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

(minimum 6 characters)

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.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Oct. 6, 2012 at 5:04 PM
Replies (121-130):
by Ruby Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM
How can it be wrong to decide that the only things that can be studied are things that other scientists can see and test for themselves? It would be impossible to try to include biblical thought with all of the sciences just as it would be ridiculous to study mountain ranges starting with the idea that these things were made by giants wrestling around even though all of the evidence points in another direction but that is what has been believed by your people for generations.

And why does evolution need to explain the emergence of logic or reason? Just as it does NOT state that all life started from a random clump of amino acids somehow granted life by a lightning strike or whatever, evolution shouldn't be pushed to explain what is beyond its purview? Things like dignity, logic, reason, and other things that cant be measured would be very hard to detect in skeletons or Dna. Scientists take the easier way and don't try to quantify these things and stick to the testable. If you can figure out a way to include the "rational thought of a creator" as a quantifiable variable, I'm sure more scientists will include it in their formula in the future.

Abiogenesis is the theory that all life arose from nonliving organic matter in the primordial soup. The theory that everything came from a singularity and is now still part of that ever increasing explosion from fourteen billion years ago is the Big Bang theory which also has nothing to do with evolution. I just needed to put that because people seem to be mad about evolution but their arguments are really with other scientific theories that have been mistakenly attributed to evolution.

Quoting cammibear:

Okay, but you cannot say you follow the evidence wherever it takes you, if you have already placed conditions on what that evidence can and cannot be, or where that evidence can or cannot take you.

You are exactly correct though. This is exactly how evolutionists do science. They interpret all data through their presuppositions, including the presumption that there is no God, and including the presumption that they can come to a logical conclusion apart from God, even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge comes from.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Evolution flows from the assumption that all things happened without a God Creator. It begins with that blind faith assumption

Not exactly.

Science makes the assumption that we do not NEED to assume the supernatural, in order to explain the things we can observe.   Or, to put it another way, it limits itself to finding the sorts of explanations that it can back up with objective evidence (which rules out the supernatural).  In this respect, evolution is just like all the rest of science.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by Libertarian on Oct. 8, 2012 at 9:11 AM
1 mom liked this

I didn['t have to be there. The deposits left behind in the ice cores of Antarctica were, and they prove the earth is, at a bare minimum, over 400,000 years old, because that is how many years the ice core covers. 

Once we'[ve blown the idea of a 6,000 year old earth out of water, is it really necessary to refute all the other fairy tales youve listed?

Fuck it, let's do this.

I've heard this "canopy" tale before. And it makes me laugh. Man, what Hefty Sinch-Sack clouds we must have had a couple thousand years ago that could contain all that water. lol Nope, the process that causes water to condense and fall as rain was definitely not at work while this "canopy" was gathering oceans of water. Or, since we're completely abandoning the scientific method, perhaps a canopy wasn't even necessary (as if its possible LOL), perhaps God just snapped his fingers, nodded his head, and water just fucking materialized out of nowhere and  flooded out the earth. 

I gotta ask: Why didn't Noah save any dinosaurs? Why aren't they mentioned in the bible? I'm wondering how something as big as t-rex or brontosaurus was left out of your "good book"... Nope, nary a mention. Could it be, could it possibly be, that when the bible was being created and written, there was no knowledge that dinosaurs had roamed the earth tens of millions of years ago? Of course not. Let's see what excuse Ham can cook up for why the dinosaurs arent mentioned. 

It is not at all possible that things were as they are described in Genesis. Genesis is a neat story, but that doesn't even begin to make it true. Using the scientific method, the same method used by creation wackadoos to try to validate bible stories, shows that Genesis is not possible. Not even close. lol

Quoting cammibear:

I would say you were not there, so you don't "really" have any idea.

The Bible talks about the Earth having some kind of water vapor canopy around it pre-flood. Rain had not existed until Noahs day, so we don't really know exactly what the earth was like before the flood. It's very possible things were exactly as they were described in Genesis. People lived hundreds of years, so obviously something was different.

Quoting radioheid:

Of course the comments are closed. Lol Sorry, but I stopped reading and started laughing at the part about kids walking with dinosaurs. There is a reason humans didn't coexist with dinosaurs: nitrogen, oxygen and co2 content in the atmosphere. Even slight fluctuations cause major extinction events. It is physiologically impossible for humans to have lived during the dinosaur age. Our bodies couldn't take it---we would have choked to death within hours of birth. Ham is such a dumb-ass. Lol

"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

by Libertarian on Oct. 8, 2012 at 9:37 AM
2 moms liked this

 No one has claimed humans evolved from chimps. We share a common ancestor who lived approximately 8 million years ago, and evolved separately from that point. Why do you people keep using this crap? It is as if you genuinely don't understand how evolution works. Nobody is saying humans evolved from chimps, only that we are genetic cousins who shared a common ancestor fairly recently on the evolutionary timeline.

I can't believe someone wrote an entire piece, in 2012, arguing that humans didn't evolve from chimps. No shit, Sherlock. I thought we cleared that up about 75 years ago.  lol But I guess when we're dealing with people who are at least 200 years behind in their science lessons, I shouldn't be surprised.

Quoting cammibear:

Send This
Stark Differences Between Human and Chimp Brains
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

New research adds to an ever-lengthening stream of discoveries that confirm exactly what a Bible-believing scientist would expect—humans are distinct from chimpanzees. They should be, if they were created in the image of God, not as an imaginary pre-human primate. The study, published in American Journal of Human Genetics, investigated DNA methylation patterning in human and chimpanzee brains.1 Two observations from this research support the biblical origins of mankind.

In a process called methylation, cell systems add methyl groups to some regions of chromosomes. DNA methylation patterns are different in brain cells than they are in muscle cells, for example, and they differ between individuals and species. They do not change the genetic code, but they regulate some genetic functions. Therefore, they comprise a level of information separate from the genetic code. Studies show that they provide critical regulation of the activity of DNA-manipulating enzymes both during embryonic development and during the daily life of adult cells. When methylation patterns are errant, they cause gene malfunction and can lead to disease. Some types of abnormal methylation patterns are lethal.

The researchers used a new technique to peer in unprecedented detail at the methylation patterns of human and chimp DNA that they harvested from brain tissue of three cadavers of each species. They compared only those DNA sequences already known to have basically the same genes, ignoring the vast majority of DNA. If humans and chimps are close relatives, then they should have similar DNA methylation patterns in the areas of chromosomes that they have in common such as similar gene sequences.2 However, this team found major differences.

In particular, human and chimp DNA methylation patterns, called "methylomes," were very different between the two species’ brain tissue. The data statistically indicated that "major principal components separate humans and chimpanzees," according to their report in American Journal of Human Genetics.1,3

A second observation is that the very genes that were differently methylated "exhibit striking associations with several disorders, including neurological and psychological disorders and cancers."1 These data show that methylation patterns in many cases can tolerate very little disruption, thus presenting another impossible hurdle for the evolutionary model to overcome.

If humans evolved from chimpanzee-like creatures, then some unknown evolutionary process must have altered their methylomes. But since methylomes apparently cannot tolerate that much alteration, then the evolutionary story must be in error.

Human and chimp species-specific and irreducibly complex methylomes refute human evolution. On the other hand, the origin of mankind as a special creation of an omnipotent and loving kind Creator who made man after His likeness is consistent with the newly described uniquely human methylome.


Zeng, J. et al. 2012. Divergent whole-genome methylation maps of human and chimpanzee brains reveal epigenetic basis of human regulatory evolution. American Journal of Human Genetics. 91 (3):455-465.
Human and chimp DNA sequences are overall much more different than widely held. See Tomkins, J. 2011. Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth—New Research Data. Acts & Facts. 40 (10): 6; and Tomkins, J. and B. Thomas. 2010. New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims. Acts & Facts. 39 (4): 4-5.
Specifically, 474 homologous genes that were either heavily methylated or weakly methylated in one species was just the opposite in the other species. Similarly, 468 gene promoters in human were significantly less methylated than the same gene promoter regions in chimpanzees.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on October 5, 2012.

Not really sure what your chart proves, but new evidence is showing problems with chimp to man evolution.

"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

by on Oct. 8, 2012 at 9:42 AM
1 mom liked this

"His recent youtube video...has revealed his strong evolutionary bias"

This made me laugh...he has never hidden his support for evolution.  The man has been a massive name in science since I can remember, how is that we need it to be revealed that he supports evolution?  I mean heck, he has been quoted numerous times recently that he feels evolution is a vitally important subject in education. It didn't reveal jack just confirmed what people knew.  He's a scientist, and supports science explicitly.  How is this a surprise to people? 

by Ruby Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Cammibear, what about the inconsistencies in Bireshit/Genesis itself in terms of your claim of 100% reliability? I donhave time today to pull my JPS translation w/Ancient Hebrew Tanach/Old Testament, so I can't site the exact chapter & verse or give direct quotes. But one example do remember is of the creation of woman. In creation she is created in G-d's image along with man. In another, later part of Bireshit/Genesis she is created later, after/from Adom/Adam. How do you handle 100% reliability when there are inconsistencies?

Quoting cammibear:

AIG rips Bill Nye to shreds, in a nice way of course.

They have even challenged him to debate, which won't happen, because he wouldn't stand a chance.

You people go on believing in evolution and trying to justify there is no God. You know deep down He exists. ;)

Christians, I suggest you inform yourselves on what Creationists believe and why. Even evolutionists understand the problems that arise when trying to say you believe the bible and believe in molecule to man evolution at the same time. What's the point, if you don't believe every word of the Bible is true? Either it is 100% reliable, or you have no idea what to believe when pertaining to life and truth.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by Platinum Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 10:09 AM
1 mom liked this
"Bill Nye wasn't there, but God was".....

You call that ripping someone to shreds? That's the weakest argument I've ever heard. To even use the term " argument" gives it a dignity it doesn't come close to deserving. Lame.

Quoting cammibear:

AIG rips Bill Nye to shreds, in a nice way of course.

They have even challenged him to debate, which won't happen, because he wouldn't stand a chance.

You people go on believing in evolution and trying to justify there is no God. You know deep down He exists. ;)

Christians, I suggest you inform yourselves on what Creationists believe and why. Even evolutionists understand the problems that arise when trying to say you believe the bible and believe in molecule to man evolution at the same time. What's the point, if you don't believe every word of the Bible is true? Either it is 100% reliable, or you have no idea what to believe when pertaining to life and truth.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by Ruby Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Quoting Della529:

 12HK, I don't believe I've ever agreed with your stance or opinion, but I do with regard to this topic.

I would ask, though.  If 'scripture is the infallible knowledge of God, and you question cammib's interpretation of Genesis, should you not also question your interpretation of certain portions of the Bible when it comes to the interpretation you choose to believe?  Seems to me there are billions of Christians who can't agree with a totalitarian stance and that truly bothers me. 

Ill be honest I'm not exactly sure of what specifically Cammibear believes regarding genesis, my comment was in response to the beliefs of creationist mainly Ham.  From what I have read Ham believes ones salvation requires believing in genesis according to his interpretation.  My faith doesn't require me to have such a defined  belief in understanding of genesis.  As long as I  "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).  In regards to man having evolved  from a previous form as long as I  "hold that souls are immediately created by God" I'm good.  I also am not aware of anywhere in scripture that requires on to hold to the specific beliefs regarding creation that Ham claims as the Truth.   

Cammi believes in an earth that's only been around for 6 - 10K years.  You seem to dispute that claim.

I personally disagree with the earth only being 6-10kyears, but I dont claim my beleif is the Truth. 

Yet, you and Cammi both seem to hold the same "interpretation" when it comes to  your position in regard to "Israel".  C gave her small portion, you countered with your small portion - and by "portion" I mean a verse or two, yet by your own words, you explain, "show where in the bible they have been given authority to interpret scripture".  Where did the bible have you been authorized to interpret scripture?

Not sure about what Cammibear beliefs specifically regarding Israel.  I ask about authority regarding interpreting scripture when a person makes a claim that their interpretation is the Truth.  If one wants to claim interpretation as being the Truth then they first need to show where in the bible they (or whoever is the author of the interpretation they belief) has been given authority to interpret scripture, then they need to show what part their faith had in putting together the bible. 

How is it, that so many christian groups (which number in the thousands), can't agree on the "infallible word of god" and what it means?  I find this to be a seriously flawed position for anyone who chooses to follow Christ's actual words. 

IMO people don't agree out of pride. 

by Bronze Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM
1 mom liked this
The words "evolutionary" and "bias" put together is whats really cracking me the hell up. This creationism vs. evolution isnt even a huge issue in many other countries. You dont want your kid learning about science, put them in a fundamentalist schools. Other parents, like myself, am all for my kids learning about science and logic, instead of fables and fairy tales. People have no clue how far we can go as a species if we start putting an emphasis on critical thinking and stop dancing for rain.

Quoting katzmeow726:

"His recent youtube video...has revealed his strong evolutionary bias"

This made me laugh...he has never hidden his support for evolution.  The man has been a massive name in science since I can remember, how is that we need it to be revealed that he supports evolution?  I mean heck, he has been quoted numerous times recently that he feels evolution is a vitally important subject in education. It didn't reveal jack just confirmed what people knew.  He's a scientist, and supports science explicitly.  How is this a surprise to people? 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by Ruby Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others.

People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.

Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.

Chronological Reading

According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days.

Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.

That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

The Topical Reading

This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

Real History

The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

Science and Religion

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.


by Bronze Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Yeah, Nye wasnt there, or anyone who wrote the Bible for that matter

Quoting shannonnigans:

"Bill Nye wasn't there, but God was".....

You call that ripping someone to shreds? That's the weakest argument I've ever heard. To even use the term " argument" gives it a dignity it doesn't come close to deserving. Lame.

Quoting cammibear:

AIG rips Bill Nye to shreds, in a nice way of course.

They have even challenged him to debate, which won't happen, because he wouldn't stand a chance.

You people go on believing in evolution and trying to justify there is no God. You know deep down He exists. ;)

Christians, I suggest you inform yourselves on what Creationists believe and why. Even evolutionists understand the problems that arise when trying to say you believe the bible and believe in molecule to man evolution at the same time. What's the point, if you don't believe every word of the Bible is true? Either it is 100% reliable, or you have no idea what to believe when pertaining to life and truth.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
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)