Bill Nye, The Science Guy, Says Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

[ewoksrule]

This video is going viral. It is all over my facebook friends feeds, but not in a positive way. Everyone is agreeing with it. What do you all think? Are you using this to make a stand or do some of you agree with the video?

He ends it saying that in a few centuries no one will hold the view of creationism, there is no evidence for it. .


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

 

[Echodelta]

Not surprising. And to think that I used to enjoy watching him on the Seattle sketch comedy, Almost Live many years ago :/

 

[Odale]

The notion that there is no evidence for creationism is true because creationism can never be tested in a laboratory setting to be validated. The force that reassures a number of Christians that creationism is true is their faith. The very nature of faith is investing in something you cannot directly touch, feel, see, or experience. Our faith as Christians hinges upon our investment in something that we don't directly see in our day-to-day lives.

So, Bill Nye saying that we should not teach creationism as a possible means by which we arrived here today I feel is spot on. It is impossible to subject creationism to the scientific method, and because of that, it should not be taught in science classes.

On the other hand, scientific studies have shown various increments of evolution in lab experiments (I believe with fruit flies). The scientific method can be used to test evolution and because of that, the empirical findings, observations, and changes that occur in the lab experiments tend to give evolution a more concrete foundation in the world of science.

Is evolution perfect? No. Do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is most definitely the vehicle "life" used to arrive to where we currently are? No - that's why it's a theory and not a law.

Edit: Bill Nye saying there's no scientific basis for creationism, to me, is like informing me that bricks are hard and will hurt if me if I get hit by one. Christians rely on faith ALL THE TIME. Bill Nye reminding us of part of our faith should A) be absolutely no surprise to anyone (he IS the Science Guy, after all), and B) not be taken as an insult by Christians because you utilize this faith every day. Is your faith always right? If you aren't sure, and are a protestant, go ask a Catholic; or if you're a Catholic, go ask a protestant.

I would have no issue if creationism was taught in a theology class.

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

The notion that there is no evidence for creationism is true because creationism can never be tested in a laboratory setting to be validated. The force that reassures a number of Christians that creationism is true is their faith. The very nature of faith is investing in something you cannot directly touch, feel, see, or experience. Our faith as Christians hinges upon our investment in something that we don't directly see in our day-to-day lives.

So, Bill Nye saying that we should not teach creationism as a possible means by which we arrived here today I feel is spot on. It is impossible to subject creationism to the scientific method, and because of that, it should not be taught in science classes.

On the other hand, scientific studies have shown various increments of evolution in lab experiments (I believe with fruit flies). The scientific method can be used to test evolution and because of that, the empirical findings, observations, and changes that occur in the lab experiments tend to give evolution a more concrete foundation in the world of science.

Is evolution perfect? No. Do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is most definitely the vehicle "life" used to arrive to where we currently are? No - that's why it's a theory and not a law.

One of the best posts I've seen in a while.

QFT

 

[ewoksrule]

So, Bill Nye saying that we should not teach creationism as a possible means by which we arrived here today I feel is spot on.

One of the best posts I've seen in a while.

QFT

So you are both saying that Christians should not teach their kids Creationism? Just double checking.

 

[Odale]

It is impossible to subject creationism to the scientific method, and because of that, it should not be taught in science classes.

...

I would have no issue if creationism was taught in a theology class.

I want it to be clear that I have no issue with teaching children creationism. I do take issue with teaching it in a science class. It is not science. It is religion. Science and religion could not operate in more different ways.

I think if you want to be taught creationism, you should ask a pastor - that's their job.

Additionally... if you taught creationism in public schools then what did you do with the whole "Separation of Church and State" thing we use?

 

[ewoksrule]

OK well this video says Parents should not teach their children Creationism. It is not referring to science class, nor theology class.

I am not a science or theology teacher however I do sit down daily and teach the bible to my kids, and Creationism when we get to those parts. Do you agree with Bill that I should not do this?

 

[ewoksrule]

I think if you want to be taught creationism, you should ask a pastor - that's their job.

Completely disagree. It is the parents job. Besides what 5 year old "wants" to be taught something like that, especially from some random man from church.

 

[ewoksrule]

Additionally... if you taught creationism in public schools then what did you do with the whole "Separation of Church and State" thing we use?

This topic does not refer to public school teaching, or did I not comprehend the video? One of us here fails to comprehend.

 

[Lloren]

Creationism can be taught on a scientific level (look at "Young Earth" theory). Then we are talking about science. I don't think religion has place in a science class, but science and creationism are not at odds. There is no scientific proof that the Bible is not 100% accurate in it's depiction of how the world was made.


"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" - Einstein.

 

[ewoksrule]

Creationism can be taught on a scientific level (look at "Young Earth" theory). Then we are talking about science. I don't think religion has place in a science class, but science and creationism are not at odds. There is no scientific proof that the Bible is not 100% accurate in it's depiction of how the world was made.


"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" - Einstein.

Good point, but still we are on a side tangent of if it should be taught in schools..

I want to address the video which says that Parents should not teach Creationism to their kids. That by doing this we are harming the future world as well as our kids.

 

[Odale]

Creationism can be taught on a scientific level (look at "Young Earth" theory).

Here it is, and it seems that science has already established that the ages are much older than that.

There is no scientific proof that the Bible is not 100% accurate in it's depiction of how the world was made.

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" - Einstein.

If I am not mistaken, science has upheld much of what the Bible asserts (such as the story of Noah and the flood. Nice quote, haha.

OK well this video says Parents should not teach their children Creationism. It is not referring to science class, nor theology class. I am not a science or theology teacher however I do sit down daily and teach the bible to my kids, and Creationism when we get to those parts. Do you agree with Bill that I should not do this?

I suppose that from this perspective I disagree with Bill Nye because as an American, I think you are entitled to invest in whatever faith you choose. I also believe that Bill Nye is speaking from a purely scientific point of view and is saying science, which drives innovation, shouldn't be confused with untestable, irrefutable beliefs. Science is built upon testing findings and retesting those - that's how we learn and generate new knowledge. You cannot test whether or not God made all that we see.

As a side note, I do not interpret this assertion form Bill Nye differently than the assertion from Christians to ban evolution from public school science classes because it directly opposes their beliefs (or faith, there it is again). The two assertions are the same.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that creationism and evolution are not necessarily the same thing.

Completely disagree. It is the parents job. Besides what 5 year old "wants" to be taught something like that, especially from some random man from church.

You are free to disagree, but kindergartners aren't exactly taught evolution, either. Besides, where does a Christian parent turn when they do not fully understand what the Bible means? They might google it, but who do you think influenced the answers they find on google? It certainly wasn't a plummer. My bet is that any parent who teaches their children creationism also goes to church, and therefore has ample access to a pastor. Also, this is about parents teaching their kids creationism, not the children seeking it on their own.

This topic does not refer to public school teaching, or did I not comprehend the video? One of us here fails to comprehend.

Generally, when parents want to teach something to their kids, it finds its way into the public school system. I don't think my extrapolation of the topic was too far overreaching. People in general always say "sex education should be taught by the parents!" but in reality that never happens - so the schools teach it. Additionally because creationism opposes/compliments evolution, I don't think it is too far out of the realm of possibility that it would be taught in a science class as an alternative to evolution, which if I am not incorrect, has been done before.

 

[ursen]

Hooo Boy here we go again. One short comment then I am done. Evolution must also be taken on faith, because there are holes in the theory that one could herd a dino through. Yes it has a basis in science, but there are huge gaps in the theory that one must take a leap of faith to connect x to y. That is why it is a THEORY not a FACT. Now y'all continue, but play nice.

 

[tomfoolery_79]

The devil has been massively successful in a few lies in this day and age. Evolution is one of them. It's sad to see dedicated Christians fervently defending evolution. Ever since our first page in our first science book we hear "millions of years". This sort of indoctrination isn't going to be rooted out very easily. Some people still choose to exchange the truth of God for a lie, it's all the devil can do at the end of the day.

 

[Odale]

The devil has been massively successful in a few lies in this day and age. Evolution is one of them. It's sad to see dedicated Christians fervently defending evolution. Ever since our first page in our first science book we hear "millions of years". This sort of indoctrination isn't going to be rooted out very easily. Some people still choose to exchange the truth of God for a lie, it's all the devil can do at the end of the day.

Perhaps you should widen your horizons.

 

[Pheonix28]

There's one MAJOR flaw with theistic evolution. Original sin.


It's IMPOSSIBLE for scientists to date anything older than they are. They can attempt to age something, but they can't be sure of that aging. Most scientific "aging" tests are based on the way things are now. That is, assuming that things have always been the way they are now.

Evolution is entirely based on forensic science. Forensic science isn't "science", and as such, can't really prove anything. I'm sorry, but macro evolution has never been proven, not even in fruit flies. It is sad that so many Christians have fallen into the lies.

Here's a question. If God is so great that he could create the universe, why could he not make it beautiful when he did so?

 

[Odale]

Evolution is entirely based on forensic science. Forensic science isn't "science", and as such, can't really prove anything. I'm sorry, but macro evolution has never been proven, not even in fruit flies. It is sad that so many Christians have fallen into the lies.

Micro evolution has been witnessed in fruit flies in a laboratory setting, and no scientist, ever, has stated that a horse will evolve directly into a bird.

If, say, a fruit fly found an abundant amount of food underground in a mole's tunnels, then it would no longer need wings to fly, right? Since micro evolution has been witnessed, who is to say that this fruit fly that formerly was a fly, is now a 6-legged insect that lives in mole hills? Certainly a fly losing its wings because it no longer needs them constitutes macro evolution - I don't think that is impossible.

You are correct when you state how forensics doesn't prove anything for evolution - but that's because it's used for legal issues (murder, etc.)

You're thinking of Paleontology, which is a science.

Here's a question. If God is so great that he could create the universe, why could he not make it beautiful when he did so?

Who said it wasn't always beautiful? It's no secret that the universe changes. In the not too distant past, we saw the gravitational pull of Jupiter break up a comet and then pull the comet into it's orbit (which then impacted Jupiter). Who is saying that wasn't always beautiful?

If you are insinuating that evolution is science's way to say "God messed up," I personally believe that you are seriously incorrect. I do believe that God created what we call the universe (it had to come from somewhere) and it has always been beautiful. I also believe that evolution is an ingenious strategy that plants, mammals, bacteria, etc. employ to deal with an ever-changing environment. That genius that is the ability to radically cope with new factors of an environment is beautiful, too.

Edit: we've gone off track again. >_>

 

[tomfoolery_79]

No one, even creationist denies MICRO-evolution. That is observable in nature. It's taking the leap to macro where the problem lies.

Maybe you should broaden your horizons.

 

[tomfoolery_79]

If, say, a fruit fly found an abundant amount of food underground in a mole's tunnels, then it would no longer need wings to fly, right? Since micro evolution has been witnessed, who is to say that this fruit fly that formerly was a fly, is now a 6-legged insect that lives in mole hills? Certainly a fly losing its wings because it no longer needs them constitutes macro evolution - I don't think that is impossible.

This tells me you don't understand biology, specifically DNA. It's a good "perhaps" argument, but not a scientific argument.

 

[Abba San]

A great little book about creation and science and how they match up - Before Abraham Was.