Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
Does any other christian have any evidence of god without relating to faith, god, or the bible?

Because they are all human creation.


What back so soon

I will answer that.....Jesus....




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Atheism sold itself as just no belief in God.
It's now fast becoming what some always knew it was - a denial of one specific faith only


You called it! And now we see it in this very thread as well.

As if "creationism" is specific to just one religion, or even religion, or God, at all!

In this thread, we also see the products of science being touted as the process of science itself. As well as proposing that creationism (specifically the idea of "if God did it") would somehow stop all further exploration. We would obviously still explore the "how." And interestingly, by excluding the possibility without further exploration, its a bit hypocritical. We constantly see the fallacy of "evolution vs creationism," and even the big bang theory being used to somehow discredit the idea, when they simply are not mutually exclusive.

It is pretty obvious, coming from an agnostic, that it is an attack on Judeo-Christianity specifically. That is clearly demonstrated in this thread as well. Perhaps not even a conscious thing, but then people are certainly being played like puppets.

There is no doubt in my mind that the idea that the universe was created should be taught in schools as a possibility. The idea is not exclusive to religion, much less a specific religion. We should definitely keep religion out of it. We dont know how the universe came to be, and certainly not the events leading up to that point. It should be a topic of curiosity and further exploration, not of indoctrination (same goes for religion).



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


ABSOLUTELY, INDEED.

And, if I understand Stephen Hawking's . . . pontifications . . . as one of the Popes of the Religion of Scientism correctly . . .

in one of Jerry Pournelle's books . . . A STEP FARTHER OUT . . .

At critical enough black hole sorts of densities or some such . . .

There is NO SUCH THING as rational anything . . . no such thing as reasonable anything . . . no such thing as logical anything . . .

IIRC, essentially, he pulled the whole rationalistic foundation out from under the Religion of Scientism . . . and with a big grin.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Right you are.

However, I don't think most folks wish to face those truths.

The cognitive dissonance facing such truths would cause seems to be beyond most folks' capacities to face getting up another day.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I was raised Christian by parents & a church environment that drilled Creationism into my mind from the age I was able to comprehend. I thought myself saved, and even got "re-saved" around the age of 15; by 18 I had realized the only thing keeping me tied to Christianity was the fear-trip I had been gifted with over the years.... belief in an afterlife that involves eternal torture is a powerful tool, and quite a demented one. Something beyond twisted.

As for Creationism not being appropriate, perhaps not. But I do think that intelligent design is appropriate, and I have no problem with the idea that we may have been created. To tell a child otherwise is close-minded. I do have a problem when you start saying that the Earth is 6000 years old, we all suffer due to the 'sins' of the first 2 humans, and that our entire existence depends on a supernatural being from a book --- one that exhibits traits of extreme psychopathy & intolerance.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Wow, some people really don't even believe that humans are animals? Every day I give up a little more hope in others.

On topic, I'm starting to believe the only way to end this debate is to just eliminate the teaching of both creationism and evolution in school. Neither side is going to let it go, and maybe it'll give parents a reason to teach their kids something (I know it's far-fetched). Yeah it won't happen, but neither will religious or science groups let the other guys win.
edit on 27-8-2012 by RoboticNomad because: Made my statement clearer



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 

Intelligent Design was a concept designed by those who are NOT INTELLIGENT! First of all...there is no conflict with EVOLUTION and a persons belief in a GOD. Perhaps there is a GOD...perhaps not...but GOD could have used Evolution as the process of Creation.

Evolution stopped being a THEORY for some time now and Intelligent Design...and I have read that book...is beyond STUPID! It has not one concept that has any scientific basis of thought.
Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


what he says might be right, but i don't think other people have a right to tell other people what they should and should not believe. if evolution is forced onto people who did not freely accept it through their own logical thought process, then it becomes no better than the way some people are forced to believe in religion.

people should be free to come to their own opinions based on the available evidence. saying it is not appropriate for children essentially means children will have no choice but to believe in evolution. if children are taught to only believe one thing then eventually the whole population will.

what this opinion says to me is they want to take away any alternatives to evolution and make sure people are indoctrinated from childhood to only accept one possibility.

whilst i do believe evolution is the correct option i feel enforcing one view or the other is wrong and people should be free to choose what is correct using their own logic.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
I was raised Christian by parents & a church environment that drilled Creationism into my mind from the age I was able to comprehend. I thought myself saved, and even got "re-saved" around the age of 15; by 18 I had realized the only thing keeping me tied to Christianity was the fear-trip I had been gifted with over the years.... belief in an afterlife that involves eternal torture is a powerful tool, and quite a demented one. Something beyond twisted.

As for Creationism not being appropriate, perhaps not. But I do think that intelligent design is appropriate, and I have no problem with the idea that we may have been created. To tell a child otherwise is close-minded. I do have a problem when you start saying that the Earth is 6000 years old, we all suffer due to the 'sins' of the first 2 humans, and that our entire existence depends on a supernatural being from a book --- one that exhibits traits of extreme psychopathy & intolerance.


I was raised an atheist, no love no compassion, had no idea of creationism. Was an evolutard.
Then at around 21 years of age someone preached the Gospel of love, of Christ to me.
Coming from a background where love was something that held a person back, to being taught love is something that sets you free, was a revelation.
Twenty years later I am still learning to love, but my faith is not teaching eternal torture, it teaches love.
Your parents got it wrong
I dont say we all suffer because of the sin of Adam, the bible states that. I just believe that.
God is no psycopath, He is just and Jesus teaches that He is tolerant.
You got it wrong



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Given that neither are truly proven, it would seem as though the origins of humans should be taught from a philisophical context. I believe that someone proposed earlier that we should simply scrap both of them. I do understand this idea, but I think having the discussion is more valuable than avoiding it...provided there is actual conversation and productivity of thought.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Ah yes, the embers of this argument fanned yet again. All I'll say is that I'd like to see Captain Bowtie defend evolution after he experiences an NDE firsthand. Not saying he's going to, but it might help broaden his horizons a bit.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

Right you are. However, I don't think most folks wish to face those truths.

The cognitive dissonance facing such truths would cause seems to be beyond most folks' capacities to face getting up another day.

Sadly, you are also right as demonstrated by several posts here by the "science" cult members in this thread.


WHY SMART PEOPLE OFTEN CAN'T SEE THE TRUTH

"Psychologists use the term Cognitive Dissonance to explain the brain’s inability to consider opposing evidence. Governments intentionally try to create this disorder in the population. That’s how they can get away with creating events like 9/11. Cognitive Dissonance is a form of government sponsored mind control." Source


Ironically one member of the "Church of Modern Science" has this for a signature:


"If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people."


I suppose that means that if you could reason with Science fundies there would BE no Science fundies...



I recommend reading rwfresh's thread on this subject as well (
RWF):


"This science is not science. It is the birth of a modern Religion NAMED Science."

"Their science is in fact a sect of modern religious belief that has little to do with Real Science."

Science rooted in what most would call "Religion"






edit on 27-8-2012 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform11
what this opinion says to me is they want to take away any alternatives to evolution and make sure people are indoctrinated from childhood to only accept one possibility.

whilst i do believe evolution is the correct option i feel enforcing one view or the other is wrong and people should be free to choose what is correct using their own logic.


I still remain unconvinced it is only an either/or scenario. I dont think creationism is at odds with evolution, given the possibility that things here might have been created to evolve.

Creationism tends to be perceived, as God creating the Earth 6000 years ago, and also creating Adam and Eve. Even though this belief tends to be pretty small sects of the population. Evolution tends to be perceived, as starting with the big bang and over many years and coincidences, we end up with a planet suitable for life. Then, through many years and coincidences, cells transform into intelligent life which then changes species repeatedly until we get humans. Both seem to be misunderstood by the other side perceiving it though.

The truth may even be a combination of the two. Meaning, God created the universe through the big bang, and through laws set in place by him, elements collectively evolve into humans.

Or, the truth could be neither one. Meaning, the beginning of the universe was the start of an advanced simulation. Wherein humans were a preloaded set of code that was executed.

We just dont know at this point, and are extremely limited in our understanding of these things. The indoctrination that happens on both sides really limits the curiosity and exploration of the topic. For me though, I just find the possibilities awe inspiring. No matter what happened, it was pretty amazing.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoboticNomad
On topic, I'm starting to believe the only way to end this debate is to just eliminate the teaching of both creationism and evolution in school. Neither side is going to let it go, and maybe it'll give parents a reason to teach their kids something (I know it's far-fetched). Yeah it won't happen, but neither will religious or science groups let the other guys win.


You know, that really may be the best solution. I agree that the chances of it happening are slim.

Better yet, teach children how to properly explore things scientifically, and they can deduce their own conclusions and maybe even introduce them to the class to explore through peer review.

Wait.. that would actually teach children to think for themselves AND explore things for themselves AND cooperate. Cant have that!
edit on 27-8-2012 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Atheism sold itself as just no belief in God.
It's now fast becoming what some always knew it was - a denial of one specific faith only


You called it! And now we see it in this very thread as well.


Might seem that way if you're debating with Americans primarily. Most of America is Christian ergo 60 - 70% of the argument would be against Christians. However, Hitchens etc ... have all debated jewish, buddhist and hindu representatives a like.


There is no doubt in my mind that the idea that the universe was created should be taught in schools as a possibility. The idea is not exclusive to religion, much less a specific religion. We should definitely keep religion out of it. We dont know how the universe came to be, and certainly not the events leading up to that point. It should be a topic of curiosity and further exploration, not of indoctrination (same goes for religion).


Evolution has provided us with insight into genetics and created a model for starting to understand our world. The 'idea' that we were created by aliens, goblins, or Yahweh is just an idea. Students should be taught how to understand scientific theory in a science class. Science deals with what is, what can be observed, and what can be tested. The only reason to bring up a creator would be out of political correctness and to point out that it cannot be tested any more than we can test if you exist in another creature's dream.

The 'new athiest' movement may believe that the absence of evidence that they believe should be there is evidence that such things don't exist but ... If we're going down that route, start a religious philosophy debate class and get it over with.

To summarise, science deals with hypothesis and theory. Hypothesis requires a test method. If you can come up with a hypothesis and test method for the idea of creator you can maybe propose it as science otherwise it is philosophy and it belongs in a philosophy class.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Interesting, but really, who cares what Nye says. He's obviously not much of a "scientist" or he woldn't have to hock elementary science as "the science guy"

He can't disprove creationism anymore than I can prove it. Difference is, I don't go around telling other people what they should think.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Oddly enough, every faith has a creation story, even the various tribes here in North America. And most all of them differ to some degree or another. Yet many are indeed similar as the societal group is closer together geographically. With many of the tribes here, the creator is The Great Spirit, Old Man or Grandfather. And just as often, creation is the only role and occasionally some sort of arbiter of your deeds. In Ancient Greece, there was the Parathion of gods, but each city/state followed things a little differently with one area championing one higher than another. So while the foundation was the same, their were some wholly different sects. Much like how their are different denominations in the Protestant side of Christianity. And we are so accustomed to the Protestants that we deliberately pronounce the root word differently...that being Prot-est-ant rather than Pro-test (which is what the division was about---protesting Papal Indulgences among other things such as the right to marriage for ministers.)

Bill Nye is wrong here. Not because Creationism conflicts with Evolution (which there is plenty of evidence) but because Creationism is a foundation in answering questions. Humans ability to question the world around them due to being self aware is a major difference between us and say a goat or dog. One of the ultimate questions in day to day living is always "How can I do this easier?" Hence we make tools and machines by experimentation as to which is the most efficient and go with the best answer.

But religion (any religion) is accepting that there is something beyond oneself. In creating a faith/religion, societies are able to fathom common laws for the group. The telling of this guiding ideas in stories allows for an easy reference nemonic. One of the best examples of this in modern setting is the Star Trek TNG episode Damokwhere Piccard is on a planet with an alien whose language is based on an epic story.

But suffice it to say that one of the strongest bonds to any society is a shared belief system. To disregard that only forces isolationism from the group. Which leads to a breakdown in morality as well as infighting amongst the now fragmented population.

In other words, the purpose of religion is to give purpose to the individual so that they become part of the whole by being able to look past themselves. That is if you are looking for a scientific reason for religion.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Might seem that way if you're debating with Americans primarily. Most of America is Christian ergo 60 - 70% of the argument would be against Christians. However, Hitchens etc ... have all debated jewish, buddhist and hindu representatives a like.


I am aware of that.
Just as I do not believe all Christians believe in the young earth "theory." Though this new brand of atheism (Ill just call it that) is certainly focused on Christianity very, very specifically. And I dont feel that is exclusive to Americans.


Evolution has provided us with insight into genetics and created a model for starting to understand our world. The 'idea' that we were created by aliens, goblins, or Yahweh is just an idea. Students should be taught how to understand scientific theory in a science class. Science deals with what is, what can be observed, and what can be tested. The only reason to bring up a creator would be out of political correctness and to point out that it cannot be tested any more than we can test if you exist in another creature's dream.


As an agnostic, I mostly agree. I even state something similar in the post above yours. However, I do not solely relegate "creationism" in the box that is presented by either side. By excluding it completely, we are excluding avenues of exploration and given time, our knowledge and technology may very well evolve to the point we can test these things. Evolution also has some issues of its own, which I have doubts are included in many curriculums.


To summarise, science deals with hypothesis and theory. Hypothesis requires a test method. If you can come up with a hypothesis and test method for the idea of creator you can maybe propose it as science otherwise it is philosophy and it belongs in a philosophy class.


Of course, test methods evolve and are even created to specifically explore hypothesis. Though, I would propose that even with a proper hypothesis and test method, that bias would still rule the day regardless of conclusions. It is not "proper science" when that happens, but it is certainly not uncommon.
edit on 27-8-2012 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Evolution has provided us with insight into genetics and created a model for starting to understand our world. The 'idea' that we were created by aliens, goblins, or Yahweh is just an idea. Students should be taught how to understand scientific theory in a science class. Science deals with what is, what can be observed, and what can be tested. The only reason to bring up a creator would be out of political correctness and to point out that it cannot be tested any more than we can test if you exist in another creature's dream.

The 'new athiest' movement may believe that the absence of evidence that they believe should be there is evidence that such things don't exist but ... If we're going down that route, start a religious philosophy debate class and get it over with.

To summarise, science deals with hypothesis and theory. Hypothesis requires a test method. If you can come up with a hypothesis and test method for the idea of creator you can maybe propose it as science otherwise it is philosophy and it belongs in a philosophy class.



NO Genetics has provided us with insights in to genetics. Evolution is a separate faith science. Evolution has not provided us with insight into genetics
Evolution has nothing to do with genetics.
A crazy religious believer started scientific study of genetics; Gregor Mendel. Not evolution. Crazy crackpot thing to say.

Irrespective of what one believes studying science as attested by Gregor Mendel, has nothing to do with religion (including scientific religion)

Dear Pinke you dont understand what faith is and the context of what a person believes. God gave us minds so we can explore, we are expected to.
Evolution is a faith, a religion. It should be explored and tested,right or wrong. Thats is what science does, as should creationism.

Science has no patron.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by wash777
 


I think teaching science to kids in an interesting way is pretty important, too. Had there not been a Bill Nye, I would of been much less interested in science as a child. Had there been no Carl Sagan, I wouldn't care a bit about space. I consider anyone who furthers science in any way a scientist, and making kids interested in science definitely furthers it.

Also I just watched the video, and unless I heard wrong, he never said "Don't believe in creationism." He said go ahead if you want to. What he wanted was that people not deprive kids of learning about evolution. Which is something more reasonable.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join