All you God/Creationist haters, mark your calendars for February 4. One of your heroes, Bill Nye, will debate (and annihilate ?) creationist, Ken Ham. Finally, living proof of unintelligent life within the ranks of the Christian "pundency." Or maybe, like previous debates, the Christian point of view will win the day?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's not only sad, but pathetic that this debate is even taking place. America is falling behind the rest of the world in math and science education. Asia students are kicking our asses. US kids aren't even ranked in the top 20. http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/03/world/asia/pisa-education-study/
ReplyDelete90 years after the Scopes Monkey trial, has this nation progressed intellectually? Not much. Why? Evangelical religious right that divisively pits creationism and intelligent design against science.
But, this is not true of all Christian religions. For example, Pope John Paul was said to have acknowledged human evolution. He said “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis." He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge.” Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.” He says correctly, "Intelligent design belittles God."
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503
But, that's not the narrow view of scientifically illiterate self-righteous conservatives that now believe they 'own' god. Much has been written about the "Republican War on Science". What is nearly universal with these science deniers? They are nearly ALL evangelical christians. Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe .. all have cited 'God' when referring to scientific matters. What is wrong with this picture?
As Carl Sagan said, "we live in a society built on science and technology, yet we have politicians that have no science literacy or background. That's a scenario that will someday blow up in our face."
I don't know what the point of this debate is. Smithson takes the side of creationist Ken Ham who believes the earth is 6000 yrs old. In his creation museum, Ham thinks that dinosaurs rode on Noah's Arc. That level of willful ignorance is astonishing and frankly embarrassing that it exists in such high numbers in America. That should tell you a bit about Smithson's level of intellect and critical thinking that he identifies with Ham, and readers here need to take that into account when reading what he writes.
What Carl Sagan failed to mention is that "we live in a society built on axiomatic postulates and assumed but unprovable “truth.” You tell my readers "Much has been written about the 'Republican War on Science.'" Who are the authors of all this revelation about the GOP's war? Who?? The atheist Left, that is “who.” Their essay’s are not science but propaganda, AND, dare I ask, "What war?" Most conservatives I know have a reasonable respect for science. They just don't believe in junk science or that science which tells us a man can say he is a woman and, WaLa, he is a woman. Pardon me for laughing at your love and respect for science.
ReplyDeleteAll I have to say is this: let's wait until this debate is over. You have never attended such a debate. I have. And I KNOW the outcome of this coming debate. We all are going to find that both sides of this debate have strong points and weak points. More importantly, this audience will realize that those of us who question science, have good reason. The Christian fellow in this debate will definitely NOT walk away from this discussion with his tail between his legs.
Finally, as far as the sad state of affairs in our nation's educational program, keep in mind that Libs own this educational system. It is their national committee on education that has failed. We wasted years and years with "holistic education," no homework, reading "assignments based on what the children wanted to read and a big NOTHING BURGER when this nonsense was finally ended. Now we have to suffer through "Common Core" and all its empty promises. Our educational failures are all on Leftist academia. Your criticism are nothing shore of humorous in view of the fact that you own this national issue.
Reiterating, Smithson is here promoting an individual who believes the earth is 6000 yrs old and that dinosaurs rode on Noah's arc. That is the level of intellect you're dealing with here, readers of "Midknight review".
ReplyDeleteHuman evolution is not controversial, except in the dogmatic indoctrinated Biblical evangelist science deniers. The education system in most 'blue states' is fine. But in places where ignorant ass republicans control, like TX and KS, textbooks are being rewritten to include pseudoscience, like intelligent(?) design. These attacks on real science are one of the contributing factors why the US is falling behind. Look at the list of state education rankings. Red states always comprise the VAST majority of the bottom 12 or 13 states in educational attainment, both HS and College. Checkmate. case closed.
What does Smithson and Ken Ham would like you to believe is that all of the mainstream biology text books world wide, the great museums in America like the Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian, etc.... are all apart of some broad atheist / liberal conspiracy and are lies. Lies!
Can you imagine there are still people who think like this in the 21st century? It's unbelievable, sad, and pathetic. Readers, take note.
Just to be clear: the first paragraph, above, is an outright lie, something the writer, hiding under the moniker "anonymous," has simply made up. Understand that Libs, especially the One Worlder's, believe that lying is a moral charge, something that is necessary when feared results might occur. They fear public debate, and that is what is going on in the above response.
ReplyDeleteOf course, our opponent has no idea what I or Mr. Ham believe. He is just panic stricken as he anticipates a successful outing for Ken Ham. Let the reader decide. As you all can see, it is the liberal representative who is narrow, closed minded, and unwilling to question authority.. Funny, when this current crop of Marxists were in college, back in the '60's and 70's, (I went to school with these clowns and they happily claimed to be Marxists, then) their favorite challenge was "question authority." It was on all their bumper stickers. They shouted this motto in their demonstrations. Now that they are the "establishment," they want us all to accept them WITHOUT QUESTION. Fat chance.
Of course we know what Ken Ham believes, he views are well documented. Simply google his name.
ReplyDeleteSmithson supports this guy and his views THAT IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.
I support the free exchange of ideas. My blog opponent does not. I believe in a creator God who used process in this thing we call "creation." I am NOT a "young earther" but see nothing wrong in considering the arguments for same - my blog opponent has no clue as to the arguments supporting a young earth concept and is so narrow minded that she wants the debate banned, and, creation supporters criminalized. The reader should note that my resident opponent never deals with issues I introduce. The reason is more than obvious, No wonder “she” does not endorse debate and free speech . . . . . Marxist libs never do.
ReplyDeleteWhile my unimaginative blog opponent pretends to be incensed with my “question authority” stance, his science has given us acid rain, the little ice age of the 1970’s, Al Gore's predictions of tidal wave flooding in New York City by 2015, Carter's predictions that the earth would run out of oil before 2010, the "scientific" predictions that Katrina was the first wave of years of catastrophic hurricanes with 17 being predicted for 2006 (when only three such storms being reported since 2005, and none for the three years following Katrina) a ban on DDT that has killed more than 20 million children in Africa, the Hollywood “truther” crowd who believe the Twin Towers were taken down using explosives despite the undeniable fact we all saw the two planes crash into those buildings, the transgender nonsense . . . . . libs believing they can simply say they are “woman,” cut their penises off and, “WaLa, they are “woman” -- liberal science has given us all this and more. Like I said, no wonder they want to criminalize opposing speech. They have no chance if opposing speech is allowed.
This last comment is very revealing of Smithson. It shows his basic misunderstanding of science. Notice he mentions 'liberal science'.
ReplyDeleteThere is no 'liberal science'. Science has no politics, has no national affiliation, and welcomes scrutiny. Science would not exist with out scrutiny and freedom of debate.
When it comes to established scientific principles, there are not "two side" like the creationists would have you believe. Science is something you don't 'believe in' ... it is a system of facts and evidence that forms a basic understanding of why it is true. Predicting hurricanes isn't even in the same ball park with human evolution. Weather prediction is based on a series of probabilities. Human evolution and age of the earth are based on observed facts from many intersecting disciplines including geology, physics, chemistry, biology/genetics, all pointing to the same conclusion. More than a century after Darwin, his basic principles have stood the test of scrutiny and been strengthened by modern genetics and microbiology.
This nonsensical controversy that there are 'two sides' to this debate is insulting to anyone who has basic science literacy or even an undergrad degree.
Smithson, in his bigoted mine is convinced I am a black female lesbian, the epitome of a liberal marxist. The fact is I am just like he is, a white male but with one major difference: intelligence, education (PhD) and a progressive critical thinker that embraces the diversity of this great nation. Even ignorant people like Smithson have the right to embarrass themselves with their free expression.
You write: “There is no 'liberal science'. Science has no politics, has no national affiliation, and welcomes scrutiny. Science would not exist with out scrutiny and freedom of debate” yet it is debate and scrutiny you resist and ridicule. Look at your own words. You deny “two sides” of a debate involving science while pretending to approve scrutiny and disagreement.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your “PhD” is concerned; anyone on the net can have a degree. Peer-reviewed papers? Published lectures? I didn’t think so. Neither does Obama. But, our comparative educational status is not the issue. So let’s not go the way of the child in this discussion. Stick to the issues.
And the issue, for the moment, is your hilarious claim that science does not have a political application. Acid rain promised to be the end of life as we knew it. Science combined with the mantra, “Send us your money so we can prevent this disaster,” and the coffers of the Progressive/Utopian machine were filled, for a time. Politics. Then there was the “science” of the Little Ice Age, and more money came pouring in. More politics. Science did not kill 20 million children in Afria, those who embraced the panic over DDT killed all those kids - science combining with politics for the worst possible outcome. There was all that nonsense over the Ozone. We were all going to fry. More politics; more money, more BS. You have Al Gore and his claim that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013, as if that was something bad. Science failed but the politics of global warming keeps on ticking. In fact, there is more ice in the Arctic than in 2007. Look at Katrina. Science claimed that Katrina was the beginning of a decade of level 3 hurricanes or worse. Know how many level 3 hurricanes have hit the Gulf Coast since Katrina? None. And making Bush the blame for Katrina’s damage? Well, that was pure politics.
I could go on, but I have made my point.
Should we debate teaching magic and voodoo in schools vs science? What, you want to suppress debate because you're afraid? Don't you think kids need to spend time learning both sides... voodoo magic AND science? Any educated person knows there IS no debate. It's amazing we're even having this discussion.
ReplyDeleteWhile Smithson is supporting creationism teaching in schools, our kids are falling behind the Asians in math and science. At this rate we will soon lose technological superiority over the Chinese. We're losing it now. Today, it was reported that China tested a hypersonic missile that renders our missile defense systems useless ... while Smithson promotes creationism over science.
http://defensetech.org/2014/01/14/congress-reacts-to-chinese-hypersonic-missile-test/
America is presently in a 'know-nothing' period. We just have to wait it out. When the god fearing idiot creationists science deniers die off, perhaps America will once again attain technical superiority.
Personally, I am not a early earth creationist. Instead, I do believe in a creator God, personal and involved, who used process to accomplish what we see and are, today. I do not want the various views on creation, taught in our schools by unbelievers. I see no upside to that sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the students being exposed to both sides of ANY question or issue, indeed, I believe in that. But go ahead and misrepresent what I believe. After all, that is what you do best.
You want to debate? I will debate you on any issue. I find you "easy" as an intellectual opponent. This debate will give you opportunity to prove me wrong, so, "yes," lets debate voodoo v science . But only if you agree to, also, debate Marxism/socialism versus anything relating to a populace conservative idea. Any time. I live in California but am working in Denver. You live in Florida and, apparently, do not believe in working -- so you should have no problem with timing and Denver is close to "middle ground." The college is a liberal center, so you should feel very much at home. Lets do this.