creationism rant that's actually an "honesty/rigor in debate" rant
Sup! Quick update: still painfully obsessed with the Islanders, still utterly heartbroken over the Matt Moulson trade that happened at the end of October, totally gearing up for the Olympics. Also my roommate is gone until mid-June and is going to pay me about $250 less per month and keep the room so I just get the place to myself for the next four and a half months and I'm so excited about it!! If we find a perfect tenant, then we'll sublet her room and I'll get paid the regular rent but at the very least, this is very unlikely to happen until after the Olympics, if at all. CNBC is going to have curling on every evening at 5!! So I'll be able to catch most of those. Of course, there's almost no Canada games, but I'll get to see the US women take on Team GB - aka Eve Muirhead and co!! :DDD And the US men playing Team Norway (my darlings) is another, so those will be good, and hopefully we'll be able to find some others online.
Also I'm dating a dude and it's going OK but I'm not head over heels for him or anything. He's super sweet and I've enjoyed hanging out with him, but I'm not sure if our senses of humor are sufficiently aligned... idk. Part of me still wants to get to know him better and keep giving him a try, but I also feel like maybe I'd be more excited about him now if I was going to be? And he's been sappy occasionally and I don't want to lead him on. He asked if I wanted to do something for Valentine's Day (which is really nice, as opposed to just making plans or something) and I was able to say I wasn't really ready for anything that romantic~ so... I don't know. This should at least buy me more time in which I can get together with him without him becoming convinced that I'm very serious. (But in the meantime, this is making me even WORSE about the physical stuff so we've barely kissed >_____< oh god i suck at other people)
Anyway, someone RT'ed a Wil Wheaton tweet about this Bill Nye vs Ken Ham "science/evolution vs creationism" debate thingie. (Per google: "Kenneth Alfred Ham is an Australian young-Earth creationist who advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.") So I haven't watched the debate at all, my only knowledge is from these tweets:
And we can't rely on faith. I mean, honestly, the whole debate is pointless, because we can't use religious beliefs as the foundation of education in any public school. The United States of America cannot, in any public institution, rely on faith as a source of information about the world. If American citizens are to be truly free to practice their religions, they should be able to attend public school without being taught the beliefs of another religion. (ie you don't even need to delve into the muddier waters of the Establishment Clause, because teaching religion in public schools violates the Free Exercise Clause. A place where religious beliefs are taught is a religious service, and Americans should be free to go to public school without being forced to attend a religious service.)
And if we cannot use faith as the basis of our understanding of the natural world, then we must use observation - even when observation is in conflict with religion. If someone thinks we shouldn't be using observation of the natural world to draw conclusions about it, then that is what they need to say. Not "don't use carbon dating," not "we don't know how accurate the information the mars rover provides is" (idk if that's something people say), not "we can't trust the fossil record.
Because that's the thing about science: it doesn't need to be incontrovertibly true. That's actually the most important part of learning about science. Yes, it's great to get some basic understanding of how the world around us works, and yes, a small number of the kids will go onto further study where the information will be useful. But learning to question things and study them and base conclusions from that study is so important. And it's not like science pretends like nothing will ever correct its current understanding? Pointing out that scientific positions have changed doesn't weaken the idea that science is the appropriate source of knowledge about the universe.
So there's no point in saying that this or that widely-accepted scientific position might be wrong. It doesn't change the fact that observation is the best and only method from which to draw conclusions about the natural world that can be used to teach public school. If you think conclusions about creation and evolution are wrong, then you need to be able to demonstrate that using observation. Or you need to argue that observation - in general, not specific types - is not the correct method with which to gain an understanding about these subjects. If you think specific types of observation lead to faulty conclusions, that can certainly be argued, but in no way does that lead to religion or religious texts becoming an acceptable source of knowledge.
It doesn't matter how wrong you think evolution is - hell, it doesn't matter if evolution is wrong!! The replacement of these theories, methods, or conclusions is not, and cannot be the Bible, which is a religious text and provides no evidence for its veracity beyond its mere existence.
And if you think/say the Bible can be used in concert with observed evidence to support conclusions that are radically different from those accepted by the scientific mainstream, then you are probably lacking thorough scientific understanding of the evidence yourself, and/or taking advantage of the lack of understanding of your audience.
The Islanders won while I was writing this!! Now I need to figure out if I take a shower tonight or just go to bed... I need to stock up on sleep because I'm going to see "A Gentlemen's Guide to Love and Murder" on Broadway during the opening ceremonies this Friday (or rather, during NBC's broadcast thereof) and am considering just watching the rebroadcast at 1AM. >______> One of the rare times when I kind of need a DVR.
Also I'm dating a dude and it's going OK but I'm not head over heels for him or anything. He's super sweet and I've enjoyed hanging out with him, but I'm not sure if our senses of humor are sufficiently aligned... idk. Part of me still wants to get to know him better and keep giving him a try, but I also feel like maybe I'd be more excited about him now if I was going to be? And he's been sappy occasionally and I don't want to lead him on. He asked if I wanted to do something for Valentine's Day (which is really nice, as opposed to just making plans or something) and I was able to say I wasn't really ready for anything that romantic~ so... I don't know. This should at least buy me more time in which I can get together with him without him becoming convinced that I'm very serious. (But in the meantime, this is making me even WORSE about the physical stuff so we've barely kissed >_____< oh god i suck at other people)
Anyway, someone RT'ed a Wil Wheaton tweet about this Bill Nye vs Ken Ham "science/evolution vs creationism" debate thingie. (Per google: "Kenneth Alfred Ham is an Australian young-Earth creationist who advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.") So I haven't watched the debate at all, my only knowledge is from these tweets:
- Ken Ham: Radioactive dating isn’t reliable, but you know what is? A book of stories that was revised and rewritten over millennia. Me: Um.
- Ham’s fundamental (ha) argument basically is: because The Bible.
I just can’t accept that any more than I can accept because The Hobbit. - And when Ham says, essentially, “because the bible” then argues “you weren’t there so you can’t know!” I get a little head-explodey.
- Q: Do you take the bible literally? Ken Ham: Well, some of it is literal, and some of it is poetry. So … the bible. QED.Me: *facepalm*
And we can't rely on faith. I mean, honestly, the whole debate is pointless, because we can't use religious beliefs as the foundation of education in any public school. The United States of America cannot, in any public institution, rely on faith as a source of information about the world. If American citizens are to be truly free to practice their religions, they should be able to attend public school without being taught the beliefs of another religion. (ie you don't even need to delve into the muddier waters of the Establishment Clause, because teaching religion in public schools violates the Free Exercise Clause. A place where religious beliefs are taught is a religious service, and Americans should be free to go to public school without being forced to attend a religious service.)
And if we cannot use faith as the basis of our understanding of the natural world, then we must use observation - even when observation is in conflict with religion. If someone thinks we shouldn't be using observation of the natural world to draw conclusions about it, then that is what they need to say. Not "don't use carbon dating," not "we don't know how accurate the information the mars rover provides is" (idk if that's something people say), not "we can't trust the fossil record.
Because that's the thing about science: it doesn't need to be incontrovertibly true. That's actually the most important part of learning about science. Yes, it's great to get some basic understanding of how the world around us works, and yes, a small number of the kids will go onto further study where the information will be useful. But learning to question things and study them and base conclusions from that study is so important. And it's not like science pretends like nothing will ever correct its current understanding? Pointing out that scientific positions have changed doesn't weaken the idea that science is the appropriate source of knowledge about the universe.
So there's no point in saying that this or that widely-accepted scientific position might be wrong. It doesn't change the fact that observation is the best and only method from which to draw conclusions about the natural world that can be used to teach public school. If you think conclusions about creation and evolution are wrong, then you need to be able to demonstrate that using observation. Or you need to argue that observation - in general, not specific types - is not the correct method with which to gain an understanding about these subjects. If you think specific types of observation lead to faulty conclusions, that can certainly be argued, but in no way does that lead to religion or religious texts becoming an acceptable source of knowledge.
It doesn't matter how wrong you think evolution is - hell, it doesn't matter if evolution is wrong!! The replacement of these theories, methods, or conclusions is not, and cannot be the Bible, which is a religious text and provides no evidence for its veracity beyond its mere existence.
And if you think/say the Bible can be used in concert with observed evidence to support conclusions that are radically different from those accepted by the scientific mainstream, then you are probably lacking thorough scientific understanding of the evidence yourself, and/or taking advantage of the lack of understanding of your audience.
The Islanders won while I was writing this!! Now I need to figure out if I take a shower tonight or just go to bed... I need to stock up on sleep because I'm going to see "A Gentlemen's Guide to Love and Murder" on Broadway during the opening ceremonies this Friday (or rather, during NBC's broadcast thereof) and am considering just watching the rebroadcast at 1AM. >______> One of the rare times when I kind of need a DVR.