Bill Nye: Continues To Damage The Reputation Of Science

[BCSpace]

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A Christian ministry's long-stalled plans to build Noah's Ark in the hills of Kentucky have been revived.

 

Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the Ark Encounter project, estimated to cost about $73 million. Groundbreaking is planned for May and the ark is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016.

 

Ham said a high-profile evolution debate he had with "Science Guy" Bill Nye on Feb. 4 helped boost support for the project.

 

Nye said he was "heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky" after learning that the project would move forward. He said the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's ministry, which preaches that the Bible's creation story is a true account, and as a result, "voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest."

 

Ham's Answers in Genesis ministry and the Creation Museum enjoyed an avalanche of news media attention during the debate, which focused on science and the Bible's explanations of the origins of the universe.

 

http://www.myfoxny.com/Story/24850311/noahs-ark-project-in-ky-to-move-forward

 

As I've said before, what science needs is a spokesperson who accepts both science, particularly evolution, and religion.  Especially seeing as how science doesn't speak to matters of religion.  Nye should be free to express his opinion, however, he needs to not wear the science hat when he does if he wants to gain converts.

 

Ken Ham also should not be wearing the hat of religion while expressing his erroneous views on science, but he does have the upper hand now because he was the better debater.

 

I doubt either will happen any time soon so the advancement of both scientific and religious truth will be slowed by this debate.

[The Nehor]

This is why you don't validate Creationist "scientists" by debating them.

[california boy]

 

 

As I've said before, what science needs is a spokesperson who accepts both science, particularly evolution, and religion.  Especially seeing as how science doesn't speak to matters of religion.  Nye should be free to express his opinion, however, he needs to not wear the science hat when he does if he wants to gain converts.

 

Ken Ham also should not be wearing the hat of religion while expressing his erroneous views on science, but he does have the upper hand now because he was the better debater.

 

I doubt either will happen any time soon so the advancement of both scientific and religious truth will be slowed by this debate.

 

Wait, am I reading this right?  Government is paying for this thing?  Someone tell me I am misreading this.

[Calm]

Wait, am I reading this right?  Government is paying for this thing?  Someone tell me I am misreading this.

 

The organization's website said it has raised $14.4 million in private donations toward the $24.5 million needed to build the ark alone. The complete first phase would total more than $70 million, officials have said. They did not say how much they had raised from a $62 million municipal bond offering.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/27/ark-encounter-theme-park/5881323/

 

 

Northern Kentucky officials, including Williamstown Mayor Rick Skinner, said the project would bring hundreds of jobs and attract hotels and restaurants to a largely rural community about 50 miles south of Cincinnati.

"We're happy to be the home of the ark," Skinner said.

 

 

 

Late last year, the city of Williamstown, where the park is to be located, helped by offering $62 million in municipal bonds on behalf of the Christian group. The city isn't responsible for repaying the unsecured bonds, which would come from park revenues. Partly because of a lackluster response, the sale was extended in December….

 

State development studies have predicted that Ark Encounter would draw hundreds of thousands of visitors and bring in a net fiscal impact of $119 million over 10 years, including sales and income taxes.

In 2011, the Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority granted approval for up to $43.1 million in sales tax rebates over 10 years. State tourism law allows developers to recover up to 25% of a project's cost through a return of the sales tax paid by visitors on admission tickets, food, souvenirs and other expenses.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has defended his support for the project saying that if the park were to fail, the state would not be out any money.

Answers in Genesis officials said they would continue raising money for various phases of the project, including lifetime "boarding passes" costing $3,000 for families and $2,000 for individuals. Ultimately the project is expected to cost more than $120 million.

Earlier this year, Bloomberg News reported that the ark project was drawing comparisons to tourist attractions from Alabama to Nebraska that have defaulted on such bonds and noted that it came with the added risk of legal challenges from those who believe the religious themes may violate the Constitution.

Groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State have argued that the state tourism department is supporting religion. But Rosenau said that despite his opposition, he does not think the sales-tax rebates would be a consitutional violation.

 

[BCSpace]

This is why you don't validate Creationist "scientists" by debating them.

 

Depends.  It's just the opposite when you're dealing with individual people rather than a group or a philosophy as a whole.  You should validate them and/or be magnanimous whenever you can.  There are plenty of things a Creationist believes that is true which you can encourage.  Specifically and in addition, science is just as much a matter of faith as religion is. 

 

For example, neither science or religion has a first hand account/testimony of the Creation.  From the LDS perspective, there is no specific doctrine for or against Evolution or Creationism and both fit just as well with the doctrinal details we do have.

[thesometimesaint]

Depends.  It's just the opposite when you're dealing with individual people rather than a group or a philosophy as a whole.  You should validate them and/or be magnanimous whenever you can.  There are plenty of things a Creationist believes that is true which you can encourage.  Specifically and in addition, science is just as much a matter of faith as religion is. 

 

For example, neither science or religion has a first hand account/testimony of the Creation.  From the LDS perspective, there is no specific doctrine for or against Evolution or Creationism and both fit just as well with the doctrinal details we do have.

 

Science isn't about faith, or at least it isn't about any one faith. IE; We don't have one math for Hindu math, another Christian math, another Greek Orthodox math, another Mormon math, etc., etc. etc.. Whether one is of a particular faith, or no faith at all, the math works.

 

As a rational person you don't have to have a first hand account for something to have actually happened. IE; You weren't there when your parents were born. But I think you can safely assume they were.

[BCSpace]

Science isn't about faith, or at least it isn't about any one faith

 

Science is ALL about faith.  For example, by making an hypothesis, a scientist has hope for things which are not seen but are true.  Also by applying know scientific laws to observations about things we can't directly test, a scientist has faith both in that his observations are accurate and that the known laws apply to what is being observed.

 

So likewise, religion is ALL about science. We observe the effects of eternal principles and laws in our lives and the lives of others.  We look for tangible (what we feel or hear the Spirit saying to us) confirmation of what we believe. We are persuaded by scriptural evidence. Etc. Etc.

[thesometimesaint]

Science is ALL about faith.  For example, by making an hypothesis, a scientist has hope for things which are not seen but are true.  Also by applying know scientific laws to observations about things we can't directly test, a scientist has faith both in that his observations are accurate and that the known laws apply to what is being observed.

 

So likewise, religion is ALL about science. We observe the effects of eternal principles and laws in our lives and the lives of others.  We look for tangible (what we feel or hear the Spirit saying to us) confirmation of what we believe. We are persuaded by scriptural evidence. Etc. Etc.

 

That is perhaps the most convoluted thinking I've ever seen. There is no testable hypothesis for God, that doesn't have God as a priori.

[Nofear]

That is perhaps the most convoluted thinking I've ever seen. There is no testable hypothesis for God, that doesn't have God as a priori.

 

There's also no testable hypothesis that doesn't have the hypothesis as an a priori -- practically by definition. With an experiment you're just trying see if you get results inconsistent with the a priori assumption, er hypothesis.

[thesometimesaint]

There's also no testable hypothesis that doesn't have the hypothesis as an a priori -- practically by definition. With an experiment you're just trying see if you get results inconsistent with the a priori assumption, er hypothesis.

 

God is not a falsifiable hypothesis. IE; I observe gravity. If I start with the priori that little green men(God) caused it. There is no way that I can be falsify it.

[Nofear]

God is not a falsifiable hypothesis. IE; I observe gravity. If I start with the priori that little green men(God) caused it. There is no way that I can be falsify it.

 

I don't disagree nor did I make such a statement ;-). While there are falsifiable hypotheses about God one could make (e.g. God created a universe that will prevent chocolate chips and icecream from ever being near each other) but they wouldn't address the existence of God -- as such hypotheses are made the believer can simply move the goalpost.

 

Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that a science can only observe/measure/test items that already exist in that scientific theory. If something exists that isn't described in the theory (e.g. spin doesn't exist in classical mechanics) then that theory can only observe anomalies (continuing the example: anomalous Zeemen effect) within the framework of the variables that are described by said theory.

 

So, let's repeat the relevant point for emphasis: science can only observe/measure/test things which the specific scientific theory describes. Items that exist but which are not described by said theory can then only appear as anomalous results in the theory's variables/explanations. And, I agree, it is true that we have no suitable scientific theory for God. It is also true that we have no suitable scientific theory (i.e. testable) at the moment for human consciousness. /so_what :-)

[thesometimesaint]

I don't disagree nor did I make such a statement ;-). While there are falsifiable hypotheses about God one could make (e.g. God created a universe that will prevent chocolate chips and icecream from ever being near each other) but they wouldn't address the existence of God -- as such hypotheses are made the believer can simply move the goalpost.

 

Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that a science can only observe/measure/test items that already exist in that scientific theory. If something exists that isn't described in the theory (e.g. spin doesn't exist in classical mechanics) then that theory can only observe anomalies (continuing the example: anomalous Zeemen effect) within the framework of the variables that are described by said theory.

 

So, let's repeat the relevant point for emphasis: science can only observe/measure/test things which the specific scientific theory describes. Items that exist but which are not described by said theory can then only appear as anomalous results in the theory's variables/explanations. And, I agree, it is true that we have no suitable scientific theory for God. It is also true that we have no suitable scientific theory (i.e. testable) at the moment for human consciousness. /so_what :-)

 

I think we're saying the same thing but using different words. I don't have a problem with God or with science, but for at least for the foreseeable future conflating the two presents problems for both.

[Nofear]

Mostly so. Point is that the statement, "There is no testable hypothesis for God, that doesn't have God as a priori." is a vacuous one in the context of your rebuttal BCSpace as we have just as easily said, "There is no testable hypothesis in a scientific theory, that doesn't have the theory as an a priori."

 

Granted, we will take the "a priori" as contingent upon repeated affirmations. In science, upon repeated affirmations we start to use statements like "proved". But it is exactly the same context in which Malachi quoted the Lord as found in Malachi 3:10 "Prove me herewith". Unfortunately that scenario (tithing) doesn't quite fit the limitations of secular science as the experiments will allow a great deal of variance in the results to be affirmations of the experiment. Usually the results are really only useful/valid for the individual performing the experiment. Enough for personal confirmation but not necessarily repeatable with near identical results. Repetitions results in positive affirmations but from different results. Science wants nearly the same results each time (e.g. deterministic, which God and humans are not).

[thesometimesaint]

We humans are just too fickle.

[ERayR]

God is not a falsifiable hypothesis. IE; I observe gravity. If I start with the priori that little green men(God) caused it. There is no way that I can be falsify it.

 

tss I think you have made a breakthrough if have observed gravity.  It is may understanding that we cannot observe gravity but only its affects.  One stumbles and falls on their nose, he has not seen gravity he has only seen its results.

[thesometimesaint]

tss I think you have made a breakthrough if have observed gravity.  It is may understanding that we cannot observe gravity but only its affects.  One stumbles and falls on their nose, he has not seen gravity he has only seen its results.No one has ever seen

 

No one has ever seen an electron, but it is pretty well established that they exist.