Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight online at 7pm- http://www.npr.org

[PeterMP]

I'll leave this here...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?bffb&s=mobile

And this...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-for-creationists-from-people-who-believe-in-evoluti?bffb&s=mobile

 

Let me just say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.

 

And people like that are the people that really bother me.

 

Scientists as a whole are too stupid to understand that a fundamental law of physics debunks one of the major underlying theories of biology?

 

Or just that dishonest?

 

Either way, it is incredibly insulting.

 

**EDIT**

There is nothing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says there can't be local decreases in entropy (increases in order).

 

Ever make a bed, that's as much a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as evolution.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'll leave this here...http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?bffb&s=mobile

And this...http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-for-creationists-from-people-who-believe-in-evoluti?bffb&s=mobile

These just make me want to cry. I am a Christian. I believe that Genesis through Revelation are the inspired word of God inerrant in all that it affirms. I also know that my assent to the Christian faith and trust in the scriptures do not require me to stop thinking, nor must I reject science in favor of faith. I also reject the Literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 as did Augustine of Hippo and many other ancient Church patriarchs.

Likewise my acknowledgement of the reliability of science does not mean that I have to trash all things of faith. Science does not necessitate that I reject faith, nor make a mockery out of those who live lives of faith.

Trusting in Christ does not mean checking your brain at the door!

Trusting in science does not mean rejecting faith.

Those on both sides who say otherwise are liars and not worth listening to.

[alexey]

...

Likewise my acknowledgement of the reliability of science does not mean that I have to trash all things of faith. Science does not necessitate that I reject faith, nor make a mockery out of those who live lives of faith.

Trusting in Christ does not mean checking your brain at the door!

Trusting in science does not mean rejecting faith.

Those on both sides who say otherwise are liars and not worth listening to.

I agree with all of the above. 

 

At the same time, I think that scientific/critical thinking will necessarily lead to treatment of ancient myths as ancient myths.  It may take a few generations though.

[Captain James]

Watched all 2 hours and 45 minutes of it with my family. I felt Ken Ham did an excellent job with the amount of time he had to answer his questions. He was so calm and composed and prepared for everything imo. It seemed that Bill was flustered and nervous up there. It amazes me when secular science pushers take everything so personal. They act so butt-hurt when intelligent design people speak up and alert the public that there is a complete other way of looking at things. Believing in secular science and/or being atheist takes the same amount of 'faith' as the other side.

[alexey]

Watched all 2 hours and 45 minutes of it with my family. I felt Ken Ham did an excellent job with the amount of time he had to answer his questions. He was so calm and composed and prepared for everything imo. It seemed that Bill was flustered and nervous up there. It amazes me when secular science pushers take everything so personal. They act so butt-hurt when intelligent design people speak up and alert the public that there is a complete other way of looking at things. Believing in secular science and/or being atheist takes the same amount of 'faith' as the other side.

Think of Bill's reaction as a reaction of a man who is looking at somebody spreading ignorance and lies...  You may not agree with that, but it explains the look.

 

As for faith in secular science...  I don't know how you can measure the "amount" of faith, and I think the kind of faith is different also.

[Captain James]

There's not really any point to the 'arguing' going on back and forth here. Ken Ham explained it perfectly in the beginning of the discussion that these are two camps interpreting science through two completely different worldviews. Both have equally intelligent people on their side but are obviously living through different perspectives. Secular believers think that snarky jokes and put-downs make them look superior but it isn't the case. If you don't first believe in an infinite and omnipotent God then of course you're naturally going to interpret things through a "no God" lens. I for one truly see intelligence and beauty throughout everything and naturally link it to a creator. 

Think of Bill's reaction as a reaction of a man who is looking at somebody spreading ignorance and lies...  You may not agree with that, but it explains the look.

 

As for faith in secular science...  I don't know how you can measure the "amount" of faith, and I think the kind of faith is different also.

Sure but it takes faith to believe in assumptions about events that took place "millions" of years ago. People simply need to agree that there are two valid camps in science. They are driven by their passionate worldviews.

[alexey]

Do you have a reason to believe that different natural laws were acting in the past?

Let me put it this way. You know that a tree generates one ring every year. You find a tree with 10 rings and conclude the tree is 10 years old. Then ken ham comes and says the tree was created yesterday because the bible says so. He may be smart but that's not a well reasoned position.

[PeterMP]

There's not really any point to the 'arguing' going on back and forth here. Ken Ham explained it perfectly in the beginning of the discussion that these are two camps interpreting science through two completely different worldviews. Both have equally intelligent people on their side but are obviously living through different perspectives. Secular believers think that snarky jokes and put-downs make them look superior but it isn't the case. If you don't first believe in an infinite and omnipotent God then of course you're naturally going to interpret things through a "no God" lens. I for one truly see intelligence and beauty throughout everything and naturally link it to a creator. 

Sure but it takes faith to believe in assumptions about events that took place "millions" of years ago. People simply need to agree that there are two valid camps in science. They are driven by their passionate worldviews.

 

Why would God create a Universe that appears to be billions of years old?

 

Why would He create stars whose light shouldn't be here yet, and then create the light in route so that we see them when we shouldn't based on how fast light travels?

 

Why would He create isotopes that we know decay at certain rates that suggest that the Earth and Universe was a certain age when it wasn't?

 

Why would He create trees as if they were already hundreds and even thousands of years old if they weren't?

 

We know that changes in the DNA of an organism changes its phenotype.  That is evolution.  We can observe that happening today, and we see it in things like antibiotic resistant bacteria.

 

Why would a God create a system in which that can happen, but at the same time create some magical wall that requires organisms to remain the same kind?

 

How does that magical wall work/function?  What is the mechanism?

 

Do you believe in a God that actively creates false information?  That "lies" to the human race?

[Corcaigh]

There's not really any point to the 'arguing' going on back and forth here. Ken Ham explained it perfectly in the beginning of the discussion that these are two camps interpreting science through two completely different worldviews. Both have equally intelligent people on their side but are obviously living through different perspectives.

 

This is incorrect. The discussion between Nye & Hamm is is not a argument between secular and religious. It is an argument between one particular interpretation of Christianity (Young Earth Creationism) and the rest of the scientific world (comprised of secular, Christians and everything else). Most Christians do not approve of teaching that the Earth is 4500 years old in public science class. To do so is a disservice to the children.

I for one truly see intelligence and beauty throughout everything and naturally link it to a creator.

And many religious scientists agree with you. But they recognize that biology doesn't make sense without evolution, and they are not demanding that young earth creationism is taught in science class.

[Predicto]

I really don't understand why Nye did this.

 

There is no way to defeat the Gish Gallop in an oral debate format in front of an audience of people uneducated in the science (and actively rooting for one side).  It can't be done.

 

That is why so-called creation scientists so rarely do research or publish scientific papers that can be critiqued.  They want oral debates, where they "win" by appealing to what their audience wants to hear. 

[Corcaigh]

I really don't understand why Nye did this.

Because his passion is education.

But I agree that it's a dumb idea to engage with people like Hamm. Hamm won't and can't answer the difficult questions because he doesn't know the answers.

[Elessar78]

I'm not sure why the fact we exist in a universe with observable natural laws precludes the existence of an omnipotent power. 

[Predicto]

Because his passion is education.

But I agree that it's a dumb idea to engage with people like Hamm. Hamm won't and can't answer the difficult questions because he doesn't know the answers.

 

Actually, he will answer them, with a flurry of nonsense that the audience will eat up.  

 

And then creationists can point to another "victory" to validate their world views.

 

And when other people don't acknowledge that it was a victory, they can hone their feelings that fundamentalist Christians are unfairly oppressed and maligned.

 

And the circle will continue.   

[PeterMP]

Because his passion is education.

But I agree that it's a dumb idea to engage with people like Hamm. Hamm won't and can't answer the difficult questions because he doesn't know the answers.

In the context of this debate, the points and question to Hamm should be really simple, and I wouldn't want 30 minutes of time.

 

Darwin's theory of evolution predicted that there would be a way for the traits of the parents to be passed onto offspring, that it would be possible for that there would be changes during that process that would result in changes in the traits of the offspring and could affect the survival/ability to reproduce of the offspring.

 

We know that's true today of DNA though Darwin had no idea what DNA is.

 

With respect to humans, it predicts that there would be other species that seem to be related to humans and monkeys.  That in some cases these species would seem to have the ability to walk up right (or at least more than any living monkey).   At the time of Darwin, no such fossils were known.

 

Today, we have a collection of them (not as many as we'd probably like, but discounting out right and pretty wide spread fraud there is a collection of them).

 

What testable idea/hypothesis does your version of the origin/development of life make?

 

And really simply, that's the difference.

[alexey]

I'm not sure why the fact we exist in a universe with observable natural laws precludes the existence of an omnipotent power.

The question is about interaction of this power with other aspects of reality. If this interaction cannot be demonstrated, then this power is indistinguishable from being nonexistent.

[Corcaigh]

What testable idea/hypothesis does your version of the origin of life make?

No doubt ... Nye would have been better served not presenting dozens of pieces of evidence. Instead just state that he didn't want to use his various allocated timeslots for more than 30 seconds and pose a couple of very specific questions and ask Hamm to answer them in Nye's allotted time.

Crickets.

[Larry]

I'm not sure why the fact we exist in a universe with observable natural laws precludes the existence of an omnipotent power.

 

Often, in this "debate", I find myself reflecting on the story of Galileo, and the heliocentric solar system. 

 

The religions of the time were loudly announcing that the Earth was the center of the Universe.  Fixed and immobile.  The reference point against which all other motion was referenced. 

 

Galileo pointed out that, if you do that, then all of the planets travel in these really complicated patterns.  The patterns they follow are rather like the paterns made by a spirograph (an old toy, for folks who aren't aware.) 

 

And then it was pointed out that, if you pretend that the sun isn't moving, then all of the planets travel in nice, neat, circles. 

 

He was executed.  Put to death, because the leaders of the religion thought that the notion that planets orbited the sun, threatened their religion. 

 

And they were wrong.  Now days, you'd be regarded as a complete idiot if you were to try to come up with a "science" based around the concept that the Earth doesn't move, everything else does. 

 

Some people, the ones in charge of the religion, thought that science threatened their religion.  When it didn't. 

 

----------

 

IMO, if you think evolution is a threat to your religion, then you don't believe in your religion. 

 

----------

 

Having said all that, do I think this whole Creationism thing is being done because people think evolution threatens their religion?  Nope. 

 

I see a big dose of "I will say anything, if it will get the public schools to teach my religion.  I'll claim that it's history, so they should teach Christian philosophy in History class.  I'll claim it's morality, so it should be taught as morality.  I'll claim that failing to teach religion is a religion, and therefore it's impossible not to teach religion, and since you have to teach some religion, you should teach the majority one (which just happens to be mine.)  I'll claim that it's 'voluntary'.  I'll claim that the country was 'founded on Christian principles'.  And I'll claim that it's a science." 

 

And I see a big dose of anti-intellectualism.  "Well, them flashy scientists don't know everything.  Therefore whatever I want to believe is just as good as science." 

[DaGoonie55]

The question is about interaction of this power with other aspects of reality. If this interaction cannot be demonstrated, then this power is indistinguishable from being nonexistent.

 

This isn't a debate of religion vs science. Whether or not God interacted with and/or created the universe 10,000 years ago is.  That has been disproven through science. 

 

Whether God created the universe or not will not be proven until judgement day (in your case you better hope it doesn't come).  Science bases its hypothesis and tests and results on observable instants.  The beginning cannot be observed, only the aftermath.  We may never know what exactly caused the big bang. 

[twa]

I'm not sure why the fact we exist in a universe with observable natural laws precludes the existence of an omnipotent power. 

 

it doesn't....but don't try to tell those that base their knowledge solely on natural laws and observation that.

 

omnipotent is beyond them

[Larry]

----------

 

The question is about interaction of this power with other aspects of reality. If this interaction cannot be demonstrated, then this power is indistinguishable from being nonexistent.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree. 

 

IMO, evolution is about what happens. 

 

Creationism (and religion) is about why it happens. 

 

Analogy: 

 

I roll a pair of dice. 

 

Probability says "the odds are 1 out of 6 that I will roll a seven". 

 

Religion says "whatever you roll, it's because God wanted it that way". 

 

These two statements are not contradictory.  It's certainly possible for both of them to be true. 

 

The latter cannot be tested.  It cannot be proven.  But cannot be disproven, either. 

 

But the former statement can be used to make predictions.  Roll those dice 600 times, and you're going to roll sevens pretty close to 100 times. 

 

Which then leads us to the inescapable conclusion that IF God told those dice to roll every single one of those 600 rolls, then obviously He wants us to use probability to base our decisions on.

 

[Predicto]

 

Galileo pointed out that, if you do that, then all of the planets travel in these really complicated patterns.  The patterns they follow are rather like the paterns made by a spirograph (an old toy, for folks who aren't aware.) 

 

He was executed.  Put to death, because the leaders of the religion thought that the notion that planets orbited the sun, threatened their religion. 

 

 

No he wasn't.  Galileo lived out his life on his villa and died of a fever at age 77.  

 

Not that it changes anything about your underlying point, which is correct.  

[Larry]

No he wasn't.  Galileo lived out his life on his villa and died of a fever at age 77.  

 

Not that it changes anything about your underlying point, which is correct.  

 

Wrong scientist?  Newton? 

 

Just did a quick Wiki, and I'm not seeing it.  (

 

Although I did run across a Papal decree, announcing that heliocentrism could be accepted, but only as long as it were presented as just a theory, which seemed to have some parallels to this topic.

[alexey]

This isn't a debate of religion vs science. Whether or not God interacted with and/or created the universe 10,000 years ago is.  That has been disproven through science. 

 

Whether God created the universe or not will not be proven until judgement day (in your case you better hope it doesn't come).  Science bases its hypothesis and tests and results on observable instants.  The beginning cannot be observed, only the aftermath.  We may never know what exactly caused the big bang. 

Lack of interaction between the universe and god cannot be disproven by science.  God could have created everything as-is a second ago with all the evidence in place.

 

As for the judgement... well I would actually appreciate an opportunity to tell the god of the Old Testament that i think he is an immoral thug, that might does not make him right or good, and that i would rather burn in hell than pretend that he is a loving being and all the suffering he created is a-ok.  Plus, killing his own son so that he can forgive things he created for doing what he knew they were going to do?  What kind of morality is that?  That's a really messed up way of setting things up, and if somebody is responsible for it, I would appreciate an opportunity to tell that to their face.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There's not really any point to the 'arguing' going on back and forth here. Ken Ham explained it perfectly in the beginning of the discussion that these are two camps interpreting science through two completely different worldviews.

The problem is that science isn't interpreted through a worldview, that's the whole point of scientific research that findings can be duplicated etc. this is not interpretation. Oddly enough what you are describing, is perfect Postmodernism, which is fine if you're going to start claiming relativity and the absence of absolute truth, but there are very few places in science where you are going to get away with looking at scientific research and saying, "Well what it means to me is....." This is commonly practiced in theology by folks who know just enough, then when forced to defend and provide evidentiary support for conclusions and interpretation it becomes a relativistic enterprise.

Pick one or the other, doing both is inconsistent and provides only the illusion that you've done something.

[Riggo-toni]

So much of what fundamentalists most fervently cling to are actually relatively novel concepts as opposed to creeds originating thousands of years ago.

The idiotic 6000 year old earth doctrinal nonsense is only a few hundred years old, and was formulated by the Bishop of Usher.

The bad transliteration of Jehovah as the name of God rather than Yahweh is the product of German theologians who mangled in the vowels for Adonai scribbled in the margins of the masoretic texts with the Hebrew consonants YHWH (and in German, a Y is spelled with a J).

And those are just the first 2 that came to mind.