Dammit! He noodled out our plan to purge the evil religions from the universe!!!!
"conscious movement", really? Gotta tell ya bro, people who don't believe in God really don't care enough about it to create a "movement". It's on par with the boogie man to us.
When I was in school evolution was taught the same way they taught me about gravity. You know in science class, where they teach SCIENCE. The problem isn't science contradicting religion, the problem is religion thinking it is science. There is no attack happening here. Teach your religion in religion class, we'll teach science in science classes, you know, like we already do...
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bill Nye defends Evolution
Bill Nye defends EvolutionFollow
gbaji wrote:
Backing this up a bit:
All good science has controversy (people with different ideas/theories/etc). The minute science ceases to question itself, it ceases to be science and becomes religion. The issue many people have isn't with the broad science of evolution, but that it's being taught as though it's a religious belief that counters other religious beliefs. I know that this is a subtle point to make in a topic in which people prefer rhetoric to facts, but if you aren't aware that there is a conscious movement to attack religious beliefs by using certain fields of science, then you've got your head buried in the sand.
The purpose of science isn't to "disprove" someone's religious beliefs, but to reveal truths about the world around us. And while the field of evolutionary science does the latter, the way its often taught in school really does seem more aimed at the former. I guess the point I'm getting at is that we should not be afraid to admit that we don't know everything within a given field of science simply because someone might fill that gap with religious belief. Yet, that appears to be precisely what's been going on with this specific field.
catwho wrote:
The thing that gets me about all the "teach the controversy" laws is that they ignore the fact that there is no controversy in scientific circles, except from a smaller number of scientists than those who still believe the Earth is flat.
All good science has controversy (people with different ideas/theories/etc). The minute science ceases to question itself, it ceases to be science and becomes religion. The issue many people have isn't with the broad science of evolution, but that it's being taught as though it's a religious belief that counters other religious beliefs. I know that this is a subtle point to make in a topic in which people prefer rhetoric to facts, but if you aren't aware that there is a conscious movement to attack religious beliefs by using certain fields of science, then you've got your head buried in the sand.
The purpose of science isn't to "disprove" someone's religious beliefs, but to reveal truths about the world around us. And while the field of evolutionary science does the latter, the way its often taught in school really does seem more aimed at the former. I guess the point I'm getting at is that we should not be afraid to admit that we don't know everything within a given field of science simply because someone might fill that gap with religious belief. Yet, that appears to be precisely what's been going on with this specific field.
Edited, Sep 4th 2012 7:49pm by LeWoVoc
gbaji wrote:
Backing this up a bit:
All good science has controversy (people with different ideas/theories/etc). The minute science ceases to question itself, it ceases to be science and becomes religion. The issue many people have isn't with the broad science of evolution, but that it's being taught as though it's a religious belief that counters other religious beliefs. I know that this is a subtle point to make in a topic in which people prefer rhetoric to facts, but if you aren't aware that there is a conscious movement to attack religious beliefs by using certain fields of science, then you've got your head buried in the sand.
The purpose of science isn't to "disprove" someone's religious beliefs, but to reveal truths about the world around us. And while the field of evolutionary science does the latter, the way its often taught in school really does seem more aimed at the former. I guess the point I'm getting at is that we should not be afraid to admit that we don't know everything within a given field of science simply because someone might fill that gap with religious belief. Yet, that appears to be precisely what's been going on with this specific field.
All good science has controversy (people with different ideas/theories/etc). The minute science ceases to question itself, it ceases to be science and becomes religion. The issue many people have isn't with the broad science of evolution, but that it's being taught as though it's a religious belief that counters other religious beliefs. I know that this is a subtle point to make in a topic in which people prefer rhetoric to facts, but if you aren't aware that there is a conscious movement to attack religious beliefs by using certain fields of science, then you've got your head buried in the sand.
The purpose of science isn't to "disprove" someone's religious beliefs, but to reveal truths about the world around us. And while the field of evolutionary science does the latter, the way its often taught in school really does seem more aimed at the former. I guess the point I'm getting at is that we should not be afraid to admit that we don't know everything within a given field of science simply because someone might fill that gap with religious belief. Yet, that appears to be precisely what's been going on with this specific field.
The truth revealed by science is that religion is a sham.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Yodabunny wrote:
Gotta tell ya bro, people who don't believe in God really don't care enough about it to create a "movement". It's on par with the boogie man to us.
I used to think the same way.
Edit: Those people are idiots, btw.
Edited, Sep 4th 2012 9:14pm by BrownDuck
gbaji wrote:
All good science has controversy (people with different ideas/theories/etc).
This certainly doesn't mean that all different ideas and theories are good science. Intelligent Design, for instance, is absolutely horrible "science" which is why it's not a competing theory with evolution except among creationists trying to inject religion into the science classroom.
Quote:
The minute science ceases to question itself, it ceases to be science and becomes religion. The issue many people have isn't with the broad science of evolution, but that it's being taught as though it's a religious belief that counters other religious beliefs.
When it should obviously be taught as a science that counters religious beliefs (such as creationism/ID).
Edited, Sep 4th 2012 11:30pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
The purpose of science isn't to "disprove" someone's religious beliefs, but to reveal truths about the world around us. And while the field of evolutionary science does the latter, the way its often taught in school really does seem more aimed at the former.
Can you objectionably show any evidence for widespread attempts to disprove religious beliefs? Or is it more likely that a minority of the Christian majority is upset that there is no longer favoritism shown towards their ideology.
Sometimes I forget that every time I'm not seated first in a restaurant I have someone waging a war on me. There's a battle for the very future of my dining experiences going on in this country I tell you.
Edited, Sep 4th 2012 9:52pm by Allegory
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The purpose of science isn't to "disprove" someone's religious beliefs, but to reveal truths about the world around us. And while the field of evolutionary science does the latter, the way its often taught in school really does seem more aimed at the former.
Can you objectionably show any evidence for widespread attempts to disprove religious beliefs? Or is it more likely that a minority of the Christian majority is upset that there is no longer favoritism shown towards their ideology.
Sometimes I forget that every time I'm not seated first in a restaurant I have someone waging a war on me. There's a battle for the very future of my dining experiences going on in this country I tell you.
Evidence is something science uses. And is thus biased against religion.
Edited, Sep 5th 2012 12:13am by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
Allegory wrote:
Or is it more likely that a minority of the Christian majority is upset that there is no longer favoritism shown towards their ideology.
Except for the tax exemptions, indirect subsidies, etc.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Demea wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Or is it more likely that a minority of the Christian majority is upset that there is no longer favoritism shown towards their ideology.
Except for the tax exemptions, indirect subsidies, etc.
...and a paid federal holiday for in celebration of the birth of baby Jesus..
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
The purpose of science isn't to "disprove" someone's religious beliefs, but to reveal truths about the world around us. And while the field of evolutionary science does the latter, the way its often taught in school really does seem more aimed at the former.
I will hazard a guess that there is no direct evidence that 'often' schools attempt to disprove religious beliefs in science class.
You made that up.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
I will hazard a guess that there is no direct evidence that 'often' schools attempt to disprove religious beliefs in science class.
You made that up.
You made that up.
Not that I agree with Gbaji but if science class wasn't disproving religious beliefs on a regular basis I'd be concerned about the science teachers.
gbaji wrote:
The minute science ceases to question itself, it ceases to be science and becomes religion.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Yodabunny wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I will hazard a guess that there is no direct evidence that 'often' schools attempt to disprove religious beliefs in science class.
You made that up.
You made that up.
Not that I agree with Gbaji but if science class wasn't disproving religious beliefs on a regular basis I'd be concerned about the science teachers.
Well sure, indirectly. If you're teaching flammability you kind of blow a hole in the burning bush story. But science teachers don't need to talk about, discuss, or compare religious theories vs scientific theories - and they never really did until the 'creationists' went off the deep end.
Edited, Sep 5th 2012 3:59pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Yeah, that didn't happen when I was in school. In science you learned science, religion wasn't even hinted at let alone compared. How the hell would you compare science to religion? They're mutually exclusive concepts, one is faith based and one is evidence based, they're not even on the same playing field...
Yodabunny wrote:
Yeah, that didn't happen when I was in school. In science you learned science, religion wasn't even hinted at let alone compared. How the hell would you compare science to religion? They're mutually exclusive concepts, one is faith based and one is evidence based, they're not even on the same playing field...
LeWoVoc wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
Yeah, that didn't happen when I was in school. In science you learned science, religion wasn't even hinted at let alone compared. How the hell would you compare science to religion? They're mutually exclusive concepts, one is faith based and one is evidence based, they're not even on the same playing field...
Bible Belt?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Quote:
Bible Belt?
LeWoVoc wrote:
Quote:
Bible Belt?
Did you know I left? Moved back to Nashville. And before I was ever able to come hear you play. =( I'm sure we'll be back that way sometime, but who knows when.
You should totally come to Nashville. It's even better now than it was 12 years ago. (I can't believe I was gone that long).
Nadenu wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Quote:
Bible Belt?
Did you know I left? Moved back to Nashville. And before I was ever able to come hear you play. =( I'm sure we'll be back that way sometime, but who knows when.
You should totally come to Nashville. It's even better now than it was 12 years ago. (I can't believe I was gone that long).
Recent Visitors: 391
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (391)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bill Nye defends Evolution
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC