Fucking magnets, how do they work?And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed
Solar eclipse, and vicious weather
Fifteen thousand Juggalos together
From the Insane Clown Posse classic, Miracles. I'm pretty sure that the ICP boys were indulging in some level of ironic sarcasm here, but the sorry ass reality is that majority of the idiots they pander to just don't or never will get it. If you have any questions as to how magnets work, just google it, this link should answer all of your questions...It's not like I don't believe in "miracles". It's how you define a miracle. I think I witnessed evidence of a miracle, or at least I read about it and watched the video in Wednesday's February 5, 2014 issue of The Guardian Observer in their report on Bill Nye, the Science Guy debating Australian Creationist, Ken Ham. So I was thinking about this earlier, and it seems to me that, in the question of whether or not creationism is a viable scientific field of study, despite Bill Nye's very good, factual answers, it was Ken Ham the creationist who delivered the miracle, a decisive blow in the debate. Alas, for young earth creationists, it was against Ken Ham.
When asked what would change their minds, Ken Ham's response was, in effect, "nothing". "Well, I'm a Christian," he explained. And that was indeed explanation enough: evidence does not and cannot trump belief. By contrast, Nye responded with "evidence".
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference, the only answer you will ever need to "is creationism science?" Scientists reshape ideas to fit evidence, not the other way around. Nye responded as a scientist. Ham responded as a zealot. Ham has every right to be as zealous and as closed-minded as he likes. But that is not science. It is a direct rejection of science and rational thinking.
So I would say that Ken Ham, even more than Bill Nye, delivered the decisive answer in this debate: no, creationism is not science. It is a belief system based on a literal reading of select parts of a scientifically inaccurate book. Nothing less and certainly nothing more. The fact that it was stated so cleanly by Ham was the real miracle!
When asked what would change their minds, Ken Ham's response was, in effect, "nothing". "Well, I'm a Christian," he explained. And that was indeed explanation enough: evidence does not and cannot trump belief. By contrast, Nye responded with "evidence".
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference, the only answer you will ever need to "is creationism science?" Scientists reshape ideas to fit evidence, not the other way around. Nye responded as a scientist. Ham responded as a zealot. Ham has every right to be as zealous and as closed-minded as he likes. But that is not science. It is a direct rejection of science and rational thinking.
So I would say that Ken Ham, even more than Bill Nye, delivered the decisive answer in this debate: no, creationism is not science. It is a belief system based on a literal reading of select parts of a scientifically inaccurate book. Nothing less and certainly nothing more. The fact that it was stated so cleanly by Ham was the real miracle!
No comments:
Post a Comment