Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "College Students Mad Teacher 'Shamed' Creationism" video.

Nothing in science is proven. There is always doubt in science. When you remove doubt from science you remove the motivation to do research in it and progress.
4
You can be religious and support science at the same time.
4
Ok, I take you with no knowledge of science what so ever and say an invisible force exists that attracts two spherical objects, you would think that I am crazy. Or that a subatomic particle acts like a wave and a particle at the same time. You wouldn't believe me. Religion has it's place in society, you have to realize that religion is faith based, science isn't thus you can't compare the two.
3
Robert Maiorana Science doesn't replace religion because science isn't religion. Science isn't faith based. Science has the ability to be changed. In my experience we need religion in our society. You can have religion and science at the same time because they are different. It is like having country music and rollercoasters, they are completely different things.
2
Randy Rogers I go into a lab with a developed theory and than gather data to support that theory. The rocket scientist develops a theory that was developed through previous supporting data. What we are doing in this is making predictions and then supporting our predictions. It isn't the mindset of "I have no idea", it is the mindset of that based on previous experiments this should happen. It is like Richard Feynman said " I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can't figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." We have certain degrees of certainty, but we are not completely sure on anything. Evolution isn't a fact, it is a theory that gives predictions with a lot of supporting evidence. There is still a lot of gray area in evolution and I suggest you take a course in it. Mind you it is hard course that requires a lot of reading, but there is so much more to it than what you think. I am not forgetting anything here. My parents took me fishing when I was a kid, they took me shooting. My parents took me to do things they liked as in almost every parent does. One was go to church. I got older and I didn't need church in my life. There are others who think like that. In all, who cares? They are not hurting anyone. If someone when they get older wants to keep being religious then so what? That is their business. I also don't fish anymore.
2
2010paultron You can have faith and be scientific. You can believe in god and be scientific. Think of it this way. You may support the bible and think of the story how the earth was created in 6 days. You can understand that at that time it was written that they had no concept of time. To them 6 days is a long time. Saying the earth is what, 10,000 years old was a long time to them when the bible was written. One can be that smart and think that way. One can step back and realize that science has evidence to show otherwise and support that the earth is 4.6 billion years old while support the stories in the bible. They don't have to be literal on it.
2
***** So it is an all or nothing deal then according to you. You see, I can't accept that. I also goes much deeper than that. As a person who studies science for a living I get insulted when people try to use science to replace religion. They are no where near the same thing. It is an insult to science when you do that and needs to stop.
2
What you said is true. Now while I would never ridicule someone who is a creationist, and at times give them support (even though I don't believe in it), it has no place in being discussed in a science classroom. Creationism is faith based and is in no ways science. You discuss science in a science classroom.
1
Rignasty15x A story like this happened because you had an atheist being a myopic ass who in my mind shouldn't even hold a PhD. You don't bring creationism into a science classroom because creationism isn't science. I do ridicule people who want to bring creationism in a science classroom just like this biology teacher just did.
1
Rignasty15x I am actually not Christian.
1
Randy Rogers Creationism can't be mocked in a biology class because creationism isn't science. You teach science in a science class. Creationism is faith based, science is based off of doubt. There are no facts in science and science isn't there to mock anything, it is there to give predictions and progress society. But science and religion are completely different issues and shouldn't be discussed hand and hand.
1
Randy Rogers Yes faith isn't based on fact, I agree. Science is based on doubt, not facts. You have theories with supporting evidence, but not fact. You mentioned gravity, what is gravity? If I were to tell you without having any prior knowledge that there is this invisible force that attracts two spherical objects to each other you would call me crazy. But that is gravity. Where does it come from? Where does the strong nuclear force come from? Why does tunneling occur? We don't know. In science we have the scientific method to determine which theories are stronger than others. These theories are predictions. I use the theory of gravity to predict the ball will drop. When the ball drop that doesn't prove gravity, it just supports my prediction. You have to look at the time when these stories were created. I really disagree with literal bible thinkers and get annoyed with them just like I get annoyed when people compare science to religion. But take Noah's story for example. There are other examples of stories about major floods. You are talking about a time where the concept of time and the size of the earth were not sound than. A group of people experiencing a flood would feel that the entire earth has flooded since they never would have moved beyond where they live. In all it is a story. Growing up in a religious family I was taught that it was just a story. Creationism isn't science because it doesn't survive the scientific method. It doesn't give predictions like evolution does. My understanding of science is sound, I am pursuing my PhD in Physical Chemistry. I personally don't believe in science. I can't have that strong of a faith in something that is doubtful. It is that doubt that drives me to work in the lab 40+ hours a week. I understand why others have faith in religion. If that is how they want to live their life than fine. Some of my colleagues are very religious themselves and are working on their PhD in physics. I disagree with radical thinkers and those trying to replace evolution with creationism are not intelligent people, but neither are those that think we no longer have a role for religion in society or that science is going to replace religion.
1
Moriki-kun I did, proof and proven are the same thing. You don't have "proofs" of evolution, you have supporting evidence.
1
Disregarding creationism all together, and not realizing that it is a completely separate issue all together from science is a sign of not being intelligent.
1
Cap Iolani No it doesn't because creationism is faith based, science is based off of doubt. Science doesn't prove anything.
1
sharper68 Science doesn't prove anything, it gives predictions with supporting evidence.
1
Robert Maiorana There is a place in society for religion. Some people use religion for comfort. As if they had a family member die or are going through stressful times. I personally don't need it, I personally use alcohol which is really worse in ways. Others use religion to gather as groups of people and communities. I have been to church events even though I am not religious. There is a role for religion in society. Science is not there to replace religion because science isn't a religion. Science is there to give predictions. You are right we don't study alchemy anymore because we have science. One can still have faith though. In honesty, saying science can replace religion is a slap in the face of science because you are basically saying science knows all when it doesn't and will never claim to know all. Doubt is what drives science.
1
Randy Rogers Science is not fact. Science is driven on doubt. There is nothing factual about science because it is that doubt that drives it to do research. I don't spend 40 hours a week in a lab to find facts, I spend 40 hours a week to gather evidence to develop new predictions to progress society. There is a role for religion in society. Some people use it to just make it in life. How is that any different than when I am stressed and I drink a few shots of booze at night, or others smoke a joint, or others go target shooting, or others fish? Some people use it to gather groups and have celebrations. If you are sick and are receiving medications, what is wrong with praying to be cured? If it makes them feel good than fine There is a role for religion in society and just because you don't need it doesn't mean you should push to get rid of it. That is like me wanting to get rid of marijuana because I don't smoke it myself and see no role in it. Science will never replace religion because science and religion play different roles in society. Comparing science to religion is a slap in the face of science. With that you are saying that science is the all knowing method in the world when it isn't. Anyone claiming to know it all is ignorant. Science will never claim to know it all and shouldn't.
1
Amanda Hilsman You can believe in creationism and still support evolution. If you actually study evolution there are a lot of questions that are very gray. One can see evolution as a process. I agree that the extremists are a problem, but they exist on both sides.
1
Amanda Hilsman I agree that personal belief should be held away from school curriculum. The problem with what happen in that class is that this professor decided to include his personal belief in the subject. He should just stick to the science. There is a lot of evidence (not proofs, nothing is proven in science) for evolution, that is why it is such a strong theory. That is what it should be taught as. Debating science and creationism is best left for a philosophy course.
1
suffist Well there is a point here. If god did exist than everything we know right now means nothing because it was dependent on god. The vast majority of people understand that the bible is just stories, it still doesn't change their faith. So who cares?
1
***** In science we don't have facts. We theories which are predictions and supporting evidence for them, but not facts. For example, I solve a problem on how a system of springs and masses oscillate, I get different frequencies and then set up the system and measure what I get. I made a prediction and then gave supporting evidence of it, or evidence that doesn't support it tearing down my theory. But it isn't a fact. Science isn't there to give facts. You are looking at extreme cases. There are people who feel that the almighty god did everything and totally disregard science, they are the extreme minority. But one can have faith and still support science. One can look at the creationism story and realize it is just a story but still believe in god and support the theory of evolution. Science and religion are both separate issues based on separate ideas. Religion is based on faith, science is based on doubt. Working in science I have met some religious people who earn their graduate degrees in a field of science.
1
2010paultron I have looked at evolution. As a person pursuing their PhD in physical chemistry it does behoove me to look at other fields of science.
1
2010paultron Who is to say that god didn't play a role? He could have set up the game with rules and evolution is following that. Or who is to say that god has a role at all? People can have faith in a god, an afterlife, a greater meaning and still support the predictions science gives, in this case evolution. Because that is all science does, give predictions, not meanings to life. You are looking at this in a black and white way. To you it is either you believe that god created man or not. It isn't that way. Religion is about faith, science is about doubt. In the big picture I am not religious at all, I just understand how different it is from science and how it isn't comparable to it. Religion is something you believe in, in science it is used to progress us, we make predictions to develop new technology and medications. It isn't use as a tool of faith. Also, I share an office with graduate students in the physical science who are religious. It isn't that rare to be religious and study science.
1
2010paultron It isn't using god as an explanation, it is faith. Plus, science is there to give predictions, not explanations.
1
You can't compare evolution to creationism, just like you can't compare science to religion. Science is based on doubt, religion is based on faith. They are totally separate issues. People have faith in creationism, in science it isn't faith based, it isn't "true", it isn't proven, it is based on doubt. You can have faith in a religion and be scientific at the same time. What this professor did was myopic and asinine. This professor doesn't deserve their PhD. And Kyle has almost zero understanding of science and math. There is a lot of question in evolution, Kyle should take a course in evolution along with other advanced science courses.
1
You have people bashing creationism here and religion. There is a place for religion and creationism. People must realize that it is faith based. It isn't science nor should it be compared to science. With science you have doubts. Nothing is proven or factual or true in science. You have theories that have strong evidence, but it isn't proofs. To say something is proven means without a doubt. In science we always leave room for doubt to keep doing research and progress. Think about gravity for a second. What is it? As a man who studies physics for a living I can't honestly completely answer that question. Same as in I can't answer what is a strong nuclear force, or tunneling even though both of those are used constantly in nuclear decay processes. Trying to bash religion and creationism with science is not only moronic, but a slap in the face of science. You are basically saying science is 100% correct and thus can't be changed. That isn't so. You can be religious and have faith in a belief and still be scientific. The other problem is that science can't answer questions as in where do we come from? What is the meaning of life? Does free will exist? It does try to at times but then you step into an area that is so gray you can't progress on it and never will. In short, stop comparing science to religion.
1
Rignasty15x I don't use science to justify religion. I don't demand equal time and there isn't a controversy to teach. I don't declare religion as the only answer to such questions. I support people have their freedom of speech, and I criticize religious fundamentalists when they go out of bounds as well. Now who is Wendy Davis, and Ken Hamm, and Ray Comfort, and Kent Hovinds? As a man who studies science I have never heard of any of those people. They are pretty irrelevant.
1
Rignasty15x You are talking about radicals. Who really listens to Pat Robertson? The guy is a scam artist. No different than Richard Dawkins now. They took an extreme stance on something to get money. They may be relevant in a way but as a whole, to actual intelligent people they aren't. I don't listen to them and I don't know many people who do.
1
They do want to learn science, they probably hate a myopic professor who tries to compare religion to science when you can't.
1