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

AIG answers Bill Nye - Bill Nye's Crusade for Your Kids

Posted by   + Show Post
“Bill Nye the Science Guy”® of PBS-TV fame1 is crusading to capture your children’s minds for evolution. His recent YouTube video “Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children”—viewed over 2.3 million times during its first week online—has revealed his strong evolutionary bias and his own blind spot. Nye pleads with adults to keep their creationism to themselves. “Bill Nye the Science Guy® wants to make sure your kids believe evolution as fact,” explains Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham. “Be warned—he is out to get your kids for evolution. Watching this short video, you will see that he shows no understanding of the difference between historical science and observational science. He really should be called ‘Bill Nye—the evolution guy.’” And if you (like Nye) are a little fuzzy on the difference between these two approaches to scientific inquiry, please keep reading!

In this second YouTube video, Ken Ham responds to intolerant Bill Nye defenders who did not like that our YouTube videos had the comments disabled (3:26 minutes).
Nye’s programs seen on PBS-TV and elsewhere have for years done a marvelous job of explaining experimental (operational, or observational) science to children. Parents and teachers have been delighted to see youngsters who watch them get excited about science. Experimental science is the kind of science that invents new technology, figures out how things work, and finds cures for disease. However, some of Nye’s programs have ventured into historical (or origins) science—the kind of science that draws conclusions about the untestable, unrepeatable, unobservable past. And his conclusions about our origins are based on his worldview, a secular (humanistic) worldview2 with a prior commitment to reject the eyewitness account God provided in the Bible. For instance, I recall watching his program about dinosaurs with my children. In it he and his assistant repeatedly declared that dinosaurs did not live at the same time as people.3 Yet God reported in Genesis that He created all kinds of land animals on the same day He created Adam and Eve, and dinosaurs are land animals. Who are we to believe, Bill Nye (who wasn’t there, knows next to nothing when compared with all there is to know, and makes mistakes) or God (who was there and knows all things, and never makes mistakes)?
Nye indicates that today’s children must believe in evolution if our country is to remain tomorrow’s leader in technology. Curiously, after saying that “denial of evolution is unique to the United States” (an erroneous statement, by the way, as we show in our video response to Nye) he went on to say the United States has the world’s most advanced technology due to “the general understanding of science,” equating understanding science with believing in evolution. Then he added, “When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.” But Nye fails to address how our country, held back by a contingent of evolution-denying people, could ever have risen to such a glorious technological height in the first place.
Next, Nye—who holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, which is in the realm of operational, not historical, science—made another erroneous statement. He said, “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.” This is of course reminiscent of the popular but mythical Darwinian aphorism, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”4 The most fundamental law that is observable in biology, the law of biogenesis, indicates that life only arises from living things. Yet evolutionists like Nye claim life randomly created itself from non-living elements. Despite this blatant contradiction between Nye’s statement and this incontrovertible law of observational biological science and the fact that scientists have never observed life coming from non-life, Nye considers evolution the most fundamental of biological laws.

Bill Nye did make a brief (two minute) trip to the Creation Museum property in January 2011 while in the area for a speaking engagement. Sadly, he did not choose to tour the Museum or even to come inside. Since the lobby of the museum features animatronic children and dinosaurs together—a strict violation of a principle taught on a Nye television program—he would have doubtless not found it to his taste. Had he toured, however, and perhaps spent some time speaking with any of Answers in Genesis scientists holding earned doctoral degrees in geology, astronomy, medicine, cell biology, molecular genetics and the history of geology, perhaps he would have respected, if not the biblical basis for creation, at least the scientific basis for the positions creation scientists take. Or perhaps not. At any rate, Nye did not avail himself of that opportunity but only drove onto the museum property, snapped a photo, and left. So much for honest, intellectual (really, scientific) investigation before drawing conclusions!
In a follow-up interview with CBS, Nye said, “Religion is one thing, but science, provable science is something else.”5 Indeed, science and religion—or biblical Christianity in this instance—are not the same, yet if both reveal truth, they will not conflict. Nye went on to further demonstrate his lack of discernment concerning the difference between experimental science and historical science as he elaborated on what he considers “provable science.” He said, “My concern is you don’t want people growing up not believing in radioactivity, not believing in geology and deep time. You don’t want people in the United Sates growing up without the expectation that we can land spacecraft on Mars. You want people to believe in science, this process, this great idea that humans had to discover more about the universe and our place in it, our place in space.”5 As a tour of the Creation Museum or a serious reading of articles and books featured on the Answers in Genesis website and bookstore will reveal, however, creation scientists do “believe in” geology and radioactivity and space exploration. What we as biblical creationists do not accept are interpretations of geological, biological, anthropological, genetic, astronomical, and radiometric data that are based on unverifiable assumptions about the past and deny God’s eyewitness account of events (e.g., Creation Week, the Fall of man, Noah’s Flood, the Tower of Babel).
“Provable science” is performed in the present. Historical science involves interpreting scientific data through the filter of what you already believe about the unobservable past. Nye reminds us in his video that Carl Sagan was one of his college professors. Nye’s worldview accords with Sagan’s, who believes, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”6 Sagan and Nye were not present during “deep time,” nor was any other scientist. “Deep time” cannot therefore be subject to “provable science.” Their declarations about “deep time” (their interpretations of scientific data) are based on their prior commitment to believe that there could be no Creator and that the Bible is untrue, a commitment nicely summarized by another famous evolutionist, Richard Lewontin. Lewontin wrote the following:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.7
And what in the Bible’s account does Nye find so difficult to accept? He provided an example in another interview, saying, “The bible, as translated into English, claims that the Sun lights the day, and the Moon lights the night. . . . To my ear, it doesn’t seem as though the author realized that the Moon’s light is reflected sunlight.”5 Yet biblical creationists do not think the moon produces its own light, the biblical text does not state or even imply that, and Bible-believing Christians do not teach their children that. Nye is imposing a nonsensical meaning to the words of Scripture and to the beliefs of creation scientists (whether concerning the nature of the moon or the possibilities of space exploration) and then mocking them. So much for careful, accurate, intellectual debate.

Bill Nye, the charismatic “Science Guy” of PBS-TV fame, keeps busy these days crusading for science literacy. Nye is pictured here delivering a May 2012 lecture at Ohio State University (where Answers in Genesis speaker and researcher Georgia Purdom earned her PhD in molecular genetics). The previous year he dropped by the Creation Museum property but opted not to enter or speak with the staff. Unfortunately, he erroneously equates science literacy with believing evolutionary dogma. Image courtesy of Doobie Jefferson.8
Nye said in his video, “Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. . . . The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us.” Evolutionary belief, however, is a worldview that attempts without any corroborating eyewitness account to explain the origin of life and all things without a Creator. This “deep time” is extrapolated from, as Nye said in the video, “ancient dinosaur bones or fossils . . . radioactivity . . . [and] distant stars,” but it is an interpretation of observed data based entirely on anti-biblical and unverifiable assumptions about the past.
Time, for evolutionists, is “the hero of the plot.”9 Time—“billions of years” Nye claims—“explains so much.” Actually, time doesn’t explain anything. Evolutionary beliefs represent an attempt to explain the origin of life by assuming that given enough time anything can randomly create itself. Yet evolutionary beliefs cannot explain the origin of life from non-living elements through undirected natural processes. This is because evolutionary beliefs—those beliefs Nye asserts our children must accept—offer no natural observable process that can explain the origin of genetic information (stored in the DNA molecule of every plant, animal, and human) through random natural processes. Furthermore, evolutionary scientists have not been able to produce any undisputed transitional fossil forms to substantiate their contention that organisms evolved from simpler kinds, much less explain how the first living cell could arise in the first place.10
Time doesn’t solve these problems; in fact, time is an enemy of evolution, because the more time you have, the more mutations there are, which destroy functional genetic information. But evolutionists continue to assure us that their conclusions about the unobservable past are factual. Since we exist, they believe we must have gotten here through evolution. How? Because, they think, over “billions of years” anything—even things we never observe in the present—could happen.
And where do Nye and fellow evolutionists find those billions of years? “Here is radioactivity. Here are distant stars,” Nye says. Yet a close look at “distant stars” reveals a variety of stars but not how they got there. Big bang cosmology suffers from significant scientific problems of its own.11 Likewise, radiometric dating methods are based on a series of demonstrably faulty assumptions and often produce unreliable and inconsistent results. (See Radiometric Dating: Back to Basics, Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions, and Radiometric Dating: Making Sense of the Patterns to learn more.) And Nye’s “ancient dinosaur bones or fossils” are dated based on the radiometric dates of nearby rock layers. And evolutionists seem unwilling to use the dating methods that could expose the myth of millions of years for the age of those dinosaurs bones.12 Even molecular dating in genetics is based on presumed mutation rates, the untenable belief that mutations can create new genetic information, and the evolutionary dates already assigned to fossils. Evolution appears to “explain so much” because evolutionary reasoning is circular.
On the other hand, God’s Word provides an eyewitness account of our origins and of events—such as the global Flood—that make sense of the world around us. Animals and plants reproduce after their kinds, just as Genesis describes. They produce incredible variety within each kind, but one kind doesn’t change into a different kind. And the geologic column makes sense as a record of the catastrophic burial of countless organisms during the cataclysmic destruction of habitats all over the world by Noah’s Flood. (Read more in Chapter 31: Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?)
Nye’s belief that “billions . . . explains so much” is based on circular reasoning and unverifiable assumptions. God’s Word, however, explains our origins, what we see in the world, and even why we are the intelligent yet sinful creatures we are—all on the authority of the God who has always been here and always tells the truth. Nye claims, “There is no evidence for it”—God’s explanation for what we see. But he is wrong. The evidence affirming God’s explanation is all around us and even beneath our feet in the fossil record (Romans 1:18–20). And it’s also in our conscience (Romans 2:14–16).
Nye predicts gloom and doom for our country if we don’t train up our children to accept evolution. He claims acceptance of evolutionary beliefs is essential if they are to be “scientifically literate voters and taxpayers . . . engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.” Yet engineers build technological solutions for today’s problems and physicians discover the causes and cures for diseases and deformities by “doing science” in the present world—making observations, developing and testing hypotheses, trying out their ideas repeatedly in controlled circumstances. It is irrational and unscientific to think that the technology was made by intelligent engineers, but the bodies of the engineers and all other living creatures were made by a blind, purposeless, directionless process called evolution.
Furthermore, scientific progress does not rely on acceptance of evolution. (In fact, as retired internist and creationist Dr. Tommy Mitchell discusses in “Evolution and Medicine,” evolutionary beliefs can actually hinder medical progress. The remarkable accomplishments of eminent Johns Hopkins physician and creationist Dr. Benjamin Carson is a recent testimony to the fact that acceptance of molecules-to-man evolution is unnecessary for medical progress, even in an area where evolutionists claim to have great insight—development defects. (Read about the controversy surrounding Dr. Carson’s statements about both science and the logical basis for morality in News to Note, May 26, 2012.)
Nye’s mission is to “foster a scientifically literate society, to help people everywhere understand and appreciate the science that makes our world work.”13 Science literacy includes the ability to discern the difference between experimental science that draws conclusions based on observable, testable, controllable, repeatable investigations—“the science that makes our world work”—and historical, or origins, science which tries to reconstruct the unobserved past. Our world is already here. We cannot go back and test or observe its origins. And accepting the worldview of those who reject the eyewitness account of the Creator of the universe does not improve anyone’s ability to build things that work, only their ability to spin more just-so mythological stories about the past.
Be sure to catch Ken Ham’s comments in yesterday’s blog post, “Time is Nye for rebuttal.” There Ken reminds readers why we care what children are taught about God their Creator. Ken wrote the folowing:
We teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes—and where they came from. And we tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life, and that they were created for a purpose. Our Creator loves us, even while we are sinners (for we have all sinned in Adam). Christ paid the penalty for our sin and offers a free gift of salvation. No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God.”
We’ve heard in Nye’s video why he says he cares what children believe. Nye’s worldview rejects the Creator’s Word revealed in the Bible as the ultimate basis for determining right and wrong, good and bad. In Nye’s worldview, therefore, each individual determines what is good and desirable, what is a disservice to children and to the country, and even what sort of things he should care about. By claiming to represent what is “best” for kids and to tell parents what is the “right” thing to do, Nye is really borrowing from a “biblical” worldview. (See Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview for more about this distinction.)
But let’s listen to what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16–17), says about how the way we view God’s testimony in Genesis (recorded by Moses) affects the way we view Him, our Savior. Jesus said the following:
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My word? (John 5:46–47)
And let’s listen to what He said about children.
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:1–6)
Woe to Christian or non-Christian evolutionists who destroy children’s faith in Christ and His Word.
What we teach children does make a difference. That’s why God’s Word in Proverbs 22:6 commands us to “train up a child in the way he should go.” In fact, biblically sound instruction is not to be reserved for Sunday morning alone. God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 6:6–9 that His Word should be a part of every aspect of their children’s lives, diligently taught. And Paul commended Timothy’s mother and grandmother when he remarked, “From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). Therefore, on the ground of biblical authority, Christian parents today who heed Nye’s advice, encourage their children to accept evolution, and keep their biblical beliefs to themselves are abdicating their God-given responsibility, robbing their children of God’s best, and endangering their eternal well-being.
Don’t miss watching and sharing the Answers in Genesis video “Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children” rebutting Nye on YouTube. It features Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom. Dr. Purdom has a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University and was a biology professor at Mount Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Menton has a PhD in cell biology from Brown University. He is an Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine where he trained medical students for 34 years before retiring to come work for Answers in Genesis. They are clearly qualified to share their insights on creation science and science education, being experienced professionals at the highest levels of their fields. Watch their video and please share it with others who might be deceived by the charismatic Science Guy’s “smoke and mirrors” reasoning.

Listen to veteran educators Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom share their insights about Bill Nye’s claims on this YouTube video prepared especially to respond to Nye’s crusade to capture kids for evolution.
For more information about some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation see Creation scientists and other biographies of interest. Scientists like those on staff at Answers in Genesis, those on this list, Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Benjamin Carson (mentioned above), and many others stand on the shoulders of some of the “greats” in the history of science—like Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell. These men believed in a Creator God and expected to find His orderly handiwork in the world of science. Despite Bill Nye’s assertions, a worldview that honors God as Creator of the universe and the physical laws in it did not hold these scientists back at all but rather was the very foundation on which they built their scientific understanding.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/08/30/bill-nye-crusade-for-your-kids
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Oct. 6, 2012 at 5:04 PM
Replies (41-50):
GotSomeKids
by Silver Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 12:11 AM

You don't have to say they are equal.  Just present the information.  There is a lot of shit out there that has "many" opposing views that we have to make decisions about.  This is just another one of them.  No biggy.

And, as for schools. I happen to agree with you, but the article said he was referencing what "parents" teach/tell their kids.

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting GotSomeKids:

Very good points.  But, I don't mistakingly think science dismisses rubbish.  I've taken enough science courses and known enough people in the field to know better.  I suppose I could have clarified better.

But, that said, I stand by what I said.  Just openly tell your kids what people think on both sides of the spectrum.  Allow them to be fully informed and let them develop their own opinions on the issue.

Quoting stringtheory:

The problem with this stance, is that science tests likely theories that are based on logic, not scripture. Creationism is a "science" that came into play with a subjective hypothesis; true experimental science does not do this. A hypothesis is based on a likely but objective idea...creationists created a hypothesis based on scripture, and selected experimentation that would compliment that, and THEN, selected results that would "confirm" the scriptures. NO scientist would consider this a good way to utilize scientific method. Funny thing about your argument, is that there are scientists who have tested and found wanting creationism. They did exactly what your first question asked, and concluded that evolution was better. Or looked at the experimentation and evidence produced by creationists themselves and found the flaws, and concluded, CORRECTLY, that evolution was a more logical-based-on-evidence-from-true-scientific-method theory. You mistakenly think that science simply dismisses rubbish. No, they look, consider, THEN dismiss because it is exactly that: Rubbish.

Quoting GotSomeKids:

Well, from a scientific stand point, aren't you suppose to test all theories, observe all options, address all issues?  Well, creationism is one of them.  I don't say hide it from your kids, tell them about it too.  Tell them about evolution too and let them decide.   I think him telling parents not to tell kids about creationsim (if I'm reading it correctly) is just as bad as creationist not telling their kids about evolution.

The sad things is, we are all telling our kids they don't have the ability to make those determinations themselves.  I've told my kids both options and they have a lot of questions.  I tell them I don't have all the answers and they have to decide what they want to do with the information.  It will certainly be interesting to see what they do when they get older.



 I don't really care what you teach your kids at home.  If you want to teach them that they can figure out what is real and what isn't real on their own, go ahead.

When kids go to school, they see teachers as authorities and experts.  You say "both sides" but in reality there are many different ideas that people have on what "might" be the origins of the world.  Science doesn't care what people think, they care about evidence and where it goes.  That is what needs to be taught in science classes. 

I can't imagine how confusing that must be to kids to be taught two diametrically opposed ideas as "equal" and that they should decide on their own which is truth.


kaffedrikke
by Bronze Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 12:13 AM
Research the three Earth ages and the katabole. The Earth isnt young. Im in agreement.


Quoting AdrianneHill:

Aaaaaaaaaáaaaaaaaaaahh!!



There is so very much so very wrong with that very long and rambling, occasionally nonsensical, long piece of de-informative crap I've read in a long time. So much wrong. So many unprovable jabs at science and the very hard work that goes into finding things out when the answer isn't automatically "god did it". You cant claim to be geologist if you don't believe in plate tectonics and continental drift. Those thing don't even make sense in a young earth! Just like magnetism, creation of planets through accretion, radioactive planet cores, and a host of other things are just little details from god if the world is six thousand years old. You cant make predictions if everything was created to look artificially aged. What hell people?!? Seriously!

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
romalove
by Roma on Oct. 7, 2012 at 12:28 AM
1 mom liked this
I don't present nonsense to my kids as a possibility.

Quoting GotSomeKids:

You don't have to say they are equal.  Just present the information.  There is a lot of shit out there that has "many" opposing views that we have to make decisions about.  This is just another one of them.  No biggy.

And, as for schools. I happen to agree with you, but the article said he was referencing what "parents" teach/tell their kids.

Quoting romalove:

 


Quoting GotSomeKids:


Very good points.  But, I don't mistakingly think science dismisses rubbish.  I've taken enough science courses and known enough people in the field to know better.  I suppose I could have clarified better.


But, that said, I stand by what I said.  Just openly tell your kids what people think on both sides of the spectrum.  Allow them to be fully informed and let them develop their own opinions on the issue.


Quoting stringtheory:


The problem with this stance, is that science tests likely theories that are based on logic, not scripture. Creationism is a "science" that came into play with a subjective hypothesis; true experimental science does not do this. A hypothesis is based on a likely but objective idea...creationists created a hypothesis based on scripture, and selected experimentation that would compliment that, and THEN, selected results that would "confirm" the scriptures. NO scientist would consider this a good way to utilize scientific method. Funny thing about your argument, is that there are scientists who have tested and found wanting creationism. They did exactly what your first question asked, and concluded that evolution was better. Or looked at the experimentation and evidence produced by creationists themselves and found the flaws, and concluded, CORRECTLY, that evolution was a more logical-based-on-evidence-from-true-scientific-method theory. You mistakenly think that science simply dismisses rubbish. No, they look, consider, THEN dismiss because it is exactly that: Rubbish.


Quoting GotSomeKids:


Well, from a scientific stand point, aren't you suppose to test all theories, observe all options, address all issues?  Well, creationism is one of them.  I don't say hide it from your kids, tell them about it too.  Tell them about evolution too and let them decide.   I think him telling parents not to tell kids about creationsim (if I'm reading it correctly) is just as bad as creationist not telling their kids about evolution.


The sad things is, we are all telling our kids they don't have the ability to make those determinations themselves.  I've told my kids both options and they have a lot of questions.  I tell them I don't have all the answers and they have to decide what they want to do with the information.  It will certainly be interesting to see what they do when they get older.






 I don't really care what you teach your kids at home.  If you want to teach them that they can figure out what is real and what isn't real on their own, go ahead.


When kids go to school, they see teachers as authorities and experts.  You say "both sides" but in reality there are many different ideas that people have on what "might" be the origins of the world.  Science doesn't care what people think, they care about evidence and where it goes.  That is what needs to be taught in science classes. 


I can't imagine how confusing that must be to kids to be taught two diametrically opposed ideas as "equal" and that they should decide on their own which is truth.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
GotSomeKids
by Silver Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 12:31 AM
1 mom liked this

Your kids, your decision.  :)

Quoting romalove:

I don't present nonsense to my kids as a possibility.

Quoting GotSomeKids:

You don't have to say they are equal.  Just present the information.  There is a lot of shit out there that has "many" opposing views that we have to make decisions about.  This is just another one of them.  No biggy.

And, as for schools. I happen to agree with you, but the article said he was referencing what "parents" teach/tell their kids.

Quoting romalove:

 


Quoting GotSomeKids:


Very good points.  But, I don't mistakingly think science dismisses rubbish.  I've taken enough science courses and known enough people in the field to know better.  I suppose I could have clarified better.


But, that said, I stand by what I said.  Just openly tell your kids what people think on both sides of the spectrum.  Allow them to be fully informed and let them develop their own opinions on the issue.


Quoting stringtheory:


The problem with this stance, is that science tests likely theories that are based on logic, not scripture. Creationism is a "science" that came into play with a subjective hypothesis; true experimental science does not do this. A hypothesis is based on a likely but objective idea...creationists created a hypothesis based on scripture, and selected experimentation that would compliment that, and THEN, selected results that would "confirm" the scriptures. NO scientist would consider this a good way to utilize scientific method. Funny thing about your argument, is that there are scientists who have tested and found wanting creationism. They did exactly what your first question asked, and concluded that evolution was better. Or looked at the experimentation and evidence produced by creationists themselves and found the flaws, and concluded, CORRECTLY, that evolution was a more logical-based-on-evidence-from-true-scientific-method theory. You mistakenly think that science simply dismisses rubbish. No, they look, consider, THEN dismiss because it is exactly that: Rubbish.


Quoting GotSomeKids:


Well, from a scientific stand point, aren't you suppose to test all theories, observe all options, address all issues?  Well, creationism is one of them.  I don't say hide it from your kids, tell them about it too.  Tell them about evolution too and let them decide.   I think him telling parents not to tell kids about creationsim (if I'm reading it correctly) is just as bad as creationist not telling their kids about evolution.


The sad things is, we are all telling our kids they don't have the ability to make those determinations themselves.  I've told my kids both options and they have a lot of questions.  I tell them I don't have all the answers and they have to decide what they want to do with the information.  It will certainly be interesting to see what they do when they get older.






 I don't really care what you teach your kids at home.  If you want to teach them that they can figure out what is real and what isn't real on their own, go ahead.


When kids go to school, they see teachers as authorities and experts.  You say "both sides" but in reality there are many different ideas that people have on what "might" be the origins of the world.  Science doesn't care what people think, they care about evidence and where it goes.  That is what needs to be taught in science classes. 


I can't imagine how confusing that must be to kids to be taught two diametrically opposed ideas as "equal" and that they should decide on their own which is truth.



Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 4:41 AM
Quoting GotSomeKids:

from a scientific stand point, aren't you suppose to test all theories, observe all options, address all issues?  Well, creationism is one of them.

The word "theory" means something rather specific in science.

But the answer is no, it isn't the duty of science to examine and rule out all possible explanations.

Let me give you two examples, and ask how you would go about ruling them out.


EXAMPLE 1

Diseases are caused by demons, and are inflicted upon people for sins they have committed now (or in previous lives) or as a lesson (to themselves or to others).  Any link between diseases and small germs is camoflage generated by the demons, that they only bother to create when a scientist or doctor is looking closely.


EXAMPLE 2

Heavy unsupported objects tend to fall downwards.  They reason they fall down is because fat invisible pixies are sitting on the objects.  What we think of as "mass" is just how attractive the pixies find it, and the attractive force between the pixies is love.  All the pixies love each other, and the closer they are, the better they can see each other and the more strongly the love acts.  (Pixies have perfect undetectable magic X-ray vision.)

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 4:46 AM
Quoting GotSomeKids:
Quoting romalove:

Science doesn't care what people think, they care about evidence and where it goes.  That is what needs to be taught in science classes.

I can't imagine how confusing that must be to kids to be taught two diametrically opposed ideas as "equal" and that they should decide on their own which is truth.

You don't have to say they are equal.  Just present the information.

How, if a parent's aim (in this context) is to educate a child upon what the scientfic process is and is not, do you suggest a parent decide which 'information' to present?   On which topics within science do you present unscientific ideas?  What criteria do you use to decide?

12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:08 AM
Sometimes wrong.


Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting 12hellokitty:

Science is not always clear, cut, reliable, measurable, accurate and proven. Science will never be able to answer where does matter come from.




What do you think "science" is?


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:14 AM
Isn't Dawkins a bigot, according to liberal standards?


Quoting jessilin0113:

This is funnier than when Ann Coulter referred to Richard Dawkins as a "retard".

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
toomanypoodles
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 8:08 AM
1 mom liked this

 I could not read all this tiny print, but I get the gist. 

This does not surprise me, as a Christian.  It's prophecy---a sign of the last days.  Satan is the one out to get the kids, Nye is just his tool.  

Come Lord Jesus. 

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 8:09 AM
Quoting 12hellokitty:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting 12hellokitty:

Science is not always clear, cut, reliable, measurable, accurate and proven. Science will never be able to answer where does matter come from.

What do you think "science" is?

Sometimes wrong.

That's a property.  I was asking for a definition.

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)