Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Skimmed through the thread to see if anybody had posted the videos.
I think what Nye said wasn't particularly unreasonable or inflamatory. I'm not sure why Ken Ham chose to respond, he's really just going to make himself out to be an idiot.
It looks like he is quite confident he is going to do ok. You can pre-order the debate on the creationist museum website!
Frazzled wrote: Doctrine: what you are taught.
Opinion: what you think.
That's not very helpful, F. I mean, I teach you about my opinions (as distinct from my arguments) all the time. I guess my opinions are your doctrine then.
Here's what I would say on it:
Doctrine: beliefs/rules held in common between people who ascribe to the same viewpoint, particularly religious sects. IE Shi'ite Muslims hold different doctrinal views on certain prophets and timelines to what Sunni Muslims do.
Opinion: Belief in something that is your own, that may be divergent from a group that one is ascribed to, or is founded on carefully selected and/or ignored evidence (ie, 9/11 was an "inside job", or Global Warming is a hoax)
In many ways, both are opinions, however I feel that doctrine comes when you accept the beliefs/values of a group that you are joining, and these are established by the group, not the individual.
What's wrong with humanism? Why all the personal attacks? How is engineering not just applied physics (science)? Why is history science? When do you make a hypothesis and then design an experiment to discover history?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I feel that doctrine comes when you accept the beliefs/values of a group that you are joining
I agree, and was trying to convey that to Frazzled and readers but may have come off too jokey. The problem with that definition is that doctrine ends up being nothing more than one person's opinion as it is accepted by other people. I think you identify a better difference here:
I have never had an opinion that needed to be crafted by a committee. If doctrine is the product of such an effort then I think we have left the realm of opinion for something else: namely, some kind of claim. "X is Y" or "X is Y because Z" or something similar. And my point to Frazzled is that claims are neither inherently inviolable nor universally valid. They can be debated, defended, and undermined. Of course, I would say that claims are usually dressed up as doctrine in the first place specifically to discourage people from debating them. Therefore, we can conclude that a doctrine is just a claim that is given special authority by those who make it. And the fact that one sect sets up something as doctrine has no binding effect in itself on anyone else.
Ham thinks Nye and the American Humanist Association "have an agenda to teach children not to believe in God," which doesn't seem totally far-fetched TBH.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 00:26:43
Ham thinks Nye and the American Humanist Association "have an agenda to teach children not to believe in God," which doesn't seem totally far-fetched TBH.
I think the emphasis there is on the wrong word. He might believe in not teaching children to believe in God. Of course, Ham probably understands that the primary way people end up being religious is by having it forced on them as children, so you can see how he'd find that objectionable.
Ham thinks Nye and the American Humanist Association "have an agenda to teach children not to believe in God," which doesn't seem totally far-fetched TBH.
Maybe, to an extent. I observe in his video, Nye says nothing about his recommendation on gods of any religion.
The Hitchenses and Dawkinses seem to be a bit more aggressive than suggesting that we (as in civil society, not parents) not teach children about God; rather, I think they're more for us (civil society and parents) teaching Children that God does not exist.
I also slightly disagree that forcing religion on someone is the primary way to make someone religious. It strikes me merely as a good way to get people used to the religious idiom. But then again what many netizens seem to mean by "being religious," something that is no different from being merely ideological, doesn't square at all with my experience of being religious.
daedalus wrote: Maybe, to an extent. I observe in his video, Nye says nothing about his recommendation on gods of any religion.
Well that's part of Ham's point. Ham seems to be arguing that Nye's video is just a bit of anti-religious marketing and that it doesn't tell you the whole story or the straight story (which appears to involve an anti-religious conspiracy) because of course that would be ineffective marketing.
Yeah, none of this is actually about the substance of or evidence basis for or against evolutionary science. But then again, Nye's video wasn't really about that either.
So basically those of you who were saying "this is a bad idea for people who understand evolution and would like more people to understand evolution" were right.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/04 00:54:29
Manchu wrote: I also slightly disagree that forcing religion on someone is the primary way to make someone religious. It strikes me merely as a good way to get people used to the religious idiom.
This seems like it strikes at the heart of the issue to me. What people like Dawkins (and, perhaps, Nye) promote is the idea that you should apply reason to everything and use it to acquire knowledge. It is quite at odds with the notion that, rather than applying reason, you should read a holy text and unconditionally believe everything it says, even going so far as to place a high value on unconditional belief even in spite of evidence as a moral virtue.
That is what Bill Nye is ultimately promoting in his little video - the idea that reason is how to build knowledge, not faith, and that children should be taught that.
That of course depends on what kind of knowledge one is talking about. I get that the assumption is that faith does not imply any real knowledge but I disagree. I do agree that faith and reason are not the same but that distinction has been a component of Christian tradition since ancient times, after all.
I also do not think faith has any role in scientifically investigating the natural world; which is different from saying that scientific investigation of the natural world is an exhaustive account of reality. That's a big picture concern I have. The more local concern is that the uncritical and ideological idiom you and Dawkins and Hitchens associate with religion is more and more associated with materialism/rationalism, at least in popular culture.
And that's why it's so easy for creationists to sound convincing to a wide audience even in materially "advanced" cultures.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: you should read a holy text and unconditionally believe everything it says
Which is not faith, just to be clear.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/02/04 01:33:56
[DCM]
GW Public Relations Manager (Privateer Press Mole)
So after watching that Ham video....
He spends about 3/4 of his video in an ad hominem, mocking Nye's scientific credentials. He spends the remainder of his time, asking why engineering would have anything to do with evolution (No doubt paying homage to the 747 out of a junkyard argument). That's such a profoundly ignorant statement--either Ham is simply uneducated on the subject--or he is willfully deluding himself (or his audience).
Either way, I understand what you're saying Seb--and perhaps instead of the more "Punch to the jaw" style Dawkins/Hitchens use(d)--we need another Sagan. Just lay out how science works and get people interested. I don't see how this is furthered by an Oxford style debate though.
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
Sorry couldn't resist to reply to Bill Nye the Humanist guy.... he somehow thinks that believing in creationism will result in no engineers.
I'm an aerospace engineer, and my creationist views have no relevance on how airplanes fly. In fact if anything the study of creationism has enhanced my understanding of science. Afterall if you hold a belief that is contrary to most, you should try and at least understand the argument being presented. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
This is a fundamental flaw in this mentality that somehow you are a troglodyte or some ignoramus if you don't accept everything about macro evolution.
GG
edit...Wow didn't watch the Ham video until after I had posted the above. I have to say that I agree with evrything he said. Looking forward to watching tomorrow.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 02:16:24
generalgrog wrote: Sorry couldn't resist to reply to Bill Nye the Humanist guy....
...or we could just call him by his name, you know, Bill Nye.
he somehow thinks that believing in creationism will result in no engineers.
Ken Ham and his constituents are profoundly anti-science and feed in to a culture of anti-intellectualism and medieval superstition. That kind of thinking is not conducive to a modern and technologically viable culture and to allow the systematic suppression of actual critical thinking is a detriment to all fields of science and engineering. You cannot have a society in which critical thinking and science are cherished when this is the basis of your beliefs:
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
That is a selection from Ken Ham's "Statement of Faith" from the Answers in Genesis website.
I'm an aerospace engineer, and my creationist views have no relevance on how airplanes fly.
Okay. See above.
In fact if anything the study of creationism has enhanced my understanding of science.
I have studied creationism as well, that is how I came to understand that it not an actual science. If you hold a belief in young-Earth creationism (or any creationism) you do not understand science. At all.
Afterall if you hold a belief that is contrary to most, you should try and at least understand the argument being presented. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
Creationism breaks the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation. It doesn't take an evolutionary biologist fully understands the argument that creationist present and in the end it boils down to, "according to this book, a wizard did it. The end."
This is a fundamental flaw in this mentality that somehow you are a troglodyte or some ignoramus if you don't accept everything about macro evolution
There is no such thing as "macro evolution" or "micro evolution," it is all the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 02:40:15
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
[DCM]
GW Public Relations Manager (Privateer Press Mole)
generalgrog wrote: Sorry couldn't resist to reply to Bill Nye the Humanist guy.... he somehow thinks that believing in creationism will result in no engineers.
Actually, the part I quoted was Ham stating "What does evolution have to do with engineering". Which again, shows profound ignorance (Or willful deceit).
And holding a contrary opinion really doesn't mean much if it's not based on evidence. I could, for example, be a contrarian by ignoring science--electing to do cocaine, sleep with African prostitutes and skydive with no backup chute--while stating that my contrary opinion has helped me better understand the scientific arguments against my position.
In the end though, I'll probably end up suffering a cocaine induced MI, when my chute fails to open, after deciding to skydive because my HIV test came back positive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 03:05:22
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
generalgrog wrote: Do you believe that god "created" or not? if so, you believe in creationism.
GG
Manchu did a really good job of placing Creationism in the proper context of Christianity, but I'd just like to take a different approach - language doesn't work like you're assuming above. If it did, then you could say 'have you ever created anything, a human life, a poem, even a paper mache animal in 2nd grade... then you're a creationist." After all, you've created something, and so the root word 'creation' is met, and so you must be a creationist.
But language doesn't work just with games of root words and definitions, language works according to what people as a whole use a word to mean. And if a person says 'I'm a creationist' then what's communicated is that person believes in some interpretation of the Bible that contradicts the current scientific understanding of the natural world. If a person simply believes that God created the world in some form that doesn't contradict our scientific understanding... then you just say "I'm a Christian' or whatever description best suits their faith.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 03:21:10
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
He spends about 3/4 of his video in an ad hominem, mocking Nye's scientific credentials. He spends the remainder of his time, asking why engineering would have anything to do with evolution (No doubt paying homage to the 747 out of a junkyard argument). That's such a profoundly ignorant statement--either Ham is simply uneducated on the subject--or he is willfully deluding himself (or his audience).
Ken Ham knows what he is doing and his followers want to hear ad hominem attacks on people that dispute what they believe, because in the end, that is all they can fall back on.
Either way, I understand what you're saying Seb--and perhaps instead of the more "Punch to the jaw" style Dawkins/Hitchens use(d)--we need another Sagan. Just lay out how science works and get people interested. I don't see how this is furthered by an Oxford style debate though.
I see Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, and even Lawrence Krauss as spiritual successors to Dr. Sagan. Interestingly enough, Bill Nye had Sagan as a professor while he attended Cornell University and Sagan tried to recruit Neil deGrasse Tyson to come to Cornell before he ultimately chose Harvard.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
A lot of Christian groups have done a rather thorough job of equating humanism with communism, nazism, and lots of other bad things. Add in the idea that without faith in God you can't have morality and they all conclude that secular humanism is just awful.
As an atheist I feel an instinct to get all outraged about this, but then I remember how many atheists undertake a thought process that's just as loose in order to conclude that Christianity and other religions are just as awful... so a pox on everyone's house, I guess.
Why is history science? When do you make a hypothesis and then design an experiment to discover history?
While you can't design an experiment, you can go looking for evidence, ie if you theorise that the Chinese reached the New World before anyone else, then you can go looking for evidence of Chinese style goods in archeological digs in the Americas, or some evidence in art of a crossover of patterns and designs. Of course, a failure to find such links doesn't disprove the theory entirely, so the method isn't as good as the controlled experiments of physics and other hard sciences, but it's good enough to call it a kind of science.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
daedalus wrote: Dogs have no brains. The space in their skulls is reserved for holding more gak.
I know I shouldn't say I'd kill you where you stand, because the Great Wienie understands you just haven't been shown the true light the Way of the Wienerdog.
One day understanding will come upon you, then you will know that dogs are God's saints sent to watch over and entertain us. Poopeyhead.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
daedalus wrote: Dogs have no brains. The space in their skulls is reserved for holding more gak.
I know I shouldn't say I'd kill you where you stand, because the Great Wienie understands you just haven't been shown the true light the Way of the Wienerdog.
One day understanding will come upon you, then you will know that dogs are God's saints sent to watch over and entertain us. Poopeyhead.
Don't get me wrong: I have a dog and love him like a family member. That still doesn't change my belief.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 03:09:32
AgeOfEgos wrote: Either way, I understand what you're saying Seb--and perhaps instead of the more "Punch to the jaw" style Dawkins/Hitchens use(d)--we need another Sagan. Just lay out how science works and get people interested. I don't see how this is furthered by an Oxford style debate though.
That's a great way of putting it. We need more Sagan and less Dawkins. More people who just love science, and are keen to tell us how it works and what amazing things it's told us and given us, and less people who just argue with the Creationists and make it seem like both sides are at the same level.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
In fact if anything the study of creationism has enhanced my understanding of science.
I have studied creationism as well, that is how I came to understand that it not an actual science. If you hold a belief in young-Earth creationism (or any creationism) you do not understand science. At all.
So, if someone says, or believes that a god or divine being lit a cosmic match that set off the big bang, and started the chain reaction thus creating everything we know... they don't understand science at all?? I didn't realize that the evolutionary theories, or other current theories could devise a better way of suggesting the origins of all life and cosmos.
Certainly, there are people out there who will believe some messed up crap, but to say that ALL creationists don't understand science is quite wrong as well. Hell, even actual scientists believe in various religious principles, and probably believe that somewhere, somehow a divine being or God "created" everything in some manner. They just don't hold that belief to their chest like a crying baby when they go to work.
generalgrog wrote: Sorry couldn't resist to reply to Bill Nye the Humanist guy.... he somehow thinks that believing in creationism will result in no engineers.
It will result in less engineers. You might be an exception but the overall impact just can't be denied. Creationism is a philosophy that essentially teaches people to reject scientific expertise, to treat anyone with a differing opinion as equal and to form one's own opinion without gaining anywhere near the necessary level of expertise required. It requires that we consider that the tens of thousands of scientists active in evolutionary biology and geology are considered equal to a former science teacher.
Note that I in no way stated that science requires people just accept what people in labcoats and credentials are saying... it doesn't require blind acceptance, merely respect for other people's accumulated knowledge. And so the overall effect of creationism is to teach people that any opinion is equally valid, well then what do you think the impact is goign to be on people's willingness to do the hard work to acquire that knowledge, or on the willingness of the public to fund people to attend university in order to become future scientists and engineers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 03:38:07
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
AgeOfEgos wrote: Either way, I understand what you're saying Seb--and perhaps instead of the more "Punch to the jaw" style Dawkins/Hitchens use(d)--we need another Sagan. Just lay out how science works and get people interested. I don't see how this is furthered by an Oxford style debate though.
That's a great way of putting it. We need more Sagan and less Dawkins. More people who just love science, and are keen to tell us how it works and what amazing things it's told us and given us, and less people who just argue with the Creationists and make it seem like both sides are at the same level.
LOL secular humanists need their own version of Pope Francis.
generalgrog wrote: he somehow thinks that believing in creationism will result in no engineers.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that it will result in no engineers, but it's certainly bad for engineering. Belief in creationism requires rejecting the fundamental concepts of science that engineering depends on. And if that belief becomes more popular then of course it's going to have bad effects on engineering. It only doesn't have those effects right now because creationism is an irrelevant minority in science right now, so creationist parasites can still benefit from the results of good science while rejecting it outside of their narrow field in engineering.
I'm an aerospace engineer, and my creationist views have no relevance on how airplanes fly.
Of course they do. Your creationist beliefs undermine everything about your engineering work. Sure, you can recite the formulas you've memorized, but you don't understand why they work. You can escape the consequences of that lack of understanding because the rules of your field are well understood and there are a lot of other engineers to make sure you don't make any mistakes, but that doesn't make you a good engineer.
In fact if anything the study of creationism has enhanced my understanding of science.
No it hasn't, because if you actually understood science you wouldn't be a creationist. You're the kind of person who memorizes lots of trivia without going for any deeper understanding, or the science/engineering student who makes a good formula sheet to pass the exam but never understands why the formulas give the right answer.
This is a fundamental flaw in this mentality that somehow you are a troglodyte or some ignoramus if you don't accept everything about macro evolution.
Sorry, but that's just how it is. Evolution, including "macro" evolution (the macro/micro difference is purely creationist ideology, not real science), is indisputable fact. If you don't accept it there are two possible explanations: either you aren't well informed on the subject, or you've decided how you want the world to work and reject all evidence that disagrees with you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 03:31:44
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
generalgrog wrote: [Actually no he didn't, he just expressed his opinion on the matter, as though that opinion were fact.
No, he did quite a good job of detailing exactly what doctrine is, and why some things might be believed by a portion of the Christian population, but not be part of Christianity.
And no, I did not simply consider my own opinion fact, but actually took the time to explain to you why your argument that a creationist equals a person who believes in creation is a false argument. An explanation you in no way addressed... I mean, you want to talk about rude? Because I think it is the height of poor manners to simply ignore a person's argument and just go straight to complaining that a person said something you don't agree with.
Also, some opinions are garbage, they simply are not logically constructed or do not relate to the facts of the situation. It isn't often polite to tell people that, but if they are attempting to debate such positions, it is generally necessary to tell them how poor their arguments are out of a simple matter of honesty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: LOL secular humanists need their own version of Pope Francis.
Nah, secular humanists are like the Jews. If you're out there actively recruiting you're doing it wrong
Science needs it's own version of Pope Francis (and it seems Neil Degrasse Tyson is making a strong application for the role).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/04 03:34:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, if someone says, or believes that a god or divine being lit a cosmic match that set off the big bang, and started the chain reaction thus creating everything we know... they don't understand science at all?? I didn't realize that the evolutionary theories, or other current theories could devise a better way of suggesting the origins of all life and cosmos.
But that isn't what anyone means when they say "creationism"*. The term "creationism" specifically refers to a belief that god(s) created the world and that the scientific explanation is wrong or incomplete in major ways. Creationism as an ideology defines itself in opposition to mainstream science, and then reinforces that definition by forming a political movement around attacking evolution. Belief in a deist "divine watchmaker" god, on the other hand, is an entirely different belief system that has nothing to do with creationism. It's still a belief that isn't in any way justified, but it at least deliberately sets itself apart from scientific understanding of the world and does not directly contradict the fundamental concepts of science.
*And no, don't bother with a dictionary argument here.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Not going to copy quote paste..Only want to point out the fallacy that believing in creationism "all of sudden" means you reject science. For example..I fully understand how radioisotope dating "in theory" is used to date rocks based on radioactive isotope decay. The assumption that uniformitarianism makes, is that the decay rates are the same now as they have always been in the past.
Whether or not one accepts that uniformitarian belief that radio isotope decay is constant, only because it is constant as we observe it now, has no bearing on current science, because we accept that currently the decay rates are constant now. It's only when we start talking millions of years that it becomes a factor. has absolutely no bearing on the present.
I.E I can still use that science in the present and going forward.
Its completely illogical and fallacious to make the claim that because someone does not accept certain uniformitarian beliefs in regards to certain scientific concepts that all of sudden that person will just become all numb brained.
That's like saying, if someone doesn't accept that .999999999999999999999 to the nth power = 1, all of a sudden forgets that 1+1 =2.
