Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Bill Nye: Creationism Threatens U.S. Science

Posted by   + Show Post

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- The man known to a generation of Americans as "The Science Guy" is condemning efforts by some Christian groups to cast doubts on evolution and lawmakers who want to bring the Bible into science classrooms.

Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer and star of the popular 1990s TV show "Bill Nye The Science Guy," has waded into the evolution debate with an online video that urges parents not to pass their religious-based doubts about evolution on to their children.

Nye has spent a career teaching science to children and teens with good-natured and sometimes silly humor, but has not been known to delve into topics as divisive as evolution.

Christians who view the stories of the Old Testament as historical fact have come to be known as creationists, and many argue that the world was created by God just a few thousand years ago.

"The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old," Nye said in an interview with The Associated Press, citing scientists' estimates that it is about 4.5 billion years old. "It's not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs."

Millions of Americans do hold those beliefs, according to a June Gallup poll that found 46 percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago.

Nye, 56, also decried efforts in recent years by lawmakers and school boards in some states to present Bible stories as an alternative to evolution in public schools. Tennessee passed a law earlier this year that protects teachers who let students criticize evolution and other scientific theories. That echoes a Louisiana law passed in 2008 that allows teachers to introduce supplemental teaching materials in science classes.

"If we raise a generation of students who don't believe in the process of science, who think everything that we've come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you're not going to continue to innovate," Nye said in a wide-ranging telephone interview.

The brief online video was not Nye's first foray into the combustible debate, but "it's the first time it's gotten to be such a big deal."

 
"I can see where one gets so caught up in this (debate) that you say something that will galvanize people in a bad way, that will make them hate you forever," he said. "But I emphasize that I'm not questioning someone's religion – much of that is how you were brought up."

In the video he tells adults they can dismiss evolution, "but don't make your kids do it. Because we need them." Posted by Big Think, an online knowledge forum, the clip went viral and has 4.6 million views on YouTube. It has garnered 182,000 comments from critics and supporters.

It drew the ire of the creationism group Answers in Genesis, which built a biblically based Creation Museum in Kentucky that teaches the stories of the Old Testament and has attracted headlines for its assertion that dinosaurs roamed alongside Adam and Eve.

The group produced a response video featuring two scientists who say the Bible has the true account of Earth's origins, and that "children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past."

Nye, who is prone to inject dry humor into scientific discussions, said Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

"What I find troubling, when you listen to these people ... once in a while I get the impression that they're not kidding," Nye said.

Ken Ham, a co-founder of Answers in Genesis, said dating methods used by scientists to measure the age of the earth are contradictory and many don't point to millions or billions of years of time.

"We say the only dating method that is absolute is the Word of God," Ham said. "Time is the crucial factor for Bill Nye. Without the time of millions of years, you can't postulate evolution change."

America is home to the world's biggest creationist following, Ham said, and the $27 million Creation Museum has averaged about 330,000 visitors a year since it opened just south of Cincinnati in 2007.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/bill-nye-creationism-science_n_1908926.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

by on Sep. 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Replies (231-240):
Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Sep. 27, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:



Every "fact" discovered in geology, biology, etc., can be explained by application of the historical record in Genesis, and I believe arguably more scientifically than Evolution. And why wouldn't it be, when the creator of the world and the author of the written Word are the same. :)

What is your interpretation of the reptile genes in the human genome?


What is your interpretation of creatures that have features in the womb that they lose before birth (such as human babies having full skin fur coverage like the other great apes)?

Obviously where you would say common descent, I would say common design.

Why would an intelligent designer design humans to have genes that we don't use but which reptiles did?

Why would an intelligent designer design humans in the womb to produce a features then absorb it back, like fur?

Why would an intelligent designer include in humans the capability for vestigial features such as tails, that were present in our common ancestry, but not features such as retractable cat claws that were never present in our part of the phylogenetic tree?


colins_mom
by Silver Member on Sep. 27, 2012 at 1:05 PM
I honestly don't know how I feel about this, while I do believe in creatinism I also believe evolution has its place. I agree that the world is billions of years old based on other texts in the bible that states that thousands of years on earth is a blink of an eye in heaven, leaveing me to think that the "seven days" mentiond in the bible are not seven days as we know them but thousands if not billions of years kwim?
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Sep. 27, 2012 at 6:34 PM

No he wasn't.  And no it didn't.

Quoting cammibear:

Actually, Hitler was a fascist that was influenced by tenets of progressivism. National Socialism had close ties to liberal progressivism.


Quoting stacymomof2:

And "murderous Fascist," apparently.  You do know how "progressive" Hitler was, don't you?

Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting cammibear:

progressives have used "science" to justify horrible things.





For the sake of clarity, people should note that cammibear has a personal non-standard definition of the word "progressive".  She uses it interchangeably with "totalitarian communist".




cammibear
by Gold Member on Sep. 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM
Lol, like that means anything.
Like I said, wild imagination is all you have. :)


Quoting Clairwil:

So, evolution predicts that there does exist a gradualist path and, based upon that, I went out and googled to see what I could find.   If I were catty I'd have waited until you committed yourself to this example before posting what I found, but the science is too neat - it is great and I want to share it, so here it is:


Quoting cammibear:

Because of probability.

Here's one small example.



A bombardier beetle produces an explosion of peroxides and 'rocket fuel' through structures DESIGNED for that purpose. Thousands of mutations would have to occur at exactly the right places on chromosomes at exactly the same time. There is no mechanism in biology for the inheritance of multiple trait sets.


Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design, by Mark Isaak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle#Evolution_of_the_defense_mechanism



Next 'example' ?


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Sep. 28, 2012 at 12:52 AM
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:

So, evolution predicts that there does exist a gradualist path and, based upon that, I went out and googled to see what I could find.   If I were catty I'd have waited until you committed yourself to this example before posting what I found, but the science is too neat - it is great and I want to share it, so here it is:


Quoting cammibear:

Because of probability.

Here's one small example.



A bombardier beetle produces an explosion of peroxides and 'rocket fuel' through structures DESIGNED for that purpose. Thousands of mutations would have to occur at exactly the right places on chromosomes at exactly the same time. There is no mechanism in biology for the inheritance of multiple trait sets.


Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design, by Mark Isaak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle#Evolution_of_the_defense_mechanism



Next 'example' ?

Lol, like that means anything.
Like I said, wild imagination is all you have. :)

Yes, it does mean something.

You claimed that, for the bombardier beetle to evolve without the aid of an intelligent designer "Thousands of mutations would have to occur at exactly the right places on chromosomes at exactly the same time."

I demonstrated that there are ways it could have evolved that don't require multiple mutations having to occur at the same time.

I therefore refuted your claim that they have to.

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Sep. 28, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:

Because of probability.
Here's one small example.

A bombardier beetle produces an explosion of peroxides and 'rocket fuel' through structures DESIGNED for that purpose. Thousands of mutations would have to occur at exactly the right places on chromosomes at exactly the same time. There is no mechanism in biology for the inheritance of multiple trait sets.

That sounds persuasive.

But is that really a prediction?  Are you doing science here?  You claim this is an example.  Does that mean that if a possible gradualist path can be demonstrated for the bombardier beetle, you'll accept that Intelligent Design has been falsified?  Or would you just shrug and say "Ok, well I was wrong about that one, but here, what about these 10 examples, I'm sure one of them has to be correct" ?

Anyone can come up with examples of things biologists have not yet studied closely.   The world is large, there are only limited numbers of biologists.   The only power to coming up with an example would be if you STUCK with it, through thick and thin.

I notice, by the way, that you've stopped using the bacteria's flagellum as your prime example.   Why is that?

Ok so, now that I've refuted your prediction that the bombardier beetle is an example of irreducible complexity, which do you choose:

a) to admit the prediction failed, and that irreducible complexity has been falsified

or

b) to admit that irreducible complexity was never a scientific theory in the first place

?


cammibear
by Gold Member on Sep. 28, 2012 at 2:06 AM
Lol, yeah, I could say the exact same thing of you. You are not open to anything but evolution, so every conclusion you come to is based on that presupposition.


Quoting AdrianneHill:

Just because you think that doesn't make it true. You want it to be true so badly you are willing to ignore the vast majority of various types of scientific evidence in most of the things going on in the world because you can't bring yourself to believe something that you hold as an important litmus test to true faith.

How are there curves in the grand canyon if it wad made in a single catastrophic flood? And the whole dinosaur business? What about saber tooth cats and dire wolves? Simple answers like "God did it" don't really answer anything.




Quoting cammibear:

Obviously where you would say common descent, I would say common design. Where you would say Continental drift over millions of years, I would say global flood, massive earthquakes, and fountains springing up from the deep that caused changes in the earths surface. The Genesis Flood explains what we see in the fossil record.









Quoting Clairwil:




Quoting cammibear:





Every "fact" discovered in geology, biology, etc., can be explained by application of the historical record in Genesis, and I believe arguably more scientifically than Evolution. And why wouldn't it be, when the creator of the world and the author of the written Word are the same. :)

What is your interpretation of the reptile genes in the human genome?

What


is your interpretation of all the marsupials being in Australasia?

What


is your interpretation of island species being similar to species from


the nearest mainland?

What is your interpretation of the ERV


markers that confirm the phylogenetic tree of the primates?

What


is your interpretation of creatures that have features in the womb that


they lose before birth (such as human babies having full skin fur


coverage like the other great apes)?

What is your interpretation


of why humans are prone to hip problems?



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
cammibear
by Gold Member on Sep. 28, 2012 at 3:22 AM
Has science ever demonstrated that mutations + natural selection = more complex organisms?

Because all the "evidence" I've seen involved a loss of information.

If everything we see has evolved by adding information to the genome, why do we not have observable evidence now?

Where did DNA come from? Better yet, where did information come from?




Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:




Every "fact" discovered in geology, biology, etc., can be explained by application of the historical record in Genesis, and I believe arguably more scientifically than Evolution. And why wouldn't it be, when the creator of the world and the author of the written Word are the same. :)

What is your interpretation of all the marsupials being in Australasia?

Where you would say Continental drift over millions of years, I would
say global flood, massive earthquakes, and fountains springing up from
the deep that caused changes in the earths surface. The Genesis Flood
explains what we see in the fossil record.

How you do account for the predictive power of Continental drift?  Something that oil companies interested only in making money base their very expensive test drill sites upon?   Why would they spend the money on geologists who disagree with you, if you are right and the entire geology profession is wrong?

How do your 'massive earthquakes' account for ALL the marsupial species being moved from the site of the Ark's landing, to the same very distant area (Australasia) ?

How do you account for the pattern of the age of the rocks beneath the Atlantic Ocean?


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
cammibear
by Gold Member on Sep. 28, 2012 at 3:31 AM
I don't deny that saying God created...involves faith. But making statements about everything evolving over millions of years...also involves faith.


Quoting Bookwormy:

The problem is that one believes in the bible on faith. Faith can't prove anything wrong because faith is based on belief not fact or proof. There's not a problem with trying to disprove scientific theories. Scientists do it all the time.




Quoting cammibear:

The process of science to him is accepting whatever is most popular as truth. Heaven forbid someone question that and seek to prove it wrong (which happens all the time with counters that are completely ignored if they don't fit the agenda).





Progressivism plus science always has serious consequences. With some of your mindsets, you would have accepted and gone along with lynchings and mass slaughters of innocent individuals just a few decades ago. New target...anybody that doesn't accept evolution as truth.




Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Sep. 28, 2012 at 4:49 AM
Quoting cammibear:

I don't deny that saying God created...involves faith. But making statements about everything evolving over millions of years...also involves faith.

In what?   Faith in scientists?  In human nature?

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)