Here’s a 1997 debate with Eugenie Scott and Stephen Meyer about first amendment issues:
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
Makes me sad how the debate doesn’t seem to have changed in the last 13 years. I find it funny how debates with religions always seem to just stick at one point, mostly, I think, because the religious point of view can almost never be changed or moved (or it is changed so slowly it might as well be standing still).
This reminds me of footage comparing debates about interracial marriage and debates about gay marriage. The arguments are so similar it’s really frightening. Seems the bigots and religious right will continue to pull out the same old tired arguments over and over again. I wonder when (if?) it’ll ever actually stop. If there will ever be real progress forward in these types of debates.
I detest the phrase “teach the controversy”. There is no controversy. Creatards want there to be one. But there isn’t. It does not exist. Amusing that they want their creation myth taught as an alternative to science but not, say, the Norse one.
I’m wearing a “Teach the Controversy” t-shirt right now…
Which one?
There is no CONTOVERSY……………….. are you a CREATARD too, or are you wearing the T-shirt as a joke?
There are several joke versions of that shirt. They show things like the Hindu creation story, or Cthulu creating the world, or something like that.
The idea being, if you demand that we ‘teach the controversy’ by teaching your particular creation myth in science class, then we’ll have to teach all of the controversies by teaching all of the myths.
This seemed to be the usual comedy of errors:
1) confusion of Evolution with Big Bang Cosmology.
2) confusion of Evolution with Abiogenesis. And the true but irrelevant assertion that Evolution does not explain Abiogenesis.
3) Persistent claims of existing counter evidence, even though said evidence had already been evaluated and rejected by most biologists.
That Carl Sagan quote was pretty much the definition of “universe” at the time*, not an anti-religious statement. Any supernatural would merely be considered “part of the universe,” because the universe was by definition, as Carl Sagan pointed out, everything.
*Other terms such as “multiverse” and “landscape” are now sometimes used for even broader entities, although one can question whether or not these can be considered “real.”
Why didn’t Eugenie jump all over this yahoo when he called Behe a scientist?!
The ”CONTROVERSY” is whether there is a ‘Ghourd’ or not!!!!! And the other part of the ‘CONTROVERSY’ is whether ‘Bronze age’ ‘bibble’ writers knew more or less science than we do today. EVOLUTION has already been proven by a massive amount of evidence…. I haven’t seen one iota of proof for their mythical ghourd………. I thought we left the ‘Scopes’ trial back in the last century.
When will these people learn? We’re not objecting to religion being taught in schools – we’re objecting to it being taught in *science* classes.
Imagine: “Here’s how this natural process works, here’s the evidence; here’s how that one works, here’s the evidence; here’s how the other works, here’s the eviden– no wait, that last one conflicts with the bible. Scratch that, here’s what really happened. As told in a 2000 year-old, countlessly translated, loose collection of fables. Yeah…”
I’m always amazed at how many (supposedly) scientifically minded people try to have rational arguments with creationists. Any “dialog” should always focus on the fact that they’re Christian fundamentalists trying to impose they’re narrow point of view on everyone. Anything else just validates their ridiculous agenda by elevating it to the status of “debatable theory”.