Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I think it's disgraceful and pathetic when the need to be right usurps free and open-minded inquiry and investigation, and mutual exploration, with childlike antics and shrill protestations that don't even address the information being presented.

And they are so obvious about it. Do they really think we don't know that they're arguing merely for the sake of arguing, instead of examining what is being offered in a debate. To these people I say, if an idea is stupid, hey, go ahead and bash it, but while you're bashing it at least offer an explanation as to why it's a stupid idea.

Sorry if I am repeating others' views. Haven't had time to view the entire thread. You might count me as another vote for what I am about to say.

I believe that the reason for the books of creation is to explain the concept of "God" to people of the time, and that it is a story that purposely circumvented the theory of evolution so as to demonstrate the concept in terms that people of the time could understand. It was not, IMHO, a book written to expose the chronological order of events of the time.

I'm not sure how many people believe that the bible disproves the theory of evolution. Creationist theories may be popular, but I don't count the fact that it is popular as meaning that it is right.

Take a comparison of the first two chapters of the bible:

(BTW: the word "day" is translated from the original word "Yom", which means time period - so I am going to use the word time period in running my comparison).

First Chapter:
=============

God made the first vegetation on the planet on the second day/time period.

God made sea creatures and birds on the fourth day/time period.

On the fifth day/time period, God made the animals and human beings.

The second chapter:
==================

This time period - according to the second chapter - occurred as God was creating the earth.

God made man prior to making wild bushes and wild plants. (Just the wild ones).

God made man and then created the wild animals and all the birds of heaven - to give man a companion.

One note:
=========

Clearly, according to the second chapter all the birds were made to give man a companion. Yet, the first chapter puts the event of bird making prior to the arrival of man.

Another note:
============

The first chapter says God created heaven and earth in the beginning. Then it goes on to say there was a divine wind blowing over the waters.

Now, the actual act of creating heaven occurred on the second day and the earth was a formless void (until it was created on the third day). So, the previous paragraph wasn't necessarily meant to be a chronologically ordered description.

The earth was created on the third day. So, an earth day is not necessarily implied in the days described earlier.

On the fourth day (according to the first chapter) - is when God set the two lights in the sky - one to govern the day and the other to govern the night and to indicate the passing of days, and to divide light from darkness.

Yet, the same idea appears on the first day - he created light and separated it from darkness, calling the light "day" and the darkness "night". (in chapter 1).

Additionally, we now know the earth is round and this is how "our" days and nights are caused. So, it would likely be that the human day and night would have been created after the earth had been created.

Yet, the first chapter describes evening and morning for every single day... evenings and mornings occur because the earth is spinning on its axis... and that too only if you were located at one point on earth would you have a 24 hour day - the northern most point on the north pole only sees a 6 month day and a 6 month night. (Same thing in Finland).

Conclusions:
===========

What does this all mean? Can't say.

It does say in the second chapter that God fashioned man from the soil of the ground - but it would be true if you summarize evolution as well.

So, I can't say that it disproves evolution, neither can I say it proves it.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I think it's disgraceful and pathetic when the need to be right usurps free and open-minded inquiry and investigation, and mutual exploration, with childlike antics and shrill protestations that don't even address the information being presented.

And they are so obvious about it. Do they really think we don't know that they're arguing merely for the sake of arguing, instead of examining what is being offered in a debate. To these people I say, if an idea is stupid, hey, go ahead and bash it, but while you're bashing it at least offer an explanation as to why it's a stupid idea.

I agree, for once we agree!

Originally posted by jiggerj
The question of "What is god?" cannot be taught anywhere because no one can even come close to having a clue. And if people think they know who or what god is, they're fooling themselves.

People who think they know anything about anything are foolish. (Which might mean this is a foolish statement)

Why do people believe in God? Because they believe they should.
Why do people believe Bill Nye? Because they believe they should.
Why do people play golf? Because they believe they should.


Everyone has a world view, and it is a collection of assumptions about the world and how it operates. There is not one thing we know about the world that can't be traced back to an assumption. This can't be proven either, it can only be assumed. If it could be proven then this statement would contradict itself.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Of course I stand up against argumentative fallacies and complete nonsense arguments that ignore facts (like the fact that the earth isn't a circle).

You don't have the first clue as to the nature of the information that was being presented, so fast are you to pronounce judgement, in fact you even thought the circle running through the moon was being depicted as it's orbit around the earth, which no, isn't a perfect circle, but you missed the point, which was to show just one of many highly unusual coincidences that I was prepared to show which suggest in no uncertain terms a type of design which ought not exist according to standard astrophysical models for planetary formation. People smarter than you or I or more well researched struggle with it greatly, so how am I so easily laughed off, because the earth isn't a perfect circle, when I'm showing you something quite extraordinary, that the moon and earth can be used to perform a very sophisticated geometrical transformation called squaring the circle. Even the moon's positioning and movement, which shows the same face to the earth at all times is a real astrophysical quandry, but there are many many more facets to this mystery involving the relationship both in proportion and distances between the Earth, Moon and Sun, which at the very LEAST reveals a high precision UNIQUE configuration all but certain not to be repeated in any other solar system, even among 10-100 trillion trillion earth-like worlds, which is a reasonable estimate for the known universe.

Now for the following, I am NOT I repeat NOT suggesting that the moon is an artificial construct (ie: spaceship) from a distant solar system, but I'm posting this for people to begin to consider the various impossibilities of the moon as an entirely "natural" aka normal occurance ie: highly coincidental, and although perhaps not unusual according to the strong anthropic principal, that we're here because of it's influence and wouldn't be here if it wasn't as it is, even still it certainly has some rather perplexing attributes, to say the least.

EARTH’S MOON IS STRANGELY UNUSUAL: THE BIGGEST COINCIDENCES IN THE UNIVERSE
That’s Not A Moon…It’s A Space Station!
From Gary Jacobucci
Jeff, earlier this year, David Icke visited the idea that the moon is not a heavenly body but that it is some sort of construct a hollowed out planetoid.
I let this idea sit for several months, but this morning decided to look into it a bit.
On of the things Icke mentioned something I had never considered is that what are the chances that the moon just happens to exactly cover the sun during an eclipse?
(the odds are astronomical)
I came across a 2006 interview with one of the authors of the book Who Built The Moon? (Christopher Knight and Alan Butler) who presents a few thoughts on this idea

www.newdawnmagazine.com...

“New Dawn recently spoke with Christopher Knight about his controversial new book and his astonishing conclusions.
NEW DAWN: All of mankind’s visits to the Moon have not answered some of the most basic questions about its origin and importance. Your new book Who Built the Moon? brings to light some extraordinary facts about the Moon, and comes to a mind-blowing conclusion about its origin. Could you briefly outline some of these little known and ignored facts?
CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT: The Moon sits very close to the Earth yet it is widely regarded as the strangest object in the known universe.
The book lists the strangeness of the Moon, which includes the fact that it does not have a solid core like every other planetary object. It is either hollow or has a very low-density interior. Bizarrely, its concentration of mass are located at a series of points just under its surface which caused havoc with early lunar spacecraft
The Moon is not only extremely odd in its construction; it also behaves in a way that is nothing less than miraculous. It is exactly four hundred times smaller than the Sun but four hundred times closer to the Earth so that both the Sun and the Moon appear to be precisely the same size in the sky which gives us the phenomenon we call a total eclipse. Whilst we take this for granted it has been called the biggest coincidence in the universe.
Furthermore, the Moon mirrors the movement of the Sun in the sky by rising and setting at the same point on the horizon as the Sun does at opposite solstices. For example, this means the Moon rises at midwinter at the same place the Sun does at midsummer. There is no logical reason why the Moon mimics the Sun in this way and it is only meaningful to a human standing on the Earth
ND: Your conclusion is there are more than enough anomalies about the Moon to suggest it is not a naturally occurring body and was quite possibly engineered to sustain life on Earth. How did you reach this conclusion?
CK: Not only is the Moon an apparently impossible object, it has some unique benefits for us humans. It has been nothing less than an incubator for life. If the Moon was not exactly the size, mass and distance that it has been at each stage of the Earth’s evolution there would be no intelligent life here. Scientists are agreed that we owe everything to the Moon.
It acts as a stabilizer that holds our planet at just the right angle to produce the seasons and keep water liquid across most of the planet. Without our Moon the Earth would be as dead and solid as Venus.
ND: If the Moon is an artificial construct, what are your theories on who or what built it, and why?
CK: In Who Built the Moon? we explain that we could not come to any other conclusion than the Moon is artificial. Because it is certain that it is 4.6 billion years old that raises some interesting points. Another factor was the obvious message that has been built into the Moon to tell us it’s artificial.
The question of why the Moon had to be built is easy to answer: To produce all life, especially humans. As to who did it well that’s a lot tougher!…
David Icke relates”I’ve found the Zulu legends to be the profoundly accurate in the way that they use symbolism to describes very profound scientific truths so, after I’d come up with all this stuff, I called Credo Mutwa, the Zulu shaman and the official historian for the Zulu nation, when I’d come up with all this stuff and asked him to tell me what are the Zulu legends of the moon.
Credo Mutwa tells me that the Zulus believe that the moon comes from far, far away and it was hollowed out like the yolk taken out of an egg and it was rolled across the heavens by two reptilian entities, which he gives Zulu names for.

Now while I don't think the moon is an artificial spaceship, I do find it's coincidence and strangness factor to be so high as to point at least to the possibility of intelligent design.

What would be rather amuzing, when we begin the process of looking closely at other solar systems housing earth-like worlds, would be the appearance of other unusual design properties, like those which apply to the Earth, oddities which could not have occured simply by random conglomerates of matter coalescing into planetary systems according to any standard model of physics, and then, in at last recognizing the divine order, both here and everywhere, the astrophysicists and cosmologists may very well drop to their knees utterly gobsmacked.. or should I say Godsmacked, especially if all the angles and trajectories and vectors all point back here of all places, as the divine fulcrum at the center of the universe..! (cosmologically centered circle, which is what the Earth-Moon relationship represents and symbolizes) could you imagine?!




If and when that day comes (grand epiphany of super-intelligent design), let those same scientists and everyone who gets the word remember the real star of Bethlehem and the celestial event which formed the very schedule by which Jesus Christ ("my hour has not yet come") performed his Great Work aka Magnum Opus.
www.bethlehemstar.net...

Originally posted by centrifugal

Originally posted by jiggerj
The question of "What is god?" cannot be taught anywhere because no one can even come close to having a clue. And if people think they know who or what god is, they're fooling themselves.

People who think they know anything about anything are foolish. (Which might mean this is a foolish statement)

Why do people believe in God? Because they believe they should.
Why do people believe Bill Nye? Because they believe they should.
Why do people play golf? Because they believe they should.


Everyone has a world view, and it is a collection of assumptions about the world and how it operates. There is not one thing we know about the world that can't be traced back to an assumption. This can't be proven either, it can only be assumed. If it could be proven then this statement would contradict itself.

But, I thought this was about what should or shouldn't be taught in school. We know that 2+2=4, so math should be taught. Along with reading and writing. Cooking is always a good thing. Auto repair, maybe. Sex Ed. How about how to use critical thinking?

Science, as in learning formulas that might one day lead to someone discovering how to get us off this rock before the sun bakes us.

Actually, when it comes to grades 1 thru 12, evolution is no more needed to be taught than intelligent design.

Originally posted by Kamza
I can see this discussion has generated alot of interest so I would like to give the Islamic viewpoint.

In Islam we do not see science and religion as two opposing forces, rather we see that the two compliment each other.

I had a friend attempt to convert me to Islam with this concept. I took it as a compliment, however, it does not hold up 100% to scrutiny IMO.

Furthermore, the book is not clear enough about its meaning to guide scientists.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
you missed the point, which was to show just one of many highly unusual coincidences that I was prepared to show which suggest in no uncertain terms a type of design which ought not exist according to standard astrophysical models for planetary formation.

I'd suggest reading the works of Victor Stenger on the issue as he addresses the notion of 'physics by desgin' that is often presented.

That aside though ... Stating that creationism isn't appropriate in science classrooms isn't over run by the idea you've just presented. You're still talking philosophy.

Your idea doesn't predict anything. Your idea cannot be truly falsified. If it can't be tested and it is incapable of predicting the state of the world around us then it can't be taught as science.

There is a good short story that explains everything nicely I found here on ATS awhile ago. Here it is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SubAce


that story was profound...

reply to post by pajoly


Just to help you out a bit the Torah is part of the Bible 1st testament.
Oh and WTH is a Koran? But I bet the Qur'an should have some in it as well being one of the 3 religions of Abraham and all.

Not that it matters, but I'm Christian, yet I don't think that, nor is there any blind rage.

Wow,
This ended up being a really deep thread.
I'm not sure what I can add except opinionas I am neither a professional scientist nor theologian.
Some things I do know though....
No matter what people say in questioning and trying to disrespect science , they are here on a COMPUTER.
Thank you science.
An no matter how religious people are, when tehy get that heart attack......they don't pray....they call 911.

I think those that are against science in general should be barred from using medical facilities on principle alone.
I am well past tired of the religious right trying to push their crap on one hand while pushing Ayn Rand, Free market, and anti-intellectualism on the other.
Science is bad....until i need it......this situation seems hopeless until a few more generations kick the bucket.
Make up your mind. The two are incompatible.
Thatst not to say I'm not spiritual , as I am not an atheist but religion and philosphy do not belong in the science classroom. IMHO

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


I think this guy in the video is underestimating how Americans or other Westerners think about this subject.

This video is an example of what is really wrong with the world today.

It paints a picture of only two choices to choose from.

You're ether "crazy" for not believing in the official story of evolution or you are "normal" for believing in evolution as it is taught today.

These choices leave no room for further discussion because they are so far apart.

It seems that they want us to believe that everything has been "figured out" and all you have to do now is decide to believe it. Or not and be labeled "crazy" or "ignorant".

I, after doing my own research over the years, believe that we (as the genetically modified and updated versions of the ancient "human animal" that we used to be), have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
More and more evidence is being uncovered, never to be heard of again, that shows that "modern man" has been on this planet for 100's of million years longer than the theory of evolution dictates.

Oh no. Does this mean that the theory of man's existence needs to be updated with new information that drastically changes the current "theory" that we obtained in the late 1800's?
Yes.
Just like we expect science to do. Remember when you where a kid and you enjoyed science class and pondering on the future and how great it would be finally learn more about all of the mysteries of the universe that would unfold in your lifetime? Well, something happened between the 80's and now. It's like everything is figured out now and you really don't need to even learn math if you don't want to, ect...

And it is also pretty obvious that every plant and animal "evolve" somehow. We can see it in our own lifetimes with certain animals or plants existing in toxic areas.. can't we? Either way, I feel like, yes evolution does make sense on a certain "obvious" level. It's no wonder that Darwin had his theories, I'm sure there where many scientist back then working on the same obvious conclusion..

However, I believe that we did not evolve from apes, rather we evolved from the "human animal" slowly over time. But I also believe in creationism. We must have been genetically updated by some kind of outside , call it alien if need be, people. Every thing that sprang from our intellectual "birth" after the general population was updated points to stories of "gods" and "other gods".

Other animals that have been with us this whole time have not "evolved" to the level that we are. There all still monkeys acting like monkeys, whales acting like whales, trees, ect...

The problem with this video is the problem with America.
"They" are purposely dumbing us down and spoon feeding us two absurd choices (man made by god in seven days 15,000 years ago) or (man evolving from primates 150,000 years ago)??

Um, yeah, uh, thanks for trying to help out, buddy but ... never mind it's not worth it

I don't understand how the seven day creation story contradicts evolutionary theory, I mean... if you put the seven days on a larger scale it's pretty much verbatim how it happened in the real world.
To me it all sounds as if god sat on a mountain with mortal, none omnipotent being and had to explain in the simplest means he could what he'd been up to the last couple of hundred million years.
"Shall I put the kettle on???"
"Nah, I gotta dash mate, I'll just sum it up, speed things along a bit... well... on Monday..."

Regardless of excommunication, Darwin believed in god. Figure that.
I believe in both a god or sentient creator, AND evolution.
The two are not entirely exclusive of one another.
I am christened catholic but renounce that side of worship.

The only problem with religion is man!

reply to post by swan001


You are not talking about religion, you are talking about Christianity. You are already trying to destroy hundreds of other religions by claiming they are all wrong.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by ibiubu


Most well known scientists (Newton, Bragg, others) believed in God and creation. What harm is there in educating children in this possibility? None, in my book.

Because if god is the answer, then it's the final answer. No reason to look any further. It stops all research.

We don't need to know about atoms and DNA because creationism gives us the final answer.

How did life get its start? God.
How was the universe created? God.
Where did morality come from? God.
How does the earth orbit the sun? God.
Who will free us from tyranny, save us from plagues, from injustice? God, God, God.

Problem: This answer solves nothing, serves no one, and protects no one. It shuts down human curiosity. Plus, it's simply the wrong answer.

No it doesn't stop it. It hasn't stopped. that is proof enough isn't it? What is God?

The question of "What is god?" cannot be taught anywhere because no one can even come close to having a clue. And if people think they know who or what god is, they're fooling themselves.

Lots of people know a lot more about the question than other people. Those people would be good teachers of the subject.

DUDE BILL NYE IS THE MAN! GINA! look at that ostrach

Originally posted by rwfresh
Lots of people know a lot more about the question than other people. Those people would be good teachers of the subject.

I am curious who these people are and where their knowledge comes from.

reply to post by Endorra

If you ever found one, he (or she) might tell you that they honestly do not know, on both counts, either who they are, or where their knowledge comes from, just that in knowing they don't know, they are given it as a gift for being honest, or open-minded enough to actually take something in whereas everyone else is filled with who they think they are and what they know.

But what do I know?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Doesn't change the FACT that it's the ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY...and argumentative fallacy

LINK

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
What Bill fails to take into account is teaching children a belief in most mainstream religions bring with it teachings of moral and ethical structure. These kids grow up with these teachings knowing right from wrong and acting like they have a conscience. Kids who grow up without this structure are more unruly and prone to become hoodlums and criminals.

Bill failed to take into account something you just completely made up?
My god the nerve of the man.
How can anyone ever take him seriously after the way he does not even mention your fantasy.