply Occam’s Razor.
Either the laws of physics are consistent in both time and space (matching observation), or the laws of physics have changed in such a way that the light from distance objects makes it look like it’s consistent.
The preferred explanation, according to the Razor is that they don’t change, because it doesn’t require extra explanations to make it match the observed lack of change.
Bill Nye should keep HIS children away from creationism then. I know this guy and boy am I going to give this nerdy little peckerhead a peice of my mind the next time I see him.
Correction:
Evolution, global warming, population control UN Agenda 21, and a whole host of other fanatical control freak left wingedness is not approriate for children.
There, FIFTY.
Class dimissed! and just for the record I think Bill Nye should be fired and banished from this country alon with a whole host of other brainless wonders. If they like their evolution and socialism and other satanically derived ideals, they should move to canada, australia, or North Korea. Hippies should feel right at home in any of those places. Then again they could just move to the country to the west of the United States call Califoregowashington, commonly known as the left coast. Not much difference between North Korea policies and California policies except rampant homosexualty is nill in North korea. Well, at least NK has some common sense left.
All those in favor of moving all liberals to california and then sealing it off indefinitely say I. I. All opposed? The I’s have it. Meeting adjourned. Start the round up.
What I find interesting is that so many commenters on this site and others are focusing their arguments so heavily on whether or not evolution exists while completely ignoring the fact that Nye’s claim that teaching creationism to our children is the reason why so few are going into the math and science based fields is supported by 0 evidence. I just find it ironic and hypocritical that someone would criticize parents for raising their children to believe something that is not supported by science and then to make a claim himself that is no way supported by fact or even logic. True, some children may stray from certain sciences if their parents discourage them but in truth evolution has very little to do with practical application of the sciences. Does Nye honestly believe that a civil engineer won’t be able to test the compaction of soil if he or she doesn’t embrace evolution? Does he think that the mechanical engineer won’t be able to design machinery if he believes in God? Don’t you see how ludicrous his claim is? I took a lot of science while obtaining my degree in civil and environmental engineering and outside of high school Biology I can’t even recall hearing about evolution and honestly why would I? It’s not relevant. Truth be told the main reason kids are turned off to Math and Science is that for many it is hard and our society offers little incentive for kids to push through it and learn it. If a child says he can’t read then we, as a society, view that child as unintelligent and worry that something may be wrong. If another child, however, were to claim he can’t do Math or struggles in science we don’t worry about it since only “geeks” and “nerds” are good at those subjects anyway.
Ron is clearly a Poe.
I think you should all talk to dr. Kent Hovind he’ll set you all straight on the pure evil that is evolution!
Bill Nye is a fantastic spokesmen for science.
Oh, Brandon, you poor thing…..you should really consider a lawsuit against your parents, your school district and your church for providing you such an astoundingly substandard education. Of course, even an 18th century education would have trouble making any headway against your hateful prejudices. But good luck with all those negative, irrational and frankly, hilarious, ideas you have! Oh, and try spell check! It’s the latest thing!
Sydney:
Embracing creationism is rarely merely about rejecting evolution. It often leads to rejection of the fruits of scientific and empirical inquiry elsewhere, in a way which does have direct and practical impact.
For example, on account of rejecting the geological evidence supporting evolutionary theory, it is easy for creationists to also reject the geophysics and paleogeology that underpins contemporary climate science (which is why, with the exception of Jon Huntsman, the Republicans contending for presidential candidacy during their primary process either flatly rejected climate science findings or falsely exaggerated the remaining uncertainties).
At any rate, it does not seem reasonable to expect Bill Nye to provide the kind of evidence you appear to desire in a 2 1/2 minute video.
I think Nye is right on a few counts:
A) This really is a discussion about what worldview to teach.
“I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they’re at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent. ”
We filter data through our worldview to arrive at understanding. Data itself does not provide meaning until we complete that process.
B) “We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future.”
This is true, but who is “we”? Are “we” society as a whole, or Nye’s side of the argument? The question is how do we better society. What worldview do we teach to improve society in general?
People favor logically consistent worldviews and discount illogical worldviews. The conundrum is the internal critique of one’s own worldview. It is difficult to be objective when conducting that procedure.
At its base, it is insulting for someone outside the family to suggest that parents should not teach future generations the worldview (one assumes is) shared by the parents. This insult will not draw parents/families to Nye’s cause.
I’m amused by how Ron somehow thinks that a world governed by reliable physical laws is somehow more random than one governed by the will of a capricious all-powerful deity whom, if we are to believe his followers, violates those laws on a regular basis, according to his whim, or in response to the pleading of people who can’t be bothered to understand how the world works.
‘ I think Bill Nye should be fired and banished from this country alon with a whole host of other brainless wonders….’
Bill Nye and other ‘brainless wonders’. Mmmm!
Brandon White, ever herd of irony? Has it never crossed your mind that the US economy, one that is increasingly based upon science and technology needs scientists and engineers to discover and develop new technologies to export. With so many other coutries doing their level-best to catch-up, any let-up by the US will lead to being overtaken by the competition. The Chinese and the Indians are snapping at the heels of the US and in some areas, the US is no-longer in the lead, they would love to recruit US scientists.
While Bill Nye does a great job communicating science to the Public, which thanks to the evidence of your comment, is a job that is clearly still very much needed and will presumably be required for decades to come.
No, you are wrong, the US needs more scientists and technologists and people like Bill Nye and the reason why is people who hold views similar to yours.
Perhaps you should listen to Bill Nye before making-up your mind and read some of the supporting science for yourself. It could be that your views are based on misleading second-hand accounts of what the science says. Some of these second-hand sources are unreliable.
I find it interesting that everyone’s worldview is often about one-upping the other guy. “I know something you don’t know…” “I figgered this out and I wasn’t even there…” “I know what I’m talking about…” And ultimately, “You should listen to me, because I know…”
People are generally convinced that they’re right about whatever topic is in their head at the moment. They typically won’t budge from their position without evidence. This is automatic; and it starts as a toddler. As people age they need more (or stronger, or more tangible) evidence that their position or understanding is flawed before they’ll consider alternatives.
Science(TM) seems to abhor the concept of faith. Faith, for its part, doesn’t have a problem with science (little ‘s’). My belief in God doesn’t prevent me from endeavoring into scientific inquiry. Alternatively, the pursuit of Knowlege for knowledge’s sake (not necessarilly the sake of Truth), can lead to bad or flawed knowledge…and bad science. Assumptions that build on themselves are inherently problematic.
God either exists or He doesn’t. There is only one truth. Some people don’t like that “fact”. They avoid it and stick with “what they can prove” (through Science). The fallacy here is that Science claims to be a search for the truth (as opposed to knowledge). And the fact is: Science will never be able to prove that God exists; because God, and any relationship with Him, by design, is a matter of faith. And if scripture is to be believed/accepted, then God is Truth. Hence, Science is doomed to never acquire what it apparently longs for: The Truth.
Scripture even goes so far as to provide a blueprint for attaining this relationship (as well as an appropriate context, or priority, for knowledge): “Add to your faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to kindness, charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 1:5-8)
Each step is the cornerstone of the next. With the first being faith. Faith leads to virtue, and virtue strengthens faith. And what good is knowledge if it’s not virtuous, or good, knowledge? Knowledge stems from faith, not the other way around. That said, knowledge strengthens virtue and faith.
Of course, one can dismiss all this, and be left with the alternative: God doesn’t exist…and thus, the scientific pursuit of knowledge becomes quite pointless. No?
Chris,
I can agree with you up to a point. Science can never establish whether or not God exists. Science utilizes methodological naturalism, which essentially means that no purported supernatural entities can ever be investigated by science. God would certianly fall outside of the realm of the natural, and hence outside of scientific investigation.
However, you make an argument based on a hypothetical. You say that “if scripture is to be believed/accepted…”. Do you not realize that, while you might have a valid argument (I won’t tackle the question of whether your argument is valid), you may well not have a sound argument. In case you are unfamiliar with the terms “valid” and “sound” as they apply to logical arguments, a valid argument is one in which the conclusion follows logically from the premeses. A sound argument is one that is valid, but in addition the premeses are all true. I think many people would argue that one of your premeses is fundamentally flawed, namely the one I point out above, that the scripture is true.
Further, I don’t think everything you argue is valid. You imply that if God doesn’t exist, then the scientific pursuit of knowledge becomes pointless. That certainly is not a valid conclusion, as many who are atheists (such as myself) could attest. We certainly have curiosity and desire to understand the universe independent of the existence of God. We also recognize that the pursuit of scientific knowledge has done more to elevate the human condition than anything religion has ever come up with.
Like many, I had a religious education, luckily I saw sense.
Whenever I hear someone spouting religion as superior to tolerant secularism, I think of the all too numerous wicked and repugnant acts visited upon innocent people because they were’t of the ‘correct’ religion. In particular, this:
‘Caedite eos, novit enim Dominus qui sunt ejus’ – which means ‘Kill them all, God will recognize his own’. The justification for killing 20,000 men women and children, all in the name of god.
That’s all one needs to know about god and religion.
Sean,
I concur that many would argue that the premise that “scripture is true” is flawed. This is, again, a matter of faith. One can choose (or choose not) to believe that God exists, or that scripture is true. It’s interesting to me that scripture is far more dismissed than it is pursued. (Although, it shouldn’t surprise me, as scripture says this will be so.) Many simply do not give it credence because they have a preconceived notion that it couldn’t possibly be true (or, if it is, it’s a truth they’re not willing to accept). After all, why waste my time with something that can’t be proven?
But, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks… It either is true, or it isn’t.
It all comes down to what people put their faith in. And most assuredly, people put faith in themselves before they put faith in anything else (my original discussion). Which tends to be unfortunate because, fundamentally, people will tend to see what they want to (or are inclined to) see (because they’re looking through self-provided glasses). If I don’t want to see God in the world around me, then I will not find him there. If I don’t want to be bothered with scripture, then I will never possibly come to know the truth it contains (if any).
So, the contention is between Science (the evidence of things seen) and Faith (“the evidence of things not seen” — Hebrews 11:1). A person of faith can benefit from both. I secular scientist will only know what they see; and will have no idea what they’re missing.
Appropriately, scripture states about itself, that it was written so that you would believe: “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13)
I suppose the atheistic perspective would be that that’s a bit of circular definition, or self-aggrandizing…or, it could be true. The choice (of belief, not truth) is left up to the reader. God has always left that choice up to the individual. But regardless of the choice, the truth simply is.
Regarding how “the pursuit of scientific knowledge has done more to elevate the human condition than anything _religion_ has ever come up with.” Very true. Religion has done nothing but give God a bad name. People deny God all the time due to the effects of religion. That’s why one should pursue a relationship with God, not religion.
That said, you haven’t actually defined the human condition. Our “condition” is fallen. But as an atheist, I would expect that you would say “fallen” isn’t a condition at all.
You also seem to imply that “elevating the human condition” is the end-all, be-all. So, the only thing we can ever hope to do as humans, is to strive elevate our condition, through our own effort. My point before was: To what end? What’s the point of it? So I can know as much as I can before I die? So society can know as much as it can before _it_ dies? So we can elevate society to some unattainable Eutopia? Essentially, people’s thirst for knowledge will always go unquenched.
It’s ironic, because God (and only God) provides the ultimate uplifting of the human condition through salvation. But many treat the word “salvation” with repugnance. It would seem that is because it causes them to self-evaluate, and consider themselves wrong. Most people aren’t willing to do that (my original discussion).
I am not a creationist myself but I still don’t understand how this issue has come down to one or the other. There are plenty of great scientists who still have a strong religious faith. It’s just at which level you apply your faith in my mind. Many of the creationists here have said they don’t like a world “governed by random changes” which results in evolution. But what is the difference in believing that God designed us to our current exact state and that he designed us through minute changes which we call evolution. If he is all powerful, who are we to say he doesn’t work in minutia, deliberately causing every last mutation in DNA along the way.
Basically, my message to creationists is: evolution is not a threat to your beliefs and your beliefs are not a threat to science unless you make them mutually exclusive.
the theories of evolution and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive. It is conceivable that evolution is a part of the process of divine creationism. To believe that natural selection is the only, or even prime, mechanism driving evolution is as much an act of faith as it is to believe in a divine consciousness driving it.
“To believe that natural selection is the only, or even prime, mechanism driving evolution is as much an act of faith as it is to believe in a divine consciousness driving it”.
Not quite. The former is observed, the latter is hypothesized, and as per the creationists beyond testing.