Bill Nye knows what’s going on
Posted on February 26, 2012 by Michael
Author
Recent Comments
The Sauciest Duck on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Michael on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Stephen Moreton on Chauvin and Rittenhouse Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Merry Christmas Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Mele Kalikimaka somdeblahiriyahoocoi… on Thought of the day Michael on Wuhan virus and one last… Quick correction | F… on The A-Unicornist, Bernie Bro… The A-Unicornist, Be… on When I know I’ve beat… Somdeb Lahiri on Thought of the day
For the Sake of Science 
I’m not sure if weather forecasting is a good example. Remember when they were right that time?
Agree! I also believe it is possable to have faith in religion and still learn science. After all even the vadican has people that work on scientific principles.
I think you mean the Vatican, not the vadican. It’s true that the Vatican is fairly supportive and receptive to science in the broad strokes. There are still many areas of resistance, but in the grand scheme of things, receptiveness is generally pretty high.
I agree with you that one can have faith and learn and accept science as a whole.
Evolution is undirected. Most religions believe human life was inevitable/destined. The two ideas are in direct conflict. Neither one of you – and the entire Catholic Church – reject a key component of the underlying theme of all of biology.
I can accept that evolution was undirected, I have no idea what you are talking about. But you are right that the church proper does hold that evolution is a guided process. Which I can accept as well, but I don’t see it as essential to Catholic teachings.
One of the issues, at least with the catholic church, is that the institution is 2000 years old. It changes by the century, not by the day, meaning it is slow to accept scientific discoveries in many cases. I don’t think that is a bad thing, simply because it doesn’t change until a discovery is practically set in stone, rather than bouncing about like scientific understanding does almost daily.
It is a matter of institutional structure, not disregard of discovery. that isn’t true of every church or religion though.
I’m glad you didn’t challenge my assertion that that church is relatively accepting of science though, because in the broad strokes it is. In fact a catholic priest was the “father” of the big bang as we know it today.
I’m sure you can accept that evolution is undirected. I never said a person can’t hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. It’s just that if you do accept what biologists know, you’ve eliminated space for your god – unless you make him entirely superfluous (but, of course, that isn’t the Christian god).
Religion does cause people to disregard discovery. In one poll, 64% of Americans said they would reject a scientific finding if it contradicted their religious beliefs. That doesn’t happen with people who don’t value the evils of faith.
The Catholic Church has made efforts to keep in line with science, if only because it has a long history of looking awfully stupid for doing otherwise. But that follow-through abruptly stops any time science steps on religious dogma. If they really cared about science, they wouldn’t reject ideas on the basis that their faith has been contradicted.
I would have to ask what the specific finding they would be rejecting is, otherwise it’s not a very interesting point. If the finding was that nose hair are stronger than hair from your head, I’m sorry, but I would reject it also, it is simply not relevant to anything.
And I disagree that that would leave no room for God. I fully accept that if there is a God, than God and what man says about God are bound to be two different things.
Just about anything to do with the multiverse, for starters. Or if it was shown that the Universe is deterministic. I’m sure if I spent a little more time on it, I could find more examples.
I agree that the way many people define God makes it so he can’t be confined by logic, but the same can be said about leprechauns.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/story-of-science/
I keep meaning to send that link to you. It’s not bad stuff.
You could be an adult and a friend, send a friend request to me, and kindly let me know that certain things especially offend you and you would prefer to not see them on your wall.
But it is your choice.
It sounds like a very light version of Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything. This caught my eye though:
“5. What is the Secret of Life? Michael Moseley tells the story of how the secret of life has been unraveled through the prism of the most complex organism known – the human body.”
I wonder how he defines “complex”.
Who knows, I’m sure there are some suspect things, but all in all its a great website with some great stuff. I’ve just been working my way through that one.
They also have a lot of Terry Jones history stuff, which is all superb.
I hope you’re happy.