Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

[QuickZ06]

I'm sorry, been busy lately and haven't read through the thread. The OP is just the same old tired line from the establishment science priesthood. They keep trying to frame the debate around a debate between "fact" and "religion". But Darwinism is not a fact, it is a religious viewpoint.

Then he tries to equate Darwinism with other technological endeavors. Wrong. Anyway, Darwinism is a novel paradigm in science. Scientific speculation itself began with a philosophical foundation of creationism. Science is false anyway. All of the laws of science and all of the theories of science are false and by definition cannot be true. Truth is by definition that which cannot change. Science always changes. Science cannot yield truth statements and it is not designed to yield true statements. Science is technological, not cognitive.

Then am I correct in my thinking that evolution is not a scientific theory but merely a theory.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Then am I correct in my thinking that evolution is not a scientific theory but merely a theory.

I would say there is no difference. What is the most important thing to understand is this: there are no brute facts.

That is, there are no facts that are unrelated to the worldview by which you interpret them. Gordon Clark said it like this:

"Significance, interpretation, evaluation is not given in any fact; it is an intellectual judgment based on some non-sensory criterion."

The point is that "facts", how they are evaluated, and their significance, are interpreted by the presuppositions (non-sensory criterion) of the men using the "facts". The modern scientific priesthood live in the fantasy world that they are neutral in their evaluation of the "facts", when in reality the "facts" they say they discover are merely reflections of their underlying worldview.

But even more fundamentally, science is not true and can never yield truth.

 

[Natural Citizen]

...science is not true and can never yield truth.

I don't know. There is much to be said about prediction. It's the very heart of science.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Then am I correct in my thinking that evolution is not a scientific theory but merely a theory.

Is evolution natural? Sorry if it sounds confusing or irrelevant but I couldn't think of a more fundamental way to ask it. Because you have to, you know. I just want to make sure that we don't get off into humans evolving because they built a bunch of Walmarts or whatever. You're talking about natural evolution. Right? No frankenfish type fodder?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I would say there is no difference. What is the most important thing to understand is this: there are no brute facts.

That is, there are no facts that are unrelated to the worldview by which you interpret them. Gordon Clark said it like this:

"Significance, interpretation, evaluation is not given in any fact; it is an intellectual judgment based on some non-sensory criterion."

The point is that "facts", how they are evaluated, and their significance, are interpreted by the presuppositions (non-sensory criterion) of the men using the "facts". The modern scientific priesthood live in the fantasy world that they are neutral in their evaluation of the "facts", when in reality the "facts" they say they discover are merely reflections of their underlying worldview.

But even more fundamentally, science is not true and can never yield truth.

More accurately, science is always fallacious (as is all inductive reasoning). It can lead us to truth, but it doesn't necessarily do so.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Here's more on the logical fallacies of Carl Sagan and science in general:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=90

Still less does Dr. Sagan seem to realize that science is a self-correcting and ever-changing discipline precisely be cause it is never correct. If a scientist ever discovered a truth, it would not and could not change. Two plus two is four is now, has always been, and always will be true be cause it was not discovered by the scientific method. Christian theology has always taught and will always teach the doctrine of the Trinity because the Trinity was not discovered by the scientific method, but revealed by God, who is truth himself. All scientific laws are false. All the laws of physics and astronomy are false. Why just a month ago the astronomers admitted that-oops!-they had made a mistake in calculating the distances between stars, a mistake of only 25 percent. Who knows, perhaps next month they will acknowledge another mistake. Or perhaps it will be the chemists, or the physicists, or the biologists who make the announcement next month. All the physics and biology textbooks written in 1910 are now regarded as completely wrong. Fifty years from now scientists will consider our present texts completely wrong. Scientists never discover the truth because the scientific method, which Dr. Sagan esteems so highly, is a tissue of logical fallacies. Science does not and cannot give us truth.

A complete dissection and logical destruction of the behaviorism of Carl Sagan:

Let’s assume that Dr. Sagan’s beliefs about mind and thought are true. Thoughts are, he thinks, “hundreds of electrochemical impulses” in the brain. What follows from this? First, error is impossible. One electrochemical impulse is as good as another. The chemistry in the brain of someone who thinks that behaviorism is false is as perfect as the chemistry in the brain of someone who thinks that behavior ism is true. If thoughts are electrochemical, then one thought, one chemical reaction, is as good as another. Why Sagan insists that his chemical reactions are right and mine are wrong is a complete mystery. “Wrong” has no meaning on behaviorist premises.

It follows from the meaninglessness of error that behaviorists, in this case Dr. Sagan, cannot claim their assertions are true. Behaviorism makes truth equally meaningless. Truth is not a quality of electrochemical impulses. My rejection of behaviorism, that is, in Dr. Sagan’s terms, the electrochemical impulses in my brain, are chemically as good as his. Chemicals never err. Both his reactions and mine are solid chemistry. Both obey the inviolable laws of chemistry, which, Dr. Sagan has told us, are the same every where in the universe. Now if anyone, no matter how highly respected and decorated, proposes a theory that precludes the truth of the theory he proposes, he is involved in a hopeless contradiction and needs no further refutation. If he persists in asserting what cannot be true, he needs close and compassionate attention, rather than disputation.

The situation is, however, somewhat worse than this initial consideration indicates. Not only does behaviorism eliminate truth, it eliminates memory and communication as well. If thoughts are electrochemical impulses, then they are specific datable events in the brain. They cannot be repeated. They occur and then they stop. Memory is impossible. A behaviorist might reply that we can have a similar thought later, that is, a similar electrochemical impulse can occur. But the behaviorist forgets (and hopes that we will forget as well) that according to behaviorism the thought of similarity is still another and still later electrochemical impulse, another dated event separated by time (and perhaps by space) from the first two chemical reactions. How can still a third electrochemical reaction connect the first two, which have already occurred and ended? How can a behaviorist tell whether two ideas are similar, if ideas are electrochemical impulses? Behaviorism makes comparison and memory impossible.

It also makes communication impossible. Carl Sagan’s mind is a bundle of electrochemical impulses and reactions; and so is mine, according to Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagan has a thought, that is, his intracranial chemicals react in a certain way. But his brain’s electrochemical impulses cannot be my brain’s electrochemical impulses, any more than his toothache can be mine or my toothache his. Therefore, I can never know his thought. It is therefore impossible to tell what Dr. Sagan means by any of the thousands of propositions that he has written in his books and articles. And since behaviorism also destroys memory, Dr. Sagan himself has no idea what he wrote either. Perhaps his books mean nothing at all. Perhaps they are simply the debris left by a powerful and sudden electrochemical brainstorm.

Behaviorism has been around for centuries, but the modern revival of some forms of Greek paganism has made it into one of the major superstitions of the twentieth century. Ernest Nagel, in his presidential address that I quoted above, said that it is one of the best-tested conclusions of experience. Gordon Clark has suggested that behaviorism be subjected to the same sort of test that other theories claiming to be scientific undergo. Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicted several events, such as the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and the deflection of starlight in the presence of large masses. Scientists could observe whether those events occurred as implied by Einstein’s theory. Let Dr. Sagan specify which electrochemical impulses in the brain are the thought “the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.” Let him tell us what the specific chemistry of astronomy, as distinguished from astrology, is. Let him specify how the surge of electrochemical impulses meaning “The opening chapters of the book of Genesis are mythological” differs from the spurt of electrochemical impulses meaning “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the word of God written and therefore inerrant in the autographs.” Let us see what empirical basis there is for the claim that thoughts are electrochemical impulses. I certainly hope Dr. Sagan’s brain is up to the task.

Why induction can never yield truth:

Bertrand Russell was an English mathematician and philosopher, and he also understood some of the limitations of scientific method. By limitations I do not mean to imply that science is capable of discovering some truths but not others, that through science we can discover truths of astronomy, physics, or botany, but that we must rely on the Bible for theology. That is a fundamentally wrong view of the limitations of science, and Russell had no such delusions about science. Science is based on observation and experiment. But induction, Russell admitted a little reluctantly, “remains an unsolved problem of logic.” Put more bluntly, induction is a logical fallacy. Just because one observes a thousand white swans, one cannot conclude that all swans are white. Number 1001 may be black. Just because the Sun has come up every morning for the past one hundred years does not imply that it will come up tomorrow. Or, to give you a more theological example, non-Christian archaeologists used to claim that there was no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the Hittite nation, and therefore the Bible must be mistaken. Today there are more Hittite documents in our museums than the archaeologists have had time to translate. Induction is always fallacious, yet science is based on induction.

A second problem with science that Russell saw is the problem of experimentation. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses through experiments. From a hypothesis a scientist deduces that if X is done, Y will occur. He then proceeds to perform an experiment; Y occurs; and therefore, he concludes, the hypothesis is confirmed. This form of argument is another logical fallacy, and all laboratory experimentation commits this fallacy. Its formal name is asserting the consequent: If p, then q; q; therefore p. If Einstein’s theory of relativity is true, then light will bend in the presence of massive objects; light bends passing the Sun; therefore Einstein’s theory of relativity is true. Or to put it less scientifically, if it is raining, the streets are wet; the streets are wet; therefore, it is raining. Russell wrote:

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the arguments upon which all scientific laws are based.

The limits of science:

Let me begin answering these questions by listing very briefly some of the reasons that science is not a way of discovering truth. I have already mentioned two, the logical fallacies of induction and asserting the consequent. Let me mention two more, both of them dealing with physics. I choose physics because it is, quite clearly, the best and most advanced of the various natural sciences; and therefore what applies to physics holds a fortiori for biology, for example. Perhaps one can get through a biology course with little more than a good memory; but a physics course, precisely because it is more advanced, requires the ability to think rigorously.

Some may be inclined to argue that even if all the laws of physics are false, they are still highly probable. In response to that, I quote the words of Karl Popper, the British philosopher of science: “All theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.” Why does Popper say such an outrageous thing? The argument is simple: A scientist, after he has performed a number of experiments and made a number of measurements, plots a graph. How many lines can pass through the points on a graph? An infinite number, of course. The nice smooth slopes we put in our science textbooks, even our Christian science textbooks, are but one line out of an infinite number that might have been drawn. The scientist has chosen the line he draws, he has not discovered it. But if it is possible that there is an infinite number of slopes, it follows that the probability of the slope that is chosen and the equation it represents being the right one is one out of infinity, or zero. Therefore, “all theories, even the best, have the same probability, namely zero.” Q. E. D. Popper repeated that statement many times in his books, and I wish some Christian theologians and scientists would read them.
But there is a fourth reason for believing that the scientific method is a tissue of logical fallacies. It is quite easy to grasp, as are the first three reasons. Science, especially physics, does not deal with the world we live in. It deals with an imaginary world where there are absolute vacuums, frictionless surfaces, bodies whose masses are concentrated at a geometrical point, and tensionless strings. The law of the pendulum, for example, applies in such an imaginary world; it describes no actual pendulum. The law of freely falling bodies applies in such an imaginary world; it describes no actually falling bodies. Science does not describe the behavior of the things we see, but of the things scientists imagine, including electrons, protons, and quarks.

http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1632544%3ABlogPost%3A74443&commentId=1632544%3AComment%3A74455&xg_source=activity

 

[tttppp]

Here's more on the logical fallacies of Carl Sagan and science in general:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=90



A complete dissection and logical destruction of the behaviorism of Carl Sagan:



Why induction can never yield truth:



The limits of science:



http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1632544%3ABlogPost%3A74443&commentId=1632544%3AComment%3A74455&xg_source=activity

I agree that pretty much all the accepted laws of the universe are either false or not absolute. But that does not validate religion either. What that does mean is we need a new approach for science. We need to find laws that are absolute and will not change as time goes by. Too often science makes the mistake on studying things that only make a minimal difference and will eventually change when they make new discoveries.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I agree that pretty much all the accepted laws of the universe are either false or not absolute. But that does not validate religion either.

I struggle with the fact that religion or those who are Religious I should say are so absolute in their assessment of God that they think that there are no more questions left to ask and no effort to go looking any further for "God" is to be desired. Chuckle at it is probably the correct term. Not so much struggle with it. Scientists like Sagan don't or did not really have a problem with anyone looking for God or asking questions. Their issue remains that thiose who are so absolute refuse to consider science simply because it does forever ask. That's universal.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I don't know. There is much to be said about prediction. It's the very heart of science.

This is the inductive fallacy.

Put more bluntly, induction is a logical fallacy. Just because one observes a thousand white swans, one cannot conclude that all swans are white. Number 1001 may be black. Just because the Sun has come up every morning for the past one hundred years does not imply that it will come up tomorrow.

Scientific experimentation itself is logically fallacious:

Science proceeds by testing hypotheses through experiments. From a hypothesis a scientist deduces that if X is done, Y will occur. He then proceeds to perform an experiment; Y occurs; and therefore, he concludes, the hypothesis is confirmed. This form of argument is another logical fallacy, and all laboratory experimentation commits this fallacy. Its formal name is asserting the consequent: If p, then q; q; therefore p. If Einstein’s theory of relativity is true, then light will bend in the presence of massive objects; light bends passing the Sun; therefore Einstein’s theory of relativity is true. Or to put it less scientifically, if it is raining, the streets are wet; the streets are wet; therefore, it is raining.

All theories have the same probability...zero:

Some may be inclined to argue that even if all the laws of physics are false, they are still highly probable. In response to that, I quote the words of Karl Popper, the British philosopher of science: “All theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.” Why does Popper say such an outrageous thing? The argument is simple: A scientist, after he has performed a number of experiments and made a number of measurements, plots a graph. How many lines can pass through the points on a graph? An infinite number, of course. The nice smooth slopes we put in our science textbooks, even our Christian science textbooks, are but one line out of an infinite number that might have been drawn. The scientist has chosen the line he draws, he has not discovered it. But if it is possible that there is an infinite number of slopes, it follows that the probability of the slope that is chosen and the equation it represents being the right one is one out of infinity, or zero. Therefore, “all theories, even the best, have the same probability, namely zero.” Q. E. D. Popper repeated that statement many times in his books, and I wish some Christian theologians and scientists would read them.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Here's more on the logical fallacies of Carl Sagan and science in general:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=90



A complete dissection and logical destruction of the behaviorism of Carl Sagan:



Why induction can never yield truth:



The limits of science:



http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1632544%3ABlogPost%3A74443&commentId=1632544%3AComment%3A74455&xg_source=activity

Are these quotes from those two links. Was just wondering before I go clicking on them. May as well read it. Who wrote those, btw?

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is the inductive fallacy.


Scientific experimentation itself is logically fallacious:

Is funny, I was just watching this discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnRlIi_1xzc

Your response actually reminded me of some aspects of the discussion.


Beyond the small talk it is a good one if you can deal with the interviewer who can't seem to contain himself for a second and listen.

And it's from 1991. Going back to prediction and whatnot.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Are these quotes from those two links. Was just wondering before I go clicking on them. May as well read it. Who wrote those, btw?

John Robbins, who was Ron Paul's chief of staff in the 80's. He was a free market economist, theologian, historian, and philosopher. He was a student of Gordon Clark who was one of the most important Christian philosophers in recent times.

 

[Natural Citizen]

John Robbins, who was Ron Paul's chief of staff in the 80's. He was a free market economist, theologian, historian, and philosopher. He was a student of Gordon Clark who was one of the most important Christian philosophers in recent times.

Oh, Ok. I haven't read it yet but will. Pooch needs a walk....

I do find civil discussion like this stimulating if it doesn't turn into romper room. You know?

 

[tttppp]

I struggle with the fact that religion or those who are Religious I should say are so absolute in their assessment of God that they think that there are no more questions left to ask and no effort to go looking any further for "God" is to be desired. Chuckle at it is probably the correct term. Not so much struggle with it. Scientists like Sagan don't oe did not really have a problem with anyone looking for God or asking questions. Their issue remains that thiose who are so absolute refuse to consider science simply because it does forever ask. That's universal.

The fact that religious people are usually absolute is not the problem, its that they are wrong and their beliefs are not based on logic but on blind faith. Also, when proven wrong, religion changes their beliefs then say that's what God really meant.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Anyway, I would make the case that Darwinism is not safe for children. The Columbine murderers were ardent Darwinists:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/04/slouching-toward-columbine-charles-darwins-poisonous-legacy.html

When one of the assailants, Eric Harris, was autopsied, the medical examiner found that under his black trench coat the boy had on a white t-shirt emblazoned with a peculiar slogan. The slogan was “Natural Selection.” It was later reported but little commented upon that, on his website, Harris had written, among other paeans to the Darwinian mechanism, “Natural SELECTION!!!!!! God damn it’s the best thing that ever happened to the earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms…but it’s all natural!!! YES!”

 

[Dr.3D]

Anyway, I would make the case that Darwinism is not safe for children. The Columbine murderers were ardent Darwinists:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/04/slouching-toward-columbine-charles-darwins-poisonous-legacy.html

Makes me wonder if those who love to wage war, believe it's natural selection in action.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Makes me wonder if those who love to wage war, believe it's natural selection in action.

Yes, that...and also the tyrants of history must make man something less than man to justify their tyranny in the court of public opinion. If man is an evolving social animal, the philosophical justification for tyranny and murder is not a large leap. And there are many avenues a person could take. For example, in Hitler's case, Jews and Blacks were lesser evolved animals. When you tell children that they are less than human, it affects them in ways that you couldn't imagine. But the atheistic statist massacres of the 20th century give you a glimpse into what its effects really are.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Anyway, I would make the case that Darwinism is not safe for children. The Columbine murderers were ardent Darwinists:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomof...lumbine-charles-darwins-poisonous-legacy.html

Yes but depending upon who is throwing around the term Darwinism, it's impossible to categorically define them by their actions. Can one realistically assume those youth had any clue of the historic differences in views pertaining to Darwinism. To include it's very meaning?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes but depending upon who is throwing around the term Darwinism, it's impossible to categorically define them by their actions. Can one realistically assume those youth had any clue of the historic differences in views pertaining to Darwinism. To include it's very meaning?

I'm not sure. But my case would be more convincing than the OP's case that Darwinism has something to do with the future of technological advancements. Talk about a horrible argument. "We have to teach kids Darwinism because they won't understand architecture without it.". Wow. This guy should stick to test tubes and stay away from philosophy or logic.

 

[Revolution9]

Then am I correct in my thinking that evolution is not a scientific theory but merely a theory.

The modern version of it Darwin would disagree with heartily. That was not what he was saying. He was speaking to local adaptations. Eugenicists hammered the modern version into place as it supports their cullings.

Rev9