-41 votes

Are You Anti-Science?

Are you a Creationist? Do you want your kids to grow up with Creationist beliefs?

Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" lays it on the line for parents.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How is it a cop-out to say some higher being was responsible for

life? Its the duty of science to investigate everything, including the intangible as possibilities to which one must ponder. Sure, researching the empirical evidence will provide some clues of our origins, but as you alluded yourself using the geocentric analogy, current scientific investigative research appears short-sighted for not incorporating such notions like intelligent design into their formula. I believe most universities will fail you for not recognizing the evolution theory as truth to which one must base their theses on.

Scientists do not have to accept defeat in embracing creationism. Science has come very far using observable and measurable data, but theorizing the connections of all life forms on this planet based on genetics will still be a theory. Much like creationism is just a theory. Neither side has any conclusive evidence to go beyond this. One could describe the bio-mechanics of different species and their similarities all they want, much like theologian can argue about god and life, but it is just assumptive reasoning, which doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, but as far as the big picture is concerned, neither side has any indisputable proof regarding the origin of life on Earth.

Currently I am leaning more towards I.D. Science could prove me wrong, but not today. This doesn't mean I will not pursue this question any further. I'm not negating scientific research by any means either nor am I religious, so I would question anything in any bible as a basis for my beliefs.

"society could go in a thousand directions as to how it would exist and how it would be, but the public mustn't know that. The generations must believe that the one that they're born into is naturally evolved."-Lenin/Alan Watt/cuttingthroughthematrix.com

Evolutionary biology by far

Evolutionary biology by far has the most support. Intelligent design, creation science, special creation, etc... These represent subjective theories. Evolutionary biology is supported by objective, empirical data. However, I take it that evolution is not an option for you because it contradicts your religious beliefs. You must, therefore, resort to the next best thing, ID.

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

Evolution can be a subcategory of I.D.

But this is just a theory too.

Having a lot of support for a theory doesn't necessarily mean the theory is fact and should therefore be treated as such. I.D. has a lot of subjective support as well, but it doesn't convey fact either.

"society could go in a thousand directions as to how it would exist and how it would be, but the public mustn't know that. The generations must believe that the one that they're born into is naturally evolved."-Lenin/Alan Watt/cuttingthroughthematrix.com

You are right.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, and therefore can never be considered as fact. I might sound ignorant here... But I don't really know much about ID. I'm familiar with Micheal Behe, and the irreducible complexity of the flagellum. I had the privelage of workling with a biologist recently who did work with eel sperm (which functions normally with a reduced form of the flagellum), and I recieved a thourough lecture on how modified forms of the flagellum are quite functional. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the premise of ID seems to be "It looks designed, therefore it's designed." This is subjective! Something that looks designed to you might not look designed to someone else. For example, a snow flake appears to be designed. But we have a complete understanding of the properties of water and the physics involved in the crystillization of ice. When you say "ID has objective (I'm assuming that's what you meant) support" what are you referring to?

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government

I meant subjective

This is because all the information which I can gather through science and religion did not satisfy my desire for understanding the truth. What I do know for myself is to tentatively treat origin of life as intelligent design first, but then understand this through science and philosophy, not necessarily implicate it for lack of objectivity.

The philosophical nature of my disposition is what makes it subjective. Why, what, how, and when. What was the mutative process of developing two eyes? Should there not be residual evidence supporting the "in-between" stages of evolution if it indeed is what is theorized? Where are all the in-between evidence going from single-celled organism to the next level of mutation? If these mutations take place for millions of years, shouldn't they still persist as such so that the succeeding mutation can have time to evolve? There are just far more questions yet to be realized.

I'm not trying to bash science. I really love science for exposing the truth, but I believe it is the establishment scientific community which try too hard to make their evolution theory a must-be scenario.

There are just too many questions which remain mysteries which have yet to be understood to claim affirmation to any scientific or religious creed.

"society could go in a thousand directions as to how it would exist and how it would be, but the public mustn't know that. The generations must believe that the one that they're born into is naturally evolved."-Lenin/Alan Watt/cuttingthroughthematrix.com

pose a simple question then

not eight questions.

I apologize for misleading you

I just got carried away. I should have changed the subject. ;)

"society could go in a thousand directions as to how it would exist and how it would be, but the public mustn't know that. The generations must believe that the one that they're born into is naturally evolved."-Lenin/Alan Watt/cuttingthroughthematrix.com

Why do evolution and God have to be seperate issues?

The story of the garden of Eden, is just that...a story. Every civilization has it's "creation" story..."in the beginning.....", "before time began"....before men walked the earth", etc, etc.
God is eternal....without time...forever now. So it took a few (or many) million years to put together this amazing planet that he gifted to us. Where is the problem with that?

Your existence and easy

Your existence and easy survival today is the product of millions upon millions of scientific, medical, engineering and economically rational events which all occurred before you were born. Take away all of these things and you would be an evolved human who might die due to disease or live a short while only to be eaten by another evolved animal, or suffer terrible diseases or physical hardships... you know, just like back in the "good old days".

Denise B's picture

The unmistakable reality

is that the same media that lies to us everyday, that hides the truth while pushing their made-up version of truth, that belittles Ron Paul and anyone who thinks like him and looks the other way while the world around us goes to s$$T are the very same people that push global warming, evolution and never miss an opportunity to discredit the God of the Bible. Now you tell me why that is? These people that lie to us about everything else that matters just wants to make sure that when it comes to God and evolution that we know the real truth. Their lying about all of the other garbage that they push, but somehow when it comes to God and evolution they just want us all to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth...Really?? If you buy that, I have a house in lower manhattan I would like to sell you right now....

Do not forget that the very same elite that are behind the scenes pulling all of the strings who's endgame is to enslave us and destroy us are the very same people who have sought to discredit God and remove Him from every vestige of society. I guess that somehow, in just this one area, they really just want to enlighten us and save us from our fairytales. Why don't you mull that one over a while and offer a plausible explanation for it.

They aren't conserned with truth or lie.

They just say whatever for their benefit regardless of whether it is true or false. It is wrong to say that everything they say is false or that everything they say is true. The media is completely irrelevant, only facts matter, don't participate in blind rejections or endorsements of what the media states just because they say it.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

And by the way...

just saying phrases like "the unmistakable reality" or "the fact is" or anything similar shows your reader that you are about to assert something that is not proven as fact. It is things like this that intelligent people quickly dismiss. If you have a fact or proof, you just have to say it, not boost it's importance.

Denise B's picture

Are you questioning

the fact that the media lies to the general public on a regular basis? You do not believe that to be a fact? Then you probably are spending your time at the wrong place.

I wasn't referring to the media

I was eluding to the debate techniques of people who are showing emotion.

One thing that we can all agree on is that creationists generally frequent this forum in the morning and later evening hours while science supporters seem to focus on it in the afternoon! Good day all - over and out.


Haven't you learned anything on this site yet? Always follow the money or the motive.

However, the more important point is that just because someone is using your scientific work to support their agenda, that doesn't have one shred of affect on if your work is true or false. (unless you got paid for it)

They want a religious society so people are easier to persuade. So they lie.

They want global warming to be true so they can take more power. So they promote the truth. (those not in the oil business)

Others want this or that to make money or take control this way or that way. So they take sides here or there. Each issue has opponents and proponents fighting for public opinion. None of that interrelates to actual hard science. It has, however, made scientists' jobs much harder in finding un-influenced data to reference in other work. ...hence the fierce anger toward the whole rigged game.

Denise B's picture

Please explain further

your comment "They want a religious society so people are easier to pursuade. So they lie"... Did you actually read what I wrote? The media and entertainment in general today do NOT push a religious society at all, quite the opposite is true, in fact. They push evolution every single chance they get and discredit the God of the Bible and make a mockery of religion every chance they get. I agree with you that they do lie; however, the lie they are preaching over and over again is evolution is a fact and God has no place in society.

The point of my comment is that the media of today seldom tell the truth about anything and most people on this site accept that as fact, yet they believe that evolution is fact when it is something the "untrustworthy" media pushes down our throats almost every chance they get. Why would they be telling the truth on this particular subject and no where else? If religion is used to control the masses as so many atheists claim, why are the elite behind the destruction of society doing everything they can to thwart it?

Its good you caught that I turned that one around

because yes, they do lie. They strongly advocate god, being christian, and anything religious as if it were the basis for good morals. This is simply intolerable. There is exactly zero relation or cause between the two. Many studies have shown over more than a century that direct comparisons between atheists and christians give the moral high ground to atheists. Sorry but look it up before you argue it.

As far as evolution, they discredit themselves by advocating it while hypocritically advocating religion. I believe they are forced into this conundrum because there is simply way too much evidence supporting evolution to ignore it and way too many people who know it is as proven beyond their doubts.

At least you know not to listen to the media on anything. :)

Great post

Thank you.

Keep in mind people

I NEVER said FOR SURE that dinosaurs, or similar creatures never existed, I only said "there is much to question". I am only questioning the "official line" on this, just as I question the official line about 9/11 and just about everything else. You know how the MSM creates its own history by burying real history. The dinosaur thing is pushed on us night and day and has been for 100+ years - now we have Barney, Land of the Lost, Jurrasic Park, etc. etc. - need I remind you once again who owns the media and what their agenda is. I feel like a 9/11 truther at a neocon convention the way I'm getting attacked over this.

Some of you may have a personal stake in the industry - I don't know - but there is no need to go into meme-control overdrive over my personal views - as if the entire dinosaur story is going to crumble to bits because of one person questioning it.

How can dinosaurs be discounted?

Their remains have been found all over the place.
God and evolution go hand in hand.

So you don't see the harm

in massive groups of people coordinating their beliefs (and indoctrinating their children's) against tested, proven and reviewed science which is needed in all advancement as well as informing people how buildings can't crumble from a simple office fire?

What if by some radical twist of fate the top 1000 new geniuses about to produce the great breakthroughs in science were all born into forcefully devout 6,000 year earth creationist families?

Believe me when I tell you from knowing one of these families... they home school (generally a great thing) and the three kids all think magnets work by magic. And no, they're not young.


You just hate religious people.

I see harm

In massive groups of people coordinating their beliefs (and indoctrinating their children's) based on what the globalist-controlled media pounds into their heads without questioning it. Go along with it and you're never criticized. Question ANY of it and you're given an "-er" label and demonized.

We're also told "global warming"/"climate change" is based on tested, proven and reviewed science which we know is is absolute bunk as more and more info has come out that these so-called "respected" scientists having been paid off to feed us bogus info...they are working for the globalists: doing their part to push the overall agenda. I have the same feeling it's the same story with 9/11, disnosars and a whole bucnh of other stuff we take for granted as being "settled science".

See my post below about Newton and the science-magick link.

Scientists are truth finders.

Scientists are probably the most skeptical people on the planet, they do their own tests and research and draw conclusions based on solid factual evidence. If one didn't do this, they wouldn't be a scientist as the foundation of science is of course the scientific method.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

So its ok on your side, but not on the other?

You have been blinded to not see your side as doing exactly this but you can't even see that there is NO coordinated effort on behalf of science toward any beliefs. Science predominantly teaches people how to use tools. Those tool are then used individually to investigate science by themselves. This is called lab work. It's why scientists take offense to being told they follow anyone else's beliefs... because they did the experiments themselves.

Keep in mind one important point. That raw science has no agenda does NOT mean that others don't take good and/or bad science data and use that in conjunction with an agenda. Two very different things.

Your Newton post was way too far out there to even justify a response. Sorry, not buying it without lots of documentation. On top of that, his religion has zero to do with the maths proofs he gave the world. They have been proven (even by me) millions of times each year by nearly every hard scientist out there. Same goes for his physics.

I find it entertaining, many

I find it entertaining, many of you here are defending your religion and views quite passionately, but have you ever thought about the tools that you are using and their inventors?

Do you know that the computer you are using right now is using technology and algorithms pioneered by a Homosexual Atheist named Alan Turing?

The software running on your gay machine was also created by either Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, both outspoken Atheists.

So why are you exposing yourself to such a strong force of atheism and homosexuality? Why are you not in church praising how awesome Mr Jesus who is completely ignoring BILLIONS of people suffering from famine, disease and starvation?

As far as your beliefs go, all atheists are immoral evil people, even though the wealthiest Atheist in history, Bill Gates, has donated most of his wealth to charity and is planning to donate nearly all upon his death.

So while your pastors are building mega churches with malls and movie theaters, there are people who give zero shit about religion and instead putting forth all their effort to help their fellow human beings.

But most surprising, they are NOT doing this because Mr. Jesus told them too, no, they are doing it because of their free will no help with no threat of hell or eternal damnation.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

Your comment only shows

your complete ignorance not only of true Christianity (as opposed to religion), but also your ignorance of the "philanthropy" of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
Maybe you think that Mr Jobs and Mr Gates were playing "God the Philanthropist" by giving all those thousands of off-shore workers slave work conditions and suicide nets, all for a better life, and that that decision had absolutely NOTHING to do with profit.
Read the article Dark cloud over the Gates Foundation, and you will see that Globalist Gates and his wife are not very giving at all.

Bwahahaha! Oh, the madness of

Bwahahaha! Oh, the madness of attempting to converse with zealots... I should know, I used to hold such ridiculous beliefs as a younger person.

You are ridiculous.

You are ridiculous.

I never said all atheists

Are immoral, evil people. The leadership - that's a different story. A significant number of them are occultists/luciferians in disguise.

Bill Gates - bad example. IMO some good deeds don't make up for a lot of bad stuff - same with the Masons/Shriners etc. They don't really care - they just do these things so other people see them doing it. It's all about image.

The pastors of the mega-churches are masons too - modern-day pharisees.