NY Time OpEd piece on science denial

[oldguystudent]

OK Rick. That was funny. I'll give you that one.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Always chuckle at sweeping claims of the love of science, when most who do so ignore that fact that AIDS is, was, and always will be a disease wrought and spread by homosexuals, bisexuals, and drug users.

It's cure is a simple a keeping your penis out of other men's anuses, refraining from sex with those who do not refrain from doing so, and staying in a monogomous heterosexual relationship. Heck, that's easier than proving the origin of the universe. It's a wholly demonstrable fact that we don't have to wait "millions and billions" of years to prove.

But, I guess picking and choosing which science to believe makes them feel a cut above. Carry on, NY Times - your wilful ignorance is no better or worse than the religious.

[mattmartin817]

Always chuckle at sweeping claims of the love of science, when most who do so ignore that fact that AIDS is, was, and always will be a disease wrought and spread by homosexuals, bisexuals, and drug users.

It's cure is a simple a keeping your penis out of other men's anuses, refraining from sex with those who do not refrain from doing so, and staying in a monogomous heterosexual relationship. Heck, that's easier than proving the origin of the universe. It's a wholly demonstrable fact that we don't have to wait "millions and billions" of years to prove.

But, I guess picking and choosing which science to believe makes them feel a cut above. Carry on, NY Times - your wilful ignorance is no better or worse than the religious.

Speaking of willful ignorance.

[oldguystudent]

Speaking of willful ignorance.

AIDS? Oh boy. This thing's about to go viral!

[GTWT]

No offense to your girl friend but not believing in evolution is not believing in science is bunk. Only a little more than half of the biological scientists say that they believe in evolution and that number is decreasing even in the face of being denied research funds. In fact, that is purportedly the major reason that scientists won't deny evolution because it would cut them out of research money. (Research funds are the backbone to discoveries, especially in medicine, so they remain essential). There are elements of microevolution in Darwin's theory that are sound but none of that substantiates how man evolved from a simple form to the complexity of the human body.

Lastly, the Big Bang Theory is just that...a theory. Can anyone show scientific proof of the Big Bang? I haven't seen it yet but I'll keep looking.

GrayEagle,

I enjoy & respect your posts on Mean Green football but, my friend, your comments on science are pure b.s. According to a recent Gallup Pole -

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

That quote came from - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

As for "the Big Bang Theory is just that...a theory. Can anyone show scientific proof of the Big Bang?"

You need to understand that in science the term 'theory' means something different than the way you used it. A theory in science is a statement that summarizes all we know about a subject. Thus a scientific theory is a very powerful thing. Theories are supported by all the available information & contradicted by none. That doesn't mean that a theory is proved - science isn't in the business of proof - & if tomorrow data are gathered that contradict the Big Bang (or evolution) then that theory will be rejected in favor of a more successful statement or, more likely, modified to fit the new data.

You needn't think that evolution is by necessity a threat to your faith - Darwin didn't think that. Many scientists today are men of faith & still fully accepting of the validity of evolutionary theory. Ken Miller, a Catholic, and Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, are just two examples. What is a threat, at least to your religion, is the tendency of some Christians to reject reality anytime that reality contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible. If you insist that belief in a 6,000 year-old earth or a world-wide flood is a prerequisite for being a Christian, then you're going to lose all who are rational.

[Mean Green 93-98]

If you insist that belief in a 6,000 year-old earth or a world-wide flood is a prerequisite for being a Christian, then you're going to lose all who are rational, as I am the sole arbiter of who and what are rational.

Fixed.

[GTWT]

Fixed.

No, not the sole arbiter. If you believe the earth was magically created 6000 years ago, or that God flooded the earth, or that all species were poofed into existence in their present form, then educated people are going to doubt that you're rational.

Edited January 27, 2013 by GTWT

[GrayEagle]

No, not the sole arbiter. If you believe the earth was magically created 6000 years ago, or that God flooded the earth, or that all species were poofed into existence in their present form, then educated people are going to doubt that you're rational.

If you're going to believe that man evolved from an amoeba to a creature with thousands of parts, all working in beautiful harmony with the other parts by random selection over 13.75 billion years then I don't mind being considered irrational by the "educated".

By the way, where are the mutants?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

If the simple fact that CMJ finally has a girlfriend isn't proof enough that there is a God, then I don't know what else to tell you?

ATTENTION 66!!!!!....This is what folks call SARCASM, and is an attempt to lightly tease CMJ with no hateful intent whatsoever.

Rick

..

Thanks.... I would have never known... If you had not told me... (sarcasm)

..

[THOR]

The beauty of religious arguments is that no one really knows...we are all free to.believe how we want because no one can prove anyone else wrong.

Its all.about what faith u have in what you believe...

Edited January 28, 2013 by THOR

[golfingomez]

The beauty of religious arguments is that no one really knows...we are all free to.believe how we want because no one can prove anyone else wrong.

Its all.about what faith u have in what you believe...

Easy for you to say... You're already a god...

[GTWT]

By the way, where are the mutants?

That would be you & I, GrayEagle, and all living things. We're all products of mutation.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

No, not the sole arbiter. If you believe the earth was magically created 6000 years ago, or that God flooded the earth, or that all species were poofed into existence in their present form, then educated people are going to doubt that you're rational.

Right, because it's so much less believable than the "poof into existence" came from a space explosion millions of years ago that no one saw. There's a "poof into existence" with either belief. NY Times likes its "poof into existence" belief more than it likes flyover country Christians' "poof into existence."

Magic creation versus magic explosion. Choose your side. Neither can be definitively proven, so why look down at one side or the other?

It's just another hypocrisy of people who say they love "rationality" and "science above all" - "You can't prove yours, so mine is right."

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

If you're going to believe that man evolved from an amoeba to a creature with thousands of parts, all working in beautiful harmony with the other parts by random selection over 13.75 billion years then I don't mind being considered irrational by the "educated".

By the way, where are the mutants?

Not just man...7-10 million species of plant and animal with, at minimum, thousands of working parts, depending on whose numbers you use. All over millions of year evolving out of a giant space "poof." All random, you understand...if you are to be rational about it.

Millions and millions of random happenings over millions and millions of year that no one ever saw. I'm ready for the "space poof" believers to give me the winning lottery numbers.

[MeanGreenTexan]

One of the most interesting ideas of Creation I've ever seen meshed the Bible's story with scientific evidence at a level that I am not qualified to really speak to (lots of physics, which I was HORRIBLE at). It delves into Einstein's theory of relativity, big bang, & string theory. Basically saying that "the first day" that the bible speaks of occurred over a span of billions of years. The second day was shorter (as the universe was growing, and time relatively sped up) but still occurred over billions/millions of years, etc... until we have time as we see it today.

For some reason, possibly because of some scientists' motives, Christians have become afraid of science, in some instances, aggressively. They have dug-in, and dismiss alot of science's findings. This is ridiculous.

Over time, scientists have seen this as an attack on their craft and have since dug-in as well, and dismiss the Bible or any evidence that creationists bring to the table. This is spiteful.

As a Christian, I believe they can and should work together. It's beautiful to see cell biology, as this has been 'proven' over and over.

Wow! God has made this work wonderfully!

Why must one exclude the other?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

One of the most interesting ideas of Creation I've ever seen meshed the Bible's story with scientific evidence at a level that I am not qualified to really speak to (lots of physics, which I was HORRIBLE at). It delves into Einstein's theory of relativity, big bang, & string theory. Basically saying that "the first day" that the bible speaks of occurred over a span of billions of years. The second day was shorter (as the universe was growing, and time relatively sped up) but still occurred over billions/millions of years, etc... until we have time as we see it today.

For some reason, possibly because of some scientists' motives, Christians have become afraid of science, in some instances, aggressively. They have dug-in, and dismiss alot of science's findings. This is ridiculous.

Over time, scientists have seen this as an attack on their craft and have since dug-in as well, and dismiss the Bible or any evidence that creationists bring to the table. This is spiteful.

As a Christian, I believe they can and should work together. It's beautiful to see cell biology, as this has been 'proven' over and over.

Wow! God has made this work wonderfully!

Why must one exclude the other?

You don't have to. I went to a Christian school for two years - 7th and 8th grade - and we learned about all the theories of Earth's origin. For whatever reason, one "poof into existence" is supposed to trump the other, even though neither can be definitely proven.

But, each side likes to look down their nose at the other. And, no one looks down their nose at people better than the NY Times. It's ridiculous, but true. "Poof!"

[GTWT]

Right, because it's so much less believable than the "poof into existence" came from a space explosion millions of years ago that no one saw. There's a "poof into existence" with either belief. NY Times likes its "poof into existence" belief more than it likes flyover country Christians' "poof into existence."

Magic creation versus magic explosion. Choose your side. so why look down at one side or the other?

The difference is that no scientist has ever described the 'Big Bang' as magic.

Neither can be definitively proven,..."You can't prove yours, so mine is right."

Again, science isn't in the business of proving anything. Neither evolutionary theory or the Big Bang are proven. Both are, however, so well supported by data that it is perverse to reject these ideas.

[oldguystudent]

To add to a little scientific vocabulary and context, gravity is currently nothing more than a theory. It's not proven, just supported by lots of data, and bruised knees, and dropped passes.

[DoubleEagle]

To add to a little scientific vocabulary and context, gravity is currently nothing more than a theory. It's not proven, just supported by lots of data, and bruised knees, and dropped passes.

Adding to this, here is a quote from the National Academy of Sciences --

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

[Mean Green 93-98]

One of the most interesting ideas of Creation I've ever seen meshed the Bible's story with scientific evidence at a level that I am not qualified to really speak to (lots of physics, which I was HORRIBLE at). It delves into Einstein's theory of relativity, big bang, & string theory. Basically saying that "the first day" that the bible speaks of occurred over a span of billions of years. The second day was shorter (as the universe was growing, and time relatively sped up) but still occurred over billions/millions of years, etc... until we have time as we see it today.

For some reason, possibly because of some scientists' motives, Christians have become afraid of science, in some instances, aggressively. They have dug-in, and dismiss alot of science's findings. This is ridiculous.

Over time, scientists have seen this as an attack on their craft and have since dug-in as well, and dismiss the Bible or any evidence that creationists bring to the table. This is spiteful.

As a Christian, I believe they can and should work together. It's beautiful to see cell biology, as this has been 'proven' over and over.

Wow! God has made this work wonderfully!

Why must one exclude the other?

Sorry, Texan . . . I usually agree with you, but I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Each day of creation had one evening followed by a morning (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). You'd have to account for the earth rotating on its axis infinitely slower than today to have billions of years crunched into that spin, which would create a whole new set of scientific problems. Also, plant life would have had to go billions of years without sunlight if this were the case--impossible without an additional miracle, and it would be a nonsensical miracle to perform.

Additionally, God specifically designated the days of creation as 24-hour days when He gave Israel the sabbath: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work. . . . 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:8-11). The Israelites were to follow a similar week as God's creation week--work six days, rest the seventh. Surely they were not to work so many billions of years and then rest for 1/7th as many billions of years after that(?)

I certainly have nothing against science, but to suggest that the Bible must be changed every time scientists come up with a new working theory is irrational.

[Censored by Laurie]

I certainly have nothing against science, but to suggest that the Bible must be changed every time scientists come up with a new working theory is irrational.

Pure gold.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Sorry, Texan . . . I usually agree with you, but I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Each day of creation had one evening followed by a morning (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). You'd have to account for the earth rotating on its axis infinitely slower than today to have billions of years crunched into that spin, which would create a whole new set of scientific problems. Also, plant life would have had to go billions of years without sunlight if this were the case--impossible without an additional miracle, and it would be a nonsensical miracle to perform.

Additionally, God specifically designated the days of creation as 24-hour days when He gave Israel the sabbath: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work. . . . 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:8-11). The Israelites were to follow a similar week as God's creation week--work six days, rest the seventh. Surely they were not to work so many billions of years and then rest for 1/7th as many billions of years after that(?)

I certainly have nothing against science, but to suggest that the Bible must be changed every time scientists come up with a new working theory is irrational.

And I'm not saying I buy into that theory. It is fascinating though.

But we also cannot discount 2 Peter 3:8 when presented with a theory like this one.

[oldguystudent]

Every sect feels such a strong need to be the special one that cracks the code because time is totally unambiguous throughout the bible.

As much as science offends some Christians, insistence on being THE chosen people who are the only ones able to understand the oh, so clear word of God offends this direct descendant of the Millerites, who were not incorrect on the timing, claim the modern day Adventists, just the event of that day.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

The difference is that no scientist has ever described the 'Big Bang' as magic.

Again, science isn't in the business of proving anything. Neither evolutionary theory or the Big Bang are proven. Both are, however, so well supported by data that it is perverse to reject these ideas.

That's what a Big Bang creating millions of different types of specie, plant and animal, at random would be, though, wouldn't it, magic? Or, perhaps, miraculous. I'm sure the Christian would go with miraculous.

"Poof! (Millions of years of seeing nothing...then, printing press and so forth...then, we're all from space dust monkeys!)" Wow, how could anyone disagree with that? Randomly...millions of times over. "Poof!"

I'm just sorry that the millions of randomness's magic miraculous "poof" didn't take hold on Mars...or, Venus...or, Pluto (whatever we classify it as today, so that there are no starving children in third world countries).

Earth is so lucky to have been the beneficiary of the millions of random occurrences over the millions of years, eh? Billions and billions of miles in space. Millions and millions of years. Millions and millions of plants and animals...all mysteriously, randomly, merge together to form Earth and everything in and on it.

WOW! That's magic! Let's build a rocket ship to the moon and see what's on one of the unlucky spheres. Blah...nothing here but space dust and rocks. Can't every get a decent tomato garden going up here. Then, we'll go to Mars. Ooooooo, Mars. Nothing here either but space dust and rocks and maybe...WATER!?!?

Oh Mars! Mars! What happened to you millions and millions of years ago? Was it SUVs that was your downfall? Nuclear war? Cows farting? Coal plants? Greedy oil companies? China? India? Paper and plastic grocery store bags?

Oh, Mars! Mars! Give up your magical secrets of life! Why must you await the next magic, mysterious, miraculous, randomly generating millions of species, plant and animal, over millions of years on one planet "poof"? Why? Why, God? Why?

"Poof!"

[Censored by Laurie]

That's what a Big Bang creating millions of different types of specie, plant and animal, at random would be, though, wouldn't it, magic? Or, perhaps, miraculous. I'm sure the Christian would go with miraculous.

"Poof! (Millions of years of seeing nothing...then, printing press and so forth...then, we're all from space dust monkeys!)" Wow, how could anyone disagree with that? Randomly...millions of times over. "Poof!"

I'm just sorry that the millions of randomness's magic miraculous "poof" didn't take hold on Mars...or, Venus...or, Pluto (whatever we classify it as today, so that there are no starving children in third world countries).

Earth is so lucky to have been the beneficiary of the millions of random occurrences over the millions of years, eh? Billions and billions of miles in space. Millions and millions of years. Millions and millions of plants and animals...all mysteriously, randomly, merge together to form Earth and everything in and on it.

WOW! That's magic! Let's build a rocket ship to the moon and see what's on one of the unlucky spheres. Blah...nothing here but space dust and rocks. Can't every get a decent tomato garden going up here. Then, we'll go to Mars. Ooooooo, Mars. Nothing here either but space dust and rocks and maybe...WATER!?!?

Oh Mars! Mars! What happened to you millions and millions of years ago? Was it SUVs that was your downfall? Nuclear war? Cows farting? Coal plants? Greedy oil companies? China? India? Paper and plastic grocery store bags?

Oh, Mars! Mars! Give up your magical secrets of life! Why must you await the next magic, mysterious, miraculous, randomly generating millions of species, plant and animal, over millions of years on one planet "poof"? Why? Why, God? Why?

"Poof!"

You're right. It is much easier to read one book than many complicated ones.