Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
I sense a generous dose of OneBrow in this thread...
^^^
As soon as he's back from the night class that is.. .
As soon as he's back from the night class that is.. .
I watched about an hour and 10 minutes, through the end of Nye's 30 minute presentation. Frustratingly, Ham is a much better speaker than Nye. Nye's strongest parts were about the predictive nature of science... but Nye completely missed an opportunity to talk about the definition of science. Given that Ham is very much mis-stating what science is all about, Nye should have jumped on that. Nye is also much too smug--for example, his bit about the ice cores, "You'd think someone would have noticed 13 summer/winter variations per year" (or whatever the exact quote was) went over like a lead balloon. He also spent far too much time debunking things that didn't need to be debunked--for example the bit about how stars farther away than 6000 light years away could exist. Clearly God wouldn't have needed to create such stars in their infancy, he could have created them to be midway through their stellar cycle.
And that's the main thing that Nye seems to be missing--that Ham's view is fundamentally unfalsifiable. There's no way to tell the difference between something (e.g. the earth) that was created 4.5 billion years ago, and something that was created 6000 years ago but made to LOOK like it was much older. But by talking about what is science, and emphasizing the predictive nature even more, he could have made it very clear that an unfalsifiable theory, one with no predictive power, is not science at all. (I hope he made that point in a part of the debate after I stopped watching.)
That reminds me of a story I've probably told here before, but in case not--when I was a grad student taking a course in general relativity, we were having a discussion about the early stages of the universe, just a few minutes after the Big Bang. Someone asked our professor, "How can we be sure that the universe even existed that long ago? Maybe the universe came into existence after the Big Bang, in such a way that things just seemed to be originating from a point." The professor responded, "Well, from my point of view, I'm not even 100% certain that the universe existed even 60 years ago, because I'm only 59." His point was that either the earth was created many more years ago than 60, or else it was created 60 years ago in such a way (i.e. with fake historical documents, older people with fake memories, and so forth) to convince him that it was created much longer ago than that. And he had no real way to tell the difference. Same exact thing with the age of the earth. Maybe it was only created 6000 years ago, but if so, it was created in such a way (i.e. fossil record, radioactive isotopes in lava, etc.) that makes it appear to be much older than that. And if it was created to make it seem older than that, then it was created by a Really Smart Guy, because the types of predictions/observations that Nye talked about such as the cosmic microwave background radiation continue to be just what you'd expect from a universe that's much older than that. But then again God is a Really Smart Guy, so the discussion continues to go in circles to some extent.
And that's the main thing that Nye seems to be missing--that Ham's view is fundamentally unfalsifiable. There's no way to tell the difference between something (e.g. the earth) that was created 4.5 billion years ago, and something that was created 6000 years ago but made to LOOK like it was much older. But by talking about what is science, and emphasizing the predictive nature even more, he could have made it very clear that an unfalsifiable theory, one with no predictive power, is not science at all. (I hope he made that point in a part of the debate after I stopped watching.)
That reminds me of a story I've probably told here before, but in case not--when I was a grad student taking a course in general relativity, we were having a discussion about the early stages of the universe, just a few minutes after the Big Bang. Someone asked our professor, "How can we be sure that the universe even existed that long ago? Maybe the universe came into existence after the Big Bang, in such a way that things just seemed to be originating from a point." The professor responded, "Well, from my point of view, I'm not even 100% certain that the universe existed even 60 years ago, because I'm only 59." His point was that either the earth was created many more years ago than 60, or else it was created 60 years ago in such a way (i.e. with fake historical documents, older people with fake memories, and so forth) to convince him that it was created much longer ago than that. And he had no real way to tell the difference. Same exact thing with the age of the earth. Maybe it was only created 6000 years ago, but if so, it was created in such a way (i.e. fossil record, radioactive isotopes in lava, etc.) that makes it appear to be much older than that. And if it was created to make it seem older than that, then it was created by a Really Smart Guy, because the types of predictions/observations that Nye talked about such as the cosmic microwave background radiation continue to be just what you'd expect from a universe that's much older than that. But then again God is a Really Smart Guy, so the discussion continues to go in circles to some extent.
You do know I'm a physics professor, right? I guess from some of the people Ham quoted the two aren't completely mutually exclusive, though. But I think without exception none of the religious scientists whom I know (which are many) believe in a 6000 year old earth and a literal 6 day x 24 hours/day creation period.
Edit: that was actually one of the things that bugged me the most about Ham's remarks--his assumption, a false dichotomy if you will, that either one must be an atheist or a young earth creationist.
Double edit: maybe you're shocked because you don't understand the term "creationist". It's used to refer to people like Ham who believe in a 6000 year old earth and a literal 6 day x 24 hours/day creation period, not to people (such as myself) who believe that God played a role in the creation.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Ham never said that. You're most definitely twisting his words. You can search as much as you want to find where he said you're either an atheist or young Earth Creationist, but you'll never find it.
I know full well what a Creationist is, as I am one.
These are my thoughts on it: I'm not smart enough to understand the science behind any of this, and I never will be. That's ok though, because I know somebody who is. Obviously, I'm referring to God...yup, the same God you believe in Colton. I have no reason to not believe the Bible, and quite frankly, I don't see the point in picking out which parts of the Bible that we agree with. You either agree with all of it, or none of it.
Now Creationism isn't a salvation point, but when you pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, it undermines the authority of the Bible.
I knew what your profession is Colton...I'm just shocked because I know how devoutly religious you are.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
I do not understand this at all, since you really have no reason TO believe the Bible, just like no one has a reason to or not to believe Harry Potter or War in Peace.
And saying you're too dumb to understand science seems like a cop out more than anything.
Wow. You must be new around here, have we met?
I seriously hate this type of thinking. You're either with us, or you're a terrorist. 'Murica.
FWIW, I believe in parts of the Bible. I also believe some of it is possible historical data that has been butchered, retold, reshaped, and misconstrued for thousands of years. According to you, my opinion is impossible, but holy ****, look at that -- it just happened.
Science.
Science.
Well, it appears science has faulted once again in the face of overwhelming religious evidence.
Would rep if I could. I had to use my last one to give Huntlers his neg for the day, sorry.
I'm not certain that Jesus wasn't a guy made up by Paul to sell books.
Seriously, the historicity of Jesus is kind of difficult to wrap your brain around.
HIstorical equivalent of the "uncertainty principle" here. . . . shall we call it the "SirKicky Historical Uncertainty Principle" and define a constant that incorporates specificity and usefulness? The more specific a historical item is, the less useful it will be?
How about a Principle of Human Credulity? The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
By all means, that is more than acceptable.
DutchJazzer
Banned
wasn't that an album by The Police?
Good for you that your god gives you answers Hantlers! My god prefers that I try to figure things for myself.
I think it's called free will.
I don't know if you watched the video, but in the hour or so that I watched, Ham said at least two or three times that the reason Creationism is not taught in science books is because of atheists who are preaching their own religion. So the false dichotomy between atheism and young Earth Creationism was very much part of his exposition. Now if push comes to shove, I'm sure he would admit that there are other options... but he deliberately left them out of his arguments and positioned his own view as the only alternative to atheism.
I have no problem with people such as yourself who believe in a literal 6 day creation, a young Earth, etc. My problem is when they try to pass their views off as science. That's not science.
But what you say "you agree with the Bible", you automatically have in mind someone's specific INTERPRETATION of the Bible. For example, LDS members look to John 10:16 ("And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd") and interpret the "other sheep" to mean the Israelites who had migrated to America. Most other Christians do not. So I could say to my born again friend that I agree with the Bible because I believe that Jesus visited the Israelites in the Americas after his resurrection, but he would claim that I'm just interpreting that verse incorrectly. But there is nothing in the Bible itself that proves it one way or another.
Similarly, some of the Bible is symbolic and some is literal. I assume you agree with that. Even people who say that they believe in a literal Bible don't say that there is absolutely no symbolism in it. So when you read Genesis you must decide whether the "days" spoken of are literal days or symbolic days. But there's nothing in the Bible itself that proves it one way or another.
So when people such as yourself say things like, "when you pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, it undermines the authority of the Bible," my experience is that they really mean, "when you choose to interpret the Bible differently than myself, you are wrong and I am right". But the Bible itself isn't making that judgment--the individual is.
If you are shocked that a religious person doesn't hold to the Creationist viewpoint, that is proof that Ham's false dichotomy is succeeding. To counter that, I reiterate what I mentioned above--NONE of the religious scientists that I know believe in a literal 6 day creation, 6000 year old Earth, etc. Not a single one. And many of them believe that God created the heavens and the earth, believe that Jesus died for our sins, and so forth, just as much as you do.
Last edited:
Fishsticks
Banned
Wait..serious question. Growing up in the church I was always taught that any view other than creationism was blasphemy. Is that not the case anymore?
The Bible contains too many fundamental internal contradictions to do this. You always have to say some parts are not literal.