Creationists Attack Neil deGrasse Tyson for Blind Faith in Science

cosmos-milky-way-poolAs you can imagine, the forces of the so-called Religious Right are really not happy with the new Fox series, Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey, which premiered Sunday night. The series is, of course, a reboot of the 1980 series, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, which was hosted by astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagan. This time around the series is hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Of course, when Sagan produced the original series, scientists could actually talk about science without being metaphorically burned at the stake. That is no longer true, and you might have heard how one local Fox station, KOKH-TV in Oklahoma City, managed to edit out the only mention of “evolution” in the series’ first episode.

Meanwhile, deGrasse finds himself attacked for an oxymoronic “blind faith” in science. Because, apparently, blind faith in the comprehension of the Cosmos of Late Bronze and Early Iron Age humans is so much more advanced, and trustworthy, than ours. If you see something bizarrely hypocritical about creationists attacking somebody for having “blind faith,” you’re not alone.

Apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis reviewed the new series, and found it lacking, finding fault with Carl Sagan’s words (heard at the beginning of the above trailer), that, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” The producers, we are warned, “have hoisted a most unscientific flag above this ‘ship of the imagination.'”

Answers in Genesis is a huge backer of what is called “young Earth creationism” and their pet astronomer, Dr. Danny Faulkner, who, for a change, actually has some scientific credentials: a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. and PhD (Astronomy, Indiana University), had this to say about the Sagan’s words:

There is not a bit of science in that statement. When Sagan said it 34 years ago and then wrote it in his book, a lot of people were saying, “Wow! What a profound scientific statement,” but it’s actually a philosophical statement. It is denial of the supernatural, saying the only thing that exists is the physical world, the natural world. But to say that with any certainty Sagan had to get outside the physical universe and see that the physical universe is all that there is. And he would have had to do that in eternity past and in eternity future in order to say that. If he could really see that, then he would be god. It’s a very bold, metaphysical statement. It’s an assertion. But it’s not science. It’s not a scientific statement.

Don’t you just wish Carl Sagan were here to respond to that statement? If you’re like me, you get chills just thinking about it. But in fact, in his final book, 1996’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, he anticipated it. There, Sagan wrote that “Religions are often the state-protected nurseries of pseudoscience,” and that pseudoscience itself “is easier to contrive than science, because distracting confrontations with reality – where we cannot control the outcome of the comparison – are more readily avoided. The standards of argument, what passes for evidence, are much more relaxed.” Also, he points out that “Pseudoscience speaks to powerful emotional need that science often leaves unfulfilled” and warns that at its heart “is the idea that wishing makes it so.”

Wishing definitely plays a role in Faulkner’s thinking. You have to wonder when, precisely, science took the supernatural into its embrace. The absurdity of the claim makes a mockery of Faulkner’s scientific credentials, because even the word “supernatural” (which is a medieval word, by the way: supernātūrālis: supra “above” + naturalis “nature”) is defined (by my Oxford American Dictionary) as “referring or relating to events, forces, or powers that cannot be explained by science or the laws of nature.”

Science, then, by its very nature, cannot include the supernatural. Notice how Faulkner tries to denigrate Sagan’s words as “philosophical” while his own embrace of the supernatural is somehow scientific. Science becomes no more than a “bold metaphysical assertion” while religion-based pseudoscience becomes – you guessed it – science.

Answers in Genesis complains,

In short, the opening of Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey spends an hour (less with commercials) summarizing the naturalistic evolutionary view of the origin of life and all things, tricks out the story with colorful computer-generated graphics and photography, and dismisses any religious-based objections by echoing Bruno’s 16th century challenge that our view of God must simply be too small, thus inviting the theistic evolutionary view to become comfortable in the notion that God used a toolkit of star stuff to create us. (Read more about the problems with compromising the plain teachings of God’s Word with the fallible and unverifiable claims of evolution and billions of years in “10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution,” “Feedback: Theistic Evolution,” “Jesus, Scripture and Error: An Implication of Theistic Evolution,” and “Theistic Evolution: An Incoherent and Inconsistent Worldview?”)

Wait just a second: Evolution is unverifiable and the claims made by unknown authors (there is more than one creation story in Genesis) based on Bronze Age religious belief IS verifiable?

We are told that,

The scientific method has led to the discoveries and technological leaps that shape our lives and our understanding of the universe. Unfortunately, when it comes to the topic of unobservable origins, mainstream scientists who believe big bang cosmology and molecules-to-man evolution think that the god-free framework they have invented is a factual reality that accurately and reliably describes a past they can never examine. They test their ideas about the past within their own concept of what the past was like, and they believe they are actually using the scientific method to make observations about the past.

Coming from a religious group that apparently knows less about science and the supernatural than did people in the 16th century, when the word “supernatural” was first used, this is a laughable statement. Answers in Genesis complains that abiogenesis “violates the fundamental laws of biology” but the book of Genesis does not. “Evolutionary blind faith in a ‘great mystery’ – such as that invoked by Bill Nye in the recent Nye-Ham Debate—trumps the scientific method.”

Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey, if the first segment is any indication, will attempt to package unconditional blind faith in evolution as scientific literacy in an effort to create interest in science. We hope that future segments will spend more time showing actual scientific observations—such as the brief part of this episode showing where earth is in relation to the rest of the universe. In fact that segment of the program is reminiscent of the theme of the Creation Museum Planetarium production, Created Cosmos. In Created Cosmos we see how we as people of earth stand in relation to the immensity of God’s Creation. So seeing the enormity of what God in His power created, we get a better perspective on God’s great love for us. God made all that we have just seen, told us how and when He did it in His Word, chose to continue loving rebellious human beings, and sent Jesus Christ, the Son of God, into the this world to suffer and die to bear the sin-guilt of us all (Hebrews 2:9-10). Why should such a great God, who can create the universe and the atom and all life, care about us?

We maintain that God our Creator was the only eyewitness to the time of origins and that He has given us the truth about how He created everything in His Word. He is the one that created the natural laws that govern the physical world and make science possible. Drawing correct conclusions about the unobservable past requires evaluating ideas about the past within the framework of the Creator’s history. Drawing correct conclusions about our own nature, how we should live our lives, and what will happen to each of us when we die also requires that we get our information from the Word of the Source of life, the One who created the cosmos.

That’s fine. But that’s not science. That’s religion. That’s not fact, it’s belief. And in fact, in he Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan had something to say about that, as well:

I meet many people offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence. Evidence has little to do with it: What they wish to be true, they believe is true.

There is a difference, after all, between belief and fact, between wishes and truth, between pseudoscience and science. And insisting on adherence to a Bronze Age level of belief about the cosmos and its origins, makes no sense at all in the face of 21st century science. And insisting, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that the Bible is somehow science and that science is not, is about as sad and sorry an example of wishful thinking as you can imagine.

64 Replies to “Creationists Attack Neil deGrasse Tyson for Blind Faith in Science”

  1. And yet the comment “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be,” is still NOT a scientific statement. No scientist can use science to back up such a statement. That statement would most certainly have to be qualified, which it wasn’t.

  2. It seems a lot of this is relevant to how you define the word “God.” There is the God of the Bible, but why can’t God also be defined as the laws of nature as discovered and verified by scientific observation and experimentation? Why can’t “eternal life” be described as the breaking down of quantum particles from the form they were in, i.e., human, into smaller parts to be recycled again by Nature? These are just some thoughts I’ve had about this entire subject.

  3. Life must be so easy when you can simply make up your own reality any time the real world doesn’t match up with your own preconceived notion of how the word “should” be.

    Personally, I’ve never understood the Right Wing’s war against evolution. The theory of evolution does not in any way contradict the Bible. The Bible says “God created man”, but it doesn’t say HOW He did it. The fact that we now know the process of creating the human race took millions of years and was incredibly complex is, to me, CONFIRMATION of the existence of a higher intelligence (which most would call “God”), not a contradiction. Simple minds might be satisfied with “he just snapped his fingers and it happened”, but an appreciation of the complexities of the evolutionary process is, to me, an appreciation of God’s magnificence.

  4. And understanding that is what got Bruno burned at the stake. They love burning at the stake, even, as I say here, when it is a metaphorical burning.

  5. Um, Don, the very DEFINITION of “the Cosmos” is “all that is, or ever was, or ever will be”. In Biblical terms, “the Cosmos” means “the heavens and the earth”. Genesis 1:1 could easily be translated to say “In the beginning God created the Cosmos.”

    Why is it so difficult for conservatives to understand the difference between a discussion of HOW God did all that He did with a claim that “God didn’t do it”, which neither Dr. Tyson nor any other educated person claims.

  6. Same with Galileo and many others of the era who slowly uncovered the details of God’s handiwork. Galileo never claimed that God didn’t create the Earth, the Sun, and everything else out there. He simply observed some of the details.

    Ludwig Mies van der Rohe said “God is in the Detail”. He was right.

  7. I agree. As I’ve said, the Bible says “God created the heavens and the Earth”, but it doesn’t say HOW He did it. To me, a millions of years long process of incredible complexity is BETTER evidence of the existence of God than a simple “snap your fingers and there’s Adam” approach.

  8. The problem with the religious right is they are attacking science, philosophy, our basic school systems, our political system all at once.

    They really do want to dismantle our civilization and replace it with a 21st century version of the dark ages, where only a narrow group has the copy hold on ideas and everybody gets spoonfed or else.

    They are not just a stupid bunch. They are a dangerously stupid bunch. It they get their way and we all know just the biblical version of the world, we will lose our competitiveness on the world stage, be the laughingstock of the world “look at those stupid hicks” and be unable to move beyond their little theo-centric world.

  9. That’s why the right wing wants to defund education especially in the “bible belt” so the minds of youths are protected from scientific facts. Science and religion can agree but you have to want to be educated to accomplish it. God is in the details. As long as the christian leaders control free thinking you will breed this contempt for science. They are afraid to lose control of their flock (money). The Bible is the perfect forum to provide random disconnected confusion of ideas unrelated to science.

  10. With this level of scientific literacy, it’s no wonder the United States is fast becoming the laughingstock of the world.

  11. It is ridiculous to expect Science to modify or clarify positions to align with what religion needs to feel good about reality… Science doesn’t and shouldn’t care whether religion has a foothold to keep god in the equation…that burden rests solely on religion. You need to modify cosmology so that the bible still seems relevant or use a god of the gaps argument even when you leave the bible out? Tough…that’s your problem. Science will continue on and you can catch up later…but don’t expect science to slow down or come up with a decoder ring for the facts so collection plates stay full…

  12. Uhm…Starrgazer science HAS disproven and destroyed this fantasy called God, any thinking person worth their sodium chloride knows this to be true. There is NO debate Evolution is a Fact and Creation IS a theory. Man created God to be better than our own image and he failed because this “infallible” and “perfect” being has ALL the same weaknesses and foibles that we have, any thinking person would realize this. However Thinking is not within the capacity and prevue of any believer out there. We Atheists have a “knowledge” system and believers have a “belief” system. We have knowledge they have a hand full of air as well as a cranium full of air.

  13. Faith is a thought and a thought is nothing more than an electrical charge in the brain with no atomic mass, therefore faith is NOTHING!! Nothing but a thought and that is all it has been or will ever be. Faith is for fools, those who believe are the easiest to deceive and the bible thumpers prove that every day.

  14. Today’s US citizens who have objections to science is mostly based on political propaganda. It started about 30 or so years ago, under Reagan, and was greatly influenced by Jerry Falwell’s fake religious org. Bronze Age and Iron Age mythology is not and will never be science. Ever. No amount of squealing, ranting or terabytes of apologetics will ever change that fact. Religion belongs to pre-science cultures and tribal people only. It has no business attempting to assert itself on a species that has ALREADY sent probes beyond the edge of our solar system. The continued insistence that people who had no electricity and who never relied on testing or evidence were smarter than us is absurd. Those who claim that a supernatural invented deity that refuses to show itself to anyone is ‘real’ and that said deity gave the sum total of all knowledge to tribal Jews thousands of years ago, and that no other knowledge is necessary, are delusional and are part of that propaganda machine.

  15. I am areligious. I don’t care!
    As such, I like the cosmology bent. Others seem to prefer cosmetology; paaint it the way they like it to be.
    This is most evident in the plethora of the different faces of cosmotology, of if you prefer, religion.

  16. If you believe in evolution, you accept that you are not the ‘pinnacle of creation.’ The universe does not revolve around you, your perceptions or beliefs. The universe is indifferent.

    Monotheistic religions deny that we are prototypes for future humans. They hate that. They hate that we aren’t ‘special’ and above the laws of physics and biology. They can not accept that we are all beta versions.

    I sometimes wonder if autism is an evolutionary attempt to adjust to high speed information input. Just a thought. We may be the evolutionary Muggles.

  17. The definition of Cosmos, all that is etc, etc,
    doesn’t bother me as much as:

    “how one local Fox station, KOKH-TV in Oklahoma City, managed to edit out the only mention of “evolution” in the series’ first episode.”

    THAT, to me, is most shocking!
    This is AMERICA!
    Not Cuba, North Korea, Libya, or Syria!!!
    We have the right to be presented with ALL
    ideas and then to make up our OWN minds as
    to what we do or do not believe!
    The fact that this FOX station edited the
    content in ANY way is troubling and sets a
    dangerous precedent.
    We ALL should be very concerned.


  18. There was an interesting article in Psychology Today awhile back on the correlation of religion and intelligence. A study found that liberals had a 6 point advantage in IQ over conservatives, and extremely left liberals held a 12 point advantage over far right conservatives. It isnt that religion makes you stupid, it more than less intelligent people tend to be religious. I think that point is proven when you listen to the far rights opinions on anything. I personally view organized religion as a mass cult much like Jim Jones or Charles Manson. You hear the Falwells and Van Imps every where repeatedly telling their followers the sky is falling and the Book of Revelation is here, and by the way give me some money. Those followers believe it. Imagine living your entire life being judgmental, pious and self righteous all to find out that when your dead, your just dead. As science progresses religion is sure to disappear. They see it but cant accept it.

  19. These people hang onto bits and pieces of the bible, but do not live their lives in accordance to that bible. It really makes me wonder what they study at church, since they don’t know what it says. These same people don’t believe in science, but believe in the bigfoot.

  20. Starr, read Genesis 2:7 it tells how God created man. Read Genesis 2:21,22 tells how God created a woman, because she was taken out of a man.

  21. My 1st reply was meant to response here. Starr, read Genesis 2:7 it tells how God created man. Read Genesis 2:21,22 tells how God created a woman, because she was taken out of a man.

  22. Sorry Starr for the confusion. My reply is meant for your response to “The Bible says “God created man”, but it doesn’t say HOW He did it.”

  23. The problem is most creationists believe you can only have a mechanistic view of evolution, and not a teleological one. Self-organization is just as important to understand as evolution. The universe is not winding down, the very existence of dark energy and dark matter show the universe is expanding.

  24. The problem is that consciousness can not be explained by a strong emergence, this is why other animals are viewed as “broken machines”. Materialism itself is based on faith too. Evolution however, does show that if God existed, it can’t be a all-knowing God (why would God be complex, only to simplify and then complexify itself again) but that doesn’t mean that nature and the universe are not teleological. There are things we simply can’t understand, but science is showing how life was inevitable, there’s nothing accidental about it.

  25. That’s the great thing about faith-based proclamations.  No verifiable facts or empirical evidence are required.

    “God works in mysterious ways” is a religious rationalization for what these folks really mean:  “Causal relationships are a complete mystery to me. Furthermore, I have no freaking clue about how natural phenomena happen, nor how the process of scientific observation, experimentation, analysis, deduction, and discovery further our understanding of the universe”.

    Religion was originally developed to answer many of the questions about the natural world that science and common knowledge could not, as well as to bring a sense of order by controlling the behavior of the populace.  Furthermore, early religious leaders sought to provide their followers with a strong feeling of community, moral righteousness, political empowerment, and spiritual purpose. The Old and New Testaments and the Koran were all reverse-engineered to help these evolving religions attain these go…

  26. As mankind’s scientific knowledge grew, some religious folks felt uneasy and insecure, fearing that God was being displaced by science, and so they attempted to undermine and discredit both the science and the scientist.  This self-serving practice by religious extremists continues to this day.

    What they don’t understand is that science is not merely a body of knowledge accumulated over the centuries, it is also the process through which this knowledge is attained. And so simply declaring that something is true because it says so in the Bible (or any other literary source) cannot be construed as science if that “fact” or “idea” was not the result of a valid, structured, self-critical scientific process.

    The realm of science — with its evidence-based testable theories, evolving species, relativistic measurements, and quantum phenomena — undermines the “absolutism” that is embraced by those whose view of the universe must conform to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

  27. Mainline Protestants, Jews, and many others are deeply interested in the revelations gleaned from quantum physics about how complex the physical universe is. We see nothing at odds with spirituality. Pew recently showed that white Protestants accept evolution at a rate slightly higher than the general population that includes NON believers. The idea of “god’ is not simplistic at all – no cranky Santa with a list or a mechanism that propels your choice of breakfast food – but a sense of universal connection with all others. That may be explained someday by ‘spooky action at a distance’ that shows how all existence appears interconnected. That is both an experience of awe and material fact. So for the limited Genesis people to deny this is to cut themselves off from insights into the living nature of existence rather than the dead hand of tribalism. Seems they rushed to judgment against their own values! But trashing science is itself their religion today. Too bad.

  28. Your understanding of religion is pretty shallow. That vision of religion is very limited to Old Testamentarians but is not what’s going on in mainline Protestantism, Judaism, Islam and many other faiths that embrace science as a way of continuing the search for meaning and truth. Hardly anyone within the thoughtful parts of any faith believes what you claim. Those who do are mired in fear and narrow thinking, but it is no longer the norm. Catch up- people of faith believe in science. They are NOT afraid of it at all.

  29. Was watching Though the wormhole the other night and there is another interesting theory on the birth of the universe
    Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe’s Birth

    Our universe may have started not with a big bang but with a big bounce—an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effects

    “Big Bang or the Big Bounce?” –New Science Points to a Continuum

  30. (1) Its a well known “fact” that creationist teaching preachers are “scam-artists”, just like Moses and his crew were in the past. In my opinion. (2) Its a “fact” they (the creationists) want to control, fleece and lead their people (“flocks”) to slaughter (wars) for their own personal benefits. Can anyone actually prove that these two “factual” statements are false? I suppose that we could just go ask “GOD” and Moses to confirm or deny these two “factual” statements that were made (if we could just get a hold of them). Anyone got their numbers? ANYONE, PLEASE…

  31. Seventy percent of Americans haven’t the capacity or willingness to understand science so they should just STFU, go back into their tiny little pews and rot.

  32. Kettle, meet pot — wow, those people are SO hopelessly deluded that it is sad.
    If they insist on having a faith in a ‘higher power’ that’s fine, but that need not EXCLUDE all the knowledge we have gained. Anyone I know who is religious is totally accepting of science, evolution, fact… because they don’t consider the Old Testament to be “verified history”. They accept its (obvious) flaws.

  33. The fundamentalists of any religion may conjure up whatever they want. But there is no place in the USA for a fundamentalist theocracy. That is Constitutional. However, the denial of evidence-based science is pure, unadulterated ignorance………

    However, IMHO, it is possible to infuse the belief of God and/or spirituality into the awareness of the science of the Cosmos, if one desires & believes. I know wonderful people who do. And there are those, like myself, who have a profound reverence for the Cosmos & universe, without infusing God into the mix. Whatever works………

  34. I agree. The need for the fundies to keep the universe out of bounds simply means sooner or later their followers wake up and understand there are thing thats go past uranus that are bigger then this little solar system. Try and explain the milky way

  35. LOL nice try. Genesis 2:7 is metaphorical. It says God “formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”. And in fact, the phrase “formed a man from the dust of the ground” is in fact a description of EVOLUTION. “The dust of the ground” is the Earth, which we know was lifeless for billions of years after it was formed. Then, life arose in that “dust” where life had not existed before. From one cell to us, which is what evolution describes, took a further billion years or so.

    The “miracle” that God performed took place at that moment a billion years ago when lifelessness became life-bearing. Science has no explanation of how exactly that happened; it only confirms that it DID happen. As for how, I choose to believe that it was God.

  36. It’s simple economy as to why we have only one “God”. First the cavemen needed ways to explain nature so he invented spirits which turned into “Gods” of this and “Gods” of that. Then along come Zoraster who looked about and realized that we would run out of stone to build temples to the myriad “Gods” And then invented the one “God” at once simplifying everything and starting a new battle as to who “God” favors best. It’s just a mess and it will never bring what this world needs.

  37. I understand your point. However, even the phrase “formed a man from the dust of the ground” doesn’t describe the process. If you or I take some dust and build a person-shaped form out of it, I doubt it’s going to sit up and say hi. But when God did it, it did.

    My basic point is that I don’t understand why some find it difficult to reconcile evolution, a detailed scientific description of a process that began because of something that no one can define, with Biblical teachings, which pointedly don’t go into minuscule detail but rather generalizes by saying “God did this”. To me, understanding the intricacies of evolution brings one closer to an understanding of God.

    This is, of course, merely my opinion. You are free to disagree.

  38. Faith and science are not incompatible. There is no way for any of us to PROVE that God does exist or that God doesn’t exist. That is a matter of faith. I, for one, believe He does exist, but I have never claimed to be able to prove it nor have I ever tried. Same for those who deny His existence. You cannot PROVE that God doesn’t exist; you simply choose to believe what you do just as I choose to believe what I do.

    Your statement that science has “disproved” the existence of God is utter nonsense. You say “thinking is not within the capacity and prevue of any believer out there.” (that’s “purview” by the way) Tell that to Albert Einstein, who said (as I am trying to say) “The more I study science the more I believe in God.” When one looks at something as incredibly complex as the evolutionary process, what makes more sense – that something so complicated arose at random, or that some intelligence designed it? I choose the latter.

  39. “Since the topic is science, the non scientists don’t get a vote. We shouldn’t decide everything by polling the masses. This is the fallacy called Argumentum Ad Numerum, the idea that something is true because great number believe it, as in EAT SHIT, twenty trillions flies can’t be wrong!” ― Bill Maher“Since the topic is science, the non scientists don’t get a vote. We shouldn’t decide everything by polling the masses. This is the fallacy called Argumentum Ad Numerum, the idea that something is true because great number believe it, as in EAT SHIT, twenty trillions flies can’t be wrong!” ― Bill Maher

  40. DJ, Through the Wormhole is another very good show. Somehow, I missed the eppy you are discussing. Did you see the one “What is Nothing?” That was another mindblowing one.

  41. I miss that one but when I catch them it is must see TV for the kids and myself. Its the only show we sit down and watch together even though my autistic son can only watch for so long, then he runs back to his computer.

  42. The creation stories in the Bible are myths — stories that tell greater stories. They are NOT facts but were taken from Macedonian myths and written during the Babylonian Exile. The Bible is NOT a scientific book, or a book of history (although there could be some history). The Bible is a book of faith written by men, yes men, as they try to understand and then explain their faith in a Supreme Being. It is NOT a book dictated by God. Remember, there are contradictions in the book.

    BTW, Carl Sagan was a great scientist whose respect for the universe was awesome.

  43. StarrGazerr.Yeah Right!..Utter nonsense is believing in an utter fantasy as you and many others do and continue to make excuses for. Science has destroyed God and the entire fantasy that revolves around this fabrication of ancient man. We are NOT ancient man StarrGazerr!!! We are far beyond that! It’s time for you to join this century.And Churchlady, You are entirely WRONG about my knowledge of religion and religious texts, I have read them all and find them all to be just a fabrication just as God is a fabrication, to destroy your enemy you must first understand your enemy! Religion and religious faith ARE enemies of mankind! No IF’s ands or But’s. Wake up!!

  44. I am a very huge fan of Dr. Neil de’Grasse Tyson. He is what science is all about, there are others out there, just like him.

    As far as the bibble thumpers go…..really starting to angry with them. They are like those bugs, you see crawling around heaps of garbage. Sick, to say the least.

  45. You’re talking about a religious belief known as pantheism. I think that many scientists that want to believe in spirituality and God actually believe in some form of personal pantheism.

  46. If there were no books in the world and we had to figure out eveything again do you think the bible would have been made? no cause it does not define the laws governing the natural world. no mater what all religion is hold our society back with false information, the world is one 7,000 years old, come on…

  47. not to mention the amount of time the bible has changed. If they wanted to follow the bible wouldn’t they not use revised ones and use the bibles from when they were first produced?

  48. you shouldn’t have to translate anything if its real… there should be no interpretation of what something means if you want it to be real. and interpretation means its what you think it is and not actual fact. How are people so naive to see what is right in front of them

  49. and your going to follow a made up book for the rest of your life and ignore what the real world is made up of cause you are too lazy to find out your self.

  50. It is possible to reconcile faith and science, provided you take a metaphorical view of scripture (I’m saying this as someone who is ignostic, not as someone who believes in the supernatural).

    Science cannot explicitly disprove god (since you cannot definitively prove a negative, and as stated, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural anyway), however parsimony dictates that science shouldn’t assume the existence of god(s) either, since that would in turn complicate the issue unnecessarily.

  51. Okay Don. So if you’re capable of making that assertion then you are capable of mentally doing the edit yourself. Language is a clumsy tool and all speakers must make trade-offs between conciseness and verbosity. You’re making a pedantic semantic argument because you don’t want to take a more careful look at the larger body of work.

    BTW, in science, time is an artifact of the existence of the universe so ‘all there ever was or will be’ is correct because that is talking about time. Also, the definition of cosmos is ‘the universe seen as an ordered whole’. The definition is probably what is broken. There are hypothetical models for multiverses and pre/post universes within science.

    Moreover, God is a silly concept. If the cosmos were so complex only a consciousness could create it then that consciousness is also so complex it could only have been created by another and somewhere spontaneous creation still had to occur. You are playing a shell game.

  52. I’m not religious, but I can respect the idea that science is the vocabulary we use to describe God’s creation. The problem is that people like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort and that Hovind guy etc. etc. don’t accept this. Their fight is a literal bible(seven days is seven days! Doesn’t say evolved, so – -Didn’t happen!)and because they believe it was written by god himself, is infallible and trumps anything conceived by man, end of discussion.

    But if there is a God, that being is clearly a scientist who designed an ordered, consistent, logical universe and designed us with minds capable of unraveling it’s secrets. Seems heretical to elevate an old book above that clear and obvious truth.

    Ham surely must realize how disingenuous he’s being when he points to the fossil record as “proof” of Noah’s flood, while ignoring the fact that every single thing it tells us refutes the idea of a global flood.

    But you know how conservatives are about the ends always justifying the means….

  53. EXACTLY. The sick thing about Ken Ham is that he clearly recognizes this. When you listen to his tactics, what you hear is that he knows he is incapable of having a “debate” unless he first redefines and reduces science to a random collection of ideas some people have chosen to believe in.

    Once he thinks he’s established that (yeah, right, try harder ken) it’s a simple matter (in his mind, anyway) of superimposing the idea that if Christianity is a belief and science is a belief, then they are totally equal and nobody can say either is right because they weren’t there when it happened.

    Which might sound almost reasonable to anyone with no idea whatsoever about how science works. -And has a vested interest in religion.

    At any rate, it must be a sad, sick feeling to realize that the best case outcome you could possibly get is a stalemate. it must be an even sicker, sadder feeling to see all that evidence that simply cannot be reconciled with a literal perfect Bible.

  54. This is probably the first time I’ve ever read anything on PoliticusUSA that I didn’t agree with. The fact is, is that Carl Sagan’s statement, “The Cosmos is all there is”, “was”, and “ever will be” actually ISN’T a Scientific statement. That’s just a fact based on what science is. Science can’t make positive or negative evaluations on the existence of God or the supernatural. Creationists get a LOT of things wrong, but this Creationist in particular when referring to Sagan’s comment was right this time. With that being said I want to say that I absolutely love this website. You guys speak so much truth about how corrupt the GOP has become and what this country truly needs! Keep it up!

  55. @IEMChamp, anyone can contest a statement. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t true/real/etc. He is offering clarification and not translation. You seem to be operating under a handful of logical fallacies. You might want to brush up on those!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.