Gilbert: I see the Atheists are at it again, making unrealistic claims about science.
Turtle: They aren't unrealistic claims. Science is the key to humanity's future
Gilbert: Bill's quote is a mishmash of uncorrelated claims. For instance -How is science the key to our future? It's true that science and technology have, in the past, produced things that have changed our lives but those changes often result in conflicting results.
Turtle: Like what?
Gilbert: Let's take medical advances. There is no question that technological advances have improved diagnostic abilities but that equipment has driven up health-care costs and encourages physicians to over-use the equipment in order to pay for it. As result health-care becomes less and less affordable and fewer people have access to it.
Turtle: But people are getting better care.
Gilbert: Some are, but what about society as a whole. Is it better to have expensive, sophisticated diagnostic equipment that not everyone can afford or less sophisticated equipment with universal access?
Turtle: But as use increases costs go down.
Gilbert: True but then the next thing comes along to replace the obsolete equipment so the costs go back up.
Then Bill says that, "if you don't believe in science you are holding everybody back." Back from what? His warning sounds alarming but it is pointless. Is all scientific advancement good?
Turtle:How can it be otherwise?
Gilbert: What about cloning. Bill wants science to advance free from 'religious interference' but science is incapable to answering whether cloning, or many other areas of science are good things.
Then Bill says that, "it is fine if you are an adult and want to run around pretending or claiming you don't believe in evolution." But he just finished saying that if you don't believe in science you are holding everybody back. Which is it? Can't he make up his mind? And why is evolution a surrogate for science?
Then he says that, "if we educate a generation who doesn't believe in science that is a recipe for disaster."
What does he mean by, "believe in science?" That makes no sense. There is a great deal of lying going on about the relationship of the church and science. I'm sure that is what is behind his rant but, one cannot "believe in science." To say that is unthinking. And what 'disaster' is he referring to?
Finally, he alternates between evolution and science. It seems what he is really promoting is evolution. In his book The Selfish Gene Richard Dawkins writes, "Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence. If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: ‘Have they discovered evolution yet?"
Well, speaking for Christianity, it explains why we are here and to say that aliens would assess our level of civilization based on whether we had discovered evolution is self-serving and just plain wrong. Civilization refers to relationships and infrastructure, etc. It has nothing to do with a specific branch of science.
Turtle: But overall, science is a good thing.
Gilbert: But, un-tempered by religious teaching those advancements pose a potential for disaster as has happened in the past. G. K. Chesterton wrote, "What modern science fails to realise is that there is little use in knowing without thinking. Nobody is taking the smallest trouble to consider who in the future will be in command of electricity and capable of giving us the shocks. With all the shouting about new marvels hardly anybody utters a word or even a whisper about how they will be prevented from turning into the old abuses..."
Can Bill Nye's science guarantee that its discoveries won't be abused. No, because science can not care.
More to come.