Oppose Common Core? You're Probably Some Nutjob Creationist, Says Bill Nye

|

Bill Nye the Science Guy ("He's not our Science Guy!" the Reason audience retorts) has waded into the Common Core debate. Per usual, he thinks those who disagree with him are—almost by definition—anti-science.

After conceding one criticism of the national education standards—that they could shackle teachers and make learning boring—Bill Nye opines that much of the opposition to Common Core comes from Creationists who don't want evolution being taught in schools. As he says in his video:

The concern is, and I understand this, you would keep students from having fun and getting excited about anything. But the other reason people seem to, my perception of what people don't like about Core curricula, is it forces them to learn standard stuff when they could be teaching their kids things that are inconsistent with science. I'm talking about people who want to teach Creationism instead of biology and that's just bad.

Since Bill Nye doesn't mention any of the other criticisms against Common Core, he implies by omission that this is it: Core opponents are just evolution deniers in disguise.

(To clarify, the Common Core tackles math and English, not science. The national science standards technically were published under a different title, the Next Generation Science Standards, though many of the same people were involved. NGSS has received a lukewarm response, even from some groups that vigorously support Common Core.)

Creationist hostility to evolution might be motivating some people to oppose national standards. The science standards also establish that human action is a major contributing factor to climate change, and I'm sure that (more legitimately debatable) point also fuels some Core opposition.

But there are many, many other reasons people oppose Common Core. Chiefly: There is very little evidence that these standards will improve schools. In fact, a comprehensive Brookings Institution study released earlier this year found that states were better off using standards that didn't resemble Common Core at all.

But even if the Common Core was shown to slightly boost academic achievements, it would not necessarily be worth implementing, given the massive financial cost of retraining teachers, buying new instructional materials, and upgrading schools' technological capabilities to meet standardized testing requirements.

The Cato Institute's Neal McCluskey, a critic of the standards, told me that there is plenty to dislike about national education standardization.

"For a scientist, Bill Nye provided a very unscientific analysis of core curriculum critiques," he told Reason. "There are many who have read the research and seen that centralized standards have little if any positive effect on outcomes; who are content experts and think standards like the Common Core are highly problematic; who realize that innovation requires people being able to try new and different things rather than being forced into one model; who know that different children learn things at different rates; who don't like the politicization of education that necessarily accompanies government standards-making; and so on."

It seems to me that Bill Nye is projecting his own feud with Creationists onto a different policy debate. Watch his video below. Read more from Reason on Common Core here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

506 responses to “Oppose Common Core? You're Probably Some Nutjob Creationist, Says Bill Nye

  1. Science is exactly and only what Bill Nye says it is, you knuckle dragging Christfags.

    1. It’s so ludicrous. I think teaching kids Genesis in place of science is nonsense, but I oppose Common Core and, incidentally, have a daughter that we’re homeschooling (and who will be learning about evolution when we hit that topic).

      So, um, maybe painting opponents with the same brush is, well, stupid?

      1. Of course it’s stupid, but when you have taken up a Team Banner that doesn’t matter. All that matters is victory.

      2. Some kids prefer music over science. As long as they’re not teaching that Peter Gabriel crap I’m fine with it.

        1. That’s cause I’m not Peter Gabriel, I’m Gabriel Byrne!

      3. “teaching kids Genesis in place of science is nonsense”

        Nah, it’s more,

        ‘let’s keep our infant understanding of creation in perspective by discussing other theories and the problems unresolved with evolution.’

        1. I’m sure lots of Americans have incorrect beliefs about a lot of issues. That doesn’t mean the mighty fist of the federal government has to knock them in line.

          1. In fact if we are genuinely interested in correcting the incorrect, we wouldn’t be employing the federal government as the bringer of light and truth.

            1. Bastiat said that a government monopoly on education was a government monopoly on knowledge. No one in their right mind wants that.

              1. a monopoly of legitimate knowledge

          2. When it comes to 2+2=4, if their parents of schools aren’t knocking them in line, then I support the gubment doing it.

            It’s laughable to even discuss this…it was a couple hundred years ago that our founders were clear that public education (fact-based) was important to our liberty.

            1. Wow, it was pretty clear by our founders that the Feds role and power was to be limited. Education is NOT enumerated in the constition or dec of independence. “Pub ed fact based?” Why would gub ed be any more fact based than private?

              1. Because it’s funded by taxation so it more closely aligns with consumer demand oh wait… Because it’s funded with violent expropriation the knowledge is inherently more trustworthy wait… Hold on, I’ll think of an excuse that looks passably rational on it’s surface.

            2. craiginmass|9.9.14 @ 6:19PM|#
              “It’s laughable to even discuss this…it was a couple hundred years ago that our founders were clear that public education (fact-based) was important to our liberty.”

              Gee, the lefty asshole craig is just full of lies, isn’t he?
              No craig, you’re going to have to search far and wide to find some semblance of support for that claim.
              Don’t bother, asshole.

          3. Yes it must. You don’t seem to realize the danger involved in allowing people to have incorrect beliefs.

            1. “danger involved in allowing people to have incorrect beliefs.”

              Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

              Thomas Jefferson

              Public education should provide “for the liberal [not merely vocational] education of youth, especially of the lower class of people.”

              John Adams

              1. If you wish to go there, the 1st congress supported bibles being distributed. Some writings indicated that the purpose of education was teach individuals how to read the bible.

              2. craiginmass|9.9.14 @ 7:20PM|#

                “danger involved in allowing people to have incorrect beliefs.”

                Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

                Thomas Jefferson

                Public education should provide “for the liberal [not merely vocational] education of youth, especially of the lower class of people.”

                John Adams

                Oh, look there!
                Asshole craig has found random comments he wants you to bleeve support his idiocy!
                Fuck you, craig.

    2. Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer. Which makes him imminently qualified to opine from authority about biology, meteorology, geology, etc. etc.

      1. Well he’s a liberal who believes in evolution and climate change. That automatically makes him a scientific expert who’s right about everything.

        1. agreed – absolutely no credibility.

      2. Exactly what I was going to post.

      3. “For a scientist, Bill Nye…

        Bill Nye is a scientist? Lemme stop you right there.

        1. Bill Nye is a SCIENCE GUY, not a scientist. Whatever the fuck a SCIENCE GUY is…maybe he read every issue of Omni?

          1. he is qualified to teach the absolute basics of science to kids in an interesting and amusing way but that is about it. Serious science is way above his pay grade

            1. Opposing Common Core? That’s breaking some serious science, boys!

    3. Fuck Bill Nye. I always put my faith in Mr. Peabody.

      1. That the one who wore a bodysuit with human organs drawn around it?

        1. Pretty sure it’s some time traveling dog.

          1. Right. I was thinking of Slim Goodbody.

      2. Y’all fuck him. I’m picky.

      3. I’m better off getting my science from Doctor Who than Bill a Nye. The Doctor also rocks a bow tie much better than this dickhead.

    4. yep and he is a big Global Warming guy too (Aka the BIG LIE). So he has already lost all credibility with me

      The problem with Common Core is that it is ASININE and a grossly inefficient way to learn anything. Liberals know a thing or two about being inefficient!!!
      For example instead of having kids memorize say 8X7= 56 they have a 20 step problem solving routine that includes grouping that nobody understands
      The English part is leftist dogma so no one who is either libertarian or conservative is going to want their kids indoctrinated.

  2. But the other reason people seem to, my perception of what people don’t like abut Core curricula

    SCIENCE!

    1. That’s Thomas Dolby/Alton Brown.

  3. I still like his old TV show, and we watch it on occasion with the kids, but he’s left the reservation with all of this political nonsense.

    I’m struggling to find “Demonize the opposition” in the scientific method. Is that something Popper added?

    1. Well put. I’m going to use that.

    2. Yeah, I used to like watching him. Never realized he was such an asshole.

      1. That may have come later. I don’t remember him spouting this kind of stuff back then. That was a good while ago.

  4. “For a scientist, bill Nye provided a very unscientific analysis of core curriculum critiques,”

    Bill Nye is not a scientist. He’s a science evangelist. Which is an important thing, but the problem is that so many people vastly overestimate him because they’ve seen him on TV.

    1. He’s an engineer by training, if I remember correctly. Just like David Lo Pan (CE) and Dolph Lundgren (ChE).

      1. “So, this is engineering, huh? Engineering, where the noble semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello Oompa Loompas of science!” – Sheldon Cooper

        1. Without Engineers, science would have as much application as theology. Whenever someone gushes over some ‘discovery’, the first question in my mind is “How can it be applied to real life? Can it be applied?”

          1. My first job as an engineering co-op was to try to keep the PhDs from inadvertently killing themselves. It was an eyeopener.

          2. Haha…I knew that would provoke a response from an engineer. 🙂

            It’s the same argument I heard endlessly in college between my engineer and scientist friends. As a simple liberal arts major, it was fun just stirring the pot and watching the aftermath.

        2. Going from David Lo Pan to some goofy sitcom faux-scientist is uncalled for.

          1. Is there a David Lo Pan who isn’t the bad guy from “Big Trouble in Little China”? Because I don’t know of him and even Wikipedia just returns that one.

            1. Nope, same guy. James Hong, who played Lo Pan, was a civil engineer before becoming an actor and having a hot daughter.

              1. Then it’s James Hong who is an Engineer, not the character he played. I was trying (and failing) to find a real person of note with the character’s name.

                1. I suppose Lo Pan (the character) could’ve been an engineer, too. I mean, he did have to design all of those Chinese hells and everything.

                2. Yeah, but it’s way funnier to say it this way. 😀

                  And hell, while we’re here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xiAbDkXDgg

                  1. Lo Pan’s got bitches. Green-eyed bitches.

                3. Can’t it be both?

              2. James Hong is a commie fuck.

                1. He’s an actor. I like his acting. I don’t really care what his politics are.

            2. It’s the fictional character. The one who really has the civil engineering degree is James Hong, the actor who played the BEST VILLAIN EVER.

              1. BEST VILLAIN EVER

                If you include cartoons, Word Girl’s villains would place a couple in the top five. I am torn but among The Butcher or Chuck the evil sandwich making guy or Dr. Two Brains that show would probably take “best”.

                Best side kick name? Captain Huggy Face probably wins that one too.

      2. Well, even David Lo Pan learned the hard way that it’s all in the reflexes.

        1. That’s true. Clearly not a physics guy.

    2. He’s as much a scientist as Leonard Nimoy, or any of the 12 Dr. Who’s.

      1. To be sure, engineers do have significant scientific training in comparison to most people. Except trained scientists, anyway. The distinction is often just one of labeling, too, depending on the field.

        1. True, I wasn’t trying to insult engineers. Just pointing out that Bill Nye, regardless of training that happened decades ago is a TV personality. Not a scientist.

          1. Well, I’m insulted.

            *takes my toys and goes home”

          2. Even if he WERE a scientist, why are they asking him about education policy? I don’t get it.

      2. yep

        SCIENCE…….FICTION with emphasis on fiction!

  5. In New York, opposition to the Core is an unholy alliance of Parents and Teacher Unions squared off against the Administrators and the political machine. NYSUT has opposition for the wrong reasons, but are a loud, screaming voice in the room.

    1. NYSUT is a loud, screaming voice at all times.

      (Mom was a teachers’ aide, so she got the propaganda rag, which was full of hyperventilating panic-mongering.)

  6. And BTW, why is teaching kids that creationism happened now taken as some type of child abuse? Really, unless you are going to pursue a career in a few specific areas the belief either way is completely irrelevant. Meanwhile, the fucksticks that hate creationism spend 12+ pushing all kinds of actively destructive beliefs into kids’ heads.

    1. Thing is, teaching a kid creationism doesn’t mean they’ll believe it. I was taught that as a kid. And it didn’t work. I didn’t believe it. I’m supposed to believe that an invisible man who has always existed created everything that we can see? Yeah right. If anything always existed, maybe it’s the matter and energy that makes up the universe. Maybe it was always there, not the invisible man. And the invisible man was created by mortal men who are obsessed with beginnings and endings, so that by giving the universe a birthday, they could also plan for its death. Thus the origin of doomsday cults like Christianity and AGW.

      1. I would like to point out that beginnings and endings are only necessary if there isn’t something supernatural.

        1. How so? What is supernatural about the universe always existing, without beginning or end? What is supernatural is requiring that it came from nothing, or the hand of Zod.

          1. Well with nothing supernatural there must be a time element or everything would be in stasis. With the supernatural, things beyond human understanding (like no time) can exist.

            1. Well with nothing supernatural there must be a time element or everything would be in stasis.

              Why?

              With the supernatural, things beyond human understanding (like no time) can exist.

              Without the supernatural, things beyond human understanding (like life) can exist.

              As a species we’re three steps out of the cave with a lot of toys. And you just proved it. Basically your argument is that if you can’t understand it, then it must be supernatural. That’s caveman logic.

              1. No, my argument is that without time, everything is in stasis by definition. As soon as something happens, either time starts (a beginning) or time has always existed, in which there was time elapsed during the “stasis,” which again means it had a beginning and an end.

                As far as I can see, the only way for something have no beginning or end, is if there is something supernatural that would make time elapsing unnecessary. But then again, like you said, maybe it’s not supernatural but beyond human understanding. But that doesn’t negate the fact that theists are not in any way obsessed with beginnings and endings.

                1. There’s also the Aquinas argument concerning causality.

                  1. The Aquinas argument has been refuted repeatedly.

                2. my argument is that without time, everything is in stasis by definition.

                  By definition of what?
                  Why can’t time be never-ending or without a beginning? Periods of time can still exist. I can’t make sense of your argument.

                  theists are not in any way obsessed with beginnings and endings

                  That doesn’t jive with my experience.

                3. You might want to familiarize yourself with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. No time there.

                4. Time itself could be something that was constructed or derived. The human mind is finite. We simply cannot know what is outside our own experience and imagination. It doesn’t much matter what we call it.

              1. Whut?

                That’s what I said.

                1. I don’t understand what doesn’t make sense…

            2. What does “supernatural” even mean? We have time, so we have to have something outside of nature to support it? If that’s even true, so frigging what?

              You can’t go from that to a conscious, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present being. That force that allows time could be something akin to gravity, to which we don’t ascribe any conscious characteristics and would never think of doing so in our modern understanding of the world.

              You’ll need to go back to primitive cultures to convince people that forces must be directed by anthropomorphic beings.

              1. You can’t go from that to a conscious, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present being.

                But I didn’t do that. I was just pointing out that creationists definitely don’t crave a beginning and an end and that, in fact, a beginning and an end is more necessary for a natural phenomenon than a supernatural one.

                1. You’ll need to go back to primitive cultures to convince people that forces must be directed by anthropomorphic beings.

                  Stone Age logic.

                  But I didn’t do that. I was just pointing out that creationists definitely don’t crave a beginning and an end and that, in fact, a beginning and an end is more necessary for a natural phenomenon than a supernatural one.

                  OK Tony. Whatever you say.

              2. I would say that everything that really happens is natural by definition. If God exists, God is part of nature. The idea of the supernatural or of miracles is absurd.

            3. I don’t understand the objections to briannnnn.

              “Time” has always been defined by motion. Day- rotating earth. Month- lunar cycle. Year- solar revolution.

              Even today, the “scientific standard” for the “second” is the vibration(movement) in a cesium atom.

          2. Big Bang Theory is quantum creationism.

            1. I am stealing that.

            2. When did I say Big Bang?

            3. Well, given the current data, its the theory that fits best. I don’t think its any more creationism than Galileo’s study of falling bodies was wrong. It just took Newton and Einstein to explain new data in a more complete way.

            4. Not necessarily. In the Big Bang model, we just don’t know what happened before a certain time because physics doesn’t have the tools to deal with it.

              Unless all you mean by “creationism” is that the universe we observe has, in some sense, a beginning. But at this point, physics is agnostic about what happened before Planck time.

              1. To be clear, the connection between BBT and creationism is epistemic rationalism. They are not derived from experience by inductive investigation; they are contrived conceptual manipulations. One is explicitly mystical; the other rides the coattails of Newton with a grab bag of mathematical symbols and equations, and deductive theories derived thereof.

                1. To be clear, the connection between BBT and creationism is epistemic rationalism.

                  If that’s academic speak for “absolutely fucking stupid,” then +1.

              2. The Big Bang is super weird though. It did not explode and expand into space, it created space. Why did it explode? What was there before? Anything? Etc.

                1. “Before” presupposes eternal existence and ignores that time can have a specific beginning. Grammatically meaningful, but not scientifically so.

          3. Kneel before Zod!

      2. I was taught it as a child too. And over time become unsatisfied with the explanation and began learning various theories of evolution. Aside for a personal interest, however, it has absolutely zero impact on my life, success and world view.

        Recently I’ve become interested in the statists obsession with creationism. It’s hard for me to see any motivation for it beyond anti-religious bigotry. There are a number of anti-scientific positions held by various lefties that are never attacked in the way that creationism is, and have public policy implications, which creationism does not.

        1. Also, creationism sure is a lot more believable than “life didn’t exist for billions of years. And then *POOF* now it does!”

          1. I find it easier to believe that life started spontaneously through some as-of-yet unexplained circumstance, than to believe some invisible man whose existence cannot be proven snapped his invisible fingers and then *POOF* now it exists.

            1. Hmmmm….Difference of opinion? 🙂

                1. Why is it more probable that it happened by “magic” (or whatever you want to call non-life becoming life) than that it happened by divine intervention?

                  1. You’re the one proposing magic. Life is a chemical process and it would have arisen from other chemical processes. No magic required.

                    1. Im just calling it magic. No life then life…with nothing creating it. That’s magic to me. An all powerful being doesn’t need magic. It’s all powerful.

                    2. What created the all powerful being?

                    3. It’s tortoises all the way down.

                    4. It’s elephants riding on the back of tortoises all the way down.

                      FTFY

                    5. How about a being Supreme Being created matter and energy which operates in a deterministic way. Then that Supreme Being created individuals (in its own image) who were able to operate with free will instead of deterministically, inside the deterministic world.

                      This is the best explanation I can come up with as to how individuals with free will exist in a deterministic world.

                    6. How about a being Supreme Being created matter and energy which operates in a deterministic way.

                      So what is the origin of this Supreme Being? And while we’re on the subject – what exactly is a supreme being? Supreme in what way? And what do you mean by a being?

                    7. “So what is the origin of this Supreme Being? And while we’re on the subject – what exactly is a supreme being? Supreme in what way? And what do you mean by a being?”

                      The Supreme Being would be a Consciousness that is eternal, without beginning or end. If you choose to call this Being God then so be it. If all matter, energy, and the laws that govern them weren’t created then they are eternal. Something must be eternal at a fundamental level. If all matter and energy on a fundamental level are eternal and operate in a deterministic way then humans, which are made of matter and energy can’t have free will since our actions would be predetermined.

                    8. “An all powerful being doesn’t need magic. It’s all powerful.”

                      Ouch. That could possibly be the single worst sentence ever written.

                    9. Magic suggests something not within that being’s control. Like another power. You perform magic. When you have the power to do it yourself, it isn’t magic. It’s just you doing it…

                    10. Let’s start by defining magic.

                    11. No life then life…with nothing creating it.

                      Evolution doesn’t work that way. There would have been gradual stages between something that humans would label as “non-life” and something that we would label as “life.” But, there’s a continuum of stuff in the middle. There’s no *poof* step.

                    12. I’m not fucking talking about evolution. Geez!!!

                    13. Yes you are. If “life” arose from “non-life” it almost certainly had to be a gradual process, ie evolution.

                    14. “Yes you are. If “life” arose from “non-life” it almost certainly had to be a gradual process, ie evolution.”

                      I think that statement is completely un-provable.

                    15. If you mean that we can’t go back in time to witness the process, then yes its unprovable, but I would never completely discount the possibility that a rigorous theory would not be developed to explain it.

                    16. In any case, the most uninformed empirically derived theory of the universe’s origins is more valid and closer to the truth than any myth about those origins. Especially myths thought up by desert dwelling goat herders with a passion for human sacrifice.

                    17. “empirically derived theory”

                      If it’s empirically derived, why is it still just a theory? What’s the difference between ’empirically derived theory’ and scientific guesses made to fit one’s preconceived notions?

                    18. Whether you define ‘life’ as merely biological animation or whether you defined it as more metaphysical, you have to have had some point at which you had non-life, then an instant later you had life. There is no ‘partial’ life.

            2. Yeah, it was a dude who snapped his fingers like the Omnipotent Q. Or maybe it was something much more complicated than that.

          2. This is the second false choice you have presented to us.

            Other than creationist, who says that life just pooled into existence? What the fuck are you talking about brian?

            1. What do you mean? It’s not a false choice. There is nothing. Then there is something. Either it was created or it was not created and just happened spontaneously. There is no third option and if you have one I’d love to hear it.

          3. That’s abiogenesis, which is a completely different theory than evolution, which is just about adaptive change to environment.

            Of course, no one’s saying you have to actually understand the scientific argument before criticizing it, but it makes you look more intelligent.

            1. I was pitting it against creationism, not evolution. Evolution never even came up. So now who doesn’t look intelligent?

              1. Well, considering you were responding to a comment that specifically stated evolution, it actually did ‘come up’. But I don’t expect much from the ‘Black Blood’ guy.

                1. Bringing that up again huh? Well since the majority of African Americans are Creationists, I would say you’re the insensitive one now dick! 😛

                2. in all fairness, I thought he was comparing creationism to the Big Bang Theory.

            2. I wouldn’t call it a completely different theory. It would still rely on natural selection, although it would be on the molecular scale. Call it chemical selection if you like.

              1. It’s a completely different theory in the scientific context. ‘Natural selection’ refers to beneficial biological traits emerging in a population of organisms. That’s it. It does not extend the definition to include abiotic material or molecular changes. Natural selection deals with phenotypes passed on through pre-existing groups, it is entirely separate from any claims about the ‘beginnings of life’.

                1. Says who? Broadly defined, natural selection means what it says, selection by natural processes. If there is some self-replicating molecule swimming in the sea before the advent of “life” you’d see a hell of a lot more of that molecule (or complex) than others that did not self-replicate. Maybe the molecule “mutated” and made its self-replication more successful. Now there’s even more of that version and it could out-compete the old version. This is a form of natural selection. There’s no single point along the line where you can declare that “life now exists and therefore natural selection kicks in.” Natural selection was working on those self-replicating molecular complexes and it kept working when those complexes became something we would label as “life.”

                  1. Why wouldn’t one label the self-replicating molecule as life? What is the simplest definition and/or form of life?

                  2. Um, says Darwin and modern evolutionary synthesis theory? ‘Broadly defined’ is exactly the problem, natural selection is a part of adaptive evolution theory and has an actual scientific definition. If we are talking about the Theory of Natural Selection, then the extension of biological traits through phenotypes is what ‘natural selection’ means. That is its definition. If you want to try and extend it to a bunch of other independent scientific concepts, go nuts, but that’s not what the term means in the context of biology or evolutionary theory.

                    1. I admit I’m being a bit pissy about this, but think of it this way: did those molecules have genetic material that shows a genotype-phenotype distinction? No it doesn’t, and thus it’s not applicable to the theory of natural selection or ‘natural selection’ as we define it in the scientific community. So extend the term to those concepts is fundamentally incorrect.

          4. “life didn’t exist for billions of years. And then *POOF* now it does!”

            But no one really says that. Life on earth appears to have come about pretty soon after things cooled down enough for it to be possible. We don’t know about any other life, but it seems fairly reasonable to assume that it will usually happen pretty quickly in the right conditions.

            1. So quickly, it makes a *POOF* sound!

        2. It’s hard for me to see any motivation for it beyond anti-religious bigotry.

          That’s exactly what it is. I am an atheist, but I’m not anti-religion. I don’t judge people for what they believe. I object when they want to force their beliefs onto me by proselytizing or government force, but I don’t begrudge them for their beliefs.

          1. I don’t see how proselytizing is force, unless the preacher has a gun drawn.

          2. I don’t judge people for what they believe.

            Sure you do.

            You may make certain exceptions for certain beliefs.

            But I’m pretty sure if I scrutinized your thoughts with a fine tooth comb, I’d find evidence that you judged people for what they believe.

            Simple example:

            Person A walks up to sarcasmic and sincerely states: “I believe that I should be allowed to rape young boys if I want to, and I’m pretty pissed off that society doesn’t agree with me!”

            Does this statement impact your opinion of Person A?

            1. “I believe that I should be allowed to rape young boys if I want to, and I’m pretty pissed off that society doesn’t agree with me!”

              Yeah Sarc, what is your stance on the catholics?

          3. Some people certainly have begrudgworthy beliefs. There are those whose fundamental belief it is that you should be murdered and many more worse things than that.

            Whatever respect you may owe a religious person who keeps his yapper shut in regards to his supernatural dictates, you don’t owe their beliefs respect nor especially the vocally proselytizing religious people themselves. However if you feel the spread of falsehood is a moral thing then don’t begrudge any of them.

            1. Whatever respect you may owe a religious person who keeps his yapper shut in regards to his supernatural dictates, you don’t owe their beliefs respect nor especially the vocally proselytizing religious people themselves.

              ———————-

              “If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell?or not getting eternal life or whatever?and you think that, well, it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward. . . . How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”

              ~Penn Jillette

        3. To be sure, while I think teaching religion in place of well-established science is wrong and wrong-headed, we can still have plenty of scientific and technological advance even with kids getting taught Creationism. After all, plenty of advances happened in the last two centuries, with any number of the scientists and engineers growing up in religious households.

          I don’t want my kids mandated to be taught theology in place if science, but that’s more about government schools than about some sort of cultural philosophy.

        4. “It’s hard for me to see any motivation for it beyond anti-religious bigotry.”

          That and establishing a cultural marker that lets them think of themselves as smart and enlightened. Similar to listening to NPR and shopping at the Whole Foods.

        5. Strangely enough, although I went to Catholic shcool, I was NOT taught creationism. The Catholic Church learned it’s lesson with Galileo.

          They taught “guided evolution” instead.
          So basically, you got taught evolutionary theory with the postulation that an imaginary being was secretly magically directing the process.

          1. The Catholic Church learned it’s lesson with Galileo

            Galileo was prosecuted for ridiculing a Pope. The theological trappings were just the excuse.

      3. Public schools teach MORE creationism now than they did when they only taught biological creationism.

        Ask any public school teacher “Where does money come from?” then sit back and enjoy the creationist answers.

        1. truly Funny

        2. “Well, you see, there’s an all knowing man at the Fed called the Chairman who waves his hand, and *poof!* Money!”

          *tries to work in an “invisible hand” joke, but fails*

          1. Re what happened to intelligent design:

            Here’s Chris Smither being a smartass about it

            1. and threading fail, sigh

    2. why is teaching kids that creationism happened now taken as some type of child abuse?

      I’ve been wondering about it for a while, I would consider turning your child’s education over to the government to be child abuse.

      1. The issue is that creationism is not science as it cannot be falsified. So by definition it doesn’t belong in science class. I suppose it could be correct but it still wouldn’t be science.

        1. I’d say the issue is that you are not allowed to tell other people how to raise their children.

    3. Because it stunts the kid’s opportunity to learn the biological sciences properly.

      I notice nobody in this thread is saying “I was taught creationism as a child, and now I’m a molecular biologist! It had absolutely no impact on my academic abilities or interest in the biological sciences!”

      They’re all saying it didn’t matter — because they didn’t become biologists. One might wonder if cause and effect are being confused.

      1. Or one might wonder if it’s because the number of people taught strict creationism is so vanishingly small as to make it a strawman.

        1. As is the number of molecular biologists, for that matter…

          1. That’s actually a dying discipline. The name, that is.

        2. I think you’d be surprised at the percentage of people out there that believe the literal Genesis story.

      2. My wife was taught creationism as a child and she now possessed degrees in biology and zoology.

        Also, your argument might be one of the worst ones I’ve ever read.

        There are MANY scientists and biologists who were taught creationism as children.

        1. Great, if you have research showing that teaching kids creationism has no impact on their ability to do well in biology at the college level, then awesome. That would be a convincing argument that it doesn’t matter.

          1. How much of an empty vessel were you in your youth? Do you ever recall questioning any of the more absurd things you were taught in school? I certainly did, most of my friends sure did, and I’m reasonably certain that the generations to come will follow suit regardless of what they’re being taught.

          2. No no no no no. That’s not how this works.

            You must prove that it DOES have impact. Without proof that it impacts, it can’t be vilified for having impact. Meaning, it doesn’t matter if it’s taught until one proves that it matters that it’s taught- not that it can’t be taught until one proves that it doesn’t matter if it’s taught.

            Your argument is backwards.

            1. I agree with Spencer on this. You’re usually an excellent poster Hazel. But that statement is classic proggie logic.

              1. Let me put it this way:

                Surely we can put a number on P(Becoming a sucessful biologist| Being taught creationism in elementary school), vs. P(becoming a sucessful biologist|being taught evolution in grade school).

                If the first number is smaller than the second number, then we can conclude that being taught creationism as a child negatively impacts one’s likelihood of future sucess in the biological sciences.

                1. Many missing variables there, I’m afraid. Your research program will need to be modified before you do it to control for socioeconomics, ethnicity, gender, geography, and other variables which I’m sure I (as a dumb physical chemist) missed.

                2. But the study of creationism provides a solid foundation of scientific principles. Some seem to have an impression that creationism consists of the 7 short chapters kicking off the bible. It isn’t. Creationism utilizes all the same evidence from all sciences. The evidence is interpreted to conclude alternate theories, generally those supporting a young earth (6000 to 20,000yrs). The creationist has more in common with the bilingual individual than the monolingual individual. He/she isn’t closed to a single package of theories or manner of thinking.

                3. Hazel – Let me put it this way:”

                  No, I think you misunderstood us. I’m not arguing that you couldn’t design a study to find the answer.

                  Your original post seems to be, “Unless you can prove your way is better, then my way is better.” That’s not a valid logical argument.

      3. Not very many people are molecular biologists, so your correlation/implied causation hypothesis fails.

        I was taught creationism as a child and I wanted to be a ‘dinosaur scientist’ when I grew up. There are no dinosaurs in the bible.

        Instead I got a degree in mechanical engineering, joined the Army and learned how to break things and kill people, and now work as a Ops Research/Systems Analyst.

        The only way creationism stunts other theories of life and scientific study is if it is the only thing that is ever taught.

        1. There are no dinosaurs in the bible.

          Fail. Tanniyns are mentioned multiple times.

          1. Pretty ephemeral connection to dinosaurs. And they had nothing to do with my childhood.

            1. Only ephemeral if you’re not a creationist. They take it quite literally.

          2. Don’t forget the Leviathians and Behemoths as well as dragons.

        2. This is an empirical question and could be answered with an empirical study. Someone should actually do the research and see if teaching kids creationism in elementary school has a negative impact on how well they do in biology, or their propensity to go into the biological sciences.

          Seriously. Someone should actually do that study.

          1. Utah ranks in the middle of the pack for scientists as a percentage of population.

            1. That doesn’t tell me anything unless I know whether those people moved there from out of state or whether native residents are being taught creationism.

      4. Are you arguing that none of the great biologists/scientists in the last 500 years were taught creationism?

      5. Really, there’s plenty of Christian doctors. My nuerosurgeon speaks in Christian terms. I think Christian Creationists have probably an equal or greater chance at science based careers because they aren’t limited by public ed nonsense.

      6. Darwin was taught Creationism. Can we move on now?

  7. I would agree about the projection comment. While I enjoy Bill Nye, over the years he’s gradually moved from advocate for science to pseudo-scientific fanaticism. Once you start assuming that your interpretation of science holds all of the answers and nobody else’s dissenting opinion could possibly be valid, you’re no longer an advocate for science.

    (Note: I am an atheist who thinks creationism is a load of crap).

    1. I’m tickled pink by your juxtaposition of

      Once you start assuming that your interpretation of science holds all of the answers and nobody else’s dissenting opinion could possibly be valid, you’re no longer an advocate for science

      and

      I am an atheist who thinks creationism is a load of crap

      1. In a sea of infinite possibilities, ruling out one of them does not constitute specific endorsement of any particular alternative.

        1. It’s still a funny juxtaposition.

          1. Nothing funny about it. Rule nothing out, but require scientific evidence. Show me evidence of the existence of god and your case gains cred.

            1. Evidence of the existence of God is always refuted by the claim that we simply don’t know why things are how they are. That an explanation will eventually describe miracle scientifically or something. It’s really futile to argue the existence of God anymore.

      2. It seems the scientific explanations keep having to “evolve” it’s explanations. The Bible, pretty much admits that it leaves much unanswered and mankind will never have all the answers. Can’t see that one belief holds any stronger evidence than the other and am not disturbed by it. I enjoy both science, especially evolution, and my sunday evening bible studies.

        1. The Bible, pretty much admits that it leaves much unanswered and mankind will never have all the answers.

          You know what?

          Go fuck yourself if you think that’s what it says.

          1. A little agressive there, but no – that is definitely NOT what the bible says.

            Am I the only one who thinks that the position of atheism (belief/surety that there is no God) is just as close-minded as creationists who believe the Earth is 6K yrs old?

            Both are trying to convince you that they KNOW, for a FACT, that there definitely is a God, or that there is definitely NOT a God. Period.

            The only scientific, rationale position for a human to take at this point in history is that of agnostic.

            1. atheism (belief/surety that there is no God)

              That’s only one type of atheism.

              1. That’s pretty much the definition.

                atheism – disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

                1. Lack of believe doesn’t necessarily mean complete disbelief. Agnosticism is a type of atheism. It’s the only type that I see as being correct since you can’t really disprove the existence of the supernatural. Although the very specific god of the Bible (or any other human myth) seems so highly unlikely as to be easily dismissed.

              2. Actually, my atheism is that because there is no evidence that god exists (other than arbitrary attribution) there is no god. I apply the same rationale to unicorns, leprechauns, and intelligent progressives. 🙂

                If hard evidence that God exists surfaces, I am more than willing to change my opinion on the matter…just as I would be with those other things. But I’m not one of those wishy-washy agnostics who hedges on the question because they don’t want to piss anyone off.

                Without substantiative evidence, no God…with substantiative evidence, sure, why not?

            2. Am I the only one who thinks that the position of atheism (belief/surety that there is no God) is just as close-minded as creationists who believe the Earth is 6K yrs old?

              Some atheists hold that position, to be sure. But many just don’t see any reason too believe in God. My disbelief in God is exactly the same as my disbelief in the Tooth Fairy. I see no reason to even entertain the notion in the first place.

            3. Not quite. Because while there is no proof of God, there is evidence.

              There is quite a bit of written evidence, quite a bit of different sources, and quite a bit of written evidence about eyewitnesses to God.

              You need not trust these sources, sure. And you may bring up that there are a few examples of written evidence about other gods. But to say that agnosticism is the only scientific, rational position for a human to take right now is to say that much of history isn’t scientific nor rational.

              1. Not quite. Because while there is no proof of God, there is evidence.

                There is quite a bit of written evidence, quite a bit of different sources, and quite a bit of written evidence about eyewitnesses to God.

                Are you saying there is strong evidence for the existence of Bigfoot?

                1. Did Bigfoot grow up, teach for 3 years in public, get murdered, and then rise from the grave and show himself to 500 people? Did those bigfoot taught then spend hundreds of years trying not to get killed for following bigfoot’s teachings?

                  Again, you need not trust the sources, but if you throw these accounts out, you must also throw out much of recorded history.

                  1. Did Bigfoot grow up, teach for 3 years in public, get murdered, and then rise from the grave and show himself to 500 people?

                    There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person. Those myths about a magic man that went around healing the sick and rose from the dead were all part of middle-eastern religious tradition. If you want to say that the Bible is evidence, then there’s evidence for the existence of Merlin the Magician.

                    1. Excepting the written records… Just like there’s no evidence that Alexander the Great lived…

                      My point, exactly. Throw this out and throw out most of history.

              2. Much of history is not scientific nor rational. I don’t think that is a very controversial statement. Science as we understand it really didn’t exist until the 16th or 17th century.

                1. True, even then the term wasn’t used.

                  But then what do you classify history? And what do you describe the history of Earth (ancient Geology), science or not?

          2. “Go fuck yourself if you think that’s what it says.” A scientific impossibility as well.

            Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I saw all the work of God, that a man can not find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; morever, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it.

          3. I think the bible also states one should not be so quick with their tongue, but you may need someone to look that verse up for you.

        2. Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I saw all the work of God, that a man can not find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; morever, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it.

          (Added for Fluffy and LessisMore.)

      3. There is no contradiction there. Since can easily disprove bad theories. Biblical creationism is a “load of crap” because it is inconsistent with observation. That still leaves an infinity of other possibilities.

  8. Well here’s the thing. Life started when lightening struck primordial ooze. Any anyone who doesn’t believe that is clearly retarded!

    1. So many interesting and yet unanswered questions (such as the origin of life itself) have been subsumed in the quest to build a narrative.

  9. Nye and his ilk aren’t scientists; they’re authoritarian zealots who practice a religion which has a superficial resemblance to science.

    1. Scientism.

  10. “it forces them to learn standard stuff when they could be teaching their kids things that are inconsistent with science.”

    What a fucking idiot.

    1. How does anything become ‘standard’ to begin with if you are not allowed to think anything other than what is already ‘standard’?

  11. I’m glad I don’t have any nostalgia in regards to Bill Nye, because otherwise I’m sure it would break my heart to find out he’s such a colossal asshole.

    1. To me he’s that twip with a theme song so fucking annoying I had to change the channel.

          1. Watch it with the sound off. He looks as dumb as he sounds.

    2. Or you could be so old that Bill Nye’s influence means absolute shit to you. That would actually be a sad event.

      BTW, whenever I see a “I Fucking Love Science” sticker, I know it’s a lefty. 99% of the time. Almost nobody runs around with that phrase on their lips or sticker on their car or computer (!) without being a dipshit leftist.

      So much for method, we’re all politicized now, baby!

      1. I am so old that Bill Nye’s influence means absolute shit to me.

        1. Think an annoying Mr. Wizard.

        2. Me too. 🙁

          I know who he is because I follow the news, but damn if I’ve ever seen him doing TV.

  12. Fuck you Bill Nye.

  13. I always confuse Bill Nye with the free money from the government guy in the question mark suit.

    And I pay the same amount of attention to them. They’re both self-promoters.

  14. Bill Nye the Appeal to Emotion Guy?

  15. Are there many schools in America where introducing creationism as an alternative explanation to evolution wouldn’t result in peals of laughter from most students when the “Adam and Eve” story was told?

    1. The last round of creationism didn’t mention any religious specifics.

      That being said, are there any public schools still teaching creationism? I’m sure homeschoolers and private schools can get away with it but I think it’s been more or less completely removed from public schools. Nothing to do with Common Core.

      1. No creationism, just moral relativism.

        1. That’s nothing new: Christianity has been teaching moral relativism for 2000 years. For example, it’s OK when God kills and lies, but it’s not OK when you do it.

    2. Quit othering my child with you Abrahamic-centric beliefs. We all know that life on Midgard began when an ice giants cow licked Odin into being from a rock wall.

  16. Random mutation,
    Genetic adaptation, and
    Natural selection
    can be demonstrated via scientific method; evolution as how the world was created can’t and is a belief system just as creationism.

    Sounds like ol Bill is still smarting from his debate with Ken Hamm who solidly made the case that neither belief system holds up to the scientific method. The ferocity of the evolutionists to deny any discussion of creationish raises one of my eyebrows.

    1. This is the crux of the ‘creationism vs. evolution’ argument. Evolution is how life changes over time AFTER ‘creation’. Creationism is about how everything GOT created.

      Two entirely different subjects. One does not preclude the other.

      1. This is the crux of any ‘science v. religion’ argument. Science is about method, definition, classification, and explanation. Religion is about wisdom, culture, heritage, and belief.

        Two entirely different subjects. One does not (specifically) preclude the other.

      2. Creationism is about how everything GOT created.

        That’s not true.

        Creationism holds that all life forms currently on Earth came into existence at the same time and in their current forms.

        If you believe that life forms have changed over time, you are not a creationist.

        1. If only GOT would finish being created we could get the final books.

        2. Yes, and talking about the actual moment of creation (of the universe, I mean) is as much a matter for philosophy and religion as it is science. Science has limits tied directly to the limits of human knowledge. If something is beyond our ability to detect or too complex for us to unravel, it may not be subject to scientific proof (or disproof)–at least, not yet. And that’s okay.

        3. If you believe that life forms have changed over time, you are not a creationist.

          I guess Ken Ham is not truly a Creationist, then.

        4. I’ve always thought creationism was about, you know, creation. This is the first I’ve heard about all life forms not changing. Most creationists I’m aware of have no problem with the various forms of life, once they have been created, changing.

        5. Wow, what an urban myth. The bulk of creationist studies involves all sciences with how species changed over the young earth’s life span, less than 20,000 yr. The story of Noah’s Ark entails taking on animals of the domain or kingdom types. The latter the 4 legged critter rapidly evolved into the zebra, the mustang, the donkey ect. . .
          Actually, there’s little reference to the biblical stories in creationism. There are near as many volumns as pub school science texts. It is extensive and very much utilizes traditional sciences, only a different intrepretation of date timelines, uses a foundational evolution rather than the tree of life and a few other changes.

          Again, Creationism relies on traditional science precepts almost wholly, excepting time with a few other tweaks.

    2. “Evolution as how the world was created can’t and is a belief system just as creationism.”

      Once again, that is not evolutionary theory. That is abiogenesis, a completely different theory.

      1. Speaking of which, whatever happened to intelligent design?

        1. I think the Catholics largely argue for an evolutionary design guided by God, but I can’t recall.

        2. I’m a proponent of intelligent design, as in the sheer wall of probabilities that are aligned against us being here are almost mathmatical proof of a guiding hand (agnostic), but “intelligent design(tm)” has been largely subsumed by the creationists who end up arguing for 6000 yr old earth.

          1. I’m a proponent of intelligent design

            Which flavor? There are those who propose a guiding hand in the beginnings of the universe and life and there are those who think each step of evolution is guided.

            1. A very loose hand by some entity that is involved in advancing life, the universe, and everything.

          2. That’s like saying a person winning the lottery with astronomical odds is proof that it was a rigged game.

        3. It got a second rate job at Apple out in Cupertino?

      2. Mainstream society educated by TV, billions and billions of years – sounds impressive and includes the visual, would argue that evolution explains creation. Comes from the title of Charles Darwin’s book, The Orgin of Species.

      3. Formally speaking, Yes. However, a gub school educated population, who learned more from the tely than the classroom, is confused and believes that evolution is the explanation of the orgin of species. I had this discussion with a friend who had a “I love Science” bumper sticker on her honda car.

    3. Random mutation, Genetic adaptation, and Natural selection can be demonstrated via scientific method; evolution as how the world was created can’t and is a belief system just as creationism.

      The way stars form and the way planets accrete around them is pretty well established scientifically, so that part is figured out. Of course, there are always more and more details to fill in. There is no definitive theory as to the way life evolved from “non-living” chemicals, but there are many sketchy theories that try to fill in the gaps where they can. I don’t know of anyone out there saying “this is the right answer, abandon all other explanations!” If there were people like that, then you’d be correct that it was an unsupported “belief system” and not scientific. But, they are scientific and therefore nothing like creationism.

      1. The way stars form. Not to disagree with you, yet to qualify, creationism is more than than the 1st page in the book of Genesis. It often relies on evolutionary evidence yet interpreted from a ‘young earth’ time frame. As to the stars, we can’t really so much as prove the ‘speed of light’ as it defies verification.

        As a recently retired govt ed teacher, that institution pretty much imprints, ‘Our theories are the pinacle of wisdom and you’re an oaf if you so much as care to discuss any discrepencies.’

  17. I have a joke! How can you tell if someone is an atheist?

    Don’t worry…they’ll tell you!

    Ba da cha!!!

    P.S. Also works with vegan.

    1. As an athiest vegan, I don’t find that joke humorous at all. (jk)

      1. I half like you.

      2. I subscribe to agnostic veganism. I admit that an animal-product free diet might exist, but I’m not convinced.

          1. You keep squinting at me, you may want to get your vision checked.

    2. Not true. I tend to keep my lack of faith to myself because of the uncomfortable stares that I get when I say it.

      That’s because I’m not some asshole who feels all smug and superior because I don’t believe in some supernatural being. Whatever. I don’t care what people believe. I don’t judge.

      But I sure as heck am judged when I mention that I’m an atheist. So I keep it to myself.

      1. YES! They are thinking anti-theists. They surely exist. Atheists often are apathetic to others’ views. Anti-theists want to beat you into the ground over what you believe and how much better they are than you for not believing in it too.

        As an atheist, I hate anti-theists.

        1. Anti-theists want to beat you into the ground over what you believe and how much better they are than you for not believing in it too.

          I just want to keep arguing about the topic until we figure out who’s right.

          Which is exactly what we do about literally every other topic under the sun here all day every day.

          Want to argue about the minimum wage or about manosphere game theory? Hey, that’s really awesome! Let’s do that all day, it’s fun!

          Want to argue about whether the Judeo-Christian teleology makes sense? OMG YOU ANTI-THEIST WHY DO YOU WANT TO BEAT PEOPLE INTO THE GROUND.

          1. You must be a lot of fun at parties.

            *ducks and runs from room*

          2. Fluffy- then you’re not an anti-theist, by definition.

            So you needn’t worry. However, if you are, by definition, an anti-theist, then I will quote the greatest dude of all time, “You’re not wrong, Walter. You’re just an asshole.”

        2. Anti Theist? Is that like Auntie Mame?

        3. Agreed. Preening fucktards, anti-theists are…poisoning the well for atheists who merely want to ignore religion entirely and get on with our lives.

      2. I judge. But my judgment is meaningless unless I use force.

        1. But judgement offends. And thou must not offend, because offending is tantamount to violence against feelings, and violence is force!

          1. “but I don’t judge,”

            What? We all judge from our waking moment each day. Maybe you don’t push your judgemental thinking on others, but we all judge. If you don’t judge that dog you may get bit when reaching to pet him. The bible teaches to judge in daily living. Only the world’s greatest victim doesn’t judge.

      3. But I sure as heck am judged when I mention that I’m an atheist. So I keep it to myself.

        I regularly make fun of Catholics to their faces. I’ve had all members of an array of denominations ridicule me for being “Churchy” because I was taught (and remember) the Bible as a kid without regard to my church attendance or profession of belief. Hell, reminding atheists of principles that they believe in and don’t follow has earned me the ‘churchy’ label on occasion.

        Considering there are no atheist drinking fountains and atheists aren’t forced to give up their seats to theists on the buses, this sounds very ‘microaggression!’ to me. Like you said you were an atheists to a bunch of Catholics or Baptists and everybody politely changed the subject or shut up because they don’t have any commonality to talk about and you took that as an insult.

        1. When I was a kid I was taught to believe atheists are monsters. Seriously. And I find that some religious people still believe that.

          1. I’m not sure which is worse sometimes. Being called a monster or someone patronizingly trying to save your soul.

            And agnostics get treated much the same way. Had a woman tell me that I would make a great evangelist one time. I think it was primarily because I was defeating her arguments. All I had to do was see the light and I would become a force for good.

            1. I would become a force for good.

              You were going to join the Navy?

              http://www.navy.com/about/gffg.html

              1. NEVER

            2. I’m not sure which is worse sometimes. Being called a monster or someone patronizingly trying to save your soul.

              I hate it when firemen patronizingly pull me from a burning building.

          2. When I was a kid I was taught to believe atheists are monsters.

            I was taught the same thing, and I believed it. I think almost a majority of people in the U.S. still believe that.

    3. God ain’t that the truth. Two most insufferable populations ever. Probably just as bad as the Santorums of the world.

  18. Meh. Beakman’s World was a better show.

    1. YES!

    2. Infinitely.

  19. My science guy is Beakman.

    (And now I’m visiting Paul Zaloom’s blog and I can’t tell if I need to kill yet another goddamned hero or if I should propose marriage…)

  20. Personally, I’m not sure I understand why *libertarians* care about this issue.

    It seems to me to be a case of Team-alignment-cum-culture-war affiliation. Conservatives oppose common core, so progressives support it because if conservatives hate it must be good, so other Republicans oppose it because the progressives support it so therefore it must be a socialist plot, so libertarians just look at this and go “Well, these people on my end of the spectrum oppose it so therefore there must be something wrong with it.”

    When really, underneath it is none of those things. It’s just yet another run of the mill bureucratic testing scheme in a system that’s already bureaucratized up the wazoo.

    I don’t think Libertarians should actually give two shits about this issue one way or another. It’s like arguing over the correct way to regulate a public utility.

    1. Well, it does seem to increase the centralized bureaucratic control. I think that’s worth fighting in itself. This has been the trend since the late 70s.

      1. Another expansion of Dept of Education, which all right thinking people will agree, should die by cleansing fire.

        1. I mean, why not? Why isn’t the Department of Education gone? By any rational measure that matters to the public at large, it couldn’t be a bigger failure or waste of money.

          1. Because the GOP is a group of chickenshit liars. They’ve campaigned against the DOE since it was created, yet never move against it.

            1. Because the GOP is a group of chickenshit liars. They’ve campaigned against the DOE since it was created, yet never move against it.

              BINGO!

              1. DOE is the Department of Energy. Department of Education is ED. Just saying.

    2. Hazel, I refer you to my comment about the alliances in New York.

      NYSUT is as left as they come (public sector teacher’s union). Opposition and/or support is not a TEAM issue.

      1. CRAP! I forgot what thread I was in.

        Ignore that.

        1. Ignore the ignore that I’m out of it today.

          The side track about the scientific method made me think the common core thread was a different article.

      2. What I mean is, there is a *perception* on the right that this is some sort of evil left-wing plot, and a perception on the left that the opposition is stupid creationists.And those perceptions are driving team-affiliated responses. But it’s actually not really either of those things.

        1. Your last sentence answers your opening question.

        2. Well, I lean to the right, and on the one hand I tend to support a Common set of educational standards, which is the premise behind Common Core. Indeed, I consider Common standards to be a core function of the Federal government.

          But then I look at the actual implementation and realize Common Core looks like a parody of what a Common set of standards should be. Furthermore, I have considerable doubt as to the efficacy of the Common Core mathematics program.

    3. Don’t most libertarians oppose when the government spends time and money on something that is not better than it was before- and then forces, with more time and money, everyone to go along with their new way?

      Is that not, typically, a libertarian opposition point?

      1. Whether it’s better or not is an open question. I’m not going to let team affiliations drive my assumptions about whether it is good or bad. The common core math actually seems good to me though.

        1. common core math actually seems good to me though.

          So, you’re a calculator salesman?

        2. The common core math actually seems good to me though.

          The Prussian system of rote memorization worked for the better part of a century to inculcate basic numeracy in children’s minds.

          Anyone who thinks that what we are in need of is curricular reform is a patent fool who does not understand where the real problems in education come from.

        3. The common core math actually seems good to me though.

          It sets forth noble goals but the methodology sucks.

          Remind you of anything?

          1. “Remind you of anything?”

            Everything the government does?

        4. Based on the examples I’ve seen (mind you they’re on the internet so I’m willing to take them with a grain of salt) common core is the most ridiculous and assinine system of teaching math I’ve ever encountered.

          1. Worse than the “New Math” of the late 60’s – early 70’s ?

        5. “The common core math actually seems good to me though.”

          Your about the only poster I’ve ever seen that said that. Could you explain why you think so?

          1. We had a thread about it the other day. It seems like a much more fun way to learn math that gets kids doing abstract reasoning in the process.

            Rote memorization is dull, dull, dull. it’s what turns kids off math at a young age.

            1. “Rote memorization is dull, dull, dull. it’s what turns kids off math at a young age”

              I have a friend who’s an elementary school teacher who told me the same thing and said she loves Common Core. I respect her opinion, but I leave open the possibility that the reason she likes it so much is that she found “old” math boring to teach and isn’t considering the end result.

              In the end, a business doesn’t want someone who can expound on the abstract concepts of 9×9…they want someone who can do the multiplication in a minimal amount of time so they can move on to other things. Common Core seems to make what should be a simple process overcomplicated and time-consuming…therefore inefficient.

            2. Math being hard is what turns off kids to it.

              This bullshit about making math fun is nothing new, btw. And kids still suck at it, because it’s hard.

            3. “Rote memorization is dull, dull, dull. it’s what turns kids off math at a young age.”

              There really isn’t that much rote memorization in adding, subtracting and not much in division. There is a little bit more in multiplication, but you really don’t need to learn more than 100 different formulas (Assuming you are learning the minimum multiplication matrix of 1×1 all the way to 10×10).

              That’s the equivalent of learning all the US state names and Capitol cities.

              That seems pretty trivial.

              However, I’m willing to see wait and see what the results are. But I don’t have a lot of hope for it’s success.

        6. The math is a pipe dream. Kids can’t do it.

    4. Well put. If you have kids in public schools, fighting this battle in the political arena does them about as much good as hanging garlic around their necks. If you aren’t shopping for an alternative to public schools, you’re deluding yourself.

    5. Well, it’s expensive for school districts. It adds expenses for training materials, teaching materials, testing, and grading of the tests. Which means my taxes go up, so yea, I give a few shits.

  21. Bill Nye is a nut job. He has no understanding of the idea that science is never proven, but must always question. Having faith in science is about the worst thing a scientist can do. Doubt and question, trying to find holes are much more what we should be doing. He does not understand that diversity leads to a fluid growth that rigid single standards cannot. It is called evolution, and it applies to science and societies as well as the biosphere. Insistence on one best way it the dead end of evolution, and our society must not go there.

  22. Bill Nye is a nut job. He has no understanding of the idea that science is never proven, but must always question. Having faith in science is about the worst thing a scientist can do. Doubt and question, trying to find holes are much more what we should be doing. He does not understand that diversity leads to a fluid growth that rigid single standards cannot. It is called evolution, and it applies to science and societies as well as the biosphere. Insistence on one best way it the dead end of evolution, and our society must not go there.

  23. Indeed, why oppose other people teaching creationism? If your child shows an interest in geology or paleontology or cosmology or whatever, creationism just means higher wages in their future careers as the pool of labor in their field becomes smaller. It’s a form of purely voluntary occupational licensing. The Amish help prop up the wages of programmers by never ever thinking of becoming programmers for religious reasons.

    1. Technically, the Amish also reduce the demand for the technology made by the programmers. So it might be a wash.

      1. That’s not strictly true – There are a great many videos of the Amish using tech in their business including cell phones and PCI POS terminals. I forget which dogmatic quibble justified it.

        1. I said “reduce”.

          I’m technically correct. The best kind of correct.

      2. Nah, there is some demand, they just need others to use it for them.

      3. Maybe not. It takes a lot of effort to remake the Apple II in an iMac world. And the Amish ain’t doing it.

    2. That would be true if there weren’t an endless supply of programmers (and other STEM) types from other countries who are willing to work for much, much less anyway….

      Not to mention, pretty much all science was started by people who believed in creationism. It’s not an either/or thing. Hell, Newton was a freaking Alchemist.

      Hell, this anti-religion stuff in science is a recent thing, too. 20 years ago I was in college at an Institute of Technology (one of the lesser ones, but still pretty hard to get into). I was the only atheist in my class.

  24. Definition of a scientist: a political activist that wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs, and lay inventors.

  25. I only want to see Bill Nye as Speed Walker.

  26. In all seriousness, how is teaching creationism worse than, say, teaching the zero-sum economic fallacy as truth and making people repeating the Pledge or an Anthem like some creepy cult mantra? And I say this as an atheist.

    1. It’s not. They are all bad. When my son came home knowing the pledge it creeped me the fuck out.

      1. Not as bad as my kids coming home reciting the E Plebnista.

        1. All still better than What Does The Fox Say?

          Just sayin’

          1. For the record, foxes bark.

            1. You’re killing the mystique of the song.

              1. Truly, as crazy as we Americans are, we’re saner than everyone else in the world. Especially the Scandinavians.

        2. My son can recite Lois Lerner’s incantation of the 5th Amendment. I now know which radio stations my wife listens to.

    2. I’d argue creationism is far less socially-damaging than ‘economic myths’.

      Creationists do not impose the consequences of their delusions on others.* Where they do disagree, its so much a footnote.

      Zero-Sum economics however, says things like we need to ‘reduce consumption’ to create ‘sustainability’.

      In effect, destroy productivity-creation.

      *(this is debatable; i emphasize the word ‘impose’)

      1. ^^THIS^^

        Teaching creationism is akin to teaching that electrons rotate around the nucleus like planets. It is wrong, but does it really matter much in reality?

        1. Going from “Electron orbits” to “Valence zones” was not that big of a leap for me. All it took was the chemistry teacher going “The orbit is just an analogy – what the evidence really eays is…”

      2. “God created you, therefore you must obey him, and He says…” has been pretty damaging over the past few millennia. I think that delusion has easily been worse than zero-sum economics or even Marxism in terms of number of people killed and lives ruined.

        1. Holy shit, this isn’t HuffPo, dude.

    3. “In all seriousness, how is teaching creationism worse than, say, teaching the zero-sum economic fallacy as truth”

      If you don’t know, it’s going to be quite hard to explain it to you!

      But, yes, even children are carefully told what is complete guesswork and theory and what actually is scientific. I never remember zero-sum economics being taught in primary school either. Where did you go to school?

      1. ” I never remember zero-sum economics being taught in primary school either”

        Where did you “learn” it?

      2. Ladies and gentlemen, craiginmass has been kind enough to be an example of the broken mind that believes in the zero sum fallacy. Would you like your children to think envy and confirmation bias are positive character traits? Of course not. Keep thinkin’, kids, or you’ll end up like craiginmass, and no one wants that!

  27. If Bill Nye were an actual scientist, rather than a celebrity signaling the superficially scientistic, he wouldn’t spend so much time debating Creationists. How many serious biologists submit articles debunking Bigfoot for peer review? That’s not science. It’s a parlor game. If Nye enjoys the game, that’s his business, but his business is anything but science.

    1. I have a friend with a PhD (not in the hard sciences) who has written a number of scholarly articles on Bigfoot. Well, on how people talk about Bigfoot and other fantastic creatures.

      1. Not the Skunk Ape, of course, because that shit is real.

        1. That shit is Florida Man after a long week-end.

          1. Unproven, though that is a theory.

      2. STEVE SMITH FANTASTIC CREATURE! FANTASTIC AT RAPE!

  28. I oppose Common Core and I am a Creationist. I never realized that the two had anything to do with the other. I opposed Common Core because it’s stupid and government mandated.

    1. “I oppose Common Core and I am a Creationist. I never realized that the two had anything to do with the other.”

      They have a lot to do with one another. One is a fairy tale and the other tries to inform people about the world around them.

      1. I really don’t know if you really don’t know what I said or if you’re just being a jerk.

        But even working within your own… “logic”… how does that make them similar in any way?

        1. He’s a lefty asshole who is not really good at that ‘reading’ thing.
          But he is a raging asshole.

      2. Common Core is a fairy tale and Creationism beautifully embodies all the sciences, their methods and acknowledges a spectrum of theories.

  29. The only science you can have faith in is ballistics, and capabilities of the stupid.

  30. Nye is a good example of how Progressivism is almost a sickness. Nye is by a lot of objective measures a bright and reasonable person. Once he was infected with Progressive politics, however, he turns into a complete nut unable to see anything except through the lens of his politics. Sad.

    1. Funny, because the common retort to those who disagree with CONSENSUS is that deniers are complete nuts who can’t see anything except through the lens of their politics.

      1. Given that the scientific method means concensus is only as good as the evidence it stands on, those who try to silence other opinions are blinded by something.

        1. What they’re arguing about isn’t science, it’s the point at which any kind of proof, scientific or otherwise, is enough to be compelling evidence of the stated proposition.

          1. Actually, creationism is based on science, just interprets the same evidence as evolutionists differently.

      2. Projection doesn’t just happen in movie theaters.

    2. Bright and reasonable people who spend a lot of time looking at the world around them tend to go in one of two directions…

      1. They use their knowledge to get a one-up on everyone around them…

      or.

      2. They see education and knowledge as a wonderful thing and attempt to impart it to others.

      Libertarians tend to see #1 (see: Koch Brothers, etc.) as the more correct approach. This is why the Kochs and Waltons spend money to make sure fewer people are educated…because educated people make more $$ (less for them) and tend to be MUCH more liberal and environmental (very bad for them!).

      Look at the states with the highest income and educational attainment. I rest my case. Numbers don’t lie.

      1. craiginmass|9.9.14 @ 7:36PM|#
        “Libertarians tend to see #1 (see: Koch Brothers, etc.) as the more correct approach. This is why the Kochs and Waltons spend money to make sure fewer people are educated…because educated people make more $$ (less for them) and tend to be MUCH more liberal and environmental (very bad for them!).”

        Lefty asshole craig spends a lot of time developing lies to post here, since reality keeps telling him he’s a loser who has wasted his life.

  31. *sigh*

    Another Cornell alum, along with Janet “BBQ” Reno and Donald “Flypaper” Rumsfeld.

    1. No. For all his faults, Nye can make a sane point once in a while. Shreek’s never done that before to my knowledge.

      1. I have to ask – how did he come to be known as ‘shreek’?

        1. It was its original screen-name.

          1. That was a voluntary label?

            Words fail me.

            1. shrike actually. Everybody took to calling him shriek and shreek.

        2. It used to post as “shrike”. But when Reason went to registration, the retard lost the password for that screen name and had to get another one.

          1. I wonder if that’s a reference to the Shrike from Hyperion?

  32. Per usual, he thinks those who disagree with him are?almost by definition?anti-science.

    Well, duh, he’s Bill Nye “The Science Guy.” It’s right there in his title, so naturally if you disagree with him about anything, you’re anti-science. QED.

    In all serisousness I liked him a lot better before he turned into just another thin skinned leftist douchebag who thinks anyone who doesn’t agree with him is an anti-science CHRISTFAG!!11! Hey, maybe Bill Nye is actually shriek!

    1. I like these figures when they still crave success and worry about offending great swaths of their audience. Later, when they become political first, they suck ass.

    2. So if Mr. Rodgers disagrees with stuff my condo associations wants to do, MR is the correct guy?

  33. Well, I would like to disagree with Mr. Nye. You would be hard pressed to find another as vehemently opposed to Common Core as I, and I’m as devout atheist as humanly possible.

    And while Common Core is bad in and of itself, I oppose any education from the government. I have mused for many years how ironic it is that we Americans trust the two entities that have the least motivation to educate (Government and Religion), to educate our children. Throughout history, those two entities have done nothing but try to stifle education (Dark Ages, anyone?). Why should modern education be any different. I absolutely, positively guarantee you could find no more than 5% of graduating HS seniors that know the difference between Keynesian and Austrian economics, and to me that is sad.

  34. 2014 Bill Nye: I’m always right, the scientific method proves that.

    1859 Charles Darwin:
    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    The Orgin of Species 1859, p244

  35. Why are there so many damned libertarian atheists? It doesn’t make sense to me. If everything happens by chance, then why do personal freedoms even matter?

    1. Why do all religions preach submission to authority?

      1. do they?

        1. Certainly the Abrahamic religions, which account for more than half.

      2. Nature abhors a vacuum, and submission to a transcendent authority precludes submission to an earthly one?

        I mean, look at all the so-called atheists basically elevating the state or random politicians to deity status. Even if you think God is the imaginary personification of individual conscience, following that seems a lot less dangerous than the alternative for sane people.

        1. Nature abhors a vacuum

          Most of Nature is a vacuum.

        2. “Nature abhors a vacuum”

          That’s only because my Dyson does such a phenomenal job of sweeping nature out of my carpet.

      3. Last verse in the book of Judges. 1 Samuel 8. Leviticus 25:10.

        God is a libertarian.

        To paraphrase “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”:

        In the beginning Free will was created. This made a lot of people very unhappy and has widely been regarded as a bad move.

        Shockingly enough, God was smarter than the experts…

        1. God also reportedly said a bunch of zingers like this one: “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.”

          That’s really libertarian.

          1. Whoops! This one’s even better. It’s even later in one of the chapter’s you mentioned!

            Lev. 25:44-46 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life…”

            That seems strange to me. The perfect, benevolent, all-knowing creator of the whole universe said that? I don’t buy it. That seems like the product of ancient people with ancient ideas of morality.

            1. He regulated what He knew he couldn’t get rid of yet. In fact, He didn’t get rid of slavery until His people removed it from Western civilization in the 1800s.

              1. The only problem is there is no indication that god wanted to get rid of it. You have to write your own Bible to say that. It’s easy to see why southern Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. What’s even a bigger problem is that God unquestionably condemned hundreds of things (murder, stealing, bribing, working on the Sabbath, adultery, homosexuality) and didn’t regulate them. Why did he say nothing against slavery and not even pay lip service to condemning it as he did for hundreds of other things?

                The Bible gives the impression that God approves of slavery. Either that’s correct and God’s a monster, or it’s incorrect and God says things in a terribly clumsy manner. In any case, a perfect being is neither monstrous nor clumsy, which demonstrates the Bible was not divinely inspired.

                1. Luke 4:18, among others.

                  The Bible gives no such thing. Slavery was a punishment the Israelites were to suffer for disobedience (breaking their oaths).

                  And God’s use of slow revelation of truth is well documented.

                2. Also, your argument is “I don’t like what God did so he isn’t God” is quite laughable. He’s smarter than you are!

                  1. Also, your argument is “I don’t like what God did so he isn’t God” is quite laughable.

                    Nice strawman. It was really easy to take down, wasn’t it (even though you didn’t even address the strawman)? My argument is that since God approves of slavery in the Bible, which a perfect being would not have done, the Bible is not divinely inspired. I gave you a verse. Here it is again, Lev. 25:44-46:

                    Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life…”

                    Luke 4:18 is a prime example of you clutching at straws. Again, God was either monstrous if he accepted slavery or was extremely clumsy if he condemned slavery but gave the opposite impression. A perfect, benevolent being interested in clearly spreading its message would be neither monstrous nor clumsy. Therefore, the Bible was not divinely inspired.

                    1. Not a strawman, a summation of:

                      The Bible gives the impression that God approves of slavery. Either that’s correct and God’s a monster, or it’s incorrect and God says things in a terribly clumsy manner. In any case, a perfect being is neither monstrous nor clumsy, which demonstrates the Bible was not divinely inspired.

                      God doesn’t approve of slavery.

                      You may buy slaves… You can bequeath them…

                      Allowing is not condoning. A libertarian should know that.

                      Luke 4:18 is equally valid. He knew the ultimate evil was not slavery, it was sin. He didn’t condemn racism either…

                      And here we are, for the first time (I know of) in recorded history, and our (western) civilization has condemned and banned slavery. And who did it? Christians (little Christs). He has made good on his word, regardless of how little you like it.

                      A perfect, benevolent being interested in clearly spreading its message would be neither monstrous nor clumsy. Therefore, the Bible was not divinely inspired.

                      I don’t like what God did (because I’m smart enough to judge God), therefore God didn’t write the Bible.

                    2. God doesn’t approve of slavery…. Allowing is not condoning. A libertarian should know that.

                      As a libertarian, I allow things I may not approve of as long as they don’t violate the freedoms of others. I couldn’t allow slavery because it would violate the freedoms of others. You’re writing your own Bible again when you say God doesn’t approve of slavery. God does not demonstrate any reluctance related to the practice of slavery. Where does God say he does not approve of slavery as you claim? He doesn’t. That would have solved this whole problem, but he was so myopic as to not realize it.

                      I don’t like what God did (because I’m smart enough to judge God), therefore God didn’t write the Bible.

                      Is your god so sensitive to critical examination and so incapable of preparing against it? I prefer to think critically about an ancient book rather than blindly accept it and desperately come up with excuses for it. He should have had the foresight to write his book more clearly so that he didn’t give the impression he approved of slavery. Again, a perfect, benevolent being interested in clearly spreading its message would not be so clumsy in his wording. The Bible was not divinely inspired.

                      Your strawman is tiring. Here’s my argument: God did something immoral according to the Bible; God could not have done something immoral; the Bible is not divinely inspired.

                    3. As a libertarian, I allow things I may not approve of as long as they don’t violate the freedoms of others. I couldn’t allow slavery because it would violate the freedoms of others.

                      Congrats, an actual argument against my original comment! While God does want freedom (he created it) he doesn’t always prevent people from violating it, even in his law.

                      You’re writing your own Bible again when you say God doesn’t approve of slavery.

                      Actually, he’s said it many times. But you don’t like that so you just have to deny the actual words. Would you like more examples? Start in Deuteronomy 28. There are many others if you’d bother looking… Finally, God doesn’t always bother pointing out that an evil is an evil. One doesn’t need to be told that slavery is an unpleasant evil in order to know it.

                      More examples, Galatians 4:3, 5:1, Hebrews 2:15… need I go on?

                      Is your god so sensitive to critical examination and so incapable of preparing against it?

                      He already has. You should probably just begin at Job 35, but failing that, read chapter 38 to the end of the Book. It will almost be like he’s talking straight to you!

                      (continued)

                    4. But you don’t like that so you just have to deny the actual words.

                      In none of your quotes does the writer condemn the institution of slavery. In these passages, however, slaves are told to be subordinate to their masters: Ephesians 6: and 1 Timothy 6:1-2.

                      God unquestionably and explicitly condemned hundreds of things including adultery, homosexuality, mixing fabrics, etc. but not slavery. There is no passage that proclaims slavery to be immoral as the hundreds of other passages about hundreds of other significant and insignificant things. Not only that, he sanctioned the practice himself as mentioned in Leviticus. If he condemned slavery but failed to actually give that impression, he is awfully inarticulate, which contradicts the nature of the entity in question, demonstrating that the Bible was not divinely inspired.

                    5. In none of your quotes does the writer condemn the institution of slavery.

                      Neither did it condemn kidnapping. Neither did it need to.

                      slaves are told to be subordinate to their masters: Ephesians 6: and 1 Timothy 6:1-2

                      Because the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice was to free us from what was truly dangerous; it was to free us from what would kill us permanently. While slavery is bad, the second death is worse. Perhaps the slave owner (not the same thing as 1800s era slavery) would see the “good work” and realize there was something to this Christ fellow.

                      There is no passage that proclaims slavery to be immoral as the hundreds of other passages about hundreds of other significant and insignificant things.

                      Not only that, he sanctioned the practice himself as mentioned in Leviticus.

                      And it didn’t need to. The Bible is not a comprehensive list of wrongs! That’s because that isn’t needed. Again, look at Christ’s teachings on adultery and murder, there aren’t enough pages on every book on the planet to cover every wrong. But the law and the prophets were summed up in “Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (What is that if not a condemnation of slavery?).

                      And again, allowing, regulating, is not condoning! That shouldn’t be hard to understand! (Isn’t that what politicians do to things they don’t like, regulate them?

                      (continued)

                    6. he is awfully inarticulate, which contradicts the nature of the entity in question…

                      Once again, your argument is “he doesn’t do what I would have done and is therefore not God”. “Do unto others” is sufficient for all human interactions but that’s not good enough for you, therefore he isn’t God.

                      Can you comprehend of someone smarter than you are? Can you comprehend that they might come to different conclusion based on the fact that they know more than you do? Do you remember what it was like before you were a libertarian? Did you think libertarians (if you’d met one) were stupid for coming to different conclusion than you did?

                    7. Here’s my argument: God did something immoral according to the Bible; God could not have done something immoral; the Bible is not divinely inspired.

                      Allowing is still not immoral. Your logic is sound but your premise is wrong. He allows lots of sin but doesn’t condone it. Again, look at how Christ defines adultery and murder! If I were to apply your logic to all things, I would dome to the conclusion that all sin should be illegal… which is to say that there should be no free will (Liberty). All of which is why I paraphrase “Hitchhicker’s Guide” above, you simply think that free will was a bad idea!

                    8. Permission entails acceptance. If you permit something you don’t approve of, you explicitly state you don’t approve of it because allowing something entails acceptance of the action. “You are to do X” entails acceptance of X. If one doesn’t accept X and is reluctant to permit X, that reluctance is made explicit since permission entails acceptance. The god of the Bible authorizes the Israelites to buy, keep, and bequeath slaves for life in Lev. 25:44-46. Nowhere is there any reluctance or condemnation of it, which entails acceptance. “Love your neighbor as yourself” is compatible with slavery because God said it in Lev. 19:18 a few chapters before he told the Israelites they could have slaves.

                      If God is interested in spreading his message clearly, he gave the opposite impression of his views on slavery–a contradiction. A being interested in spreading his message could have easily said “I condemn slavery, but I will allow you to practice it temporarily, etc.” or in another way an omniscient being would know. That would have solved the whole problem, and he would have spread his message clearly. There are numerous laundry lists of forbidden things (mixing fabrics, mating different animals, cursing the deaf, etc.) but slavery does not appear among them, indicating no qualms about it.
                      As I said in my first post, God is either monstrous for accepting slavery or clumsy for giving the impression that he does. In either case, it demonstrates the Bible is not divinely inspired.

                    9. Permission entails acceptance. If you permit something you don’t approve of, you explicitly state you don’t approve of it because allowing something entails acceptance of the action.

                      Wait, are you a libertarian? I really can’t see how you could be with that reasoning. Maybe we’re talking past each other for that reason…

                      The god of the Bible authorizes the Israelites to buy, keep, and bequeath slaves for life in Lev. 25:44-46

                      He regulates it. That’s what you do when you don’t like something. He also only regulated a few sins like adultery and murder. He didn’t stop them all due to how Christ defined them.

                      “Love your neighbor as yourself” is compatible with slavery because God said it in Lev. 19:18 a few chapters before he told the Israelites they could have slaves.

                      It isn’t compatible with slavery at all and you know that. He knew darn well they’d break the Law. The reason he didn’t stop slavery is the same reason the US didn’t in 1776, because it wouldn’t work. Even with what he did do, they disobeyed (Day of Jubilee, 7th year Sabbath on the land, worship regulations, etc). It would have been a pointless regulation.

                      (continued)

                    10. If God is interested in spreading his message clearly, he gave the opposite impression of his views on slavery–a contradiction.

                      He made it very clear… but only more completely when Christ came. Slow revelation is well documented. As to why God slowly reveals himself, I can only guess; but I do know that a smarter creature would act in ways I don’t understand so I can get over it. I recognize I have limited information. You don’t (at least, in this case).

                      “I condemn slavery, but I will allow you to practice it temporarily, etc.”

                      He also could have done so with lust and hate but chose not to until Christ spoke on it. Your argument would have to be that he should have done so with all sin…

                      As I said in my first post, God is either monstrous for accepting slavery or clumsy for giving the impression that he does. In either case, it demonstrates the Bible is not divinely inspired.

                      Remove the word “slavery” and add any other sin (lust, hate, promescuity, etc) and see how ridiculous your statement is. Just because God doesn’t act the way you think he should doesn’t mean he isn’t God. It may mean that you aren’t as smart as God (shocking, I know). Job 38 to 42.

                    11. Let me recap:

                      God said–
                      Murder: No
                      Adultery: No
                      Homosexuality: No
                      Slavery: Go ahead (Lev. 25:44-46)
                      Mixing fabrics: No
                      Tattoos: No
                      Cross-breeding animals: No
                      Etc.

                      From this, I think God accepted and approved of slavery. You think God condemned slavery. There is no indication anywhere of condemnation nor even reluctance of the practice of slavery. There is no biblical basis for thinking God condemned slavery. There is a biblical basis for thinking God accepted and approved of it given his explicit authorization and complete lack of any reluctance or disapproval anywhere in the midst of flatly prohibiting hundreds upon hundreds of activities significant and trivial alike. The difference is that you start with your conclusion and try to rationalize the evidence in any way possible to fit your conclusion. I start with the evidence and let it lead me to the conclusion.

                      This issue was confusing enough for millions of Christians for nearly two thousand years, from many of the early Church Fathers to millions of Christians in the U.S. south in the 19th century who coherently used the Bible to defend the institution of owning another person as a slave.

                      God is either monstrous for approving of slavery or unthinkably clumsy in his communication, leading people to the exact opposite conclusion of his intentions for nearly twenty centuries. Neither characteristic is of a perfect divine being. Therefore, the Bible was not divinely inspired.

                    12. From this, I think God accepted and approved of slavery.

                      And lust. And promiscuity. And hate.

                      There is no indication anywhere of condemnation nor even reluctance of the practice of slavery. There is no biblical basis for thinking God condemned slavery.

                      Only if you insist on ignoring every time I bring it up to you…

                      The difference is that you start with your conclusion and try to rationalize the evidence in any way possible to fit your conclusion.

                      Pot meet kettle. So you’re as smart as God is? I suppose you could do better?

                      This issue was confusing enough for millions of Christians for nearly two thousand years, from many of the early Church Fathers to millions of Christians in the U.S. south in the 19th century who coherently used the Bible to defend the institution of owning another person as a slave.

                      Finally, a fair criticism! Thank you!

                      Now, I would have to argue that those who defended it had economical reasons to do so and heavily ignored “Love your neighbor as yourself” (as well as the follow-up of “who is my neighbor?”) and “Do unto others”. That’s also because those generations refused to recognize that the New Testament is NOT to be used as a system of governance and the civil law (where the slavery issue comes from) expired when the nation of Israel did.

                      As for your logic at the bottom, even God can be misquoted (the devil did it!).

                    13. I don’t think God approved of lust, promiscuity, etc. because he never authorized it. He never said “You are to lust after women and you may be promiscuous with them” as he did with practicing slavery.

                      He did, however, say “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life…”

                      You keep saying you have verses demonstrating the condemnation of slavery, but I have yet to see them.

                      Remeber, God said:
                      Murder: No
                      Adultery: No
                      Homosexuality: No
                      Slavery: Yes (Lev. 25:44-46)
                      Mixing fabrics: No
                      Tattoos: No
                      Cross-breeding animals: No
                      Etc.

                      There is a biblical basis for thinking God accepted and approved of it given his explicit authorization and complete lack of any reluctance or disapproval anywhere in the midst of flatly prohibiting hundreds upon hundreds of activities significant and trivial alike. That’s why millions of Christians through thousands of years defended the institution of slavery who also cited Gen. 21:9?10, Gen. 9:24?27, Eph. 6:5?8, Philem. 12, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.

                      What are your biblical reasons for thinking God condemned slavery?

                    14. “He never said ‘You are to lust after women and you may be promiscuous with them’ as he did with practicing slavery.”

                      Again, even that would be changing the wording. It would still be “you may” not “you are to”.

                      Also, you might as well tell me that the Bible endorses (explicitly) polygamy because it allows it. And yet, Christ clearly says that “the two are to become one flesh”.

                      Allowing them to do something, regulating something, is not the same as condoning it. God slowly reveals his way, which is why Christ didn’t come first (I don’t know exactly why he does this). Look at Ezekiel 18, that’s the first real mention in the Bible that the individual is to suffer for his sins, not one generation for the previous. I can only imagine how mind-blowing that was and even the Jews from hundreds of years later (in Christ’s time) didn’t get it (John 9:3).

                      Why didn’t he explicitly (directly) condemn slavery? My explanation is that by the time the people were ready to hear it, he was no longer making rules for governments. Heck, it wasn’t until 1700 years after the last revelation that the people were ready to hear it!

                    15. The reason he didn’t stop slavery is the same reason the US didn’t in 1776, because it wouldn’t work.

                      You’re writing your own Bible again. Furthermore, God prohibited adultery, homosexuality, murder, bribery, etc. despite the fact it wouldn’t work and never authorized people to do these things.

                      God said “Love your neighbor as yourself” in Lev. 19:18 a few chapters before he told the Israelites they could have slaves. Nowhere does he say that having slaves is wrong or against the idea of loving your neighbor as yourself.

                      I only have respect for you, ace. Please don’t think otherwise.

                    16. “You’re writing your own Bible again.”

                      I sure hope not. I don’t have that authority. My explanation is that God didn’t prohibit it because it isn’t the primary evil and the people wouldn’t have even begun to obey it. Fair enough? While he did prohibit other things, and the prohibitions didn’t completely eliminate them, he did mostly prevent them. Banning slavery would have ensured that the people wouldn’t even have bothered to try to listen (for the same reason as 1776).

                      Another point, God didn’t set up a prison system in the Bible. So while slavery is bad, what else do you do with POWs (whose land now belonged to Israel)? Still more humane than a prison system.

                      He says slavery is wrong in the roundabout way, in the way Christ did. When asked what the greatest commandments were, “love your neighbor as yourself” made it to #2. But the man wanted to justify himself (he wanted to only love those he liked) so he asked who his neighbor was. Christ answered with the “Good Samaritan”, the hated “half-breed” Jews. So what Christ was saying was “Everyone is your neighbor”. And as the curses on the nation included slavery (and the whole 430 years in Egypt taught them), that means that slavery is wrong.

                      (continued)

                    17. What you don’t like is that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and that the main purpose of it isn’t to bring good governmental practices to the nations (though that would be a good goal). It is to save a person from their sin. That is why the slave is taught to serve well, because their freedom isn’t as important as their witness to their master.

                      I have respect for you as well. I do appreciate that this didn’t devolve into name calling!

                    18. God didn’t prohibit it because it isn’t the primary evil and the people wouldn’t have even begun to obey it.

                      It’s an ad hoc explanation that doesn’t have a biblical basis. About POWs, I don’t see how perpetual slavery is the best solution for POWs, even if all slaves were POWs.

                      Our disagreement lies in whether God approved of or condemned owning another person as property. He either approved of it or didn’t approve of it. There is a strong biblical basis for thinking he approved of it: Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Gen. 21:9?10). Canaan, Ham’s son, was made a slave to his brothers (Gen. 9:24?27). In Lev. 25:44-46, God tells the Israelites they are to buy their slaves from foreign nations and can own them, hold them for life, and bequeath them with no disclaimers. Owning another person as property was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it in a clear way (to your point about “everyone being a neighbor,” one’s neighbor could still be the property of another person). (Other NT passages–no space.)

                      The biblical basis for thinking God disapproved of slavery is based on applying special, ad hoc interpretations to passages that don’t explicitly address the issue.

                      It is more reasonable to conclude that God approved of slavery based on the biblical evidence, as millions of Christians did throughout the vast majority of history since Christ.

                    19. “It’s an ad hoc explanation that doesn’t have a biblical basis.”

                      It is ad hoc. It does have a Biblical basis, as no person really wants to be a slave.

                      “Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval”

                      Most of the Kings of Israel (and Judah) were married to more than one woman and God didn’t tell of his disapproval there either. The Bible may look like a comprehensive of “dos and don’ts” to the uninitiated (and some dumb Christians) but it isn’t.

                      “one’s neighbor could still be the property of another person”

                      True, although the real issue is how you treat them, not their status (“There is no free or slave” in Christ).

                      “The biblical basis for thinking God disapproved of slavery is based on applying special, ad hoc interpretations to passages that don’t explicitly address the issue.”

                      The same could be said of polygamy. But you’re not making that argument and very few do.

                      “It is more reasonable to conclude that God approved of slavery based on the biblical evidence”

                      It’s more reasonable to say that the person who said “the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners” is pro slavery? “do to others what you would have them do to you” isn’t good enough for you? And the next part of the sentence could be applied to all religions/non-religions.

                    20. If the Bible mentioned nothing about slavery, then there would be no basis for thinking God approved of slavery. I’ve shown you the basis for thinking he approved of slavery.

                      Polygamy was debated by Christians for thousands of years as well. Perhaps I could debate it too. I personally don’t care about polygamy since it doesn’t necessarily infringe on others’ freedoms. In any case, it doesn’t validate your argument.

                      Again, ad hoc interpretations of passages that don’t address owning another person as property. What you quoted comes from Isaiah 61:1 as well as its copy in the New Testament. Just as “love thy neighbor as thyself” comes from the Old Testament and is co-present with God’s authorization of perpetually owning another person, so is the other. They are apparently compatible.

                      Yes, it’s more reasonable to say that the person who said:

                      Murder: No
                      Bribery: No
                      Homosexuality: No
                      Adultery: No
                      Slavery: Yes
                      Mixing Fabrics: No
                      Cross-breading animals: No
                      Mixing seeds in a field: No

                      …supported slavery.

                      We’re talking about Christianity, not other religions. Even if it’s a fault of other religions, it doesn’t validate your argument.

                    21. “I’ve shown you the basis for thinking he approved of slavery.”

                      Yes, and it’s really weak. He allows them to do it which is not the same as approving of it. He then tells them to love their neighbor as themselves and then defines “neighbor” to include everyone. He tells them to “do unto others”. He tells them he’s there to set the captives free…

                      “In any case, [polygamy] doesn’t validate your argument.”

                      It does give evidence for it though. Although he allowed it in the Old testament, he didn’t endorse it. And when Christ came, he didn’t say “thou shalt not” but instead gave us reason to recognize it as not God’s way (“the two shall become one flesh”). Again, it would be hard to argue (using your logic) that polygamy is anything other than good!

                      “Just as ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ comes from the Old Testament and is co-present with God’s authorization of perpetually owning another person, so is the other. They are apparently compatible.”

                      No, they aren’t. Although God did tell them the general (love thy neighbor), he knew they would break that so gave them the specific (you may have slaves but treat them well). If the people obeyed the Law, only 2 commandments would be needed, and they would be “Love God” and “Love your neighbor”.

                      “Even if it’s a fault of other religions, it doesn’t validate your argument.”

                      You threw that in there so I just pointed out that all religions and non-religions “supported” it too.

                    22. One more, many people on this site criticize pro-life politicians for regulating abortion. There are cries that this violates rights (not an argument I want now).

                      But is that regulation proof that they support abortion? What if that law was written to say that “You may perform abortions but…”? With your logic you’d have to say that the person therefore supported abortion!

                      Why do those people regulate it? They see it as an evil that must be stopped, but failing that, they will regulate it as much as possible in order to stop most of it. But, and this is important, they won’t actually tell you that.

                    23. The biblical evidence for thinking God didn’t approve of slavery is much weaker than thinking he did approve of it. I’m not going to repost all the evidence for it. We will just have to agree to disagree.

                      As for abortion, politicians who are against abortion say they are against abortion. Regulating it is the most practical political option they have. Your god never said he was against slavery, unlike pro-life politicians who make it clear they think abortion is wrong while pursuing regulation as the most practical option. If politicians do conceal things, it’s because they have to win a political campaign. God doesn’t have to win a political campaign and wants to spread his message clearly, making it all the more nonsensical to be confusing about something as important as perpetually owning another person as property. In any case, the current law currently allows abortions with some restrictions (as with what God said about slavery), and the law approves of the practice!

                      Furthermore, your god did make moral proclamations that weren’t kept (worshiping other gods) but inexplicably was silent about condemning owning another person as property. Saying he didn’t condemn slavery because he knew it wouldn’t be followed doesn’t explain anything since he commanded many, many things that were not followed. It would have had the beneficial effect of ending the Christian debate about slavery immediately.

                    24. Your god never said he was against slavery….

                      God doesn’t have to win a political campaign and wants to spread his message clearly

                      Need I requote about “setting the captives free”? Need I tell you who your neighbor is?

                      the law approves of the practice!

                      Allowing is NOT approving! Why is it hard for the libertarian to understand?

                      your god did make moral proclamations that weren’t kept

                      And didn’t make moral proclamations about things that were wrong.

                      Saying he didn’t condemn slavery because he knew it wouldn’t be followed doesn’t explain anything since he commanded many, many things that were not followed.

                      He didn’t command the things he knew they couldn’t deal with, that which would make them just ignore him. Fascinating that the (presumed) atheist would want more commands out of God…

                      It would have had the beneficial effect of ending the Christian debate about slavery immediately.

                      No, it wouldn’t. Christians still debate as to what govt should do even considering 1 Samuel 8. “Christians” still debate if homosexual acts are wrong regardless of the complete lack of evidence that it is anything else. Christians still disobey the “easy” commands found in the New Testament.

                      The purpose of his word is NOT to accomplish NAP or codify all wrongs. That’s where you’re incorrect.

                    25. Need I requote about “setting the captives free”? Need I tell you who your neighbor is?

                      Again, either God approved of the practice or he disapproved of it. The biblical basis for thinking he approved of it is much stronger than the biblical basis for thinking he disapproved of it. On that we will have to agree to disagree.

                      For the rest, my comment was in response to your analogy to abortion and politicians.

                      Roe v. Wade currently allows abortion with certain restrictions and regulations, and the spirit of the law approves of the practice of women being able to have abortions. So the law can regulate something and approve of the practice.

                      As I said, pro-life politicians have a clear position even if they try to restrict abortion rather than go straight for eliminating it. Your analogy is not apt because your god didn’t make his opinion about owning another person as property clear. What’s more, God supposedly makes the rules about morality. He doesn’t say things just for elections.

                      He didn’t command the things he knew they couldn’t deal with

                      I don’t see why not owning people would be something they couldn’t deal with. Most likely some people would have obeyed while others wouldn’t have, just like all the other commandments from God. Again, it’s a weak ad hoc explanation.

                      The Bible is supposed to be a guide on morality, correct?

                    26. Last thing: About ending the Christian debate about slavery. You’re actually right it probably would not have ended completely, since there are countless differing opinions within Christianity that appeal to biblical bases (whether literal, non-literal, or following the perceived spirit of certain passages). Having a consistent message of “You shall not own another person as property” or something unequivocal along the lines of that rather than the actual mish mash we have certainly would have had a dampening effect on the Christian justification for owning another person as property.

                      In any case, I would think a perfect being would have been able to write something clear enough so that people wouldn’t have become so unthinkably misled by it. Or better yet, why use written form? Private, lengthy conversations and appearances would be much better (kind of like when he reportedly took human form, but rather for everyone on the planet rather than some communities and cities in the Middle East). Heck, the Jehovah’s Witnesses earnestly reject the Trinity as a heretical belief based on the bible.

                    27. I didn’t mean “last post,” I meant that it was about the last bit about ending the debate.

                      I like this back and forth we’re having.

              2. Hate to break it to you, but slavery still abounds in Western Civ, mostly in sex trafficing, but in all forms.

                1. I wouldn’t say “abounds”, but it is still there.

                  That doesn’t mean it’s accepted or good (or even legal).

            2. “That seems like the product of ancient people with ancient ideas of morality.”

              True, that’s why it’s the “Old Testament” an historical foundation for the “New Testament.”

          2. It’s his land, and they swore to uphold his law (and that’s right in the Book). If they don’t like it, they can leave HIS land.

            Your issue with God stems from your lack of understanding that it’s all property rights.

            Bam!

            1. If they don’t like it, they can leave HIS land.

              Those silly libertarians. If they don’t like Obamacare, they can leave! If they don’t like stoning people for working on the Sabbath, they can leave!

              So stoning people for working on the Sabbath was A-OK in your opinion? It was the right thing to do?

              1. Except it really was his land. And they really did take that oath. And they were free to leave.

                It was God’s property.

                1. And they were free to leave.

                  You missed the point, ace. It’s not about whether people could leave or not (I’m not sure that’s even true–could a married woman just up and freely leave her husband in that society if she wanted to?). It’s about whether it was a moral position or not. I think slavery is immoral; the god of the Bible apparently didn’t have qualms about the practice–if he did, he didn’t express them. Stoning people to death for adultery, homosexuality, and working on the Sabbath also seems immoral to me. Do you think those things were the right thing to do?

                  1. could a married woman just up and freely leave her husband in that society if she wanted to?

                    They did all the time. Woman at the well?

                    It’s about whether it was a moral position or not.

                    Allowing is not condoning. I would think a libertarian would understand that. Look at Jesus’ further explanation concerning adultery and murder for more info.

                    Stoning people to death for adultery, homosexuality, and working on the Sabbath also seems immoral to me.

                    I’m sure they do seem that way to you. But as the wages of sin is death, in fact, it is not immoral to demand that they die. It is justice. Not condemning all of us right now is mercy. Saving us from our evil is grace.

                    1. You didn’t answer my question. Do you personally think it was moral to stone homosexuals, adulterers, and people who worked on the Sabbath?

                      Additionally, if they were all sinners, why shouldn’t everybody have been stoned?

                    2. Do you personally think it was moral to stone homosexuals, adulterers, and people who worked on the Sabbath?

                      Yes, just like it would be moral to stone me.

                      Additionally, if they were all sinners, why shouldn’t everybody have been stoned?

                      Would there be anyone left? Again, you miss the property rights point, that God simply decided that a few things wouldn’t stand on his land and there would be capital punishment for those acts. But those who actually tried to follow him wouldn’t be stoned. It’s not like you can’t control whether or not you have sex with certain people or work on a certain day…

          3. “God also reportedly said a bunch of zingers like this one: “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.”

            He also made sure to note that if you whip someone in the public square and they “befoul themselves”, you are supposed to stop.

            1. If you don’t like his rules on his property, you could leave. He literally gave it to them.

              It’s also why these rules didn’t apply outside his land.

              The govt doesn’t give us our property.

        2. “Shockingly enough, God was smarter than the experts…”

          Unfortunately, the real neuroscientists who study Free Will will tell you it’s somewhat laughable….

          But, then again, when they post those facts here the monkeys (oh, sorry, not monkeys…adam’s rib descendants) will jump up and down making funny noises.

          1. I thought that determinism was dead with the Uncertainty Principle?

            (Ah, arguing Metaphysics. How I love it!)

            1. The newer science is brain scans of people with various inputs.

              Instincts speak much louder than Free Will.

              The experts argue that in the future when they put people on trial, they will first introduce the jury to “the defendants brain”, because in reality you can only expect certain things from certain brains. Period.

              Oh, yes, we can find exceptions. Americans are always good at pointing to the lottery winner or the one person who escaped a “badly programmed brain” and made something of him or herself.

              Ask Robin Williams about some of this when you meet him on the other side.

              1. You didn’t even try to argue against my use of the uncertainty principle.

                Those experts are likely determinists who really want that to be true…

                Also, you speak about brains like the “experts” have actually figured them out. My reading suggests otherwise, and in a big way.

      4. At the time, if you weren’t submissive to Ceasar you died a horrible death, often stoning or tortured on a cross.

    2. chance != spontaneous order

    3. If everything happens by chance, then why do personal freedoms even matter?

      Care to explain the logic behind this question? because I’m not seeing it.

      I’m a libertarian atheist. I don’t believe anything happens “by chance.” I believe in a sort of fuzzy determinism based on cause and effect, at least on the larger scales of the universe. When we get down to smaller scales, like what’s going on in the human mind, there may be some less-than-deterministic events going on in there and so there is room for some form of rudimentary free will. But this is all maybe/maybe not territory. I don’t know. But it seems to be that pretty much everything in the future is determined by the past.

      Even if I did believe that everything was “random” and “by chance” I don’t see what that has to do with human individual freedom.

      1. I just wonder how there is anything but chance. One cause and effect, then another, and another with no guiding force. That sounds like chance. And if everything is a cause and effect, you can’t control it. If you don’t have control over your own life, you really aren’t free imho.

        1. Are you saying that one billiard ball that hits another in a very predictable way (force, momentum, angle, all that) is nothing but chance? There is a guiding force behind it all; four of them to be specific (gravity, strong, weak, and electromagnetic).

          And, IMHO, you don’t have much if any actual control over your life. Free will is largely an illusion. But, what are your options? Exist and go along with it, making the best of it, or just lie down and die.

          Even though (to me) free will is an illusion, I can’t do anything but treat it as if it were real. So, I live my life as if free will actually existed, because for all intents and purposes for my life, it does.

          1. Free will exists. There just aren’t any guarantees on the outcomes of your decisions.

            1. Free will exists.

              What is your evidence of this?

              1. To me free will is not “I choose to be rich or healthy.” It is the capability to make independent decisions about my own behavior. I can choose to act in a number of ways at any time. I cannot control everything that occurs to me or even the outcomes of those decisions.

                1. If every effect has a cause, then every decision your brain makes is based on some prior state and it can only go one way. There is no evidence for a supernatural soul to artificially guide this process. It only appears to you that you are a conscious actor making decisions outside of this deterministic framework, but I tend to believe it’s an illusion. For free will (as we think of it) to exist, there would have to be some sort of independent agent that “flips switches” so to speak in the brain. And by independent, I mean that it would have to be at least somewhat independent of cause and effect on the atomic/molecular scale. I can’t prove this one way or the other, of course. I just arrive at this through deduction.

                  1. Then you should consider that all particles have an indeterminate position or momentum. Therefore outcomes on an atomic scale are indeterminate as well, falling on a spectrum of probabilities.

                    1. All particles are actually just waves and the math we use to describe waves makes it seem like its indeterminate. Even if it is indeterminate on that scale, then it would be “random,” unpredictable, and most importantly uncontrollable.

                      So even if you have quantum fuzziness, what mechanism would you propose for a “free will” to control and direct these waves/particles?

                  2. Free Will originally affects only your decisions, the results involve alot of other stuff you have no control over. Internally you can choose, externally you have limited or no control.

                2. ” can choose to act in a number of ways at any time”

                  This does not address Free Will as a percentage of the decisions that both you and your body and environment are making and are subject to….

                  That’s an important point, IMHO.

                  According to those who study such things, we only have Free Will around the edges. Also, without the education – for example, if we are told Bill Nye is wrong and Jerry Falwell is/was right – this “Free Will” becomes a real joke.

                  And therein lies something called “standards and agreements”.

                  But since the Black Dude won office, people stopped agreeing on anything because many people don’t want to be thought of as agreeing with him on even the most simple and obvious matters.

                  1. craiginmass|9.9.14 @ 7:41PM|#
                    …”But since the Black Dude won office, people stopped agreeing on anything because many people don’t want to be thought of as agreeing with him on even the most simple and obvious matters.”

                    Lefty assholes have a hard time with reality; lies are so much more comforting.

                  2. Whether a small percentage or a larger fraction, there is ‘free will’.

            2. Do we have free will or are we just pre-programmed to delude ourselves into *thinking* we have free will?

    4. They matter to me for various reasons. To start with, personal freedoms benefit me.

    5. That’s a false dichotomy. There are many alternatives besides being a theist and being a materialist.

      The real question is why a Christian would care about liberty. For nearly 2000 years, Christianity has propped up totalitarian (and often genocidal) governments, and it preaches that this life doesn’t really matter anyway.

      I think the reason why some Christians are discovering libertarianism is because they realize that their days in political power are numbered, and libertarians are going to be the only ones who will still grudgingly tolerate their nonsense.

  36. Lets hit it dude, I mean liek for real.

    http://www.Crypt-Tools.tk

  37. I am a trained scientist and engineer. I also have a strong faith. No conflicts here. Exploring God’s creation is one of the most joyful pursuits imaginable. From cosmology to quantum, God’s creation is wondrous and beautiful. Indeed perfect in chaos and harmony. I do, however reject dogma. Faith and dogma must be understood to be completely different things. I remember when Pope JP2 apologized for the church’s persecution of Galileo. Really!?! After 350 years you are finally getting around to correcting an obvious mistake! The lesson of humility is one of the hardest to learn but completely necessary. Once one understands that the method of science, and its language of mathematics, can only ever approximate truth, then understanding can begin. Science and math are half measures. It was not long ago when Newtonian physics described the known universe with such detail and accuracy that it was thought man only needed to fill in the remaining blanks to completely understand the universe. This conceited view was shattered when Maxwell, Plank, and Einstein unraveled the mechanisms of quantum and relativistic physics. So don’t get too cocky! The wheel will turn again, we will find a deeper truth through science, but only another half measure, and then again, and again, and again………
    END RANT (back to work)

    1. I am a trained scientist and engineer. I also have a strong faith. No conflicts here.

      What happens when you discover something scientifically that contradicts your strong faith? If you’re willing to change your faith it’s not that strong. Strong or weak, what use is it anyway?

      1. Great question! I’ve been down that road and faith is a personal decision we all get to make (I like how you say when and not if). Truth however is inescapable. You wallow in truth always, whether you realize it or not. I guess the bottom line is: enjoy the journey and God’s creation while you can. Experience joy, and love, and pain, and hurt?. and vote/act libertarian 😉 Faith is useful to me, and that is what matters.

      2. One kind of strong faith is the kind that can bend to any blows without breaking.

        1. So you would change your mind if evidence shows that the idea you held before was wrong? I’ve got news for you. That’s not faith. Faith doesn’t “bend.” It’s something you believe in lieu of or despite the evidence.

          1. You dont get to define the contents of someone else’s faith. For me, faith is ‘my parents love me’ and whenever I encounter evidence to the contrary (they spanked me and it hurt; they didnt give me a toy), I don’t disbelieve the evidence, but try to understand it enough to see how it is actually complementary evidence by broadening my understanding of what love can mean.

            And now, you will have to just accept that some people feel the same way about deities.

            When scientific evidence challenges a religious faith, a believer has the additional duty, besides trying to understand the universe, of adapting his faith. But they routinely do it. You can’t say they don’t do it, because what theyre doing isnt actually faith.

        2. “One kind of strong faith is the kind that can bend to any blows without breaking.”

          I call the stubbornness, hardheaded, etc.

          1. At 5am in the 1st grey light, 30ft up in a whtie oak above the creek, it is my limited undestanding of science and faith that enrich my experience. One must have a pretty inflated ego to think that human kind has advanced far enough to really understand what happened in our distant past and pretty naive to believe the person disclosing such info was agenda free. Empirical has real limits, much more than what Carl Sagan would profess.

            1. “One must have a pretty inflated ego to think that human kind has advanced far enough to really understand what happened in our distant past and pretty naive to believe the person disclosing such info was agenda free”

              Agenda free?

              What does that have to do with anything? Ghandi had a Agenda. The Kochs an Waltons have a BIG Agenda. Everyone has an Agenda.

              The difference is whether one Agenda is beneficial to our common future and to the personal growth of the individual.

              We do have enough Free Will to see some of the difference.

              1. “What does that have to do with anything?”

                Charles Darwin studied how plants/creatures adapted/evolved. His collegees favored his books’ title “The Orgin of Species.”(agenda) Today, the majority of society believes Darwin’s evolution explains the orgin of species, which in light of modern microbiology, it does not. Whether gub ed, ie;common core can catch up a populance as to state of science of the last 50 years, is doubtful.

    2. “I am a trained scientist and engineer. I also have a strong faith”

      Tell us about God then…..is he a male or female? Is he as described by “X” faith?

      If science and math are 1/2 measures, what is superstition and belief in miracles or prayer?

      1. I am replying to your post despite my better judgment (as it is pointless to argue about one’s personal spiritual decisions), because I was especially spiritually moved this morning by the moon setting against the morning mist (giant “super moon”). For me, God is everything. Everything comes from Him and will return to Him some day. Good, bad, male, female, quarks, Higgs Bosons, quasars, Quadafi, cannons, all of existence (and Man) are a part God. We exist within Him and His creation. I use the male personal pronoun because our language lacks a more general term for His description (Brahma, Nirvana, or Nature come closer) and the Judeo-Christian traditions use it. It’s a habit, not necessarily very good one. We tend to try to understand the amazing and infinite universe around us by chopping it into small bite size pieces we can define, categorize, and understand. This allows us to discover the harmonies and patterns that can be described and predicted. The method of science is very useful for this purpose. However, the act of defining something implicitly excludes the rest of the universe and therefore cannot entirely describe it, only approximate it, as it is impossible to remove something from the universe and ignore the rest.

        1. Truly, a personal relationship with God defies bickering with words. I see his hand in everything. The evil(ex: slavery) in this world is of ‘fallen man’ and not of God. With the gift of ‘free will’ vs some sort of nirvana on earth, the only manner in which events can unfold, is as they have done and will continue to.

  38. I bet Bill Nye is an economic creationist.

    1. He’s a socialist evolutionist.

  39. An attention-seeking intellectual wants standardized curricula designed by select intellectuals? Now I’ve heard everything.

  40. I would just like to announce, in case anyone cares, that this is the straw that broke my back, and for me bill nye has joined the ranks of has-been heroes.

    1. You must have passed your 60th birthday or some milestone….

  41. I have heard this type of argument before. If creationism is taught then there can be no science. I wouldn’t ever teach my child creationism or new earth creationism, but if I did does this mean that I couldn’t teach my child the Krebb’s cycle or photosynthesis?

    Creationism and evolution concern themselves with how living beings came to exist on the earth, not the anatomy and physiology of said beings.

    Not only does this argument simplify the opposition to common core, but it is a violation of simple logic.

    1. “Creationism and evolution concern themselves with how living beings came to exist on the earth, not the anatomy and physiology of said beings.”

      No they don’t!
      Every aspect of the said beings is informed by evoltion. Every one.

      Saying that a dude with a big prick can wave a wand and make it all look that way IS DIFFERENT.

      Wow…just wow….

      The USA has got to be the most fundamentalist first world country on the planet….next to the Saudis. That’s not a good sign for our future.

      Luckily, though, it will provide a distinct advantage to my brood as they will rise to the top of the heap while others turn Taliban.

      1. “Creationism and evolution concern themselves with how living beings came to exist on the earth, not the anatomy and physiology of said beings.”

        See, in the public’s eyes, evolution is a faith. Thank you govt education.

      2. Um, no, you scientific illiterate. ‘Evolution’ does not concern itself with how living beings came to exist. That theory is called abiogenesis, which is completely different from evolutionary theory and natural selection. But that’s the quality of public ‘science’ education for you.

        1. Nice logical fallacies assholes. The point isn’t whether evolution deals with abiogenesis or not, which isn’t what I said. My point dealt with whether someone who believed in creationism can understand science.

          If you don’t think that evolution deals with how species came to exist on the planet then you are blinded by your own fanaticism. I’m sorry that I didn’t use whatever code word you expected me to say that would convey the evolution of life on the planet. But before it evolved into its new form it wasn’t in existence, was it? Or is that too fucking complicated for you to understand? Fuck you very much.

      3. Having gone through with a biology degree, let me give you some background on how evolution was taught. It was a unit portion of intro biology. It included a comparison of La Mark’s theory of punctuated evolution and Darwin. It was not a portion of any other class that was taught with the exception of comparative anatomy, and even that was comparison of species, which a creationist (I am not a creationist) would just compartmentalize into their own belief system. If you think that that a creationist cannot remember where the tensor fascia lata can be found on a cat cadaver or can’t calculate vectors in a physics lab I don’t know what else I can tell you. But that would be a very interesting Venn Diagram to explore.

        If you really think that there aren’t, weren’t, and can never be a chemist, doctor, engineer, or physicist that is a creationist then you are already proven wrong as there have been, are, and will be those people in the future.

    2. At Calvary Bible Church this last summer, I took an elective sunday school class on creationism and we covered the Krebb’s cycle and photosynthesis, though the class was an overview of many science fields and not in depth on any one of ’em.

  42. Interesting that Bill chooses to criticize the critics of a curriculum that doesn’t have anything to do with his particular field of self professed expertise. I’ve seen the common core math curriculum-and it’s garbage. Now, since it comes as a package, if we implement the entire thing, we implement the garbage too. Sorry Bill-that ain’t science-it’s just stupid.

    1. The worst part of it is that word “common”. Anything common smacks of communism…..

      1. The worst part of your posts is the stupidity.

  43. Per usual, he thinks those who disagree with him are ? almost [by definition] ? anti-science.

    I get it that when it comes to proven scientific explanations for scientific phenomena, a person who disagrees with fact could be labeled “anti-science” (or hard-headed, ignorant, etc.) But Nye’s binary thinking makes me think that he’s not intellectually honest, which leads me to the conclusion that he’s an ideologue and not much of a scientist.

    1. “leads me to the conclusion that he’s an ideologue and not much of a scientist.”

      Obviously if it is at odds with any Koch-financed or Echo chamber or fundamentalist thinking……he MUST be!

      1. Oh! True Blever invokes KOCH!
        Magical incantations have strong effects, right parasite?

  44. I like to see a debate between Bill Nye and Julie Borowski about Common Core. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX7ddVUuf-E Sorry Bill Nye, I won’t side with you even if about creationism.

  45. But even if the Common Core was shown to slightly boost academic achievements, it would not necessarily be worth implementing, given the massive financial cost of retraining teachers, buying new instructional materials, and upgrading schools’ technological capabilities to meet standardized testing requirements.

    That’s not a bug, that’s a feature. It is, in fact, the whole point.

  46. Having grown up watching Mr Wizard religiously every Saturday morning , I have profound disrespect for Bill Nye , the nutjob statist guy .

  47. If Nye carried around a machine gun, had his wive’s breasts enhanced and shit his pants (all like Nugent), you’d be cheering him!

    1. craiginmass|9.9.14 @ 6:21PM|#
      “If Nye carried around a machine gun, had his wive’s breasts enhanced and shit his pants (all like Nugent), you’d be cheering him!”

      Hey! The asshole craig shows up with the standard lefty imbecilic lies!
      Fuck you, you slimy parasite!

      1. You know it’s true, Sevo.

        It’s only the fact that he doesn’t have a Southern Accent and actually uses reason, logic and facts that upset you.

        You guys are really funny – and very far from even basic reason or logic. You are Ideologues of the worst kind…those who think they are not!

        1. craiginmass|9.9.14 @ 7:25PM|#
          “You know it’s true, Sevo.”

          Yeah, asshole, we’re all just suckers for Nugent here!
          What I know is true is that your an ignoramus who spouts whatever lie you read someplace.
          Tell us about how the elder Koch made Stalin wealthy! That’s good for a laugh, asshole.
          How about how Reagan made you a loser! I like that; lefties are always looking for a cape goat for their own stupidity!

          1. Ah, old Uncle Joe had Koch build up his oil infrastructure…..unless every single biography and article about it are wrong!

            One would think you would have read the Koch history. Next thing you’ll tell us daddy didn’t help start the John Birch Society and that Cato and Kochs have nothing to do with each other.

            1. craiginmass|9.9.14 @ 7:55PM|#
              “Ah, old Uncle Joe had Koch build up his oil infrastructure…..unless every single biography and article about it are wrong!”

              Ah, those goal posts need to slow down, asshole!
              —————–
              “One would think you would have read the Koch history. Next thing you’ll tell us daddy didn’t help start the John Birch Society and that Cato and Kochs have nothing to do with each other.”

              Oh, look! Uh, that means something! I think.
              Well, no I don’t. The asshole craig presumes some innunedo will help pitch his lies.
              No, asshole, it won’t.

    2. Not as long as he spouted the same stupidity…but we’d definitely cheer if you shit your pants.

  48. Bill Nye whose discipline is what? Political Science?

    Has anyone researched his origins and exactly what the failed experiment was that resulted in Mr. Nye?

  49. I believe we all know that New Balance running shoes are becoming “President jogging shoes”, of course, it is definitely not for nothing, and indeed there are many national leaders to wear New Balance running shoes, such as Obama and our country a leader. And it has also become a powerful and hidden advertising, making New Balance running shoes sector heel stations in more steady. Since it is so “favored” Let Xiaobian to be a New Balance running shoes recommend it.
    New Balance running shoes recommended –FRESH FOAM980 Series
    new balance 574new balance outlet
    To talk nb jogging shoes we recommend you first say what FRESH FOAM980 series now. This series of running shoes is the biggest feature: using a unique cellular protection tablets, capsules protect your feet, the main push to bring as wearing shoe cloud-like experience. It also uses a BLPWN RUBBER rubber outsole is 40% lighter than ordinary rubber more flexible, giving you a better shock experience. In addition to superior technological performance, sole combines color ran the concept offers a variety of color for this pair of shoes, give runners more extensive selection.

  50. New Balance running shoes recommended – can be very casual shoes
    new balancenew balance store
    New Balance running shoes to wear in addition to running, but now they frequently appear at the foot of many sister, showing NB running shoes is a pair of shoes for everyday casual wild. As a daily outfit of New Balance running shoes, a lot of the recommended range. Whether on the streets of New Balance Van children 574 series is full of neon fluorescent brightening the California South Coast style 580 series; also, or simple rustic amount of light New Balance 996 series or youth RGB New Balance 574 series and so on, each series has its own features, can also be easily worn alone Tefan Dachu own children!

  51. air max and zoom are NIKE air cushion shoes, there are many consumers confuse these two products, in fact, these two products both have large differences in design and functionality. As air max and zoom to find out which is good, it is a matter of opinion. Because different each consumer preferences, changes in the scope of application, etc., these two shoe design, functional requirements also vary. Here we come from the perspective of a third party, let’s compare these two types of shoes.
    cheap nike air maxNike Air Max
    air max and zoom which is good, of course, is to see the functional role, the design goal. Air max, Nike launched a second air-cushioned shoes, that is, on the basis of air cushion shoes were refitted after air-cushioned shoes. Classic Air series, has no doubt, a strong cushion of the shoe has to make it difficult to forget. And a modified design airmax intensified, starting to play to the role of the mechanism, reducing the maximum movement of the body caused by injury, able to protect the most powerful athletes. air max and zoom compared cushion is definitely a must allow athletes to understand and identify the direction, although not every athlete needs to have the amount of air so strong, but airmax cushion has been to the bottom of the people can not be ignored .

  52. Compared air max and zoom, zoom is Nike’s slim and lightweight cushion series, this range is designed for use mainly basketball shoes, running shoes and training shoes and other series. Compared with airmax, this shoe is more soft and comfortable cushion shoes, flexibility is also very good.Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes, Jordans For CheapNike sneakers After wearing, able to mobilize the most rapid and sensitive element to reflect, in particular, guard, small forward Gordon, especially for wearing this shoe. Simply put, if AIRMAXd cushion is known for strong words, zoom is based on the exquisite sensitivity known. As for air max and zoom which is good, we should look at what the athletes for that section can be determined.

  53. The world’s top luxury brand Chanel introduced Chanel Boy Chanel handbag new, sought after by everyone. Boy Chanel handbag continuation of the latest series of low-key gorgeous Chanel in the past, is Chanel Cruise series. Handbag lambskin fabric, soft and glossy. Metal chain interwoven with leather, triggering an infinite desire for the legendary Chanel. Double C Logo of the locking buckle at the center of the package, highlighting shot pack metallic taste. Designer launched gold, silver and red colors, gold stylish, gray atmosphere stable, warm red, fashion people can choose their favorite color. Clean lines throughout handbags, compact design, low-key and reserved style slightly boy temperament.
    Chanel 2.55 ClassicChanel Handbags

    Boy Chanel boldly demonstrated its maverick side; while at the same time, it also inherited the essence of the brand. Karl Lagerfeld (Karl Lagerfeld) of this “boy-style charm” made ??a new interpretation: “Chanel used men’s clothing lining cloth do dress, she has a very reckless manner so the boy inside Indeed, it is. Chanel’s quite a spiritual Ms. Chanel boy Capel get her rich life full of love, is not difficult to explain why the boy Chanel Chanel bag boy named boy! “

  54. Since the launch of Chanel bags once BoyChanel different color, material, size show people. The gold, silver, and red from ChanelCruise series, a look will be reminiscent of the Velvet Goldmine Christmas Eve.
    Chanel 2.55 ClassicChanel Handbags

    Chanel Boy Chanel bag once since the launch of different colors, materials, size show people. The gold, silver, and red from Chanel Cruise series, a look will be reminiscent of the Velvet Goldmine Christmas Eve, in a lace, Huaqun, the maverick tough line hard not to be the focus, lambskin fabric shine moist, strengthening metallic taste flag bag imprinted surface, strong personality!

  55. Another side to the coin…
    Some friends of ours paid tens of thousands of dollars per year to put their kids into a private school in Silicon Valley… for many years.

    The kids were happy, challenged and allegedly well-taught.

    Then they moved to a Houston suburb and discovered that several of their “well-performing-in-CA” would need tutoring so that they could fit into their ‘appropriate grade levels’ in the local school.

    When I first heard of Common Core, I thought it would establish a nationwide benchmark for all parents to get some idea of how well their own kids were being educated in the areas of math and science and other ‘tangible, measurable’ disciplines.

    Instead, along with the Creationist loons, the problem has been redefined into so many other things that my original thought or expectations must be discarded.

    If the concept had been limited to ‘benchmarking for the kids’ and parents’ benefits,’ good things might have resulted.

    Sad…

    1. And Bill Nye, if you really want to be a one-trick-pony Anti-Creationist Guy, I can support your efforts in that direction, but stick to skills in your own wheelhouse.

    2. When I first heard of Common Core, I thought it would establish a nationwide benchmark for all parents to get some idea of how well their own kids were being educated in the areas of math and science and other ‘tangible, measurable’ disciplines.

      I think gub education is past benefitting parents and kids.

  56. Kennedy . although Denise `s st0rry is cool, on wednesday I got Renault 5 after having made $6744 this past four weeks and-even more than, ten k this past month . with-out any question its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever done . I started this 5 months ago and practically straight away earned minimum $79, per hour .
    visit this page === http://www.jobsfish.com

  57. I think your (and Cato’s) response to this is a knee jerk overreaction to what he actually said. Never once does he use the phrase Common Core. He’s talking about core curricula. Those are not the same thing.

    He presents criticisms of the idea which he finds reasonable. He also, correctly, points out that creationists go through a lot of effort to get their silly fables taught as science, and to prevent actual science (evolution) from being taught.

    It’s telling that you somehow bring this around to the science of climatology, which he never even mentioned. In libertarian/right circles it’s hard to mention the word science without some yahoos piping up about how AGW is a hoax.

    Well, that’s science denial just as ideological and unsupported as creationism.

    There are core ideas, like the alphabet, that kids need to learn. As Nye quite correctly argues, they include math, physics, and biology. Which of those subjects do you object to?

  58. Common Core is being opposed by many conservatives but few
    realize that the pre-determined SOLUTIONS being proposed by
    the power elite are to eliminate Grass Roots America..

    READ Charlotte Iserbyt

  59. my friend’s sister makes $83 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired for ten months but last month her payment was $12435 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    Find Out More. ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.