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

[jonessed]

I don't understand why scientists over-exaggerate to try and prove a point. When you have a credible argument why mix in statements that make you sound less credible? Is it just attention whoring?

 

[pantagrapher]

I don't understand why scientists over-exaggerate to try and prove a point. When you have a credible argument why mix in statements that make you sound less credible? Is it just attention whoring?

Many scientists are also humans.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.)

I disagree with this pretty strongly. I think liberals are just more apt to trust egghead professors explaining complex stuff they don't understand. I think it's less about "trees v. oil" and more about who is viewed as a credible authority.

Conservatives and liberals are both pretty quick to embrace egghead professors when the egghead professors say stuff they agree with.The question is whether they'll embrace what the egghead professors have to say when it goes against their political preferences. Many conservatives are obviously lousy at this. Evolution, climate change, Laffer curve, etc. But people on the left have their own issues. It is often people on the left who are going against the egghead professors on stuff like rent control and free trade, for example. Moreover, it seems to me that many liberals do not take seriously the full implications of evolutionary theory, such as possible biological differences between males and females. (I remember a liberal friend arguing to me that boys can throw better than girls only because they're raised differently. That's an extreme example, but less extreme examples are more common: consider the way that many on the left reacted when Larry Summers suggested that women may be underrepresented in the sciences because of "different availability of aptitude at the high end" rather than because of discrimination. The ensuing outrage wasn't based on dispassionate scientific analysis.)What are some examples of liberals embracing the positions of egghead professors that go against their political preferences?

 

[Sam Quentin]

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

"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

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't understand why scientists over-exaggerate to try and prove a point. When you have a credible argument why mix in statements that make you sound less credible? Is it just attention whoring?

I think that, as a group, scientists are far, far better at not exaggerating their points than non-scientists are. But you're right that they should strive to do even better.

 

[jomar]

The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

I'd bet at least a couple of them believed without fear of being put to death or imprisonment!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

 

[pantagrapher]

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.)

I disagree with this pretty strongly. I think liberals are just more apt to trust egghead professors explaining complex stuff they don't understand. I think it's less about "trees v. oil" and more about who is viewed as a credible authority.

Conservatives and liberals are both pretty quick to embrace egghead professors when the egghead professors say stuff they agree with.The question is whether they'll embrace what the egghead professors have to say when it goes against their political preferences. Many conservatives are obviously lousy at this. Evolution, climate change, Laffer curve, etc. But people on the left have their own issues. It is often people on the left who are going against the egghead professors on stuff like rent control and free trade, for example. Moreover, it seems to me that many liberals do not take seriously the full implications of evolutionary theory, such as possible biological differences between males and females. (I remember a liberal friend arguing to me that boys can throw better than girls only because they're raised differently. That's an extreme example, but less extreme examples are more common: consider the way that many on the left reacted when Larry Summers suggested that women may be underrepresented in the sciences because of "different availability of aptitude at the high end" rather than because of discrimination. The ensuing outrage wasn't based on dispassionate scientific analysis.)What are some examples of liberals embracing the positions of egghead professors that go against their political preferences?

Is there a widespread scientific consensus that that woman have inferior biological capacity for scientific aptitude? Or that such a variable has a greater impact on women in the sciences than discrimination? I honestly don't know.I suspect most liberals aren't even really aware of a debate about the efficacy of rent control and free trade. I think the problem isn't coming up with an example of liberals embracing an "egghead professor" position on something that goes against their political preferences; it's more that such consensus positions aren't part of the national debate the way things like evolution and climate change are.

 

[Drifter]

My son starts preschool this year in the opening year of a charter school that will (supposedly) have a heavier focus on math and science than traditional public schools. We need more of those.

 

[wikkidpissah]

I don't believe in science. I just believe in me. Yoko & me.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not sure how one is automatically disqualified in every scientific field because they happen to take the Bible at face value.

It's actually a very good question, one which you have raised before. While I agree with Nye that evolution should be taught (mainly because it is the truth) I might be forced to agree with you. Can someone accept the Bible at face value and be a great physicist? A engineer? Theoretically, I don't know why not. That being said, it seems counter-intuitive to me that anyone who has chosen a life that revolves around science would choose to blindly ignore scientific evidence which contradicts religious belief. That's why I'm betting most religious scientists do NOT take the Bible literally. But I do want to make the point here that taking the Bible as literally true does not mean a person is necessarily stupid, or even anti-intellectual. Look at the great Jewish yeshivas, and Jesuit seminaries, for example. These institutions have produced minds of great brilliance who over the centuries have expressed themselves to the benefit of humanity in politics philosophy,, art, literature, religious studies, and other great human endeavors. Just not so much in science.

 

[SacramentoBob]

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.)

I disagree with this pretty strongly. I think liberals are just more apt to trust egghead professors explaining complex stuff they don't understand. I think it's less about "trees v. oil" and more about who is viewed as a credible authority.

Conservatives and liberals are both pretty quick to embrace egghead professors when the egghead professors say stuff they agree with.The question is whether they'll embrace what the egghead professors have to say when it goes against their political preferences. Many conservatives are obviously lousy at this. Evolution, climate change, Laffer curve, etc. But people on the left have their own issues. It is often people on the left who are going against the egghead professors on stuff like rent control and free trade, for example. Moreover, it seems to me that many liberals do not take seriously the full implications of evolutionary theory, such as possible biological differences between males and females. (I remember a liberal friend arguing to me that boys can throw better than girls only because they're raised differently. That's an extreme example, but less extreme examples are more common: consider the way that many on the left reacted when Larry Summers suggested that women may be underrepresented in the sciences because of "different availability of aptitude at the high end" rather than because of discrimination. The ensuing outrage wasn't based on dispassionate scientific analysis.)What are some examples of liberals embracing the positions of egghead professors that go against their political preferences?

Is there a widespread scientific consensus that that woman have inferior biological capacity for scientific aptitude? Or that such a variable has a greater impact on women in the sciences than discrimination? I honestly don't know.I suspect most liberals aren't even really aware of a debate about the efficacy of rent control and free trade. I think the problem isn't coming up with an example of liberals embracing an "egghead professor" position on something that goes against their political preferences; it's more that such consensus positions aren't part of the national debate the way things like evolution and climate change are.

So liberals keep things that don't fit their world view out of the national debate. That's a pretty honest observation.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I honestly don't care if a civil engineer believes the earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

[pantagrapher]

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.)

I disagree with this pretty strongly. I think liberals are just more apt to trust egghead professors explaining complex stuff they don't understand. I think it's less about "trees v. oil" and more about who is viewed as a credible authority.

Conservatives and liberals are both pretty quick to embrace egghead professors when the egghead professors say stuff they agree with.The question is whether they'll embrace what the egghead professors have to say when it goes against their political preferences. Many conservatives are obviously lousy at this. Evolution, climate change, Laffer curve, etc. But people on the left have their own issues. It is often people on the left who are going against the egghead professors on stuff like rent control and free trade, for example. Moreover, it seems to me that many liberals do not take seriously the full implications of evolutionary theory, such as possible biological differences between males and females. (I remember a liberal friend arguing to me that boys can throw better than girls only because they're raised differently. That's an extreme example, but less extreme examples are more common: consider the way that many on the left reacted when Larry Summers suggested that women may be underrepresented in the sciences because of "different availability of aptitude at the high end" rather than because of discrimination. The ensuing outrage wasn't based on dispassionate scientific analysis.)What are some examples of liberals embracing the positions of egghead professors that go against their political preferences?

Is there a widespread scientific consensus that that woman have inferior biological capacity for scientific aptitude? Or that such a variable has a greater impact on women in the sciences than discrimination? I honestly don't know.I suspect most liberals aren't even really aware of a debate about the efficacy of rent control and free trade. I think the problem isn't coming up with an example of liberals embracing an "egghead professor" position on something that goes against their political preferences; it's more that such consensus positions aren't part of the national debate the way things like evolution and climate change are.

So liberals keep things that don't fit their world view out of the national debate. That's a pretty honest observation.

Yeah, we've been working pretty hard to suppress that rent control debate!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's a sign of how craven MT's view of global warming is that he has to accuse liberals of believing in it not for the obvious reason (science!), but for the caricature of liberal thought reason (they hate big business!).

What percentage of the population understands the science of global warming?I think most people accept global warming on the say-so of people they trust. That raises the question of who trusts whom and why, and I think that question is sufficiently complex to be interesting. I don't think the answer is simply that liberals trust people based on scientific or academic credentials while conservatives trust people based on ideology (although there may be a hint of truth in that).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Is there a widespread scientific consensus that that woman have inferior biological capacity for scientific aptitude?

Not that I know of, and that wasn't what Summers said. His view as I understand it was that variance in certain aptitudes seems to be higher in males than in females (which would make Darwinian sense). You have more males at the very low end and at the very high end of math score SATs, for example, while females are more closely bunched around the mean. Or something like that. The point isn't that Summers's conjecture was scientifically correct; the point is that the people who reacted so negatively to it had no clue whether it was scientifically plausible and didn't seem to care.

 

[CrossEyed]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

A favorite ploy of evolutionists is to portray all Creation Scientists as pseudo-scientists. In fact, some of the leading scientists in their fields are creation scientists. This page contains a small sampling of scientists who are recognized by their secular peers and others as being among the very best in their fields, or who have outstanding academic achievements. As time permits, more names will be added. Remember these scientists the next time an evolutionist tries to claim that no serious scientists are young earth creationists!

Dr Raymond V. Damadian - Inventor of the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)

Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title 'super-scientist' but the many people whose lives have been saved by the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanning technology he developed might think otherwise. Hailed as one of the greatest diagnostic breakthroughs ever, this technique, using advanced principles of physics and computing, lets doctors visualize many organs and their diseased parts without the risks of exploratory surgery or the radiation associated with traditional scanning methods. See http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n3_MRI.asp.

Dr. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysicist)

U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory. Also see Scientists Who Believe: An Interview with Dr. John Baumgardner, and Probing the Earth's Deep Places.

Dr Ian Macreadie (Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist)

Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. See Interview with Dr Ian Macreadie.

Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)

This, combined with Dr Jones' other achievements in improving the productivity of the tropical grazing industries, caused CSIRO chief Dr Elizabeth Heij to describe him as ‘one of the top few CSIRO scientists in Australia’. Among the awards he has received are the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award, the latter in recognition of the practical significance of his work for the grazing industry. See Interview with Dr. Raymond Jones.

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a 3-star NATO General)

The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)

Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.

 

 

[pantagrapher]

Is there a widespread scientific consensus that that woman have inferior biological capacity for scientific aptitude?

Not that I know of, and that wasn't what Summers said. His view as I understand it was that variance in certain aptitudes seem to be higher in males than in females (which would make Darwinian sense). You have more males at the very low end and at the very high end of math score SATs, for example, while females are more closely bunched around the mean. Or something like that. The point isn't that Summers's conjecture was scientifically correct; the point is that the people who reacted so negatively to it had no clue whether it was scientifically plausible and didn't seem to care.

Well then this doesn't really qualify as liberals disagreeing with egghead professors when they go against their political preferences. More accurately, it's people disagreeing with something they think is offensive or that they don't think is true. That is, it's not as if they refuse to be persuaded by the science; the science isn't entering into it.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Maurile, a sensible and mature poster, is bending over backwards like Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove in a naked game of Twister to be "fair" to the kooks.

Embrace the kook! Love the kook!

 

[timschochet]

Maurile, a sensible and mature poster, is bending over backwards like Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove in a naked game of Twister to be "fair" to the kooks. Embrace the kook! Love the kook!

Damn enablers. Voting for any anti-gay bigots this time around, Todd?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

 

[Joe Summer]

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

"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

You don't think there's been any research on the effects of radiation poisoning?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Maurile, a sensible and mature poster, is bending over backwards like Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove in a naked game of Twister to be "fair" to the kooks. Embrace the kook! Love the kook!

Damn enablers. Voting for any anti-gay bigots this time around, Todd?

Oh no, I am of the hate the idiocy, love the idiot school. You of course are of the love the idiocy, love the idiot school.

 

[mad sweeney]

Maurile, I'm starting to think you work for a big media outlet with all this false equivalency stuff. Are there doofuses and ignorant people everywhere? Sure.

But one party has practically made ignorance a requirement to win elected office (no evolution, no climate change, magical ######s, gay is a lifestyle, etc) and has written that ignorance into official declarations of the party's positions. It's not the same thing.

The problem with the science side of the debate is that while much is proven by science on those issues, most of it is grossly overstated to belittle the other side. 1. No evolution. I am not sure that is too many people's position. Most acknowledge evolution is true, but many believe that intelligent design played a role also.

2. No Climate change. Most conservatives believe the climate has warmed and the science proves that pretty conclusively. What hasn't been proven is how much of a role man has played. Is it 5 percent or 95 percent?

3. Gay is a lifestyle. If you really understand the only proof out there (twin studies), you would realize that genetics only seems to have an influence, there is room for many outside factors to play a significant role. Again, we have very little science to base what percentage of a role genetics plays. It is definitely not 100 percent or even that close to it.

The problem with your position and Bill Nye's is that it is over the top rhetoric which relies on distorting the other side's position. The are lots of great scientists and engineers and doctors out there who are not in line with the left wing absolutest positions on these issues which in fact is more political than scientific.

How can that be a problem to you?! That's the basis of your entire online existence.

 

[zoonation]

Maurile, a sensible and mature poster, is bending over backwards like Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove in a naked game of Twister to be "fair" to the kooks. Embrace the kook! Love the kook!

Damn enablers. Voting for any anti-gay bigots this time around, Todd?

Oh no, I am of the hate the idiocy, love the idiot school. You of course are of the love the idiocy, love the idiot school.

you really are obnoxious. hurtfully so too, which makes it worse.the conservatives in here really bringing the quack today.

 

[shader]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

Agreed. Even though I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year earth/universe, there are brilliant people who do. The age of the earth has little value in many of the hard sciences. If one believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that doesn't mean he can't be a great physicist, chemist, or even biologist. Obviously he couldn't be an evolutionary biologist, but he could study cells and dna just as well as someone who believes in evolution.

 

[Thorn]

Maurile, I'm starting to think you work for a big media outlet with all this false equivalency stuff. Are there doofuses and ignorant people everywhere? Sure.

But one party has practically made ignorance a requirement to win elected office (no evolution, no climate change, magical ######s, gay is a lifestyle, etc) and has written that ignorance into official declarations of the party's positions. It's not the same thing.

The problem with the science side of the debate is that while much is proven by science on those issues, most of it is grossly overstated to belittle the other side. 1. No evolution. I am not sure that is too many people's position. Most acknowledge evolution is true, but many believe that intelligent design played a role also.

2. No Climate change. Most conservatives believe the climate has warmed and the science proves that pretty conclusively. What hasn't been proven is how much of a role man has played. Is it 5 percent or 95 percent?

3. Gay is a lifestyle. If you really understand the only proof out there (twin studies), you would realize that genetics only seems to have an influence, there is room for many outside factors to play a significant role. Again, we have very little science to base what percentage of a role genetics plays. It is definitely not 100 percent or even that close to it.

The problem with your position and Bill Nye's is that it is over the top rhetoric which relies on distorting the other side's position. The are lots of great scientists and engineers and doctors out there who are not in line with the left wing absolutest positions on these issues which in fact is more political than scientific.

How can that be a problem to you?! That's the basis of your entire online existence.

 

[munga30]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

Agreed. Even though I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year earth/universe, there are brilliant people who do. The age of the earth has little value in many of the hard sciences. If one believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that doesn't mean he can't be a great physicist, chemist, or even biologist. Obviously he couldn't be an evolutionary biologist, but he could study cells and dna just as well as someone who believes in evolution.

I have my doubts. The distribution of [physicist, chemist, biologist] that don't believe in the 6000 year universe is going to be shifted toward "great" relative to the distribution of those that do.

 

[shader]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

Agreed. Even though I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year earth/universe, there are brilliant people who do. The age of the earth has little value in many of the hard sciences. If one believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that doesn't mean he can't be a great physicist, chemist, or even biologist. Obviously he couldn't be an evolutionary biologist, but he could study cells and dna just as well as someone who believes in evolution.

I have my doubts. The distribution of [physicist, chemist, biologist] that don't believe in the 6000 year universe is going to be shifted toward "great" relative to the distribution of those that do.

I never implied different. I just said believing in a 6,000 year earth doesn't necessarily imply some sort of blinded, unintelligent worldview. It's just one different than the one I share.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Is there a widespread scientific consensus that that woman have inferior biological capacity for scientific aptitude?

Not that I know of, and that wasn't what Summers said. His view as I understand it was that variance in certain aptitudes seem to be higher in males than in females (which would make Darwinian sense). You have more males at the very low end and at the very high end of math score SATs, for example, while females are more closely bunched around the mean. Or something like that. The point isn't that Summers's conjecture was scientifically correct; the point is that the people who reacted so negatively to it had no clue whether it was scientifically plausible and didn't seem to care.

Well then this doesn't really qualify as liberals disagreeing with egghead professors when they go against their political preferences. More accurately, it's people disagreeing with something they think is offensive or that they don't think is true. That is, it's not as if they refuse to be persuaded by the science; the science isn't entering into it.

It is pretty much the same thing though. It is rejecting science based on what they believe should be true - not what actually is. Both sides do it. However, most of the science dealing with people is rejected on a philosophical basis (whether or not people realize it). Also, people aren't rational (which is why economic theories have a lot of issues). I disagree with a lot of economic theory because what is predicted doesn't fit what we have seen historically. When someone mentions free trade I doubt they are considering the conditions most people endured (and many are still enduring) prior to the early 1900s. Minimum wage is another topic that economists would say is bad. Presumably, companies have hired the people they need and are paying them what they are worth according to the market. An increase in minimum wage should cause an increase in unemployment - but we generally don't see that effect. Another debate is trickle down economics supposedly improving the economy. The evidence and theory states that it shouldn't. I believe the proper economic term is "marginal propensity to save" which basically states the more money you have the more money you likely won't spend. Generally, this appears to hold true (there are always counterexamples).In regards, to Evolution. It is a theory and a fact. It has made predictions that have come true. We have seen speciation events (a ton in plants). It has held up under 100+ years of scrutiny. Now, from my experience, scientists that don't believe in Evolution usually lean more towards the "harder" sciences. Mathematicians, computer scientists, and most engineers live in a world that can often be defined with a rigid set of rules. Chemists and even moreso biologists live in world where those rules aren't so rigid or interactions rapidly become so complex that they can't be easily defined. Physicists that I have met fall more in the middle. But if I was to rank the scientist groups with the most believers in Evolution (a similar relation to atheism would probably be accurate as well) to least it would be: biologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, mathematicians.

 

[Marvin]

What Intelligent Designer say about Bill Nye's article.

This is my favorite answer.

Science Guy: “We need engineers that can build stuff.”

I’m an engineer. I build stuff. And I don’t do it by introducing random errors into my computer programs and throwing out what doesn’t work. I do it with foresight, purpose, and design.

Let’s face it, when “Science Guy” refers to “evolution” he means the creative powers of random errors filtered by natural selection as the be-all and end-all of biological creativity.

Science Guy has it exactly backwards. Faith in this utter nonsense is a science-stopper and the quintessential enemy of engineering, which is by definition goal-driven — the antithesis of “evolution” if he were forced to define it in explicit terms.

Science Guy should have said, “Anyone who doesn’t believe that inanimate matter spontaneously generated highly complex information and the associated functionally-integrated machinery, and that random errors turned a primordial cell into you, is stupid, doesn’t know how science works, and will never have a substantial enough understanding of science to become a productive engineer.”

That’s exactly what he meant. But if he said what he meant, he’d be dragged off stage by the men in white coats and put in a rubber-lined room.

MoO is here!

 

[jdoggydogg]

The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

The entire scientific community is based on a system that encourages the disproving of theories. So saying "science was wrong about __________" is a red herring.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

Agreed. Even though I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year earth/universe, there are brilliant people who do. The age of the earth has little value in many of the hard sciences. If one believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that doesn't mean he can't be a great physicist, chemist, or even biologist. Obviously he couldn't be an evolutionary biologist, but he could study cells and dna just as well as someone who believes in evolution.

I have my doubts. The distribution of [physicist, chemist, biologist] that don't believe in the 6000 year universe is going to be shifted toward "great" relative to the distribution of those that do.

I never implied different. I just said believing in a 6,000 year earth doesn't necessarily imply some sort of blinded, unintelligent worldview. It's just one different than the one I share.

Actually, it does. If a physicist, chemist, or biologist believes in 6000 year old earth then they are pretty much saying they don't agree with radioactive half lives, plate tectonics, measurement of cosmic distances, evolution, rates of mutation, cladistics, theories on how planets and stars form, and a boatload of other things that are based on times greater than 6000 years. To explain those things they have to resort to either mystical means (God or gods) or "science" that has no actual evidence. Now, some of them may work in a field or live an a world where that view doesn't contradict what they deal with daily - but that doesn't mean that their view isn't blinded or unintelligent.

 

[Marvin]

The fact that this is even in an issue in this country is a sign of the real downhill trajectory we are on. The fact that people vote for people who are creationists and there is enough of them to win is just speeding up the demise. It is one the USA's great embarrassments imho

Why is an issue? Because Bill Nye the science guy made it one? lol......

It's not just Billy Nye. He just happens to have a pulpit to speak from. There are plenty of people that agree with the basic idea that teaching anything close to creationism is terrible idea and a huge step backwards.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

Agreed. Even though I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year earth/universe, there are brilliant people who do. The age of the earth has little value in many of the hard sciences. If one believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that doesn't mean he can't be a great physicist, chemist, or even biologist. Obviously he couldn't be an evolutionary biologist, but he could study cells and dna just as well as someone who believes in evolution.

I have my doubts. The distribution of [physicist, chemist, biologist] that don't believe in the 6000 year universe is going to be shifted toward "great" relative to the distribution of those that do.

I never implied different. I just said believing in a 6,000 year earth doesn't necessarily imply some sort of blinded, unintelligent worldview. It's just one different than the one I share.

Actually, it does. If a physicist, chemist, or biologist believes in 6000 year old earth then they are pretty much saying they don't agree with radioactive half lives, plate tectonics, measurement of cosmic distances, evolution, rates of mutation, cladistics, theories on how planets and stars form, and a boatload of other things that are based on times greater than 6000 years. To explain those things they have to resort to either mystical means (God or gods) or "science" that has no actual evidence. Now, some of them may work in a field or live an a world where that view doesn't contradict what they deal with daily - but that doesn't mean that their view isn't blinded or unintelligent.

Could a smart person believe the Earth is 6,000 years old? Certainly. But that's like claiming the distance between New York and Los Angeles is three feet. You might be smart, but you have a gigantic blind spot.

 

[jon_mx]

Maurile, I'm starting to think you work for a big media outlet with all this false equivalency stuff. Are there doofuses and ignorant people everywhere? Sure.

But one party has practically made ignorance a requirement to win elected office (no evolution, no climate change, magical ######s, gay is a lifestyle, etc) and has written that ignorance into official declarations of the party's positions. It's not the same thing.

The problem with the science side of the debate is that while much is proven by science on those issues, most of it is grossly overstated to belittle the other side. 1. No evolution. I am not sure that is too many people's position. Most acknowledge evolution is true, but many believe that intelligent design played a role also.

2. No Climate change. Most conservatives believe the climate has warmed and the science proves that pretty conclusively. What hasn't been proven is how much of a role man has played. Is it 5 percent or 95 percent?

3. Gay is a lifestyle. If you really understand the only proof out there (twin studies), you would realize that genetics only seems to have an influence, there is room for many outside factors to play a significant role. Again, we have very little science to base what percentage of a role genetics plays. It is definitely not 100 percent or even that close to it.

The problem with your position and Bill Nye's is that it is over the top rhetoric which relies on distorting the other side's position. The are lots of great scientists and engineers and doctors out there who are not in line with the left wing absolutest positions on these issues which in fact is more political than scientific.

How can that be a problem to you?! That's the basis of your entire online existence.

While the basis of your existence is to stalk me, llie about what I said, drag old disputes into it, and completely ignore legitimate points which are raised. Class act.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

[mad sweeney]

Maurile, I'm starting to think you work for a big media outlet with all this false equivalency stuff. Are there doofuses and ignorant people everywhere? Sure.

But one party has practically made ignorance a requirement to win elected office (no evolution, no climate change, magical ######s, gay is a lifestyle, etc) and has written that ignorance into official declarations of the party's positions. It's not the same thing.

The problem with the science side of the debate is that while much is proven by science on those issues, most of it is grossly overstated to belittle the other side. 1. No evolution. I am not sure that is too many people's position. Most acknowledge evolution is true, but many believe that intelligent design played a role also.

2. No Climate change. Most conservatives believe the climate has warmed and the science proves that pretty conclusively. What hasn't been proven is how much of a role man has played. Is it 5 percent or 95 percent?

3. Gay is a lifestyle. If you really understand the only proof out there (twin studies), you would realize that genetics only seems to have an influence, there is room for many outside factors to play a significant role. Again, we have very little science to base what percentage of a role genetics plays. It is definitely not 100 percent or even that close to it.

The problem with your position and Bill Nye's is that it is over the top rhetoric which relies on distorting the other side's position. The are lots of great scientists and engineers and doctors out there who are not in line with the left wing absolutest positions on these issues which in fact is more political than scientific.

How can that be a problem to you?! That's the basis of your entire online existence.

While the basis of your existence is to stalk me, llie about what I said, drag old disputes into it, and completely ignore legitimate points which are raised. Class act.

One of us is right, and it ain't you. Sorry if I point out when you run away from arguments when you're trying to be your usual hypocritical self. Don't you have some mosques to go picket?

 

[shader]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

Agreed. Even though I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year earth/universe, there are brilliant people who do. The age of the earth has little value in many of the hard sciences. If one believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that doesn't mean he can't be a great physicist, chemist, or even biologist. Obviously he couldn't be an evolutionary biologist, but he could study cells and dna just as well as someone who believes in evolution.

I have my doubts. The distribution of [physicist, chemist, biologist] that don't believe in the 6000 year universe is going to be shifted toward "great" relative to the distribution of those that do.

I never implied different. I just said believing in a 6,000 year earth doesn't necessarily imply some sort of blinded, unintelligent worldview. It's just one different than the one I share.

Actually, it does. If a physicist, chemist, or biologist believes in 6000 year old earth then they are pretty much saying they don't agree with radioactive half lives, plate tectonics, measurement of cosmic distances, evolution, rates of mutation, cladistics, theories on how planets and stars form, and a boatload of other things that are based on times greater than 6000 years. To explain those things they have to resort to either mystical means (God or gods) or "science" that has no actual evidence. Now, some of them may work in a field or live an a world where that view doesn't contradict what they deal with daily - but that doesn't mean that their view isn't blinded or unintelligent.

A radioactive half life is what it is. I don't see how the age of the universe has anything to do with that. What does cladistics have to do with physics? Plate tectonics are what they are. Same thing with measurements of cosmic distances. Now their belief that God created an "aged" universe doesn't make sense to me, but I suppose if God had wanted to do that, he could have.Just being a scientist doesn't require you to buy into every single scientific field there is. In fact, science is so specialized that it's difficult to know the truth about any particular field unless you are talking to someone that is actually in that field.

 

[shader]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I totally agree. Whatever the current "age of the universe is" doesn't conflict with the bible, imo.

 

[shader]

Maurile, I'm starting to think you work for a big media outlet with all this false equivalency stuff. Are there doofuses and ignorant people everywhere? Sure.

But one party has practically made ignorance a requirement to win elected office (no evolution, no climate change, magical ######s, gay is a lifestyle, etc) and has written that ignorance into official declarations of the party's positions. It's not the same thing.

The problem with the science side of the debate is that while much is proven by science on those issues, most of it is grossly overstated to belittle the other side. 1. No evolution. I am not sure that is too many people's position. Most acknowledge evolution is true, but many believe that intelligent design played a role also.

2. No Climate change. Most conservatives believe the climate has warmed and the science proves that pretty conclusively. What hasn't been proven is how much of a role man has played. Is it 5 percent or 95 percent?

3. Gay is a lifestyle. If you really understand the only proof out there (twin studies), you would realize that genetics only seems to have an influence, there is room for many outside factors to play a significant role. Again, we have very little science to base what percentage of a role genetics plays. It is definitely not 100 percent or even that close to it.

The problem with your position and Bill Nye's is that it is over the top rhetoric which relies on distorting the other side's position. The are lots of great scientists and engineers and doctors out there who are not in line with the left wing absolutest positions on these issues which in fact is more political than scientific.

How can that be a problem to you?! That's the basis of your entire online existence.

While the basis of your existence is to stalk me, llie about what I said, drag old disputes into it, and completely ignore legitimate points which are raised. Class act.

One of us is right, and it ain't you. Sorry if I point out when you run away from arguments when you're trying to be your usual hypocritical self. Don't you have some mosques to go picket?

Says the all-knowing internet persona Mad Sweeney!

 

[Marvin]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

Agreed. Even though I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year earth/universe, there are brilliant people who do. The age of the earth has little value in many of the hard sciences. If one believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that doesn't mean he can't be a great physicist, chemist, or even biologist. Obviously he couldn't be an evolutionary biologist, but he could study cells and dna just as well as someone who believes in evolution.

I have my doubts. The distribution of [physicist, chemist, biologist] that don't believe in the 6000 year universe is going to be shifted toward "great" relative to the distribution of those that do.

I never implied different. I just said believing in a 6,000 year earth doesn't necessarily imply some sort of blinded, unintelligent worldview. It's just one different than the one I share.

Actually, it does. If a physicist, chemist, or biologist believes in 6000 year old earth then they are pretty much saying they don't agree with radioactive half lives, plate tectonics, measurement of cosmic distances, evolution, rates of mutation, cladistics, theories on how planets and stars form, and a boatload of other things that are based on times greater than 6000 years. To explain those things they have to resort to either mystical means (God or gods) or "science" that has no actual evidence. Now, some of them may work in a field or live an a world where that view doesn't contradict what they deal with daily - but that doesn't mean that their view isn't blinded or unintelligent.

You guys need to listen to sn0mmis.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

That's the best thing about the bible. It can say whatever you want it to.

 

[Marvin]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

Agreed. Even though I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year earth/universe, there are brilliant people who do. The age of the earth has little value in many of the hard sciences. If one believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that doesn't mean he can't be a great physicist, chemist, or even biologist. Obviously he couldn't be an evolutionary biologist, but he could study cells and dna just as well as someone who believes in evolution.

I have my doubts. The distribution of [physicist, chemist, biologist] that don't believe in the 6000 year universe is going to be shifted toward "great" relative to the distribution of those that do.

I never implied different. I just said believing in a 6,000 year earth doesn't necessarily imply some sort of blinded, unintelligent worldview. It's just one different than the one I share.

Actually, it does. If a physicist, chemist, or biologist believes in 6000 year old earth then they are pretty much saying they don't agree with radioactive half lives, plate tectonics, measurement of cosmic distances, evolution, rates of mutation, cladistics, theories on how planets and stars form, and a boatload of other things that are based on times greater than 6000 years. To explain those things they have to resort to either mystical means (God or gods) or "science" that has no actual evidence. Now, some of them may work in a field or live an a world where that view doesn't contradict what they deal with daily - but that doesn't mean that their view isn't blinded or unintelligent.

A radioactive half life is what it is. I don't see how the age of the universe has anything to do with that. What does cladistics have to do with physics? Plate tectonics are what they are. Same thing with measurements of cosmic distances. Now their belief that God created an "aged" universe doesn't make sense to me, but I suppose if God had wanted to do that, he could have.Just being a scientist doesn't require you to buy into every single scientific field there is. In fact, science is so specialized that it's difficult to know the truth about any particular field unless you are talking to someone that is actually in that field.

So you're saying that scientists should cherry pick which "sciences" they believe in?Let's leave that to the Bible believers.

 

[mad sweeney]

Maurile, I'm starting to think you work for a big media outlet with all this false equivalency stuff. Are there doofuses and ignorant people everywhere? Sure.

But one party has practically made ignorance a requirement to win elected office (no evolution, no climate change, magical ######s, gay is a lifestyle, etc) and has written that ignorance into official declarations of the party's positions. It's not the same thing.

The problem with the science side of the debate is that while much is proven by science on those issues, most of it is grossly overstated to belittle the other side. 1. No evolution. I am not sure that is too many people's position. Most acknowledge evolution is true, but many believe that intelligent design played a role also.

2. No Climate change. Most conservatives believe the climate has warmed and the science proves that pretty conclusively. What hasn't been proven is how much of a role man has played. Is it 5 percent or 95 percent?

3. Gay is a lifestyle. If you really understand the only proof out there (twin studies), you would realize that genetics only seems to have an influence, there is room for many outside factors to play a significant role. Again, we have very little science to base what percentage of a role genetics plays. It is definitely not 100 percent or even that close to it.

The problem with your position and Bill Nye's is that it is over the top rhetoric which relies on distorting the other side's position. The are lots of great scientists and engineers and doctors out there who are not in line with the left wing absolutest positions on these issues which in fact is more political than scientific.

How can that be a problem to you?! That's the basis of your entire online existence.

While the basis of your existence is to stalk me, llie about what I said, drag old disputes into it, and completely ignore legitimate points which are raised. Class act.

One of us is right, and it ain't you. Sorry if I point out when you run away from arguments when you're trying to be your usual hypocritical self. Don't you have some mosques to go picket?

Says the all-knowing internet persona Mad Sweeney!

You realize I'm talking about the last 2 posts between me and jonnay, right?eta: that's a rhetorical question btw, clearly you don't.

 

[shader]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

Agreed. Even though I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year earth/universe, there are brilliant people who do. The age of the earth has little value in many of the hard sciences. If one believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that doesn't mean he can't be a great physicist, chemist, or even biologist. Obviously he couldn't be an evolutionary biologist, but he could study cells and dna just as well as someone who believes in evolution.

I have my doubts. The distribution of [physicist, chemist, biologist] that don't believe in the 6000 year universe is going to be shifted toward "great" relative to the distribution of those that do.

I never implied different. I just said believing in a 6,000 year earth doesn't necessarily imply some sort of blinded, unintelligent worldview. It's just one different than the one I share.

Actually, it does. If a physicist, chemist, or biologist believes in 6000 year old earth then they are pretty much saying they don't agree with radioactive half lives, plate tectonics, measurement of cosmic distances, evolution, rates of mutation, cladistics, theories on how planets and stars form, and a boatload of other things that are based on times greater than 6000 years. To explain those things they have to resort to either mystical means (God or gods) or "science" that has no actual evidence. Now, some of them may work in a field or live an a world where that view doesn't contradict what they deal with daily - but that doesn't mean that their view isn't blinded or unintelligent.

A radioactive half life is what it is. I don't see how the age of the universe has anything to do with that. What does cladistics have to do with physics? Plate tectonics are what they are. Same thing with measurements of cosmic distances. Now their belief that God created an "aged" universe doesn't make sense to me, but I suppose if God had wanted to do that, he could have.Just being a scientist doesn't require you to buy into every single scientific field there is. In fact, science is so specialized that it's difficult to know the truth about any particular field unless you are talking to someone that is actually in that field.

So you're saying that scientists should cherry pick which "sciences" they believe in?Let's leave that to the Bible believers.

Obviously some sciences are different than others. Physics is physics. Cladistics is far different. Paleontology is a "historical science" and can't be tested the same way you can conduct chemistry tests or analyze mineral content of rocks.There are brilliant scientists who don't buy into the entire evolutionary theory, hook, line and sinker. Those are the facts, like them or not.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

That's the best thing about the bible. It can say whatever you want it to.

You can say the same thing about anything. How much debate is there over what the 1st or 2nd Amendment of the Constitution says and it is only a few words long.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't believe a literal reading of the Bible requires one to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

True. But it DOES require one to believe that the Earth was created 3 days before the sun and the stars. I don't see any way to reconcile this to science.

Heaven and earth were created 'in the beginning.' Doesn't really say when that was.

 

[Sweet Love]

Nye's is such an uninformed argument. The history of science is littered with people who believed in a literal 6 day creation by God and were outstanding scientists.

You're right that Nye seems to underestimate people's ability to compartmentalize. But your second sentence doesn't seem accurate unless you're referring to pre-Darwinian history. Can you name three prominent scientists from the 20th century on who believed in a literal six-day creation?

Here's a short list. I used to have a much longer one, but I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks. My experience with lists of that sort is such that I've learned not to take them at face value. (Too many examples of including people who aren't actual scientists, or who aren't actual creationists.)But I googled a random guy on that list and he really is a geophysics Ph.D. (from a real school) and a young-earth creationist. Excellent.

I could quibble over prominence, but your point is made. It's possible to be a bona fide scientist and a Biblical literalist.

Dinosaurs (or Big Lizards) down? I don't understand how you can have "argument y" without having "argument x" first. That whole carbon dating thing could throw a wrench in the theory too.