What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

wazoo11

Footballguy
link

in a recent survey of 926 public high school biology teachers across the nation, only 28 percent of teachers taught evolution as a well-supported fundamental idea of science. Meanwhile, 13 percent openly supported "intelligent design" in the classroom, and 60 percent fell somewhere in-between. This majority presented evolution cautiously—by including non-scientific viewpoints, by limiting discussion to genetics, or by saying that students only needed to learn the material to pass exams.

What do you think about this?

A

Bill Nye, Executive Director of the Planetary Society: It's horrible. Science is the key to our future, and if you don't believe in science, then you're holding everybody back. And it's fine if you as an adult want to run around pretending or claiming that you don't believe in evolution, but if we educate a generation of people who don't believe in science, that's a recipe for disaster. We talk about the Internet. That comes from science. Weather forecasting. That comes from science. The main idea in all of biology is evolution. To not teach it to our young people is wrong.

Q

Why is there resistance to teaching evolution in schools?

A

It's reluctance to change. It's wanting the world to be different than it is. And if you don't want the world to be different you are an unusual human being. We all want the world to be different. But to deny evolution is in no one's best interest.

Q

Do you think there's anything that can be done about it?

A

Well the longest journey starts with just a single step. Science education: We should support it. Especially elementary school science. Nearly every rocket scientist got interested in it before they were 10. Everybody who's a physician, who makes vaccines, who wants to find the cure for cancer. Everybody who wants to do any medical good for humankind got the passion for that before he or she was 10. So we want to excite a new generation of kids—every generation—about the passion, beauty and joy—the PB&J—of science. These anti-evolution people are frustrating in two ways. The first way is, almost certainly they know better. Those people really do believe in flu shots. They really do understand that when you find fossil bones of ancient dinosaurs, you are looking at deep time, not just 5000 years. And secondly, and much more importantly, having raised a generation of kids who don't understand science is bad for everyone. And with the United States having a leadership role in science and technology, having a generation of kids not believing in science is bad for the world.

Q

Is there a funding issue? Is that why the teachers aren't teaching it correctly?

A

Oh the teachers get pulled every which way. People get on school boards just with this agenda of not teaching evolution. The school board comes running in and beats them over the head. But denying the facts does not make them not true. And in science we're always looking for the truth, it's what we do. Does this work? Does this solve the problem? Can you do the same experiment and get the same results?

Q

Should teachers be mandated to teach evolution as fact?

A

What other fundamental theory in all of biology is there? Intelligent design, as the judge in Dover, Penn., said, is "breathtaking inanity." It was so stupid it took his breath away. I agree with him. It's great to teach in history class, though. People believed the earth was the center of the universe. People believed the earth was flat. It was reasonable at the time, but we don't learn about those ideas in science class.

Q

So do you think those biology teachers are simply teaching their own beliefs, or are they under outside pressure?

A

They're doing their job but they're under tremendous pressure. The 60 percent who are cautious—those are the people who are really up against it. They want to keep their job, and they love teaching science, and their children are really excited about it, and yet they've got some people insisting they can't teach the most fundamental idea in all of biology. There's the phrase "just a theory." Which shows you that I have failed. I'm a failure. When we have a theory in science, it's the greatest thing you can have. Relativity is a theory, and people test it every which way. They test it and test it and test it. Gravity is a theory. People have landed spacecraft on the moon within a few feet of accuracy because we understand gravity so well. People make flu vaccinations that stop people from getting sick. Farmers raise crops with science; they hybridize them and make them better with every generation. That's all evolution. Evolution is a theory, and it's a theory that you can test. We've tested evolution in many ways. You can't present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact.
:thumbup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't matter what Bill Nye thinks. You are not going to convince people that operate within a faith based ideology of anything scientific

 
"One of the biggest problems with the world today is that we have large groups of people who will accept whatever they hear through the grapevine, just because it suits their world view. Not because it is actually true or because they have evidence to support it. The really striking thing is that it would not take much effort to establish validity in most of these cases... but people prefer reassurance to research."

- Neil deGrasse Tyson

 
It doesn't matter what Bill Nye thinks. You are not going to convince people that operate within a faith based ideology of anything scientific
Overstate much? :lmao: 'anything scientific'. Yea, creationists don't believe in gravity or the chemical reactions in baking a cake.
 
Republicans hate science. It dates back to when the snakes walked upright on hind legs in the Garden of Eden 6000 years ago.

Some Republicans think that was in Missouri, by the way.

 
"One of the biggest problems with the world today is that we have large groups of people who will accept whatever they hear through the grapevine, just because it suits their world view. Not because it is actually true or because they have evidence to support it. The really striking thing is that it would not take much effort to establish validity in most of these cases... but people prefer reassurance to research."

- Neil deGrasse Tyson
Neil deGrasse Tyson's "Stupid Design" seems apropos here.
 
"One of the biggest problems with the world today is that we have large groups of people who will accept whatever they hear through the grapevine, just because it suits their world view. Not because it is actually true or because they have evidence to support it. The really striking thing is that it would not take much effort to establish validity in most of these cases... but people prefer reassurance to research."- Neil deGrasse Tyson
OMG! I so totally believe that!
 
Love watching him with my son. The disney show he does with ellen is a lot of fun. One of the more underrated rides in the place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"The minute that the Republican Party becomes the ... anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people that would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012."

Jon Huntsman

GOP, you have a problem.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't matter what Bill Nye thinks. You are not going to convince people that operate within a faith based ideology of anything scientific
Overstate much? :lmao: 'anything scientific'. Yea, creationists don't believe in gravity or the chemical reactions in baking a cake.
I should have specified that they generally won't believe something that contradicts their ideology. If gravity was rejected in the bible then it would be then up for debate in schools...
 
Republicans have been completely ridiculous on this issue, no question. But calling the GOP the "anti-science" party is not quite accurate, given the complete and total paranoia of the Democrats when it comes to nuclear energy. During the Japanese tsunami a few months back, a number of Democratic politicians and commentators came on television and made statements so irresponsible as to give the Young Earth Creationists a serious run for their anti-science money.

 
Republicans have been completely ridiculous on this issue, no question. But calling the GOP the "anti-science" party is not quite accurate, given the complete and total paranoia of the Democrats when it comes to nuclear energy. During the Japanese tsunami a few months back, a number of Democratic politicians and commentators came on television and made statements so irresponsible as to give the Young Earth Creationists a serious run for their anti-science money.
I would be curious to know what those statements were. I don't think your comparison is good because there are very good scientific arguments as to why someone should be concerned with nuclear energy.Creationism on the other hand doesn't have the proverbial pot to piss in
 
Republicans have been completely ridiculous on this issue, no question. But calling the GOP the "anti-science" party is not quite accurate, given the complete and total paranoia of the Democrats when it comes to nuclear energy. During the Japanese tsunami a few months back, a number of Democratic politicians and commentators came on television and made statements so irresponsible as to give the Young Earth Creationists a serious run for their anti-science money.
Fail
 
Republicans have been completely ridiculous on this issue, no question. But calling the GOP the "anti-science" party is not quite accurate, given the complete and total paranoia of the Democrats when it comes to nuclear energy. During the Japanese tsunami a few months back, a number of Democratic politicians and commentators came on television and made statements so irresponsible as to give the Young Earth Creationists a serious run for their anti-science money.
Oh :bs: !Is there any end of the lies you must tell yourself in order to pull the lever for the "no parking spot" regulation party?
 
Republicans have been completely ridiculous on this issue, no question. But calling the GOP the "anti-science" party is not quite accurate, given the complete and total paranoia of the Democrats when it comes to nuclear energy. During the Japanese tsunami a few months back, a number of Democratic politicians and commentators came on television and made statements so irresponsible as to give the Young Earth Creationists a serious run for their anti-science money.
I would be curious to know what those statements were. I don't think your comparison is good because there are very good scientific arguments as to why someone should be concerned with nuclear energy.

Creationism on the other hand doesn't have the proverbial pot to piss in
Yes there are. But that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to non-scientists coming on TV and predicting that that the several dozen engineers who worked to contain the plant were all dead in a few weeks. Or the ones who predicted that a 10 mile radius around the power plant would be uninhabitable for the next century (I think that was Eliot Spitzer, among others.) There was a ton of fear-mongering.
 
Republicans have been completely ridiculous on this issue, no question. But calling the GOP the "anti-science" party is not quite accurate, given the complete and total paranoia of the Democrats when it comes to nuclear energy. During the Japanese tsunami a few months back, a number of Democratic politicians and commentators came on television and made statements so irresponsible as to give the Young Earth Creationists a serious run for their anti-science money.
Oh :bs: !Is there any end of the lies you must tell yourself in order to pull the lever for the "no parking spot" regulation party?
:lmao: I didn't write that as a justification, BFS.
 
Republicans have been completely ridiculous on this issue, no question. But calling the GOP the "anti-science" party is not quite accurate, given the complete and total paranoia of the Democrats when it comes to nuclear energy. During the Japanese tsunami a few months back, a number of Democratic politicians and commentators came on television and made statements so irresponsible as to give the Young Earth Creationists a serious run for their anti-science money.
Oh :bs: !Is there any end of the lies you must tell yourself in order to pull the lever for the "no parking spot" regulation party?
:lmao: I didn't write that as a justification, BFS.
You are saying that non scientists with a microphone put in front of them making silly statements without much scientific validity is the equivalent of exerting the beliefs of the grand conspiracy among scientists to create silly anti business, anti values theories such as evolution, big bang, global warming, cigarettes cause cancer. Both sides do it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Republicans have been completely ridiculous on this issue, no question. But calling the GOP the "anti-science" party is not quite accurate,
Okay, so maybe the "unscience party" is more accurate then.
I think there is an irrationality that exists among many Republicans when it comes to science issues. The rejection of global warming is more worrisome to me than the rejection of evolution, because its an issue that we need to address perhaps before all others, and we're not doing it. I believe that liberals can tend to be irrational about nuclear energy and about many environmental issues in general, and that was the point I was trying to make. But in truth it really doesn't compare.
 
Republicans have been completely ridiculous on this issue, no question. But calling the GOP the "anti-science" party is not quite accurate, given the complete and total paranoia of the Democrats when it comes to nuclear energy. During the Japanese tsunami a few months back, a number of Democratic politicians and commentators came on television and made statements so irresponsible as to give the Young Earth Creationists a serious run for their anti-science money.
Oh :bs: !Is there any end of the lies you must tell yourself in order to pull the lever for the "no parking spot" regulation party?
:lmao: I didn't write that as a justification, BFS.
You are saying that non scientists with a microphone put in front of them making silly statements without much scientific validity is the equivalent of exerting the beliefs of the grand conspiracy among scientists to create silly anti business, anti values theories such as evolution, big bang, global warming, cigarettes cause cancer. Both sides do it.
No, I'm not saying that. It's not the equivalent. Republicans are far far worse. I do think it's important to note that liberals can do it too, and so I made that point. But there's really no comparison.
 
Explain to me what place "belief" has in science? On the surface this completely misses the mark IMO, but I'm hoping it's just a mix up in terminology.

 
tim - you are making almost zero sense.

Liberals for sure shun nuclear energy. And they indeed do exaggerate the negative possibilities. But the reason behind it isn't a distrust/skepticism of science. It is a "wanting a greener energy", "scared of intense nuclear catastrophes" thing. Those may be overblown and naive, but it's not as if they are running around denying the existence of nuclear fission.

 
When it comes to respect for science, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is a matter of degree, not of kind. Each party has people who appreciate science and people who shun it. There are people on the left who are as anti-science as anyone on the right. The lefties who deride belief in DNA are an easy example, but not the only one.

 
tim - you are making almost zero sense.Liberals for sure shun nuclear energy. And they indeed do exaggerate the negative possibilities. But the reason behind it isn't a distrust/skepticism of science. It is a "wanting a greener energy", "scared of intense nuclear catastrophes" thing. Those may be overblown and naive, but it's not as if they are running around denying the existence of nuclear fission.
I agree. But irrationality is irrationality, whatever the motivation.
 
tim - you are making almost zero sense.Liberals for sure shun nuclear energy. And they indeed do exaggerate the negative possibilities. But the reason behind it isn't a distrust/skepticism of science. It is a "wanting a greener energy", "scared of intense nuclear catastrophes" thing. Those may be overblown and naive, but it's not as if they are running around denying the existence of nuclear fission.
I agree. But irrationality is irrationality, whatever the motivation.
Well sue. But it doesn't make one anti-science though
 
Republicans have been completely ridiculous on this issue, no question. But calling the GOP the "anti-science" party is not quite accurate,
Okay, so maybe the "unscience party" is more accurate then.
I think there is an irrationality that exists among many Republicans when it comes to science issues. The rejection of global warming is more worrisome to me than the rejection of evolution, because its an issue that we need to address perhaps before all others, and we're not doing it. I believe that liberals can tend to be irrational about nuclear energy and about many environmental issues in general, and that was the point I was trying to make. But in truth it really doesn't compare.
WTH is this "global warming" you're talking about? I thought we were due for another ice age and now you tell me it's WARMING instead? WTH?
 
When it comes to respect for science, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is a matter of degree, not of kind. Each party has people who appreciate science and people who shun it. There are people on the left who are as anti-science as anyone on the right. The lefties who deride belief in DNA are an easy example, but not the only one.
C'mon now, MT. There is a widespread anti-evolution contingent among conservatives - 46%(!!!!) of Americans believe in creationism. I've never even heard of the DNA skepticism you linked to.
 
To say nothing about how liberals go completely off the rails if any scientific finding contradicts political correctness. They make creationists seem quite rational.

And by the way, I think evolution should be taught in the schools.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When it comes to respect for science, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is a matter of degree, not of kind. Each party has people who appreciate science and people who shun it. There are people on the left who are as anti-science as anyone on the right. The lefties who deride belief in DNA are an easy example, but not the only one.
C'mon now, MT. There is a widespread anti-evolution contingent among conservatives - 46%(!!!!) of Americans believe in creationism. I've never even heard of the DNA skepticism you linked to.
Exactly. I think over 50% of Republicans, including prominent officeholders, think climate change is a hoax. Maurile's example isn't in the same universe.
 
When it comes to respect for science, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is a matter of degree, not of kind. Each party has people who appreciate science and people who shun it. There are people on the left who are as anti-science as anyone on the right. The lefties who deride belief in DNA are an easy example, but not the only one.
C'mon now, MT. There is a widespread anti-evolution contingent among conservatives - 46%(!!!!) of Americans believe in creationism. I've never even heard of the DNA skepticism you linked to.
Exactly. I think over 50% of Republicans, including prominent officeholders, think climate change is a hoax. Maurile's example isn't in the same universe.
He said it was a "matter of degree".
 
tim - you are making almost zero sense.

Liberals for sure shun nuclear energy. And they indeed do exaggerate the negative possibilities. But the reason behind it isn't a distrust/skepticism of science. It is a "wanting a greener energy", "scared of intense nuclear catastrophes" thing. Those may be overblown and naive, but it's not as if they are running around denying the existence of nuclear fission.
:goodposting: It's almost like Tim was reading from a poorly-deduced Creationist talking point. "Nuclear skeptics are a lot like Evolution-skeptics! We both speak from a position of emotion! They get to make their case, why can't we?"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those who don't know, Carl Sagan was one of Bill Nye's professors while in college. I think that's pretty cool.

 
I can't come close to buying any of these "Democrats are anti-science, too" arguments. Sorry guys, not everything is balanced between the parties. Conservatives are clearly more anti-science then liberals. No Democrats are trying to keep evolution out of the classroom.

 
When it comes to respect for science, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is a matter of degree, not of kind. Each party has people who appreciate science and people who shun it. There are people on the left who are as anti-science as anyone on the right. The lefties who deride belief in DNA are an easy example, but not the only one.
C'mon now, MT. There is a widespread anti-evolution contingent among conservatives - 46%(!!!!) of Americans believe in creationism. I've never even heard of the DNA skepticism you linked to.
Exactly. I think over 50% of Republicans, including prominent officeholders, think climate change is a hoax. Maurile's example isn't in the same universe.
It's not like Democrats, including prominent officeholders, are known for getting everything right about climate change. What percentage of Democrats substantially overestimate the number of inches that sea levels are expected to rise in the next century, or the number of degrees centigrade the average global temperature is expected to increase, or the severity of the likely effects on worldwide agriculture?Democrats don't accept global warming because they are neutral arbiters of objective science. They accept global warming because they hate oil companies but love trees. (That's an oversimplification, but so is the idea that Republicans reject global warming for mirror-image reasons.)

How many people on the left believe that homosexuals make up 10% of the population, or that human races don't exist, or that chakras are anything real?

I'm not saying that the left is as bad as the right. The right is worse, probably because of its greater religious influence. I'm just saying that the left isn't exactly in a position to be casting stones.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top