|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,469 Year: 3,726/9,624 Month: 597/974 Week: 210/276 Day: 50/34 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3123 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Or probably the most famous creationist of them all, the so-called "father" of Biblical Creationism, Henry Morris:
Henry Morris' "The Beginning Of the World" (1991) writes: The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites. 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. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World "In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are. - C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
But the evidence actually shows that scientists do change their minds when presented with evidence, and that this includes evolutionary biologists. When, for example, Piltdown Man was proved a fake, the paleontologists bowed to the evidence. When Ostrom (IIRC) showed that birds were descended from dinosaurs, he was able to win over the scientific community to a position they'd previously rejected. And so on. 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.
Now, what would it take to convince a Biblical literalist to change even a small detail --- say a seven-day creation instead of six? Eve being made out of a vertebra instead of a rib? Well, we have Ken Ham's answer ... 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.
They benefit in that they can buy the new invention. 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)
But the inventors also benefit in that they can sell it. If all the new drugs (for example) were to be discovered in China from now on, would our pharmaceutical industry remain as profitable? Probably would - the U.S. props itself up on borrowed money from China as it is now anyway.
Is it more honest to take into account obvious considerations such as this, or to ignore them, as you have done? 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?
ETA: I knew this reminded me of something. After Carl Sagan wrote an article about poor standards in American schools, he got letters from schoolchildren one of whom made this awesomely sophisticated point: Maybe that's good that we are not as smart as the other countries. So then we can just import all of our products and then we don't have to spend all of our money on the parts for the goods. It appears that today that little kid is all grown up. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: There is no morality in evolution/science. Falsified by observation. Source? When humans are thought to have evolved by exactly the same process as animals, where is morality any kind of testable, falsifiable science?
I often wonder why creationists deny the obvious fact that atheists are moral In a uniform, prescribed way? Tell me more.
(and there's some evidence that they are more moral then theists) 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.
and refuse to consider the scenarios by which it may have evolved. Lay those scenarios on me, and I'll consider them. I've never noticed them put fourth on forums such as these before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
"Meet the Press" to host climate change "debate" between GOP's Marsha Blackburn and Bill Nye "the Science Guy" | Salon.com
quote: Get your popcorn ready, this should be good. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3123 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
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. 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."It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World "In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are. - C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
True, adjustments are made providing they don't meaningfully threaten naturalism/atheism. 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.
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. 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.
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. I never said creationists were consistent, I said they were stubborn.
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) That paragraph didn't make much sense, would you like another shot at it?
Probably would And another think about that?
Well, you're just now pointing them out, I'm sorry I couldn't have foreknowledge of what you were going to post. 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?
How honest are you in ignoring my point that Bill Nye has far left political opinions ... 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"?
You do a fair job of pretending you're from the U.S. but you're really not, are you? I have never pretended to be from the U.S. I do, however, live here. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: But there are other factors - what are the trade-offs? 50 years ago, when science classes consisted of at least some more creationism and a lot less atheism, kids were bringing squirt guns, realistic-looking toy guns, and in some cases, real guns to school, and no one raised an eyebrow, and no one got shot. This is, of course, not true. Some school shootings prior to 1964 can be found on this list, which I suppose is not comprehensive because that would be extremely difficult. 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.
Do tell us more about "godly honesty". 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: 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) That paragraph didn't make much sense, would you like another shot at it? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. 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.
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. So "godly honesty" means telling dumb lies about atheists? Mmhm, that sounds very godly. Not so much with the honesty, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. So, you're not going to pretend it made sense, then? OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: The thing about evolution is that the idea implies different levels of evolution between races,... 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.
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. 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.
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. Yep. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3123 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
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. 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
The country of origin of an innovation doesn't have to pay for the products that result? Really? This kind of ridiculous question speaks volumes about the closed-mindedness and haughtiness of evolutionists.
Rather, this is an example of why continuing innovation is so important. Patents have a lifetime and don't provide perfect protection anyway. The only way to stay ahead is to continue innovating, and that's why education is so important. Education isn't the only thing that promotes innovation. A thing called liberty also figures prominently.
marc9000 writes: My point is that IMO Bill Nye overstates the importance of only U.S. innovation. Now you're inventing things Bill Nye never said. He never said that US innovation was the only thing that was important. It was the summary of his entire debate. Here's how he finished up;
quote: 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.
Assuming we're still talking about education, I'll venture a guess that there's just as much morality in science as there is in Spanish and math, and a bit more than in history and English. 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.
Well, yes, we do feel threatened by men like Ken Ham, but it has nothing to do with their honesty or Godliness. It has to do with the threat they pose to science education. They don't actually pose a threat to actual science, they pose a threat to atheism and liberalism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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. They were less frequent, had less volume of innocent victims, and were more explainable in terms of a personal conflict.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024