Comment: Mr. Spock, "Both" sides in this debate....

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Bill Nye is a Coward (see in situ)

Mr. Spock, "Both" sides in this debate....

...tend to fall victim to attribute substitution quite often. (Read about attribute substitution here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution). All humans tend to be cognitive misers, thinking deeply only when they think they must. Both evolutionists and creationists tend to do this, as their writings often exhibit.

In my critique of this Bill Nye piece, I use fact, logic, and sourcing to expose the flaws in Nye's argument. Meanwhile, in my considerable experience in discussing such things with creationists, I find that very few of them could pass the same tests.

Here's my article on Nye. http://www.jackpelham.com/2012/09/02/bill-nye-the-science-gu...

As to your specific point:

Lastly, the title of this thread is lame. Christians are not anti-science.

I do not have any statistical data, but I'd be quite surprised if a valid survey did not serve to identify an anti-science bias among a great many believers. I witness a general attitude amongst many Christians by which they take any challenge to fact as an insult to their FAITH. They will fall victim to attribute substitution, and write off the challenge as to fact as if it were instead a direct attack from Satan, aimed at "shipwrecking their faith". This is hardly the evidentiary view that supposedly underlies all of science. Rather, just like so many of the scientists whom they criticize, this "Christian" behavior is more in keeping with a cult of predetermined conclusions.

Edited to add: Meanwhile, some scientists see this bad behavior and scoff at it, rightly identifying the irrationality of it. Yet they do the very same things themselves, repeating as hearsay the orthodox scientific theories they were taught without EVER doing their own research into the matter. Thus do many on "both" sides tend to look down on each other for the same behavior they dismiss in themselves as justifiable.

Now, back to the Christians: end of edit

Interestingly, after decades of defending the "water canopy" notion, some Christians are beginning to admit some of its problems. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/25/feedback...) Even so, however, they don't seem to make a proper analysis of just what a huge monkey wrench it throws into their model that they have no idea how to explain what they read in their own texts. edited to add:They have no idea how to explain a MAJOR component of the cosmology as they interpret the Bible to present it, yet they are not troubled in the least by their prevailing presumption that they have more or less got the rest of the puzzle right. They cannot even explain the FIRST chapter of the Bible consistently by use of the same hermeneutic principles---and very, very few of them are even trying.

I don't mean to be suggesting that there is no plausible interpretation that would yield a truly functional model---and I have been working on this project myself for some time, as my limited schedule permits. But I am completely convinced that MOST people in this debate, regardless of which "side" they are on, are not only wrong, but are quite unlikely ever to correct themselves. This is because of their "my side" bias---a bias that a great many people cannot even identify in themselves for lack of sufficient practice in self awareness and for a lack of sufficient use of the reflective mind. Further, while some are ignorant of the fundamentals of logic, MOST know logic, but suffer from ignorance to the fact that it is better to test ALL of one's positions by logic, rather than to leave some of them to subjectivism.

Jack