Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

But the evidence actually shows that scientists do change their minds when presented with evidence, and that this includes evolutionary biologists. When, for example, Piltdown Man was proved a fake, the paleontologists bowed to the evidence. When Ostrom (IIRC) showed that birds were descended from dinosaurs, he was able to win over the scientific community to a position they'd previously rejected. And so on. Now, what would it take to convince a Biblical literalist to change even a small detail --- say a seven-day creation instead of six? Eve being made out of a vertebra instead of a rib? Well, we have Ken Ham's answer ... They benefit in that they can buy the new invention. But the inventors also benefit in that they can sell it. If all the new drugs (for example) were to be discovered in China from now on, would our pharmaceutical industry remain as profitable?Is it more honest to take into account obvious considerations such as this, or to ignore them, as you have done?---ETA: I knew this reminded me of something. After Carl Sagan wrote an article about poor standards in American schools, he got letters from schoolchildren one of whom made this awesomely sophisticated point: It appears that today that little kid is all grown up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Falsified by observation.I often wonder why creationists deny the obvious fact that atheists are moral (and there's some evidence that they are more moral then theists) and refuse to consider the scenarios by which it may have evolved.

This is, of course, not true. Some school shootings prior to 1964 can be found on this list, which I suppose is not comprehensive because that would be extremely difficult.Do tell us more about "godly honesty".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The country of origin of an innovation doesn't have to pay for the products that result? Really? Except that what follows is not an example of the country of origin getting the resulting products for free. Rather, this is an example of why continuing innovation is so important. Patents have a lifetime and don't provide perfect protection anyway. The only way to stay ahead is to continue innovating, and that's why education is so important. You mean elaborated upon for this context. Yes, of course, but your point is orthogonal to the importance of education and innovation. Now you're inventing things Bill Nye never said. He never said that US innovation was the only thing that was important. Yes, of course there are other factors. Again, the presence of other factors does not detract from the importance of education and innovation. Assuming we're still talking about education, I'll venture a guess that there's just as much morality in science as there is in Spanish and math, and a bit more than in history and English. Well, yes, we do feel threatened by men like Ken Ham, but it has nothing to do with their honesty or Godliness. It has to do with the threat they pose to science education.--Percy

Because they don't think it is mythology. That's a new one. Either they reconcile it with there faith through rational reasoning (I am in this camp), compartmentalize it, or reject it all together (the creationists). For those who try to reconcile science and religion such as myself, they see the Bible in some passages as not being literal but rather metaphorical or allegorical (just as much of Revelations is metaphorical). In fact, many Jewish Rabbis/philosophers (past and present) and early Christian philosophers and leaders believed in a more allegorical form of the Genesis creation story. These included St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, John Calvin, and John Wesley. In fact many Jews still accept this allegorical form of creation. Good question. This one I believe is more based out of the human psyche's way of justifying a belief no matter what the cost. It is a defense mechanism to attempt to repress anyone who disagrees with their world view. They don't view their manipulation of facts as lying or deceit. It is kind of like why most people justify telling "white lies" even though they believe it is ethically wrong. Though there are probably some less educated who honestly don't know that what they read off of creationists websites is not real science.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

You are missing the point. It's not that people aren't moral, and that includes evolutionists with everybody else, because morality is built into us though it can be distorted in many ways, the point is that the theory of evolution itself promotes an anti-morality, and in its early years it did justify a very ugly racism and Nazism itself. The only reason it no longer does is that people's inherent moral sense saw the problem and corrected for it. But the theory itself does not promote morality, it still works against the morality that made civilization and still contributes to the downfall of the civilization for that reason.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No people used it to justify racism and Nazism, much like religion has been used by people to justify atrocities why should it?

I didn't say it should nor did anyone else here. Edited by Faith, :

It is how people use this information which makes it moral or immoral. Just as the knowledge of nuclear science by itself is amoral, however the development and use of the atomic bombs using this knowledge was a moral one.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

In contradistinction to a God who created races and favors one race over other races. That concept certainly lays claim to the moral high ground.

God does not choose between races. You are probably thinking of His judgments on groups that so seriously violated His laws He finally wiped them out. Has nothing to do with race.

Source please?I've see numbers more like this:
46% Americans Believe In Creationism According To Latest Gallup Poll | HuffPost ReligionForty six percent Americans believed in creationism, 32 percent believed in theistic evolution and 15 percent believed in evolution without any divine intervention.I'd argue that only the 32 per cent are actually science deniers.

Where? For example: Oh, wait, those are examples of something else. Er, how about this ... ... no, still not an example.Surely we can find a Nazi talking about Darwinism somewhere ... yup. On a list of books to be burned. Along with "Die Literatur des Marxismus, Kommunismus, Bolschewismus" ("the literature of Marxism, Communism, Bolshevism") and "Die liberalistisch-demokratische Tendenz- und Gesinnungsliteratur" ("Literature with liberal-democratic tendencies and attitudes") they also wished to suppress writings "deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklrung eines primitiven Darwinismus [...] ist" ("which contain the pseudoscientific exposition of primitive Darwinism").They also condemned "Alle Schriften, welche die christliche Religion und ihre Einrichtungen, den Gottesglauben [...] verhhnen, verumglimpfen oder verchtlich machen" ("All works which mock, libel, or make contemptible the Christian religion and its institutions, belief in God ...")So that's not really an example either. Still, I'm sure you have some examples. Don't you?

Evolution, like all science, is amoral. It is people who can be immoral. Such people will always employ whatever tools and excuses they find convenient.The important question for any theory isn't whether it is moral or honest or has integrity, because those are assignations for people. It makes no sense to apply them to atoms or the weather or the Krebs cycle or fission or mitosis. The important question for any theory is whether it is an accurate representation of reality.--Percy

Wait, good news! I found someone who believes in the inferiority of black people, and attributes it to an evolutionary process. He expresses his sentiments in this ... charming ... little ditty. Who is this staunch Darwinian? Oh, wait, it's George McCready Price, the father of Flood Geology.See, as creationists never tire of telling us, they believe in microevolution, and in evolution as a degenerative process. That's just Creationism 101. If they want to use it as a justification for their racist views, there's nothing to stop them.