Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Last week, I wrote a post titled “Cosmos” Host Neil deGrasse Tyson Speaks Out about the News Media, Flat Earthers, Science Deniers, Climate Change Skeptics, Religion, and Dogma. Tyson—an astrophysicist, director of the Natural History Museum’s Hayden Planetarium in New York City, and the host of Fox Networks’ new science series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey—appeared on a multi-part series on Moyers and Company in January. Tyson and Bill Moyers explored a variety of topics—including the nature of an expanding, accelerating universe (and how it might end), the difference between “dark energy” and “dark matter,” the concept of God in cosmology and why science matters.
In the final episode of the series—which I’ve posted below the fold—the two men discuss science literacy and why it’s so critical to the future of our democracy, our economy, and our country’s standing in the world. Their discussion lasts about twenty minutes.
“Science is an enterprise that should be cherished as an activity of the free human mind. Because it transforms who we are, how we live, and it gives us an understanding of our place in the universe.”
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
********************
~ Submitted by Elaine Magliaro
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
David,
There is a vast difference between archeological confirmation of biblical events, people and places, and hard sciences of biology, astrophysics and chemistry. The bible as a record of kings, towns, villages and Roman conquest is different than evolutionary biology, deep space astronomy and particle physics.
I have discussed this with both Jewish and Muslim acquaintances who are scientists. Dietary rules, such as Kosher, probably arose out of observation of who got sick after eating what. Back in the deserts of the Middle East, shellfish, diary products and other foods could make one sick or even die. Of course, they had no idea what caused it. No microscopes, and no science of biology and parasitology in those days, so it must have been because their favorite Deity had somehow made it unclean.
Some still observe the old dietary habits out of custom and sense of history, just as some Catholics still follow the custom of no meat on Fridays. At the same time, many don’t bother with those rituals which grew out of ignorance of causes of disease. One of my best friends is a Jewish scientist. He still observes most of the old rituals and holy days, but will eat a ham sandwich or plate of shrimp as quickly as any gentile.
I have to go out of town in just a few minutes. Will be back late this evening. Hope everyone’s day is what they want it to be.
Charlaton Stanley wrote: “There is a vast difference between archeological confirmation of biblical events, people and places, and hard sciences of biology, astrophysics and chemistry.”
So archaeology is not science anymore? It seems to me similar in that we are talking about empirical evidence either confirming or disproving Biblical statements. They are not really that much different. How is digging up the remains of human civilizations that much different than digging up the remains of organisms (fossils)?
In regards to biological evolution, the Bible makes statements about polydactyly and gigantism. Such has often been a source of mocking in the past, but confirmed by science as our knowledge has increased.
Two of the most outrageous astrophysical statements in the Bible concern the sun standing still for a whole day for Joshua, and in another place the sun moving backwards by 10 degrees for Hezekiah. One might think science could never explain such statements, but it is odd that the Chinese history during the reign of Emperor Yao recorded the same type of event around the same historical time as the Joshua event (except the Chinese record it as the sun not setting for 10 days). Who really knows whether we should just out of hand dismiss such statements or whether we might be able to understand them better when our knowledge increases. There are complete magnetic reversals of the poles recorded in the geologic record that are not fully understood. Even if we do conclude these statements are false, does it really then mean that all Biblical statements concerning empirical evidence are false? That would be like claiming since Galileo was wrong about what causes tides then he must be wrong about his heliocentric view of the solar system.
I think my reply got stopped by the WordPress filter. Can someone try to release it please?
Byron
Dredd:
Ever hear of Ockhams Razor?
==============
a.k.a occams razor (“It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected” – Wikipedia).
Selecting the hypothesis is the easy part.
Proving it with predictions and observation is the more difficult part.
davidm2575
…
Tyson because Tyson stepped away from science and into theology when he stated that Biblical theories have never been proven. Anybody familiar with archaeology knows how wrong Tyson is about that statement.
…
=====================
I would agree he is blustery and overblown in that statement.
The example of the Hittite Empire, mentioned in the Bible, comes to mind (2 Kings 7:6: “For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us.”).
Tyson types ridiculed the passages that referred to the Hittites as an example of myth, because archaeologists “knew” back then that no such empire existed because it had never been found by archaeologists.
Then they found it:
(Bible Website). Fairness is healthy, so both religionists and scientists ought not flip out because they have differences.
What in Genesis passes the scientific method?
Why are creationists in such an uproar over Cosmos? I think it’s because they want Creationism to be seen as science because of an overwhelming desire to have religious dogma taught in public schools on the taxpayer’s dime. Would the creation stories of other belief systems get equal billing? This notion that they are being “censored” is a dead giveaway, censored by whom, by what? No one is censoring churches and private schools from teaching the biblical creation story. There is this recurring theme lately of a war on religion, while no one is prohibiting anyone from their religious expression. That expression has no place in public schools because we have something called Separation of church and state.
Religionists can complain all they want, they can be pushy and obnoxious all they want, but our government is still a secular one, I wonder how long it will survive? In Arizona we saw what could happen when religionists try to legislate their bigotry based on their belief system. The Hobby Lobby case being argued now in front of the Supreme Court could decide just how much religionists can inject their belief system on others in the future. If decided in favor of the religionists, it could be a brave new world in which religionists can bully their way into many different areas of our lives. Theocracy would get a foothold in our country.
Annie wrote: “This notion that they are being “censored” is a dead giveaway, censored by whom, by what? No one is censoring churches and private schools from teaching the biblical creation story.”
They are being censored from institutions of public education. Everyone is forced to pay for education and forced to send their children to schools which censor information.
Originally, the concept of separating church and state was based upon the fact that education only taught the views of one particular establishment of religion. The arguments made by Jefferson was that it was not right that the public should be forced to pay to support only one viewpoint of religion. So the concept of church / state separation was based upon allowing all viewpoints. When Jefferson established the University of Virginia, he did away with the Divinity School and with a Professor of Divinity, replacing it with a Professor of Ethics who would teach the proofs of creation and the Creator. However, he gave away land to each religious sect and encouraged their presence on campus to teach their philosophies concerning the right way to worship God to the students. How different this concept is than the modern concept where creationism banned from public institutions of education.
Annie wrote: “… but our government is still a secular one, I wonder how long it will survive?”
Our government initially was founded upon the idea of a Creator and rights conferred by that Creator. Our founding document appealed to Providence (God) to establish us. Such is clearly NOT a secular government. The modern concept is to change our government into a secular government. There are many arguments that a secular government cannot survive when it denies the Great Lawgiver as the source and foundation for its laws.
Creationists to Neil deGrasse Tyson: Evolution isn’t scientific, but the Book of Genesis is
By Juan Cole | Mar. 25, 2014
http://www.juancole.com/2014/03/creationists-evolution-scientific.html
Excerpt:
Creationist Ray Comfort complained that Neil deGrasse Tyson had misrepresented the Bible.
The astrophysicist and host of Fox’s “Cosmos” said recently that using the Bible as a scientific source was problematic, because no one had ever scientifically proven a theory based on scripture.
Comfort said last week on his online “Comfort Zone” program that Tyson wasn’t qualified to make that determination because he’s not a theologian.
“You know, the word ‘science,’ it’s kind of a magical word,” Comfort said. “‘I believe in science.’ It just means knowledge, that’s all it means. There’s different areas of science, different areas of knowledge. When you say the Bible is not a science book, you’re saying it’s not a knowledge book? It tells us how God created the Earth!”
Knowledge, of course, is not quite all that defines science, which is characterized by systematic methods of observation in pursuit of new understanding.
But Comfort insisted the Bible was a science book because it described the origins of the universe.
“It gives us the basis for all creation, and it passes the scientific method,” he said. “It’s observable – Genesis – and testable. Evolution is not. You can’t observe something 60 million years old, but you can observe what Genesis says.”
Elaine M quoted: “Creationist Ray Comfort complained that Neil deGrasse Tyson had misrepresented the Bible.
The astrophysicist and host of Fox’s “Cosmos” said recently that using the Bible as a scientific source was problematic, because no one had ever scientifically proven a theory based on scripture.
Comfort said last week on his online “Comfort Zone” program that Tyson wasn’t qualified to make that determination because he’s not a theologian.”
================
The problem here is that Ray Comfort is an evangelist / theologian, not a scientist, but he is being portrayed here as if he was a creation scientist. Reverend Comfort is addressing Tyson because Tyson stepped away from science and into theology when he stated that Biblical theories have never been proven. Anybody familiar with archaeology knows how wrong Tyson is about that statement. Ray Comfort is addressing it from his theological perspective. Even Reverend Comfort’s broad definition of the word “science” is from the etymology of the word’s Latin source and its meaning during the Middle Ages, not from its more narrow modern connotation.
Tony, You are a breath of fresh air, James is part of the Dark Ages past.
Charlton S. Stanley, PhD, ABPP bleated:
I wouldn’t accept either. There is no point in trying to debate science with people who don’t believe in science or the scientific method. Creationists remind me of Chester A. Riley in the old comedy series Life of Riley: “Don’t confuse me with facts, my head is made up.”
Nothing is wrong with science. I see an awful lot of confusion and bait-&-switch going on, throwing around the “science” word on this blog.
Since simply means “knowledge gained by observation.” Period. That’s it. Science isn’t someone’s belief, or philosophy.
We Creationists love to talk about science. But when you step away from science and venture into a belief system masquerading as science, such as the idiotic belief of evolutionism, then we have a problem.
Comments from Creationists are censored?
James, you call David names, and true to narrow form, mock him in a variety of ways on the way to making an “argument” that persuades no one off of a position they already have – because it’s nothing but name calling and mockery. And then ironically, you call him the bully.
David whines, “The phrase, “Creationism isn’t science,” is another one of those lies ”
Creationism is not science, David. You can huff and puff all you want.Nor is creationism going to be taught in the classroom. Why not teach kids Bugs Bunny is the Unvarnished Unassailable Truth That May Not Be Questioned? That isn’t science, either.
Because to even question you, David, is considered “sinful”: (another made up word) by almost half of America, though thankfully that number is on the decline.
The days of belief are waning, David. The days when you could bully people around with your non-religion religion are also coming to an end. Clearly, it has made you unreasonable, enough to equate creationism and science.
James Knauer wrote: “Creationism is not science, David. You can huff and puff all you want.Nor is creationism going to be taught in the classroom.”
I’m not huffing and puffing. I know for a fact that creationism includes science, despite your huffing and puffing to the contrary. Scientific theories that include intelligent design components will continue to be taught in the classrooms of private schools because the information is meaningful and useful. Public schools will censor that information, and so they will continue to fail and progress toward inferior education. People will be pulling their children out of public education. It already is happening. The scientists will continue burning books while the private school sector will be looking for ways to broaden the education of its students. Those who cannot afford private schools will opt for home school and virtual school solutions.
James Knauer wrote: “Why not teach kids Bugs Bunny is the Unvarnished Unassailable Truth That May Not Be Questioned? That isn’t science, either.”
Scientific theories of origins with tenets of Intelligent Design are nothing like how you characterize them. They are based upon empirical evidence, like a careful study of the fossil record, the analysis of empirical clocks like radiometric dating or the period of comets, analysis of the measurements of the speed of light, analysis of catastrophic events like Mount St. Helens to understand hydrogeologic sorting and the rate of formation of sedimentary deposits like the Grand Canyon, and the study of polonium halos in granites… to name just a few. Read an article by the following creationist published in Science 184:62 and please explain how this is the same as teaching kids Bugs Bunny.
http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1974-radiohalos.pdf
Dredd:
Ever hear of Ockhams Razor?
davidm2575
Annie wrote: “Religion is religion, it isn’t science.” … One could argue quite easily from history that religion invented science.
=================
Oh, and that one to “argue” would by my davey.
Tony Vieira
Dredd, thanks for your comments. And thanks for the links to your blog. I will read it. I appreciate greatly you taking the time to do the work.
===============
Free means free Tony.
Elaine, hear me and judge me. I don’t believe in evolution – it is the religion of materialism – an actual opiate of the masses – it evokes the cry, God is Dead! What a relief, huh?
And, by the way, for someone who purports to believe in God such a belief (in evolution) would be the most nonsensical and indefensible position – it would be more logical to espouse atheism.
And neither do I think creationism should be taught in “public” schools.
davidm2575
Dredd .. they believed with certainty …
================
That’s my davey … (The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?).
Tony,
No one said he/she thought religious people were stupid and primitive. Many religious people believe in evolution. Some religious people, however, insist that creationism is science–and demand it be taught in science classes in public schools.
Ugh, I give…
Religion is religion, it isn’t science. No one is denying anyone’s right to believe what they want, but it doesn’t mean it gets to be real science and shouldn’t be presented as such.
Annie wrote: “Religion is religion, it isn’t science.”
Most religions do not deny the physical world. Much theology has been built upon the understanding that the Creator is understood by understanding his creation. One could argue quite easily from history that religion invented science.
The phrase, “Creationism isn’t science,” is another one of those lies told often enough that gullible people believe it. Yes, I know, some judges have declared it so, but that does not make it true. Use your own mind. If a system of study is based upon empirical data, and it is open to falsification by empirical data, then it is science. That doesn’t mean it is true. It just means that the method of acquiring knowledge is through the physical senses, empirical observation and empirical measurements. There is a form of creationism that is strictly religious, dependent upon non-empirical sources, but there is another form of creationism that is based upon empiricism.
The truth is that religion is inclusive of science, but the positivist scientists are exclusive of religion.
Elaine, read Hawkings book, The Grand Design, it purports to be about first things. Exactly what Cosmos is about. And it is almost all cosmological philosophy (particularly the initial chapters) and very little hard science – yes, he carries your flag, he talks one way and he walks another.
Going further, understand that there are many more modes of valid information and knowledge gathering than just what’s found in science. By way of example, math, logic, and ethics all are modes of reasoning and none of them are science – in fact, science presupposes them as it must in order to function.
And by the way, the canons of science require that in order for something to be science it must be observable, testable, and repeatable. Have you measured what’s asserted on Cosmos by that criteria. Of course you haven’t. And that ought to be a sign to you that maybe you haven’t seen the issue through unbiased eyes.
Ah, but who cares about all this anyway, right? We all know the religious are stupid, primitive, and biased…and not worthy of hearing, just ask Annie.
Briebart…. Unbiased news you can count on… You know propagandist and there ilk…. Nick aka dagda….the Civility Rule is really cool if you say… Serenity now….