By repeatedly turning a blind eye, sc...

By repeatedly turning a blind eye, science and faith proponents lose

There are 11 comments on the Statesman Journal story from Oct 3, 2012, titled By repeatedly turning a blind eye, science and faith proponents lose. In it, Statesman Journal reports that:

So Bill Nye, The Science Guy, turns a blind eye toward creationism. Many conservative Christians turn a blind eye toward evolutionary science.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Statesman Journal.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1 Oct 3, 2012
First, are all the evolutionary biologists who believe in God also "turning a blind eye" to faith?

Second, what does religion have to do with science? After all this is ultimately about science education. Creationism "sheds light" on no questions, at least not in any scientific sense. So exactly what are science students losing **in a scientific context** by **not** learning about religious apologetics? What exactly is this guy proposing to minimize the detrimental effect of this political (not scientific) debate?

He needs to be a little more coherent and less non-specific on what he thinks the problems are and how he thinks they could be solved. Until then he doesn't really seem to demonstrate he knows what the whole thing is about, and average joe reading it may get the erroneous impression that science education is about promoting atheism.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#2 Oct 3, 2012
A lot of words in that article to say essentially nothing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#3 Oct 3, 2012
The really funny part was the "Purchase image" link. WTF?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#4 Oct 3, 2012
What is it with lawyers who have no real background in science or biology, yet feel compelled to jump right in with opinions on evolution?
Johny

Seabrook, TX

#5 Oct 4, 2012
The Dude,
Many in evolution actually distort science in favor of evolution. They throw out facts that do not align with their evolutionary story. There are many “just so” stories that are purported to be scientific fact. For example, an evolutionist looking for transitional fossils from say a fish to mammals will look for any prehistoric fish that may have features of legs and will automatically assume that it IS a transitional fossil. It could be a species of fish that died out long ago from the many that were created, yet the evolutionist will mash the evidence to say that it IS a transitional fossil. Of course, evolutionists never examine the human nature part of this: the fact that the scientist WANTS it to be a transitional fossil so he is lauded as the great discoverer of it and his name goes down in science. But we have to do the real science of examining the DNA and showing the step by step evolutionary processes. The problem is that we are still nowhere close to identifying the evolutionary tree. The closer scientists look at it the more confused they become.
LowellGuy

Peabody, MA

#6 Oct 4, 2012
Johny wrote:
The Dude,
Many in evolution actually distort science in favor of evolution. They throw out facts that do not align with their evolutionary story. There are many “just so” stories that are purported to be scientific fact. For example, an evolutionist looking for transitional fossils from say a fish to mammals will look for any prehistoric fish that may have features of legs and will automatically assume that it IS a transitional fossil. It could be a species of fish that died out long ago from the many that were created, yet the evolutionist will mash the evidence to say that it IS a transitional fossil. Of course, evolutionists never examine the human nature part of this: the fact that the scientist WANTS it to be a transitional fossil so he is lauded as the great discoverer of it and his name goes down in science. But we have to do the real science of examining the DNA and showing the step by step evolutionary processes. The problem is that we are still nowhere close to identifying the evolutionary tree. The closer scientists look at it the more confused they become.
You don't understand what "transitional" means and you want to lecture us about science. You can eat my ass.
Johny

Seabrook, TX

#7 Oct 4, 2012
You talk like this because you know I hit the nail on the head and don't want to talk about the issues I raise. Name call and give the appearance that the guy has nothing to say. Let's get beyond the art of deception.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8 Oct 5, 2012
Johny wrote:
The Dude,
Many in evolution actually distort science in favor of evolution. They throw out facts that do not align with their evolutionary story. There are many “just so” stories that are purported to be scientific fact. For example, an evolutionist looking for transitional fossils from say a fish to mammals will look for any prehistoric fish that may have features of legs and will automatically assume that it IS a transitional fossil. It could be a species of fish that died out long ago from the many that were created, yet the evolutionist will mash the evidence to say that it IS a transitional fossil. Of course, evolutionists never examine the human nature part of this: the fact that the scientist WANTS it to be a transitional fossil so he is lauded as the great discoverer of it and his name goes down in science.
Translation: "It's not fair that the theory of evolution is capable of making successful scientific predictions, thereby making it a valid scientific theory, and in fact the only theory that explains biology with so far not a single alternative proposal to compete with it. It's all just a big world-wide global Darwinist evolutionist scientist elitist liberal socialist communist Nazi Illuminati conspiracy you see."
Johny wrote:
But we have to do the real science of examining the DNA and showing the step by step evolutionary processes. The problem is that we are still nowhere close to identifying the evolutionary tree.
On the contrary, the nested hierarchies observed in the fossil record match those observed in DNA. If evolution were false there would be no reason at all to expect this. Therefore we have another successful prediction made by evolution.
Johny wrote:
The closer scientists look at it the more confused they become.
Not really. The more scientists look at it the more confused those who have NOT looked at it because they reject evolution on philosophical grounds become. The vast majority of which are creationists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#9 Oct 5, 2012
Johny wrote:
You talk like this because you know I hit the nail on the head and don't want to talk about the issues I raise. Name call and give the appearance that the guy has nothing to say. Let's get beyond the art of deception.
Actually your post was technically off-topic as we already have many other threads for debating the validity of evolution. But the facts are that the deceivers around these parts tend to be anti-science anti-evolutionists. So if evolution is false then may I ask what scientific alternative do you propose that does a better job of explaining the evidence?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#10 Oct 5, 2012
Johny wrote:
You talk like this because you know I hit the nail on the head and don't want to talk about the issues I raise. Name call and give the appearance that the guy has nothing to say. Let's get beyond the art of deception.


No, he talked like this because you demonstrated a very poor understanding of what the Theory of Evolution actually states.

We hear it all the time so you can excuse a certain about of frustration with folks like yourself who seem to think they are some sort of authority on the subject. You own words prove that not to be the case.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#11 Oct 5, 2012
Johny, I just noticed you used the SLoT argument on the Cowboy thread. It is MONUMENTALLY daft to claim that a zygote CANNOT develop into a full-formed human being therefore evolution is false. You may not have realised that this is what you said but that is because you don't understand physics, biology, and I'd wager chemistry too, or even science in general.

Word of advice: Before attempting to criticize something at least try to learn something about it first. This mistake is what all anti-evolutionists make, and what's more they never care to rectify it.

This is why no-one takes you seriously.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What's your religion? 4 min Dogen 79
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Dogen 85,587
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 34 min dollarsbill 4,924
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... 38 min was auch immer 10
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 54 min was auch immer 165,426
God hates Tennessee 2 hr Ajsjdjjdjd 6
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
More from around the web