 |
|
|
|
 Commenters were fired up about Bill Nye, creationism and evolution.
August 28th, 2012
10:37 AM ET
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critiqueBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - Bill Nye does not think that children should be taught to deny evolution, and a YouTube video of him explaining why has gone viral. The CNN Belief Blog's report on the video has generated around 10,000 comments and thousands of Facebook shares since Monday. There were some broad themes in the comments, reflecting a debate that is largely unique to the United States. While Christianity is booming in Africa, Asia and Latin America, creationism is not, Penn State University religious studies professor Philip Jenkins writes in his book "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South." Here are five schools of reaction that have emerged in comments: 1. Those using this controversy to bash religion Atheists love the Internet, as we've chronicled on the Belief Blog. While they may be a small portion of the population, they seem to make up about half our commenters. It was their chance to join with Nye and cheer him on:
2. Those who say wait a minute, being a creationist isn’t necessarily being anti-evolution Lots of folks from the theistic evolution camp came out to say that believing God was involved doesn't automatically make you anti-evolution.
3. Those who say that science is stupid and that young Earth creationism rules Young Earth creationists, who believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old, appeared to be out in force in the comments.
4. Those who say Nye should stick to his area of expertise This tweet was the most polite remark we could find on this subject. Other comments and tweets, not so much.
[tweet https://twitter.com/watsup1101/status/240168918109523968%5D 5. Those who say CNN is cooking up controversy where none exists Lots of people suggested we were generating a story instead of covering one.
For the record, plenty of other news outlets covered this story, pointing out that Nye's video was posted on YouTube just before the Republican National Convention opened. Turns out that Nye taped the segment awhile back and had no say in when it would be released. Thanks for chiming in. The comments are open here, and you can always hit us up on Twitter @CNNBelief. soundoff (2,811 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next »
Next entry »Dolan to pray at Democratic National Convention
« Previous entry5 faithy players to watch at the Republican National Convention
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
There is at least a sixth possibility that the writer of this article does not mention: that there are many of us who think that Bill Nye was spot on. I saw the video, and the points he made seemed reasonable to me. Only those with an axe to grind could find what Nye said to be remotely controversial, let alone offensive.
Creationism, Intelligent Design, or whatever it may yet be called, is not science. It is evangelism dressed up in a science costume, purposely created to obfuscate the science around evolution for the questioning lay person, and to suck contributions from the already religiously fundamentalist. It is the modern equivalent of snake oil, and only the completely ignorant or insane would consider trying to sell snake oil to children in their classrooms.
Like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM5n8jESUEk
Yep, nearly all Christians are like that in the head.
Only for the new members of this blog: (THIS IS NOT SPAM/. IT IS TOPIC ORDERED INFORMATION THAT EVERYONE SHOUJLD BE AWARE WITH RESPECT TO YOUR OWN EVOLUTION)
Are you part Neanderthal? Read below. (this is no joke)
Besides the dinosaurs and other fossils in our evolutionary process:
You might be part Neaderthal and for $99 actually find out:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."
For your $99 and a DNA swab:
"Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominin cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When one of the first statements in a post says "this is not spam," you can be sure that it is spam.
Cue spam spng.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE
I have to push the pram-a-lot.
For all of you who don't "believe" in evolution all you need to do is find one fossil that doesn't fit with the Theory of Evolution, in 150 years no one has done it so you better start digging.
Didn't you hear? The devil planted fossils and stuff to fool us.
Rabbits in the Precambrian.....
Yeah Timmy, it was the devil who put all those bones out there to throw man off his god kick.
Same for the carbon dating, and DNA and plate techtonics and all that other "science" drivel.
Can't wait for the creationists museum to open in fundie land. That will be a hoot to go and see how the fundies try to inject "reason" into their fairy tale.
guys in the scientific and academic world the only way to know truth is by capturing it into words, concepts, theories and things we can use to get a handle on . We can do this in the natural world because we deal with things that we can see – touch – taste – smell – hear . We Can Deal With This But how do we deal with God who said I AM TRUTH. In the 1st book-in the garden-knowledge was the wrong tree. We can t know TRUTH by knowledge. Every time you almost get it figured out-it comes apart; TRUTH always diseludes you, because TRUTH is a PERSON-not a concept. We cannot know this TRUTH by knowledge, words, and concepts. Religious people know TRUTH by knowledge, words, and all manner of interpretations. The only way to know this TRUTH is by experience. Be still and know that I am God Taste and See Now as far as evolution and dealing with scientific fact-no one in christianity said that those were not real facts. In the world of science we are dealing with facts that we can sink our teeth into. The test before us is the same as in the garden of eden. Are we going to eat from the tree of knowledge with all of its facts--that cannot handle a spiritual God-or are we going to eat from the tree of Life--even though we can t get it into words that we can wrap our minds around. Guys there is a difference between Christianity and Religion. Religion reaches for words and understanding; Christianity just reaches for TRUTH and LIFE. That s not to say that science is wrong; we believe in Doctors. But, the only way to Know TRUTH is Experience... Do you suppose that our scientific facts might just fade out when they come close to TRUTH
What?
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. You are whacked dude.
He went KOOKOO for Capitals.
I'm sorry Jesse, but I don't speak batshit crazy nutter.
Perhaps you could pop out and get someone to translate for us?
He speaketh in tongues. One of them must be in his ass, such is the truth that come out of it.
You wouldn't know TRUTH if it bit you on the scrotum.
Evolution is complex, yet simple. We have billions and billions of years throughout which thousands upon thousands of species rose up and fell down, flourished and went extinct, killed and got killed... all for a simple truth – survival. The fittest (of brawn or brain) survived. The rest became, well, fossil fuel 🙂
My point is that all of this viciousness over God and Science doesn't have to be. Evolution is complex, yet simple.. and that, my friends, is a rather Intelligent Design.
If you are argueing for ID, then you have missed the memo.
ID got it's pee pee whacked in a court of law about 6 years ago. Totally discredited as a theory and NOT included in text books as a competing theory with evolution.
if you were just making a funny, then you did a good job as it was amusing.
Why the countless planets with no life and little resources? Why all the empty space? Why can't I blow myself? Design seems fairly UNintelligent to me.
@niknak... your last sentence summed it up... and I'm glad it brighted your day a tad 🙂
@Rational: Good point – maybe you should get a rib removed – apparently that makes the act possible – or so I've heard. Which, I would think, disproves Intelligent Design. God takes one of Adams's ribs, right? Now, Adam can blow himself. So, really, there's no need for God to create Eve, since Adam is now self-sufficient. Or, God could have just created Eve, but not from a rib, thereby making her presence necessary from Adam's BJ requirement point of view. Clearly not Intelligent Design. In fact, you could say that God blew it!
Here's my question about evolution:
how do they get around the "all things reproduce after their own kind" problem?
Lizards do not morph into birds over time no matter how much time you give them to
work on it.
Oh Frank – do go read a book
Frank
And I bet you watched your lizard for hours and hours, right? 🙂
Creationism is a bit odd. I don't know how to take the "Young Earth" beliver's either. Maybe I'm too sciencific to get the "faith". How can somethings carbon date be before anything existed?
But evolution, that works pretty well with religion. How did the earth happen? What's a "day" for a God? And who says he didn't use the same principles that scientists say is how the earth was created. Why do people believe that natural selection isn't the way God tweaked his creation? Does God really work in mysterious ways? Or does God use the same principles Darwin observed? Religon and evolution are NOT contradictory. But it sure seems creationism IS the religion for those that believe. People need to stop denying observed truth because it contradicts their religion and instead, embrace scientific observation in their religion. Religon and science can work together, if you open your mind and heart, rather than firmly stand and deny the evidence infront of your eyes. Or do you WANT how things work to be too mystical to understand, so you don't have to be educated? God did it, therefore I shouldn't have to try to understand it properly....God would be upset?
@David
Nice arguement for no god at all but you just do not want to discard the indoctrination, because it make you feel warm and protected, doesn't it?
David,
Doing what you say guarantees that a religious person's view of the natural world must change as quickly as an atheist's view. Why? because it would be driven by scientific discoveries, not by religious dogma.
You can see that this is what has happened anyway. Compare a religious person's view on any number of facts (ie earth's place in the universe) with a modern religious persons view.
The next logical thing to ask is why carry the religious dogma around at all? Let your understanding of the physical world rest entirely wiithin our scientific pursuits. And if there are still questions, don't fill in the answers with supernatural solutions. Say "I don't know" and persue answers scientifically.
Wow, so the moral of your story is lets all just be dumb because god did it and we don't have to understand.
Really? That is what comforts you?
Keep home schooling those kids, the scammers need new fundies to give them their money when the old ones die off.
Just a bit odd? Really?
Right on David!! It is encouraging to know that some out there can think on their own.
Right on David!! It is encouraging to know that some out there can think on their own. I was just informed that other similar
comments have been posted. That is great news because it signifies that WE must not be alone–just too silent perhaps!
Educating the "blind of mind" is a monumental task, but we must try and hopefully prevail. Spaceship Earth is the prize!
I have to laugh at the "evolution and creationism can coexist" people. It's like saying that lightning is caused by electromagnetism ... and Thor.
@darthwong
LOL ! 😀
Peace...
LMAO.
... but you can't prove that Thor wasn't involved.
All A-thorists are just angry at Thor. You a-thorists spend so much time lashing out at Thor because you secretly know He is real.
WHY is EVERYTHING always about THOR? Thor, Thor Thor, that's all I ever hear. TO HEL WITH ALL OF YOU
Great, Loki, now you've done it. Your jealousy has brought sin into the world so now I am going to have some of the animals start eating other animals. It's all your fault.
@Loki
Hey I'm all about Rán
Thats about how it works for them Darth.
See, all those science things like math and such have a god coeficient which the scientists leave out to trick us.
2 plus 2 equals 4 because god exists. If it didn't, it could equal 5, or 3 or something else.
But god has his coeficient in there to make sure it equals 4.
I once had a fundie tell me he believes in god because when water turns to ice, it floats. His reason was that if it sank, then the oceans would have frozen over before life could form.
How can you argue with someone like that?????
It is my theory (and mine alone) that the almighty god Thor invented the van de graaff generator. This is why we have lightning.
Thunder, of course, still comes the farts of Zeus. Rain, as always, is Aphroditi squirting.
I'm still working on the mechanisms by which Thor, Aphroditi, and Zeus work together.
hmmmmm....farting, squirting and a van de graaff generator, sounds like a fun 3 way to me.
Question for creationists. If God had actually created all life, and suffering only entered the world with Adam's sin, why did he create predators with claws and teeth clearly designed to rip flesh causing pain and suffering? Pain and suffering must have been part of the plan all along then, right?
So by your logic, vegetarians don't need teeth
@Junior
Cq is talking specifically about carnivore teeth, you know those sharp pointed ones that are good for tearing flesh but not so good for grinding up plant matter.
"...teeth clearly designed to rip flesh..."
This doesn't preclude other teeth apparently designed to grind plant matter.
Hardcore creationists insist that before "the fall" all animals were vegetarians. Predators only started eating other animals after Adam and Eve brought sin into the world. Home-schooling biology books actually teach this. Animals just happened to have all those fangs, claws, running ability, webs and traps, etc. by coincidence, I guess.
ME II
I'm not referring to herbivores.
The situation becomes even more pronounced in water environments. Whole food chains go from one fish eating another all the way down to algae. Without plant matter to feed these creatures in this environment what did the predatory fish eat prior to the Fall?
Intressting how religion, especially the christian religion. manages to get away with changing the dogma when evidence shows that they have been BSing the sheepies. This has been going on for 2000 years and does not need me to point out the dramamtic changes that they have made. Theistic eveloution and intelligent design are just the newest in a long line of twists and turns to make the gospels look less stupid. Religion is and was a way of explaining mans relation with his place in nature and the church leaders grabbed hold of that quest for a reason for life and turned it into the lust for wealth and power.
School has begun, and now more than ever, we have to think about young, impressionable minds. Time to make sure we are building strong minds.
It's really best for all people including children to have an agnostic approach to god, and an atheistic approach to all religion. It keeps things simple for kids, and let's them be all that they can be. They just need to be taught that some things, like all religion, are just made up by salesmen and politicians from long ago; and that other things, like god, we really don't know a damn thing about.
Atheists have strong minds, and don't run and hide their misdeeds within their religion (and by doing so, disserving society).
So instead of praying to make-believe people, get a good cup of tea and go on and sit down and collect your damn thoughts. My goodness.
mama kindless
I am Christian and am accountable.
Accountable to/for what?
Proof god does not exist
I cannot see him like I can a rainbow
I cannot smell him like I can a flower
I cannot touch him like I can a brick
I cannot hear him like I can a symphony
I cannot taste him like I can a cheeseburger
I cannot build a machine to measure any hypothosis of him like I can a windmill
I cannot deduce a mathimatical equation of hime like I can with the pythagorean theorem
You can feel romance and heartbreak. Why is that?
junior sez:
'You can feel romance and heartbreak. Why is that?'
So god is not omniscient, omnipotant, omnibenevolent.. god is an emotion ?
Look I don't have any issue with folks having faith that God created the Earth. However, you cannot deny the scientific facts. Our planet has sustained life in some form for millions of years and through fossil study you can clearly see the evolutionary changes in a species towards a more modern form. I don't quite understand why the organized religions cannot simply go with the idea that when their 'religious writings' were written the concept of millions of years was just not understood by humankind, thus thousands of years was the longest time span that could be understood as 'really really long ago'. Just like 'let there be light!'. That really can be seen as the best that humankind's understanding could come up with at the time for the 'Big Bang'. I must say to those 'Creationists' however that please do not deny your children an education about science and scientific fact. That could seriously undermine your children's capability to be successful in what is clearly a 'secular' world.
They have to fight anything that might go against what they preach.
By allowing evolution, they are saying they are wrong about their whole creation idea, which might lead to more of their falsehoods being exposed.
I am happy that we can at least question them and not be killed, which is what they have done all throughout history to any who was found to a blasphamere (like they still do in the middle east).
Religious people only understand a clenched fist.
"That really can be seen as the best that humankind's understanding could come up with at the time for the 'Big Bang'."
What you are forgetting is that the bible claims divine origin, and it claims the divine origin is infallible, thus the bible is either all true and science is wrong, or the bible is not divinely inspired, therefore you can throw the whole thing out since it is just one of many man made creation myths from early human history. You cannot claim that it is both divinely inspired and humanly fallible and expect anyone to take you seriously.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
+++
+++
You needn't look any further than the fine fundiot nutters at Answers In Genesis. Right in their Statement of Faith they state, " By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "
Theistic evolution is what exactly? That all life on earth started 9000 to 6000 years ago and has evolved to its present state in that short time period and the fossil record was planted on earth by the creator just to confuse the issue? Doesn't make much sense but neither does genesis.
I think theistic evolution is just that god guided evolution, although I'm not sure.
What I understand Theistic evloution to be is as follows (I have no idea if this is correct...):
1. Genesis story is allegorical.
2. A diety is responsible for the Big Bang & Abiogenesis
3. A diety watched as mammals evolved and guided the eventual evolution into man.
So its basically a way to reconcile science and religion, in this instance anyway...
Theistic Evolution = Cognitive Dissonance by religious scientists.
@Rynomite
At point 2, you lose the atheist that believes that there is no deity at all, which also makes point 3 irrelevant.
A point 1, you also leave out billions of people that have a different creation myth than genesis. This is why the christian point of view is so hard to take because they disregard the majority of the human population on earth. The only version that counts is theirs, the other 5 billion can go to hell and in the past the christians happily speeded them on their war/way.
The problem with theistic evolution is that it adds nothing to our understanding. We have (literal) mountains of evidence showing how evolution works. Adding "goddidit" and "poof, then another miracle occurs" does nothing to explain the diversification of life on earth.
It's like saying that "wheels are round, and that is why bicycles roll – and it was god that invented wheels".
Well, I suppose to a theist god did create the wheel, as he would have put the idea into the mind of whatever ingenious caveman came up with the idea. I'd hate to see how a Christian school operates. It would be like in The Simpsons; "Who discovered America?. "Um,The Leader". "Very good, Bart".
Theisitc evolution is the theist acknowledging what science has concluded but saying that God made it that way.
"Theisitc evolution is the theist acknowledging what science has concluded but saying that God made it that way."
Theistic evolution is Dumbo acknowledging what science has concluded about his ears and wind dynamics but still needing to hold onto the feather to believe he can fly.
It is just the current reconcilliation for the religious to try to somehow get their imaginary friend into the conversation.
They have been doing this since religions started. As man progressed and started to understand his natural environment, the teachings of the various religions had to accomadate that new knowledge, or see their followers move onto newer forms of religion (hey fundies, see there is evolution for you!).
Intelligent design came along, was discredited, so they have regrouped and now it is this current theme to try to get their god into the picture somehow.
They will always keep saying, "well, what came before that?"
Science keeps figuring out what came before that, and each time it was NOT god.
Same with this cr_ap.
It will be discredited and they will come up with yet another "hypothesis" to try to inject their magic man.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
.
.
.
.
+
+)
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
Prayer changes things .
Please, refrain from feeding the troll.
Thanks for posting the Truth. PRAYER changed my life !
Atheism is crap and prayer is the way to go believe me on this one !
Prayer certainly changed the life of Andrea Yates' children – they all died because of it.
Two wonderful Truths atheism is useless and God is available, that is not trolling that is life changing Truth. God bless
@facepalm
andrea yates doesn't know God and more importantly God doesn't know her. Prayer is a communication with God without being born again in prayer you have no legitimate prayer life.
Isn't it funny how just sayin, Jim, Chris Hitchens and Atheism Is all start posting around the same time.
So then how do you know if you're praying to god or a fake god?
How do you know that Andrea Yates wasn't right and then your just talking to yourself?
No True Scottsman Fallacy Fail.
chris hitchens says "believe me on this one"
Why should we so blindly believe the assertions of someone who has chosen to hijack the name of the recently deceased who championed ideas exactly opposite from his? "Trust me," he says.
Oh? Andrea Yates doesn't know God... but YOU know God? And YOU know God doesn't know her?
You have reached the perfection of narcissism, a place accessible only to the theist.
@truth be told
The truth is that you are as much of a zealot for your beliefs as any other religious fanatic is for theirs. You are a freak for JJEESSUUSS and would not stop untill all 7 billion people on this planet think as you do, only 5 billion to go, but keep trying.
I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things" and "another repentant sinner" and "truth be told" and "just sayin", but the evidence against your statements about prayer and atheism is overwhelming.
I have just received some new updates that will allow me to embed slang equivalents to certain words and concepts. The closest matching slang expression to match the statements asserted by the posting ent'ities above is: "total fail".
Sorry used to be phony Jesus there is no evidence.
OK Chris, then next time you or your child really get sick, I don't want to hear you went to see a doctor.
I want you to just pray to make the disease go away, and we will see how that turns out.
I bet it won't turn out well, and I also bet you won't do it.
You will run as fast as you can to the hospital and let science heal you.
Religion - together, we can find the cure.
Nonbelievers are misinformed.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
+
"Nonbelievers are misinformed."
No, what's misinformed is spamming people while attempting to claim that theism is the same as gnosticism. They are mutually exclusive. One can easily be an atheist and an agnostic. Really, that article just slams most xtians (and is highly contradictory while simultaneously slamming claims of knowledge while having supposed knowledge about the end of the world). Drivel, drivel, drivel.
Ooh, I know this one!! Prayer ... when I tried it I realized I was god! I found I was talking to myself!
As an agnostic I cannot understand the "blind faith" shown by so many. Please go lookup the number of revisions to the KJB (more than 75). Especially lookup the "First Great Awakening" (mid 1800s) and see what MAN decided to add to this fairy tale. Agnostics do not believe that any man (prophet, whatever) could have any direct interaction with what they "tell us" is a god. No stone tablets. No mystery books. No spells. No curses. No devil. It is all plainly silly.
I have never understood it either.
The fundies totally dissregard anything that might go against their teachings, even stuff that has so much verifieable evidence, like evolution.
Yet they will beleive some book that has zero verifieable evidence and then take it as true.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
+
+
+
+
Creationists keep claiming that supporters of evolution theory are relying just as much on Faith as people of faith do. They entirely fail to grasp the fundamental difference between faith and science. "Faith" says "I will cling to an idea I was taught or that appeals to me for some reason, and I will steadfastly refuse to consider any argument or evidence that contradicts my belief, because I hold my faith up to be a virtue. My belief I will treat as the foundation for how I will navigate through life. It is my security blanket, and I call it a virtue to protect myself from the temptation to question that faith.
Science, despite the protests of creationists, is concerned with improving understanding of the physical world around us. It is not "faith" at all. The basic scientific process is one of observation, hypothesis, testing, and constructing/fine-tuning theories to explain to the best of our ability the results of that scientific testing/inquiry. Scientists don't "prove" anything in the sense of setting up a "truth" that is forever exempt from questioning. Science IS ALL ABOUT QUESTIONING. Evolution theory grows and is revised as additional scientific evidence comes available to clarify, correct, or fill in the gaps of previous theory. It's the best process we have for actually improving our understanding of...well...everything.
Creationists appear incapable of understanding that profound difference from their own mindset of wanting "absolute truths" to reassure them that they never have to be troubled by doubt. Science did not set out to attack anyone's right to spiritual life–which is a personal search for meaning and values. Most scientists in the Rennaisance were themselves religious. It was established religion that picked the fight with science. For all their focus on "Faith," religious zealots seems awfully insecure in their reactions to science.
+
+
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
The religions picked a fight with science because science was and keeps contradicting what they preach to keep their sheep in line and to keep the sheep giving them their hard earned money.
Religion is the largest and most lucrative scam ever invented to seperate the stupid and uneducated from their money.
It certainly won't let science get in the way of that, if it can help it.
As a science teacher, we constantly struggle with the multiple meanings of "theory". In everyday speech, most would assume its and guess-opinion. In science, it's the product of the many steps of the scientific process of investigation. Setting aside which is is correct for the moment, evolution is a scientific theory, a product of the scientific approach. Creationism is an everyday theory, in the sense that it's the product of faith giving rise to opinion. Two different things that can both make claim to being "theories". Makes for a lot of confusion.
Right. The Term "Theory" is often misunderstood and attacked by the religious.
When speaking in common terms, theory = conjecture or guess.
When speaking of the scientifiic method, theory = fact.
@rynomite
law = fact
theory = conjecture, unsubstantiated opinion and what if, even in science
Both of those responses amount to just making up definitions.
What most people mean by theory is actually hypothesis.
In science, we have observations (facts, laws) and we have concepts that explain those observations (theory). A theory never becomes a law, it subsumes laws. A well-established theory is an explanation that succeeds in accounting for the facts and laws that we observe. Germ theory, relativity theory, heliocentric theory, evolutionary theory all meet that standard.
Rufus – Yes that is more correct. I was trying to dumb down my deifnition to make the point that the common use of the word "theory" and "scientific theory" are not equivalents.
Agreed.
And it certainly doesn't help when scientist themselves misuse the terms.
Rinomite and ME II, I agree. Theory is one of those terms that is so misused all around that it almost seems worthwhile to ditch the term altogether. Kuhn used the term "paradigmatic theory" to refer to scientific theories that form the foundations of entire fields of research. Maybe that would help. Trying to teach creationist knuckleheads the difference between the vernacular and the scientific meanings of theory does not seem to work. Deaf ears...
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
–
–
–
–
Creationists ask "why not teach the controversy" as though teachers don't have enough to cover as it is they have time to bring up "possibilities" as well. Why not have classes on alternatives to the Warren Commission, UFO cover ups, and Santa's involvement in the melting of the polar ice cap.
Isn't that what Creationism is; a conspiracy theory that claims that the scientific community is hiding the "truth" about God's involvement in life's development here on Earth?
'No need to look past our own backyards for examples of book burnings, or have you forgotten about how some churches chose to protest the Harry Potter books, as well as other incidents? Examine these carefully and tell me who did the burning, OK?'
You seem to be ignoring the original thread, so I'll ask again. What do you mean by my backyard and where did you get the notion that I'm a Christian.
More nonbelievers. All misinformed.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
The people who believe in both Creation & Evolution seem to be confused on what creation is or what evolution is, and likely both. The creationist side just don't understand what science is. Creation theory is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. Creationism lacks basic scientific elements (like, for instance, predictive value, nullability, and testability). It doesn't even qualify as bad science. It has no place in a scientific debate.
drowlord – I think believing in both Creation and Evolution is a step on the path to reason for people who were indoctinated at an early age and have the necessary mental ability (and inetrest) to recognize logic errors in the bible. The creation story (along with the Flood story) are two big scenes in the Bible who can make intelligent believers begin to question the entire work and the existence of god. Speaking as a a methodist who became an atheist, I started questioning the validity of such myths as a teen. For awhile I had problems reconciling the "inerrent bible" (or so I was taught) with obvious scientific inaccuracies. My first step to disbelief was as simple as saying .. hmm well maybe god just created the planet and everything else evolved while he watched over it......
Of course then I read more and more of the bible and just said wow this is some cruel, stupid, miserable stuff.....
Yeah, ok..... I guess Francis Collins (among the many top-flight minds of science don't "understand" how theistic evolution (creationism and evolution) are incompatible...
"Debates" such as these aer useless because of the ignorant but loud voices such as yours spouting off about things they have zero knowledge about.
Theistic Evolution = Cognitive Dissonance solely based on religious emotions.
Only the nonbelievers are misinformed.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm
"""Only the nonbelievers are misinformed.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm"""
Come out and fight like a man!