Bill Nye (the Science Guy): Creationism is not appropriate for children

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

The more in-your-face example is, how do people think dogs got so wildly varied in size and appearance in less than 10,000 years. Sure, humans were directing that process. but still.

BUT STILL, GUYS.

This isn't a good example either as there has been no change in the domestic dog genome.


But there's always the fossil record just sitting there for anyone to take a look at if they weren't so ignorant

[deep]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

The more in-your-face example is, how do people think dogs got so wildly varied in size and appearance in less than 10,000 years. Sure, humans were directing that process. but still.

BUT STILL, GUYS.

My dog worships me, I am her lord and master. She shall have no others before me.

[cobl04]

My reason for not believing in creationism: I'm supposed to believe that every single human being on earth is a descendent of two white people from the middle east/north Africa? And that god clicked his fingers a few times and up popped everything?

[Jive Turkey]

My reason for not believing in intelligent design creationism: I like at least a shred of evidence. cdesign proponentsists (look it up) are weaselly little tricksters

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by deep

Lewis really was a simpleton, the sun does not rise

clever boy

[deep]

evolution or the hand of god

[Jive Turkey]

The single biggest bit of proof of evolution, and more importantly, our evolution from a common ancestor to Chimpanzees is the discovery of the fusion point in our chromosome 2

[cobl04]

I wish he had done a remake of Tommy Wiseau's The Room before he did.

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

This isn't a good example either as there has been no change in the domestic dog genome.


But there's always the fossil record just sitting there for anyone to take a look at if they weren't so ignorant

Well, not to nitpick, although I will anyway, but it's as good an example as any. Small changes precede the big changes. It has to start somewhere. If you're saying that the (admittedly nudged-along) physical changes in the various kinds of domestic dog to date are not any example of evolution at all, I beg to seriously differ.

By that criteria nothing but the sudden emergence of an entirely new species is evolution.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

That's metamorphosis, not evolution. It's a completely different mechanism

Eh, true, but that's still a type of change, and evolution can also mean change as well.

But I do concede your general point-my post would just further prove why evolution should be more of a focus in schools, then, apparently, so we can differentiate this stuff properly.

My reason for believing in evolution is that it just makes much more sense to me. Science can provide the answers much more easily, and I too am among those who prefer to have actual evidence. I have no problem accepting that there are mysteries of this world, of the universe at large, that we'll likely never properly answer (in our lifetimes, at least), and I like that. I like that the world has some mystery to it. And if you want to connect those mysteries to some god of some kind, fine, whatever. It's as plausible/implausible an answer as anything else.

But when science comes up with answers to our questions, to refuse to acknowledge it and to continue to insist that creationism is the answer to everything, to ignore any facts that stare you right in the face...that I will never get.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

Well, not to nitpick, although I will anyway, but it's as good an example as any. Small changes precede the big changes. It has to start somewhere. If you're saying that the (admittedly nudged-along) physical changes in the various kinds of domestic dog to date are not any example of evolution at all, I beg to seriously differ.

By that criteria nothing but the sudden emergence of an entirely new species is evolution.

But then you get the whole "it's micro evolution, not macro evolution. I believe in micro evolution" bullshit (If you agree changes can be made at the micro level, and it's demonstrable that mutations do occur, then all the functions are in place for macro evolution. Those terms are useless though). And I agree with you, it shows a sort of artificial selection, but it's still the same species and all the genetic information to make up every kind of dog was always there from the beginning. A similar kind of selection was seen famously in moths during the beginning of the industrial revolution

[BEAL]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

It's true. Thoughts we can debate and argue.

Beliefs? Those are sacred. We get to have those unchallenged.

What I find slightly humorous is that nowadays if a skeptic questions a believer, the believer or organization cries afoul or how they're being mistreated and demand to be left alone. Yet all the skeptic is doing at worst is an argument. Trying to find reason.

Yet just a few centuries ago when a skeptic were to question a believer, instead of an argument, the skeptic was burned at the stake or worse.

So I really don't feel any sympathy towards a believer being questioned.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by yolland

While I feel strong disdain towards creationism, I'm not keen on the tactic of linking it to the US' track record in generating future sci-tech workers. The attrition rates within science-related majors at American colleges and universities are indeed troubling--twice that of all other majors combined--but we already have a pretty good idea from studies what the primary reasons for that are: Science education that emphasizes open-ended problems and interactive approaches at the elementary and secondary levels, but then at the tertiary level morphs into a grim slog of highly abstract, lecture-based courses (which by contrast their foreign classmates are often much more accustomed to).

Maybe I understood Nye's criticism differently but I think that what he was getting at is inundating young children with creationism, which is something separate from the reasons why science majors are more rare. It's very much true about attrition rates - I did a hard science BSc before I went to law school so I saw first hand how much smaller my class got from freshman to senior year. But what Nye seems to be getting at is that you don't want to create a whole cohort of students, who are either home schooled under the Christian home schooling programs (of which there are many) or who go attend schools where creationism is either taught in place of evolution or alongside it as a theory which is just as valid. Because those students, by the time they even get to high school or college are going to either be totally hostile to hard sciences and see them as some sort of liberal elitist lies or their minds will be closed. So in addition to the attrition rates you're seeing now, you'll also have a number of young people who could have had potential to excel in science but that will simply not be in the books for them. For these, attrition rates are irrelevant because they'd never even try a scientific field in the first place. Sad.

[Liesje]

If it makes anyone feel any better, I was schooled K-12 (well K-BA really) at private Christian schools that are somewhat conservative and traditional and was always taught creationism yet I, all of my friends, and the majority of my peers/acquaintances are not Bible thumping creationists nor are we hostile to actual science. I can't really explain it other than when you get to a certain age it's just obvious that it's a load of bull and you kind of tune out. Most of the teachers feel the same way. One of my high school biology teachers now works for the college where I work and was definitely teaching us evolution and other creation theories along with the stuff he was obligated to mention regarding Genesis. I work for what I consider a fairly conservative, traditional private college (they think they are "liberal" compared to other private colleges but the way Synods have gone recently I beg to differ) and one of our most respected faculty members did his doctorate (anthropology) on the evolution of ape hips and how humans came to be walking upright, as far as pelvic structures are concerned. For most people in my denomination, the creation/evolution debate is a lot like birth control to Catholics. People in certain positions seem to have this obligation to say and preach one thing while the vast majority of the people don't give a shit what those people think and use their common sense.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

believing in evolution

I really wish this wasn't a phrase. Evolution is a factual process supported by mountains of evidence.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Liesje

other creation theories .

none of which deserve the distinction of being called theories

/semanticspoliced

[The Sad Punk]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I really wish this wasn't a phrase. Evolution is a factual process supported by mountains of evidence.

Don't be smug, it's an unproven THEORY! Show me ACTUAL evidence for it in the good bible god book of jesus!!!

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by Liesje

If it makes anyone feel any better, I was schooled K-12 (well K-BA really) at private Christian schools that are somewhat conservative and traditional and was always taught creationism yet I, all of my friends, and the majority of my peers/acquaintances are not Bible thumping creationists nor are we hostile to actual science. I can't really explain it other than when you get to a certain age it's just obvious that it's a load of bull and you kind of tune out. Most of the teachers feel the same way. One of my high school biology teachers now works for the college where I work and was definitely teaching us evolution and other creation theories along with the stuff he was obligated to mention regarding Genesis. I work for what I consider a fairly conservative, traditional private college (they think they are "liberal" compared to other private colleges but the way Synods have gone recently I beg to differ) and one of our most respected faculty members did his doctorate (anthropology) on the evolution of ape hips and how humans came to be walking upright, as far as pelvic structures are concerned. For most people in my denomination, the creation/evolution debate is a lot like birth control to Catholics. People in certain positions seem to have this obligation to say and preach one thing while the vast majority of the people don't give a shit what those people think and use their common sense.

I think you make excellent points. Of course they don't fit into any stereotype box. Plenty of Catholics also feel the same way about it. There isn't any sort of "group think", as disappointing as that might be to some people. People of any denomination can and do think for themselves.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by The Sad Punk

the good bible god book of jesus!!!

I enjoy this

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

My reason for believing in evolution is that it just makes much more sense to me. Science can provide the answers much more easily, and I too am among those who prefer to have actual evidence. I have no problem accepting that there are mysteries of this world, of the universe at large, that we'll likely never properly answer (in our lifetimes, at least), and I like that. I like that the world has some mystery to it. And if you want to connect those mysteries to some god of some kind, fine, whatever. It's as plausible/implausible an answer as anything else.

how I feel

There's a great video jive showed me, a Lawrence Krauss speech, called "a universe from nothing", that's incredibly fascinating.