Bio Logos Interviews Bill Nye (The Science Guy)

[Danieltwotwenty]

An interesting interview with Bill Nye on how he views creationism and faith, can't say I agree with everything he has said but interesting never the less.



http://biologos.org/blog/biologos-interviews-bill-nye

[PaulSacramento]

An interesting interview with Bill Nye on how he views creationism and faith, can't say I agree with everything he has said but interesting never the less.



http://biologos.org/blog/biologos-interviews-bill-nye

Scientists need to stick to science and leave philosophy and theology to those that know what they are talking about.
This whole " I am an expert in A so that makes me an expert in B" is silly.

These comments for example is just plain naive and shows tremendous misunderstanding:
I abandoned my religious teachings after I read the Bible twice—cover to cover. It took me a couple of years. I followed along with maps and a few study guides.

For me, the meaning of life is pretty clear: Living things strive to pass their genes into the future. The claim that we would not have morals or ethics without religion is extraordinary; I see no evidence for it. Animals in nature seem to behave in moral ways without organized religion, e.g. the bats I refer to around page 211.

[RickD]

And don't forget this:

Nye: I abandoned my religious teachings after I read the Bible twice—cover to cover. It took me a couple of years. I followed along with maps and a few study guides. There are two questions that get to us all: Are we alone in the Universe? And, where did we come from? For me, science provides a much more satisfactory way to seek answers than does any religion I’ve come across. With that said, the universe is mysterious and wonderful. It fills me with reverence for nature and our place among the stars; our place in space.

One of the important questions that I think everyone has probably thought about. Ultimately, where did we come from?

And Nye thinks science answers that better than religion?

Maybe he needs to go back to what science does and does not do?

[PaulSacramento]

And don't forget this:

Nye: I abandoned my religious teachings after I read the Bible twice—cover to cover. It took me a couple of years. I followed along with maps and a few study guides. There are two questions that get to us all: Are we alone in the Universe? And, where did we come from? For me, science provides a much more satisfactory way to seek answers than does any religion I’ve come across. With that said, the universe is mysterious and wonderful. It fills me with reverence for nature and our place among the stars; our place in space.

One of the important questions that I think everyone has probably thought about. Ultimately, where did we come from?

And Nye thinks science answers that better than religion?

Maybe he needs to go back to what science does and does not do?

See, that is the issue of when scientists make science ( which is about observing nature) into a religion ( which is about beliefs OUTSIDE of nature).
Science can and has addressed the HOW's of what we can see and, to a certain extent, what history can teach us.
In short, science can tell us HOW we procreate ( for example) but not WHY.
And no, the "selfish gene" theory does NOT do that because all it can do is address a POSSIBLE reason why we are driven to reproduce.
It can not and does not address why people CHOOSE to.

Side note: the "Selfish gene" theory, if true, would show that any activity that is NOT ideal for reproduction would be "unnatural" since we would be actively going against our genetic disposition.
See THAT can of worms?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
See, that is the issue of when scientists make science ( which is about observing nature) into a religion ( which is about beliefs OUTSIDE of nature).

But it always comes back to religion/philosophy. Because science cannot answer why we are here.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
See, that is the issue of when scientists make science ( which is about observing nature) into a religion ( which is about beliefs OUTSIDE of nature).

But it always comes back to religion/philosophy. Because science cannot answer why we are here.

And science does not even try, although some scientists with obvious agendas would like people to think so.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
See, that is the issue of when scientists make science ( which is about observing nature) into a religion ( which is about beliefs OUTSIDE of nature).

But it always comes back to religion/philosophy. Because science cannot answer why we are here.

And science does not even try, although some scientists with obvious agendas would like people to think so.

Yes. But naturalistic scientists really have no answer to the why. So they have to come up with something.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
See, that is the issue of when scientists make science ( which is about observing nature) into a religion ( which is about beliefs OUTSIDE of nature).

But it always comes back to religion/philosophy. Because science cannot answer why we are here.

And science does not even try, although some scientists with obvious agendas would like people to think so.

Yes. But naturalistic scientists really have no answer to the why. So they have to come up with something.

Yes, it's called wishful thinking, revisionist history and definition of basic vocabulary.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Yea that was pretty much what I was thinking, I like Bill Nye but man I wish he would just shut his mouth when he is not talking about science.

[PaulSacramento]

Yea that was pretty much what I was thinking, I like Bill Nye but man I wish he would just shut his mouth when he is not talking about science.

Imagine a theologian going around trying to refute physics...

[Danieltwotwenty]

Yea that was pretty much what I was thinking, I like Bill Nye but man I wish he would just shut his mouth when he is not talking about science.

Imagine a theologian going around trying to refute physics...

Your being facetious aren't you.

[Audie]

Yea that was pretty much what I was thinking, I like Bill Nye but man I wish he would just shut his mouth when he is not talking about science.

Imagine a theologian going around trying to refute physics...

Your being facetious aren't you.

Of course, else next they'd try to refute ToE, and imagine how that would go!

[PaulSacramento]

Yea that was pretty much what I was thinking, I like Bill Nye but man I wish he would just shut his mouth when he is not talking about science.

Imagine a theologian going around trying to refute physics...

Your being facetious aren't you.

Yes, and no.
Sure there is the occasional silly twit scholar that, feeling his faith is some sort of danger because of how HE decides to interpret a passage or two AND because some atheist numbnut decides to say that some scientific principle that has nothing to do with theology somehow ( in his little mind) disproves God, decides to disprove science BUT no one really takes him seriously lets be honest, most of those guys are viewed as a joke by the mainstream because very few people view scholars as people with expert opinions OUTSIDE their field BUT scientist, unfortunately, tend to viewed as experts even outside their field and that is simply wrong.

[Morny]

Imagine a theologian going around trying to refute physics...

Sure there is the occasional silly twit scholar that, feeling his faith is some sort of danger because of how HE decides to interpret a passage or two AND because some atheist numbnut decides to say that some scientific principle that has nothing to do with theology somehow ( in his little mind) disproves God, decides to disprove science BUT no one really takes him seriously lets be honest, most of those guys are viewed as a joke by the mainstream because very few people view scholars as people with expert opinions OUTSIDE their field BUT scientist, unfortunately, tend to viewed as experts even outside their field and that is simply wrong.

We agree that the "atheist numbnut" and "silly twit scholar" are a problem for the reasons you give.

More troubling though is the significant percentage of the population, who dismiss basic scientific findings with little or no understanding of, or curiosity about, the scientific reasoning behind those findings.

[Audie]

Imagine a theologian going around trying to refute physics...

Sure there is the occasional silly twit scholar that, feeling his faith is some sort of danger because of how HE decides to interpret a passage or two AND because some atheist numbnut decides to say that some scientific principle that has nothing to do with theology somehow ( in his little mind) disproves God, decides to disprove science BUT no one really takes him seriously lets be honest, most of those guys are viewed as a joke by the mainstream because very few people view scholars as people with expert opinions OUTSIDE their field BUT scientist, unfortunately, tend to viewed as experts even outside their field and that is simply wrong.

We agree that the "atheist numbnut" and "silly twit scholar" are a problem for the reasons you give.

More troubling though is the significant percentage of the population, who dismiss basic scientific findings with little or no understanding of, or curiosity about, the scientific reasoning behind those findings.

As noted elsewhere, not knowing what you dont know..or as Clint would say, a man has to know his limitations, is the sign of a fool.

So is dismissing something you know nothing about.