Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Science & the White House

with 20 comments

The leading science journal Nature has posed several science questions to the American presidential candidates. Senator Obama answered in writing; senator McCain did not reply.

This question is of extreme importance…

Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny.

(McCain said last year, in a Republican primary debate: “I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.” In 2005, he told the Arizona Daily Star that he thought “all points of view” should be available to students studying the origins of humanity. But the next year a Colorado paper reported him saying that such viewpoints should not be taught in science class.)

Obama’s answer – and McCain’s silence – speak to a most imporant attribute: Respect for evidence. The White House should not be occupied by someone who disrespects evidence.

Written by Nathan Bond

September 30, 2008 at 15:53

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Johannes , natuurlik sal julle foking dom dose saamstem dat daar nie foute in die Bybel is nie .

    God be seen?

    EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
    God CAN be seen:
    “And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts.” (EXO 33:23)
    “And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.” (EXO 33:11)
    “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (GEN 32:30)

    God CANNOT be seen:

    “No man hath seen God at any time.” (JOH 1:18)
    “And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.” (EXO 33:20)
    “Whom no man hath seen nor can see.” (1TIM 6:16)

    CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
    “I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy.” (JER 13:14) “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”

    “The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” (JAS 5:11)
    “For his mercy endureth forever.” (1CH 16:34)
    “The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.” (PSA 145:9)
    “God is love.” (1JO 4:16)

    Johannes , jy is ‘n foking dom poes.

    DW

    October 24, 2009 at 10:20

  2. Hans dis ten minste een ding waaroor ons saamstem…!

    johannes coetzee

    October 22, 2009 at 09:23

  3. Paraphrase: “You are wrong because I’m right. It’s true because I say it’s true. I can’t present any actual evidence but I can show you an old book. You have to believe it first before you can see it.

    Con-Tester

    October 22, 2009 at 08:56

  4. Con-Tester, 2 Cor. 3:6 Who also hath made us able, ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. You have not got the spirit, no wonder you only find hollowness.

    Hans Matthysen

    October 21, 2009 at 21:54

  5. Rick, there are no contradictions in the Bible.

    Hans Matthysen

    October 21, 2009 at 21:44

  6. Hans Matthysen wrote 5 (5 Feb 09 at 9:48 pm):

    I think it bothers you, that others have a better understanding thereof.

    You think wrong. It bothers me that your so-called holy book is still being punted as humanity’s be all and end all – almost as much as it bothers me that its ultimate hollowness is so readily lapped up as deep profundity by uncritical dupes.

    Con-Tester

    February 6, 2009 at 08:36

  7. Hans

    What bothers me is that people claim to understand the Bible despite all the contradictions, falacies and unproven claims. The Bible isn’t such a bad book, but to base your life on it? Ag nee, wat!

    In the words of the British comedian, Catherine Tait, “I ain’t boferred!”

    rick

    Rick

    February 6, 2009 at 06:20

  8. Con-tester, I get the messages out of the Bible and you don’t. I find value in the Bible and you don’t, so that’s rather the problem. You studied the bible and rejected the interpretation thereof, that you studied. I think it bothers you, that others have a better understanding thereof.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 5, 2009 at 21:48

  9. Hans Matthysen wrote (8 Nov 08 at 11:09 pm):

    Con-tester, I look upon Gen. 1 and 2, as a creation within myself, in regard to Godlyness and my awareness of God. In the beginning, my mind was void and without form, in this regard and darkness was on the face of the deep (I had no understanding thereof). I needed to see the light.

    Yes, that’s exactly the problem: You “look upon [it] as…” without realising the essential bankruptcy of what you’re saying. On the one hand, you want your god and his book to stand for eternal and universal truths applicable at all times to all and everything, while on the other, you want the liberty to interpret scripture according to your own like and dislikes. Doesn’t the essential hypocrisy of that position bother you, never mind its potential for rendering all sorts of atrocities acceptable?

    Con-Tester

    November 9, 2008 at 12:38

  10. Con-tester, I look upon Gen. 1 and 2, as a creation within myself, in regard to Godlyness and my awareness of God. In the beginning, my mind was void and without form, in this regard and darkness was on the face of the deep (I had no understanding thereof). I needed to see the light.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 8, 2008 at 23:09

  11. Hans Matthysen wrote (7 Nov 08 at 8:45 pm):

    [If theologians] think Gen. 1 and 2 is against what scientists theories are, of how the uneverse came about, then [I know what the real message is, unlike all those misguided theologians].

    Most theologians these days acknowledge the bankruptcy of arguing for a literal interpretation of Genesis, and therefore don’t do it, so it is hard to see what you are actually kicking against. Conversely, the day-age view where each “day” in Genesis corresponds to an era of varying length has some profound difficulties. While the broad-strokes order in which things were supposedly created is not hard to fathom from considerations of complexity and contingency, most obvious among the aforementioned difficulties with a symbolic interpretation of Genesis is why on earth an omnipotent creator would need a day of rest. In fact, a fairly dispassionate appraisal of the state of the world could lead one to suppose that we’re still in the age that is your god’s seventh day, considering his/her apparently slothful truancy.

    Besides, it’s still not clear what, in your view, the real message is.

    Con-Tester

    November 7, 2008 at 22:12

  12. Con-tester, sorry, the reply was for you also.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 7, 2008 at 20:45

  13. DW, if they think Gen. 1 and 2 is against what scientists theories are, of how the uneverse came about, then yes.
    You have not got the message of the three “gotte” yet, so we cannot proceed to the nexet message.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 7, 2008 at 20:43

  14. Wat is die real message ?

    DW

    November 7, 2008 at 15:29

  15. Hans Matthysen wrote (6 Nov 08 at 11:42 pm):

    Theologins should teach the real message and not confuse their students.

    And, presumably, once again you know what the real message is, unlike all those misguided theologians, yes?

    Con-Tester

    November 7, 2008 at 10:54

  16. Ek het baie tyd vir Obama .

    DW

    November 7, 2008 at 09:13

  17. Abama said it all, so maybe McCain didn’t think it necessary, to say anything. I must agree with you, as the creation in the Bible, is not about the creation of this Universe. Theologins should teach the real message and not confuse their students.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 6, 2008 at 23:42

  18. Hmm.
    “The White House should not be occupied by someone who disrespects evidence.”
    How about MANUFACTURED evidence? Bush lite RESPECTS manufactured evidence and (I fear) will use some when he invents his last hurrah before he leaves office.
    Hope I’m wrong.

    bewilderbeast

    October 8, 2008 at 14:58

  19. Johan

    What is falsifiable should be taught in science class.

    Evolution is completely falsifiable – J. B. S. Haldane famously cried, “Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian!”

    That is all that is needed to disprove evolution. Also see “Evolusie kelder teologie” if you understand the language of paradise.

    Creationism, though, is a subject for creative storytelling.

    Nathan Bond

    September 30, 2008 at 17:15

  20. I think evolution and creation should be taught in religion(“belive”) class and teach things that are proveable in science!

    Nathan’s note:
    Johan, I took the liberty of joining the two contributions – I hope it reflects your view accurately.

    Johan

    September 30, 2008 at 16:57


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: