Love that guy.

Ironic?

::sigh::

Yeah, don't really get the tag. How is this ironic again? it's a scientist speaking his mind, in a very expected way.

dickkead: Yeah, don't really get the tag. How is this ironic again? it's a scientist speaking his mind, in a very expected way.

I don't know maybe because those that argue for creationism have the reasoning skills and intellectual honesty of children?

mr_bunny: If it were not for Christianity we would have flying cars and cities on the Moon, but the world would be over run with witchcraft.



I don't see a down side.

mr_bunny: If it were not for Christianity we would have flying cars and cities on the Moon, but the world would be over run with witchcraft.

Seeing as most witches are just slightly less annoying than vegans, I am kind of on the fence about that.

Actually, it wasn't just Christianity.

Pythagoras felt that certain concepts of mathematics weren't meant for "common knowledge", for example, and consider even Democritus, who was what, 300 years before Christianity?

Much of what was "discovered" by Omar Khayyám was also shunned in the Islamic world, although you could argue that was more due to his poetry than his math.

Anyway, I agree with Bill 100%... We can't allow this mysticism such a foothold in public education. Any publicly funded educational institution which teaches any of this mythology as 'fact' or even something to consider should have its federal funding yanked. It's in clear violation of the First Amendment.

deGrasse Tyson / Nye 2012!

mr_bunny: If it were not for Christianity we would have flying cars and cities on the Moon, but the world would be over run with witchcraft.

I'm okay with that.

Just as long as we keep separation of Coven and State.

mr_bunny:

Yet you completely gloss over the witch plague that the Catholic church saved mankind from.

That wasn't glossing over. That was willfully ignoring something that didn't exist, M'laddo. Certainly Christianity was better than the previous superstitions around Europe, but one can hardly call that some sort of "plague", nor did the Catholic church save us from one. I'm rather curious as to what "plague" you're referring to, since I have yet to hear of one. However, certainly I'm open to correction, of course.

The internet isn't appropriate for children either, but that is where the science guy's main presence is (when it isn't up Ed Begley's ass).
So what is his point? Only talk about what is appropriate? Pretend that other views don't exist? That isn't education, that is indoctrination, and is just as bad as teaching something with no scientific validity at all.

Sit-N-Spin, Sanford. You may know science, but you don't know dick about raising and educating kids.

Balchinian: Pretend that other views don't exist?

If those views are wrong, yeah, as in completely rooted in superstition, ignorance and wholesale rejection of science and reason, yeah, no point in exposing a young mind to them.

Creationism is just religion by another name. It's not science, scientists don't look at the world and just say "a wizard in the sky made it that way!".

It's not a valid alternative to evolution, and it is misleading and intellectually fraudulent to present it as such.

Does anybody else think in the semi-profile second shot of Bill he looks kind-a Abe Lincoln like?

Playing devil's advocate (not subby):

Because Bill Nye is the spokesman for the science faithful and not a real scientist?

creationism should be reserved for the super devoted like that whole xenu-volcano-dc9 thing is with scientology... like, you're super indoctrinated - here's our crackpot theory for the beginning of time... ya know, leave the rest of us folks out of this stuff

Joe Peanut: deGrasse Tyson / Nye 2012!

Be still my beating heart!

Pawn takes the King: dickkead: Yeah, don't really get the tag. How is this ironic again? it's a scientist speaking his mind, in a very expected way.

Sorry guys, submitted while I was un-caffinated & still half asleep.. my bad.

You're forgiven, only because I'm glad I got to see the video.

Balchinian: The internet isn't appropriate for children either, but that is where the science guy's main presence is (when it isn't up Ed Begley's ass).
So what is his point? Only talk about what is appropriate? Pretend that other views don't exist? That isn't education, that is indoctrination, and is just as bad as teaching something with no scientific validity at all.

Sit-N-Spin, Sanford. You may know science, but you don't know dick about raising and educating kids.

So, science should be responsible for religious doctrination?

Mr.Tangent: SHOW IT TO ME

Wtf is wrong with you!!! I almost spit coffee all over my work station.

Silverstaff: Balchinian: Pretend that other views don't exist?

If those views are wrong, yeah, as in completely rooted in superstition, ignorance and wholesale rejection of science and reason, yeah, no point in exposing a young mind to them.

Creationism is just religion by another name. It's not science, scientists don't look at the world and just say "a wizard in the sky made it that way!".

It's not a valid alternative to evolution, and it is misleading and intellectually fraudulent to present it as such.

But my point is that you can't not mention it at all and call what you are doing education. Whether it is valid or not, it is a widely held belief and kids are going to be exposed to it. Best to present it to them along with everything else in a teaching environment, where you are hopefully also teaching them how to tell the difference between something that is empirically verifiable and something that is not. One of the interesting things I see when looking at Christian schools is that most of them make a point of teaching both creationism and evolution. The kids end up understanding the foundations of both, regardless of what they end up believing in the end. That seems to me to be a more complete education than one which prevents kids from understanding a particular belief and its foundational principles, even if those principles are not scientific.

Look, you have to provide kids with knowledge of bad science in order to help them be able to identify good science more readily. You can't just pretend bad science doesn't exist. This is no different. You have to teach it. It is something that scientists have to deal with every day, and to pretend it isn't an issue is to cover up the truth rather than to teach the truth. That, to me, is not education any more than a Christian school which only teaches creationism is education.

Balchinian: You may know science, but you don't know dick about raising and educating kids.

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!?!?

Really, dude. Give it a rest. You're really only proving Nye's point for him.

Balchinian:
Look, you have to provide kids with knowledge of bad science in order to help them be able to identify good science more readily. You can't just pretend bad science doesn't exist. This is no different. You have to teach it. It is something that scientists have to deal with every day, and to pretend it isn't an issue is to cover up the truth rather than to teach the truth. That, to me, is not education any more than a Christian school which only teaches creationism is education.

So in order to teach people about something you must also teach them all the things it is not? Unless you are just talking about Christian Creationism, which makes you weirdly centered on a specific story while ignoring literally thousands of others. There is enough to teach just teaching the things that are true without having to teach all the things that are not.

It's not enough to teach kids that science is right.
Teach them that religion is wrong.

\yeah, that'll go over well.

I can see what Balchinian is saying.

Philosophy and History cannot be studied effectively without learning about religion in the process. We had religious superstitions long before we had science. If one wishes to be a proper scholar, one need to understand what religion is, its role in history, along with benefits it provided and the harm it caused.

/may not be a bad idea in a country where majority of the population is religious

Why can't we be like the world of Westeros and just kill those who appose or threaten us? Dead (wo)men tell no tales.

/lost in a book fantasy reality
//I'll get over it

mr_bunny: unchellmatt: mr_bunny:

Yet you completely gloss over the witch plague that the Catholic church saved mankind from.

That wasn't glossing over. That was willfully ignoring something that didn't exist, M'laddo. Certainly Christianity was better than the previous superstitions around Europe, but one can hardly call that some sort of "plague", nor did the Catholic church save us from one. I'm rather curious as to what "plague" you're referring to, since I have yet to hear of one. However, certainly I'm open to correction, of course.

Perhaps this will help clear it up for you....

DOH! I gleefully stand corrected.

This is aimed at me:

pdv37: I can see what Balchinian is saying.

Philosophy and History cannot be studied effectively without learning about religion in the process. We had religious superstitions long before we had science. If one wishes to be a proper scholar, one need to understand what religion is, its role in history, along with benefits it provided and the harm it caused.

The problem is that the argument isn't "Should we teach kids creationism?", but "Should we teach kids creationism in the science classroom as an acceptable alternate theory?" And even then, what Nye was talking about was specifically teaching children that evolution is wrong and creationism is right before they have the chance to intellectually approach either.

You're simply biting on concern trolling by thinking he has any kind of a point.

pdv37: I can see what Balchinian is saying.

Philosophy and History cannot be studied effectively without learning about religion in the process. We had religious superstitions long before we had science. If one wishes to be a proper scholar, one need to understand what religion is, its role in history, along with benefits it provided and the harm it caused.

/may not be a bad idea in a country where majority of the population is religious

Exactly.

Slam Dunkz: I don't know maybe because those that argue for creationism have the reasoning skills and intellectual honesty of children?

No. Kids, as far as I can tell, are far more intellectually honest and curious than the usual vocal creationist crowd. They're inexperienced, but generally quite willing to re-evaluate their conclusions based on new facts, especially when you get their attention by letting them run up against the flaws in their prior reasoning.

I was so proud of my group of 6th graders last year. We were talking about the UN's declaration of human rights as it applies to kids. During the discussion, I let them see photos of the Greensboro sit-in, and that iconic water fountain photo. They were, to a person, utterly shocked that this level of bullying (how the class saw it; so very proud) was even possible, let alone permitted.

They demonstrated excellent reasoning (reductionist, but they really got down to the heart of the matter) throughout that discussion.

 

A few pictures from the Shambhala Ranch and Nelson, 2 weeks in heaven with no worries and high heat. yum!

Balchinian:
Look, you have to provide kids with knowledge of bad science in order to help them be able to identify good science more readily. You can't just pretend bad science doesn't exist. This is no different. You have to teach it. It is something that scientists have to deal with every day, and to pretend it isn't an issue is to cover up the truth rather than to teach the truth. That, to me, is not education any more than a Christian school which only teaches creationism is education.

Should we teach the kids bad mathematics as well?

lunkhed: Should we teach the kids bad mathematics as well?

I sometimes do, partially so kids can see what happens when bad math falls apart, partially so they can see how math (particularly stats) can be abused to persuade them to do things not in their interests, and partially to keep them on their toes. (I don't let them leave the lesson without the 'punchline' in any case.)

Balchinian: Pretend that other views don't exist?

Not all views are equally valid. Teaching Creationism is child abuse.

Balchinian: The internet isn't appropriate for children either, but that is where the science guy's main presence is (when it isn't up Ed Begley's ass).
So what is his point? Only talk about what is appropriate? Pretend that other views don't exist? That isn't education, that is indoctrination, and is just as bad as teaching something with no scientific validity at all.

I'll give you a hint, listen to me carefully.

There are no other views.

That evolution happens is not even up for debate. That micro and macro evolution happen are not even up for debate. We have mountains, and mountains, and mountains of evidence to support the fact that evolution does happen.

How it happens is the "Theory of Evolution", which includes natural selection and genetic variation and a host of other things. If you'd like to propose a scientifically testable alternative theory that will stand up to the brutality of scientific examination and error checking then there's a laundry list of awards waiting for you if you survive that gauntlet.