Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
681

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]

I am not a creationist in the traditional sense of the word. I believe that God is the creator of existence itself, that doesn’t mean I take Genesis 1 a literal account, through the paradigm of modern thought.
But like I said, the order of events does square with science. I believe, this universe we live in is about 13.7 billion years old, as we understand a year to be.
[/quote]

I still do not see why he would make it appear to be that old. What purpose does it serve. If he was directly involved it could have been done in a second.

I have read the cosmological argument explanation you have presented in many threads and to me it is logical, it makes sense. What if that is taken a bit further, perhaps a bit of a panentheistic view. God created the first cause within that is the foundation/blueprint for the universe so, he is in everything but, not in everything, involved but, not involved. That way the time it took for creation to reach where we are now is not an issue. Once it was set in motion the conditions/natural causes would determine how long it takes. It would not be complete chance or dumb luck but, an inevitable result. Just like everything else, an apple will decay how long before it does will depend.

Young earth believers and non literal genesis arguments with the false carbon dating and a day was not a day seem to just want to fit the puzzle pieces together by any means necessary making it complicated and confusing. That is not to say it is not possible.

683

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

Creationism is also a hypothesis. When tested the hypothesis passes as it is able to explain the natural phenomena that we observe.[/quote]

Excuse me? Creationism 100% does not pass it’s hypothesis when examined under the scientific method. I must have read your post wrong but to me I read that creationism has been proven by science which is obviously not true.
[/quote]

You have misread the post. I didn’t say that creationism is proven by science because your definition of science excludes creation (nice and circular!)

What I actually said was that creationism is able to explain the natural phenomena that we observe. In that way the hypothesis is tested and passes.

I’ll give you an example, the fossil record. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, the creation model predicts that we will find animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed.

What do we observe? Animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed! Puncuated equilibrium was postulated in order to avoid this inconvenient fact.

It is actually worse than that. Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted. In Origin of Species he wrote:

Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

Even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.

More recently, Stephen Jay Gould said:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.

So which model is consistent with the observations? (Hint, its not the ToE.)

684

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]

I am not a creationist in the traditional sense of the word. I believe that God is the creator of existence itself, that doesn’t mean I take Genesis 1 a literal account, through the paradigm of modern thought.
But like I said, the order of events does square with science. I believe, this universe we live in is about 13.7 billion years old, as we understand a year to be.
[/quote]

I still do not see why he would make it appear to be that old. What purpose does it serve. If he was directly involved it could have been done in a second.

I have read the cosmological argument explanation you have presented in many threads and to me it is logical, it makes sense. What if that is taken a bit further, perhaps a bit of a panentheistic view. God created the first cause within that is the foundation/blueprint for the universe so, he is in everything but, not in everything, involved but, not involved. That way the time it took for creation to reach where we are now is not an issue. Once it was set in motion the conditions/natural causes would determine how long it takes. It would not be complete chance or dumb luck but, an inevitable result. Just like everything else, an apple will decay how long before it does will depend.

Young earth believers and non literal genesis arguments with the false carbon dating and a day was not a day seem to just want to fit the puzzle pieces together by any means necessary making it complicated and confusing. That is not to say it is not possible. [/quote]

It doesn’t appear old. You need to remember that there is no direct measurement of time. Measurements are made in the present and then elapsed time is calculated using various unprovable assumptions.

Unfortunately for the long agers, the same assumptions applied in different places result in maximum ages that are far younger than 4.5 billion years. take a look at this for some examples. Evidence for a young world - creation.com

686

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
Creationist websites are the definition of biased. If you’re looking there for evidence then there’s your first fault because you need to look at unbiased websites.

Also another thing to note is that Science websites and Atheist websites are not biased because they are not asserting anything without evidence (Atheists actually don’t assert anything about God, they simply don’t believe because their isn’t any evidence to do so) and are always open to changing their opinions based on new information. Religions do not offer any such flexibility, and such is a major flaw in the way they operate.[/quote]

I’m not sure if you’re joking.

687

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

Who else would determine the rules of science if not the people best trained and qualified to do so?

And the scientific method is agreed on by everyone. It’s accepted nationally as the best method for determining reality.
[/quote]

I agree with you. The issue is who are those “people best trained and qualified to do so?” Is it your contention that Sir Issac Newton is not qualified?[/quote]

I stand by the word natural philosopher for the list of people you mentioned. But even still, they still used methodological naturalism to study natural phenomena.

Try to understand that methodological naturalism isn’t incompatible with religion. The type of naturalism that is incompatible with religion is philosophical naturalism.

And I’m talking within the context of natural sciences. Such as biology and physics and environmental science.

And I agree with you on your contention that creationism has lots of evidence. It totally does. It uses the same evidence as evolution. [b]But[/b], it is still not science because of the violation of that axiom. [/quote]

You seem to think that I don’t understand what you are saying. Let me be clear, I understand but I disagree.

As I have said, your definitional semantics around scientist vs natural philosopher are irrelevant. By any measure Newton, Kepler and Galileo were scientists. They were also creationists. The point is, they made incredible advances in science while believing in a creator. More than that, they chalked up their success to that very fact.
[/quote]

I also believe in a first cause that lives and breathes through us. But I also feel based on historical evidence that the scientific method/s is/are best for discovering knowledge about the natural world.

689

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

My friends Pat and Sloth would do well to read this book by Sarfati: http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati
[/quote]

Far too generous of you to worry over me push. However, I must regrettably inform you that I’m well entrenched in my belief in both evolution and God. Or to be more specific with your objections, macroevolution. Now, I understand you reject that one can hold to both, God and evolution. Hey, the atheists often say the same from the other side, so I get it from both sides.

That’s fine by me. I doubt it has any relevance to whatever puts food on your table. In fact, for the vast, vast, majority, it doesn’t. Heck outside of evolutionary biology…Well, who’s to tell a guy working on designing a petroleum eating microbe that he’s not a scientist because he doesn’t accept macroevolution? Not me! And while I realize this isn’t reciprocated, your belief in creationism isn’t a sin according to my faith. So, it’s of zero concern to me that you’re a young-earth creationist.

Again, I’m not here for the young earth creationism vs. evo debate. Just chiming in on some bio questions here and there. It makes for a good review.
[/quote]

x2

690

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]

I am not a creationist in the traditional sense of the word. I believe that God is the creator of existence itself, that doesn’t mean I take Genesis 1 a literal account, through the paradigm of modern thought.
But like I said, the order of events does square with science. I believe, this universe we live in is about 13.7 billion years old, as we understand a year to be.
[/quote]

I still do not see why he would make it appear to be that old. What purpose does it serve. If he was directly involved it could have been done in a second.[/quote]

This was Augustine’s point of view, that everything was created at once. Anyway, back on topic.

691

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]

I am not a creationist in the traditional sense of the word. I believe that God is the creator of existence itself, that doesn’t mean I take Genesis 1 a literal account, through the paradigm of modern thought.
But like I said, the order of events does square with science. I believe, this universe we live in is about 13.7 billion years old, as we understand a year to be.
[/quote]

I still do not see why he would make it appear to be that old. What purpose does it serve. If he was directly involved it could have been done in a second.

I have read the cosmological argument explanation you have presented in many threads and to me it is logical, it makes sense. What if that is taken a bit further, perhaps a bit of a panentheistic view. God created the first cause within that is the foundation/blueprint for the universe so, he is in everything but, not in everything, involved but, not involved. That way the time it took for creation to reach where we are now is not an issue. Once it was set in motion the conditions/natural causes would determine how long it takes. It would not be complete chance or dumb luck but, an inevitable result. Just like everything else, an apple will decay how long before it does will depend.

Young earth believers and non literal genesis arguments with the false carbon dating and a day was not a day seem to just want to fit the puzzle pieces together by any means necessary making it complicated and confusing. That is not to say it is not possible. [/quote]

It doesn’t appear old. You need to remember that there is no direct measurement of time. Measurements are made in the present and then elapsed time is calculated using various unprovable assumptions.

Unfortunately for the long agers, the same assumptions applied in different places result in maximum ages that are far younger than 4.5 billion years. take a look at this for some examples. Evidence for a young world - creation.com
[/quote]

I believe some of those have been refuted on these forums in past threads.

-I have read counter-arguments for the helium issue having to do with heat, ionization, leaking.

  • I have read convincing arguments against points 10 and 11.

-Many strata are too tightly bent; refuted: EvC Forum: bent strata

692

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]

I am not a creationist in the traditional sense of the word. I believe that God is the creator of existence itself, that doesn’t mean I take Genesis 1 a literal account, through the paradigm of modern thought.
But like I said, the order of events does square with science. I believe, this universe we live in is about 13.7 billion years old, as we understand a year to be.
[/quote]

I still do not see why he would make it appear to be that old. What purpose does it serve. If he was directly involved it could have been done in a second.

I have read the cosmological argument explanation you have presented in many threads and to me it is logical, it makes sense. What if that is taken a bit further, perhaps a bit of a panentheistic view. God created the first cause within that is the foundation/blueprint for the universe so, he is in everything but, not in everything, involved but, not involved. That way the time it took for creation to reach where we are now is not an issue. Once it was set in motion the conditions/natural causes would determine how long it takes. It would not be complete chance or dumb luck but, an inevitable result. Just like everything else, an apple will decay how long before it does will depend.

Young earth believers and non literal genesis arguments with the false carbon dating and a day was not a day seem to just want to fit the puzzle pieces together by any means necessary making it complicated and confusing. That is not to say it is not possible. [/quote]

Interesting take.

For all, has that explanation been used in a certain religion or philosophy?

693

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

…Atheist websites are not biased…

[/quote]
[/quote]

It’s priceless isn’t it!! "you guys, you’re all biased and whatnot but us over here, well, we’re not! Can’t you see, I’ve got a white coat on!!!

694

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

It doesn’t appear old. You need to remember that there is no direct measurement of time. Measurements are made in the present and then elapsed time is calculated using various unprovable assumptions.

Unfortunately for the long agers, the same assumptions applied in different places result in maximum ages that are far younger than 4.5 billion years. take a look at this for some examples. http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world
[/quote]

I believe some of those have been refuted on these forums in past threads.

-I have read counter-arguments for the helium issue having to do with heat, ionization, leaking.

  • I have read convincing arguments against points 10 and 11.

-Many strata are too tightly bent; refuted: EvC Forum: bent strata
[/quote]

oh, I’m sure they have all been refuted somewhere. The point is that it is inconsistent to claim naturalism when it gets you the answer you’re after but then deny it when the answer contradicts your story. It is the very definition of special pleading.

695

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

Creationism is also a hypothesis. When tested the hypothesis passes as it is able to explain the natural phenomena that we observe.[/quote]

Excuse me? Creationism 100% does not pass it’s hypothesis when examined under the scientific method. I must have read your post wrong but to me I read that creationism has been proven by science which is obviously not true.
[/quote]

You have misread the post. I didn’t say that creationism is proven by science because your definition of science excludes creation (nice and circular!)

What I actually said was that creationism is able to explain the natural phenomena that we observe. In that way the hypothesis is tested and passes.

I’ll give you an example, the fossil record. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, the creation model predicts that we will find animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed.

What do we observe? Animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed! Puncuated equilibrium was postulated in order to avoid this inconvenient fact.

It is actually worse than that. Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted. In Origin of Species he wrote:

Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

Even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.

More recently, Stephen Jay Gould said:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.

So which model is consistent with the observations? (Hint, its not the ToE.)[/quote]

“What I actually said was that creationism is able to explain the natural phenomena that we observe. In that way the hypothesis is tested and passes.”

If “tested and passes” isn’t referring to science then what are you talking about?

“the creation model predicts that we will find animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed.”

Define “fully formed.” I don’t think you understand evolution…Every living thing is a transitional form.

And the ‘Lack of Transitional Forms’ Argument can be solved by using Google. Here are some sites that may help you understand that there are indeed several transitional fossils. And by the way, we are a transitional form too.

And again I’d love to hear creations definition of “fully formed”

696

That last post is the essence of what I’ve been trying to get across. Both sides have the same evidence to observe (fossils, plants, animals, chemistry etc). It is the presuppositions that affect the answer you get when you apply your presuppositions.

The thing is that creationists are up front about theirs (the bible) but atheists/agnostics/evolutionists are not. They claim to start without bias (cough oldmanjoe cough cough). The honest ones though let the cat out of the bag.

e.g Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic

Professor Richard Lewontin,

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that [b]we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes[/b] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
698

[quote]schmichael wrote:
As I have said, your definitional semantics around scientist vs natural philosopher are irrelevant. By any measure Newton, Kepler and Galileo were scientists. They were also creationists. The point is, they made incredible advances in science while believing in a creator. More than that, they chalked up their success to that very fact.
[/quote]

No, they were not creationists, they were Christians. Reading the Book of Nature was new and exiting and thats the field of accomplishment they are remembered for.

699

I’m not sure who your targeting with your last post schmichael but I’ve been very up front about the presuppositions of science and I suggest that they’re the best ones for discovering natural phenomena from a historical standpoint. Not science because to do so would be circular reasoning. I’ll be up front and say my history is not as strong as my science and philosophy of science and but I’m no dummy when it comes to it either especially the history of science. If you want to suggest otherwise from a historical standpoint, I’ll listen but I can’ promise I’ll agree although you never know what could happen.

Based on history, I believe that up to this date, the scientific method and the presuppositions it’s based on are the best for making discoveries about the natural world. I also think it’s important to study scientific paradigm and philosophies, so that the next great paradigm change may come about open up new era of discovery. Again, that’s based on what I’ve read up about history.

This one’s for the religious or anyone interested. Science owes a great debt to religion. Particularly the Catholic church for maintaining Greek documents that were later analyzed by people in the church and the natural philosophers funded by the church. That’s not to say the church has never held science back, but I think it’s done a lot more good than harm.

700

Fletch, I agree with you. I will say that I think you are very loose with your definitions though. When you say “the scientific method and the presuppositions it’s based on are the best for making discoveries about the natural world”, it would be good if you would define those presuppositions and why they are valid under your worldview.

E.g. the christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for doing science by establishing a basis for things such as laws of logic, uniformity of nature and reliability of our senses and memory. These are all required in order to learn anything about the universe. According to the naturalistic worldview, however, the universe is an accident, and there is no intelligence, plan or purpose behind it. In that worldview, therefore, there is no logical reason why any of these preconditions should be true. Furthermore, if the human brain is merely the product of random chemical accidents, why should we trust its reasoning?

I realise that you are positing some other, pantheistic type of intelligence. But the problem is that you haven’t really articulated it so I can’t interact with you on it.