-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.

http://youtu.be/gHbYJfwFgOU



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Whatever

Whatever gets you through the night. The truth is plain.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Very Nice....

I'm not mad, but then again, I'm not a flat-earther. :-)

Isaiah 40:22

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

22 It is He who [a]sits above the [b]circle of the earth, (not flat)
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

But ya can't blame the teacher for how the students behave. Most times bad theories come when people don't read their Bibles. ;-)

A circle

is flat(?) Perhaps the concept of a spherical Earth is what was challenging to the masses of the times, as they had no basis for comprehending it (concept of gravity came later).

Newly introduced concepts seem to defy human logic until information is increased enough to 'redefine reality' and create a 'new paradigm.' It seems to me that creationism resists the contemporary redefining of reality, and the new paradigms that incorporate greater available information than a 'traditional biblical framework' allows for.

you are absolutely right.

you are absolutely right. The bible stated the earth was round thousands of years before. While the modern scientists of the day were sure it was flat. Go figure who was right all along

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

It's true....

We're everywhere. ;-)

You have been had my

You have been had my friend.

A. Bill Nye is not a scientist and does not claim to be, so this is really just his opinion, not laying anything on the line for parents at all.

B. Speaking against evolution is not speaking against science. In fact, evolution is based upon perverted science and there is far more actual science AGAINST evolution than for.

C. You do realize that Dr. Ron Paul does not accept the theory of evolution, right?

D. YES! I want my children to share my creationist beliefs, while at the same time understanding evolution and why it fails scientifically as a theory. For every single piece of data that an evolutionist suggests is evidence of a common ancestor, I would argue is actually evidence of a common creator.

E. You MUST understand the difference between micro and macro evolution. Of course micro evolution happens (that is evolution within a species) however there is not one single shred of evidence that supports macro evolution (that is evolution BETWEEN species). The evolutionist does not like to talk about this difference, and for good reason. The theory start to fall apart very quickly.

F. Evolution cannot explain how it all began. The Big Bang? Where did the gasses and space come from? At some point something had to be created. Also, evolution cannot explain why humans are the ONLY creatures that demonstrate conscience.

G. Lastly, if you want your children to believe that science supports that they evolved from a puddle of pond scum, as did every single thing we see, and are of the same mold as the ape that is fine. However, I do want my children to understand evolution, why it fails scientifically, and that they are in the image and likeness of the Creator, making them far different than any other creation in existence. When an animal drafts something comparable to the Declaration of Independence, then we can talk.

Arguing against evolution is not at all anti-science as you suggest. To assert this means you have fallen for the liberal, Hollywood propaganda of the extreme left. Furthermore, it means you are calling Ron Paul anti-science since he has stated he does not accept the theory of evolution.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

I agree with you on everything except the end of "F"

Consciousness is being self aware. Many animals have exhibited this trait.

That doesn't mean they evolved it. They could just as easily been created with it, as we were.

I actually agree with you. I

I actually agree with you. I was talking about conscience as defined by Jimminy Cricket. :)

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

Agreed

Well said!

SteveMT's picture

Why is this one or the other, all or none? That's too dogmatic.

Why couldn't evolution have been directed by the hand of the Almighty? If the Theory of Evolution was that ironclad, it would be called the Law of Evolution. It isn't called a law because there are big holes in this theory as there are big holes in the Big Bang Theory.

Because...

The scriptures make it impossible to believe in macro evolution. As our Lord said "Scripture cannot be broken". The scriptures He was referring to were in the Hebrew Tanach or Old Testament.

He often referred to them and validated them by His use of them.

The Bible is not a scientific treatise nor is it a book of history although it contains elements of both. It is a spiritual book that tells us why we are here, what our Creator's purpose is for us and how we can personally participate in that purpose. We can either accept this and surrender our lives to His purposes or continue in the state of rebellion against Him that is our natural inclination.

It has been my observation that those who become the most vehement adversaries of God are those who for one reason or another are very angry with Him. In Darwin's case it was the death of his young daughter at the age of nine that most undermined his faith and from then on I believe he wanted to use his knowledge to undermine others' faith in a Creator God. Of course he would never say this publicly but it is nevertheless a pertinent hypothesis and we have a spiritual adversary who would use every opportunity to take advantage of such a situation.

In addition to this the then current Zeitgeist in Darwin's lifetime was very much in favour of any scientific treatise that might help destroy faith in God. This is why Marx embraced evolution so enthusiastically, it served his purposes in proposing a purely materialistic philosophy and a secular utopian vision.

It is my view that this theory is at the root of all the modern delusions that plague the human mind. The apostle Paul said that if men refused to believe the truth then God will send them a strong delusion to believe in. This is just one of the ways in which He tests our faith in order to help us grow and make progress in the Way that He has laid out for us. There is no compromise with error. On some things our Father is quite dogmatic. He will not share His glory with another, in this case some idol called evolution. Those who worship that idol are worshipping death.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

I don't hate science in general

But I hate junk science, studies, and phrases like "the consensus of the scientific community is...."

And a lot of it is shoddy reporting or worse, agenda based.

"Professional skeptics" are the worst. In one breath they will tell you there could not possibly be a conspiracy involving any government or quasi-governmental agency, where's the proof?

In the next breath they will tell you there is a conspiratorial community of old drunk farmers in England responsible for all the crop circles over the last 50 years or so.

Which isn't to say either statement is correct or not, but their logic is far from reasonable in so many cases. But then they are scientists in name only, the junk/professional skeptic ones.

It's like a Christian or Jew disobeying "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Are they really Christian or Jewish if they break G_d's most sacred and important law?

This is a good example of freedom of religion...

I'm glad this was posted, as being a part of the liberty movement, I felt that many were intolerant of religion in the particular group I was in. So I am glad to see this.

You see, many atheists, agnostics, and even some Christians believe in this religion called evolution. I happen to believe in creation. The difference? Our taxpayer dollars fund the religion of evolution.

Here are ones based on faith:

Cosmic Evolution-the origin of time space and matter from the big bang. Big bang-infinitesimal region that spun around really fast and then broke apart.

Chemical Evolution-the origin of more complex elements that came from the hydrogen produced by the big bang.

Stellar and Planetary Evolution- the origin of stars and planets form dust clouds

Organic Evolution-life from non-living things

Macroevolution-one kind animal changes into another like an ameba slowly becoming an elephant

And finally the one that should be taught in schools - the ones that Creationists and Evolutionists can agree on because it can be observed (science):

Microevolution-the variations that occur within the kinds such as dogs and wolves having a common ancestor.

I don't know everything about this topic, but I know what I believe, and there is plenty of evidence to back it up. Look up Kent Hovind, or Ben Stein's "Expelled". There's plenty of good scientists that don't believe in the theory of evolution.

I am one of those liberty-loving, homeschooling, pro-life, Ron Paul Revolutionaries, and yes, I am a Christian. We don't all agree on everything, but the future, Revelation states, is not with religion being a thing of the past, but instead with Jesus Christ coming back. I'm excited about that. In the meantime, I prefer to live free and let all of you do the same.

Human Anatomy

I'm taking human anatomy in college right now, and I just read a line that I thought I'd share - this is a secular college mind you.

-"The internal framework of the skeleton is a greater triumph of design and engineering than any skyscraper."

It goes on into the details, but in order to have a design, logically, you'd have to have a designer. It doesn't say that in the book, but I just thought I'd share this being it's one of the hot topics.

The building that I go to school at had a designer. I don't know his name, but the proof of the designer is the design. Same goes with the sunset and the trees and you and me.

FYI

My daughter LOVES science, and we do teach her both theories, because she will have to know what she believes and be able to defend her position when she enters college someday and if she chooses a scientific profession.

Don't hate science

because it isn't perfect. Science does not claim to have all of the answers (unlike many religions), rather, it is about using a strict discipline in order to establish higher probability of determining "correct" answers (which, by definition, are subject to change). I see many "scientific" thinkers that are essentially religious about their beliefs as they do think to have all of the answers, thereby, setting boundaries around their belief systems that prevent progress of discovery. Regardless of one's preferred belief system, I think the most valuable thing is to always maintain an open mind by not allowing what one "knows" to limit one's own growth of understanding. Nobody has a full knowledge of any one thing. We're all in on this together.

I grew up believing

absolutely in evolution and everything said about dinosaurs and believing everything in National Geographic and everything in science class. When they said "theory" I just said awww theory schmeory that's probably how it happened"

Then I started to think critically. Once you start to see how science regularly fudges things for grant money, to fit a theory they already have, to further an agenda, or for sheer entertainment reasons, you begin to see that you can't take science at face value. Do I believe science can help us and has helped us. Sure! Do I think they have all the answers or everything correct. NO. They fudge numbers to get grants from the government. They only study things that will get them grants. They fit numbers to further their agenda (global warming scientist emails should be proof enough of that). The discovery channel passes their programs off as science but actually its full of information that is conjector and guesses. Watch a show on Dinosaurs and ask yourself....just how do they know that....or are they just guessing. Think critically and you will see what I mean.

As far as God...that's a personal thing for every person. But, let me tell you a little liberty fact. Freedom of Religion is one of the best protections we have right now. The courts are afraid to go to trial on a freedom of religion defense. It's a hot issue that can get people railed up. So hold on to your freedom of religion defense. It can keep you unvaccinated. It can keep you from being labeled "people or other animals" in an illegal substance charge. It has countless uses.

What I'm saying is, they don't like our using "Freedom of religion defense" and would like for that to disappear. So hold on to it for your own sake.

Freedom of religion

is freedom of belief, and all should be free to believe as they wish. Science and religion both attempt to offer information that may be utilized within one's own system of belief. To confuse science for the manipulative actions of people would be an error. Science is an open method utilized for an establishment of credible information in our quest for knowledge and discovery, not manipulative agendas. I prefer the freedom of science because nothing is off limits. Any person or group that forces their own preferred beliefs onto another is being a tyrant, whether described as being scientific or religious.

So...what if God created

evolution? Which I personally believe to be the case.
The old Testament is a record of tribal genealogy and their collective myths, stories, and laws.
The new testament is what people should base their lives on, even if they don't embrace the religion.
Creationism Vs Evolution is childish bull,...a smoke screen to discredit the teachings of a man whose real advice was to honor life, and treat other human beings as you yourself would want to be treated. What is the problem with that?

Okay, I can't resist

The douche above said we were the leaders in science (except for Japan) Glad he had the sense to bring up Japan. I couldn't resist posting these.

Japanese Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvbAqw0sk6M&feature=related

US Science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqCmX5dMYHg

Who's more advanced? You decide

skippy

do you believe in "black holes"? or dark energy?

I actually base my suspicion that there is probably a God on entropy.
if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct....why does life [energy] persist? I am a deist. wise guy.
we humans THINK gravity is related to mass, but we cannot even figure out what mass is!
just in case you think Newton [or Einstien for that matter...] figured out gravity for us, let me shed a little light on the subject.

http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html

"God" seems to be a word that carries

much preconception. I love that everything is still a mystery. Human knowledge and understanding could grow eternally and yet there will always be the mystery, surrounding us. It's a difficult thing for some to confront causing many to seek the false security of "answers."

Okay

I posted saying this topic wasn't important since it's supposed to be the DAILY PAUL but the guy above got all philosophical so I changed my post. I am pretty sure they have recently found out without a doubt that there is dark matter, nothing in the universe is stable or solid, I believe in the power of quantum physics and frequencies. Maybe we did come from monkeys (most of the people I know still are monkeys) and maybe chariots of the gods is true. Who knows? To quote John Lennon, "nothing is real and nothing to get hung about" so enjoy life.

skippy

Thanks for posting

Unfortunately, though not unexpectedly, the dominant opinion of posters on this thread is that those who don't disavow evolution are part of some grand conspiracy.

Perhaps there are many here

Perhaps there are many here who question the OP, but I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that "the dominant opinion of posters on this thread is that those who don't disavow evolution are part of some grand conspiracy."

Can you point out a few of the posts from the 'conspiracy' crowd?

Here are some examples

Just as a note, I by no means think that everyone who is skeptical of the theory of evolution is in this 'conspiracy crowd'.

But anyway, here are some examples:

Teachers are brainwashing students to accept evolution: “You know that there is no real evidence of evolution and the only reason you believe in it is because you were brainwashed into accepting it by your public school teacher.”

Equating scientists who believe in the theory of evolution to be true as equivalent to scientists who commit crimes: “I am anti-crime.
ie. lots of scientists commit crimes and never have to answer for them. German and Japanese scientists commit terrible crimes in the war.”

Scientists claim they believe in evolution, but really are doing it to make money or for boasting rights: “Scientists believe they have the moral high ground and justify all their endeavors in the name of science. Of course there are many exceptions but in general they are like any other citizen - let's say a cop or TSA Agent - that follows commands from a certain entity to put food into their tables or maybe to brag with their peers about their intellectual achievements.”

To teach evolution is to promote propaganda: “First of all I never learned anything in my schools life science since they were teaching this propaganda.”

Well done. They certainly do

Well done. They certainly do insinuate underhanded dealings, but not necessarily back room dealings in smoke filled rooms with all the other underhanded people. And I am glad you clarified you conspiracy statement.

I don't know why you bring this crap up

You know that there is no real evidence of evolution and the only reason you believe in it is because you were brainwashed into accepting it by your public school teacher. Evolution is based on unproven assumptions of a man and is in no way scientific fact so to not believe in the fantasy of evolution does not indicate a rebellion against true science.

Factual science does not disprove God.

Not really.

To truly grasp evolution, I think, takes more than what is available from a public school education. Those that claim there is no evidence and that it is unproven usually haven't attempted to gain an actual understanding of it yet. To me, evolution seems rather clear and beautifully so. Those ignoring it are missing out.

I agree that factual science does not disprove God, but it can probably disprove an individual's particular interpretation of what god is, or, of how reality functions.