Comments on: Responding to Creationists Responding to Bill Nye

By: Thadius

Thadius — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:08:18 +0000

Enzo-

I believe that in higher education involving sciences like biology it is appropriate to dismiss those who do not have an understanding of basic concepts in those fields. A physics student could not earn a degree if he/she did not “believe”, accept or understand the Newtonian laws of motion at non-relativistic speeds. That is if that student expressed these positions in academic work without providing sound scientific evidence and reasoning for those positions (evidence which has never been given by anyone thus far in any academic work). So why would it bee different in the case of evolution?

To put it another way: Would you want a mechanic working on your car who believed that small green monsters caused mechanical problems? Would that not hinder that mechanics ability to competently fix your car?

By: chemist.jones

chemist.jones — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:48:41 +0000

Enzo – as long as the requirements are fulfilled, yes. The truth is every person, no matter the level of skepticism they purport to have, will approach every problem with certain assumptions. Many of those will be wrong. A researcher in any field can hold onto whatever faith, false assumptions, etc. all they want. However, they must not represent it in their research. They must approach their research free (or, more correctly, as free as possible) from all assumptions.

By: Quine

Quine — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:09:18 +0000

Enzo, that question depends on how the “deny evolution on religious grounds” is done. In theory, one could learn all the material, and do research, “as if” evolution were true, but still hold the faith position that somehow it is none the less the result of divine intervention. Or, deny because it is the official position of your church even though you know it is true (something like the Catholics who support the RCC stand on birth control as if they believed it, even though they use birth control in the privacy of their own lives). However, if the graduate student hands in papers full of bogus challenges, faulty logic or misstatements of facts, that can’t be allowed to pass.

By: steve12

steve12 — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:40:28 +0000

“actually, i wholeheartedly support evolution as a biologist, but I’m not so sure intelligent design isn’t scientifically possible. ”

It’s not scientifically possible because it’s untestable. It can’t even theorietically be falsified, so it is not amenable to scientific inquiry. It is not even a scientific hypothesis. It’s classic ‘not even wrong’.

By: Enzo

Enzo — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:27:56 +0000

I had the displeasure of going to graduate school with one of these degree seeking creationists. The amount of eye rolling induced was enough to cause headaches. It was such a nuisance. The degree was awarded and it is certainly possible to study and do good biology without ever acknowledging evolution.

Which leads me to a question for Dr. Novella and the readers. Should graduate programs allow those who deny evolution on religious grounds (and therefore disregard the rules of evidence) to obtain degrees? This is just a philosophical argument because I can’t imagine ever introducing a system of censorship into science, but honestly it’s an interesting question. We wouldn’t think twice about failing someone who showed a consistent pattern of misinterpreting data outside of this context.

By: Kawarthajon

Kawarthajon — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:25:23 +0000

I am “baffled” by Dr. Purdom’s nonsense. Why get a PhD in molecular genetics when you are only going to travel around the world preaching about creationism? I would suggest that she would not be able to enjoy the same level of popularity and notoriety if she had actually worked as a scientist. Instead, with a PhD in molecular genetics, she can be used by the creationists to lend some credibility to their nonsensical views (i.e. “We have a female molecular geneticist who supports our views, WOOHOO!!”) and she can make a living as a public speaker, instead of being stuck in a lab studying DNA.

By: eiskrystal

eiskrystal — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:21:04 +0000

In the game “Go” you are free to put a piece pretty much anywhere. This means that brute force checking of all possiblilities hits a wall pretty quickly. Without the deeper underlying understanding of the patterns you won’t get anywhere.

Creationists haven’t got anywhere.

By: daemonowner

daemonowner — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 02:51:10 +0000

The funny thing about that cartoon is that Noah apparently made a very crap engineer, as would anyone in his place, because we know for sure that Noah’s Ark could not possibly have worked. Skeptoid, among thousands of others, have adressed exactly why. I typically adress it from the view of “where did the shit go? Muscular dystrophy.. etc”, but the problem of God apparently poofing construction materials into existence de novo (due to lack of multiple forests) and the manpower required and the inherent structural weaknesses of boats that size made of wood etc are pretty good approaches too. The creationists seem to have assumed that Noah’s Ark is a true story, and used it to deny Nye’s argument about creationists making bad scientists (and engineers). Congrats..

By: etatro

etatro — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:29:09 +0000

This post caught my eye because Georgia Purdom got her PHD at Ohio State, my alma mater. I did some more digging and she’s a teaching prof at Mt Vernon Nazarene (a christian sect that I think is more popular in rural midwest) University, in rural Ohio. They do not offer any graduate degrees in any science.

Their biology course curriculum does not contain the word “evolution.”

The educational goals of the BS Biology major are as follows:

1. know the concepts, theories, and language of biology from historical and contemporary view points
2. actively integrate a knowledge of biology and the Christian faith to clarify the impact of Scripture on the field of biology both morally and ethically
3. give evidence of the knowledge of how to be good stewards of creation
4. appreciate the diversity and function of life
5. demonstrate the knowledge and skills to become professional educators, health care providers and environmentalists and serve God within the global community.

It just blows my mind. I cannot fathom that this is passing for biology education.

By: Ray984954

Ray984954 — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:15:27 +0000

Juga, you’re acting like creaturds who look for the ever so slightest sliver of error to refute the entire body of evolution. Read what he has written on the subject. I’m sure that anyone who speaks in public does not say ‘exactly’ what they mean, but folks can get the gist of what they’re saying. I understand your point about speaking with exactness and all that, but Bill Nye spoke no jargon that I could see, and we both know that ‘jargon’ is precise and grammatically correct, filled with buzzwirds that are positive to certain groups but it almost always fails, as it depends not on the facts but on who is speaking and their popularity(politicians are good at this). Used car salemen have it down just what they want to say, however superficial, but behind what they say is almost devoid of anything other than their wanting you to buy a car from them. Macreationism is based on religion and Evolution is notny know about Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ and so know that he is not selling a bill of goods, and even those who don’t know him can still get the gist that religion is about the supernatural and science is not. Creationism taught as a viable alternatvie to Evolution is dishonest and plain wrong as it despoils human knowledge and reverses any gains made therough The Enlightenment that brought humans out of the dark ages of church authority and into the independent understanding of the natural world. I forgive Nye and I’m sure his knowing of his error will help him to do better next time.