Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

But Critical Thinking hurts children, that's why they've tried to ban it in Texas. We can't afford to have a nation of future citizens that can think for themselves, they'll realize everything our great politicians say is bullfuck.
 
Dawkins and Sagan have been saying this for decades. Unfortunately, our society just isn't ready. Although, I'm glad to see Nye is keeping up the good fight.

Check out God Dilusion by Richard Dawkins and Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan for some very good reading on the topic.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Dawkins and Sagan have been saying this for decades. Unfortunately, our society just isn't ready. Although, I'm glad to see Nye is keeping up the good fight.

Check out God Dilusion by Richard Dawkins and Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan for some very good reading on the topic.[/QUOTE]

It's not society. Most people understand evolution and don't believe in creationism. Creationism is a minority viewpoint.

Creationism's days are numbered, stupidity like that has no chance but to die off. Dawkins and Nye are just trying to kill it off quicker.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's not society. Most people understand evolution and don't believe in creationism. Creationism is a minority viewpoint.

Creationism's days are numbered, stupidity like that has no chance but to die off. Dawkins and Nye are just trying to kill it off quicker.[/QUOTE]

You're wrong. So is Bill Nye. There will always be dumb ass true believers who will cling to creationism.
 
[quote name='confoosious']You're wrong. So is Bill Nye. There will always be dumb ass true believers who will cling to creationism.[/QUOTE]

Yeah just like there will always be people who think the earth is flat.

What I'm trying to say is that 99.999999% of people laugh at the .000001% of people who still think the earth is flat. One day that will hold true for creationism as well. I'm not saying it will necessarily happen in my lifetime, but it will happen.

In the meantime I've learned to ignore the stupidity, it's too much effort to try and correct it. Kudos to anyone who wants to debate it though - I enjoy the back-and-forth.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah just like there will always be people who think the earth is flat.

What I'm trying to say is that 99.999999% of people laugh at the .000001% of people who still think the earth is flat. One day that will hold true for creationism as well. I'm not saying it will necessarily happen in my lifetime, but it will happen.

In the meantime I've learned to ignore the stupidity, it's too much effort to try and correct it. Kudos to anyone who wants to debate it though - I enjoy the back-and-forth.[/QUOTE]


You may be right, but it's going to take a lot longer for that to die out (unless we meet some aliens.) Creationism usually makes people feel better about the future and gives them a sense of hope even when life sucks, thanks to the oft accompanying concept of the afterlife. Try taking that away from someone and see if they don't double down. The world being flat wasn't something that got embedded into the mind like this.
 
[quote name='ID2006']You may be right, but it's going to take a lot longer for that to die out (unless we meet some aliens.) Creationism usually makes people feel better about the future and gives them a sense of hope even when life sucks, thanks to the oft accompanying concept of the afterlife. Try taking that away from someone and see if they don't double down. The world being flat wasn't something that got embedded into the mind like this.[/QUOTE]

OK so then how about believing that the Sun rotated around the earth. That also gave people comfort, because the church and the people enjoyed thinking that they were literally the center of the universe, but only little kids and the feeble minded believe that today.

Stomping out religious psuedoscience is a fairly lofty goal, especially because US is just around the corner from the Scopes Monkey Trial. I'm just glad that the only people who believe in creationism are toothless hicks and the politicians that pander to them, thankfully I'll never live near an area where people would even entertain that horseshit. Dumb-as-dirt redneck Christians will never understand science, and the only way they will understand that Creationism is bullshit is when they wake up and realize that everyone is laughing at them. I don't really give a shit what they believe.
 
Oh I wish they were only toothless hicks, they'd be easier to avoid. Unfortunately in the south many creationists appear no different than you or I, until they open their mouths.
 
There are creationists everywhere and they come in all shapes, sizes, and skin tones. I used to be more militant about my atheism, but looking at religion with a different lens, there is definitely utility in it as long as you don't take it as the literal truth. There can be important lessons to be found and I've learned not to be so dismissive. Not to mention that religion has shaped culture and is used to pass on what's left of certain ones that are being wiped out.

But let's be honest, creationism as we know it and are discussing it is really just a christian thing.
 
[quote name='camoor']OK so then how about believing that the Sun rotated around the earth. That also gave people comfort, because the church and the people enjoyed thinking that they were literally the center of the universe, but only little kids and the feeble minded believe that today.

Stomping out religious psuedoscience is a fairly lofty goal, especially because US is just around the corner from the Scopes Monkey Trial. I'm just glad that the only people who believe in creationism are toothless hicks and the politicians that pander to them, thankfully I'll never live near an area where people would even entertain that horseshit. Dumb-as-dirt redneck Christians will never understand science, and the only way they will understand that Creationism is bullshit is when they wake up and realize that everyone is laughing at them. I don't really give a shit what they believe.[/QUOTE]


I don't think it's about pseudoscience, but rather a near complete rejection of the parts of science that disagree with creationism. Even accepting that the earth isn't the center is nowhere near as monumental as accepting that our existence is finite rather than infinite (in some conscious form or another.) Not many people want to think about being wiped out from existence, especially those who are older but were raised under creationism. For them, ignorance is bliss.

There are plenty of creationists who aren't "toothless hicks", so you should keep that in mind, and for a lot of them, creationism doesn't rule their lives. It's just something they don't closely examine since it makes them feel better. I know quite a few, but don't bring up the topic at all. If they want to discuss or even refuse modern scientific dilemmas such as global warming, then I'm willing to talk about those, though.

Besides, being taught evolution may be a step forward, but, scientifically, most evolutionists don't know much more than the very basics. Our national education isn't so great at the moment. There can still be a wide range of views on social issues like gay rights and abortion.
 
[quote name='ID2006']I don't think it's about pseudoscience, but rather a near complete rejection of the parts of science that disagree with creationism. Even accepting that the earth isn't the center is nowhere near as monumental as accepting that our existence is finite rather than infinite (in some conscious form or another.) Not many people want to think about being wiped out from existence, especially those who are older but were raised under creationism. For them, ignorance is bliss.

There are plenty of creationists who aren't "toothless hicks", so you should keep that in mind, and for a lot of them, creationism doesn't rule their lives. It's just something they don't closely examine since it makes them feel better. I know quite a few, but don't bring up the topic at all. If they want to discuss or even refuse modern scientific dilemmas such as global warming, then I'm willing to talk about those, though.

Besides, being taught evolution may be a step forward, but, scientifically, most evolutionists don't know much more than the very basics. Our national education isn't so great at the moment. There can still be a wide range of views on social issues like gay rights and abortion.[/QUOTE]

What does evolution have to do with the decision to believe Consciousness is finite?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What does evolution have to do with the decision to believe Consciousness is finite?[/QUOTE]


Well, for one thing, when you start to believe in evolution, you're letting the unity of logic and science get its foot in the doorway.

One focus of evolution is on the development path of humanity and free will, as well as how the brain, memories, and consciousness can exist. Once you can understand why we have memories, free will, and consciousness, there isn't any reason to believe it would exist after the death of the brain and body. Perhaps some amazing brain transplant technique will be developed far in the future, but it still can't last forever. Nature and the universe itself will make sure of that.

If you're talking about a "soul", then you still aren't fully committed to logic and science, as there is no logical indication that consciousness and especially memory can carry over to anything beyond death.

But yeah, I suppose I can't forget about dissonant thought schemes. There are people that try to acknowledge both science and the afterlife in their beliefs. It's messy.

Edit: Also, I wasn't saying that only those who believe purely in science are the ones who think consciousness is finite. I imagine there are some religions that allow for a temporary existence as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That seems to be one unifying trend amongst most popular religions, the belief that one never truly dies. Be it through a soul going to an afterlife or something like reincarnation. I always figured it's a coping mechanism, a way of making believers feel better about death.
 
I can't help but find this troubling. There is no other label for this than belief bigotry.

Quite literally, Mr. Nye, as well as most of you (except dohdough), seem to be fully committed to assigning a persons value or ability to contribute to society to whether or not they give up their dogma for yours.

Make no mistake, the personal choice to be "committed to logic and science" is dogma. It's just one you agree with, so you see it as above dogma. Look up the definition of dogma if you have trouble agreeing. The methods are no different than any religion in history that has ostracized others for refusing to bend the knee. It doesn't make it more "OK" because you've swapped a Jew dying for your sins for the scientific method and peer review.

I find this growing modern hostility to anyone that doesn't fall in line with a particular way of thinking to be alarmingly regressive.

Let's expose this for what it is. This isn't about evolution its about belief bigotry, and trying to make it acceptable. Evolution is just a trojan horse for this agenda.
Many many religious or spiritual people are perfectly fine with evolution. Even if they aren't, they are participating in scientific endeavors and are great engineers and scientists. To even insinuate you can't be a great scientist if you are religious or entertain religious concepts is beyond obtuse.

It's amazing to me that if a scientist personally believes in an afterlife, he can be labeled as not being fully committed to science. It doesn't hurt his work as a scientist. How can it?If that's acceptable then it's hard to be convincing that being "fully committed to science" is a good thing.

This is about a witch hunt on anyone that entertains ideas and concepts dealing outside the five senses and repeatable lab tests. This is about making it acceptable to castigate anyone that may not find much personal value in the limiters and boundaries dictated by a select group of elitists. This is about the desire by some to resurrect pseudo medieval Vatican style belief police to normalize a new kind of bigotry. It's repugnant.

I find ANYONE that would label others for their beliefs as their inferiors, or idiots, or "holding society back" as a beacon of divisive social rot and a symbol of the most dangerous parts of our culture and society. This is the worst type of divisiveness.

It disgusts me that there is this so-called intellectual class that in the last hundred years has simply swapped out their racial and genetic people filter for a belief filter. For them, it's perfectly acceptable to categorize the worth and value of a human - not by how they treat others or how they contribute to this world - but by what they choose to believe and how they choose to define their human experience.


I will encourage my children to spend their human experience seeking answers from as many sources as possible both socially, scientifically, and academically acceptable and otherwise -always keeping an open mind to any new idea, regardless of how silly it sounds. I will encourage them to formulate their reality on not only evidence and facts but also intuition, feeling, and personal experience. Above all, I will encourage them to never accept anyone's definition of reality, and to keep definitions of reality in flux -fully accepting that there is far more in this universe than what can be detected by their five senses or any constructed instrument. I will teach them there is no shame in studying or entertaining ideas outside the confines of what peer-reviewed science approves and dictates.

My children will know they should not be shamed, or shame others, for ANY belief or (peaceful) method utilized to arrive at a belief. I will teach them that acceptance, tolerance, and kindness are infinitely more important virtues to society than rigid adherence to methods or dogmatic constructs of men.

I will do my BEST to make sure my children are raised knowing there isn't much worse they can do than believing themselves superior to others, especially over differences in beliefs or how they perceive reality.

Anyone that wants to judge this as doing a "disservice" to my children is truly an enemy to society or social progress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Religion doesn't advance a society. Religion doesn't help create cures for diseases or advance technology, it simply comforts people, it's a security blanket. It also doesn't expand minds or thinking, that's philosophy. You see, being intolerant of someone because of their race is ridiculous, their race doesn't make them inferior. Frankly, there are inferior ways of thinking, see the Republican party. So if you want to continue believing in a children's fairytale that's fine, but I'm not going to take you very seriously if you do.
 
My views on religion these days are more or less in line with dohdough's. I used to be more militant my atheism, but I don't really care anymore. As long as people keep it to themselves and aren't going around trying to convert people, force their views on others, erode separation of church and state etc. I couldn't care less what someone believes.

To the above discussion, I think someone can certainly believe in an afterlife and still be a good scientist. Taking somethings at faith doesn't preclude respecting logic or science. And there's no scientific proof that there's not a soul, afterlife etc. We may just not have the tools to detect it yet. I don't believe in it, but I don't think that those who do can't be good scientists or whatever.

Evolution is a different story, as a true scientist has to believe in that as the evidence is there. So I have little faith in a creationists ability to be a competent scientist as they're showing a willing disregard of scientific evidence as it opposes their theological beliefs. But there's no evidence for/against an afterlife, souls etc. at this point, so that issue isn't relevant to those kind of beliefs like it is creationism/evolution.

But in general, I feel no need to denigrate religious people who aren't extreme about it, aren't ignoring scientific evidence like evolution and aren't trying to force their views on others. It's a free country, people can believe what they want as long as they aren't forcing it on others, or trying to harm society (not teaching evolution etc.) by blocking things that oppose their theology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Religion doesn't advance a society. Religion doesn't help create cures for diseases or advance technology, it simply comforts people, it's a security blanket. It also doesn't expand minds or thinking, that's philosophy. You see, being intolerant of someone because of their race is ridiculous, their race doesn't make them inferior. Frankly, there are inferior ways of thinking, see the Republican party. So if you want to continue believing in a children's fairytale that's fine, but I'm not going to take you very seriously if you do.[/QUOTE]

You missed the point. Anything that promotes the segregation of people into categories of inferior and superior is wrong. It doesn't matter if it's because of their race, sex, or because of their beliefs. It's wrong. Beliefs largely make up who a person is. So to say someone's belief is inferior to yours is absolutely saying you are superior to them.

Publicly devaluing people for their personal beliefs doesn't advance a society either. People that go around regurgitating Bill Maher or bully those that don't think like them certainly don't create cures for diseases or advance technology either. It simply makes them feel superior to others by feeding their ego.

Individuals have a right to believe what they want. They have a right to "advance" themselves as they see fit as long as it doesn't directly harm others. They don't need an authority to tell them to stop thinking X and start thinking Y. From reading your posts, it sounds like you would love to change this country into a science based theocracy. That's scary. Ideology isn't what makes theocracy evil. It's methods and practices make it evil.

If Roger believes space aliens tampered with evolution to create us, it doesn't hurt an anyone. Advocating social crucifixion of Roger or participating in verbal tar and featherings of Roger hurts everyone and everything we should be standing for.

We don't need the state mandating what is inferior and superior thinking. In fact, I reject the entire notion of superior and inferior thinking. There is only different thinking. There is only thinking you agree with or disagree with. Disagreeing with someone absolutely does not make you superior. To think otherwise is incredibly destructive. Such are the seeds of fascism and imperialism.

You can go on believing others are inferior to you because of their beliefs and ideas, but I'm not going to take you very seriously if you do. Not because your beliefs are inferior, but because they are dangerous.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My views on religion these days are more or less in line with dohdough's. I used to be more militant my atheism, but I don't really care anymore. As long as people keep it to themselves and aren't going around trying to convert people, force their views on others, erode separation of church and state etc. I couldn't care less what someone believes.

To the above discussion, I think someone can certainly believe in an afterlife and still be a good scientist. Taking somethings at faith doesn't preclude respecting logic or science. And there's no scientific proof that there's not a soul, afterlife etc. We may just not have the tools to detect it yet. I don't believe in it, but I don't think that those who do can't be good scientists or whatever.

Evolution is a different story, as a true scientist has to believe in that as the evidence is there. So I have little faith in a creationists ability to be a competent science as they're showing a willing disregard of scientific evidence as it opposes their theological beliefs. But there's no evidence for/against an afterlife, souls etc. at this point, so that issue isn't relevant to those kind of beliefs like it is creationism/evolution.

But in general, I feel no need to denigrate religious people who aren't extreme about it, aren't ignoring scientific evidence like evolution and aren't trying to force their views on others. It's a free country, people can believe what they want as long as they aren't forcing it on others, or trying to harm society (not teaching evolution etc.) by blocking things that oppose their theology.[/QUOTE]

Good post. Reminds me why I've always respected and even liked you.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']To the above discussion, I think someone can certainly believe in an afterlife and still be a good scientist. Taking somethings at faith doesn't preclude respecting logic or science. And there's no scientific proof that there's not a soul, afterlife etc. We may just not have the tools to detect it yet. I don't believe in it, but I don't think that those who do can't be good scientists or whatever.[/QUOTE]


What possible reason could there be to believe in an afterlife, though, aside from personal comfort or coping with morality. Is there any evidence or rationalizing that can account for an afterlife? If you're really a scientist I don't see why you'd entertain the thought. There's no reason to believe people can communicate telepathically or predict the future, and a scientist who did believe so would be taken less seriously when broaching new scientific material at the fringe of our current knowledge, as well as when formulating an alternative theory to something we currently accept.

I'm not being hard-line here, though. There are many realms of science, and most of them don't even deal with this sort of thing. Obviously a person who studies animals, medicine, etc. will probably not be putting things out there pertaining to the supernatural or metaphysical, regardless of their belief in an afterlife.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You missed the point. Anything that promotes the segregation of people into categories of inferior and superior is wrong. It doesn't matter if it's because of their race, sex, or because of their beliefs. It's wrong. Beliefs largely make up who a person is. So to say someone's belief is inferior to yours is absolutely saying you are superior to them.

Publicly devaluing people for their personal beliefs doesn't advance a society either. People that go around regurgitating Bill Maher or bully those that don't think like them certainly don't create cures for diseases or advance technology either. It simply makes them feel superior to others by feeding their ego.

Individuals have a right to believe what they want. They have a right to "advance" themselves as they see fit as long as it doesn't directly harm others. They don't need an authority to tell them to stop thinking X and start thinking Y. From reading your posts, it sounds like you would love to change this country into a science based theocracy. That's scary. Ideology isn't what makes theocracy evil. It's methods and practices make it evil.

If Roger believes space aliens tampered with evolution to create us, it doesn't hurt an anyone. Advocating social crucifixion of Roger or participating in verbal tar and featherings of Roger hurts everyone and everything we should be standing for.

We don't need the state mandating what is inferior and superior thinking. In fact, I reject the entire notion of superior and inferior thinking. There is only different thinking. There is only thinking you agree with or disagree with. Disagreeing with someone absolutely does not make you superior. To think otherwise is incredibly destructive. Such are the seeds of fascism and imperialism.

You can go on believing others are inferior to you because of their beliefs and ideas, but I'm not going to take you very seriously if you do. Not because your beliefs are inferior, but because they are dangerous.[/QUOTE]
Easy there, cowboy. You're taking this quite a step further from what me and I assume what dmaul is saying.

Barring any mental disability, someone saying and believing that the computer I'm typing this post on is made out of cheese from Wisconsin is not even close to the same as saying it's made out of plastic, rubber, and metal.

Using reason and logic is the antithesis of what tools you would be telling your children to use when you say "intuition, feeling, and personal experience." Isn't using those "tools" the same as implying the superiority of your "guts" to your brains? What your rallying against isn't religious persecution or intolerance; but anti-intellectualism. Sorry, but the only religious group that's being persecuted like christians think they're being persecuted like are Muslims.
 
Maybe Nye put it a little too bluntly, but I don't think he's saying you can't be an engineer if you believe in creationism. He's just saying you should teach your kids to think rationally, and teaching creationism is fundamentally against that. Yes, that's Nye telling you what values to teach your kids, but it's like, common sense.

Which is why so many atheists are douchebags. Here you have kids who finally have something they can feel smart about, so every time they see a religious person it's an opportunity to get a huge ego injection. Except practicing logic isn't hard at all, and so atheists aren't any smarter than creationists by any kind of default. It's just they have an argument they always win, against people who who swear by an imprinted belief from childhood. Outside of that argument, everyone follows the scientific method in day to day life, because it's what works.

Personally, I have some crazy shit I like to think about and theories of afterlife and all that fun stuff. I know it's all bullshit but I still like to consider it. However, I would never places those beliefs on someone vulnerable as a child, or the illiterate, the impoverished, or torturing some poor soul on his death bed. In fact I just keep them to myself, and that makes me happy. Wish it were the same for other people.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What your rallying against isn't religious persecution or intolerance; but anti-intellectualism.[/QUOTE]

bingo.

if there's something that can't be explained by science, fine. what happens to us when we die? well, we know corporeally what happens. rigor mortis and decay and all that, sure. But of the mind, the consciousness? No clue. Can't tell that scientifically. Does religion make you feel more comfortable about that? Great. That 'great' is whether you answered yes or no to that question.

Bill Nye is taking issue with phenomena that science *can* or *does* explain, and those who ignore or reject that because it seems to contradict their faith or nonscientific worldview. Again, what happens to us after we die is a question science can not answer, so if need religion there, fine. But as things are explained scientifically, it is indeed problematic and harmful to deny that and continue to embrace faith.

When we began to see space from telescopes, and travel to space in spacecraft, the world had to acknowledge that heaven was not a physical place that was merely located above earth (as had previously been thought).

It is the incuriosity of the faithful that I find troubling. Science may explain x, y, or z, but those who believe will flippantly disregard that, and continue to embrace their faith and try to argue that their faith is on equal footing for intellectual consideration as science. That is the great fallacy. That is what thrustbucket seems to try to be saying here - we can not stratify ideas or belief systems according to "better" or "worse." I believe that my laptop is made from cheese, you believe it is made from undercompensated chinese labor. Why quibble about details, let's not argue who is better or worse. Let's not argue who is right or wrong. 2 + 2 can equal 5, sure. Let's not try to get all condescending about your snooty...what do you call it..."accurate" math?

Silliness should be identified and called silliness. Creationism is both silliness and harmful to teach to children because of the de-emphasis on critical thinking and built-in rejection of scientific thinking.

...you know what? I could go on, but this family's belief system is exactly what Bill Nye is speaking of on a broader level (and shows irrevocable harm caused by said belief system): http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29556439.html
 
Practicing logic isn't easy, people aren't logical beings by nature. You get a group of people together and this becomes frighteningly obvious. It takes time and good critical thinking skills to think logically, and most people are just too lazy or set in their ways. Call it ego if you want, but I do look at religious people with an understanding that they don't think about things in the same logical manner as I do, otherwise they wouldn't believe what they do. I just think ol' thrust here has an inferiority complex.
 
This is also true. It's campaign season, when we really delve deep into doing one thing and saying another.

People constantly think that they, as individuals, are not influenced by or otherwise "above" negative campaign ads. But they are indeed the campaign ads we pay the most attention to and respond the most viscerally to. They work, but we never want to admit that they work on us. They do.
 
And we're all influenced in some way, and that's normal. People who think they're above being influenced are usually proven wrong, often with funny results. It's just that for some people we need more evidence to believe some things.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You missed the point. Anything that promotes the segregation of people into categories of inferior and superior is wrong. [/QUOTE]

It's not wrong, it's a cold hard truth.

Superior: Higher in rank, status, or quality

If you classify intelligence as a quality, then people who understand the theory of evolution are superior to creationists.

You can glorify stupidity (it's a free country) but you're wrong.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Theism is the greatest threat facing this nation as far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE]

You obviously aren't thinking too hard about it.
 
Don't agree? It's certainly a matter of opinion, but when 80% of your population holds an irrational thought and believe that the afterlife is more important than this life, I see that as a problem, especially when so many want to make it a part of US legislation.
 
[quote name='eLefAdEr']Note that ratings and comments have been disabled. :whistle2:#[/QUOTE]

Eh, the internet is teeming with people prepared to troll, to say some of the most heinous things imaginable, etc. So I'm a *bit* (but not entirely) sympathetic there.

At any rate, if the crux of their rebuttal is that evolution is not settled science, well, good job. But nobody argued that.

If the crux of their rebuttal is that creationism is a scientific theory, someone forgot to tell them it was.
 
Not a settled science? Technically, yes, but you'll be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist out there who believes evolution to be false. After all, isn't all of science "unsettled" since theories are subject to change in light of new evidence?
 
Right, that's more or less all I'm trying to say. There's room for growth and refinement in any scientific explanation.

(yet another reason creationism is ascientific.)
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Don't agree? It's certainly a matter of opinion, but when 80% of your population holds an irrational thought and believe that the afterlife is more important than this life, I see that as a problem, especially when so many want to make it a part of US legislation.[/QUOTE]

It's not a problem in the same way that the price of oil, high unemployment, and nuclear proliferation is a problem.

I'm not even sure if it's worth getting all worked up over. As long as my tax dollars aren't wasted teaching kids creationism (or that the world is on the back of a big turtle or whatever nursery school nonsense is popular with the hick vote) then I really don't give a shit.
 
I'd say it's the greatest "long term" threat to us as a species. It holds us back, prevents us from advancing as fast as we probably could. When people that believe this shit are the ones making decisions on the type of research we can do, yeah that's a threat to us all.

As far as evolution being a settled science, it's as settled as any science ever is. That's why I think religion is so sad, it doesn't breed curiosity. If you think god created everything, you stop looking for answers, or the answers you find are erroneously attributed back to that god. It's why I can't take any scientist seriously, doctor or not, if they're telling me creationism has equal footing to any science. Because if they truly believe that, they are a shame to their field and should be told so. it would be no different than a sociologist agreeing that poverty is caused not by any sort of in-bult discrimination or other societal factors, but because people are just lazy and need to get a job. It's lazy, and I expect better than that from experts in a field.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I loved the part where the woman said she teaches her kids both evolution and creationism. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that lesson.[/QUOTE]

For additional fun, try looking up some of the stuff regarding the museum or these people in the video. Under exhibits, you'll apparently get to learn the Truth about antibiotic resistant bacteria.. I gotta admit, I'm curious to know what that is. The bacteria prays to be more resistant? The bad bacteria comes from sinners? The bacteria "adapts", but does not "evolve"?

Oh, and apparently believing in evolution is only a step away from genocide. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/darwin-hitler-how-evolution-leads-holocaust
 
So I did a PubMed search on Georgia Purdom to see her credential. She definitely has a Ph.D. and she looks like she did some actual science in peer-review journals. Here are some examples. I cannot be certain but it appears she has 3 citations and no 1st author papers. I am a Ph.D. myself and not currently employed and I have 4 1st author papers and 17 total citations. (which in all honesty is pittance compared to some very successful scientists. The thing is she has no papers since 2002 in any peer-reviewed journals.

The microphthalmia transcription factor regulates expression of the tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase gene during terminal differentiation of osteoclasts.
Luchin A, Purdom G, Murphy K, Clark MY, Angel N, Cassady AI, Hume DA, Ostrowski MC.
J Bone Miner Res. 2000 Mar;15(3):451-60.

The microphthalmia transcription factor (MITF) contains two N-terminal domains required for transactivation of osteoclast target promoters and rescue of mi mutant osteoclasts.
Mansky KC, Marfatia K, Purdom GH, Luchin A, Hume DA, Ostrowski MC.
J Leukoc Biol. 2002 Feb;71(2):295-303.

The microphthalmia transcription factor and the related helix-loop-helix zipper factors TFE-3 and TFE-C collaborate to activate the tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase promoter.
Mansky KC, Sulzbacher S, Purdom G, Nelsen L, Hume DA, Rehli M, Ostrowski MC.
J Leukoc Biol. 2002 Feb;71(2):304-10.


They are very closely related papers to be honest. Anyway, to say she is a Ph.D. in molecular biology is suspect at best. I am going to check the other guy out.

Looks like I missed one under her maiden name.

The generation of neuronal heterogeneity in a rat sensory ganglion.
Hall AK, Ai X, Hickman GE, MacPhedran SE, Nduaguba CO, Robertson CP.
J Neurosci. 1997 Apr 15;17(8):2775-84.
 
She has been spouting that line about the lack of a mechanism for "gaining" genetic information to go from simple to complex forever. This statement has been refuted over and over and is a misrepresentation of the actual processes that occur. They never define what they mean by "information" and completely ignore mutation and duplication.

And her claim that observational science confirms the literal history of Genesis may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. She is saying the Bible is a literal observation (as in a scientific account) of the creation of the earth. Then she says the "supposed" billions of years science claims to observe. She somehow misses that the "historical science" (dumb dumb dumb) is rooted in observational science. Scientists look at the stars not as they are now but how they were millions to billions of years ago and gather information from that. It IS observational history. So are fossils. Historical science (by her definition) would be a dam story saying they saw the fossils so we should all believe they exist without actually seeing them. I wish I would have not have watched that video. It really upset me. I wish Ohio State would revoke her Ph.D.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']I'd say it's the greatest "long term" threat to us as a species. It holds us back, prevents us from advancing as fast as we probably could. When people that believe this shit are the ones making decisions on the type of research we can do, yeah that's a threat to us all.

As far as evolution being a settled science, it's as settled as any science ever is. That's why I think religion is so sad, it doesn't breed curiosity. If you think god created everything, you stop looking for answers, or the answers you find are erroneously attributed back to that god. It's why I can't take any scientist seriously, doctor or not, if they're telling me creationism has equal footing to any science. Because if they truly believe that, they are a shame to their field and should be told so. it would be no different than a sociologist agreeing that poverty is caused not by any sort of in-bult discrimination or other societal factors, but because people are just lazy and need to get a job. It's lazy, and I expect better than that from experts in a field.[/QUOTE]

Meh, I disagree with that too. In the western world, Christianity isn't really holding things back too much. Most Christians probably aren't in scientific fields any way, and the ones that are doing research probably have a more nuanced view. I doubt you'll find too many creationists or god warriors with a phd in nuclear physics.
 
[quote name='camoor']Meh, I disagree with that too. In the western world, Christianity isn't really holding things back too much. Most Christians probably aren't in scientific fields any way, and the ones that are doing research probably have a more nuanced view. I doubt you'll find too many creationists or god warriors with a phd in nuclear physics.[/QUOTE]

The problem with this assumption is that it ignores all the potential scientists that are squashed because of Christianity. We have no idea what advances could be made if society emphasized science and math with the same vigor it does defending and studying religion. There are plenty of smart people who have been taught incorrectly. That is where religion hurts progress the most by suppressing knowledge to the masses, not those already in science.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'd say it's the greatest "long term" threat to us as a species. It holds us back, prevents us from advancing as fast as we probably could. When people that believe this shit are the ones making decisions on the type of research we can do, yeah that's a threat to us all. [/QUOTE]

It's a process, you can't change the world in one fell swoop. Religion has played a crucial role in social development. Folks aren't going to give up their faith overnight but over time support should gradually shift towards science. Also, let's not pretend that this nation of ours wasn't built on faith and religion. For fuck sakes, the POTUS places his left hand on the Bible and swears to uphold our Constitution. The separation between church and state has always been a bit murky but I digress.

The argument between science and religion is not as black and white as some people make it out to be. Science has its own warts. IMO opposition is a good thing for science because it creates a check and balance system and most importantly unifies the scientific community. Science will ultimately prevail...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top