 |
|
|
|
 Science educator Bill Nye, left, will face off against creationist Ken Ham in Tuesday night's debate.
February 4th, 2014
01:17 PM ET
Bill Nye: Why I'm debating creationist Ken HamEditor's note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on Tuesday at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be live-streamed at 7 p.m. ET on CNN.com, and CNN's "Piers Morgan Live" will host both Ham and Nye at 9 p.m. Tuesday after the debate. Opinion by Bill Nye, Special to CNN (CNN) - A lot of people have been asking why I accepted Ken Ham’s invitation to debate the origins of life Tuesday night at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. In short, I decided to participate in the debate because I felt it would draw attention to the importance of science education here in the United States. What keeps this country in the game economically is our ability to innovate. New ideas lead to new technologies, which drive new businesses and new opportunities. Technological innovations absolutely cannot be created without fundamental understanding of science, the means by which we know nature. How many young adults and taxpayers use mobile phones? How many of us rely on global navigation systems that use satellites high above the Earth’s surface to find our way around? Even if you eschew smartphones, you rely on the system to keep airplanes in the sky and ships at sea on their routes. Modern farmers plant seeds in fields with extraordinary precision using information beamed from satellites in space. MORE ON CNN: Ken Ham: Why I'm Debating Bill Nye For the United States to maintain its leadership in technology, we need well-educated science students. To allow our students to come of age without the knowledge gained through the extraordinary scientific insights and diligence of our ancestors would deprive them of understanding of nature and our place in the cosmos. It would also rob our students of their future. Without scientists and engineers to create new technologies and ways of doing society’s business, other economies in other countries will out-compete the United States and leave our citizens behind. Tuesday's debate will be about whether Ham’s creation model is viable or useful for describing nature. We cannot use his model to predict the outcome of any experiment, design a tool, cure a disease or describe natural phenomena with mathematics. These are all things that parents in the United States very much want their children to be able to do; everyone wants his or her kids to have common sense, to be able to reason clearly and to be able to succeed in the world. The facts and process of science have enabled the United States to lead the world in technology and provide good health for an unprecedented number of our citizens. Science fuels our economy. Without it, our economic engine will slow and eventually stop. It seems to me that Ham is a fundamentalist. Around the world there are billions of people, who embrace the facts and process of modern science, and they enjoy their faith. By all accounts, their faith enriches their lives. These people have no conflict with their faith and science. Ham is unique in this regard. Fundamentally, Ham’s creation model is not part of modern science. His idea has no predictive quality or ability. It provides no means to learn more about the world around us. It does not enable students to make consistent sense of nature. So, we’ll see. We’ll see if his model stands up to traditional scientific inquiry: If a certain claim is true, then we would expect a certain outcome. I’m excited and very much looking forward to the encounter. Bill Nye is a science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society. The views expressed in this column belong to Nye.
« Previous entryKen Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
"Science is an effort to understand the creation.
Biblical religion involves our relation to the Creator.
Since we can learn about the Creator from his creation, religion can learn from science."
– Paul H. Carr
Light is both WAVE-LIKE & PARTICLE-LIKE.
Life is BOTH, AND:
STRUCTURED LOGIC (logos, left brain) and MEANINGFUL STORY (mythos, right brain)
Truth is both OBJECTIVE & SUBJECTIVE
God is both IMMANENT & TRANSCENDENT.
SCIENCE complements RELIGION
god is imaginary...
"As a blind man has no idea of colors, so we have no idea of the manner by which
the all-wise God perceives and understands all things."
– Isaac Newton
How profound..... too bad ole Isaac didn't provide any evidence for a god..
If you read the rich body of philosophy on religion and science that extends from before the days of Petrarch up to this very day, you would not so casually dismiss it.
That is idolatry, not God, you are describing.
so where is your evidence that a god exsists? there is none. Unless you're playing the word twisting game that's called imagination.
NoEvidence,
All once has to do to see the logical necessity of a Creator God is to look at the Law of Causality, and how that applies to the Argument from Contingency. ie, Only the supernatural can explain the existence of the natural.
Paul would put it simpler by telling you to go out and pluck a blade of grass... "The invisible attributes of God are clearly seen in the things that are made..." Romans 1:18-32
There is evidence of God. If you are a materialistic, self-declared and self-imagined rational being who thinks he knows everything there is to know about the universe, probably no evidence will convince you of your own follies.
Lawrence –
"Law of Causality, and how that applies to the Argument from Contingency" Even if you accept the First cause argument, it does not require the existence of a god. First cause could be anything.
St Larry said; "Only the supernatural can explain the existence of the natural."
A false statement not to mention ridiculous . Not only can the existence of the natural be explained without the supernatural, but it can certainly be proven. for example, is lightning "natural"? not only can it be explaing without the supernatural, it can be reproduced. Same goes for very many other natural occurrences.
A more accurate statement would have been "god cannot be explained without the supernatural".
@Weok "There is evidence of God."
So where is this "evidence"??? I don't claim to know everything but I certainly wouldn't claim to know something without the evidence to back it up. and you still have not provided any..... same old story.
You can prove and disprove science, you cannot prove or disprove Faith. Faith wins.
"God created man, and man returned the favor." -Mark Twain
But seriously, this notion that creation and the bible have any fundamental roots in logic is perverse. Scientific logic says that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Religious logic says that if A=B and C=D but I really believe without evidence that B=C, then A=D. Or A=B and this other thing C exists but I can't prove how it got there so C was made by a supernatural creator.
Read up on your so called 'no evidence'. Do you realize there has been mountains of evidence that now suggest creation could be how life started? Try watching the Mysterious Islands with Doug Phillips, then tell me your argument.
good luck telling HIM HE doesnt exist when you are standing right before HIM at the judgment!!
Ah–there it is again. Christians just love to threaten non-believers with Hell–either crudely and explicitly, or implicitly.
If God is all-knowing, he knows what would persuade me of his existence–and every other doubter too. If he is all-powerful, he could do so easily. If he is all-good, he certainly wouldn't torture someone forever for honest doubt in the face of his unwillingness to prove his existence. I'm not the least bit afraid. If there is a God who would actually torture people for all eternity for not believing him, then he is NOT good, he is a capricious monster, and believers will have to spend eternity in terror, for such a God could easily, with a whim, send you to share the same fate, and in the vastness of eternity, sooner or later, he'll find a reason.
Question for you: Could it still be "Heaven" for you, knowing that billions of people are being burned forever, just because they didn't believe in your God? Do you realize some of them could be people you know and care about? What if your wife, son or daughter is a secret doubter? Would it still be "heaven" for you, watching above as they are tortured in Hell below you?
Using theology to explain the mechanisms of the Universe is like searching in the dark for a black cat that isn't there.
"Let no one enter here who does not have faith"
– Inscription over the door on Max Plank's Laboratory
meow
Listening to a non-scientist atheist talk about science is.... adorable.
So, you will be really looking forward to hearing that prize idiot, Ham then, won"t you.
No. It is just as bad as the fringe looney atheist crap I read on here.
He's a mechanical engineer from Cornell...one of the best engineering schools in the world. He took more science classes in one semester than most people take in their life times. You know whats adorable....listening to a creationist dismiss science even though he benefits from it everyday.
Are you a scientist?
Are you insinuating I am not? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?
If there is a creator, the laws of the physical universe are the work of the creator and natural processes, including evolution, are the work of the creator. The fallacy on the creationist side is failing to understand that if there was a creation, everything we observe is part of that creation, even evolution. The creationist side is trying to force an all or nothing answer, where an answer that takes into account all information is closer to the truth.
There is no conflict between faith and science, the conflict is inside the creationists heads.
Quote: "So, you will be really looking forward to hearing that prize idiot, Ham then, won"t you."
Name calling would seem to indicate that you can't argue on the facts. A scientist would stick with the facts.
Atheist? Bill is far from being atheist. He even admitted being agnostic in an interview.
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being." (Albert Einstein, 1936) Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.
Einstein apparently missed the fact that half of scientists have a specific religious affiliation, and two-thirds of us are theists in general. Those figures were even higher in the '30s when he made that claim. I have the utmost respect for his contributions to physics and the prominence of science in the public, but his statements on this matter are refuted by essential statistics.
Mike, can you provide a link to those "figures" to back up your claim? Just like in some parts of the world today, I'm sure scientists could not make their disbelief in god public for fear of reprisal of some sort, like funding, their jobs – positions, etc..
Ecklund's 2010 findings in Science vs. Religion are among the most well-publicized data on the subject, though she and her coauthors have published similar findings more recently than this.
Mike, I have to agree with No Evidence. You can't say you are an atheist today and still pay your mortgage. I have to assume that saying it 80 years ago was even more problematic.
I can't remember the study, but I recall reading that most American parents would rather have their child marry a Muslim than an atheist.
I understand the sentiment behind your claims, but I cannot embrace it unless you can demonstrate it. You cite a climate of fear that scientists who openly admit to being atheists will suffer social and professional failure (the statements regarding mortgages and marriage). Plenty of prominent scientists, men and women in the public eye, come from both sides of the faith aisle. They have successful careers, families and friends and are generally well-balanced decent people. Some are even best-selling authors and enjoy a good deal of popularity. Their religious views don't seem to impede them one way or the other. In light of this, why would a statistically significant number of atheist scientists (who surly understand the importance of honesty in self-reported data) lie in an anonymous survey conducted by a fellow scientist?
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”
– Max Born
"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can."
- Frank Zappa
You quote the master. Kudos. One of his best quotes, although you could write a bible with them if you really collected them. You're a bit of a cynic, though. Next you will be saying there is no Santa Claus. But there is a "Santa clause: In order to receive gifts you must pretend to believe in someone who doesnt really exist, but is represented more ubiquitously than just about any other symbolic individual. Keep up the fight.
This is the kind of base generalism that makes me shake my head at modern atheism. Billions of people have faith and attend religious services, and do nothing evil, maladjusted or out of the ordinary. You surely cannot seriously agree with Mr. Zappa's sensationalist statement and still consider yourself to be a reasonable human being yourself. The atheists of our history understood this and held a nuanced, mature view of human spirituality, a quality I find sadly lacking in the worldview today.
Keep away from church, or keep away from Christ?
quoting Zappa means there is no hope for you.
The Bible is not a science text book that describes the 'how' it was all put together but it does describes the who quite adequately and from where we come from. So creation scientist are not bound by or have to utilize their faith in their observation/experimental processes, but search even more deeply for scientific truth/absolutes/laws that do produce predictable/ observational results. Biblical creationist make and have made wonderful, science contributing advances in understanding the world around us... even if they do not always credit God as creator of all.
Theology is the study of God who created all that there is and our relationship to Him. The Bible is not a science textbook that claims to describe how things work or the intricacies on teh molecular level of existance . That falls under the discovery man finds as he/she observes what's going on around themselves, and how what we learn from honest observation, we can make life better for our fellow man. This is a very Christian understanding of life and how science is used for the good of man. Praise God for the intellect, ability and means by which we humans can care for the needs of others!
@Bill Nye,
Well said!
Unfortunately Mr. Ham has a lot of experience in this type of thing where rhetoric often means more that logic. That being said however....
Good luck tonight!
Thanks! I'm going to need all the luck in the universe.
Mr. Bill Nye
I have been a huge fan of Carl Sagan and his take on the cosmos, we are all star stuff, the universe is a living thing in my perspective that has birth, death and rebirth. No gods required just an infinite program of repet!tion. As a Deist, my deity can be a scientific bit of knowledge that we have not yet discovered or perhaps dimensions that we cannot perceive. Their is no man made god that can save my sorry butt for eternity, I am star stuff and will return to star stuff, enough for me.
Relativity is a theory and nobody questions it. Mathematics is as solid as a rock though there are still affirmations (conjectures) waiting to be proven. I say that because of the "funny" argument that the theory of evolution is a "theory" and that is has not answered all questions. Good luck.
Dear Mr. Nye: Best wishes in your debate. As a follower of Jesus Christ I'm looking forward to you presenting the facts that clearly contradict a young earth creationist model that is proposed by Ken Ham. I hope that somewhere in the discussion it is noted that the "fundamentalist" (as you propoerly labelled it) view of Ham and others is a view not shared by most Christian denominations (including the largest- the Roman Catholic Church). I have taught science to sincere young Christians who clearly feel conflicted that belief in one area contradicts the other. It is the fundamentalist who make this assertion- not the majority of Christians
@Aaron S,
Well said!
Actually Catholics are not the biggest religion. I think "Christians" as an entirety come in about fourth. Catholics are just the shiniest and best organized. A little Burlesque on Sunday morning.
Bill, you don't need luck, just intellect. If you point out that if there was a creation, then everything in the universe is the work of the creator, you will blow the creationist all or nothing argument to pieces.
Debating Creationism (as Mr. Ham envisions it) vs. Evolution is like debating whether we live in a Geo-centric system or a Helio-centric system. You can have the debate, and it may be entertaining, but you can't learn anything.
I've honestly have not had any run-ins with ghosts, ghouls, poltergeists, phatoms, or spectres.
TRUTH.
AJ76
You may also want to steer clear of Saint Lawrence of Arabia, he could be detrimental to your sanity.
There is NO PROOF that there weren't aliens at the first Thanksgiving.
True, and there is also no evidence that there weren't ghosts there as well.
They were all there. You just didn't look hard enough for them. Keep looking.
Apparently, some religious people don't understand the symbolism and allegories in creation myths. I am as primitive as can be. I sacrifice roosters and goats and other animals to African deities. And yet, I understand that a myth cannot be taken literally. And I understand that Science and History are gifts from the Gods. I am copying below a version of the Yoruba creation myth. If you have enough intuition, you can understand how the symbols in this story speak of proper scientific and historical facts:
In the beginning was only the sky above, water and marshland below.
The chief god Olorun ruled the sky, and the goddess Olokun ruled what was below.
Obatala, another god, reflected upon this situation, then went to Olorun for permission to create dry land for all kinds of living creatures to inhabit. He was given permission, so he sought advice from Orunmila, oldest son of Olorun and the god of prophecy.
He was told he would need a gold chain long enough to reach below, a snail's shell filled with sand, a white hen, a black cat, and a palm nut, all of which he was to carry in a bag. All the gods contributed what gold they had, and Orunmila supplied the articles for the bag. When all was ready, Obatala hung the chain from a corner of the sky, placed the bag over his shoulder, and started the downward climb. When he reached the end of the chain he saw he still had some distance to go.
From above he heard Orunmila instruct him to pour the sand from the snail's shell, and to immediately release the white hen.
He did as he was told, whereupon the hen landing on the sand began scratching and scattering it about.
Wherever the sand landed it formed dry land, the bigger piles becoming hills and the smaller piles valleys. Obatala jumped to a hill and named the place Ife. The dry land now extended as far as he could see.
He dug a hole, planted the palm nut, and saw it grow to maturity in a flash. The mature palm tree dropped more palm nuts on the ground, each of which grew immediately to maturity and repeated the process. Obatala settled down with the cat for company.
Many months passed, and he grew bored with his routine.
He decided to create beings like himself to keep him company. He dug into the sand and soon found clay with which to mold figures like himself and started on his task, but he soon grew tired and decided to take a break.
He made wine from a nearby palm tree, and drank bowl after bowl. Not realizing he was drunk, Obatala returned to his task of fashioning the new beings; because of his condition he fashioned many imperfect figures.
Without realizing this, he called out to Olorun to breathe life into his creatures.
The next day he realized what he had done and swore never to drink again, and to take care of those who were deformed, thus becoming Protector of the Deformed.
The new people built huts as Obatala had done and soon Ife prospered and became a city.
All the other gods were happy with what Obatala had done, and visited the land often, except for Olokun, the ruler of all below the sky.
She had not been consulted by Obatala and grew angry that he had usurped so much of her kingdom.
When Obatala returned to his home in the sky for a visit, Olokun summoned the great waves of her vast oceans and sent them surging across the land. Wave after wave she unleashed, until much of the land was underwater and many of the people were drowned. Those that had fled to the highest land beseeched the god Eshu who had been visiting, to return to the sky and report what was happening to them. Eshu demanded sacrifice be made to Obatala and himself before he would deliver the message.
The people sacrificed some goats, and Eshu returned to the sky.
When Orunmila heard the news he climbed down the golden chain to the earth, and cast many spells which caused the flood waters to retreat and the dry land reappear.
So ended the great flood.
Babalawo Adesanya, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.
So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.
Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.
Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.
Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.
And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.
HEY, Who can argue with that?!
Well, I must say, I'm certainly looking forward to this debate. My personal opinion here is that it'll likely be a rhetorical beatdown on the part of Bill Nye, but, of course, the purpose is always publicity...
The central concern I have with creationism – /as it is practiced by Mr. Ken Ham/ – is that it's not only grounded in a refusal to ask 'why' and 'how come', it contains a heavily solipsistic viewpoint. 'Things exist for the benefit of us.' That every animal in the world, every bacterium, every living organism was designed and produced solely for the good of one species smacks to me of not merely intellectual dishonesty, but overwhelmingly severe hubris. The thought that change exists in nature, and that change not only happens but has /been/ happening for millions of years, appears to be anathemic to his viewpoint... not only in the case of an unchanging, perfect Biblical structure, but also in his views of society and morality.
I personally am not loathe to agree that the origin of life – the genesis – could perhaps have been engineered from outside. The concept of panspermia, or even merely of outside intervention, cannot at this point be disproven. What can, however, is the claim that young-Earth creationism is somehow more 'correct' than evolution, or even equal to it. Scientific study has long since traced the origins of various species to ancestors, common and uncommon; it has proven that classes of organisms change as generations go by; it has proven that extinction events have occurred and are occurring (bananas, anyone?) and that ecological niches are filled as quickly as they appear.
Were I to suggest an external apparatus for creation, it would be this: that a Creator set up the universe in such a way as to see that life /could/ come to pass – and then watched as it unfolded into so many wonderful, marvelous fractals. What a miracle of science, of engineering! Fie, Ken Ham, to think that God's machine be so blithely tossed aside in favor of a ball of yarn.
I am only one cry in the long journey to the edge of the beginning of your journey.
Many cries may visit and be your friends.
Some have had a hard time of it so just avoid the really bad ones.
Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Without a monotheistic worldview you wouldn't have modern science. Modern science grew out of the belief that the world was designed with order and could therefore be known, that there were fundamental laws in the universe that could be tested to expand our knowledge. Why would order flow from disorder? How could a predictable and rational system develop from sheer randomness?
Why would it have to be monotheistic?
Ancient Egyptians and Mayans were excellent engineers and mathematicians and they were polytheists.
Methinks your bias is showing....
I'd simply say it's not a coincidence that modern science developed in parts of the world influenced by monotheistic worldviews – Christianity, Islam, Judaism. Science requires a certain faith in the ordered nature of the universe. At its beginning, that faith sprang from a belief in, dare I say, an Intelligent Designer.
Of course I have a pre-commitment to Theism. We all have biases and pre-commitments. I've always thought it unfair of Rationalists to complain about the faith and "biases" of others, when in fact they have their own.
One quick point, chaos is far, far more likely to come from order than the other way around.
Question; is this the proof for satan?
You were just given examples of polytheistic cultures that produced great scientific feats and you completely ignored them. That's more than just a starting bias, it's an unwillingness to look at evidence and counter-arguments.
What we see throughout human history is that science flourished when the society as a whole was wealthy enough to support thinkers. When that society lost its wealth, scientific progress was halted or slid backwards. This is true of the Egyptians, Assryians, Greeks, Romans, Incas, Mayans, Africans (Timbuktu), Indians, and is true of western European Christianity and Islam.
Your last two sentences explain the need for science. Stick with reason and lose your bias and you may be able to open your eyes.
I appreciate your optimism for me. Or was that a backhanded compliment? I never argued against the need for science. I simply argue that the fact that it exists owes to the fact that universe is a place in order. Science can only take us so far in explaining why or how the universe is the way it is.
"I simply argue that the fact that it exists owes to the fact that universe is a place in order."
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! Ha....ha...ha...LOL!
It is by no mistake that Christian, Jewish and Islam countries lead the world in sciences.
Islamic countries USED to lead the world – many, many moons ago.
But what about atheistic Ja/pan?
No mistake? I don't understand your statement.
Yes, Jarpan is a good exception. They really embraced Western scientific knowledge.
I'm sorry, but those religious nations only declared war in God's name. But the science they developed was in atheism's name. Get it? All the bad things were caused by religion. All the good things came from people who think like me.
Being an atheist is easy and awesome!
Reductionism, anyone?
And they says it's the religious people who have biases...
You are a discredit to the position you espouse.
It is no mistake that most of the science comes from most of the population?
(over half the world's population is one of those religions.)
Why do you assume that monotheis is more ordered than polytheism. Look at the pre-Christian Roman Empire and then at how it became chaotic and fell apart after converting. Monotheism is and always has been a detriment to society.
The comment was that a belief in an Intelligent Designer is what produced modern science as we know it. Sure other cultures figured out how to build roads and create gunpowder or whatnot. But scientific inquiry of the type we're discussing necessitated a belief in the ordered, predictable nature of the universe. That order was not believed to have come from randomness, but from an orderly Mind.
Your final sentence betrays your lack of interest in a nuanced, meaningful discussion. Dare I say, it betrays your bias.
"But scientific inquiry of the type we're discussing necessitated a belief in the ordered, predictable nature of the universe. That order was not believed to have come from randomness, but from an orderly Mind."
So the Greeks right? Oh, but they weren't monotheists... Order and Chaos (randomness) are NOT mutually exclusive, they are a matter of scale and perspective. A person dealing to three other people and deals out all the suites per person (1 all hearts, 1 all diamonds, etc.) we would call that VERY ordered. But the changes of this "ordered" results ARE EXACTLY the same as any other deal of the cards. WE decide what order looks like. It is not a qualitative property in and of itself.
Can't think of any other country in the world where creationalism is taught at school.
Only in the US – that tells you all you need to know.
Out of curiosity, how familiar are you with the curricula used in schools around the country or the world?
I'm not familiar with any public school in this country that teaches Creationism. The angry atheists and their attorneys would put a stop to that asap. That's always struck me as funny – if you are so confident in your system, why be so alarmed at a discussion of its merits or to comparison with an alternate system?
Well, for starters, how many alternate systems do you let in to science class? And do they belong in science class or world religions?
Creationism is a great topic for a world religions class. Right along with however Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and whoever else BELEIVES how the world was created.
But the theory that we have with the most proof is evolution. It may even be wrong, but right now, it's the best evidence based explanation that we have.
"I think my own personal philosophy – one that I think offers a sounder basis for knowledge and wisdom than religion – is based on reason.
Now as soon as soon as we’re having this conversation, as long as we are trying to persuade one another of why you should do something or should believe something, you are already committed to reason. We are not engaged in a fistfight. We’re not bribing each other to believe something. We’re trying to provide reasons. We’re trying to persuade, to convince. As long as you’re doing that in the first place, you’re not hitting someone with a chair, or putting a gun to their head, or bribing them to believe something. You’ve lost any argument you have against reason. You’ve already signed on to reason whether you like it or not. So the fact that we’re having this conversation shows that we are committed to reason. That is the starting point. And from reason many other things follow.
I think science is just the application of reason to the natural world. There’s no such thing as the scientific method in the sense of a recipe or a formula, because techniques in science are always changing to handle the problems in front of us. Science is really an attempt to explain things, to answer the question of why it’s the way it is as opposed to some other way it could have been. And it’s an attempt to do your darndest to figure out the things that you believe are true. It’s the application of reason in the most purified and concentrated form, in a way that I think is continuous with philosophy, with law, with political organization if it’s done right. And I think it also provides much of the grounding for ethics and morality.
At heart, morality is treating other people the way one would want to be treated oneself; and some version of that, of interchangeability of perspectives. It’s the fact that I’m not the only ent-i-ty in the universe, and I have no grounds for privileging my interests over yours. That’s really what most or all moral systems ultimately boil down to.
And again, as long as I’m talking to someone, as long as I am providing reasons, I can’t say that I am a unique, privileged person and hope for you to take me seriously. Why should you? You’re you, I’m me. Anything that I come up with as a code of behavior … any reason that I give you for how you should behave has to apply to me in order for me not to be a hypocrite or to contradict myself. And once you do that, then I think much or all of morality follows.
And I think that the alternative that many people appeal to, mainly faith, is … immediately refutes itself. Faith means believing something with no good reason to do it. Once you’re talking to someone about what they … what is good to do, what they ought to do, or what they have reasons to do, you cannot appeal to faith. You’re committed to reason."
-Harvard Psychology Professor and Cognitive Scientist, Steven Pinker
Hmmm..... someone's on a hatin' spree again and is reporting abuse on various comments.
The great majority of evolutionary biologists see no conflict between religion and evolution, not because they occupy different, noncompeting magisteria, but because they see religion as a natural product of human evolution.
(Source: "Monism, atheism, and the naturalist worldview: Perspectives from evolutionary biology" – Dr. Greg Graffin)
Sociobiological evolution is the means to understand religion, whereas religion as a 'way of knowing' has nothing to teach us about evolution.
"I think my own personal philosophy – one that I think offers a sounder basis for knowledge and wisdom than religion – is based on reason.
Now as soon as soon as we’re having this conversation, as long as we are trying to persuade one another of why you should do something or should believe something, you are already committed to reason. We are not engaged in a fistfight. We’re not bribing each other to believe something. We’re trying to provide reasons. We’re trying to persuade, to convince. As long as you’re doing that in the first place, you’re not hitting someone with a chair, or putting a gun to their head, or bribing them to believe something. You’ve lost any argument you have against reason. You’ve already signed on to reason whether you like it or not. So the fact that we’re having this conversation shows that we are committed to reason. That is the starting point. And from reason many other things follow. ..
I think science is just the application of reason to the natural world. There’s no such thing as the scientific method in the sense of a recipe or a formula, because techniques in science are always changing to handle the problems in front of us. Science is really an attempt to explain things, to answer the question of why it’s the way it is as opposed to some other way it could have been. And it’s an attempt to do your d-rndest to figure out the things that you believe are true. It’s the application of reason in the most purified and concentrated form, in a way that I think is continuous with philosophy, with law, with political organization if it’s done right.
And I think it also provides much of the grounding for ethics and morality. At heart, morality is treating other people the way one would want to be treated oneself; and some version of that, of interchangeability of pers-pec-tives. It’s the fact that I’m not the only ent-i-ty in the universe, and I have no grounds for privileging my interests over yours. That’s really what most or all moral systems ultimately boil down to.
And again, as long as I’m talking to someone, as long as I am providing reasons, I can’t say that I am a unique, privileged person and hope for you to take me seriously. Why should you? You’re you, I’m me. Anything that I come up with as a code of behavior … any reason that I give you for how you should behave has to apply to me in order for me not to be a hypocrite or to contradict myself. And once you do that, then I think much or all of morality follows.
And I think that the alternative that many people appeal to, mainly faith, is … immediately refutes itself. Faith means believing something with no good reason to do it. Once you’re talking to someone about what they … what is good to do, what they ought to do, or what they have reasons to do, you cannot appeal to faith. You’re committed to reason."
-Harvard Psychology Professor and Cognitive Scientist, Steven Pinker
Christians are not against science but against unproven, theoretical science forcefully and falsely presented as fact. True scientific experimentation and analysis points to an intelligently designed universe.
Oh dear, did you fail science?
Arthur thinks complexity means that a diety created it. It's clearly not logical to assume that a super natural being is the answer when you can't come up with a logical conclusion. It's like saying " you don't have all the answers so I'm just as right as you".
Well, I beg to differ.
By reason and logical deduction, it is a MUST that there is an UNCAUSED and Infinite/Eternal "First Cause" that is outside the universe and its beginning and realm, and is not subject to it.
As Christians, we believe that "First Cause" to be God Almighty, the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit.
Vic – "garbage in, garbage out". It absolutely possible to have a completely reasonable chain of arguments, but if your beginning premise isn't supported, no amount of reason is going to give you a factual outcome.
Then Christians should be against creationism because it is untested and unfounded.
You are suggesting 'mutual exclusiveness;' that's wrong and untrue.
As Christians, we believe that there is more to knowledge than strictly "Empirical Science." The etymology of the word "Science" is simply "Knowledge." We believe that there is "Spiritual & Logical Knowledge" along with "Empirical Knowledge."
Empirical Science cannot explain the "Origin" of life and matter. As Christians, while we share the same "Empirical Science" with everybody, we believe that the "Origin" of life and matter to be God.
spiritual knowledge = opinion
Hate to say it, but I gotta agree with Sam on this one. It sounds like the difference between, "I don't know" and someone who doesn't like uncertainty so they make a leap as it's better than supposed ignorance.
@ Arthur: and exactly which experiments are you referring to that supposedly prove the existence of intelligent design? Are they the biology experiments which show that, for example, humans have vestigial remnants of prior biological features: a coccyx, for example, or the remnants of nicti-tating membranes in the corners of our eyes? How about the experiment that shows that the giraffe's laryngeal nerve, instead of running a few inches, runs 10-15 feet down one side of its neck, under the heart, and back up the other side of its neck?
Intelligent design? Hardly.
Interesting that you should put it that way because all religion is "unproven, theoretical science forcefully and falsely presented as fact".
The primary argument against so-called intelligent design is if the designer could design the environment as well as its inhabitants, why all the complexity? Why make the human body such a complex mechanism? Why do we need food, why do we need shelter, why do we need companionship, why can't we all swim as well as fish, fly as well as birds? Why build so many deficiencies into humans but all traits in animals that would benefit us? Why make some of our environment so hostile to us (too cold, too hot, snow, hurricanes, floods) and why so many existential threats (wild animals, hunger, disease, infant death). If there was a design, why so many species and subspecies? Why so many languages and nationalities. Why so much human on human hatred.
If this was all made by a designer, he apparently had no idea what he was trying to design, because he did a really lousy job.
OK, now we are making some progress. Your questions are very pertinent to the topic of "Origin," it has nothing to do with "Empirical Science."
As Christians, we believe that since the fall of Adam & Eve, mortality and this life realm became immanent and inevitable, including a curse on the world, where man is to feed all the days of life, and is to pass the test of "faith," until the end of time.
And this all ordered by a God who "loves" you?
Yes, we believe God is "Loving."
We believe God is Sovereign and has Sovereign Divine Will & Wisdom that we don't know "everything" about and how they totally work.
Except that Ham isn't arguing for ID. He is insisting on a 10,000year old Earth. The existance of a Creator has not been proven false, but the Genesis story HAS.
I don't think the age of the earth is a consequential issue, and Ken Ham clearly does. That said, just for fun, I'm struck by this idea: If you'll grant, at least momentarily, the Genesis account of creation.... how old was Adam when God created him? Was he a newborn babe? Almost certainly not. So he was created with the appearance of age. Is this not at least theoretically possible? Like I said, not testable, etc., but an interesting thought (to me, anyway)
""Christians are ... against unproven, theoretical science forcefully and falsely presented as fact.""
– – –
Religions demand proof of everything except their own wacky assertions.
Before getting into the comments, I would like to say that Bill Nye's statement is off topic, simply put, until this fair part—in quotes—of it:
[
It seems to me that Ham is a fundamentalist. "Around the world there are billions of people, who embrace the facts and process of modern science, and they enjoy their faith. By all accounts, their faith enriches their lives. These people have no conflict with their faith and science." Ham is unique in this regard.
]
Whether Ken Ham is unique in that regard or not, that's not the issue. Unfortunately, I see a lot of self-righteousness in claiming science to a certain group of people. Nobody owns science nor Faith in God. All parties share the same "Empirical Science." Having said that, this debate is about the "Origin" of life and matter and nothing else. Empirical Science has no data whatsoever about the "Origin" of life and matter; therefore, the debate should not be about science vs. Faith in God, they are NOT mutually exclusive.
He was most likely responding to this fallacious statement by Ham:
"If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life, and you can establish any belief system you want with no regard to an absolute authority.
I don't know about that.
If you don't believe in God, you should not be worried about what Ken Ham refers to as "Operational Science" on the Christian part. We share the same exact thing with everybody.
The dispute is about were everything came from, and that's a whole different ball game.
"The dispute is about where everything came from,..."
I will repeat this off topic quote by Ham, since apparently you think that it is so show offensive when Nye did it:
If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life... and you can establish any belief system you want with no regard to an absolute authority.
If you believe in God, you shouldn't be troubled by what Nye says, either.
I agree on that it is off topic.
Poor Vic always misses the broad picture, what origin, what creation myth, what god, so many versions, so little proof of any of them existing outside of the minds of men. You have no proof of any god, you have threats to believe in your version of a god, that is all, get over yourself.
Religion thrives on allegory, emotional commitments to texts that no one reads, and other forms of benign hypocrisy".
– Harvard professor and cognitive scientist, Steven Pinker, "The Better Angels of Our Nature 'Why violence has declined'".
“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”
–Joseph H. Taylor, Jr.
No conflict between science and religion?
Ha! Stupidest comment on the board. Well done.
There is a conflict between science and religion, like there is a conflict between science and atheism.
And yet another stupid comment.... you're on a roll.
There is nothing but conflict between science and a literal reading of the entire bible.
When one must argue against science in defense of their belief, one has already lost the argument.
Science is nothing more than the application of rational deductive reasoning.
To argue against science is to argue for Irrationality.
True. That's why Christians don't take issue with science. Christians take issue with some conclusions of men who would describe the origin of life without a Creator God.
Rational Deductive Reasoning otherwise known as science is in complete opposition with the belief in any God.
Just as it is irrational to believe in the 6ft tall blue monster in my closet without evidence, so is it irrational to believe in any god without evidence.
Well all have the same evidence that we look at – the same rocks, the same bones, the same stars... It is our conclusions that differ, and those are based on our paradigms.
Whether you wish to describe the origin of life as natural or supernatural, it takes faith to do so, because experimental science has nothing to say about origins.
Larry, yet again you fail to show how this evidence points to god as a creator.
NoEvidence,
All once has to do to see the logical necessity of a Creator God is to look at the Law of Causality, and how that applies to the Argument from Contingency. ie, Only the supernatural can explain the existence of the natural.
Paul would put it simpler by telling you to go out and pluck a blade of grass... "The invisible attributes of God are clearly seen in the things that are made..." Romans 1:18-32
The proof does exist. For one whom does not believe, no proof is enough. So it is futile to argue His existence to one whom is in opposition to the existence of a Creator.
Why?
Evolutionists will say that the eye evolved throughout millenia, creationists will say that it had to be perfect from the start. A simple question then: Is a human's eye more perfect than an eagle's eye and why does every animal's eyes differ? The answer is simple, God's creations are perfectly made according to Him.
But an evolutionist will only stick to what they think they can explain and ignore the rest!!!!!!!!
Jon, of course the answer is "simple" when a simple mind is involved....
You're saying that Jonathan Edwards was a simple mind? His was one of the most gifted minds that America has ever produced!
There are many "gifted minds" that author fiction.......
"You're saying that Jonathan Edwards was a simple mind? His was one of the most gifted minds that America has ever produced!"
hell of a songwriter, too
Christians take issue with some conclusions of men who would describe the origin of life without THEIR Creator God.
"describe the origin of life without a Creator God" OK – so based on this theory, what predictions could we make? In other words, is there some kind of experiment/prediction that could be used to help validate it? And on the other end, how would you falsify such a theory?
Mr. Nye
I will state that this is quite the publicity stunt for both participants. I can see why Ham would do this to feather his nest and get people like Topher to yearn to attend the creation museum, preaching to the choir, so to speak, $ca ching$. But despite your above statements I fail to see why you would bother with this, you will never convince the fanatics, they will remain the same whatever reason and logic you provide.
While I appreciate both your viewpoint and your acknowledgement that science is the key to the economy you miss a fundamental point. No Creation cannot be used for experiment and to predict the future. But neither can Evolution. So if that's your reason for not believing Creation, why do you believe Evolution? By that reasoning it's a coin toss.
Evidence for evolution appears in the fossil record, vestigial features, ebryonic development, biogeography, DNA sequencing, examining pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses and other sources.
The principles of evolutionary biology are applied on a daily basis by countless people in disparate fields.
Without a firm understanding of evolution, modern agriculture would be impossible.
Pharmaceutical biochemistry would be non-existent, reducing our overall health and life expectancy.
The Human Genome Project only wrapped up around a decade ago and scientists are still studying the results.
Part of those studies has been comparative analysis of our genomes with those of other organisms.
The logical first step was a look at our closest relative, the chimpanzee who shares around 99% of the same DNA as us. We found that about one third of chimp genes encode proteins that are exactly the same as their human counterparts.
This, along with other findings too lengthy to elaborate here, exactly confirmed the predictions made by evolutionary biologists.
Study of endogenous retroviruses has also confirmed the validity of the Darwinian law of common descent.
The genes of virii are passed down through the generations of species who are infected. We have found identical chromosomal positions of virogenes in different species, thus indicating a common ancestor.
From the beginning, evolution predicted the finding of transitional fossils – of which we have many.
One of the more fascinating specimens is Tiktaalik. The creature had fins, scales, and gills like a fish, but the head and body are flat with eyes on the top of its skull, more akin to a crocodile and Its shoulders are not connected to its skull, giving it a functional neck (unlike fish). ON the top of its head, there were spiracles which indicate a kind of rudimentary lung for breathing air. It has ribs like some of the earliest tetrapods which were used to support the body and aid in living and breathing on land. Its fins display pseudo-fingers – the shape of the bones and joints in the front fins indicate it used them to prop itself up in shallow water.
There are any number of variables that influence the development of a species, even in the same general geographical area.
If you toss a fistfull of sand into the same sandbox from the same height, at the same speed etc, the distribution of the grains will be unique each time you do it.
Evolution is not a linear process with a specific goal in mind. Human beings are not "ape V 2.0".
It is a dynamic and anarchic process, full of dead ends and lots of surprises.
However, the underlying principles (ie: the 5 laws) of Darwin's original theory have been used to make many, many successful predictions.
In that, how does this response negate Creation theory?
I never said it did.
It does, however, invalidate the OPs posit that evolutionary theory cannot be used to conduct experiments or make predictions.
Creationism is not scientific theory. Creationism cannot be tested so it can never be a scientific theory. Creationism is not even a hypothesis.
Mat, not entirely true. Evolutionary assumptions allow us to develop medicine and engineer crops. We "predict" that these things will work because ewe "assume" that evolution is true...
And you know what? It works every time!
Evolutionary assumptions about the age of the earth and geologic process help us to know (dare I say, predict) where oil reserves will be found. Again, this stuff works...
The belief that humans are descendants from monkeys is not required to learn and practice genetic engineering.
Sorry Matt evolution is used everyday in the laboratory to predict the future , one only has to consider the development of vaccines from one season to the next.
"debate the origins of life Tuesday night"
------
The scientific method cannot explain the origins of life. The best that science can do is give an educated guess, but in the end, both camps require FAITH to interperet data. And both camps have the same data, it is the interpretation that differs, and that is purely based upon paradigms.
Science cannot draw conclusions – science is merely a method of examining data. It is paradigms that draw conclusions, and those take faith.
"God did it" is the easiest, most comfortable way to explain anything. No real intelligence required.
I spoke the truth.
Christianity has nothing negative to say about science. Science is merely a method of investigating data. What Christians take issue with are some of the conclusions that are made by people who would describe our origins without a Creator.
Okay, since none of us will agree; can we then just make religion a personal matter? Don't bring it into politics or education, don't come to my door trying to convert me. Keep it on a quiet level. Religion is one of the best ways to control groups of people, I am appalled that I have to take people who worship gods like it was 12,000BCE seriously.
"can we then just make religion a personal matter?"
-----
Nope. Although religion may be a personal matter, Christianity isn't. Evangelism is a part of every Christian's life – we are a holy priesthood, saints whose main task is to spread the gospel.
And I spoke the truth. Saying "God did it" is the easiest way to explain anything.
Keep your gospels out of our secular nation's laws, as intended by the FF. Thank you, "saint."
Eyeroll,
Sure it's easy, but that doesn't make it automatically an incorrect conclusion. It is just a conclusion that, JUST LIKE molecules to man, it takes faith, since science cannot confirm either.
Whatever. God did it is the go-to explaination for whatever cannot be immediately explained.
It's simplistic in its beauty; not easily refutable because...God did it. No further inquiry necessary.
You win your circular argument, I have had enough.
Ignorance is never the path to anything except personal satisfaction. Fundamentalists start with a bias that is static, and find any evidence to support the unwavering bias. Scientists test hypotheses and continually reformulate their hypotheses based off of the new evidence that results from this dynamic way of asking questions. One is static, the other is dynamic. One requires reading only one book, while the other requires a bit more work (i.e., reading more than one book). In my decades of experience in the Biomedical Sciences, when one does not have the capacity to understand complex systems that require the hard work that goes along with scientific inquiry, they tend to not believe any evidence, regardless, and just say "aw heck, who really knows anyway". Losing mentality. Imagine if Jonas Salk though "aw heck, polio is too difficult to understand, let's focus on faith instead of trying to develop a vaccine".
LoA
We can see molecules...where have you been?...oh yeah...in your first century book of myths....got it.
Exactly, huh?. Exactly, igaftr.
" we are a holy priesthood, saints whose main task is to spread the gospel."
Says the self-exhaulted.
Your Jesus would not appreciate your holding yourself as if you are superior.
You are a man, and there are no such thing as saints ( except in NFL)
Saint Lof A
Of course you are a saint, no a mini god, in your own mind congratulations. You continue to push your conclusions on the seven billion people that know you are quite mad.
Larry... yet with all your babbling, you fail to present any evidence that your christian god created the world. You only have your feelings and beliefs. No evidence, no truth, no facts.... a big fat fail. Enjoy your delusion.
The bible does quote Jesus as saying that those who believe in Him ARE Saints. All a saint is, is a christian. No extraordinariness needed. The Catholics are the ones who put sainthood on a higher order of human beings.
Question, how come the only religion everyone has a problem with "in" schools is Christianity, when everything else is allowed to be taught, from Judaism and Islam, to paganism and the Pantheon of ancient gods????
jonS, if you are o.k. with teaching Christianity as merely opinion, and as something that could might be wrong, and teach it along with all of the other religions that exist, I would be o.k. with that. Teaching it as fact I would be against.
Pete, the World Religions class in college does just that. It was a wonderfully eye opening class. Evolutionism should be lumped into that class instead of in a science book. Like Scientology, Evolutionism is just a concept that people have taken on faith to be true. There hasn't been any evidence of one species changing into another, "before our very eyes."
"we are a holy priesthood"
just when you think ol' larry can't get any more pompous, he comes up with this
Did you mean to say Evolution did it, we don't need to know how, and thou shalt not question EVOLUTION. We are here therefore evolution right? How is that more scientific than We are here therefore God. You cant go test either of those. However I would like to hear about the ground breaking discoveries that account for the source of information in genetics, and the process that adds information into living organisms allowing them to acquire new features. Are the adherents of evolution missing something or just hiding these revelations that would allow rational people swallow Darwinian evolution?
Might I recommend heading to your local community college and taking a Bio 101 course, it might help.
No. I meant to say “God did it” is the easiest, most comfortable way to explain anything. No real intelligence required. Which I did.
@Kalen,
"How is that more scientific than We are here therefore God. You cant go test either of those."
The theory of evolution is tested nearly everyday. One mammal in the pre-cambrian, would falsify the entire thing.
"However I would like to hear about the ground breaking discoveries that account for the source of information in genetics, and the process that adds information into living organisms allowing them to acquire new features."
I don't know what you mean by "source of information in genetics" since the gene are the information. Which by the way is related to how new "information" is added, by processes such as gene duplication, transposition, genetic drift, etc. , i.e. new genetic sequences.
Kalen, i hear ya. I took Bio 101. It only talks about how God created things and how His infinite wisdom allowed for traits to come about in the scientific world.....without specifically giving credit to Him. Oh, and by the way, I aced the class.
That class in the trailer park?
Actually one of the problems in figuring out the origins of life is that since it only has to happen once on this planet, and it had literally billions of years to happen, it could plausibly have a chance of occurring that is so low no mechanism will seem credible.
i.e. – it could have had a one in 100 trillion chance of occuring in a given cubic km of water in a given year, and it would have, then, a (10^-14)(1.3*10^9)(2*10^9) (1 in a trillion per cubic km per year* volume of ocean in cubic km * 2 billion years) = 2.6*10^6, i.e., it would have happened independently over 2 million times, statistically. The chance is low, but over enough space and time the unlikely becomes certain.
2.6*10^4 rather (9+9-14) – so 26,000 rather than 2,600,000. My bad.
Nope faith has no place in the lab. If I developed an experiment that tested faith, perhaps if I threw 100 babies off a tall building and ask you to pray to you god to save the small babies form sure death , and all 100 were killed how would you interpret the results? My guess is you would say you didn't pray hard enough or that your God wanted them dead. A scientist would say that gravity trumps faith.
Steve, that was ignorant. There was someone just the other day that survived a jump where her parachute did not open. I am sure she fell from a much higher distance than a tall building. The problem is, you would just explain it away, even if one out of your 100 babies survived.
her parachute did open, she just did not correct what she needed to correct.
if it did not open, she would have died