Follow-Up to Creationism/Evolution Bill Nye debate

posted 3 years ago in The Lounge
Post # 3
Member
6880 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: March 2014 - A castle!

@mrsSonthebeach:  Yep. Just gotta say I’m right here with ya… the US can’t even make top 20 for math, reading and science anymore.

Post # 4
Member
435 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: January 2010

@mrsSonthebeach:  As someone that believes in Creationism, I don’t at all think science is sinful and I don’t know anyone who does. I think there is a huge miscommunication with the meaning of science/evolution and it confuses people into thinking that we are against something that is obviously very important: science/technology.

Post # 5
Member
7206 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: November 1999

@mrsSonthebeach: Creationism, at least how I’ve seen it (as an Australian Christian), doesn’t mean science is sinful. It does mean having a bias for certain scientific questions, but in many fields of science those questions don’t arise so that bias doesn’t matter. e.g. I’ve read that many creationists are engineers. Which kind of makes sense – I don’t see how being a creationist would stop you being a successful engineer.

Also, in my observation, being uncritical about the Bible doesn’t seem to stop people thinking critically in other areas. So I’d agree more with this article (also on Slate which was linked from the one you posted): http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/02/creationism_debate_believing_the_bible_over_evolution_is_delusional_but.html

Post # 6
Member
5228 posts
Bee Keeper

@mrsSonthebeach:  This article represents the view of all small portion of Christians. There are many Christians who are educated and work in the science fields and have no issue with evolution, or it being taught in public schools.

Post # 7
Member
9137 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: November 2013 - St. Augustine Beach, FL

Schools are there to teach math, science, reading, writing, etc…  Church is for teaching religion.  There is nothing wrong with teaching pure science in school and then directing kids to discuss religious issues with their parents and religious leaders.  The pure sciences can be taught without specifically teaching that God does not exist.  Just as churches hae no business teaching science, schools have no business teaching religion.

My first day in an ancient archaeology class in college a student asked how creationism was going to be addressed in class.  The professor didn’t hesitate to answer that her class was predicated on evolution and that if he had an issue with that he could take it up with the religious studies department in a different class.

Post # 8
Member
5228 posts
Bee Keeper

@abc123joanna:  I don’t know about you, but I’ve also never heard a sermon local or otherwise that told people that belief in evolution will bring the wrath of God down on them and make them sick. I have no idea where HBO found this particular sect, but I feel like they must have turned every rock over to find them.

Post # 9
Member
8910 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2013 - Rocky Mountains USA

@abc123joanna:  I think the point is that if you don’t “believe” in evolution, then you do not understand how the scientific method works – because science says that evolution is as proven as the theory of gravity. And if you don’t understand the scientific method and/or think that scientists have an “agenda”, then those misunderstandings and inability to understand how science works cross over to all other fields of science. 

As a scientist myself, I find the anti-science standpoint prevalent in people who don’t “believe” in evolution and climate change (aka conservative right wingers) VERY disturbing!

Post # 13
Member
5228 posts
Bee Keeper

@mrsSonthebeach:  That must be regional. I grew up in the midatlantic area and now live in the midwest, and I have never heard of this controversy. There was something in another thread a Bee told me about going on in public schools regarding abstinence education that is unheard of where I’m from too. I think that was the SW. 

Post # 15
Member
435 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: January 2010

@lolot:  There is confusion between micro and macro evolution.

Micro evolution is the scientifically provable things we see in natural (ie adaption in animals over a period of time or domestication of those animals). An example of this would be to get a freshwater tank of freshwater fish and slowly, over time, add salt to the water. Over time, those freshwater fish will become salt water fish… If you were to then take those fish and put them back into a freshwater tank, they would die.

Macro evolution is the unobservable, completely faith-based belief that those fish may (or may have in the past) grow legs and become land roaming animals (which, by the way, adds a slew of complications to that theory). There are many diverse traits you will find in a “kind” of animal’s gene pool, however, there are limits… A pig may grow a fifth leg because of mutation, but it will never grow wings and fly.

One is “as proven as the theory of gravity” and one is simply a theory.  They shouldn’t be treated equally.

Post # 16
Member
8910 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2013 - Rocky Mountains USA

@abc123joanna:  the fact that you and many others think macro-evolution is completely faith-based just supports my point that creationists do not understand the scientific process, and it supports the article posted :/ I would encourage you to read widely before deciding that basic scientific truths are “simply a theory”. Evolution by natural selection, very much including macro-evolution, is the fundamental basis of all of biology.

It’s like “not believing” in Newton’s laws of physics. Are there things we still don’t understand about Newtonian versus Einsteinian physics? Yes, but that’s a ridiculous reason to dismiss the basic truths we DO understand. 

PS – given the right combination of environmental conditions, random genetic mutations, and a very long period of time, the pig species could certainly evolve into or branch off into a winged flying species. How do you think wings came about? Exactly that. Just because we can’t see something happening in our daily lives doesnt mean there is not compelling evidence for it. Otherwise we’d all still think the sun revolves around the earth, cause well golly, it sure looks that way.

Leave a comment


Sent weekly. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Find Amazing Vendors