Eugenie Scott explains why science is agnostic.

-=Expand before commenting=- NCSE director Eugenie Scott explains why science is, by definition agnostic, and cannot be made to prove, or disprove the existence of God. I also clear up a misconception from a previous video.

I'm not sure why people are having such a difficult time understanding this- its not controversial or complicated. Science CAN disprove factual claims in religious texts (ie a 6000 year old Earth), but NOT that some sort of deity exists. She is not saying to twist science, rather, she is warning us not to stretch its utility. She is also not saying that evidence supports a belief in God- she's an atheist...

After reading a lot of the comments, its clear that some people have such a knee jerk reaction to anything slightly promoting tolerance of religion that they don't even think about what Dr. Scott is saying.
Please think before commenting.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• eugenie
• scott
• ncse
• why
• science
• is
• agnostic
• evolution
• and
• faith
• compatible
• disprove
• god
• creationism
• intelligent
• design

[nash984954]

Oh, & DonExodus, thanx for the video. As always, you bring up relevant topics for us all to view and gain understanding from. And though you said a few words at the end of the video, what do you think of what she said?Is she being apologetic to the creationists?At the time of this video a book by Andy Thompson was not out yet, called Why We Belives in Gods.Perhaps she needs to read it then do another video. TheLivingDinosaur has good videos on creationists and their spiel, amazing nuttiness

[nash984954]

because they know they will not be satisfied unless a scientists says evolution is mandated by god through ID. Ms Scott disappoints me in a way, though I understand her points, but she is being more political than scientific. Why is it necessary to explain to these theists that, oh, we just don't include god in the discussion cuz' we just can't measure it. I mean really, disproving, or proving god,...who gives a s**t! Atleast Nietztsche had it right 'god is dead' if there ever really was one.

[nash984954]

until the cows come home.But it will not furthermy understanding of the natural world around me&if that is enough for me, then I'm just ablind follower. Religionteaches you 'what' to think, whereas science education teachesyou 'how' to think& the basics of Evolution has no mention of god, so I should not be teaching irrelevancy. Ken Ham wants to throw out science because science is bad&god is good. And that sums it up right there. Creationists don't want their questions answered, cuz' (nextpost)

[nash984954]

do justice to the teaching of kids about the world. Surely Scott knows what these Xian theists are after. If they cannot proselytise you to their religion then they want to make gov't mandate their beliefs into making everyone comply with them. Notice how for the last thirty years the Xians have turned their Xian religion into politics. If Ms Scott doesn't see this, then she should not be trying to give credence to having god anywhere in science. I can say god created the world (next post)

[nash984954]

obstruct, not to understand.Theywant theirgod in the scientificknowledge, though a god is not relevant to the subject. Do we also incorporate theother 'theories' of how the world came to be, or the way it has been progressing according toancient shamans, or other religions? Already data shows that evolution isn't really taught very effectively anyway, due to parental pressure, or teacher's own bias. There is a finite time for teaching&including creationism in science classes doesn't (next post)

[nash984954]

a reason toaccommodate these people, these theists who want to put Sunday school teaching intoregular publicschools' science classes. These Xian theists like to dump a conglomerate of differentscientific concepts into the evolution discussion, topics include atheism, Big Bang theory, Abiogenesis, Geology&all manner of bull that they may have come across at some point, looking for flaws in evolution. They have it backwards. Evolution relates to many fields, but theists want only to (next post)

[nash984954]

have god in it, no mention of god at all&that is the main complaint of theists, they want god to be put into the theory, or else to teach creationism. Religion is mostly for ignorant people)the Abrahamic based ones), as it was introduced at a time when people were illiterate&had no knowledge of the world&theists want to put that backward thinking into the 21st century science classes.Where is the god that had something to do with it? Why can't you go with what you know? I don't see (next post)

[nash984954]

Does Ms Scott also think we should 'let the child decide.' No, science is whatbit is, it is not a debate, facts are not voted on, there is no credence to creationism as a scientific concept, as it was thrown out years ago, due to no evidence for it except an ancient bible of myths&stories.Scott sounds like she wants to kiss creationists ass. Oh, please don't hate us because we think your view is full of s**t. Okay, I may have exaggerated, but the standard theory of evolution does not (next post)

[nash984954]

relevant hypothesis then put all of your evidcne together&put it uip for review by the experts in the field. The fact is god is what ancient people used to attribute the workings of the natural world to. God is not in science, as we no longer think the world is flat, we also have no need of a Supreme Being to 'explain' the natural world. The standard theory of evolution shows no god in the process, so Shermer is saying there is no evidence that god had anything to do with the process (next post)

[nash984954]

This really sounds like an apology to religious people to give them a door into putting their creationism into a 'debate.' I don't think she is completely correct. The main reason people in the US are so scientifically illiterate is because of religion, or perhaps apathy And why does anybody have to convince religious zealots of anything about the natural world that science has revealed to us? It is not a debate, teaching science. Sure, there is no authority in science& if you have a (next post)