comScore
Uncategorized Friday, August 24th 2012 at 8:29 pm

Bill Nye Bashes Creationism In Kindest Possible Fashion

By ( ) Comments

Man, if we ever get absolutely torn a new one for saying something stupid, we really want the totally excellent Bill Nye to be the guy who does it. Not because we want to upset Mr. Nye, a personal hero (and, yes, brain-crush) who ran the best children’s show about science ever — sorry, dude who played Beakman — but just because he can apparently reduce someone’s world view to utter shambles without so much as raising his voice or saying an unkind word. Case in point: This video from Big Think, in which Bill (we can call you Bill, right?) lays out just how much more complicated a creationist viewpoint is, because of all of the really important evidence-based science you have to walk around ignoring every day.

He makes the further point that, people believing whatever they want, no matter how silly it is, is totally their right, but that willfully raising children to be ignorant is another matter entirely, and how important a public understanding of science is for the country going forward. All of this without so much as a sneer, a snicker, or a disrespectful syllable. Man, who are we kidding, though? We could watch Bill Nye talk about absolutely anything and be happy campers. The man is that good. Plus, he can just wear the hell out of a bowtie.

(via Big Think)

Relevant to your interests

Filed Under | • • • •
  • Anonymous

    Isn’t that the point of having children? So we can willfully raise them to be ignorant just like us? At least that is what it looks like on the outside to many non-parents like myself. I know there are good parents but there are also a lot of bad ones.

  • Dr Coene

    Bill Nye ages like ivy on stone.

    Just keeps looking cooler and cooler.

  • Sam

     I understand that Nye is implying that Creationism is wrong, but he never explicitly stated that. So, misleading headline Ian.

    Regardless, I generally agree with him even though I am a Christian and believe in a created world. I think most Christians are flawed in their interpretation of Genesis. The Bible doesn’t state how the world was made, through what mechanism. The book of Genesis is itself figurative language, filled with deep symbology that is not meant to be taking literally necessarily. What the Bible does say is that the world was created by God, who made all life and now sustains it. Does it matter HOW God made the world? No, and the Bible just doesn’t have those answers. It uses the six days of creation to explain that God made all things, and that’s the singular point. It’s not meant to be a roadmap of how God did it!

    Anyway, what I’m pointing out is that Christians sometimes hardly understand our own holy text. Reading Genesis does not make you a scientific expert! The Bible merely states that the world was created, but not necessarily how it was created.

  • Someguy

     ”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.”

    “There’s no evidence for it.”

    That’s pretty explicit, since the title of the video is “Creationism is not Appropriate for Children.” Or perhaps you’re assuming that he might be talking about the Norse or Greek creation myths, instead?

    As for your biblical scholarship, it’s pretty inconsistent with the idea that the Bible is the perfect, literal word of a supreme being. If it’s not, then you believe in a flawed deity who can’t even get his own text to agree on what’s literally true and what’s metaphor. And in any case, there’s no evidence for it, metaphorical or literal. There is no evidence that anything was created by a supreme being. If you’re going to say “my holy book says so,” then you’ve got a long line of other people with other holy books that have different ideas, and there’s no evidence for THOSE, either. I don’t suppose you ever ask yourself why the other gods, religions, etc. are, to you, false, yet yours is somehow true, when none of them have any kind of testable, predictable phenomena that can be observed and repeated.

  • Someguy

    Why are you here, denying us your superior DNA and ability to properly raise children to be exactly as you want them to be, just like your own parents obviously did? Go forth and make more of you, or we’re doomed!

  • Anonymous

    Bill Nye is talking utter rubbish!!!
    The scientific method demands clarity and precision hence we must start with a definition.
    “Evolution” is a vague word. The main defintions in the text books are:

    1) “change over time”, this is silly as it is stating the flaming obvious.

    2) Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.

    3) Darwinian/Macro evolution (where the conflict is) which asserts that:

     a)  All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.

     b) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of  an intelligent designer.

    The vague and changing definition is poor science and  a thinly disguised strategy to make it easier to defend and propagate.

    The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!

    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.

    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation.  Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

    Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said .

     “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false,

    you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

     Consider just  a small number of fundamental problems with Darwinian/Macro evolution

    1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?

    2) How did genders “evolve”?

    3) How do you explain symbiotic relationships while holding to gradual “evolution”?

    - eg The bees need the flowers, the flowers need the bees – they both MUST exist togeter, how could this occur slowly or gradually

    4) Where are all the myriad of transition fossils that Darwin predicted?

    - They were missing then and they are missing now.

     Bill is not making coherent sense.
     

  • Sam

    It’s not inconsistent at all. The Bible is the perfect word of the supreme being, but that doesn’t mean every single part of it is literal, or has to be literal. The Bible uses figurative language at various points – most noticeably Genesis and Revelation – and it uses it for different reasons. The main reason Genesis is not a scientific roadmap for the mechanics used by God to create the world, is that it’s just not important for Christians, or humans to understand. I know that’s a wack concept for us, as curiosity about the world is entirely natural, but what the Bible tells us is that the important thing to grasp is that God made the world. What are we meant to do with the exact knowledge of how specifically he made it? It changes nothing about our existence. Perhaps God made the world through evolutionary processes? Perhaps God made the world by some other means that will be science’s consensus in 100 years time? Or 1,000 years? Point being, it doesn’t matter.

    Secondly, you talk about evidence, which is a really hollow argument. Science is amazing, agreed, but it is also unbelievably limited. What it is good at is explaining the ‘what’ about the world, but it is utterly incapable of explaining the big ‘whys’ about the world – particularly, why the universe exists (note that it is capable of explaining why phenomenons happen, but that’s really just an expansion on the ‘what’). Unfortunately for atheists, no evidence has actually been dug up, theorized or proven that God does not exist, or that the world was not created. What it has done is shed light on the poor explanations of Christians using Genesis as a scientific manual, as Nye pointed out originally. Just as scientists can’t use their facts and evidence to explain why the universe exists, Christians can’t use Genesis to explain how the universe exists. Do you see what I’m saying?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pat-Magrain/100003475536039 Pat Magrain

     I’m not sure which textbook you’re using but macroevolution and microevolution are made up words used only by people who have a very poor understanding of the theory of evolution. 

    It’s funny how creationists always complain about not being taken seriously but somehow think that adding delusional vocabulary to well defined scientific theories will advance their cause.

    If you use the words: microevolution, macroevolution, darwinism, neo-darwinism, evolutionism, or evolutionist; you will be laughed at by the scientifically literate.  Seriously, just try and speak the same language if you ever want to have a real discussion about this topic.

    And Dr. Sanford published numerous peer-reviewed papers dealing with genetics but not a single one included his views on intelligent design, his criticism of evolution, or how old he thinks the Earth is.  I wonder why. 

  • Gundamguy

    ”
    What are we meant to do with the exact knowledge of how specifically he made it?”

    Make the world better. 

    Would you rather live in a world where Spanish flu epidemics wipe out millions of humans lives? 

    “It changes nothing about our existence.”

    In all likely hood you are alive today because of inventions that our forefathers invented, vaccines, physics. Heck your able to communicate almost instantly across the whole world because of our understanding of electricity. 

    Science can explain the Why’s of the world. You just choose to ignore those whys because they conflict with your religious text. 

    I’m sure you also disagree with or ignore Stephen Hawking’s explanation of universal creation, or any of the numerous other theories that are based on observing the universe around us. 

    Observing the world around us and trying to figure out how it works, has given us all of the inventions you enjoy today, why turn your back on human observations so that you can feel at ease about your Religion. 

  • Anonymous

    Sam, I think you are making a key mistake. You are assuming that the scientific evidence actaully “proves” Darwinian/Macro evolutuion. IT DOES NOT.

    The scientific evidence when critically examined CONDEMNS Darwinian/Macro evolution.

    Consider just  a small number of fundamental problems with Darwinian/Macro evolution

    1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?

    2) How did genders “evolve”?

    3) How do you explain symbiotic relationships while holding to gradual “evolution”?
    - eg The bees need the flowers, the flowers need the bees – they both MUST exist togeter, how could this occur slowly or gradually

    4) Where are all the myriad of transition fossils that Darwin predicted?
    - They were missing then and they are missing now.

    Please consider

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-McCrea/100001382500956 Richard McCrea

    Religion is evil.  It may seem contrary, to say that.  But, more lives have been lost, more wars have been fought in the name of religion than for any other cause in human history.  Religion perpetuates ignorance and is used as the rationale for intolerance and hatred of those who don’t comply with whatever edicts your religion dictates.  God is a myth, Jesus is a myth.  Don’t drink the Koolaid.

  • judyqtique

    Did mankind’s intelligence evolve from non intelligent beings or from beings with prior intelligence?

  • Ron

    I agree. Either help the rest of us fix the world or shut up. I, for one, refuse to take my children to church or offer Christian insight in their up-brInging. That said, I do believe that certain morality/ethics issues presented in the New Testament are sound. However, If they want to be fools, they can be, at their own discretion, of course, as an adult. If they wish to be born again and offer their insight in an unsolicited fashion during Denny’s “bar rush,” that’s up to them. They can make their own decisions. If they think that creationism is alright by their books, then go ahead and spread the word. If, rather, they see it as an obsolete model requiring further investigation, then kudos to them for exploring the path of critical thought!

  • http://www.facebook.com/mike.hughjass Mike Hugh-jass

     Keep your eyes open for the latest catch phrase, “undermining the authority of parents.”  It’s being used to argue against public schools teaching science and not ‘balancing’ it with creationism, or how the military is *finally* doing something about the proselytising of recruits.

    You hit it right on the head.  “It’s my RIGHT to keep my child from hearing anything that deviates from my world view.”

  • Anonymous

    What is found in the New Testament are not ideas unique to it. I would not tie them to it. The ideas stand on their own and don’t need to be so close to rubbish.

    I applaud your open mindedness with your children. I think the best we can do is be honest with our children and be as knowledgeable as we can be so that we don’t misrepresent truths or ideas.

  • Anonymous

    I am not knowledgeable enough yet to where I feel comfortable in being responsible for a life beyond my own. I want children, even now, but I know I am not ready.

  • Eugene Hamptons

    anyone who thinks they know the answer to this is delusional, ignorant, or just stupid. No one knows the answer. Period.

  • DrFeelBad

    it sounds like you are an ignorant drone, who has grown up
    being spoon fed your preferred meal of left-wing propaganda….to the point, you
    can no longer think for yourself, and simply repeatedly parrot whatever you
    have had pumped into your mind. What it boils down to, is people like you, and
    your elitist masters, hate anyone that exhibits symptoms of independent
    thought…..

  • alaskaproudandstrong1

    He’es crazy! evolution has not led to one single practical invention period.The theory of Evolution has more holes in it a cheese grater. The glory days of America are behind us….. back when they taught creationism in public schools.

  • Anonymous

    “This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule”

    Every living thing is a bunch of self replicating molecules.

  • Anonymous

    News flash!!!
    In science terms must be defined clearly and precisely to communicate clearly.

    If you think that Micro and Macro evolution are the same, then you are mistaken.
     

    We can observe micro evolution (minor changes) but we cannot observe Macro Evolution (the development of new body parts or functions). 

    It is poor science to conclude that just because observe Micro evolution that Macro evolution “must have happened”.  There are many examples where extrapolation leads to fatal results. Consider 2 examples:

    a) If you have  a headache you take 2 aspirin and you feel better; you may think that taking 20 aspirin would make you feel fantastic – but it does not. It will probably kill you.

    b) Sunshine is nice, you need it make make vitamin D; however it is good only in small doses; big doses will give you skin cancer.

    Conclusion: Micro Evolution does NOT prove Macro evolution

  • Anonymous

    How do you define “evil”?

  • idlethoughts

     If you actually wanted those questions answered you could easily do it with a few minutes of your own time.

  • idlethoughts

    I’m singing in the flame, singing in the flame…

  • http://twitter.com/pounddollarsign Michael Corey

    Mr. Nye, first let me say, I’m a huge fan. My brothers and I grew up watching your show, and every once in a while I still imitate the “Did you know that?” voice.

    I think that folks like myself have done a pretty poor job of stating our objections, so here’s a quick attempt to remedy. We are fine with micro-evolution, small changes within a species, it’s macro-evolution and abiogenesis that we have a problem with. We’ve all seen that British moth, and the squirrels from the two sides of the grand canyon, and recognize that we have to new a new flu shot every year, we get it, natural selection produces small changes in a species.

    What, as someone with a math background, I’m unable to accept is the odds against abiogenesis as described by the two most prevalent theories (the Deep Sea Vent and Iron-sulfur world hypotheses). The odds for these two approach zero, and thus without an atheistic solution to the problem of the first cell, I’m forced to look for an alternative answer.

    Again, big fan.

  • Dwqvwi

    If you want to copy paste someone else’s comeback, at least make sure it’s supporting the case you’re arguing against, dumbass

  • Mr-Cheese

    Back when we all legally had slaves to do our bidding

    Good times, good times

  • Velexia Ombra

    As living beings, and a part of life itself, anything which would be bad for our continued existence is “evil”. Which is of course, subjective. As the universe, everything just is, or is not. Forever.

  • Velexia Ombra

    Science is admitting you don’t know, and trying to find the answer.
    Religion is admitting you don’t know, but letting someone else who also doesn’t know tell you what they think you should believe.

    I’ll stick with science.

  • http://www.facebook.com/privatewojtek Bear Philippe

    Your ignorance of the particulars of the theory of evolution by natural selection doesn’t make it false. The theory never seeks to cover the development of DNA, for one thing. Co-evolution is an amazing process that we can see happening now in ecosystems around the world, most particularly in rainforests. There are thousands of transitional fossils. Hell, how many whale precursors with vestigial legs do we need to find to prove that?

    To reiterate, the fact that you are unaware of the facts, doesn’t make them go away. It just makes you ignorant.

  • Anonymous

    Every religion known to man…was made, by man.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=540432124 James Psilocybin Chevrier

    Science flies a rover to Mars, religion flies you into buildings. Back in the medieval times, religion held back science, while on the other side of the Earth, even predating back before the birth of “Jesus Christ”(2000B.C.), The Mayans were so far more sophisticated and worshiped their “sky-gods”…coincidence, think not :P

  • http://www.facebook.com/troyldailey Troy Dailey

    Not having any decent single-malt in the house is just evil. Oh, wait…..what are these post’s about?

  • http://twitter.com/phylum_sinter Phylum Sinter

    Oh yeah, you’re right. Remember the time Buddha made Japan bomb Pearl Harbor? Remember when Jesus made the u.s. Retaliate with an Atomic bomb? Remember when Muhammad asked people to slam planes into skyscrapers?

    No… i don’t either.

    Look, the interesting thing here is i agree with you about one thing: Fundamentalism is wrong. The problem i have with your statement, is that it’s fundamentalist in another way.

    By “Fundamentalism”, i mean more the second definition in Webster’s Dictionary: “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principle”. I’ll add that fundamentalism rejects all other views as untenable, impossible to see light in, or just plain “wrong” and should thus be choked out in any way possible.

    By saying that religion has caused all these problems, that it, in itself, is evil, is quite one sided. I see your point – people have done terrible things in the name of god forever. How is that god’s fault? How is it anyone but the asshole that commits the crime’s fault, for anything? How does your worldview really translate to a better planet? To me, where i stand, and what i see suffering caused by even moreso, is science and money. But i can’t say that either of those things are evil, just as i can’t realistically say religion (which i don’t practice) is evil. Science has brought us more ways to kill each other than anything else on the planet – yet it’s also saved my life in more ways than i can probably count, and yours too. Money, as well, can cultivate greed, and a sense of possession and misplaced worth – which leads to jealousy, wrath, wars, famine, and injustice. But money also is potential, and within the world we live today also provides a way to live, even thrive, within huge boundaries of what you might call success and failure, of generosity and greed, of many gradients. So it too, has a potential for abuse (evil) as well as use (good). When you list the evil of religion, you are simply blind to the purpose of it beyond a reason to fight: religion gives hope to the hopeless, care to the victims, solace to the confused, shelter to the homeless. Those things are good, which more than balance the acts of a few dickheads throughout history have done with their misunderstanding of some old books and some bad interpreting of old rules.

    You can be fundamentalist about anything, really. Including science, politics, whatever color you like, the skin of yourself, whatever. But the thing is, you cannot look at just the mistakes for any institution and say that it defines that institution, especially with a term such as “evil” – which kind of paints you in the same light as the thing you’re trying to say is bad.

    I hope you see my point. Have a good day. I love Bill Nye, and agree with the video above completely. It’s a falsehood to say that all people “of faith” are creationists, and anti-science. I’m glad that we have reasonable people that can see willful ignorance to science has no place in any educational institution.

  • http://twitter.com/phylum_sinter Phylum Sinter

    That’s a great way to look at it! I think the divisions between science and religion are less vicious than the world is painting them right now, all you have to realize is that most of the world doesn’t truly think that religion should ever cover the how, and that most people of faith understand that it’s not scientific.

    It lies within their own minds, then, how to interpret their holy books with the scientific works of the secular world.

    Personally, it has never been science’s job to write god into (or out of) the picture anymore than it’s been religion’s job to tell me exactly how the material world functions or was formed in mundane language. The simplest purpose, of each one, in one word then:

    science: how?
    religion: why?

    And if you think there is no “why?”, then even that is an unprovable, personal stance that should have no bearing on what anyone else thinks, or how your kids are educated. They too, deserve to see all sides, and to make up their own minds.

  • http://twitter.com/phylum_sinter Phylum Sinter

    Explaining the mechanisms of functionality is what science is good for, it doesn’t place the purpose of a human in that universe though.

    I don’t think science ever will attempt to make that assertion… it’s too close to religious, isn’t it?

    @64ddb87e15ec495387fbcc2e397fa41c:disqus You’re painting Sam as a less thoughtful person, and using the same tricks i’ve seen used by those with a real axe to grind against the thoughtless, or faithful, or willfully ignorant. The thing is, @bb1ff19c2c76015eb03357912f303c13:disqus clearly isn’t one of those people, and you’re just looking blind to the good that religion can do and has done for the world as well.

  • http://twitter.com/phylum_sinter Phylum Sinter

    Have you found one yet? I’m still looking for that, myself… but more as an armchair hobbyist, my life will still be complete if i never find out :D

  • http://twitter.com/phylum_sinter Phylum Sinter

    You’re forgetting the part where they were the same (alchemy, victorian era).

  • http://twitter.com/phylum_sinter Phylum Sinter

    I’ve met some pretty witty sponges, actually. They probably predate us. I don’t know if we can say they _are_ us… though more evidence seems to pile up that everything is us, and we are everything everyday.

    Or maybe that’s my blind hippie gene spouting off, who knows?

  • Jimbo

    Yes, of course Mr. Nye! I don’t know how I was so blind as to think that I should raise my children to know what I believe and why I believe it. And since you say I’m wrong, I should teach my children to conform to what you think!
    This tantamount to Rick Santorum telling me I can’t listen to rock or have sex in any other position than missionary.