Bill Nye The Science Guy Says Creationism Is Wrong.

[La Volpe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

Kinda dissapointing, I really like Bill Nye.

Thoughts?

[Ivellious]

I'm not sure what is so disappointing about this video or his views in general. He is a credible scientist and educator (an engineer, if I remember correctly) he has made many valid points on this subject, in this video and elsewhere. His point about evolution being essentially analogous to plate tectonics is spot-on, as is his point about the US being the only major country out there that has a serious problem with evolution among the general, non-scientist public.

[Gman]

Bill Nye is just another guy who doesn't understand the issue... Because no one is advocating against evolution per say, people are only advocating where it replaces G-d or forms of creationism. He is just another talking head or puppet.

[Ivellious]

Bill Nye is just another guy who doesn't understand the issue...

What makes you think he doesn't understand the issue? As a scientist and science educator, he is intimately involved in the issue. Not all scientists who advocate for evolution are out of touch with reality.

Because no one is advocating against evolution per say, people are only advocating where it replaces G-d or forms of creationism.

Well, see, this is what Nye meant in the video when he said that if you stick to a strict, literal biblical (or other religious) interpretation, "your world just becomes fantastically complicated." When you stick to that worldview you have to reconcile with the scientific evidence, which winds up going one of two ways: you either have to try to reconcile your beliefs with science, creating a complex and often convoluted belief system that tries to cling to both sides....or you simply deny the science with your only reasoning being "the Bible says so".

and to be fair, I take issue with you saying that people only advocate against evolution when evolution replaces God. Because the way I see it, most of those advocates aren't simply against evolution being taught in schools or whatnot, but they also wish to replace the science with creationism altogether in schools. Most of them don't care if evolution is supported by science, because they perceive evolution as some great threat to their belief system, and must root it out no matter what.

[Gman]

What makes you think he doesn't understand the issue? As a scientist and science educator, he is intimately involved in the issue. Not all scientists who advocate for evolution are out of touch with reality.

Bill Nye most certainly doesn't understand the issue.. Anyone making such blanket statements as this obviously is making an emotional appeal. Why? Because most people are aware that evolution is scientific.. That isn't the issue, the issue is when it becomes dogmatic and replaces anything associated with G-d or creationism. That is when we will fight..

Furthermore he doesn't understand that he doesn't have the "upper hand" on education and science. When you look at the scientific methods of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton they made observations plus predictions that anyone could observe… These scientists also believed in G-d and did not trump "science."

Well, see, this is what Nye meant in the video when he said that if you stick to a strict, literal biblical (or other religious) interpretation, "your world just becomes fantastically complicated." When you stick to that worldview you have to reconcile with the scientific evidence, which winds up going one of two ways: you either have to try to reconcile your beliefs with science, creating a complex and often convoluted belief system that tries to cling to both sides....or you simply deny the science with your only reasoning being "the Bible says so".

Yes, and when you stick to a strict literal biblical interpretation of the Bible, you will see that it doesn't make such claims as to a young earth and such.. Therefore he is making a blanket statement that anyone who believes in the Bible is unscientific and impeding education. Again I would reiterate what we have here is not really a debate on science but a debate on one's philosophy.

and to be fair, I take issue with you saying that people only advocate against evolution when evolution replaces God. Because the way I see it, most of those advocates aren't simply against evolution being taught in schools or whatnot, but they also wish to replace the science with creationism altogether in schools. Most of them don't care if evolution is supported by science, because they perceive evolution as some great threat to their belief system, and must root it out no matter what.

I really don't see the need to teach creationism in schools as long as evolution doesn't become a dogmatic approach to all solutions. Evolution (specifically macro-evolution) doesn't have all the answers and it never will.... No one can use science to prove or disprove G-d. We can only form our opinions based on the weight of information. Even then we will probably never have ultimate truth.

[Ivellious]

That isn't the issue, the issue is when it becomes dogmatic and replaces anything associated with G-d or creationism. That is when we will fight..

I don't think evolution is some kind of God-killing scientific machine. Nor do I think Nye is saying so and nor are the vast majority of scientists saying so. I know some scientists and philosophers will make that claim, and in turn conservative Christians and other religious groups have risen up to fight evolution as a whole. As far as I'm concerned, the only people who seriously think that evolution disproves God or think evolution is a threat to religion are the talking heads on tv.

Again, in science classes, it is true that technically evolution "replaced" creationism in the US. But that had more to do with a sort of redefining of what science classes are about than evolution "beating" creationism.

urthermore he doesn't understand that he doesn't have the "upper hand" on education and science. When you look at the scientific methods of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton they made observations plus predictions that anyone could observe… These scientists also believed in G-d and did not trump "science."

I understand that. Again, I don't think that science is anti-religion/anti-God and I don't think that religion/God is or should be considered anti-science. I'm not sure what you mean by Nye thinking he has the "upper hand"...are you implying that he thinks he speaks for all scientists or that his opinion matters more than someone else's?

Yes, and when you stick to a strict literal biblical interpretation of the Bible, you will see that it doesn't make such claims as to a young earth and such.. Therefore he is making a blanket statement that anyone who believes in the Bible is unscientific and impeding education.

And again, I would say that Nye isn't making such a blanket statement. He is pointing out that in the US there truly is a huge part of the population that rejects mainstream science based only on what their church teaches. I'm not saying all conservative Christians or Jews or Muslims reject evolution for no reason...But many do, and that's what Nye opposes based on this clip. Again, you interpret it as him saying all religion is anti-science, whereas I hear him saying that some religious views in the US are anti-science. I think the title of the video is slightly misleading in this sense.

[bippy123]

Again, when we are talking about Evolution I hope we arent talking about macroevolution, something thats never been observed in nature, and something that isnt in the fossil records. I'm perfectly ok with microevolution (adaptation) because its been observed but macro isnt science, and weve gone over this a few times allready.
It seems to me that if Nye is attacking young earth creationism he should be more specific in his article and if he means micro evolution is science then he should also state that specifically. Macroevolution is more of a philosopical viewpoint then science.

[Ivellious]

Of course Nye is talking about macroevolution. Practically any time a scientist references the Theory of evolution, they are referring to both micro and macro evolution, as both are part of the overarching Theory.

And yes, this has been covered before, but Bippy, your statement is saying that the vast majority of biologists, astronomers, and geologists are all liars or fools for accepting scientific understandings of things that we cannot physically witness in real time. Do you believe that?

[Philip]

When creationism is mentioned in the media or by prominent scientists, they almost never distinguish between Old Earth and Young Earth creationism. They don't even know what Progressive Creationism is. And the media, those typically without a scientific or mathematical bone in their bodies, seem to almost universally think - or at least insinuate - that all creationists have a literal 7-day/24-hour view of it.

And probably one of the reasons evolutionists don't distinguish between old earth creationism and young earth creationism is that OEC, at least scientifically, is much harder to dismiss - as it accepts many of the mainstream points about the age of the earth, the Big Bang, etc., as do most scientists. The big difference, of course, is the belief in macro evolution.

But, contrary to popular belief, TIME is no friend of the evolutionist - because there hasn't been ENOUGH of it to fit their assertions and theories!

As progressive creationist and astrophycist Hugh Ross notes: "Before 543 million years ago, Earth's zoo featured nothing more complex than cryptogamic colonies and some primitive sponges and jellyfish. Then, in a time window narrower than 2 to 3 million years (possibly much briefer), some 40 or more phyla of COMPLEX animals appeared, including 24 or 25 of the 30 animal phyla that remain on earth today ... Not only did complex animal phyla show up virtually all at once, but so did complex ecologies. Predator-prey relationships, for example, did not develop gradually. They were optimized right from the start of the Cambrian Explosion. Furthermore, the most advanced phylum ever to appear on earth, the chordates, (including such vertebrates as jawless fish),shows up at the very base of the Cambrian Explosion fossil record."

"Contrary to what might be expected from a naturalistic evolutionary perspective, which would anticipate the ongoing appearance of new phyla at a relatively high rate, only five or six new phyla have appeared during the past 540 million years, and about 15 phyla have DISAPPEARED. Evolution has proceeded in the opposite direction of what naturalistic models would expect."

Seriously, a 2 to 3 million year window simply isn't nearly enough time to explain the fossil record of the Cambrian, nor the establishment of necessary behaviors, complex interactions and interdependencies, and changes within so many species. And THEN, WHO - or what - dumb, blind mechanism slammed on the brakes of this creative burst? But people don't realize these things, as they are still thinking in terms of virtually unlimited amounts of time, for evolution to have blindly, if spectacularly, arrived at such magnificence and diversity. These things would have taken tremendous amounts of time - but it's time that the evolutionist doesn't have to explain things.

[Gman]

I don't think evolution is some kind of God-killing scientific machine. Nor do I think Nye is saying so and nor are the vast majority of scientists saying so. I know some scientists and philosophers will make that claim, and in turn conservative Christians and other religious groups have risen up to fight evolution as a whole. As far as I'm concerned, the only people who seriously think that evolution disproves God or think evolution is a threat to religion are the talking heads on tv.

Of course the claim by many evolutionists is that Darwinism does not interfere with God’s existence. Probably a more accurate way natualists say it is that if God does exist, existing is probably the “only” thing God has ever done. God is permanently unemployed and has never found useful employment in the entire history of life because impersonal material forces were capable of doing the whole job by itself and did do it. So essentially if one was believe that God does exist, that existence would fade away into unreality. It’s essentially the premise that nature is all that there is. Any other belief is automatically ruled out. And being silent to the issue is another form of giving your consent. So yes, you can say that it doesn't interfere with ID, but when ID is never insinuated what other alternatives does that give? By default naturalism.

Again, in science classes, it is true that technically evolution "replaced" creationism in the US. But that had more to do with a sort of redefining of what science classes are about than evolution "beating" creationism.

It only replaces creationism when it claims a dogmatic approach to everything. The problem with that is naturalism will never be able to explain everything. It never could.. Those who think it does are blind.

I understand that. Again, I don't think that science is anti-religion/anti-God and I don't think that religion/God is or should be considered anti-science. I'm not sure what you mean by Nye thinking he has the "upper hand"...are you implying that he thinks he speaks for all scientists or that his opinion matters more than someone else's?

Again... You do not have the ultimate truth on science.. You never did.. Please get off your high horse along with Bill Nye the philosophical guy. What you have here is a belief system nothing more. And to insinuate that blind luck chance created everything goes along the lines of stupidity to the highest extreme.

And again, I would say that Nye isn't making such a blanket statement. He is pointing out that in the US there truly is a huge part of the population that rejects mainstream science based only on what their church teaches. I'm not saying all conservative Christians or Jews or Muslims reject evolution for no reason...But many do, and that's what Nye opposes based on this clip. Again, you interpret it as him saying all religion is anti-science, whereas I hear him saying that some religious views in the US are anti-science. I think the title of the video is slightly misleading in this sense.

He most certainly is making blanket statements. He is being very very vague to the issue, saying that there are "some" out there opposing the issue. Obviously he means creationists, therefore anyone opposing his views is automatically unscientific. Also if he is saying that any form of creationism is unscientific, then he CLEARLY IS mixing his science with his philosophy..

[bippy123]

Of course Nye is talking about macroevolution. Practically any time a scientist references the Theory of evolution, they are referring to both micro and macro evolution, as both are part of the overarching Theory.

And yes, this has been covered before, but Bippy, your statement is saying that the vast majority of biologists, astronomers, and geologists are all liars or fools for accepting scientific understandings of things that we cannot physically witness in real time. Do you believe that?

Ivellious what do astronomers and geologists have to do with macroevolution?
Absolutely nothing. What I am saying is that macroevolution isn't the scientific fact that microevolution is.
As I said before some of the top evolutionists are catholic, including Ken Miller, but his case for macroevolution just doesn't convince me scientifically, and I believe that when he's speaking about macro it's more of a philosophic assumption then a scientific one.

The big bang theory was put forth by a Jesuit priest.

[Ivellious]

Astronomers and geologists accept scientific theories that are unscientific, based on your reasoning for macroevolution being unscientific. That is why they are related. Based on your assertions, the fields are analogous.

We have never observed mountains being formed through plate tectonics, nor have we seen Pangaea, or seen the center of the Earth as a core of molten metal. Yet these are the foundations of geology and geological history as we know it. Astronomers study stars and other cosmic objects that they have never physically witnessed, or even come close to witnessing. They have pieced together life cycles for stars and galaxies that take billions of years to unfold, clearly well beyond our ability to witness them. Biologists have never observed macroevolution, so to speak, and yet amazingly the percentage of biologists who accept evolution is akin to the percentage of geologists and astronomers who accept the scientific explanations I outlined above.

so again, I ask you: Are geologists and astronomers deluding themselves with these grand ideas just like you think biologists are deluding themselves over macroevolution? In those fields the evidence is never a matter of directly witnessing the entire process, but using vast quantities of evidence to piece together timelines and facts about the past. Is it all unscientific?

[bippy123]

Ivellious an appeal to authority isnt scientific is it? I would think not. The fossil evidence itself as we have discussed here a few times is actually against macroevolution, and it keeps getting worse. I'm sure there are scientists in all fields that accept unscientific things as true but does that make it a scientific fact? Again it' does not, and I'm sure the formations of mountains have much more evidence than macroevolution.

Could it be that maybe Darwinian evolutionists are stuck in a paradigm that they must accept because it is a paradigm?
It reminds me of the time in our history in which almost all scientists thought the world was flat. By your reasoning just because most scientists believed the world was flat, it must be true that the world is flat!!!!

See where I'm going with this. This is exactly why I dropped my belief in macroevolution a few years back and retained my belief in microevolution still.

[Stygian]

You know? I'd really like to see Bill Nye go at it with Hugh Ross, or some other prominent old-earth creationist, in a debate. Imagine his surprise when he discovers they exist!

[PaulSacramento]

As progressive creationist and astrophycist Hugh Ross notes: "Before 543 million years ago, Earth's zoo featured nothing more complex than cryptogamic colonies and some primitive sponges and jellyfish. Then, in a time window narrower than 2 to 3 million years (possibly much briefer), some 40 or more phyla of COMPLEX animals appeared, including 24 or 25 of the 30 animal phyla that remain on earth today ... Not only did complex animal phyla show up virtually all at once, but so did complex ecologies. Predator-prey relationships, for example, did not develop gradually. They were optimized right from the start of the Cambrian Explosion. Furthermore, the most advanced phylum ever to appear on earth, the chordates, (including such vertebrates as jawless fish),shows up at the very base of the Cambrian Explosion fossil record."

"Contrary to what might be expected from a naturalistic evolutionary perspective, which would anticipate the ongoing appearance of new phyla at a relatively high rate, only five or six new phyla have appeared during the past 540 million years, and about 15 phyla have DISAPPEARED. Evolution has proceeded in the opposite direction of what naturalistic models would expect."

Seriously, a 2 to 3 million year window simply isn't nearly enough time to explain the fossil record of the Cambrian, nor the establishment of necessary behaviors, complex interactions and interdependencies, and changes within so many species. And THEN, WHO - or what - dumb, blind mechanism slammed on the brakes of this creative burst? But people don't realize these things, as they are still thinking in terms of virtually unlimited amounts of time, for evolution to have blindly, if spectacularly, arrived at such magnificence and diversity. These things would have taken tremendous amounts of time - but it's time that the evolutionist doesn't have to explain things.

Interesting and how have evolutionists answered this issue?