This debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham has its own wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye% ... Ham_debate

The "no intellectual purpose" crowd are pompous fools whose narrow scientific outlooks illustrate a failure to see the role of myth in formation of meaning. The YEC myth is central to Western Civilization. Deconstructing YEC undermines the entire alienated framework of mythical meaning which enabled Europe to conquer the world. For scientists to imagine that facts alone can win in this values debate is a superficial approach.

Leaders of two humanist groups – the American Humanist Association (AHA) and the Center for Inquiry – praised Nye's decision to participate in the debate.[12] AHA director of development and communications Maggie Ardiente told the Washington Post, "I am looking at statistics and they tell me people like Ken Ham and other creationists are being very effective and that is a serious problem. We can't just ignore that. We have to challenge people like Ken Ham so I support the debate 100 percent."[12] Debbie Goddard, the Center for Inquiry's director of outreach, concurred: "If we don't let [creationists'] ideas see the light of day we can't develop the tools to address them. And we don't just need the tools of facts and evidence, but also of understanding their views and compassion for them if we want to be effective at changing their minds."[12]

Robert Tulip wrote:This debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham has its own wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye% ... Ham_debate

The "no intellectual purpose" crowd are pompous fools whose narrow scientific outlooks illustrate a failure to see the role of myth in formation of meaning. The YEC myth is central to Western Civilization. Deconstructing YEC undermines the entire alienated framework of mythical meaning which enabled Europe to conquer the world. For scientists to imagine that facts alone can win in this values debate is a superficial approach.



Quote:
Leaders of two humanist groups – the American Humanist Association (AHA) and the Center for Inquiry – praised Nye's decision to participate in the debate.[12] AHA director of development and communications Maggie Ardiente told the Washington Post, "I am looking at statistics and they tell me people like Ken Ham and other creationists are being very effective and that is a serious problem. We can't just ignore that. We have to challenge people like Ken Ham so I support the debate 100 percent."[12] Debbie Goddard, the Center for Inquiry's director of outreach, concurred: "If we don't let [creationists'] ideas see the light of day we can't develop the tools to address them. And we don't just need the tools of facts and evidence, but also of understanding their views and compassion for them if we want to be effective at changing their minds."[12]

Hi Robert. There are a couple of issues here. The age of the earth, and whether neo-Darwinian macro-evolution is true or not. And of course there are theistic evolutionists also.

Without reopening the debate I think it's interesting that a highly qualified professor of chemistry like James M Tour can say that no one can explain to him the mechanisms for macro-evolution.

I accept that it's the prevalent majority view but sometimes I get the impression that they are claiming to know a lot more than they actually do.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... evolution/

Robert Tulip wrote:The "no intellectual purpose" crowd are pompous fools whose narrow scientific outlooks illustrate a failure to see the role of myth in formation of meaning. The YEC myth is central to Western Civilization. Deconstructing YEC undermines the entire alienated framework of mythical meaning which enabled Europe to conquer the world. For scientists to imagine that facts alone can win in this values debate is a superficial approach.

I actually agree with Zimmerman that these kinds of debates serve no intellectual purpose. The debates almost always pit creationism against evolution and neither side is ever going to see the validity of the other. The role of myth doesn't get discussed at all, though I agree that it would be a refreshing change of pace.

In fact, I see such debates as only polarizing. These conversations tend to go in circles because, as you have said, religion has social meaning and function independent of the supposed existence of a supernatural entity. But materialists typically ignore this social function of religion; they are entirely focused on the question of God's existence. The two sides only talk past one another.

Recently I came across a great discussion between some science educators, who were reacting to a recent article on The Huffington Post that essentially blames science education for Americans' unwillingness to accept evolution. (The article was eventually taken down). There are cultural differences that have to be addressed before science education can make a difference. In other words, it's complicated. Personally, I have argued that evolution by natural evolution is simply very unintuitive for some people. The most important element is in understanding such cultural and perhaps even biological differences that make us all different and recognizing that diversity in world views is not necessarily a bad thing. More important is not talking down to each other.

Here's an exchange from the blog. if you click the link at the bottom, you can go ahead and read Part 2.

Amanda Glaze: Stephanie, I have to agree with you here on all points. On reading the piece my initial thoughts were “wow, this is a full-out onslaught on science education as a whole.” I find Spadafino’s approach to this very interesting because this approach is precisely what we all (Caitlin, Ian, Chris, Adam, you) specifically recommend against in teaching evolution to others. If you attack someone in an effort to “help” him or her all you are doing is shutting down the conversation from the word “go.” I will acknowledge that Spadafino states that he is not saying that all science teachers are bad per se, but from the title and throughout the post that message is lost and what is being said is, “science education is to blame.”

IB: I agree here with your point about not “attacking” people. I’ve always argued that the moment we are perceived as attacking someone, or something central to his or her identity like a belief system, we’ve lost. The conversation is over at that point.

Chris Lynn: Definitely. This type of hubris and finger wagging shuts down any hope of consilience. And the problem is such a subtle one that a heavy-handed approach is not only not helpful, but arguably harmful. I’m glad the Huffington Post took the post down.

http://ncse.com/blog/2016/05/america-s- ... se-0017041

What does it mean to actually "accept evolution" in the context of social and personal well-being?

How has accepting evolution increased happiness and social cohesion?
Can you give me some examples of a culture's experience of success when they "accepted evolution"?
How was that measured?

Thanks

ant wrote:What does it mean to actually "accept evolution" in the context of social and personal well-being?

How has accepting evolution increased happiness and social cohesion?
Can you give me some examples of a culture's experience of success when they "accepted evolution"?
How was that measured?

Thanks

I've never heard anyone claim that understanding the natural world provides the bonding experience or social function of religion. On the other hand, we all benefit from having an informed citizenry. If some religious beliefs run counter to a scientific understanding of the natural world, that's not really good for society.

I think your question attempts to compare the benefits of religion with the benefits of science. But the two areas address fundamentally different areas of human experience.

geo wrote:I actually agree with Zimmerman that these kinds of debates serve no intellectual purpose.

Zimmerman argued that "Unfortunately, this debate, like so many others before it, regardless of its content, will lead people to think that evolution and creationism have equal standing and that there's something significant to debate."

The trouble with this argument is that 40% of Americans already believe in YEC, and just as many believe theist nonsense that fails to see the beauty and grandeur of natural causality as the mechanism of 'creation'. So the audience for this debate should not be seen as hard core creationist lunatics but as the ignorant general public who we can pray may be open to being swayed by evidence.

Zimmerman just spouts more of the arrogant Dawkins nonsense that there is nothing significant to debate, since there is a major sociological question of why so many people are so deluded by YEC. The debate here is not the hard science of biology but the soft science of theology.

geo wrote: The debates almost always pit creationism against evolution and neither side is ever going to see the validity of the other.

Yes, and that illustrates why the article cited on Dawkins’ website saying that only specialists in evolutionary science are qualified to present the case for science is so spectacularly delusional. Specialists in evolution are precisely not the people who should lead this debate since the debate is about sociology and theology, not hard science.

What is required is experts in theology and sociology who can be informed by evolutionary experts. But putting up some egghead in a political debate of this type will not sway the masses. For Dawkins to imagine that his training in biology qualifies him to lead public debate on the philosophy of science and religion is arrogant on his part. I really like and admire Richard Dawkins, but the questions he discusses around religion require greater familiarity with theology than he displays.

geo wrote: The role of myth doesn't get discussed at all, though I agree that it would be a refreshing change of pace.

Yes, it would be an extremely refreshing change to shift the agenda to how YEC functions in mythic terms. But that involves areas such as Jungian psychology, and Dawkins and co look down their sneering noses at that whole area with disdain. Dawkins’ ignorant dismissal of Jung, a fellow atheist, in his book The God Delusion illustrated that the pomposity of scientism knows few bounds.

geo wrote: In fact, I see such debates as only polarizing.

Indeed, when the scientific argument amounts to telling Joe Public that if only he could get an advanced degree from an Ivy League University then he would not be such an idiot, it is polarizing and useless. What is required is some respect for how religion functions in society, something all too absent in atheist circles.

geo wrote: These conversations tend to go in circles because, as you have said, religion has social meaning and function independent of the supposed existence of a supernatural entity.

Yes, there is a profoundly deep allegory in the story of Jesus Christ as cosmic redeemer, in ways that are 100% compatible with a materialist physical understanding of reality. But it is almost as though the atheists think that admitting the comfort and meaning provided by Jesus would be giving ground to the opposition forces of darkness, so they want to expel all traditional belief and promote the farcical idea that we can establish social values using science alone. I prefer to retain tradition while discussing how it has meaning within a scientific framework.

geo wrote: But materialists typically ignore this social function of religion; they are entirely focused on the question of God's existence. The two sides only talk past one another.

Too true. Now some will say you (let alone me) are letting the side down by criticizing materialists. I am a materialist, but I am really interested in the material nature of apparently spiritual phenomena, a question that evolutionists by and large are not equipped to discuss, hence the weak interest in memetics as a philosophical topic.

How ideas persist through time is a fascinating major complex problem for materialism, resolvable in principle but, like free will, very difficult to explain in a way that links to cultural perceptions. Spirit appears to be independent of matter, as the will appears to be independent of matter. This appearance of spirit is a topic for the philosophical method known as phenomenology, but that is so far out from the scientific ken that as you say, the scientists lack the tools to engage in productive conversation with people who don’t agree with them.

geo wrote: Recently I came across a great discussion between some science educators, who were reacting to a recent article on The Huffington Post that essentially blames science education for Americans' unwillingness to accept evolution. (The article was eventually taken down). There are cultural differences that have to be addressed before science education can make a difference. In other words, it's complicated.

Yes. When Sam Harris argues that atheism is not a worldview he is being incredibly naïve. The problem is that when people have a worldview but are not fully conscious of that fact, they open themselves to perceptions of untrustworthiness.

This is the problem that the culture of science has produced, that they imagine their advocacy of evolution is solely about facts, when in fact the reception of this advocacy is seen primarily in terms of its impact on values, to which many science educators remain oblivious.

geo wrote: Personally, I have argued that evolution by natural evolution is simply very unintuitive for some people.

Like quantum mechanics, relativity, plate tectonics, black holes and the law of supply and demand in markets. Many scientific facts are highly mysterious and counter-intuitive, even the fact that sunrise is an incorrect term.

Dawkins began to address this problem of the psychology of intuition in The Magic of Reality by saying he views the beauty of nature with awe and reverence, terms which are warm buttons for some atheists.

What Darwin called 'a certain grandeur' in the evolutionary framework has to link to the deep neural needs for worship, belonging, meaning and purpose before it can become intuitive for mass culture. That means the cultural debate about creation has to occur on the dread terrain of metaphysics, not simply within the paradigm of physics.

geo wrote:The most important element is in understanding such cultural and perhaps even biological differences that make us all different and recognizing that diversity in world views is not necessarily a bad thing. More important is not talking down to each other.

A theme that I have previously raised in terms of the social traction of YEC is that for Saint Paul, YEC provides the entire framework of Christian meaning, since he believed that Christ came to repair Adam’s sin. If there is no Adam, there is no need for Christ, in that traditional literal understanding of Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

I do not think that theology has properly grappled with this problem of how to see the meaning of Christ’s work within a scientific evolutionary context. So it remains the case for atheists that accepting evolution means denying Christ, and that is a bridge too far for communities who see Christ as the foundation of patriarchal order and social values.

As I have said before, YEC is the outer rampart of the castle of faith, whose citadel is the saving grace of Christ. If that citadel can be explained in scientific terms, especially with the shocking recognition that part of the fallen nature of man involved the fact that Jesus was invented and was not historical, there might be a better debate about the seemingly intractable false beliefs held by creationists.

We all know that there are many issues related to this whole topic.There are worldview perspectives like philosophical naturalism and Theism.

So Richard Dawkins would say the theory provides a naturalistic explanation for life. He admits he has no idea how first life came into being.

Then there is the conflict about the actual science. While many Christians accept the theory others reject it and not just on religious grounds but scientific grounds.

Michael Denton who rejects Neo-Darwinism does so on scientific not religious grounds,for example. He raises many real objections that in my opinion are not answered by the theory.

He has some sort of structuralist laws based theory that would probably actually fit well with Robert's ideas.But Denton knows he doesn't have an adequate discovered naturalistic mechanism any more than Neo-Darwinism does.

We're talking about macro-evolution. Micro is uncontroversial.

Now we are told that it's all sewn up and there should be no controversy on the science, but there you go, some people don't think so.

James Tour has problems with the chemistry side of things and is skeptical because of that. You could say,well that's because he's a Christian.

Francis Collins is a Christian and a scientist and he accepts it,so it's not that simple. It is pointless re-running the debate on the science here,but I think real skeptics should give a hearing to skeptics like Denton, and evaluate their arguments.

Mr. Tulip wrote: Dawkins’ ignorant dismissal of Jung, a fellow atheist, in his book The God Delusion illustrated that the pomposity of scientism knows few bounds.

If Jung was an atheist, he certainly was a very unusual one. When asked if he believed in God, Jung answered "Belief is OK for some people, but I know God exists." Also if you look at the drawings in his Red Book, Jung depicts Philemon (below) and other mystical Spirit Guides that he encountered. That's a strange version of atheism - I don't see how it qualifies as such.

LanDroid wrote:

Mr. Tulip wrote: Dawkins’ ignorant dismissal of Jung, a fellow atheist, in his book The God Delusion illustrated that the pomposity of scientism knows few bounds.

If Jung was an atheist, he certainly was a very unusual one. When asked if he believed in God, Jung answered "Belief is OK for some people, but I know God exists." Also if you look at the drawings in his Red Book, Jung depicts Philemon (below) https://jungcollectedworks.files.wordpr ... k-0111.jpg and other mystical Spirit Guides that he encountered. That's a strange version of atheism - I don't see how it qualifies as such.

Hi Landroid, thanks. You have misquoted Jung. It looks like you are referring to Jung’s most famous televised quote after he was asked if he believed in God. His reply included the famous words “I don’t need to believe, I know” (Jung 1959a, p. 428). See https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... ge-of-god/ which links to the interview and to Jung’s clarification, where he rejects the suggestion that “my view of a god is the universal, metaphysical Being of the confessions or ‘philosophies’.”

This rejection places Jung in the atheist camp, although of course atheism has so many associations that such a statement is highly complex.

http://steve.myers.co/jungs-regret-over ... ve-i-know/ says “his reply caused some furore at the time and, in the decades since, it has been quoted by many – such as Richard Dawkins who cites it as an example of blind faith (Dawkins 2006, p. 51). Jung immediately regretted his answer – because of its controversial, puzzling, or ambiguous nature (Jung 1959b). To understand why, we need to take a look at the context of the interview, and the background of Jung’s attitude towards God.”

You have paraphrased Jung’s statement and added the point about the existence of God, which was not in Jung’s actual statement and significantly narrows and changes its meaning. Precision on such a point is valuable, given that Jung’s top philosophical influences included Kant, known as “the all destroyer” for his critique of proofs of the existence of God, Schopenhauer, among the most renowned atheists of all time, and Freud, likewise a renowned and even notorious atheist.

Jung’s atheism is of the mystical pantheist Gnostic variety, which respects discussion of divinity but, like in the dual aspect theory of Spinoza, sees divinity as purely natural, as manifest in the order of the universe. So, as to the assumption that existence is a necessary attribute of God, together with being personal, intentional, an entity, etc, it appears that Jung’s theory of God was none of these, but was an allegorical psychological symbol.

His position as the genius and founder of modern depth psychology meant that for Jung, divinity was an inward symbolic journey into the unifying archetypes of existence, focused on psychological goals of the individuation of the personality in conscience. Jung was primarily a scientist and doctor, despite some of his pseudoscientific mystical writings, and his Gnostic views on God were compatible with the basic atheist view that God does not exist.