Posted on 08/28/2012 3:39:34 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Scientist and childrens television personality Bill Nye, in a newly released online video, panned biblical creationism and implored American parents who reject the scientific theory of evolution not to teach their beliefs to their youngsters.
I say to the grownups, If you want to deny evolution and live in your world thats completely inconsistent with everything weve observed in the universe thats fine. But dont make your kids do it, said Nye, best known as host of the educational TV series Bill Nye the Science Guy.
The video, titled Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children, was posted on Thursday by the online knowledge forum Big Think to YouTube and had netted more than 1.3 million views as of Monday.
In it Nye said widespread public doubt in the scientific concept of evolution which holds that human beings and all other forms of life developed from a process of random genetic mutation and natural selection would hinder a country long renowned for its innovation, intellectual capital and a general grasp of science.
When you have a portion of the population that doesnt believe in (evolution) it holds everybody back, really, he said.
According to a Gallup poll that surveyed 1,012 adults in May, 46 percent of Americans can be described as creationists for believing that God created humans in their present form at some point within the last 10,000 years.
Education advocates have argued for decades over what children should be taught in public schools in regard to the formation of the universe, life and humans.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that requiring biblical creation to be taught in public schools alongside evolution was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment separation between church and state.
In April, a law was passed that protects teachers in Tennessee who wish to critique or analyze what they view as the scientific weaknesses of evolution, making it the second state, after Louisiana, to enable teachers to more easily espouse alternatives to evolution in the classroom.
Nye said that while many adults may believe in creationism, children should be taught evolution in order to understand science. Absent a grasp of evolution, he said, Youre just not going to get the right answers. And he called evolution the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.
Teaching children the building blocks of science is essential for the countrys future, he added, saying, We need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future.
Nyes popular show, produced by Disneys Buena Vista Television, aired from September 1993 to June 1998 on PBS and was also syndicated to local television stations.
"After all what good is a ROLEX to a monkey?.. Maybe as entertainment.. "
Classic.
I guess I can't ignore you on this point a second time.
So here's my answer:
NO!!!
I don't want to fire biologists. I only hope and pray they can "buy a clue," timely.
Why wait for them. Can't you just show them how it should be done?
If you don’t want to be confused, you need to stop listening to those biased,God haters who distort the truth of the word of God
Where in Scripture does it state that there’s such a thing as magic to begin with?
And what’s the constant problem evos have with the thought that a snake could “talk”?
And since when does perfection demand no free will? What does perfection have to do with making choices?
[[Science seems to like darkness..]]
Aint that the truth- Awhile back I was looking into the claims of ‘evolution before our very eyes’ in regards to Eukoroytes and ? (can’t remember the other species at the moment- maybe it was prokaroytes- but it was claimed the one invaded the iother, and the host becAme so RELIANT O NTHE PRESENCE OF THE OTHER OVER TIME TRHAT the one was evolving into the other) and teachers and scientists KNEW the truth about the issue, but kept everyone, even the kids in schools, whom they were ‘teaching’ science to, in the dark abotu the actual truth- letting everyoen continue believing that the one species had invade another and ‘eventually evovled into the other and that it was ‘witnessed and recorded and evolution was happenign before our eyes-’-
However, when the TRUTH came to LIGHT- science books had to finally admit that it was nothign but a symbiotic relationship between the two species and not one species evolving into the other- It was a tough humble pie for them to eat- but they had to because they had invested so much into the cover-up because it was their ‘earliest examples’ of evolution which could ‘still be witnessed’ according to them- The LIGHT really bothered them quite a bit with the original authors vehemently denying what most of the rest of the scientific comunity was forced into admitting- (that and the ‘vestigial organs’ hypothesis which later proved innacurate too after light was shed o nthe subject despite the evolutionsits cocnerted efforts to keep peopel i nthe dark about hte truth)
Yours is a question of location. The physicalist believes everything that exists is fundamentally matter, most likely, elementary particles whether points of potentiality, centers of mass/energy, units of spatially extended. All abstract entities fail to meet this test. For example thought, logic, reason, rational thought, numbers, consciousness, the fact that there are other minds than my own, ethical truths, aesthetic judgements, truth, beauty, justice - all products of mental events or expressed as a mental event - fail to meet the test of extension of spatiotemporality. They are not 'made' of the material which complell the physicalists ontology...but nothing meets that test. Physicalists have no way of explaining the appearance of irreducible, genuinely mental properties in the cosmos. Jaegwon Kim,(highly published philospher and strict physicalist) stated that his fellow phsicalist "must simply admit the irreality of the mental and that natualism exacts a steep price and cannot be had on the cheap." If feigning anesthesia - denying consciousness construed along common sense lines is real - is the price to be paid to retain naturalism then the price is too high. Fortunantly,, the theistic arguement from consciousness reminds us that it is a price that does not to be paid.
The dualist must admit the the causal connection to the brain and mental events. Physical events and properties do not hold true for mental events. One's thoughts, feelings of pain, or sensory experiences do not have weight. Brain functions are the result of biochemical and electrical activities. Mental events do not have such physical qualia. Likewise memories are not stored in the brain, but are stored in the mind, yet the causal connection with the brain is irrefutable.
I do not think I was much help in answering your question. I guess my point is that any abstract entity and mind have no physical quality and are therefore do not extend spatiotemporally.
[[ethical truths,]]
Lemme just quickly add “Universal Ethical Truths”, and the reason we know them to be universal is because peopel raised in wholly hedonistic societies, who later became Christians, tell of always knowign that what they were doing in regards to living hedonistically, was somehow wrong and they simply kept doing it because ‘everyone did it’ but that they never felt right about it-
This suggests that a universal moral code is present- regardless of whether a particular osiciety has ‘learned to suppress is’ i ntheir own minds or not- they may like to say ‘Well, in our society, noone beleives that is wrong to do such and such’ but in reality, they are simply just tryign to justify their lust and their decisions to deny that a universal moral code exists- but it does- no matter how fiercely they deny it-
The Moral Law is univeral. You are preaching to the choir. I agree completely with you. I commend a book on Moral Law entitled “Things We Can’t Not Know” by J. Budziszewski. It explains much about Romans 1:18 and following through Romans 2 (entire chapter). The Moral Law is undeniable.
onem ore point- Dawkins woiuld argue that the universal moral code is nothign more than a virus- contracted be being sneezed upon by other infected people- no really- he did suggest this- He calsl it the ‘God Gene/Virus’ or somethign to that effect- it’s his desperate attempt to poo poo the idea of a iniversal moral code because if there’s a universal moral code, then there msut be a universal moral code Giver
[[fail to meet the test of extension of spatiotemporality.]]
Does it fail to meet it IF there are ‘alternate universes’ where we exist i nthe future at the same tiem we exist i nthe here and now here? (note- I don’t beleive i nthe ‘other dimenskions’ hypothesis- but it’s kinda fascinating ot think about)
[[The Moral Law is univeral. You are preaching to the choir]]
Didn’t mean to sound liek I was preaching- I was just throwing that out there to suggest that somethign can be universal and exist in both space and time- (I think lol- After all, The Holy Spirit IS doing the prodding and convicting, encourqaaging, etc etc, and as we know, the Holy Spirit isn’t bound by space or time-
Thoughts related in/to/with/upon spacetime via the chemistry of the brain, but the reality of a thought is not bound by the linear temporal perspective with which we are familiar, so we categorize a thought as an abstraction from spacetime. But I don't believe it is an abstraction, it just exists as a very different spatio-temporal phenomenon than what we have heretofore conceptualized.
IF lifeforce is a dimension--like Space and Time are dimensions--then some variability of that dimension has more fundamental support for a thought than space or time, perhaps even no space, but some variable expression of dimension Time, else there would be no storage which could be retrieved via the brain of the physical body.
I used to be a fairly good Chess player. As I could play a full game in my head, without a board in front of me, even if my opponent was using a board, the reality of the pieces changing positions was an ongoing phenomenon, much the way memorizing openings was building a file bank for use in tournament play. Thoughts are real, they can be stored and retrieved. They may not have spatial quality, but they definitely have temporal quality ... my retrieval mechanism ain't what it used to be. ;^) Have a pleasant evening and thanks for the exchanges.
About evolution.. I have a story to tell you...
It was a long stormy night.. Ooops bad start...
(Restart).. If you have ever been to say New York City..
There are people there operating on the level of APES...
Posturing, makeing noises, mimicking Bonobo apes.. (Rappers)
and followers of Rappers... very low level intelligence.. and lifestyle..
Then you have your folks a little higher on the human scale..
Let’s call them democrats for lack of a better term...
Working like slaves to feed parasitic politicians... and followers..
And are happy about it... Not Apes but barely..
Then you have your republicans for lack of a better term...
Happy to receive givernment largess but feel guilty for it...
They are parasites as well but hate themselves for it....
But would never give back a givernment check...
There are a couple more categories but this is enough
for we are talking about evolution.. concurrent evolution..
All of these folks and more have been around for thousands of years..
Maybe multiple tens of thousands of years.. or longer..
I see no need to go cave man hunting when you have perfect
examples right before your eyes.. Unless your trying to sell something..
Evolution “scientists” are trying to sell you something... “A YARN”..
We have cave men right among us I can take you and you a show you...
and Cave Women too.. cave babies, cave singers and dancers.. even
Tribal Shamans but they are mostly in the University’s..
Its really all about the Yarn you are willing to “ingest”...
Some spit others swallow... Which Yarn have you swallowed?.. or chewed on?...
This is merely a “scientific” inquiry... you understand..
Pipe......
Did you ever hear of parrots?
Or budgerigars?
Or mynas?
Cockatoos?
Now, about that magic part......
Why is it that scientists believe in magic and Christians don’t?
Who’s the ignorant one there?
Wandered in here from Darwin Central did ya? Pick up after yourself, fool, you’re dropping straw and herring all over the place.
An actually intelligent human would have realized that I referred to aspects of some non-brain phenomena, like the reality of a thought registered in some where/when not measured in brain chemistry. But you’re not nearly as intelligent as you would pretend to be, merely a quipster of dubious identity. We’ve had fools like you around here before, like Le Grand, who was also a poseur like you. Do you have other names registered with Freerepublic to fall back upon, when your current identity is zotted?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.