Posted on 02/06/2014 1:58:22 PM PST by celmak
On many mornings, I wake up and think, “You know what this country needs? More culture war.” As I scramble up a couple eggs, I find myself wishing—fervently wishing—that we could spend more time reducing substantive issues to mere spectacle. Later, as I scrub the pan, I’ll fantasize about how those very spectacles might even funnel money toward some of the country’s most politicized religious groups.
Fortunately, Bill “the Science Guy” Nye has heard my wish—which, really, is the wish of a nation. Why else would he have traveled to Kentucky this week in order to debate Ken Ham, the young-earth creationist founder of Answers in Genesis, about the origins of the world?
Actually, there are two other reasons that Nye might have done so, and I’ve given both possibilities a great deal of thought in the past few days. The first is that Nye, for all his bow-tied charm, is at heart a publicity-hungry cynic, eager to reestablish the national reputation he once had as the host of a PBS show. When his stint on Dancing With the Stars ended quickly, Nye turned to the only other channel that could launch him back to national attention: a sensationalized debate, replete with the media buzz that he craves.
Possibility number two is that Nye is clueless—that, for all his skill as a science communicator, Nye has less political acumen than your average wombat.
After watching the debate, I’m leaning toward that second possibility. Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
If religion is now synonymous with worldview, then I would say that atheism, non-belief, and agnosticism are a part of one's worldview. I don't see how you can call them religions in the same way as a Christian or a Muslim. It's essentially non-participation. It is not non-belief in everything.
Did I not say you had kicked the foundation out from your beloved theory, evolution? I’m sorry you have nothing to stand upon but mountains and mountains of peer-reviewed ‘expert’ journals, articles, research and analysis, but I had nothing to do with this paradigm shift...
Don't believe lies told to you by creationist snake oil salesmen. They are selling marketing and merchandise, not engaging in science.
I’m sorry you have nothing to stand upon but mountains and mountains of peer-reviewed ‘expert’ journals, articles, research and analysis.
Yes, evolution has all of that, and creationism has some slick marketing and a dinosaur theme park ride. You get to pay $12 to ride an animatronic dinosaur and call it "science". Giddy up!
My Christian faith is non-participation in Buddhism, for example.
It’s also non-participation in the belief that a material existence and accompanying lifestyle is the best choice.
Now apply that to all religions and combine it with a non-belief in the supernatural. That in and of itself is not a religion in the dictionary sense. Much like not playing sports is not a sport itself.
Let’s go bigger than mere dictionary definition.
I am convinced that the area of the mind/brain which deals with spiritual belief—whether it’s the pineal gland or some other “God spot” either within or without spatiotemporal reality—is always activated in any given human being.
I believe yours is activated by your deepest beliefs about you, your life, your loved ones, the universe and reality itself.
It’s your preference for infused cigars that causes the most concern.
Even secular totalitarian regimes are built on religious themes, from Stalin to Kim Il Sung.
Drew Estate’s stuff is sacrilege to many, but I enjoy them. But I also like the traditional ones.
You know liberals try to re-write history all the time too. Problem is we have the books and other documents that show the real truth.
(sarcaasm on)
You are probably the exception GR, why you probably just knew someday biogenesis would be accepted as law instead of theory and you never accepted abiogenesis as the foundation for evolution to begin with. You probably knew the outcome of the Miller-Ulery experiments before they even happened, right?
(/sarcasm off)
A literal reading of your post makes it even more outlandish
“If the key to abiogenesis is God”
Uh that would mean life from non-life ergo God is dead?!?! say wha...
And then this one rubbing salt in my wounds cuz I have not even received one thin dime yet! I need to talk to a lawyer.
“lies told to you by creationist snake oil salesmen. They are selling marketing and merchandise, not engaging in science”
Your comment explains a lot. I'm beginning to understand a deeper reason as to why some Christians have a problem with evolution.
They have been told (falsely) that evolution involves abiogenenis, and they believe abiogenesis is atheistic because it is "life from non-life", which in their mind, since they have a religious view that God=biological life, it is a refutation of God.
While again, you are wrong about the facts, I can see why you have a non-scientific aversion to evolution.
Well your statements are beginning to convince me some people can become so far removed from reality as to exist in their minds in a multi-verse.
Please use your multi-verse dictionary to define abiogenesis, and evolution [evo both origianally as Darwin saw it and preset-day].
evolution: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
abiogenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
At no point was there any goalpost moving to subtract abiogenesis from evolution, as it never was part of evolutionary theory.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is to provide one scintilla of evidence that evolution has EVER included theories or mechanics on how life began from non-life.
and evolution [evo both origianally as Darwin saw it and preset-day].
Darwin never included abiogenesis in his original theory, period.
True. Except for the capitalism part, although I admit it can certainly take on aspects favorable to the enemy.
In other words, there’s no beginning to evolutionary theory....it just...well appeared out of...well what exactly? Sounds like a circular argument to me.
We know. How convenient. Evolutionary theory has to divorce itself from abiogenesis to fool people.
No need to divorce when there never was a relationship.
The only fooling here is on the part of people trying to make a connection that doesn't exist.
Sorry but evolution has a beginning, a start point.
What is life anyway? What distinguishes it from non-living matter and where do you classify things that can fit in either category?
So, what was the first life?
When did it begin?
Where’s the cut off line where abiogenesis ends and evolution begins?
Prions?
Viruses?
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.