Bill "The Science Guy" Nye Says Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children 1774
timeOday writes "BigThink has released a video missive by Bill Nye ('The Science Guy') in which he challenges the low level of acceptance of evolution, particularly in the United States. He does not mince words: 'I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.'"
Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
While he's awesome, I wonder how this made it to the front page of Failblog before it made it to Slashdot.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
While he's awesome, I wonder how this made it to the front page of Failblog before it made it to Slashdot.
Because he's strongly suggesting there's a fail somewhere?
When I was a wee little tot they gave the the sugar-coated, sterilized version of biblical events and happenings.
When I grew older the tone of things became more apparent, the Bible is full of very bad things happening and wicked people doing wicked things .. which could certainly color a young child's perspective. Effectively church leaders have known for a while there's some stuff you want to keep away from kids until they're old enough to weigh the full force of the message, not get fixated on details. ("Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?")
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?
They taxed the job creators.
Questions (Score:5, Funny)
Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?
If the practiced Sodomy in Sodom, did they practice Gomorrahy in Gomorrah?
Re:Questions (Score:5, Funny)
If the practiced Sodomy in Sodom, did they practice Gomorrahy in Gomorrah?
I'm not sure what they did there, but I've heard that God punished the mankind with gomorrhea for that, for all of us to remember.
Re:Questions (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like an asshole to me.
Well, people all around the world create their gods in their own image. Naturally, some of them end up with an asshole god.
Um... (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like an asshole to me.
Well, people all around the world create their gods in their own image. Naturally, some of them end up with an asshole god.
So are we still talking about sodomy? I'm so confused...
:-P
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?
They taxed the job creators.
Actually, the contrary:
Ezekiel 16:49 "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."
So no, it was not the buttsecks
Epic biblical mistranslation: You didn't build it (Score:5, Insightful)
After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes. The ancient hebrew/aramic word for know is Yeda and it means to know well. Of the 47 places yeda is used in no place does it strictly mean sex. In fact it is written that David knew god. Was david but fucking god, or did he just, well, know him.
In fact the cannanites were in a time of sporaic war with their rivals, which is why they had a gate keeper named Lot. Now Lot was a sneaky guy who didn't even live with his own people. When he let in two demanding late night strangers and hid them in his home, the people had every reason to be alarmed. Perhaps they meant harm to the village. Asking to meet them and learn their bussiness under such cshady circumstances seeme reasonable. And indeed they did come planning to destroy the place and ulimately did.
The word "them" in bring them out, is gender neutral. The towns people did not know if the strangers were all men, angels, or a family. The word for the towns people is mixed gender "all the people", and so the idea they would be raping anyone in front of their wives and kids seems absurd. Finally, when offered the claimed virgin (but married) daughters of lot, the less than horny towns people turned them down, not being interested in sex but safety.
Finally one can note there were not witnesses other than lot and his wife (and retinue) that escaped so we only have lots story, and that story seems to be plagerized form the book of judges where the same thing happens including offering virgin daughters to protect angels. If this were on CSI-Gomorrah today we would find out that actually lot got paid off to open the town gates to an invading army that razed the place and Lots wife was going to spill the beans so he killed her and told everyone she turned into a pillar of stone. Then he just recycled the story from Book of Judges when asked what happened.
Anyhow. No butsects in soddom. Eziekiel tells us exactly why got sent the destroying angels: the prideful 1%s didn't realize they didn't build their own wealth, society had, and they were not giving back.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
I have a similar story from my own childhood. One summer, when we were driving through Osoyoos, the VW Rabbit overheated and we needed to stop and get it repaired. This was in the late '70s, and "foreign" cars breaking down in small towns was cause for a serious over-charging at the service station. A thousand dollars later, we're back in the Rabbit heading up the steep hill on the Crowsnest Highway heading east. It's a steep climb out of the desert, so we're all on tenterhooks to see if the car is actually repaired. Mom is seriously pissed about the overcharging, but when she looked back at the evil city she turned into a telephone pole.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
"Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?"
Sodomed liked there was no Gammorah.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Ah. Ancient puns.
Behold, a haiku:
Rabbi's sermon much
Too long, congregants sleep and
Thus he can Babylon
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was a child, I watched a lot of PBS... NOVA and other science shows. I found an interest in dinosaurs, evolution, archaeology and lots of things like this. By the time I was 10, I thought God was a stupid idea.
Just put more quality educational programs back on the air and teach the parents it's okay to be lazy.
(Caveat: I was pre-video-game era... it doesn't quite apply the same any longer.)
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I moved to Texas, where the first day of school I met a kid who believed in God, thought evolution was a hoax, and that the Earth was 6000 years old.
I didn't know what to tell him... the only thing I could come up with was something like "...but... what about all the bones...?"
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know what to tell him... the only thing I could come up with was something like "...but... what about all the bones...?"
Oh oh oh, I know this one: "They were sent there by Satan to confuse and test us."
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
I cant speak for your experience, but I don't think (most) creation-believing people are idiots. They are just victims of very successful conartists.
That might sound like that same thing, but I put more emphasis on the skills of the conartists than on the lack of intellectual honesty of the "converts".
I myself believed in YEC (or at least biblical creation) until only recently (I'm 30). Sites like answersingenesis are instrumental in keeping the deception alive, and unlearned people soak this stuff up like a sponge. I never thought about it critically until this year, and most christians never give critical thought to it at all. This intellectual dishonesty is not only encouraged, but the typical christian lifestyle makes it difficult to ever question anything. Those who question the beliefs are seen as a threat and can risk excommunication if they go too far down that road. Others who are still in the community see it and take measures to 'prevent it happening to them or others'. And so the myth is perpetuated. It is really difficult for people who grew up in this environment to change their thinking on it. Especially when it means going back on your own word and making a liar out of yourself and your past. It is also a very difficult thing to challenge your own beliefs, right down to the very core of your worldview. It can be very destabilising and even demoralising.
So all I'm saying is, put yourself in their shoes, and realise that these people have been made to believe a lie, and it will take a lot of patience and time to turn their thinking around. And many of them will resist and fight the whole way. I suppose the same thing happened when Galileo proved the world was spherical (I know others did prior to him, but it was he who suffered publicly for it). People resist change, especially if it challenges their worldview and things they've worked for.
I am still unsure where my beliefs stand...but I approach the Bible very differently now. It is a book written by humans, with many things in it that are now known to be factually incorrect (although it can be argued that these writings served their purpose at the time, or were in keeping with popular theories of the time). As far as it is written by human authors, it is a fairly accurate account of much of Israel's history. By that I mean that it was common in those times to embellish wars or claim victory where there wasn't a victory. From that perspective I do not see it as an elaborate forgery (excuse the potential reference to Ehrman's work here) but as many different books from different authors with different writing styles, genre, and different reasons for writing.
There is debate whether Jesus was a real person, but I think the weight of the evidence lies with those who claim he was real. There is also compelling evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead, or at least it is difficult to find a compelling argument that can account for the apostles' later actions and the lives of all who followed after (there are many extra-biblical sources that tell us of this). We could believe that one or two people might have been hypnotised or crazy, but not tens or hundreds. Many who would have known the truth first-hand (whether Jesus rose from the dead) suffered immense persecution in order to promote the message. If they knew it was all a lie, why would they persevere with it? I'm not talking about people dying for their faith, I'm talking about people dying for what they KNEW first-hand.
So yeah, I still have unanswered questions, but at least the creation stuff is all pretty clearly nothing to do with science or our actual origins. For more info on where I'm at now - have a look at biologos.org.
Do I believe the bible was inspired? well, it depends on your definition of "inspired". If by "inspired" you mean that every word was written by God, then no, I don't. But if "inspired" can mean that God assisted in the process from start to finish, and allowed the ideas to be written down, or if there were incorrect ideas, allowed the
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
("Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?")
They were unkind to their visitors. Xenophobic, you might say.
No, seriously. All the evangelicals who are worried that GAWD will start turning everyone into pillars of salt if the US constitution isn't amended to ban teh ghey should actually be worried about how anti-immigrant and xenophobic America is.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't say everywhere. A lot of middle-easterners see their god as being a cross between a roid-raging bodybuilder and an incredibly insecure teenage girl.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
The sad thing is, you probably do remember your church school bible lessons, but that's still inconsistent with what's actually in the Bible and the historical context of the story.
In that time period, it was *normal* for conquering people to demonstrate their dominance over the conquered by raping them. They did this to the women *and* the men, and often castrated the men before putting them into slavery. That's just how things were back then. Similarly, it was the custom not to accept visitors into the city after dark, for defensive reasons... strangers coming into the city walls after the gates have been closed were seen as invaders, and dealt with accordingly.
In the context of the story in the Bible, God sent the angels to investigate the city. They happened upon the home of somebody who showed them hospitality, and when the citizens of the city discovered that strangers had entered the city under cover of dark and were at the home of this person, they were all dealt with according to the custom of the day.
Context is everything in this case, like every case. Unfortunately, the people who see it as a literal truth are rarely interested in the historical customs of the day. They see that God punished the Sodomites, and that's all they take from it. What they don't understand is that the sexual act itself, while involuntary, wasn't the reason for the punishment, it was the lack of hospitality and charity.
Take the book as an allegory intended to impart moral lessons and it's easier to swallow. I still have issues with the nature of God as he's described in the book (really, he's petty, vindictive, and cliquish), but the miracles and myth that permeate the pages are easier to take when you consider them to be a fiction rather than a fact, and it doesn't really detract from some of the message contained within, which, basically (and especially in the NT), is that we shouldn't be assholes to each other.
Speaking of Sodom... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny you should mention Sodom and the tone of the Bible, as having grown up firmly indoctrinated in the Christian church, the story of Lot and his wife were instrumental in me realizing that 1) a lot of it (no pun intended) is hooey, and 2) even if it's not, I don't want to follow this god.
For those who don't know, Lot and his wife were told to flee Sodom and Gamorrah before it was destroyed by God for being so wicked. They were told to not even look back at it by angels sent to help. On their way out, though, Lot's wife turned back and looked, and was instantly turned into a pillar of salt.
Obviously, the moral is not to screw around with God. If he tells you not to turn around and look at something, you'd better damn well not turn around and look or else the consequences could be severe. Practically speaking, though, I was never able to get past how insanely petty this was. This woman presumably had family and friends left in the city. There's presumably a lot of hoopla and chaos happening. Why did she turn around? Was it because she couldn't bear the thought of her family and friends suffering? Was it because she wanted to make sure that the rest of her family was going to make it out alive? Was it just a loud noise that caught her attention? Who knows? Maybe she thought the angels didn't literally mean don't look back, kind of like how even today we say, "I left my home and never looked back." In most cases you don't literally mean that you didn't turn around and catch one last glimpse of it, you just metaphorically mean that you moved on with your life.
At any rate, we have a woman who was probably just an average schmo, likely not particularly evil, else the angels wouldn't have bothered rescuing her. Her crime was taking one last glimpse of the family, friends, home, and life that she would never return to again. She was obviously a loyal follower of God, as she simply picked up and left based on the word of two strangers saying they were angels and her husband who, incidentally, offered two virgin daughters to the wicked men of Sodom intent on raping Lot's guests. So if you're keeping score, Lot offers up his two virgin daughters to be gang raped and gets to live a happy, productive life. Lot's wife commits the cardinal sin of turning around to see everything she knows destroyed by fire, and does she get any measure of sympathy or mercy? Oh hell no, she's killed (or worse, she wasn't and is eternally suffering, being forced to look back at the destroyed city) for something that anybody in their right mind should understand and would probably do.
Anyway, I empathize with Lot's wife, and like I said, this story made me realize that I don't want to follow a god that is so petty and vindictive that he would do such a heinous thing. If that means I'm going to hell, then so be it. Spending eternity slavishly following such a spiteful creature seems like just another definition of hell.
Yet here I am, thousands of years later, and people following this crap are teaching their kids to doubt science, that if the Bible is interpreted as A and science says B, you'd better go with A. After all, if God would punish an innocent woman by turning her into a pillar of salt, you don't want to fathom what he'd do to you if you believe in evolution. Bill Nye is right, teaching creationism to kids as anything other than a fanciful myth is crazy and a disservice to them, their community, and mankind as a whole.
Re:Speaking of Sodom... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that even evolution isn't proven. It's all speculation with a splash of BS. I believe evolution occurs but do I believe Humans came from a single celled organism. No. That is just stupid. If this was the case we would have more inbetween species that bridge the gaps.
So honest question, how many links will it take for you to accept that the theory of evolution is correct, that mankind did, in fact, evolve from single-celled organisms, and even simpler life forms before that? You don't have to give an exact number, though you're welcome to if you want. Just a ballpark figure would work fine so I can get an idea of what your standard of proof is. Because to tell the truth, most Creationists I've met have answered, "There is no number of links or any amount of proof that will convince me that evolution is real and a viable explanation for how we got here," and if that's the case, then there's absolutely no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
Which, incidentally, is why Bill Nye says that it's such a disservice to teach it to kids. Because science isn't about throwing up your hands and chalking explanations up to God or any other supernatural process, it's about seeking answers to questions you don't know the answer to. It's not about throwing away valuable knowledge when inconsistencies are discovered, it's about studying more and refining hypotheses, tweaking theories, to more accurately represent the laws of nature. It's not about forming an end conclusion that must be correct and then looking for evidence to support it, it's about taking what you know and forming rational conclusions about it, even if that is inconvenient to other things you "know" to be true. Creationism is antithetical to all of these goals, and thus has no place in any scientific discussion, including biology class.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
While he's awesome, I wonder how this made it to the front page of Failblog before it made it to Slashdot.
You must be new here. Welcome.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
While he's awesome, I wonder how this made it to the front page of Failblog before it made it to Slashdot.
Don't worry. /. will make up for this by posting it several more times in the next few days.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Nye is awesome.
Of course he's awesome. He's awesome because God made him that way. And God clearly made him to test our faith. So he's awesomely like Satan, really.
Re:I disagree; Bill is an idiot. (Score:5, Interesting)
Creationism is not the problem. It is merely the outward manifestation of it. The problem is mindless evangelicals that expect blind devotion and for you to check your brain at the door. This creationism nonsense is just the most visible part of their worldview. These people are extremists even by the standards of other religious people.
They're like the Amish except with no balls. They make a lot of separatist noises and then just whine and pretend they are somehow victimized by society.
It's also useful to note that this lot were the only people to defend those recent "legitimate rape" remarks.
Creationism is just a symptom of a much more fundemental problem.
Re:I disagree; Bill is an idiot. (Score:5, Funny)
Creationism is just a symptom of a much more fundemental problem.
I see what you did there.
Re:I disagree; Bill is an idiot. (Score:5, Funny)
Creationists: Putting the Fun, Duh, and Mental in Fundamentalism!
Re:I disagree; Bill is an idiot. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I disagree; Bill is an idiot. (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously, the education system is the work of the devil. Those degrees are only signs of how high you are in the devil's rankings.
(I feel like I'm gonna pay for that comment somehow...)
No, he didn't. (Score:4, Informative)
Bill Nye said kids shouldn't be taught that certain scientific theories are wrong. He never even said creationism, once.
This headline is just sensationalist garbage.
Yes, that is exactly what he says. (Score:5, Informative)
Bill Nye talks specifically about denial of belief in the theory of evolution. While he doesn't use the word creationism, his comments can only apply to that "world-view" which he believes is contrary to the evidence around us.
This headline captures exactly the message of the video, I have no idea why someone would interpret that video otherwise.
"Creationism" is overbroad here. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the headline isn't a good summary. However, if it had read "Young-Earth Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children" it would have been just fine.
The belief that the world is billions of years old and that biological diversity has grown gradually through a process of mutation and natural selection is in no way incompatible with the belief that God created the world or that He has guided the process. From Asa Gray- said by Darwin to be Darwin's best advocate- to the present day, hundreds of millions of people, including a good number of evolutionary biologists, have held both of these beliefs.
Evolution is, however, inconsistent with an overly literal and naive reading of the first chapter of Genesis. Those misguided individuals who promote the idea that Genesis was a scientific account and try to force schools to ignore the mountains of evidence for evolution and/or to "teach the controversy" are a threat to basic science education. As a science educator Nye has an interest in helping combat that threat. But he is not trying to pick a fight with all theists here.
Re:"Creationism" is overbroad here. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just FYI, although theologically guided evolution is more accurate than creationism, it's still a couple steps short of the actual theory of evolution we have today.
The modern theory of evolution simply has no place for God to stick his fingers in. There's no mechanism in it by which divine intervention could happen, and in all the data we have gathered (and there's a lot of data) there are absolutely no divine fingerprints.
In order to argue that the modern theory of evolution is "in no way incompatible with the belief that God ... Has guided the process", you must use the same dodges and evasions that young earth creationists do - "oh, God just made it look natural, secretly he's doing all the heavy lifting", "God's just sneaky, putting in all that fossil DNA to make it look like this happened naturally".
Basically, theological evolution is not compatible with the modern theory of evolution, except in the playground "You can't prove he didn't!" way, and arguing that it is is wrong and misleading.
Re:"Creationism" is overbroad here. (Score:5, Insightful)
The evidence that mutations are "random" (at least in the sense of "not deliberate") is that there are so many dead ends in the evolutionary tree. Most species which have ever lived are now extinct with no descendants. So either God is grossly incompetent and makes a lot of mistakes (which, being mistakes and thus not deliberate, are just as "random" as science holds mutations to be), or he's not involved at all. Cause if he was involved and was as omniscient as he's supposed to be, primordial microbes would have evolved directly into the optimal spread of species with no "shit no that's not right, scratch that and try again" along the way. (And that's not even getting into whether the present spread of species extant in the world today is anything close to "optimal" by any definition. And never mind whether the "design" of any single species is "optimal" in any sense either).
The tree of life we see around us and in the fossil record looks like a huge (and ongoing) process of trial and error, with nature throwing random shit at the wall and seeing what sticks (most of it doesn't for long), NOT an intelligent, deliberate process of some omniscient designer rolling out new features in his target product line by stages.
Re:No, he didn't. (Score:5, Informative)
Translation for the "Normal Guy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prove Otherwise Please (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Science does not deal in Truth. It deals in the best explanation that fits the evidence.
2. That we may not be able to probe further back that the Planck time right now does not mean we will never be able to. Burying your god in the gaps of our knowledge invites your god to get smaller as the gaps are filled.
Which is as absurd a demand as saying "Show me every generation of the spoken language between Proto-Germanic and Elizabethan English with complete syntax and vocabularies."
One does not have to have a complete data set to be able to make inferences based upon the data we do have, and thus we can say with a high degree of confidence that "Elizabethan English is descended from Proto-Germanic" and "all extant life evolved from a common ancestor", when in both cases we can only make indirect inferences about what Proto-Germanic and the earliest common ancestor of life were like.
Re:Translation for the "Normal Guy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the sorts of people who would teach something like creationism to their kids don't force it on them
citation needed.
seriously. you really think that creationists don't FORCE FEED this bullshit down their kids' throats?
what planet are you observing from, may I ask??
He's right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He's right (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, most American parents don't understand evolution at all, so it will be impossible to fix this mess. If our population was better educated, we'd be ok, but both parties have done their best to destroy it while telling everyone they are fixing the problems.
Umm, Democrats are less inclined to alter science curricula in order to teach nonsense to kids. This "teach the controversy" business is the latest in a long line of right-wing attempts to undermine science education.
Re:He's right (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrats have been complicit in lowering standards and dumbing down education over the past 4 decades or so. Their motives are somewhat different, but the result is mostly the same. Our public educational systems are a mess and our students woefully undereducated.
Re:He's right (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats have been complicit in lowering standards and dumbing down education over the past 4 decades or so. Their motives are somewhat different, but the result is mostly the same. Our public educational systems are a mess and our students woefully undereducated.
You may as well say that schools for the blind are complicit in the dumbing down of silent film appreciation.
The root of our educational system's failure is conservatives and their their special blend of literal Christianism and social darwinism. They have worked as hard as they can to make sure the that public education system has been swamped with needy children and given less and less money to deal with them. Their goal is to prove that a) poor people are irredeemable and b) public education doesn't work.
There is a big damn difference between actively trying to break something, and doing a less than optimal job of making something broken work again.
Re:He's right (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
I should ignore the evidence of my own experiences
do you realize, at all, that your senses and even mind can lie to you?
the human mind is a LOUSY piece of test gear. for so many things, we are unreliable in measurement, comparison and knowing what's real and what's an illusion.
the force of illusion and the *desire* to have a sky daddy is very strong. I simply ask you to admit that what you THINK you have experienced, in fact, you have not. tricks of the mind. just that and nothing more.
when you see or hear sky daddies but others do not, why would you NOT think that you have been fooled by a brain-illusion or wishful thinking?
this is the damage that is religion. people are SO DAMNED SURE that this mind-fuck they experienced was god or some spirit.
so very sad. knowing that your mind is easily fooled is the first step. thinking that your 'experience' is real keeps you at the bronze age level.
Not so sunny (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently surveyed a few of my adult friends. Somewhat surprisingly most did not realize that the stars in the sky are "suns", most attributing their sparkle to reflection from our sun.
Re:Not so sunny (Score:5, Funny)
Please tell me you are some kind of time lord from the past and have just entered our time-line so you could post that comment.
I think I'll spend the rest of the day prying my palm from my forehead.
Re:Not so sunny (Score:5, Insightful)
You hang around idiots.
Fine America. (Score:4, Insightful)
But. I would rather you did turn yourselves around as, even with your bad stuff, I think you're generally OK.
Don't have to believe in evolution to build stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
"we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems"
Even people who don't believe in evolution can still become engineers who "build stuff, solve problems"
Re:Don't have to believe in evolution to build stu (Score:4, Insightful)
"Sir, your foreman reports a large crack in the bridge."
"My belief system denies the existence of frangible bridges. It is safe."
Engineers who are willing to let political, religious, or ideological beliefs prevent them from drawing logical conclusions from observed data don't build things and solve problems: they destroy things and kill people.
If you want a real-world example?
"Sir, your engineers report that it is unsafe to launch the shuttle when it's this cold. The O-rings will crack."
"Underling, my political sponsor requires that a Teacher needs to be in Space because his boss's State of the Union speech won't sound as good if we delay the launch. It's worked before. Launch the shuttle."
In the case of Challenger, it was engineers trying to report their observations, and being overriden by management that was more interested in the politics/optics of a situation, but the same principle applies.
If an engineer is willing to reject the conclusions derived from following the scientific method in biology class, how can I, driving over his bridge, trust that he didn't also reject its results in metallurgy class?
Re:Don't have to believe in evolution to build stu (Score:4, Funny)
"we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems"
Even people who don't believe in evolution can still become engineers who "build stuff, solve problems"
Not without a fair amount of mental gymnastics. I've always wanted to sit in on a "Christian Science" class and answer all the questions with "Because God wills it to be so". Seems like an easy A.
Wait for the outcry (Score:5, Insightful)
From the poor victimized Christians as they suffer the intolerant bigotry of those liberals who just won't let them do the Lord's work.
Really, how dare those liberals say they're all in favor of acceptance when they reject a religious theocracy.
I don't know if it's part of their expectations, but it seems Christians always want to make themselves out to be martyrs. They always want the rest of us to believe they're being fed to the lions. They don't grasp the concept of church and state, they think the Muslims are taking over, and they protest that their free speech is being threatened when the rest of us refuse to go along with their will. Apparently we can't say no to them without being bullies.
Literalness interferes w/ understanding Bible, &am (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of an old post:
People who believe in the literal Word of God as the Bible remind me of the grand-daughter of a family friend --- he was a woodworker, old school, wanted me to be his apprentice so he could put me to work re-sawing wood rather than purchase a band saw. He made a cradle as a gift for the grand-daughter in question, for her to keep her dolls in --- she was very impressed when her mother told her, ``Your grandfather made this by hand.'' and immediately evinced a desire to see him and to see his shop and to watch him make something. The visit was arranged and upon arrival, the young lady was taken out to the shop and the large door rolled open, revealing rack upon rack of chisels, saws, hand planes, a simply unbelievable quantity of clamps and other hand tools --- the girl let out a shriek such as only a 5 year old girl can and yelled, ``Mommy! You lied! Grandpa doesn't make things by hand! He uses tools!''.
God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories which we have yet to learn about to make people and the world.
Moreover, those who believe that humanity is incapable of learning how God works are being blasphemous and not remembering the lesson of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:6) which indicates that humanity's learning capacity is without limit.
Believing in God doesn't mandate a belief in Creationism (though believing in Creationism requires the belief in God). Anyone whose faith is so fragile that it could be damaged by a rigorous class in evolutionary biology should go back to CCD or Sunday School or whatever their faith's equivalent is.
William
I can't be the only one bothered by the title. (Score:5, Informative)
This is the kind of thread... (Score:5, Funny)
This is the kind of thread I save my Mod points for...
Awwww crap I posted.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Informative)
bio-engineering
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, structural engineering, materials engineering, when you factor in biomimetics.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Structural engineering has evolved over time (underwent evolution)... it's not like the international build codes magically came to be a superior ultimate being.
Human residences evolved from sticks and feces-laden mud all the way to hi-grade structural steel, carbon fiber reinforced concrete, carbon fiber beams, etc. to construct buildings as tall as the imagination can take us.
Creationism's whole basis is that a supreme being (GOD) simply put things where they are now. It reinforces the notion that people are incapable of coming up with brilliant scientific discoveries and achieve scientific enlightment because things came to be from a supreme being, not from your brain.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
No, actually, creationists do *not* believe in a rational ordered universe.
I am a physicist. I don't know what all the laws of physics are, but I believe that there *are* some inviolate laws of physics which apply uniformly throughout all that is. So far as we can tell, this is true: spectral lines in distant stars are the same as they are here, to very high precision, indicating that atomic and nuclear physics are the same. Electrodynamics and such work the same way inside stars as it does in all conditions we've found on Earth.
I suppose you could be a creationist and believe in a deistic universe, where a god chose the laws of physics and then wound up his universe and let it go. But modern creationists do not believe this: they are overwhelmingly Christian, and believe in such things as a god that actively intervenes on this little planet by making virgins pregnant, people turn into pillars of salt -- in general, they believe in miracles, even small ones like altering the genetic makeup of a species. This is the very opposite of a rational ordered universe: all these things, all these miracles, are inherently disordered, since they entail violations of the laws of physics by an entity outside of them. "F=ma, except when god says otherwise" is not a sound basis for a rational theory of the universe.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Funny)
Also, structural engineering, materials engineering, when you factor in biomimetics.
Also, software development, with each new language we mus master we continue to evolve into more hideous creatures with each passing day.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
I am working on a degree in Chemical and Biological engineering and we definitely use evolution. There are even computer models now based on adaptation speeds for things like resistance to drugs etc.
Evolution is critically important to modern biotech work.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
Genetic Engineering.
Agronomy
Any zootecniques
and a long long etc.
And, ceteris paribus, we are used by evolution much more than we use her. Its just the natural order of things.
Re:Creationists are not exactly stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
What they know is a lot of talking points and straw men that look like genuine knowledge to someone who isn't familiar with the subject matter. But this does not mean that they actually know the science behind the theories they claim to refute.
Re:Creationists are not exactly stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but the rejection of critical thinking and rationality necessary to defend the belief in the biblical creation story in the face of contrary evidence is something that stunts the mental development of children in all other areas of science and understanding. The belief in biblical creation is itself not the problem, but rather one of the most common causes of the problem. It would also be bad if they were taught to reject physics in defense of a geocentric flat earth story.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
In order to be a competent engineer, you must be capable of facing reality, even when it doesn't fit with your presuppositions. If you'd rather stick your fingers in your ear and yell "LA LA LA GODDIDIT!" then you've got no business dealing with anything that other people's lives will depend on.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Disagree Mr. AC. I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on. Even my old college professor believes in god, but that doesn't stop him from publishing peer-reviewed articles about superstrings and quarks and the inflationary period (the very basis of creation). Perhaps you could enlighten us how our beliefs make us suck at our jobs. (insert crickets chirping in the silence)
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on.
While your belief system may not affect the quality of your work (although I'm not suggesting that it does not), did you ever consider if your "creator" wanted you to work on a missile launcher? Which faith do you subscribe to? Is it one with an admonition like "don't kill people"?
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
I grew up in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church. We were all about killing people. We prayed for Armageddon, and members of my fathers church sought out positions within the USAF Strategic Air Command, so they would have the opportunity to be involved in the extermination of mankind to fulfill gods will. Fortunately I have come to reject the faith of my father and no longer bow before such evil.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Belief in God and belief in evolution need not be separate things. You can completely believe in God while still believing in evolution. What the AC was pointing out is that most Creationists that completely deny evolution refuse to believe the evidence right in front of them. He said nothing about whether or not God exists, but nice try.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. AC never said anything about a generalized belief in a creator, he was addressing Creationism, which is where fundamentalist religious belief causes people to refuse to belief in actual physical evidence that can be observed and verified, because they prefer to believe origin fairy tales that have no basis in reality and no evidence to support them, and tons of evidence that disproves them. Simply believing in a "creator" doesn't prevent you from accepting evolutionary theory; lots of religious people, including Christians (in fact, most of them if you consider them all instead of focusing only on Americans) have no problem with the theory of evolution, and regard the biblical creation tale to be mere metaphor, not literal truth.
In short, don't get your panties in a bunch.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you could enlighten us how our beliefs make us suck at our jobs.
I'd love to, but you've already stated that you will ignore any and all evidence that goes against your presuppositions, while sticking your fingers in your ears (in this case to listen to crickets chirping apparently) to avoid anything that counters your beliefs. Incidentally, that, exactly, is why you're incompetent, and should never be allowed to work on something people's lives depend on. Frankly, if all you're working on is missile launchers, I don't care if your idiocy screws things up so that they short out and do nothing when someone tries to use them, but if you ever start trying to build skyscrapers or bridges, someone's probably going to die because you refused to accept some point of reality that had been abundantly proven, yet went against your 2000+ year old stone age dogma. If you won't look rationally at one piece of evidence, then the probability is very strong that as time goes on, to support your superstitions you'll start ignoring others, until it becomes a deeply ingrained habit, and people end up dead because of it.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Funny)
So, this bacteria is sitting in this petri dish that's been sitting on a lab bench evolving increased toxin resistance for many generations, and he says to another bacteria "You know, someone created all this. His name is Bill Nye, and he hates the weaklings among us who can't tolerate the presence of XYZ. That's why he created all this, so he could weed out the weak, and someday, he'll pluck us from this place and bring us to Heaven, to serve his purpose."
So, they fired him from his engineering job because he was clearly crazy.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
Genetic engineering. We induce mutations via the same mechanisms they occur in in nature (e.g. mismatch repair, retroviruses, etc) and increase their frequency through selective pressure. That's evolution.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Funny)
Genetic engineering. We induce mutations via the same mechanisms they occur in in nature (e.g. mismatch repair, retroviruses, etc) and increase their frequency through selective pressure. That's evolution.
Actually, that is intelligent design. No doubt your mutations tell themselves you don't exist and they created themselves by evolution.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Informative)
Computer science with genetic algorithms.
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Or more correctly phrased: which field of engineering uses directly observable phenomenon in an objective matter to design things that will actually work?
Re:So which field of engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1+1=3 (Score:5, Informative)
mu.
The Catholic Church doesn't teach Creationism.
Re:1+1=3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Catholicism officially recognizes evolution to be correct. They're still having trouble with realizing there isn't a god, but you can see why that one is a bit harder for them.
Re:1+1=3 (Score:4, Interesting)
Creationism has a pretty specific definition when we're talking about evolution. What you're describing, and what the Catholic Church tends to advocate is basically a form of theistic evolution. It is useful to have definitions for words so we can all speak the same language, and Creationism tends to be in a separate category from theistic evolution because Creationism, to one extent or another, inevitably denies key facets of evolutionary theory, whereas theistic evolution pretty much accepts all of evolutionary theory, but still keeps "God's hand" in affairs.
Re:prove your memory (Score:5, Insightful)
Prove to me that your memory is reliable, i.e. show me how I can rely on my memory other than through faith.
Do not use your memory to form your argument, or ask me to rely on my memory.
Go!
I don't have faith in my memory. I trust my memory. Unlike faith, trust us earned and subject to review. If I were to grow old and senile and found myself forgetting things, I'd be less inclined to trust my memory and more inclined to start writing more things down to get through my day.
Re:prove your memory (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:prove your memory (Score:5, Insightful)
And faith that remains in contradiction to evidence is mental illness.
Re:prove your memory (Score:4, Informative)
How do you know that all this technology is around you? More specifically, how do you know that everything you are looking at does what you think it does?
Also, if philosophy is bullshit then we might as well crawl back to ~C4 BC and start again. This is why there are rarely any bright individuals in computer engineering classes: they simply don't see the value of any learning beyond how electricity works.
Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes! Stand up for ignorance!
Yes, teach them silly things that contradict reality and to be willfully ignorant.
He's no tyrant. However, there are more than a few wannabe tyrants among the US Christian community who feel they are charged by God to be a tyrant over others. And there are many, particularly those that push Intelligent Design, that don't want people to be capable of arguing in their own defense or contradicting the weak arguments of those they support.
No, but if you're willing to reject evolution in favor of irrational beliefs then your ability as a scientist cannot help but be compromised.
Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the transcript, I don't think that's what Bill Nye is saying here. From the video transcript:
Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.
He's not really talking about spiritualism, religion, or any other belief systems; he's talking about a small subset of people bent on eschewing very carefully collected, studied, and reviewed data because they perceive it as an attack on their personal belief system. The Science guy is concerned that bad and irrational decisions are being made under the guise of "its my religion". His purpose is not to decry religion, but to defend science, evolution specifically as it is the target of attacks. I think the thought process is less "don't let religion get into science" and more "think rationally about scientific matters." His plea for "...scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future." and "...people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems" is less about evolution versus religion and more about ensuring that future generations are trained to think logically; to think things through instead of standing on ceremony, that is, actually try to find the best solution, not just one that someone wants.
Does this mean he's against creationism in the classroom? Probably, because it's inconsistent with pretty much every other scientific model out there. But I don't think he's intending to harp on the idea of there being a creator; just people who want to push their agenda at the expense of education
Oh the Hyperbole You'll Spew (Score:4, Insightful)
I will teach my kids whatever I want to teach them.
I don't think he ever said you can't. What we're talking about is what should be curriculum for students in the public schools. Fortunately you and I pay the taxes that fund these institutions, unfortunately that means we have to come to an agreement on what should be taught in said institutions. Furthermore, if you found Bill Nye to be a good educator with his programs and efforts then perhaps you should take his suggestions as more than telling you what to do. "Tyrant"? Please leave the hyperbole rhetoric to the politicians.
Furthermore: Belief in a creator does not negate thescientific endeavor.
No but we're getting to (well, some of us have crossed it long ago) the point where some of the things that science is teaching us blatantly contradicts several ancient doctrines. And while you can claim that believing the Earth is only 6,000 does not negate the scientific endeavor, it sure hinders an awful lot of fields. You can teach your children whatever you want in your home but in order for them to function in society or for higher learning institutions to accept them as scholars, we need to lay down some ground rules. I'll tell you what, I'll keep writing book reviews [slashdot.org] and you can tell us how much better off your child is for you teaching them creationism over evolution. Can the rest of us please move forward?
Many scientists over the years have believed in God or a god, even as they were unravelling the mystery of evolution and cosmology.
Sure they have! And some scientists have been racists, liars, bigots, adulterers, murderers, swindlers, politicians and even lawyers! But that doesn't make those actions or ways of life right. Read about the twilight years of Georg Cantor and we'll talk about how smart it is to consider everything a genius claims or believes in to be absolutely true. Unlike a cosmologist espousing about god or Georg Cantor claiming Bacon was Shakespeare [wikipedia.org], Bill Nye is talking about the scientific community's views on creationism versus evolution. And I can assure you that nobody is publishing in peer reviewed journals about creationism or intelligent design while peer reviewed journals dedicated to evolutionary biology are currently being peer reviewed the world over.
Re:Evolution just isn't that relevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Engineers need to understand the scientific method. If an engineer denies natural selection, he or she does not understand science and will not make a good engineer.
Re:Why are we still talking about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists and rational beings can. Religious zealots and irrational beings can't.
Did you hear about the 17 people beheaded by the Taliban for the crime of 'mingling'? And you expect the zealots to even have a rational conversation about evolution?
Not going to happen.
Re:Why are we still talking about this? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it is not. It is a scientific theory.
Let us stop right there. You don't even appear to know what evolution is. Evolution works on populations. In simple terms evolution can be defined as the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.
That the Earth is many times older than the Genesis account has been known since the 18th century. As I said to another poster, this absurd claim that we have to directly observe every moment is as absurd as demanding to know the syntax of every generation of spoken language from Proto-Germanic to Modern English.
The fossil evidence isn't even the only line of evidence. In general, the molecular data agrees with the fossil data giving us two independent lines of evidence; the twin-nested hierarchy. It has not been reasonable to attack evolution based on fossil evidence for over a century, and certainly not reaosnable to claim the relative scarcity of fossils (which there are far more of than you seem aware) for half a century.
I have no idea where you learned above evolution, but certainly not from any biology source. Every population has variability, it's always present. Some members of a population will be more able to survive the environment some will not. Those traits which tend even slightly to give a reproductive advantage will be selected for. Many traits are in fact neutral, and thus have reasonably good odds of simply being selected for (neutral selection or neutral drift), but can in fact at a later time either prove beneficial or harmful. Some genes in fact remain, but are suppressed through developmental processes (a whole other area that I challenge you to learn about), but can be re-expressed, thus leading to humans with long body hair all over their body or snakes with limbs and many other atavisms which are suppressed developmentally, even though the genes remain in our genome.
Re:Personally, I don't see a conflict (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Personally, I don't see a conflict (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A friend of mine link to this on Facebook recen (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html [talkorigins.org]
Your worldview is ignorant, and not based on where science is. Evidence for speciation has been around for decades. Do you always base your beliefs on nonsense that has to be over a hundred years old by now?
Re:Let's trade one priesthood for another! (Score:5, Informative)
You failed science class didn't you?
Science is about creating theories and working to prove or disprove them. Scientists never ask for unquestioning obedience, they want you to be able to verify their work. We don't give credibility to scientists that don't provide evidence or ways to duplicate their results.
Science isn't about magic or faith. All civilizations will eventually come up with the same scientific theories - the same obviously isn't true for religion. If we as a society want to progress forwards technologically and scientifically we need to push rational thinking and science on kids, not blindly believing centuries old myths.