Bill Nye situation

[switch]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI[/youtube]

[par73]

ooh this finally happened, niiice

[vinylrake]

my favorite part was the 12 minute countdown at the beginning.

[NewMutator]

Can I get a twitter summary?

[vinylrake]

Can I get a twitter summary?

12:00....11:59.....11:58.....11:57....11:56....11:55..... etc.

[NewMutator]

I mean of the debate.

[Magic Jane]

I didn't watch it yet, but this is what goes on for these type forums. The science guy leads you down a few centuries of study and discovery. Repeatable experiments and math. The religion guy leads you down a path of centuries of culture, beliefs. At the end of the day, neither can prove nor disprove the others theories. The funny thing is, science may lead us right to the desire of the religious.
Imho. If there be a Creator, evolution is the matrix. Allow me to use the bible for my example ( Christian Bible ) People where ignorant, in the beginning, until they ate from the tree of knowledge. As a result child birth would be more difficult, thus the cultural expression of a now bigger head.
Goliath was an offspring of the angles that had sex with the earthlings?
Here's another and since it spans three religions; Hebrew Christian Muslim, this example is drawn from the Abrahamics.( Abrahamics the evolution of religion). So the story goes; The world was destroyed by a great flood. But keep a few humans and specific animals alive. Leaving aside the animals, the new vrs the old. Just looking at the people. Four couples got on the boat and thus was the breading stock for all the people today. Noah, his wife and the sons all from the same tribe or region, but the wives of the sons were not mentioned. But we have different flavored people from the same stock? Where did the flavoring come in? If it be the wives of the sons; Where did their different shape and color come from?
It's funny that; In Evolution, creation springs forth from a singularity just as in most religions.
If there wasn't evolution, or small changes at the atomic level, we'd all look exactly like the first creation.
And that chick in India wouldn't have been born with 4 arms.
My self, I'm in the alien intervention group. Here is my theory; Most of the gold has been concentrated in a few area's and religion was induced to keep some of the stock pure and clean, good eating for the ride home. (cherry pick) Revelation 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
What, people don't eat monkeys?
http://www.nerdygaga.com/wp-content/upl ... images.jpg

[Magic Jane]

With known locations of the gold and a personal RFID broadcasting out of your hip, they may not even have to slow down. Would you like to biggie size that? (Cherry pick) Revelation 14:1 John saw the Lamb on Mount Zion. With him were 144,000, sealed with the Father’s name upon their foreheads. This great multitude had been “purchased out of the earth,” and they were said to be the “firstfruits unto God and unto the Lamb.”
Right into the Hold and right into the Freezer. Have a nice day!

[par73]

I think jesus would enjoy this thead

[switch]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZWAtY2vShM[/youtube]

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... s/day7.htm

Examination of W.J. Bryan by Clarence Darrow, of counsel for the defense:
Q--You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?
A--Yes, sir, I have tried to.
Q--Then you have made a general study of it?
A--Yes, I have; I have studied the Bible for about fifty years, or sometime more than that, but, of course, I have studied it more as I have become older than when I was but a boy.
Q--You claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?
A--I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there: some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: "Ye are the salt of the earth." I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people.
Q--But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale--or that the whale swallowed Jonah-- excuse me please--how do you literally interpret that?
A--When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah--it does not say whale....That is my recollection of it. A big fish, and I believe it, and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both what He pleases.
Q--Now, you say, the big fish swallowed Jonah, and he there remained how long--three days-- and then he spewed him upon the land. You believe that the big fish was made to swallow Jonah?
A--I am not prepared to say that; the Bible merely says it was done.
Q--You don't know whether it was the ordinary run of fish, or made for that purpose?
A--You may guess; you evolutionists guess.....
Q--You are not prepared to say whether that fish was made especially to swallow a man or not?
A--The Bible doesn't say, so I am not prepared to say.
Q--But do you believe He made them--that He made such a fish and that it was big enough to swallow Jonah?
A--Yes, sir. Let me add: One miracle is just as easy to believe as another
Q--Just as hard?
A--It is hard to believe for you, but easy for me. A miracle is a thing performed beyond what man can perform. When you get within the realm of miracles; and it is just as easy to believe the miracle of Jonah as any other miracle in the Bible.
Q--Perfectly easy to believe that Jonah swallowed the whale?
A--If the Bible said so; the Bible doesn't make as extreme statements as evolutionists do....
Q--The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it?
A--I do.
Q--Do you believe at that time the entire sun went around the earth?
A--No, I believe that the earth goes around the sun.
Q--Do you believe that the men who wrote it thought that the day could be lengthened or that the sun could be stopped?
A--I don't know what they thought.
Q--You don't know?
A--I think they wrote the fact without expressing their own thoughts.
Q--Have you an opinion as to whether or not the men who wrote that thought
Gen. Stewart--I want to object, your honor; it has gone beyond the pale of any issue that could possibly be injected into this lawsuit, expect by imagination. I do not think the defendant has a right to conduct the examination any further and I ask your honor to exclude it.
The Witness--It seems to me it would be too exacting to confine the defense to the facts; if they are not allowed to get away from the facts, what have they to deal with?
The Court--Mr. Bryan is willing to be examined. Go ahead.
Mr. Darrow--I read that years ago. Can you answer my question directly? If the day was lengthened by stopping either the earth or the sun, it must have been the earth?
A--Well, I should say so.
Q-- Now, Mr. Bryan, have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still?
A--No.
Q--You have not?
A-- No; the God I believe in could have taken care of that, Mr. Darrow.
Q-- I see. Have you ever pondered what would naturally happen to the earth if it stood still suddenly?
A-- No.
Q--Don't you know it would have been converted into molten mass of matter?
A--You testify to that when you get on the stand, I will give you a chance.
Q--Don't you believe it?
A--I would want to hear expert testimony on that.
Q--You have never investigated that subject?
A--I don't think I have ever had the question asked.
Q--Or ever thought of it?
A--I have been too busy on thinks that I thought were of more importance than that.
Q--You believe the story of the flood to be a literal interpretation?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--When was that Flood?
A--I would not attempt to fix the date. The date is fixed, as suggested this morning.
Q--About 4004 B.C.?
A--That has been the estimate of a man that is accepted today. I would not say it is accurate.
Q--That estimate is printed in the Bible?
A--Everybody knows, at least, I think most of the people know, that was the estimate given.
Q--But what do you think that the Bible, itself says? Don't you know how it was arrived at?
A--I never made a calculation.
Q--A calculation from what?
A--I could not say.
Q--From the generations of man?
A--I would not want to say that.
Q--What do you think?
A--I do not think about things I don't think about.
Q--Do you think about things you do think about?
A--Well, sometimes.
(Laughter in the courtyard.)
Policeman--Let us have order....
Stewart--Your honor, he is perfectly able to take care of this, but we are attaining no evidence. This is not competent evidence.
Witness--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.
The Court--All right.
(Applause from the court yard.)
Darrow--Great applause from the bleachers.
Witness--From those whom you call "Yokels."
Darrow--I have never called them yokels.
Witness--That is the ignorance of Tennessee, the bigotry.
Darrow--You mean who are applauding you? (Applause.)
Witness--Those are the people whom you insult.
Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion.
The Court--I will not stand for that.
Darrow--For what he is doing?
The Court--I am talking to both of you....
Q--Wait until you get to me. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?
A--No.
Q--Have you ever tried to find out?
A--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter.)
Q--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?
A--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.
Q--Where have you lived all your life?
A--Not near you. (Laughter and applause.)
Q--Nor near anybody of learning?
A--Oh, don't assume you know it all.
Q--Do you know there are thousands of books in our libraries on all those subjects I have been asking you about?
A--I couldn't say, but I will take your word for it....
Q--Have you any idea how old the earth is?
A--No.
Q--The Book you have introduced in evidence tells you, doesn't it?
A--I don't think it does, Mr. Darrow.
Q--Let's see whether it does; is this the one?
A--That is the one, I think.
Q--It says B.C. 4004?
A--That is Bishop Usher's calculation.
Q--That is printed in the Bible you introduced?
A--Yes, sir....
Q--Would you say that the earth was only 4,000 years old?
A--Oh, no; I think it is much older than that.
Q--How much?
A--I couldn't say.
Q--Do you say whether the Bible itself says it is older than that?
A--I don't think it is older or not.
Q--Do you think the earth was made in six days?
A--Not six days of twenty-four hours.
Q--Doesn't it say so?
A--No, sir....
The Court--Are you about through, Mr. Darrow?
Darrow--I want to ask a few more questions about the creation.
The Court--I know. We are going to adjourn when Mr. Bryan comes off the stand for the day. Be very brief, Mr. Darrow. Of course, I believe I will make myself clearer. Of course, it is incompetent testimony before the
jury. The only reason I am allowing this to go in at all is that they may have it in the appellate court as showing what the affidavit would be.
Bryan--The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him.
Darrow--I want to take an exception to this conduct of this witness. He may be very popular down here in the hills....
Bryan--Your honor, they have not asked a question legally and the only reason they have asked any question is for the purpose, as the question about Jonah was asked, for a chance to give this agnostic an opportunity to criticize a believer in the world of God; and I answered the question in order to shut his mouth so that he cannot go out and tell his atheistic friends that I would not answer his questions. That is the only reason, no more reason in the world.
Malone--Your honor on this very subject, I would like to say that I would have asked Mr. Bryan--and I consider myself as good a Christian as he is--every question that Mr. Darrow has asked him for the purpose of bring out whether or not there is to be taken in this court a literal interpretation of the Bible, or whether, obviously, as these questions indicate, if a general and literal construction cannot be put upon the parts of the Bible which have been covered by Mr. Darrow's questions. I hope for the last time no further attempt will be made by counsel on the other side of the case, or Mr. Bryan, to say the defense is concerned at all with Mr. Darrow's particular religious views or lack of religious views. We are here as lawyers with the same right to our views. I have the same right to mine as a Christian as Mr. Bryan has to his, and we do not intend to have this case charged by Mr. Darrow's agnosticism or Mr. Bryan's brand of Christianity. (A great applause.)
Mr. Darrow:
Q--Mr. Bryan, do you believe that the first woman was Eve?
A--Yes.
Q--Do you believe she was literally made out of Adams's rib?
A--I do.
Q--Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?
A--No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.
Q--You have never found out?
A--I have never tried to find
Q--You have never tried to find?
A--No.
Q--The Bible says he got one, doesn't it? Were there other people on the earth at that time?
A--I cannot say.
Q--You cannot say. Did that ever enter your consideration?
A--Never bothered me.
Q--There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife.
A--That is what the Bible says.
Q--Where she came from you do not know. All right. Does the statement, "The morning and the evening were the first day," and "The morning and the evening were the second day," mean anything to you?
A-- I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.
Q--You do not?
A--No.
Q--What do you consider it to be?
A--I have not attempted to explain it. If you will take the second chapter--let me have the book. (Examining Bible.) The fourth verse of the second chapter says: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens," the word "day" there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is any necessity for construing the words, "the evening and the morning," as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day, "in the day when the Lord made the heaven and the earth."
Q--Then, when the Bible said, for instance, "and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day," that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours?
A--I do not think it necessarily does.
Q--Do you think it does or does not?
A--I know a great many think so.
Q--What do you think?
A--I do not think it does.
Q--You think those were not literal days?
A--I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days.
Q--What do you think about it?
A--That is my opinion--I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does.
Q--You do not think that ?
A--No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.
Q--Do you think those were literal days?
A--My impression is they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days.
Q--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?
A--I believe that.
Q--Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?
A--No, sir.
Q--Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?
A--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).
Q--Now, you refer to the cloud that was put in heaven after the flood, the rainbow. Do you believe in that?
A--Read it.
Q--All right, Mr. Bryan, I will read it for you.
Bryan--Your Honor, I think I can shorten this testimony. The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur at the Bible, but I will answer his question. I will answer it all at once, and I have no objection in the world, I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in a God, is trying to use a court in Tennesseee--
Darrow--I object to that.
Bryan--(Continuing) to slur at it, and while it will require time, I am willing to take it.
Darrow--I object to your statement. I am exempting you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes.
The Court--Court is adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

[Magic Jane]

Exactly what I'd expect. It was entertaining for those interested in such things. It's not Jerry Springer material.
I'm unsettled by Nye's constant state of unsettle. There are a lot of areas about brain mechanics, dark matter research and the prediction of the higgs boson he could have relayed instead of your momma.
The creation side was well played. Biblical cherry picking wasn't an issue as Ken Ham was sticking to the science of creation rather than preaching the creation. I'm glad to see that DNA mutation is an accepted valid method of life for both sides, if only restricted to the Likes for the creationist. Copernicus would be proud.
Nye's response to the mutation rate was spot on. Over all the problem of the creationist theory seemed to be the time frame, 6000 years. They stick to this time frame from a genealogy table. If they weren't pinned to that??
Tyrannosaurus and other carnivorous fossils with fossilized remains of other animals in the stomachs gives evidence that meat eaters were around BEFORE the flood. Sorry Ham.
I'll give it to Nye, when it came to BELIEFS in science, he would exclaim " We don't know thus the need for more study". Ham would comically respond "We do know, It's written in this book we got.
At the end, after an interesting debate about the workings of science, neither could prove their theories of nothingness to man.

[par73]

how nihilistic of you to say that

[NewMutator]

Thanks I rather expected it to go like that. I don't know how to feel about the fact that both sides rather take for granted philosophical realism despite it being problematic given the current state of quantum research (see: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... to-reality).

[par73]

you all should read "war of the world views: science vs spirituality" if you are interested in topics like these. it's a great book written by two authors who go back and forth on this topic from their respective viewpoints

[switch]

Thanks I rather expected it to go like that. I don't know how to feel about the fact that both sides rather take for granted philosophical realism despite it being problematic given the current state of quantum research (see: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... to-reality).

The copenhagen interpretation is only one way to visualize the results of quantum events.

[switch]

I should reiterate that the issue is not the metaphysical debate between materialism/realism and idealism (a metaphysical debate of endless recursion); but rather, the dominance of technological positivism in the American ethos. For example, there is this bit in the Bill Nye debate at 1:12:57 seconds or so where Bill Nye sets up a false dichotomy regarding the construction of the ark. Bill argues that because ship-builders today could not build the ark, therefore the ark probably never existed. This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard because by Bill's logic the pyramids of Giza do not exist. Ken Ham very correctly calls out Bill Nye on this point at 1:43:30.

I'm unsettled by Nye's constant state of unsettle

Bill Nye is an actor. He was pretending to be Professor Frink. Frink, based on Jerry Lewis' Nutty Professor, is one of the most memorable cartoon characters in recent history, and likely ingrained into the subconscious of the audience. This is a tactic.
At 1:16:50 or so he as a picture of The Red Queen which made me smile.

Also, I had not known this, but at 1:35:00 Bill Nye states that he is a member [in fact, CEO] of the planetary society, a group that advocates for the colonization of other planets and objects in and outside the solar system. I should have known as he has a regular blog on their website. At 1:49:25 Bill makes what is basically an appeal to Reddit for "more engineers for the future" suggesting that he cannot stay on topic without being distracted by his agenda.

At 1:39:00 or so Bill Nye makes a pitiful appeal to the fallacy concerning the uniformity of the bible. Although I do not agree with his other beliefs, J. Warner Wallace has demolished this argument in his otherwise sensational book, Cold-Case Christianity. In short, the proliferation of the bible, one of the most widely published books during many historical periods, is highly uniform (certainly there are differences between, say, the Vulgate and King James). The scholars and historians responsible for the- hugely controversial, but undeniably scholarly- New Oxford Annotated Bible seem to support Wallace's argument (with respect to the bible's general uniformity). The Dead-Sea scrolls, and of course the Torah, are very important evidence concerning the Old Testament anyway.

I suppose based on the latter I should state outright that I consider Ken Ham a crazy person. The level of cognitive dissonance and doublethink involved is similar to the flat earth, hollow moon, young earth creationist types.

At 1:51:00 they talk about cosmology. Ken Ham appeals to scripture (what else?), Bill Nye quotes Carl Sagan's "we are starstuff" line (incidentally, Bill Nye has lines in said symphony of science video). I've addressed this before, and I think my response still stands (Bill at 1:55:30 talks about dark energy and the cosmological constant). It would have been nice if Bill had complicated his answer and talked about current, post-higgs, models

I suspect New Mutator will appreciate the exchange after 2:01:00 which is about the origin of consciousness. Bill has a nice bit at 2:07:50 where someone asks him to talk about evidence besides radiocarbon dating regarding the age of the earth. Bill goes on to talk about Charles Lyell which I appreciated. However, he should have taken the opportunity to talk more about the cosmic microwave background radiation. What I enjoyed about his response is that he was clearly caught off-guard, but treated it like a real scientist (rather than a Jerry Lewis impersonator): use your knowledge, find an answer.

I liked the format of the debate, and I thought the moderator did an excellent job.

Except for the part at 2:14:55 where the question is about entropy and the mod doesn't know what newton's second law is (given, could be trolling).
I should add that most of the Q&A period is really just clarification of nominalism. Which is unfortunate because I suspect most people are familiar with the basic nominalistic principals "laws of nature". Brian Greene is a New York Times best-seller, so is Hawking.

At 2:19:45 Ken Ham makes what could almost be an interesting theological point, which I think he had stated before, but which I admit I only caught onto now, which is about the nature of sin prior to the expulsion from the Garden, assuming an "old earth" model. This is a great point because the question of how sin functioned during the period after the creation of man, but prior to the destruction of Gethsemane, assuming the earth is really thousands of millions of years old is difficult for Christian scientists to reconcile.

Some tool asks Ham at 2:24:25 if he interprets the bible literally, which is just trolling. Might as well be Clarence Darrow asking William Jennings Bryan if Jonah was really swallowed by a giant fish. Ham states clearly that he opposes polygamy, ie, he is not a Romney supporter.

I want to backtrack: rather than Scopes-Monkey, this debate reminded me more of the Dawkins-Coyne interview. Coyne was (is?) the official Vatican astronomer, and held a very clever position on the relationship between science and religion.

At 2:28:00 they finally address intelligent design (elephant in the room!). Bill states at 2:30:00 that he thinks that the "top down" model of a corporate structure best describes intelligent design and that this is not an accurate reflection of nature itself. I agree with him, but the whole statement comes off really awkwardly because, as mentioned, Bill is the CEO of a corporate entity.

Ken Ham is so totally lost at this point he has nothing to say; even though he is himself a corporate CEO (!)
He ends up endorsing, at 2:32:30, Bill's pro-STEM 'competitive' argument regarding the inherent value of engineers, amazingly.

TLDR: they're both American technocrats with different ontological viewpoints regarding theology, and they end up agreeing on economic necessity.

At 2:34:15 Bill half-heartedly tries to inject some controversy into the debate by raising Stephen Fry's point about the inexcusable nature of the uncompromising religion from a moral perspective vis-a-vis "indigenous religions" or something to that effect.

Amazingly exactly thereafter, Bill denies the Whig interpretation of history that I have earlier accused him of endorsing in this very debate: "there's no evidence that man is getting smarter" (2:34:45). I'll forgive him because at this point the debate is late, and over, and he's already "won" the argument against the young earth guy so whatever points he's making now are just superfluous victory laps.

Bill's final point is about the Anthropocene, and the post-1918 flu pandemic, and he uses a nice James Cameron anecdote to make it (Jim Cameron is one of my countrymen so I respect that).

They go to closing statements. Ken Ham says nothing (scripture argument).
Bill confirms that Carl Sagan was his "old professor" bro."WE ARE A WAY FOR THE COSMOS TO KNOW ITSELF"
Also: "We, in the United States, will be out-competed by other countries... (!)... if we don't embrace science education... etc"

THE END.

[NewMutator]

Thanks for the breakdown, switch. Appreciate the framing of the debate as a publicity stunt for science education.

I will say I'm a bit miffed that you seem to dismiss the relevance of "metaphysics" (or, as I prefer to call it, philosophy of science) here. Something I think you'll find agreeable is Paul Feyerabend's critique of scientists misrepresenting the nature of science vis-à-vis the problem of demarcation. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyer ... of_science) Feyerabend's position is notable because of its anarchistic, pluralistic bent (e.g. he attacks popular conceptions of the scientific method as methodologically uniform, stating that, not only are ad hoc methods used all the time, but that they actually serve a beneficial purpose in theory-crafting).

Further, I think it a bit premature to characterize the materialism/idealism debate as endlessly recursive. It may appear that way, and though I agree one cannot definitively prove either way, I do think that the principle of parsimony attributed to William of Occam can make one a more attractive option for skeptics.

Also, there are numerous possible interpretations of quantum events other than Copenhagen, although I realize you may be simply giving the nod to the one you prefer. Here are a few I know of: Information-theoretical, objective collapse, relational quantum mechanics, MWI, transactional interpretation, consistent histories, De Brogile-Bohm, modal interpretation, quantum bayesianism, statistical (ensemble) interpretation. I must confess that I'm not aware of what all of these entail that contrasts with the standard Copenhagen interpretation.

[switch]

Philosophy of science means the methodology and epistemology of science. Metaphysics is the ontology of philosophy.

I think it is self evident that not every problem can be addressed scientifically. It is precisely the dominance of technological positivism that leads to the mistaken assumption that the best solution is invariably the scientific one.

I'm by no means knowledgeable enough on the subject to have an interpretive preference on quantum models. I think it satisfies the debate to note that there are many interpretations.

I think since materialism and idealism have been prevailing ontological models for many thousands of years I think its fair to suppose that the debate is metaphysical in nature and therefore probably unsolvable.

[NewMutator]

Unsolvable by scientific means, perhaps, but this does not preclude the possibility for Hegelian synthesis.

[switch]

What sort of model do you have in mind?

[NewMutator]

Some sort of "information" (for lack of a better word) monism.

[NewMutator]

Of course, this is only provisional, to be modified in light of new, pertinent information.

[switch]

RICK BRATTIN, a Republican legislator from Missouri, offered a bill last month that would allow parents to pull their children out of high-school biology classes lest they be exposed to the concept of natural selection. Nearly 90 years since the public trial of John Scopes, a young schoolmaster accused of teaching evolution to Tennessee children, Missouri’s House Bill no. 1472 offers a more subtle, insidious approach to halting the spread of supposedly dangerous ideas.

Mr Brattin’s several previous attempts to battle the teaching of evolution did not survive initial hearings. Last year legislation to give “equal treatment” to the theory of intelligent design died in committee. It is hard to say whether this year’s salvo against Mr Darwin will gain more support. As a constitutional matter, at least, permitting parents to pull their kids out of class is less transparently problematic than pushing creationism into classrooms. In 2005 a federal court ruled in Kitzmiller v Dover that a Pennsylvania school-board could not ask high-school biology teachers to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinian theory. Intelligent design, the court held, is a form of creationism and may not be mentioned in science classrooms without violating the first-amendment prohibition on state establishments of religion.

Perhaps to avoid this pitfall, this year’s Missouri bill states no rationale for parental notification and exemption. It does not advance an alternative theory of life or call any aspect of Darwinian theory into question. It simply gives parents of students the right to opt out of lessons about natural selection. Imposing Darwinian theory on students is "an absolute infringement on people’s beliefs,” Mr Brattin told the Kansas City Star. This is because Darwinism “is just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the air as, say, any religion,” he explained, handily offending both scientists and the fundamentalists he is ostensibly fighting for.

But Mr Brattin's clumsy argument aside, is there anything to recommend a position that gives parents the right to veto a lesson on Darwin? Many schools allow parents to opt their children out of animal dissections or sex education if they have serious qualms about these lessons. Though it seems patently unwise to shield children from lessons about sexually transmitted diseases and birth control, these exemptions seem qualitatively different from a bill to allow parents to opt children out of an evolution curriculum. Eugenie Scott of the National Centre for Science Education captures the problem:

Evolution inextricably pervades the biological sciences; it therefore pervades, or at any rate ought to pervade, biology education at the K–12 level. There simply is no alternative to learning about it; there is no substitute activity. A teacher who tries to present biology without mentioning evolution is like a director trying to produce Hamlet without casting the prince.
Adults can disagree about the origin and nature of life (as the recent debate at the Creation Museum in Kentucky made plain). But schoolchildren are another matter. The First Amendment does not protect people from "exposure to morally offensive value systems", as a federal court ruled 30 years ago, in response to a complaint from fundamentalist Christians who did not want their children to learn about alternative beliefs. Parents can opt to send their children to religious schools, but if they choose public education for their offspring they cannot treat the curriculum like a buffet and plan their child's attendance accordingly. Instead, they should hope that their arguments for alternative views are as convincing as possible when they are taught at home.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... -evolution

[switch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huOV1lkK2io&t=27m

Bill Nye is now blowing up with solar sails and cube-sats made by Tesla probably.

[switch]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/bill-nye ... -1.2410741

[switch]

http://www.startalkradio.net/show/cosmi ... ye-part-1/

[Magic Jane]

Bill Bill Bill Bill
Awesome power houses of knowledge on this thread.
To get back to my mining for gold theory. I find it interesting that this was being planned around the time we came off the gold standard.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pic ... tedIndex=0
Oops not that one. Lol the irony.
This one
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ima ... dIndex=164
Over the winter I found these as back ground music. I don't speak or read Sumerian so I can't confirm the information but I found them entertaining.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ouhhVjxmT7M
Interesting personal interpretation of the first photo.. notice the vortex or low pressure on the leading edge of the antiquity