Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
521

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

We’re using totally different methods. That’s why creationism and intelligent design don’t belong in science classrooms. One uses methodological naturalism as the cause and explanation of natural phenomena and the other uses the supernatural explanations. Meaning the later doesn’t belong in science. It belongs in religion and philosophy classes. [/quote]

How have you determined that naturalism is the correct method to use? Not through science. It is your philosophical presupposition but it can’t be tested. You assume its truth based on faith.
[/quote]

Yes! You are totally right. That’s why it’s an axiom and I know it is taken on faith. But take that axiom away and you’re no longer using science.
[/quote]

Hahahaha, that’s a bold statement. So what were all those guys like Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal and Newton doing prior to Lyell? It can’t have been science according to you!

522

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Part 8

Essentially, everything you say always seems to derive from the bible being a source of (ultimate) truth. And it isn’t. You’re unable to provide evidence for this, and any/every time someone calls you on it you deflect the question.

[/quote]

This is true of any axiomatic position. You seem to of the belief that science is a source of truth. How are you going to prove that? You can’t very well use science to prove it because you would be begging the question…[/quote]

What premise can we agree on then? You don’t think the scientific method can be utilized for discovery? I will have to say that I disagree with you on this, if that happens to be your stance.
[/quote]

I agree that the scientific method is valid, subject to its limitations. As wikipedia notes "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

What this means is science can’t be used to determine if whales evolved into horses because that was never observed nor can it be repeated or tested.

Another implication is that science can’t be used to rule out the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, it is outside of the realm of science to test it. Make sense?

[/quote]

Cannot be observed in present time. But it doesn’t have to be observed in its current form in present time to be observed. Science can be used to observe historical natural phenomena. [/quote]

Nonsense. The fossil record needs to be interpreted. Science can’t tell you if that whale fossil you’re looking at had kids that were slightly less whale and slightly more horse.

It also can’t be repeated or tested, so fails on those counts.[/quote]

It is repeatable. You find more of the same fossils and find links too. These then back up the predictions made by the theory. Can it be known to 100 percent certainty? Absolutely not, but as long as you’re using empirical methods (i.e. science) nothing can. Theory of evolution uses methodological naturalism to form the the hypotheses and theory and creationism and its offshoots use the supernatural. And the fossil record isn’t the only evidence. You can go into other fields and the evidence supports it there. Which lend evolutionary theory even more credence because it gives it more fecundity.

523

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

We’re using totally different methods. That’s why creationism and intelligent design don’t belong in science classrooms. One uses methodological naturalism as the cause and explanation of natural phenomena and the other uses the supernatural explanations. Meaning the later doesn’t belong in science. It belongs in religion and philosophy classes. [/quote]

How have you determined that naturalism is the correct method to use? Not through science. It is your philosophical presupposition but it can’t be tested. You assume its truth based on faith.
[/quote]

Yes! You are totally right. That’s why it’s an axiom and I know it is taken on faith. But take that axiom away and you’re no longer using science.
[/quote]

Hahahaha, that’s a bold statement. So what were all those guys like Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal and Newton doing prior to Lyell? It can’t have been science according to you![/quote]

I don’t remember any of them claiming God or other supernatural entities were the cause of the natural phenomena they studied.

edit: I just noticed some of those people weren’t around since science has even been a word/term nor has science been the modern discipline it is now. So more appropriately, some of them would better be described as ‘natural philosophers’.

527

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :

"Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet…
[/quote]

Then the scientific view of the earth’s age is correct.
[/quote]

Man thinking he has this space/time/speed of light/expanding universe thing all figured out so that he can definitively assess what is “correct” or not in terms of the universe’s and earth’s age is grossly naive and the propensity to do just that relegates him to the arena of “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”[/quote]

Man thinking he has this God thing all figured out so that he can definitively assess what is “correct” or not in terms of the universe’s and earth’s age is grossly naive and the propensity to do just that relegates him to the arena of “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”

528

[quote]pat wrote:
[i]Okay, I am not a ‘creationist’, but I want to play a little devil’s advocate in favor of the creationist side…

Supposedly the oldest human fossil known to date is about 200,000 year’s old. That being the case, there is no evidence of anything intelligent and self aware until about 4 century B.C.[/i][/quote]

… are you serious?

529

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Part 8

Essentially, everything you say always seems to derive from the bible being a source of (ultimate) truth. And it isn’t. You’re unable to provide evidence for this, and any/every time someone calls you on it you deflect the question.

[/quote]

This is true of any axiomatic position. You seem to of the belief that science is a source of truth. How are you going to prove that? You can’t very well use science to prove it because you would be begging the question…[/quote]

What premise can we agree on then? You don’t think the scientific method can be utilized for discovery? I will have to say that I disagree with you on this, if that happens to be your stance.
[/quote]

I agree that the scientific method is valid, subject to its limitations. As wikipedia notes "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

What this means is science can’t be used to determine if whales evolved into horses because that was never observed nor can it be repeated or tested.

Another implication is that science can’t be used to rule out the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, it is outside of the realm of science to test it. Make sense?

[/quote]

Cannot be observed in present time. But it doesn’t have to be observed in its current form in present time to be observed. Science can be used to observe historical natural phenomena. [/quote]

Nonsense. The fossil record needs to be interpreted. Science can’t tell you if that whale fossil you’re looking at had kids that were slightly less whale and slightly more horse.

It also can’t be repeated or tested, so fails on those counts.[/quote]

Well actually evolution has been tested on a small scale of 25 years or so… Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

530

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Part 8

Essentially, everything you say always seems to derive from the bible being a source of (ultimate) truth. And it isn’t. You’re unable to provide evidence for this, and any/every time someone calls you on it you deflect the question.

[/quote]

This is true of any axiomatic position. You seem to of the belief that science is a source of truth. How are you going to prove that? You can’t very well use science to prove it because you would be begging the question…[/quote]

What premise can we agree on then? You don’t think the scientific method can be utilized for discovery? I will have to say that I disagree with you on this, if that happens to be your stance.
[/quote]

I agree that the scientific method is valid, subject to its limitations. As wikipedia notes "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

What this means is science can’t be used to determine if whales evolved into horses because that was never observed nor can it be repeated or tested.

Another implication is that science can’t be used to rule out the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, it is outside of the realm of science to test it. Make sense?

[/quote]

Cannot be observed in present time. But it doesn’t have to be observed in its current form in present time to be observed. Science can be used to observe historical natural phenomena. [/quote]

Nonsense. The fossil record needs to be interpreted. Science can’t tell you if that whale fossil you’re looking at had kids that were slightly less whale and slightly more horse.

It also can’t be repeated or tested, so fails on those counts.[/quote]

It is repeatable. You find more of the same fossils and find links too. These then back up the predictions made by the theory. Can it be known to 100 percent certainty? Absolutely not, but as long as you’re using empirical methods (i.e. science) nothing can. Theory of evolution uses methodological naturalism to form the the hypotheses and theory and creationism and its offshoots use the supernatural. And the fossil record isn’t the only evidence. You can go into other fields and the evidence supports it there. Which lend evolutionary theory even more credence because it gives it more fecundity. [/quote]

You’re really not getting this, are you? How is the evolution of whales into horses repeatable? The only thing that you are repeating is your “evolution tinted” interpretation.

I also think that you misunderstand the creation model. The only supernatural events that are assumed are the ones that have been revealed in scripture, i.e. original creation and the miracles. Natural laws are assumed for all else.

531

[quote]schmichael wrote:
evolution of whales into horses[/quote]

Sweet Jesus, the stupid hurts

532

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

We’re using totally different methods. That’s why creationism and intelligent design don’t belong in science classrooms. One uses methodological naturalism as the cause and explanation of natural phenomena and the other uses the supernatural explanations. Meaning the later doesn’t belong in science. It belongs in religion and philosophy classes. [/quote]

How have you determined that naturalism is the correct method to use? Not through science. It is your philosophical presupposition but it can’t be tested. You assume its truth based on faith.
[/quote]

Yes! You are totally right. That’s why it’s an axiom and I know it is taken on faith. But take that axiom away and you’re no longer using science.
[/quote]

Hahahaha, that’s a bold statement. So what were all those guys like Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal and Newton doing prior to Lyell? It can’t have been science according to you![/quote]

I don’t remember any of them claiming God or other supernatural entities were the cause of the natural phenomena they studied.

edit: I just noticed some of those people weren’t around since science has even been a word/term nor has science been the modern discipline it is now. So more appropriately, some of them would better be described as ‘natural philosophers’.[/quote]

I’m afraid semantics aren’t going to get you out of this one. Newton is considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived.

As for not crediting God, Kepler famously said that his scientific thoughts were â??thinking Godâ??s thoughts after Him.â?? And Newton actually wrote more on theology than he did on science.

I’m afraid that you are well behind on your history of science studies.

533

Dude, they have lizards evolving into lizards. it would be very irresponsible to extrapolate that out into lizards evolving into something other than lizards which is required by the grand theory of evolution.

This is called equivocation. You use the term evolution to mean change over time and show an example. You then claim that that proves evolution of one animal into another. It’s fallacious.

534

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:
evolution of whales into horses[/quote]

Sweet Jesus, the stupid hurts[/quote]

Whoops. I thought I had that around the wrong way. The example is wrong but the idea it represents is correct.

536

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

Read this. Denisovan Genome Reveals Interbreeding With Modern Humans – CEH

If you are really open-minded you might find some very interesting reading on that site.[/quote]

Good find and interesting article.

The last paragraph:

[i]That interpretation fits the facts without requiring us to believe the impossible dream that Denisovans kept to themselves as an isolated small population for “hundreds of thousands of years” without ever thinking of making wheels, building cities or riding a horse, while flirting with modern humans from Europe once in awhile. The folly of their long-age scenario should sizzle in your brain till it “sheds light on evolution,” showing it to be complete baloney. How can anyone believe that? Why do they believe that? The answer: they have committed their souls to protecting Darwin from falsification.

It’s only a matter of time before history laughs these charlatans off the stage. Sure, they are intelligent, and good at sequencing DNA. They’ve had a lot of education. They can talk jargon and work phylogeny software. Fantastic. But when it comes to explaining the world, they are a sorry bunch. Get the jump on the historians of 2030 and start laughing now.[/i]

Emphasis above is mine. I did it because it repeats something I’ve repeated here on TN’s C/E discussions for years.[/quote]

I reckon that site is required reading for anyone interested in science. His ‘Baloney Detector’ is brilliant and does a great job of teaching critical thinking skills, whcih are sadly lacking in the modern school system.

537

[quote]
I’m afraid semantics aren’t going to get you out of this one. Newton is considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived.

As for not crediting God, Kepler famously said that his scientific thoughts were â??thinking Godâ??s thoughts after Him.â?? And Newton actually wrote more on theology than he did on science.

I’m afraid that you are well behind on your history of science studies.[/quote]

You have to realize these were sponsored by the church. Being an atheist meant death… But let’s say they were believers, which a lot of the early scientists were…there wasn’t enough information to make them non believers.

539

[quote]schmichael wrote:

Dude, they have lizards evolving into lizards. it would be very irresponsible to extrapolate that out into lizards evolving into something other than lizards which is required by the grand theory of evolution.

This is called equivocation. You use the term evolution to mean change over time and show an example. You then claim that that proves evolution of one animal into another. It’s fallacious.

[/quote]
Lol This is not equivocation… This is evolution on a small scale…which I said. Do you broadly even know how evolution works? Animals don’t turn into other animals like a horse into a whale.this isn’t animorphs…

540

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

We’re using totally different methods. That’s why creationism and intelligent design don’t belong in science classrooms. One uses methodological naturalism as the cause and explanation of natural phenomena and the other uses the supernatural explanations. Meaning the later doesn’t belong in science. It belongs in religion and philosophy classes. [/quote]

How have you determined that naturalism is the correct method to use? Not through science. It is your philosophical presupposition but it can’t be tested. You assume its truth based on faith.
[/quote]

Yes! You are totally right. That’s why it’s an axiom and I know it is taken on faith. But take that axiom away and you’re no longer using science.
[/quote]

Hahahaha, that’s a bold statement. So what were all those guys like Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal and Newton doing prior to Lyell? It can’t have been science according to you![/quote]

I don’t remember any of them claiming God or other supernatural entities were the cause of the natural phenomena they studied.

edit: I just noticed some of those people weren’t around since science has even been a word/term nor has science been the modern discipline it is now. So more appropriately, some of them would better be described as ‘natural philosophers’.[/quote]

I’m afraid semantics aren’t going to get you out of this one. Newton is considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived.

As for not crediting God, Kepler famously said that his scientific thoughts were â??thinking Godâ??s thoughts after Him.â?? And Newton actually wrote more on theology than he did on science.

I’m afraid that you are well behind on your history of science studies.[/quote]

I’m afraid misinterpretation of what those natural philosophers thought isn’t going to get you out of this one. The methods they used to study natural phenomena were not dependent on theology. They might have thought that the rational laws and rational explanations and the axioms required for gaining knowledge in natural philososphy/science were due to God but what Newton did is describe gravity in the fittest way that has ever been done to that point using rationality and naturalism.

I’m starting to think you’re confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

Hell, as I’ve at least hinted at already in this thread, I posit that an intellect that knows everything natural and metaphysical and everything in all it’s totality is required and must be ontologically the same as us is required for us to know anything. But I’m using metaphysics with an epistemological foundation of basically faith for that, not science. I’m fully admit I’m a man of faith and I see no reason faith and science cannot exist. In fact, for science to first exist, faith must go first and I say we know anything because of that Intellect which I call God natura naturans. But all of this paragraph belongs in a totally different thread with a very different context.