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

Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:Okay, but you cannot say you follow the evidence wherever it takes you,
Quoting cammibear:
Evolution flows from the assumption that all things happened without a God Creator. It begins with that blind faith assumptionNot 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.
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.
This is exactly how scientists do science. In all areas of science.
Yes, science does limit itself to considering only objective evidence, evidence whose reliability can be demonstrated to two different third parties in a way that both third parties can agree how reliable or unreliable to evidence is.
It is BECAUSE science has standards for evidence that it has produced a track record of reliability that beats any other method of modelling reality known to man.
Quoting cammibear:
even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge comes from.
It doesn't try to. Neither does the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease.

Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:Okay, but you cannot say you follow the evidence wherever it takes you,
Quoting cammibear:
Evolution flows from the assumption that all things happened without a God Creator. It begins with that blind faith assumptionNot 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.
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.
This is exactly how scientists do science. In all areas of science.
Yes, science does limit itself to considering only objective evidence, evidence whose reliability can be demonstrated to two different third parties in a way that both third parties can agree how reliable or unreliable to evidence is.
It is BECAUSE science has standards for evidence that it has produced a track record of reliability that beats any other method of modelling reality known to man.
Quoting cammibear:
even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge comes from.
It doesn't try to. Neither does the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease.

Quoting cammibear:
I wanted to add one thing. Not all scientists have the same atheistic presuppositions that evolutionists do. They will not interpret data through the same axioms.
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:Okay, but you cannot say you follow the evidence wherever it takes you,
Quoting cammibear:
Evolution flows from the assumption that all things happened without a God Creator. It begins with that blind faith assumptionNot 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.
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.This is exactly how scientists do science. In all areas of science.
Yes, science does limit itself to considering only objective evidence, evidence whose reliability can be demonstrated to two different third parties in a way that both third parties can agree how reliable or unreliable to evidence is.
It is BECAUSE science has standards for evidence that it has produced a track record of reliability that beats any other method of modelling reality known to man.
Quoting cammibear:
even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge comes from.
It doesn't try to. Neither does the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease.
What does this mean?
Scientists don't have "atheist" presuppositions. They also don't have religious presuppositions.
You don't understand science or scientists, at all, in large part because you only listen to people who declare themselves to be scientists but who have abandoned any pretense of science or scientific thinking because it doesn't jive with their religious beliefs.

Quoting cammibear:
Again, I'm not sure why you seem to be on the defense. I'm not asking you to agree. I thought, since you are a bible believing Christian, it would be an interesting discussion. I never claimed to have all the answers. I think macroevolution contradicts "god created".
Quoting 12hellokitty:
I can agree that scripture is the infallible knowledge of God, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the way creationist interpret scripture, unless they can show where in the bible they have been given authority to interpret scripture.
Quoting cammibear:
Based on man's fallible logic. Scripture is the infallible knowledge of God. Gee...which to trust? ;)
We have a friend who is a molecular biologist. For years was an evolutionist, but is now a Creationist because of the evidence.
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 think you hit on what I'm trying to say. It's not impossible to include Biblical thought into all the sciences. Not when a biblical worldview is how you interpret everything you see or think. But the same applies to someone who has a secular or atheistic worldview. Your not going to come to the conclusion that there is a God. You are going to keep changing your argument as new evidence is discovered to fit with your worldview. But you are also going to have to borrow from a theistic worldview if you are going to say that there are laws of logic and that we can "know" anything, because that does not logically fit into an evolutionist worldview. So it doesn't need to explain it, but it does need to pull from another worldview to use it.
I do agree that people are mixed up on empirical evidence and historical science. Bill Nye's comments clearly show this and is what prompted a reply from AIG.
Quoting AdrianneHill:
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 assumptionNot 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.

Quoting cammibear:
Who is implying that scientists shouldn't study Things that are observable? I'm certainly not.
I think you hit on what I'm trying to say. It's not impossible to include Biblical thought into all the sciences. Not when a biblical worldview is how you interpret everything you see or think. But the same applies to someone who has a secular or atheistic worldview. Your not going to come to the conclusion that there is a God. You are going to keep changing your argument as new evidence is discovered to fit with your worldview. But you are also going to have to borrow from a theistic worldview if you are going to say that there are laws of logic and that we can "know" anything, because that does not logically fit into an evolutionist worldview. So it doesn't need to explain it, but it does need to pull from another worldview to use it.
I do agree that people are mixed up on empirical evidence and historical science. Bill Nye's comments clearly show this and is what prompted a reply from AIG.
Quoting AdrianneHill:
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 assumptionNot 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.
How and why would a scientist include a "biblical worldview" in doing research and interpreting data?

But there is a huge difference in saying all life evolved from a primordial soup, and God created. I guess I'm not clear what you believe, and how you tie evolution to Genesis 1, if you believe the Word is infallible.
Quoting 12hellokitty:
Sorry not trying to come off defensive, I am just not clear on what you specifically oppose regarding evolution and what makes it incomparable with your beliefs.
Quoting cammibear:
Again, I'm not sure why you seem to be on the defense. I'm not asking you to agree. I thought, since you are a bible believing Christian, it would be an interesting discussion. I never claimed to have all the answers. I think macroevolution contradicts "god created".
Quoting 12hellokitty:
I can agree that scripture is the infallible knowledge of God, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the way creationist interpret scripture, unless they can show where in the bible they have been given authority to interpret scripture.
Quoting cammibear:
Based on man's fallible logic. Scripture is the infallible knowledge of God. Gee...which to trust? ;)
We have a friend who is a molecular biologist. For years was an evolutionist, but is now a Creationist because of the evidence.
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.

Quoting romalove:
Quoting cammibear:
Who is implying that scientists shouldn't study Things that are observable? I'm certainly not.
I think you hit on what I'm trying to say. It's not impossible to include Biblical thought into all the sciences. Not when a biblical worldview is how you interpret everything you see or think. But the same applies to someone who has a secular or atheistic worldview. Your not going to come to the conclusion that there is a God. You are going to keep changing your argument as new evidence is discovered to fit with your worldview. But you are also going to have to borrow from a theistic worldview if you are going to say that there are laws of logic and that we can "know" anything, because that does not logically fit into an evolutionist worldview. So it doesn't need to explain it, but it does need to pull from another worldview to use it.
I do agree that people are mixed up on empirical evidence and historical science. Bill Nye's comments clearly show this and is what prompted a reply from AIG.
Quoting AdrianneHill:
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.
How and why would a scientist include a "biblical worldview" in doing research and interpreting data?
- cammibear
Gold Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 5:07 PMI take it you are bored with this thread. Me too and I'm only on page 10 of the comments.