Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
801

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
As to point 3 Trib is correct about one thing. You either put your faith in the supernatural or you put it in the belief(I’d call it a fact) that our perceptions reflect the universe as it truly is. These positions are pretty much in opposition on most things. Why they aren’t necessarily against a creator say is that that being would be outside of our universe by its very nature and science for all the things it can do says and predicts nothing at all about conditions or things that may or may not exist outside of the universe. But within the universe certainly it presents a bit of a jumbled together world view to believe that our senses reflect the universe accurately(science) and at the same time believe that in certain cases our senses don’t reflect this at all(supernatural things) and that both of these things are at the same time true. Its not a very consistent position. [quote]

I think that science explains Gods work. I think what we call, “supernatural,” is just God work that has not been explained by science. Ultimately I believe science will lead to the revelation that God exists.
[/quote]

You’re just wrong here though. Or you have a strange conception of god. Most modern conceptions of God and certainly a Christian god have him as a creator that is separate from the universe. Science says nothing about what exists outside the universe.

802

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
As to point 3 Trib is correct about one thing. You either put your faith in the supernatural or you put it in the belief(I’d call it a fact) that our perceptions reflect the universe as it truly is. These positions are pretty much in opposition on most things. Why they aren’t necessarily against a creator say is that that being would be outside of our universe by its very nature and science for all the things it can do says and predicts nothing at all about conditions or things that may or may not exist outside of the universe. But within the universe certainly it presents a bit of a jumbled together world view to believe that our senses reflect the universe accurately(science) and at the same time believe that in certain cases our senses don’t reflect this at all(supernatural things) and that both of these things are at the same time true. Its not a very consistent position. [/quote]

I think that science explains Gods work. I think what we call, “supernatural,” is just God work that has not been explained by science. Ultimately I believe science will lead to the revelation that God exists.
[/quote]

You’re just wrong here though. Or you have a strange conception of god. Most modern conceptions of God and certainly a Christian god have him as a creator that is separate from the universe. Science says nothing about what exists outside the universe.
[/quote]

I guess I have a strange concept of God. I believe he exist within the universe, but also apart from the universe.

803

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
As to point 3 Trib is correct about one thing. You either put your faith in the supernatural or you put it in the belief(I’d call it a fact) that our perceptions reflect the universe as it truly is. These positions are pretty much in opposition on most things. Why they aren’t necessarily against a creator say is that that being would be outside of our universe by its very nature and science for all the things it can do says and predicts nothing at all about conditions or things that may or may not exist outside of the universe. But within the universe certainly it presents a bit of a jumbled together world view to believe that our senses reflect the universe accurately(science) and at the same time believe that in certain cases our senses don’t reflect this at all(supernatural things) and that both of these things are at the same time true. Its not a very consistent position. [/quote]

I think that science explains Gods work. I think what we call, “supernatural,” is just God work that has not been explained by science. Ultimately I believe science will lead to the revelation that God exists.
[/quote]

You’re just wrong here though. Or you have a strange conception of god. Most modern conceptions of God and certainly a Christian god have him as a creator that is separate from the universe. Science says nothing about what exists outside the universe.
[/quote]

I guess I have a strange concept of God. I believe he exist within the universe, but also apart from the universe. [/quote]

Then YEC shouldn’t matter to you really one way or the other. You have a personal conception of God which none of the big religions is going to hold to.

804

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
As to point 3 Trib is correct about one thing. You either put your faith in the supernatural or you put it in the belief(I’d call it a fact) that our perceptions reflect the universe as it truly is. These positions are pretty much in opposition on most things. Why they aren’t necessarily against a creator say is that that being would be outside of our universe by its very nature and science for all the things it can do says and predicts nothing at all about conditions or things that may or may not exist outside of the universe. But within the universe certainly it presents a bit of a jumbled together world view to believe that our senses reflect the universe accurately(science) and at the same time believe that in certain cases our senses don’t reflect this at all(supernatural things) and that both of these things are at the same time true. Its not a very consistent position. [/quote]

I think that science explains Gods work. I think what we call, “supernatural,” is just God work that has not been explained by science. Ultimately I believe science will lead to the revelation that God exists.
[/quote]

You’re just wrong here though. Or you have a strange conception of god. Most modern conceptions of God and certainly a Christian god have him as a creator that is separate from the universe. Science says nothing about what exists outside the universe.
[/quote]

I guess I have a strange concept of God. I believe he exist within the universe, but also apart from the universe. [/quote]

Then YEC shouldn’t matter to you really one way or the other. You have a personal conception of God which none of the big religions is going to hold to.
[/quote]

No it really doesn’t, I just wanted to add my $0.02.

805

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anyone still not understand why “creation science” can’t be taught in science class or as a science?[/quote]

I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]

Thank you pat.

806

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]

Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.

Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.

Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]

Very well said.

807

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]

Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.

Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.

Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]

Very well said.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say so because he says "Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith "

I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too?

For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.

808

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]

Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.

Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.

Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]

Very well said.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say so because he says "Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith "

I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too?

For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.[/quote]

Got a link?

809

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too? [/quote]

Because not all things that humans need to explore intellectually can be empirically measured or observed, and we still need to explore them.

Science can’t provide good insight on matters of Faith, because inquiries into Faith use tools that are beyond the toolkit of Science. And, to let Science “answer” these questions is to privilege Science in a way that provides perverse results and takes away from Science’s mission.

Let Science be Science. Science is not a substitute for Religion, nor is it a rebuttal to it.

810

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.[/quote]

Hmm, people tend to pray when they are at leisure, don’t they? I hope you are not talking on behalf of evolution now, because that’s of no use. Neurology sure tells us a lot of interesting things about belief and faith, but it tells about us, not the object of our faiths. As I said, science is uncapable of that.

811

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]

Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.

Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.

Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]

Very well said.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say so because he says "Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith "

I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too?

For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.[/quote]

If prayer has an effect of making people feel better , like for eg meditation, then what’s the issue? Some things cannot be empirically proved/disproved because they are subjective. Prayer provides comfort for some.

Who is anyone to say otherwise? I think you are vastly overreaching here.

812

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]

Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.

Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.

Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]

Very well said.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say so because he says "Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith "

I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too?

For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.[/quote]

Got a link?[/quote]

There’s lots of studies that have been done. Here’s some links that I found quickly:

http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Harvard_prayer_experiment

Anyway even if these studies weren’t conducted I would still think we’d know by now if prayer actually could do anything. Especially when James Randi’s million bucks is up for grabs to the first person who can demonstrate it.

813

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]

Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.

Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.

Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]

Very well said.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say so because he says "Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith "

I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too?

For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.[/quote]

Got a link?[/quote]

There’s lots of studies that have been done. Here’s some links that I found quickly:

http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Harvard_prayer_experiment

Anyway even if these studies weren’t conducted I would still think we’d know by now if prayer actually could do anything. Especially when James Randi’s million bucks is up for grabs to the first person who can demonstrate it.
[/quote]

Randi wont give his million bucks only because the prayer feels better, but if prayer makes people feel better… think positive. Positive thinking has clearly measurable effects.

814

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]

Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.

Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.

Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]

Very well said.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say so because he says "Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith "

I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too?

For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.[/quote]

If prayer has an effect of making people feel better , like for eg meditation, then what’s the issue? Some things cannot be empirically proved/disproved because they are subjective. Prayer provides comfort for some.

Who is anyone to say otherwise? I think you are vastly overreaching here.

[/quote]

Because the claims of Religions are not that prayer is to make you feel good, it’s that prayer is a method of contacting supernatural beings. So the issue is that someone is saying you can contact God by praying, but they are making a false claim because we humans tested it and almost all tests show that prayer doesn’t do anything.

And then at the bigger end of the spectrum you have people praying instead of getting medical attention. Example: Those parents who decided to pray for their kids appendix to heal instead of taking him to the hospital, and then the kid died. (Google it, it’s everywhere) Thanks a lot prayer.

Just because something has a Placebo effect doesn’t mean we should just accept it and move on.

815

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Who is anyone to say otherwise? I think you are vastly overreaching here. [/quote]

Indeed, he is overreaching, and he is whistling past some of the horrible results we’ve seen when he let Science get out of its parameters and start informing philosophy, morality, religion, etc.

A perfect example is the lovely idea of eugenics. The child of “science”, this little movement gained some popularity and in the name of Reason and Science argued that we should intentionally try and manipulate the genetics of a population to improve people and society. Morally icky, and frankly, morally indefensible.

Luckily, the idea fell into disrepute. But more specifically, what eugenics explains is that the misuse of “science” as would be any perceived misuses of “faith”.

816

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too? [/quote]

Because not all things that humans need to explore intellectually can be empirically measured or observed, and we still need to explore them.

Science can’t provide good insight on matters of Faith, because inquiries into Faith use tools that are beyond the toolkit of Science. And, to let Science “answer” these questions is to privilege Science in a way that provides perverse results and takes away from Science’s mission.

Let Science be Science. Science is not a substitute for Religion, nor is it a rebuttal to it. [/quote]

You’re way too vague mon ami! Please dumb it down for my old brain!

For example what are the tools you’re talking about!?

:slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

817

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

Because the claims of Religions are not that prayer is to make you feel good, it’s that prayer is a method of contacting supernatural beings. So the issue is that someone is saying you can contact God by praying, but they are making a false claim because we humans tested it and almost all tests show that prayer doesn’t do anything.

And then at the bigger end of the spectrum you have people praying instead of getting medical attention. Example: Those parents who decided to pray for their kids appendix to heal instead of taking him to the hospital, and then the kid died. (Google it, it’s everywhere) Thanks a lot prayer.

Just because something has a Placebo effect doesn’t mean we should just accept it and move on.
[/quote]

Placebo effect gets a bad rap, but within limitations it works just fine. You are talking about stupidity here, not just prayer.

818

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
So the issue is that someone is saying you can contact God by praying, but they are making a false claim because we humans tested it and almost all tests show that prayer doesn’t do anything.

[/quote]

Really? How did you falsify the remission of sins?

819

OMJ, you’re on some really shaky ground.

820

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I went to Catholic high school and we were taught evolution. We discussed Genesis in religion class.[/quote]

Precisely. The warfare over these positions exists in the fevered minds of two camps of blinkered extremists. The rest understand the positions, properly understood, are not irreconcilable.

Science is a body of knowledge of based on a methodology of observability and measurability, and therefore empiricism; religion is based on faith.

Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith because it cannot do so adequately. Religion shouldn’t try to answer questions about science because it cannot do so adequately. That isn’t an indictment of either one - it is simply a truth that each handles and informs a different aspect of human inquiry.[/quote]

Very well said.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say so because he says "Science shouldn’t try to answer questions about faith "

I don’t see how that makes any sense. Science is useful for answering questions about everything so why not Faith too?

For example it was a great idea to Scientifically conduct prayer tests because now some of us are aware that prayer (related to faith) doesn’t accomplish anything except possibly giving someone a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of Religion polluting the mind because you have all these people wasting time all over the world praying when they could be doing something that’s actually productive.[/quote]

If prayer has an effect of making people feel better , like for eg meditation, then what’s the issue? Some things cannot be empirically proved/disproved because they are subjective. Prayer provides comfort for some.

Who is anyone to say otherwise? I think you are vastly overreaching here.

[/quote]

Because the claims of Religions are not that prayer is to make you feel good, it’s that prayer is a method of contacting supernatural beings. So the issue is that someone is saying you can contact God by praying, but they are making a false claim because we humans tested it and almost all tests show that prayer doesn’t do anything.

And then at the bigger end of the spectrum you have people praying instead of getting medical attention. Example: Those parents who decided to pray for their kids appendix to heal instead of taking him to the hospital, and then the kid died. (Google it, it’s everywhere) Thanks a lot prayer.

Just because something has a Placebo effect doesn’t mean we should just accept it and move on.
[/quote]

You have kids?

If you do, I’m sure you have said to them “it will all be fine, don’t worry” or something along those lines.

Why? You have no empirical evidence it WILL be ok, so why do you bother? You are perpetuating a delusion. Any comfort you ever offer along those lines will be in real terms ,a lie. A sham.
Perhaps you’ve never done that , I don’t know. I know I certainly have.

As for placebo effect, I don’t think you’re clear on what that means in this particular instance.