“Denial of evolution is unique to the United States…”
If you don’t know Bill Nye the Science Guy, this is a great introduction to the awesomest science educator of all time.
In the above video, which has gained over 1.1 million views in just a few days, Nye explains how damaging it can be to teach children creationism, which goes against every element of established scientific evidence imaginable, including the existence of Dinosaurs and the age of the stars. He maintains that when a portion of the population doesn’t believe in evolution, it holds everybody back in a way.
Basically, you can’t ever be a scientist if you take a whole section of scientific proof and just deny it. How can you become a geologist if you don’t believe in the age of the Earth?
“I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it, because we need them… we need engineers who can build things and solve problems.”
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
When you take antibiotics to fight an infection, you can thank the theory of evolution for helping develop effective ones. If there were no such thing as evolution, then penicillin would work just as well today as it did 40 years ago, when this is not in fact the case. If there were no such thing as evolution, we would never have to worry about accidentally creating drug-resistant bacteria. If there were no such thing as evolution, you would not need a new flu shot every year.
Creationism is a wonderful luxury as long as you never need any medical attention. You only have to worry about the germs that Noah carried on the ark. That’s a relief, huh?
OMG!!!! seriously….OMG!
Why do evolution and creationism have to be mutually exclusive Jimmy? “Dunno Rob Brown the Bible-Guy….why do they?”
Because Jimmy, doing so makes one side look freaking stupid, silly! “Golly Bible-Guy, you sure must be right cuz you only have to use two colors to paint a complicated picture!”
Hey Mr Nye…where does life come from? “Ooooze, Jimmy…Primortial ooooooze.”
Wheredtha ooooooze come from Mr Nye? “ummmmmmmmmm….hapenstance chemical intersects Jimmy?”
Wheredthe chemikles come from Mr Nye? And the dirt? and the water? and the everything? “Ahhhh…yer mother is calling Jimmy.”
AH hahah what i love about this comment is that you feel that we have to have and answer for everything just because we have a theory that goes against your belief and instead of taking any time to think about the idea and how it could be true you, simple look for ways it could be false,
I don’t know who Bill Nye is, or who he thinks he is, but creationism doesn’t deny science. It uses science, and the same evidence, but coming from a different initial world view to get different answers. Nye claims if you don’t believe in evolution, you’ll just get the wrong answers. Doesn’t he recognise that maybe evolution has given the wrong answers, or are those scientists perfect? Either way, the general theory of evolution has not, and can not, be proven. Also the only field of science to benefit from evolutionary theory is evolutionary biology. Nothing else has needed belief in, or use of evolution to understand, investigate, or develop. Nye also says that without evolution, your worldview is just too crazy. This from the man who presumably believes that life emerged from nowhere, for no particular reason, and happened to develop into what we see today. Whose world view is crazy?
I am happy to have taught my children creationism, and that they are also all very interested in science as well. Those two are not mutually exclusive at all.
By the way, I’m from Australia, where many also reject the unproven, unprovable idea of evolution. So it’s not uniquely American.
I don’t think Bill Nye is so much concerned with being right, as he is with beating-up Christianity…which is a contact-sport these days.
Are you kidding me?
Creationism treats christian traditional beliefs and quasi-biblical theory as the supreme truth. Science treats what everyone can see, feel, and touch as the supreme truth.
All of science is based on this principle. The nature of scientific theory is that even a single exception to the theory that is unaccounted for (usually by human error) renders the theory invalid.
THAT is what theory means in this context. It’s hard science theory, not social science theory or football theory. In order to understand the basic premises of any hard science, you must first understand this basic principle, which is directly contradictory to the central principle of creationism – that religious tradition and interpretation is the absolute truth of the universe.
Therefore, children brought up with the principles of creationism are most likely not going to be ideologically capable of being hard scientists.
Bill Nye’s just saying we need children to grow up with the chance to be hard scientists, because we need hard scientists, and he devoted most of his professional career to teaching kids a love of science. His show was one of my favorites while I grew up and as an adult I hold great respect for him.
There are creationists who are leading scientists in a range of fields. It doesn’t exclude anything.
How many members of the National Academy of Sciences – as “leading” a scientist as you can get – are creationists?
China’s got 1.4 billion atheists. If Bill Nye’s theory held any water at all, China, not Bible thumping America, would have made all of the greatest scientific and engineering inventions/advancements in the last 100 years.
Instead, the right leaning, largely theistic not highly paid scientists at Darpa somehow managed to work through their ignorance to invent useless things such as cloud computing, Google Maps (now owned by Google), the Unix operating system, GPS technology, Siri (now owned by Apple, self-driving cars (made famous by Google), virtual reality, and that useless Internet.
You’re just trolling, aren’t you? Almost had me there. Good day.
Nice try.
You aren’t responding because I have presented undisputable facts. So, there’s really nothing to say, except agreement.
go back and listen to what was said, and hear the words that are said, and they way there said. Bill Nye did not attack religion only creationism and only as far as not believing or not accepting evolution could be possible, America has gone farther than other nations because we have the freedom to believe what they want think what they want, and opportunities we have available to us…. People need to because humble and remember that we can be wrong in our beliefs and the only way to find the true answers is to work together and try to prove all views then disprove, until we have undisputable proof
He absolutely did, since not accepting evolution is almost always done by people who believe in a creator.
If there was any truth to his statement, China and the USSR, not the theistic United States, would be the homes of the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Really? Does this mean that one can only be a true believer in science if one is an “atheist” such as yourself? There are, and have been many great Religious scientists in the world. People with opinions such as yours, treat their interpretations of science with the fanaticism of a suicide bomber; science has become their religion. It is obvious that science is your religion. Biblical wisdom is true through the ages while the theories of science evolve over time……hmmm, perhaps both can exist together in the mind (and with religion in the heart as well) of man.
There have also been many great atheist scientists in history as well. You know what happened to them? Usually the religious nut jobs killed them for heresy. You’ll forgive me if I discount the historical accuracy of your statement, as we have no way of knowing who was religious and who was not, since the penalty for being the latter was usually quite severe.
Also give this “science is your religion” or “atheism is just another religion” crap a rest. Atheism is no more a religion than bald is a hair color. And the difference between science and religion? Science adapts to new information. The strength of my “belief” in science is relative to the strength of the evidence and/or my observational experience. If a scientific theory is shown to be inaccurate, science jettisons that theory in favor of the new knowledge.
What do religions do? They don’t let new information in that conflicts with their beliefs. They don’t assess the truth-claims of their religion based on new knowledge. They ignore the obvious falsehoods in their sacred texts.
Biblical wisdom? I haven’t heard a more ridiculous statement. The bible got the single most important, easiest moral question wrong.Tell me, what wisdom is found in the warrant to sell your daughter into slavery? What wisdom is found in God’s command to commit genocide against a neighboring tribe, killing all the men and boys, and raping all the women? What wisdom is found in the prohibition against wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? It seems taunting an old bald man is unwise, as it can get you killed by bear attack. I suppose that’s wisdom?
Interesting that you have brought up suicide bombing, given that the ones doing the bombing these days – of crowded markets, of planes and trains and busses, of abortion clinics, are motivated by religion. In some cases religion is reason enough, whereas in others religion provides the reward to achieving a political end.
Given the lack of intellectual rigor in your comments, I’m starting to think you’re actually an atheist trolling as a believer, putting up paper targets to be easily torn down. Either that, or you’re sixteen and haven’t yet had exposure to the world or taken any epistemology courses yet. Am I close?
“…you can’t ever be a scientist if you take a whole section of scientific proof and just deny it. How can you become a geologist if you don’t believe in the age of the Earth?”
“can’t ever be?” cannot be? what’s ever for?
god and science, both.
and how do you become a priest, pastor or poet without fighting denial of faith?
welcome to not knowing everything, webstieofthemoment.com
T
Evolution can be proven and has been proven,
If you like old books, how about this one from 1883, a popular science book, written to for a “normally intelligent person” to explain the evidence for evolution. http://archive.org/details/chaptersonevolu02wilsgoog
If you want a detailed, thorough and modern overview of how one species turns into two, read this textbook. http://www.amazon.com/Speciation-Jerry-A-Coyne/dp/0878930892
If you want a slightly easier read, written for non-scientists. Richard Dawkins has written this, http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Show-Earth-Evolution/dp/1416594787
You are completely ignorant of vast areas of human knowledge. This is why creationism appears to make sense. Believing in young earth creationism is as stupid, and as easily refutable, as believing that the earth is flat.
If you are determined to believe in a creator, then adopt the following position.
“Science has shown that life can in principle arise, and evolve, de-novo, without a creator. However, there may have been a god that started it, and he may have subtly influenced events ever since.”
We can’t refute this statement. It cannot be proved either, it is a statement of belief, but it is compatible with the best available evidence, and does not deny vast areas of human knowledge.
The earth is billions of years old, and all life shares a common ancestor!
This should be a reply to grant.
Sorry to spoil your fun, but after 30 years of research, reading, discussing, analysing, debating etc, I know that the general theory of evolution has not been proven, & indeed can never be proven. I don’t deny any evidence, but I do question some assumptions used by some scientists to “prove” their ideas.
Science has been used to support the idea of the world being only thousands of years old. Even Dawkins admits we haven’t seen evolution actually happening. I suggest you read “The Greatest Hoax on Earth” to see counter arguments to Dawkins’s weak arguments.
I know what I believe and why, & I see the evidence supporting that. I’m not going to get into a big debate or argument, or as usually happens, get insults & abuse thrown at me. But I will continue to point out flaws in evolutionary ideas, how evidence supports creation, but particularly to remind people that evolution is not a fact, is not proven, & has not helped science progress.
Cheers.
Yes, you keep doing that, Grant… and real science will continue on without you, because creationists are irrelevant noisemakers who have no standing and zero effect on scientific work. That’s why they take their case to the blogs, the school boards, and the courts… because they don’t have a leg to stand on in the realm of actual science.
“I know what I believe and why, & I see the evidence supporting that. I’m not going to get into a big debate or argument, or as usually happens, get insults & abuse thrown at me.”
Nice job proving Grant’s statement. I wonder what else he is correct on…?
Doh….”because creationists are irrelevant noisemakers who have no standing and zero effect on scientific work”. Who was that Augustinian friar noisemaker that founded the irrelevant science of genetics; a science that has had zero effect on any scientific work? ….
Well said, Grant!
So you choose to believe something that is not supported by any evidence because the thing that is supported by overwhelming evidence can be questioned somewhat in a piece-meal manner?
There are people who know God is real and created the Earth. There are also people who know that is false. Neither will ever convince the other that they are correct.
There is plenty of evidence supporting the idea of creation.
I’m game. Care to share with the rest of us, or are you keeping that all to yourself?
Jon D: “Neither will ever convince the other that they are correct” – (sigh) yet another victim of social relativism. Many, many “atheist” scientists have been convinced and now follow Christ. Google: “scientists that became Christians”
http://www.google.es/search?q=scientists+that+became+christians&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari&redir_esc=&ei=fkE_UI3yKujX0QW9qoFA
Specifically what assumptions?
I am an evolutionary biologist.
Arguing with creationists just leads to frustration. In the immortal words of Barney Frank, “Trying to have a conversation with [creationists] would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.”
There is a basic difference in approach. I am willing to listen to the arguments, I am willing to see the evidence, I’m eager to be convinced. You can change my mind, and I’ll even tell you how. Creationists aren’t open to being convinced, that would be giving into temptation by the devil. They’re not open to the evidence, which was planted by the devil. To entertain doubts is heretical to one’s faith; why invite temptation into your heart?
In short, you have one side that is unwilling to participate in a discussion, because they’re not interested in what you have to say. That’s not a discussion, that’s a lecture, and a rather poor one at that since most don’t even understand their own talking points.
“Arguing with creationists just leads to frustration. In the immortal words of Barney Frank, “Trying to have a conversation with [creationists] would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.”
There is a basic difference in approach. I am willing to listen to the arguments, I am willing to see the evidence, I’m eager to be convinced. You can change my mind, and I’ll even tell you how. Creationists aren’t open to being convinced, that would be giving into temptation by the devil. They’re not open to the evidence, which was planted by the devil. To entertain doubts is heretical to one’s faith; why invite temptation into your heart?
In short, you have one side that is unwilling to participate in a discussion, because they’re not interested in what you have to say. That’s not a discussion, that’s a lecture, and a rather poor one at that since most don’t even understand their own talking points.”
Wow, Nick when I read the above I could apply much of it to you. I mean it is you that has your mind made up and will not listen to me. I think you misunderstand me. I am stating that everything evolutionary scientists say is not true, they are humans who do not understand the entire realm of things in history since man’s science is only observation of what they see and they use their own interpretation and desires in those observations. I mean to say that they are just humans like you and I. None of us were here at the creation of the world or universe. With no insult I’ve got to tell you that you sound closed minded you say you are willing to listen and see evidence and be convinced. Convinced of what? That there is a God? Let me ask you to account for Evil in the world , like rape of a baby or the slow slashing of someone’s throat or? You don’t believe in evil? I really would like an answer to that question if you’ve got one.
“Convinced of what? That there is a God? Let me ask you to account for Evil in the world , like rape of a baby or the slow slashing of someone’s throat or? You don’t believe in evil? I really would like an answer to that question if you’ve got one.”
You want a philosophical argument?
Without good there is no evil, without evil there is no good. A Benevolent god would still not let Evil happen, ever, because they’re Benevolent. Therefore god is Evil, or god doesn’t exist.
How’s that for you?
WOW! : In the immortal words of Barney Frank, “Trying to have a conversation with [creationists] would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.”——— Here are some more immortal words of Barney Frank:
“The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios.” (House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003)
“I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.” (House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003)
And those are relevant to creationism how? Oh right, they’re not.
Plus, Frank has admitted he was wrong and has since adjusted his beliefs. Just like the scientists do. New evidence contradicting old belief means new belief, not denial of the new evidence.
The church has said it got slavery wrong but that they can’t be faulted, since their beliefs were consistent with the time and the place. If your wisdom is no better than the crowd, then why do we need you? Oh right, to take our money and rape our children. Forgot about those.
“Evolution can be proven and has been proven, “
This an unscientific claim and simply wrong. You cannot prove a scientific theory. A scientific theory can be falsified or established. By the way, to my knowledge evolution theory is superior to creationism, because it serves better to make predictions, not because it is “true” (whatever “true” means in this context).
Strictly speaking you are correct. However….
The theory that the earth is round and not flat cannot be proven either. You can fly from London, to new York, to Tokyo then to London, ie go around the world. But that simply proves that you can fly between these destinations. There are numerous earth shapes that could allow this journey.
You can send a satellite into space, and take a photo, and show that it is round. That simply proves that from any point of view a 2D projection is circular.
All of these observations are compatible with a sphere. However, they are also compatible with 3-spheres, or numerous other high dimensional shapes. Therefore you cannot prove that the earth is a ball in space.
However, in the real world we have a standard of proof that we live our lives by, and use to make decisions. By this standard of “proof”, the earth is definitely a 3 dimensional ball in space, and evolution is definitely correct. Both theories have been extensively validated, and in a layman’s eye should be viewed as “proved”.
However strictly speaking for both theories new data could come in which would force us to change the theories.
Just re-read this, you can prove it is not flat, you can’t prove that it is a 3D sphere.
I have and issue with what you are saying, you are using philosophic views you say we can’t prove these things. philosophy in has no place in science or in discussions that people are trying to prove points or sway someone to there views.
Strictly speaking you are correct, however you are telling a tiny and misleading part of the story…
Outside of mathematics, you cannot prove anything, including scientific theories and common sense.
When mathamaticians say proof, they mean this is definitly the correct answer, and nothing else is possible. A criminal court would not get very far if they used this mathmatical standard of proof. The easiest defence would be to ask the prosecution to prove that the court exists, and is capable of punishing a criminal. Short answer is that you can’t prove that the courts existance is the only possible answer. So the court assumes that it exists, and redifines proof as “This theory is plausible, compatible with the evidence, and is the most likely theory”
Scientists also assume that the world exists. This assumption allows us to use evidence based methods of obtaining knowlage, also known as experiments. However we have kept the original meaning of proof. Instead we suspect that a theory is correct if; the theory makes falsifiable predictions which could be wrong, but turn out to be true. This is an evidence based method of finding a plausable answer. If the theory makes a lot of good predictions, then we start to view the theory as very likely to be correct. Evolution has been making correct predictions for around 200 years . That is about as good as it gets. (The theory of evolution is much older than Darwin) However we keep calling it a theory to remind ourselves that reality could be more complicated than we think it is.
When debating evolution, or global warming, people say “it’s just a theory, and you can’t prove it” as a way of discrediting a scientific argument. However, lay people use the words proof and theory in the way a court would use them, not the way scientists, philosophers and mathameticians use them.
Using lay definitions, you can say that the theory (Idea) of evolution has been proved. What you mean is that the theory is plausible, there is a lot of evidence that is compatible with evolution, and there are no other reasonable theories that are also compatible with the evidence. In other words, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Using scientific definitions, we have a theory (clearly defined hypothesis), but we can’t prove it. Meaning, show that it is certainly the correct answer and nothing else is possible. All we can do is fail to demonstrate that evolution is incorrect.
You cannot prove anything, unless you are a mathematician, If you are a lawyer then you redifine “proof” to suit your needs.
and I have a very hard time seeing “creationism” and “evolution” as opposites on one continuum.
I see them as separate tools created by God. One created. One adjusts. Is fully viable.
The bible makes certain truth claims that are incompatible with evolution. It makes truth claims that are incompatible with geology. It makes truth claims that are incompatible with cosmology. To say that the two can be compatible means you either aren’t a Christian or you base your understanding of God’s creation on something outside of the Bible. At which point I start to wonder, what higher knowledge allows you to judge what parts of the bible are the infallible word of God, and which parts aren’t.
Or, like most Christians you believe that the bible is open to interpretation
That’s a nifty term they use to weasel out of some of the more “uncomfortable” aspects of the bible. As soon as you go outside of the bible to “interpret” it for correct moral guidance, your source of morality is no longer biblical.
God commanded genocide and mass rape? Well, let’s see how we can spin this one…
Every single member of that tribe was wicked, even the baby boys, so we had to kill them. But the women weren’t completely wicked, they just needed a good raping to fall into line and believe in the one true God.
How’d I do with my interpretation? Do you want to try one yourself?
“The Bible makes certain truth claims that are incompatible with evolution.”
Yes, the very first one is Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth!
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the S
Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
So where does your geology fit in? AH……after God created the Earth.
With that statement it appears only God and The spirit of God were the only ones there to observe what was going on, my point again is man only has been able to observe what has happened to the earth and cosmolgy since he was created by God in Genesis 1:27. Before that he was not in existence. Man’s Science is only his observation of what God has created!
Now if you want to argue evolution, then where in your opinion did man come ? Do you believe the traditional views evolutionist’s state, like primordial scum or ooze? And why?
It is not incumbent upon scientists to square science with religion, or to make a compelling case disproving the creationist accounts of the origins of our universe. Creationists are the ones making extraordinary claims without any credible evidence whatsoever. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Simply put, the vast and overwhelming consensus among biologists is that all of the evidence points to evolution as the best explanation of the origin of species. Creationists believe this is false, and the only evidence they have is a book written by a superstitious and scientifically illiterate people. We’re supposed to take those ideas seriously? I don’t think so.
And get your facts right: evolution isn’t about the emergence of life, it’s about the divergence of life and how simple forms can give rise to complexity.
What always puzzled me about creationism is why it took God six full days to create the sky, land, plants, sun, moon and all other creatures. We know these things can’t possibly develop on their own in 6 days, even after an initial spark by God, so it seems even God needs “time” to make these things develop as we see them today. God too must have a restriction on powers and that restriction is evidenced by the requirement for time passage to build stuff. This restriction points in one direction only – there must be another God who does not have, or have less of, this type of restriction. I’m afraid we may be singing praise to a street level God, as opposed to the real capo.
Grant: citation please with direct link to Dawkins stating what you claim above, and not a Cristian source interpreting what Dawkins is stating, but a direct Dawkins quote in full context.
“We know these things can’t possibly develop on their own in 6 days, even after an initial spark by God, so it seems even God needs “time” to make these things develop as we see them today. God too must have a restriction on powers and that restriction is evidenced by the requirement for time passage to build stuff.”
Why does this indicate a restriction on God? You’ve already stated that these things can’t possibly develop on their own in 6 days, so doesn’t sound like a ‘restriction’ to me to make it in less time. And nothing/noone is saying God ‘needed’ 6 days to create everything, just that he did. Maybe he enjoyed his work and values this life so much that he chose to take a little time and savor the experience. There’s always an alternative perspective beside our own and we can’t presume to know the mind of God or his depth of wisdom and knowledge.
I’m still waiting for my caffeine gland to grow. I mean 40 years of necessary coffee drinking and no gland yet??
Caffeine is naturally present in chocolate, too.
Your brain reacts to caffeine. It becomes a bit more hyperactive than without, for some amount of time.
Your caffeine gland would not do this any better, so why have one? The body itself needs it not, same as Puma clothing or Nike shoes. Plus the body is adapting (small addiction) to your doing it, why would it supplement what you’re already doing besides this?
Viral strains evolve to become resistant to antibiotic, on their own. This is “actually seeing evolution happens”.
Schala says: Viral strains evolve to become resistant to antibiotic, on their own. This is “actually seeing evolution happens”.
Tracy says: That is selective breeding that you are talking about. It is a part of genetics; a science that was founded by an Augustinian friar. ( a Christian monk) (Gregor Mende) (google it…it’s worth the google)
Tracy says: <something incorrect here>
Mendelian inheritance was an interesting idea, and in some cases the simple model it presented remains accurate for some traits. But it’s not even close to how it works in reality, and we’ve know that for decades. By the way, genetic science was not founded by Mendel – his discoveries were found much later. Others had done the same work independently of Mendel.
That’s not “selective breeding.” Usually people refrain from talking about things they are woefully ignorant on, as you appear to be concerning bacterial reproduction and the development of genetic resistance to antibiotics within a population.
Ok if you don’t know the difference between viral and bacterial diseases and how how they are treated , then you should probably not speak on the matter. Virus do not become resistant to antibiotics because the were ever susceptible to them in the first place
We already evolved something for that. It’s called “sleep”, and if you get enough of it, you won’t need your fabled caffeine gland.
Check out the Russian experiments with human engineered evolution. I forget the name of the experiment but they tried to “evolve” either corn or wheat to grow in the tundra (I think it was corn).
Needless to say, that failed miserably. Evolution is a process that occurs over a very large number of generations in response to specific environmental conditions.
“Check out the Russian experiments with human engineered evolution. I forget the name of the experiment but they tried to “evolve” either corn or wheat to grow in the tundra (I think it was corn).”
“Needless to say, that failed miserably. Evolution is a process that occurs over a very large number of generations in response to specific environmental conditions”
Or-maybe , just maybe only microevolution exists and God actually created the world within 10 thousand years ago but, because man’s observation of the earth and what happens in it could be flawed -we might have to say that scientists don’t actually know for sure, but they don’t really like that idea I guess. I am a born-again Christian and not a scientist but the link below explains it better than I ever could. It doesn’t take a scientist or a genius I know cause I am neither. Two kinds of evolution.
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
That link doesn’t explain anything. The whole macro-vs-micro evolution is yet another retreat by creationists, as they find it ever harder to cram their God into perpetually shrinking gaps. Sure, they say, micro-evolution happens (and to those who deny micro-evolution, allow me to introduce you to MRSA) but we’ve never witnessed macro-evolution. Therefore, God done it.
Keep on believing that crap. It doesn’t make a difference, because when you die there won’t be any you to realize you were wrong.
Bill Nye is lost in theory and out of touch with reality. His theory has been tested for 60 years by a China. The US has always been dominated by theism. By contrast, China has been officially atheistic for 60 years and taught atheism for longer than that. Per his theory, China should have been trouncing the US in engineering excellence and innovation for the last 60 years.
Thus Bill Nye’s theory and argument has been tested for decades by over a billion people. If denying the possible existence of a creator leads to engineering innovation and solving problems, Chinese engineers would have being out-innovating and out-producing those ignorant, backwoods, religious Americans for the last 60 years or longer. It would have been the Chinese, and not those backwoods, backward, ignorant Americans that created things such as GPS technology and the Internet. China, not California, would home to the Microsoft’s, Google’s, and Apple’s of the world. It would be China, not the US, that sent the Mars rover up.
Atheistic China has almost 4x more people than the US but make their money using slave wage factory labor and copying western technology (conceived and engineered by ignorant, backwoods, religious Americans) and making it cheaper. Per Bill Nye’s theory, China should be home to all of the leading tech companies and entities, not the US, Europe, and Japan. Bill Nye knows science but needs a reality check.
There are more variables that affect the success of a society than degree of religious belief.
Not according to Bill Nye. Bill Nye claims that the US is the most religious but also the most advanced. He not only contradicts himself, but he he is doing precisly what he criticizing, making a claim that overwhelming evidence shows to be wrong.
It is true that there are many kinds of creationism. I think the kind Nye is addressing is the version that sees the universe as only about 6000 years old, which is very hard to reconcile with what modern scientific evidence suggests about the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the speed of light, etc. This form of creationism runs counter not only to the theory of natural selection, but also to theories about the Big Bang, plate tectonics, astronomy, and probably much of quantum mechanics as well.
(If someone can explain to me the logic Bishop Ussher used to date the origin of the universe, I would be most appreciative. I believe he calculated a starting point of 9am, October 23, 4004 BC. I find the exactitude quite compelling.)
There is another kind of creationism that is more reconciled to modern science. Pope John Paul II made it somewhat official by saying that what happened after the Big Bang is a question for science to address, and what happened before is a question for religion to address. One could, I suppose, accept the estimate of 10 billion years for the age of the universe and also see the universe as a created thing.
You can actually see examples of natural selection at work over the course of several hours on the microscopic level in a lab, as the population of particular bacteria grows, eats and gets eaten, reproduces, and dies, and by the end of the day one of them has gone extinct in the petri dish and a variation of the other is thriving. It doesn’t necessarily take millions of years.
I don’t see why it’s so difficult to consider the possibility of natural selection over a long period of time when evidence of artificial selection over a very short time period is all around us. Humans have created new breeds, even new species, that have never existed before. There was no chihuahua, no broccoli, and no hybrid seed corn in the Garden of Eden. Broccoli did not exist more than a century ago. The germs around us have evolved to be more resistant to antibiotics, the flu virus keeps shifting in response to vaccines, etc.
The great thing about scientific theories is that by their very nature they cannot be 100% proven, because the nature of science is to come up with tentative truths. You can only find evidence that supports or disproves a scientific theory, but never one that totally proves it. That’s true of the theory of gravity. That’s true of the idea that smoking is bad for you.
There is also no airtight scientific experiment ever conducted on the usefulness of wearing a parachute when jumping out of an airplane. It would be unethical to attempt a double-blind study of such a thing, but I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the best theory we have is that your chances of survival are much better with a parachute than without. No proof, though. Too many “gaps” in the theory to be acceptable….
Perhaps we should also teach our children that there’s no scientific proof that smoking is bad for you? Because if you are looking for absolute certainty, there is no proof that smoking could ever kill you. Actually, no scientific certainty that everyone will die eventually. All we have to go on is the best evidence we have so far.
P.S. I forgot about DNA and the fact that it mutates over time. Ignoring the theory of natural selection could be a major hindrance if your child ever wanted to study genetics. Come to think of it, ignore the theory of natural selection and you can pretty much ignore any qualms about inbreeding. No scientific reason why you can’t just reproduce all within the same nuclear family. (Adam and Eve’s family must have ignored the incest taboo, or else how did the human race ever get started?)
Creationism recognises natural selection. No problems with it at all.
Plus there was no taboo for Adam & Eve’s family.
That’s very similar to the “separate magisteria” Gould tried to cast: morals and ethics are religious/spiritual endeavors and science handles all the gears and pulleys.
The problem with the above view is that morals and ethics are much better explained by science than they are by religion. The truth on human ethics and morals is that their prediction is better understood via science – and predictive power is one of the best indicators for the presence of truth.
The other issue with a God setting ablaze the Big Bang and then standing back to let it run its course is that it does not simplify, it complicates – how did God come about and if the answer is “always present”, then how is that different from an always present singularity/energy?
There is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of a God. The only functional use for a God is to act as a teleological explanation for life – the purpose of God is to create life, which in turn uses God to explain its own existence.
Yeah, that was about 5500 years after they invented beer. I find the exactitude evidence of a feeble mind or a manipulative charlatan. If anything can be said about humans, it’s that we sure are a credulous bunch, willing to believe any old nonsense for no good reason while dismissing centuries of scientific progress.
We all believe in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, or at least we believe in it enough to trust our GPS devices won’t crash us into a wall. We trust the theory of gravity enough that we know to take leave of our homes through the first floor door rather than the second floor window. But as soon as science comes into conflict with deeply held religious belief, all reason flies out the window as we twist and contort our minds to find some way to justify believing in something completely devoid of evidence.
‘What always puzzled me about creationism is why it took God six full days to create the sky, land, plants, sun, moon and all other creatures. We know these things can’t possibly develop on their own in 6 days, even after an initial spark by God, so it seems even God needs “time” to make these things develop as we see them today. God too must have a restriction on powers and that restriction is evidenced by the requirement for time passage to build stuff.’
Did it ever occur to you that God deliberatly created things specificatly on the days He did? Do you think it’s possible that He had a purpose for doing so? You said we know these things can’t possibly develop on their own in 6 days, but why do you assume God didn’t just create them fully just like that? why would you assume He created them and left them to “develop”.God does not “need time” to build stuff, what “stuff” are you referring to? Tree’s? Read over Genesis 1 very carefully and you will see God had a deliberate purpose to each thing He created and created it fully made.
Did it ever occur to you that God is an invention by a frightened and superstitious people who didn’t understand the natural world around them?
Nick, You are way to cool for school.
Ok now stop attacking each other because you have a belief in one or the other and are to stupid or stubborn to be open to the possibility of the other. Most likely during the time that humans exist the only way this question will be answered is in death. A failure to be open minded about this subject, or any other is only hurting science and the furthering of man kind. For those of you that keep saying that evolution has been proven, please look up information and understand what you are taking about before you speak misinformation is just as dangerous and ignorance, the fact that the scientific community still calls it the evolutionary theory means that it has yet to be proven, or it would be law.