Neil de Grasse Tyson presentation about intelligent design

[arely staircase]

[BootinUp]

1. Ok, I'll be the first to Rec this.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Not hardly.

Over the last year I've posted it here several times.

[BootinUp]

3. Well its never too late then. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

4. It is quality material, hopefully anyone who hasnt already watched it will give it a go

[cbayer]

9. I agree that it's excellent. He is a natural treasure and a personal hero.

[cbayer]

8. Well, once actually, and not here.

But who's counting?

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Bull fucking shit.

I posted in A&A, ON DU in the 'Religion' group.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=16988

I also posted in this subforum, reference to the first thread above. That's called a crosspost.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=91889

Posted in this subforum, I posted you the Transcript because you claimed you couldn't watch it.:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=91899


It's seriously gotten around. Lots of us have posted it in various places at DU
Rexcat also posted it here 2 years ago.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121828973

UnhappyCamper posted it in political video forum 4 years ago.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x502193

Arcane1 dropped it in GD last year
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2168681

[cbayer]

11. Thats in A/A. If I misunderstood your "here" to mean this group, then I apologize.

I do see you you posted a link and excerpt of the transcript for me and I appreciate that.

You statement was not entirely untrue, just a bit overstated.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. By 'here' I actually meant DU itself.

That might not have been clear, but I think the transcript and the link to the post in A&A qualifies under the narrow meaning of 'here' as well.

[arely staircase]

7. it is a great lecture. nt

[longship]

5. Interesting. R&K nt

[djean111]

6. From an article in the Guardian concerning Tyson and The Discovery Institute (creationism group)

http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/neil-degrasse-tyson-explains-evolution-and-critiques-intelligent-design/

Luskin’s response ends by arguing that the evidence for a purposeful intelligent designer is compelling.

No, the evidence is non-existent. Saying nature could not possibly have done something is not "evidence". It is belief.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. I'm confused. Shouldn't we be working to find common cause with these people?

And why are we disrespecting their beliefs? Can you prove god didn't create the earth as is 6000 years ago?

[gcomeau]

14. We can absolutely prove that.

There is no possible way the earth is 6000 years old. It is disproven by every single last shred of physical evidence in existence. If anyone wanted to claim it can't be proven they would have to deny basic realities on approximately the same scale as they would need to to claim we can't prove the earth exists at all.


Such comically absurd beliefs, especially when they are vociferously proclaimed to be The Truth and demands constantly made for them to be inserted into school curriculum and the like, are about as deserving of ridicule as anything I could think of.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. the omnipotent diety has just put all that "physical evidence' there to confuse you.

[gcomeau]

16. Like I said...

...the only way to deny that the earth is older than that is to deny all evidence on approximately the same scale as would be required to deny the earth existed at all. In other words, every bit of material evidence and observation in all of human history has been magically falsified... for no apparent logical reason whatsoever... you know, just because.


Thanks for making my point.



Need to ask again why we would ridicule such a claim?

[Warren Stupidity]

17. yes I need to understand why this obvious bullshit is suitable for ridicule but not other obvious

bullshit.

I don't get the double standard.

And you still can't prove that an omnipotent deity didn't fake everything. Motivation is irrelevant. Who are we to question His Omnipotence?

[gcomeau]

18. I hold all obvious bullshit open for ridicule

...so your question is irrelevant to me.


And we can prove it for any definition of "prove" that has any meaning. The only way to claim we can't prove it is to deny proof of anything whatsoever is even a possibility... at which point you have ended all basis for meaningful discussion of that or any other topic.

And I'm not questioning anything's omnipotence, I'm just questioning the credibility of some bunch of ignorant yahoos who claim there's this omnipotent thing that exists in the first place. Asking who we are to question that things's omnipotence is begging the question of it's existence.

[skepticscott]

28. Um...no...we can't

One definition of "prove" that has meaning is to demonstrate something to a certainty within an axiomatic system, by deriving it deductively from those axioms using agreed upon rules. It cannot be "proven" in that sense that the earth is not 6000 years old, because nothing in science can be "proven" in that way. In science, we can prove things to a higher and higher degree of likelihood, but never to a 100% certainty.

It is regularly claimed on this board that it is impossible to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of "god". Are the people making such claims foolishly and utterly wrong?

[gcomeau]

35. Ahem...

You:

"It cannot be "proven" in that sense that the earth is not 6000 years old, because nothing in science can be "proven" in that way."

Me:

"The only way to claim we can't prove it is to deny proof of anything whatsoever is even a possibility"

You were saying? Yes, if you adopt such a strict definition of proof that you claim NOTHING can be proven then you can't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old. But at the point you have made the statement "you can't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old" utterly fucking meaningess.

[skepticscott]

37. Try again

You said: 'And we can prove it for any definition of "prove" that has any meaning.' "It" referring to the claim that the earth is not 6000 years old.

I gave you an example of a definition of "prove" that has meaning, but under which the claim that the earth is not 6000 years old can't be proven. Yes, that is a strict definition of proof, but so what? It has meaning, so it falls under your claim (which was demonstrably wrong).

And no, I haven't made the statement "meaningless". Just encompassing a subtlety of understanding which apparently escapes you.

[gcomeau]

40. No, don't think I will.

I'm not going to play games with you while you're just being intentionally obtuse. You provided a definition of proof under which by your own statement NOTHING can be proven. That renders the concept of proof meaningless and I stand by my original statement.

I'm entirely aware that that definition of "prove" exists and has validity. But IF that is the definition being employed by any person saying "but... but... but... you can't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old" that has exactly as much meaning as them saying "but... but. but... you can't prove Obama isn't the demon king of the Lizard people here to steal our souls then enslave mankind in the Lizard people's uranium mines!!!!!"



Absolutely. Freaking. Meaningless. That is not going to be ground for one single solitary sane person on earth to then proceed to say it would be in any way rational or reasonable to believe that statement might be true then, since we can't "prove" it's not.

[daleo]

19. Good talk

He is an interesting speaker. Sort of polished, sort of not, very passionate and humane. Quite a combination.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

20. My basic problem with ID is the dishonesty that lies at its heart

The creationists lost a case in the US Supreme Court, Edwards vs. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), which said that creationism is simply fundamentalist Christianity, and not biology. It therefore cannot be taught in public schools under First Amendment grounds.

So the creationists said, "the objection is that we say 'God did it', and they don't like overt mentions of God, so we will just delete these mentions and substitute 'Intelligent Designer'". Three guesses who they mean by the otherwise unspecified "designer".

Basically, ID is a wholly dishonest attempt to sneak creationism into public schools. It is, at its base, a lie.

There was a trial in Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District (400 F Supp 2d 707, Docket no 4cv2688), where US District Judge John E Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

[edhopper]

21. No disagreement

but to clarify that is your basic problem with ID proponents.
Wouldn't you say the problem with ID itself is that is bullshit counter to all scientific knowledge.

[cleanhippie]

25. "...that is bullshit counter to all scientific knowledge"

Doesn't that sum up pretty much ALL religious beliefs?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

30. I know I'm not supposed to call you a bigot

Because, in DU, saying "that statement of yours is bigoted" is deemed worse than making a bigoted statement. Thus, I will not say "you are expressing your bigotry" because that is a no-no (even though your statement is considered perfectly acceptable).

Can someone please explain to me why denouncing bigotry is worse than actual bigotry?

[skepticscott]

44. It's worse, when the "actual bigotry" you're denouncing

by calling people bigots is just an invention of a Christian persecution complex, and not actual bigotry at all. Christians hate having their sexism and homophobia pointed out, but doing it doesn't constitute bigotry. It's what real progressives do proudly and unashamedly.

I defy you to point to any statements made here that you can justify as bigoted".

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

26. That too

But the blatant hypocrisy of its proponents is particularly annoying. Creationists start by saying that since God cannot lie -- indeed, they say that God is truth itself -- and since the Bible is the word of God, then everything in the Bible must be true. Thus, Genesis is an accurate description of creation. However, since they lost in the courts, they have tried to rebrand creationism as ID; which is simply deceitful. Propping up the "truth" by lying about it is hypocritical; not to mention a first rate piece of doublethink.

One of the great Christian thinkers, Augustine of Hippo, circa 410, wrote a book Contra Mendacium -- "Against Lying". In it, he considers whether one can lie in furtherance of a good cause. He says "no", for a number of reasons. The one most important to him is that since God is truth, then by lying one is dishonoring God; and he quotes Romans 6:1-3, "Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?" And, he also has the entirely practical argument that when the people who have been lied to discover that they have been lied to, then they will almost certainly doubt the goodness of the cause. After all, if the only way to support a supposedly good cause is by lying about it, then it can't be all that good in the first place.

Thus, on purely fundamentalist Christian terms, ID fails. And, of course, the universe is demonstrably more than 6000 years old.

[skepticscott]

27. Yes, and the host and wine in Catholic communion

are demonstrably not actual flesh and actual blood. Is it wrong for the Catholic Church to lie and say that they are? Even if they call those lies "theology", and use endless spin about "essences" and "natures" to obscure the fact that they are deliberately saying things that are untrue?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

31. Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of Catholic theology

But then, many atheist attacks on such things are done in ignorance. It is, after all, easier to attack a caricature than the actuality.

[skepticscott]

32. Ah, I see..Catholic theology has proven

that the host and wine really ARE literal, actual, flesh and blood, rather than just using endless sophistry to rationalize why simple chemical tests fail to show that.

Do link us to that scientific proof, won't you? I'm sure you can show that the Catholic Church isn't lying about it, right? Because, by Augustine, that would be intolerable.

And no, citing the claim that they are actual, literal flesh and blood is not attacking a "caricature".

[rug]

33. At what point do organic chemicals become a body?

At what point does a body cease to be a body?

What are the species and what is the essence of a body?

[AlbertCat]

39. At what point do organic chemicals become a body?

It's not "a body".... it's THE body of CHRIST.

So, decide what part of Christ's body you want it to be...liver? Skin? Intestines? and then see if it has his DNA.

Or just do ye old theology double speak word salad and pretend it's true...as usual in such cases.


Of course it's blatantly obvious that whoever made up the scene of the Last Supper meant it to be symbolic. But the Catholics missed that whole point and still killed Protestants over it.

[rug]

41. Any body. Can you answer the questions?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

36. Of course, that is not what the Church says

But then, you really aren't interested in what it does say, are you? I got slammed for saying that it appears that you are more interested in sneering than in actual discussion, but this last post of yours confirms my impression.

Do you want an explanation of Transubstantiation?

[skepticscott]

38. Here is what the Church says

"It has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood."

The RCC does not consider the presence of flesh and blood in the consecrated elements to be symbolic in any way.

And yes, I've read the theological sophistry concerning "substance" and "real" and "substantial presence", etc., etc. It's nothing more than a puffed up way of saying "Crap, this 'real presence' stuff just doesn't make sense, but we're stuck with it, so we've got to make it sound as sensible as we can, no matter how much obfuscation it takes". I have no need to be wearied with it yet again, no matter how thoroughly you enjoy expounding on your indoctrination.

[rug]

42. Since you ostensibly view life through a microscope that is an unsurprising reaction.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

45. You admit that you don't understand it

Have you ever read Aristotle's Physics? That's where the terms "substance" and "accident" come from. Basically, Thomas Aquinas read the Physics and said, "Hey, I can use this to explain the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist." (Actually, it's rather more complicated, and there is an excellent discussion of how the doctrine evolved in Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition, Volume 3, The Growth of Medieval Theology, pp 182-202 but I suspect you won't bother reading it.)

You comments make it quite clear that you don't understand the Aristotelian categories of substance and accident, and it would seem that you aren't interested enough to find out. Besides, if you actually did understand it, you couldn't sneer.

Your basic argument seems to be "I don't understand this, therefore it's crap." Well, the world does not revolve around you or your understandings.

As an aside, I am not entirely happy with transubstantiation being officially proclaimed Catholic dogma. My objection is that it ties the teaching to a quite specific philosophical school. It's an ingenious explanation of how the Real Presence of Christ is confected (another technical term) in the Eucharist, but it's not the only possibility. In 1970, there was a joint statement by the Anglicans and the Orthodox on the Eucharist, which said in part

Neither of our churches has committed itself unreservedly to a specific philosophical theory which would explain the mode of Christ's presence in the Euacharist. Our reticence on this point in large part is a product of our respective histories. ... Anglicans, influenced by the debates of the 16th century, have sought to avoid a materialistic understanding which might suggest that the change occurs in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.

At the same time both our churches affirm that in the Eucharist the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

[rug]

46. If he doesn't understand it, it must not exist.

It would not be demonstrable to him.

[edhopper]

47. So this:

At the same time both our churches affirm that in the Eucharist the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Doesn't mean that the Eucharist actually changes into the blood and body of Christ, even though they say it "truly" becomes the blood and body of Christ? They seem to be saying it's magic and physical laws don't apply, but they also don't say it is symbolic or just spiritual with no physical occurrence taking place. Are they intentionally being confusing to avoid a definitive answer.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

48. There is an article on Transubstantiation in Wikipedia

Why don't you read it? Clearly, you do not know what it means.

[edhopper]

49. Okay

Last edited Mon May 19, 2014, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)

as a atheist, heretic and nonbeliever, what a bunch of hooey. A definition that cannot be defined. It happens but there is no way to show it happens, it is "beyond understanding".
Just have faith. I guess some "feel" it has happened, so it is really no different from most religious belief.

All the verbiage to try to defend it seems pointless, it is a concept that has no evidence outside the belief of practitioners. And the questions of the validity seem valid. To be condescending and say "but you really don't understand it" is just a another way to say "I can't explain it".

Enjoy your rituals, but don't try to say they are anything other than a ceremonial tradition.

Maybe I understand it better than you.

On Edit:

You know, you don't need to answer, whatever it is i won't believe it or think it makes any rational sense, and you see it as part of your faith you are trying to understand. It is really a minor issue and no need to hiss at each other over it.
There are bigger issues to tackle.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

50. No, it's not a "definition that cannot be defined", it's a definition that complicated.

If you want a basic definition of transubstantiation, here goes.

According to Aristotle's Physics, things have certain characteristics, among which are the "substance" and the "accidents". "Substance" is the essence of a thing, "accidents" are the changeable characteristics. Take, as a simple example, water. The substance is whatever gives it its essential "wateriness", but water may appear as steam, as water vapor, as liquid water or as ice -- these are the accidents, but the substance does not change. If, however, you combine water with, say, portland cement, you get something in which the substance of the water does change; since there is nothing there that can be called "water" any more. (I am vastly oversimplifying this, but I hope you get the idea.)

Now, what the doctrine of Transubstantiation says is that in the Eucharist, the accidents of the bread and the wine do not change, but the substances are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

Now, you may not believe this, but you cannot say that it is simply gobbledygook. If you accept Aristotelian philosophy -- and it was perfectly acceptable to do so in the 13th century -- then it makes sense.

As I said, as a Catholic, I am not wild about Transubstantiation being official dogma. Despite the disclaimer in the Wikipedia article -- which I'll bet you didn't bother reading -- it does tie Catholic doctrine to a specific philosophical school.

My real complaint about what you and skepticscott have been saying is that you are both quite prepared to sneer at Transubstantiation, without actually knowing what it is. That's lazy at best and dishonest at worst.

[skepticscott]

51. No, we're prepared to smear at Transubstantiation because it makes no sense

and is totally at odds with easily verifiable reality, and because you have to resort to endless, tortured sophistry and 13th century thinking to make it seem sensible.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

57. If you accept Aristotle, which, AS I SAID, was philosophically acceptable in the 13th century

Transubstantiation makes perfect sense. Once again, you make it clear that you merely want to sneer.

[trotsky]

53. So, if we simply discard everything we've learned about the universe in the last 800 years...

transubstantiation makes perfect sense. Gotcha.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

56. As I said at least four times

My problem with Transubstantiation is that it ties doctrine to Aristotelian physics.

[edhopper]

54. Yes, I read it

particularly this sentence:
"The manner in which the change occurs, the Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."

So I stand by my characterization.

I am also not sure what you are trying to say; why the Middle Age Church adopted this along the lines of Aristotelian philosophy (fine, that's just history) or why it is true today, even though it is counter to all modern understanding of physics and chemistry. Then I would maintain my statement that it is hooey.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

55. The mystery is just how the transformation takes place

Transubstantiation says that the substances of the bread and wine are transformed, not how. An analogy would be Newton's law of gravitation. The formula gives the gravitational attraction between two objects, but not why they are attracted.

And you are restating what I said, that the problem with Transubstantiation is that it ties doctrine to Aristotelian physics, which is not a good thing.

[edhopper]

58. For clarification;

Do you believe this actually occurs during communion?

[AtheistCrusader]

59. When?

If I eat the wafer, and wine, and five minutes later, get sick, what comes up?
Ten minutes?
Thirty?

Does it digest?
Does the 'transubstantiated stuff' have calories?

[trotsky]

60. No, there's no mystery.

Nothing transforms. It's still just bread and wine.

The only transformation happens once it hits your digestive system.

[rug]

61. When does it cease to be bread?

Scientifically, of course.

[edhopper]

29. Too true

ID is just a bankrupt retread of Creationism. And it is the Creationist who are annoying and deserve your ire.
I was just differentiating them from the inane idea they support. The idea can be dismissed with little effort, but we ignore the creationists at our own peril.

[struggle4progress]

22. Some of Tyson's history is flat-out wrong

Newton did (no doubt) invent calculus but others (such as Kepler, Torricelli, Fermat, and Barrow) has pioneered some of the techniques, and what Newton did, he did not do "on a dare" -- he had already done his astronomical work when Halley one day asked him what sort of planetary orbits would be produced by an inverse square law, to which Newton said that he had earlier calculated that the orbits would be elliptical; but unable to find his papers, he promised to write a more complete account for Halley, producing eventually the Principia in 1687, some years after having actually done the research:

In the beginning of the year 1665 I found the Method of approximating series & the Rule for reducing any dignity of any Binomial into such a series. The same year in May I found the method of Tangents of Gregory & Slusius, & in November had the direct method of fluxions & the next year in January had the Theory of Colours & in May following I had entrance into ye inverse method of fluxions. And the same year I began to think of gravity extending to ye orb of the Moon & (having found out how to estimate the force with wch [a] globe revolving within a sphere presses the surface of the sphere) from Keplers rule of the periodical times of the Planets being in sesquialterate proportion of their distances from the center of their Orbs, I deduced that the forces wch keep the Planets in their Orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about wch they revolve: & thereby compared the force of gravity at the surface of the earth, & found them answer pretty nearly. All this was in the two plague years 1665-1666. For in those days I was in the prime of my age for invention & minded Mathematicks & Philosophy more then at any time since.

The delay between promise and production seems to have arisen from Newton's desire to make his writing somewhat difficult to read, since he was a very sensitive man who had been hurt and offended by some responses to his prior theory of optical phenomena: To avoid being baited by little smatterers in mathematics, I designedly made the Principia abstract; but yet as to be understood by able mathematicians

I suppose it makes a cute for Tyson, to claim that the few words Newton stuck into the Principia, attributing the stability of the solar system to some divine intervention, as revealing the cause for him not discovering (say) perturbation theory, but an equally good explanation might be that he had done as much in mathematical planetary theory as he wanted to do by the late 1660s and turned to consider other matters that interested him. In 1668, he invented the reflecting telescope, and for several years he worked on his optical theory, which was briefly presented to the scientific public, meeting with an outcry, withdrawn, and not published until 1706. For decades, he regularly engaged in some chemical or alchemical experiments, and it is sometimes suspected that then-common practice of tasting chemical products contributed to his breakdown in 1692. He also continued other mathematical work, including some discussion of symmetric functions, difference equations, and classification of cubics. In 1696 he solved Bernoulii's brachistochrone problem. It's actually somewhat difficult to enumerate all of his significant accomplishments

[Jim__]

23. Yes, and Tyson is quoting from the General Scholium which did not appear in the first edition.

The Scholium was added to the 2nd edition published in 1713 - 26 years later - and is viewed as having been added as a response to his critics. I agree with you that Newton was probably no longer that interested in solving astronomical problems.

I also disagreed that the Ptolemaic quote that he cited:

I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia.

indicated that Ptolemy didn't believe that understanding celestial motions was particularly important.

[WovenGems]

24. The Dover Trial

Check out the PBS show on Youtube about that trial. A Republican judge and they still lost.

[librarylu]

52. Dr. Miller on Intelligent Design

Dr. Kenneth Miller's talk at Case Western following the Dover trial. This may be my favorite YouTube video ever.