Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

This may stem from the history of philosophy, where every academic was required to study philosophy and the fields of philosophy, medicine, mathematics and science were one (in fact, the title PhD is a throwback to this tradition), but that time is long past. The purpose and methodologies of those fields are all very different mow, and what constitutes a valid argument or statement in one may, and probably is not, in another.

This piece from Dr. Matt is something that I was thinking about in a bit of a different way. Russell who had the bit on numbers was assuredly both a mathematician and philosopher. In the time frame he was active there were meetings of people like Wittgenstein, Popper, and Moore and many others. All fairly broadly educated in many areas. It seems now that such a grouping of people might not even be possible. Everyone specializes to such a degree that a relatively in depth knowledge of multiple disciplines just doesn’t seem as common.

302

[quote]groo wrote:
This may stem from the history of philosophy, where every academic was required to study philosophy and the fields of philosophy, medicine, mathematics and science were one (in fact, the title PhD is a throwback to this tradition), but that time is long past. The purpose and methodologies of those fields are all very different mow, and what constitutes a valid argument or statement in one may, and probably is not, in another.

This piece from Dr. Matt is something that I was thinking about in a bit of a different way. Russell who had the bit on numbers was assuredly both a mathematician and philosopher. In the time frame he was active there were meetings of people like Wittgenstein, Popper, and Moore and many others. All fairly broadly educated in many areas. It seems now that such a grouping of people might not even be possible. Everyone specializes to such a degree that a relatively in depth knowledge of multiple disciplines just doesn’t seem as common. [/quote]Ok, but don’t tell me that YOU don’t see any validity in, I’m sure not my conclusion, but the line of thought leading to it? No? It would kill ya to say something like “well Trib certainly is an incurable basket case, but he also actually IS pursuing a legitimate line of argumentation that DrMatt is not grasping.”? You may have to wince, sputter n spit to get it out, but are you sure you wouldn’t live?
I will have a few thoughts for the good doctor regarding his last post hopefully later today.

303

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

…Actually, just the fact that species can split into different species is enough to dispute the claim of some that all life was created in it’s current form. I am not saying that you are making that claim, but some do.

[/quote]

Matt, with all due respect you are showing your ignorance here. No learned creationist anywhere makes this claim.

You need some study as to what creation theory entails.
[/quote]

I never said that learned creationists made that claim, or that that claim had anything to do with mainstream creation theory. I said that “some people” make that claim, which is true: there are people out there who claim that all life was created in its current form some time ago. Congratulations on arguing against a point that no one was making. I think there might be a term for that in debate, but I am not familiar with all of the terms associated with formal debate.

305

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
This may stem from the history of philosophy, where every academic was required to study philosophy and the fields of philosophy, medicine, mathematics and science were one (in fact, the title PhD is a throwback to this tradition), but that time is long past. The purpose and methodologies of those fields are all very different mow, and what constitutes a valid argument or statement in one may, and probably is not, in another.

This piece from Dr. Matt is something that I was thinking about in a bit of a different way. Russell who had the bit on numbers was assuredly both a mathematician and philosopher. In the time frame he was active there were meetings of people like Wittgenstein, Popper, and Moore and many others. All fairly broadly educated in many areas. It seems now that such a grouping of people might not even be possible. Everyone specializes to such a degree that a relatively in depth knowledge of multiple disciplines just doesn’t seem as common. [/quote]Ok, but don’t tell me that YOU don’t see any validity in, I’m sure not my conclusion, but the line of thought leading to it? No? It would kill ya to say something like “well Trib certainly is an incurable basket case, but he also actually IS pursuing a legitimate line of argumentation that DrMatt is not grasping.”? You may have to wince, sputter n spit to get it out, but are you sure you wouldn’t live?
I will have a few thoughts for the good doctor regarding his last post hopefully later today.
[/quote]

God invented evolution. Thesis – life. Anti-thesis – the physical world. Synthesis – life overcomes the physical world and survives. I believe that.

These facts can be observed, such as Lenski proved. But the creation cannot be proved; it is a matter of faith. How would someone test for the creation? How could an experiment replicate the creation?

Therefore, creationism doesn’t match the criterion of the scientific method. Passing it off as science is therefore evil.

/thread.

306

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
This may stem from the history of philosophy, where every academic was required to study philosophy and the fields of philosophy, medicine, mathematics and science were one (in fact, the title PhD is a throwback to this tradition), but that time is long past. The purpose and methodologies of those fields are all very different mow, and what constitutes a valid argument or statement in one may, and probably is not, in another.

This piece from Dr. Matt is something that I was thinking about in a bit of a different way. Russell who had the bit on numbers was assuredly both a mathematician and philosopher. In the time frame he was active there were meetings of people like Wittgenstein, Popper, and Moore and many others. All fairly broadly educated in many areas. It seems now that such a grouping of people might not even be possible. Everyone specializes to such a degree that a relatively in depth knowledge of multiple disciplines just doesn’t seem as common. [/quote]Ok, but don’t tell me that YOU don’t see any validity in, I’m sure not my conclusion, but the line of thought leading to it? No? It would kill ya to say something like “well Trib certainly is an incurable basket case, but he also actually IS pursuing a legitimate line of argumentation that DrMatt is not grasping.”? You may have to wince, sputter n spit to get it out, but are you sure you wouldn’t live?
I will have a few thoughts for the good doctor regarding his last post hopefully later today.
[/quote]

God invented evolution. Thesis – life. Anti-thesis – the physical world. Synthesis – life overcomes the physical world and survives. I believe that.

These facts can be observed, such as Lenski proved. But the creation cannot be proved; it is a matter of faith. How would someone test for the creation? How could an experiment replicate the creation?

Therefore, creationism doesn’t match the criterion of the scientific method. Passing it off as science is therefore evil.

/thread.
[/quote]

307

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
This may stem from the history of philosophy, where every academic was required to study philosophy and the fields of philosophy, medicine, mathematics and science were one (in fact, the title PhD is a throwback to this tradition), but that time is long past. The purpose and methodologies of those fields are all very different mow, and what constitutes a valid argument or statement in one may, and probably is not, in another.

This piece from Dr. Matt is something that I was thinking about in a bit of a different way. Russell who had the bit on numbers was assuredly both a mathematician and philosopher. In the time frame he was active there were meetings of people like Wittgenstein, Popper, and Moore and many others. All fairly broadly educated in many areas. It seems now that such a grouping of people might not even be possible. Everyone specializes to such a degree that a relatively in depth knowledge of multiple disciplines just doesn’t seem as common. [/quote]Ok, but don’t tell me that YOU don’t see any validity in, I’m sure not my conclusion, but the line of thought leading to it? No? It would kill ya to say something like “well Trib certainly is an incurable basket case, but he also actually IS pursuing a legitimate line of argumentation that DrMatt is not grasping.”? You may have to wince, sputter n spit to get it out, but are you sure you wouldn’t live?
I will have a few thoughts for the good doctor regarding his last post hopefully later today.
[/quote]

God invented evolution. Thesis – life. Anti-thesis – the physical world. Synthesis – life overcomes the physical world and survives. I believe that.

These facts can be observed, such as Lenski proved. But the creation cannot be proved; it is a matter of faith. How would someone test for the creation? How could an experiment replicate the creation?

Therefore, creationism doesn’t match the criterion of the scientific method. Passing it off as science is therefore evil.

/thread.
[/quote]
[/quote]

308

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

…Actually, just the fact that species can split into different species is enough to dispute the claim of some that all life was created in it’s current form. I am not saying that you are making that claim, but some do.

[/quote]

Matt, with all due respect you are showing your ignorance here. No learned creationist anywhere makes this claim.

You need some study as to what creation theory entails.
[/quote]

I never said that learned creationists made that claim, or that that claim had anything to do with mainstream creation theory. I said that “some people” make that claim, which is true: there are people out there who claim that all life was created in its current form some time ago. Congratulations on arguing against a point that no one was making. I think there might be a term for that in debate, but I am not familiar with all of the terms associated with formal debate. [/quote]

If “some people,” make this claim and we both agree they are obscure, then why would the claim even need to made at all? Why is it relevant?

“Some people” might make the claim that all evolution occurred between the years 1795 and 1801 but we both know that mainstream evolution theory does not advance that view therefore it would be useless and farcical for me to mention such in a post.

A more reasonable and pertinent discussion would be that of the definition of “current form”. Now THAT would advance the debate.

A person educated in the theory of creation (and one should be if he is discussing the matter here with intellectual honesty), even if he strongly disagrees with it, would/should prudently understand how creationists explain this facet of the theory.[/quote]

I am discussing a scientific theory, and I do not need any knowledge of a nonscientific theory to talk about a scientific theory, just like I do not need any knowledge of YEC views on the age of the Earth to research decay mechanisms of radioactive particles. They just plain do not matter from a scientific standpoint since they do not meet the criteria to be considered scientific theories and produce no useful scientific data. The bottom line here is that the idea that creationism should be taught in science classes is just plain ludicrous. It is not a scientific discipline, no matter how much proponents would like for it to be. If any of the various creation myths are to be taught in any kind of class, it should be in a theology or history class. I actually think a course that covers the creation myths of the various people’s of the world would be quite useful to students, but that does not mean that creation myths should be taught in science classes. Science classes are there to teach students about science, and evolution is an important topic in the field of biology which is why it is usually covered, just like history classes are for teaching history, not mathematics or science.

310

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

…Actually, just the fact that species can split into different species is enough to dispute the claim of some that all life was created in it’s current form. I am not saying that you are making that claim, but some do.

[/quote]

Matt, with all due respect you are showing your ignorance here. No learned creationist anywhere makes this claim.

You need some study as to what creation theory entails.
[/quote]

I never said that learned creationists made that claim, or that that claim had anything to do with mainstream creation theory. I said that “some people” make that claim, which is true: there are people out there who claim that all life was created in its current form some time ago. Congratulations on arguing against a point that no one was making. I think there might be a term for that in debate, but I am not familiar with all of the terms associated with formal debate. [/quote]

If “some people,” make this claim and we both agree they are obscure, then why would the claim even need to made at all? Why is it relevant?

“Some people” might make the claim that all evolution occurred between the years 1795 and 1801 but we both know that mainstream evolution theory does not advance that view therefore it would be useless and farcical for me to mention such in a post.

A more reasonable and pertinent discussion would be that of the definition of “current form”. Now THAT would advance the debate.

A person educated in the theory of creation (and one should be if he is discussing the matter here with intellectual honesty), even if he strongly disagrees with it, would/should prudently understand how creationists explain this facet of the theory.[/quote]

I am discussing a scientific theory, and I do not need any knowledge of a nonscientific theory to talk about a scientific theory, just like I do not need any knowledge of YEC views on the age of the Earth to research decay mechanisms of radioactive particles. They just plain do not matter from a scientific standpoint since they do not meet the criteria to be considered scientific theories and produce no useful scientific data. The bottom line here is that the idea that creationism should be taught in science classes is just plain ludicrous. It is not a scientific discipline, no matter how much proponents would like for it to be. If any of the various creation myths are to be taught in any kind of class, it should be in a theology or history class. I actually think a course that covers the creation myths of the various people’s of the world would be quite useful to students, but that does not mean that creation myths should be taught in science classes. Science classes are there to teach students about science, and evolution is an important topic in the field of biology which is why it is usually covered, just like history classes are for teaching history, not mathematics or science.[/quote]

Non sequitur.

A very feeble response to my post. You’re smart enough to know why.[/quote]

I found this post genuinely funny. You’re smart enough to know why.

313

[quote]pushharder wrote:
A person educated in the theory of creation (and one should be if he is discussing the matter here with intellectual honesty), even if he strongly disagrees with it, would/should prudently understand how creationists explain this facet of the theory.[/quote]

There is no G stands for God, and if there is the trail ends there, it’s not in the realm of science, it can never be visible, science is a completely human endeavour without gods. Tiribulus is right in that aspect, if thats a sin I don’t know, but I doubt it.

315

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

…it’s not in the realm of science, it can never be visible…

[/quote]

Precisely what the creationist argument is against macro evolution, or “increases in genetic information.”

It’s not visible, observable, or testable.

Thanks for your post!
[/quote]

Snappy comebacks don’t change the fact that you and other creationists don’t understand the gist. Creationists like to point out that Newton and other early scientists were Christians. Yet, there is no God in Newtons mechanics, there is no God in Keplers or Galileos planetary models, ther was no God when flogiston turned out to be oxygen. There is no God in Darwins theory. Do you see a pattern there?

317

[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ It’s a self-trained response, Matt, to laugh - usually it’s nervous and disconcerting one - when one has been backed into a corner.

Your post was completely irrelevant to what we were discussing - “current form” - and was just the classic blab-blab-blab chatter about teaching creation in public schools.

Your extensive and impressive credentials in your chosen field has certainly done little to assist you in engaging in a debate about this subject - creationism - a subject of which you obviously know little. This presents a fascinating irony in light of your recent post advocating being careful to pontificate in fields outside of those in which you have been trained.[/quote]

No, it wasn’t. The whole point of this thread, and the first, is whether or not creationism should be taught in science classes, all other topics being discussed are secondary to that topic. I admitted that my knowledge of evolution is very lacking which is why I limited my posts on that topic to posting the work of others in that field. I have also made it very clear that I have no interest in studying non-scientific works, which is why I do not go into detail at all on creationism except to state that it is not a scientific theory, which we discussed in that 300 million year old forest thread. That post was to clarify my position on the main topic of the thread, namely that science classes are for teaching science, not other fields like theology.

319

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Precisely what the creationist argument is against macro evolution, or “increases in genetic information.”

It’s not visible, observable, or testable.

Thanks for your post![/quote]

So increases in genetic information equals macroevolution?

And these increases are neither visible, observable nor testable?

320

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< Do you see a pattern there?[/quote]Ohhhh indeed I do. I see yet another guy, this time from Finland, who simply cannot seem to grasp that “science” does not, never has, and CAN NOT propose even one syllable of data with=out epistemology.

Yes DrMatt. My position governs your heart, your mind and your entire life. That of all your professors, all your classmates, all your heroes, all your colleagues and Herbie homeless. Unless you run away, I am going to, by the grace of God, break your heart and prove to you that you DO have a foundation for your very existence that you are utterly enslaved to while not even realizing it’s there. It has absolutely nothing notHING NOTHING to do with intelligence or education. NAHTHEEENG. Bring me a parade of PHD’s in every field of study in the known universe and I will engage them all at once the exact same way. While calmly smiling, like this =] I do still have some comments on your last post on the previous page.