Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Yes, science is amoral. The thing about evolution is that the idea implies different levels of evolution between races, implying in those days inferiority versus superiority, at least it did to those who first encountered the idea right after Darwin, including Darwin himself. As I said, people have a built in moral sense and that's what finally did away with that sort of thinking, but it can't be denied that it's still there IN the theory itself if somebody decided to come along and exploit it. However, I'll agree that racist attitudes seem to be endemic to the human race in general so it doesn't take much for some new idea to come along and justify them for people who already think that way. And that includes Christians who are also liable to fall into such expressions of our fallenness. But the Bible itself with its clear indication that we all come from one parent couple would have to be twisted to justify racism. Not that people aren't capable of doing such twisting of course.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Or probably the most famous creationist of them all, the so-called "father" of Biblical Creationism, Henry Morris: Who are Hamites? Why black people of course. Morris supports the racist Hamitic Hypothesis that when God cursed that descendents of Ham that he made these descendents subservient and less intelligent than the rest of humanity. This myth was fuel for fodder for colonizations and subjection of Africa by the European superpowers at the time. It also was used to justify owning slaves in the New World and Southern Slave-owners all the way up to the civil war and beyond. It was and is still used by the KKK and other white supremacists to support there idea that whites are more superior than black people.

True, adjustments are made providing they don't meaningfully threaten naturalism/atheism. Though it can sometimes take plenty of time - the Piltdown man hoax lasted for a full 40 years before being reluctantly exposed. It only took a few days or weeks before the book Darwin's Black Box and its author were demonized. It would have been nice if he'd have had 40 years trial time. There are many different denominations of Biblical literalists who have some different ideas about what the Bible says and how people should react to them. It doesn't have to be bought in the country of its origination too? (Percy is all excited about YOUR implication, and is blaming me for it - I love this place) Probably would - the U.S. props itself up on borrowed money from China as it is now anyway. Well, you're just now pointing them out, I'm sorry I couldn't have foreknowledge of what you were going to post. How honest are you in ignoring my point that Bill Nye has far left political opinions, and might not like the phrase "endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, and therefore might like atheism in science classes? You do a fair job of pretending you're from the U.S. but you're really not, are you? If you were, you'd know that what the little kid said is largely reality in the U.S. today, and a lot of people think it's good. It's only people who are educated in economics and liberty that know it's not sustainable.

Source? When humans are thought to have evolved by exactly the same process as animals, where is morality any kind of testable, falsifiable science? In a uniform, prescribed way? Tell me more. Let's see that evidence. Not just a few cherry picks, but uniform, prescribed ways that they are more moral, and the source from where they derive that morality. Lay those scenarios on me, and I'll consider them. I've never noticed them put fourth on forums such as these before.

"Meet the Press" to host climate change "debate" between GOP's Marsha Blackburn and Bill Nye "the Science Guy" | Salon.com

quote:

---

This Sunday, Meet the Press, the renowned televised political news forum, will host a discussion of climate change perhaps the single most pressing issue of our time featuring a professional children’s entertainer and a Republican member of Congress. Yes, David Gregory will be refereeing a debate their word between Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ and Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Nye will be arguing the pro (climate change is real and bad) and Blackburn will be arguing the anti (climate change is made up and not bad).

---

Get your popcorn ready, this should be good.

The misguided concept that some races are lower in intelligence and ability and should be subservient to other races is an idea that has existed since the dawn of humankind, long before Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of Species. Charles Darwin was very progressive for his day and age and was a staunch opponent of slavery. Yet he was a man of his times and like many if not all others of his time, thought the African race as inferior to those of European descent. Even anti-abolitionist at the time thought the same. People did not think in the terms we think of race now. That is in stark contrast with many (but not all) religious people who thought that it was by God's right that we subjugate other races.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

So far, none of that sort have been required. We'll see what happens if there's ever, y'know, substantive evidence requiring such adjustments. IIRC, the evidence that finally put an end to Piltdown Man was the invention of fluoride dating, so yeah, someone had to invent it first. Apparently finding a flaw in Darwin's Black Box wasn't so difficult. I never said creationists were consistent, I said they were stubborn. That paragraph didn't make much sense, would you like another shot at it? And another think about that? Well, it is quite obvious, isn't it? But OK, if you didn't think of it, you didn't think of it. So would you now like to acknowledge that Bill Nye wasn't dishonest in raising the point? Is it dishonesty if I don't reply to every darn thing you post? Frankly I tune out your fulminations about the political leanings of your opponents as background noise. (See here for example.)If you like, I'll take an interest in your point. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Bill Nye has "far left political opinions"? I have never pretended to be from the U.S. I do, however, live here.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well then I stand corrected on the "no one got shot" statement of mine, but the rest is true. It has only been the recent, mass shootings in the U.S. schools that have inspired costly measures to try to prevent them from happening in the future, and unlike most of your examples that were the results of a single conflict, recent school massacres have involved shootings of people unknown to the shooter, where the shooter then takes their own life. Kind of like the shooter thought humans to be of no more importance than animals, that life is all just random chance. It's very simple, Christians generally admit that they have unchangeable beliefs, and atheists aren't honest in likewise admitting their own beliefs are unchangeable.

If it doesn't make much sense TO YOU, then maybe you're the one with the problem that needs to take "another shot" at something, such as reading it and the relevant posts about it again. When I'm facing a whole herd of atheists, I have more to do than drop back to sixth grade reading instruction to help you understand.

If we're going to play post hoc ergo propter hoc, then how about we blame the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance?Or the widespread availability of semi-automatic weapons? Hey, that might actually make sense.Interestingly, there was more evolution in schools before Scopes then there was in, say, the 1950s. So if your idea is correct, schools should have been more shooty up until 1925. No? No. So "godly honesty" means telling dumb lies about atheists? Mmhm, that sounds very godly. Not so much with the honesty, though.

So, you're not going to pretend it made sense, then? OK.

I think we can all grant that people can read such anthropomorphic ideas into the theory, but the fact of the matter is that such things are not part of the theory. That sort of thinking is *not* in the theory, but it's a popular misreading of the theory that some life is more "evolved" than other life, and it is that idea that can be exploited. Yep.--Percy

So people who murdered others in cold blood in the past were more moral than modern killers because they believe in the TOE. That is the gist I am getting from your post. Not true, my beliefs as a Christian have changed over time and many atheists come to their unbelief of religion from previous religious experiences. So their beliefs have changed as well. For Christians, there is a core of beliefs that should not change else they would probably no longer be Christians i.e. belief that Jesus is the son of God and died for the sins of mankind, etc. However, the belief in a literal 6 days of creation is not a core belief for many Christians i.e. Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodists, etc.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

This kind of ridiculous question speaks volumes about the closed-mindedness and haughtiness of evolutionists. Education isn't the only thing that promotes innovation. A thing called liberty also figures prominently. It was the summary of his entire debate. Here's how he finished up;

quote:

---

...The process of science, the way we know nature, is the most compelling thing to me. I'd like to close by reminding everybody what's at stake here. If we abandon all that we've learned - our ancestors - what they've learned about nature and our place in it, if we abandon the process by which we know it, if we let go of everything people have learned before us, if we stop driving forward, looking for the next answer to the next question, we in the U.S. will be out-competed by other countries, other economies, now that would be okay I guess, but I was born here, I'm a patriot, and so we have to embrace science education, and to the voters and taxpayers who are watching, please keep that in mind, we have to keep science education in science / science classes.

---

Science is the only thing he's focused on, he seems oblivious to non-scientific things that "people have learned before us", like the threat of tyrants, the value of liberty. All the scientific education in the world does us no good if we're so oppressed by a "license, regulate, restrict, and prohibit" government of his beloved Democrats that we have no freedom to be able to "innovate" anything. He may know a lot about science, but he sure is illiterate about how his freedom to practice it came about, and how fragile it is if him and others in the U.S. don't get busy and learn something about it. Well that's a bad guess, because Spanish and Math specialists don't attempt to convince the public that society would be better if their favorite subject is used to trump and downplay the traditional values and morality of Christianity. They don't actually pose a threat to actual science, they pose a threat to atheism and liberalism.

They were less frequent, had less volume of innocent victims, and were more explainable in terms of a personal conflict.