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

[tagtarsis]

To get back to the original subject that Ewok was discussing is that should it even be taught by the parent to the kids.

Once we push that we step on the First Amendment rights of Americans. This also boarders on communism where the communist are told what they can and cannot teach their own children. And sounds disturbingly like the social indoctrination similar to the ones endured by the German children during the reign of Adolf Hitler.

Children belong to the parent (gifts from God) and as such we should allow them to teach their own children how they see fit.

I will post more on the evolution thing later on too.

 

[ewoksrule]

This thread got interesting now! Brucy brings a point of view that most of my friends have, I am glad to see it being discussed a bit as I am in no way intelligent to add much, but I hear the arguments all the time.

 

[tomfoolery_79]

So you are saying that you would rather deny what science has proven occurred then change your beliefs? You are denying reality in favor of your beliefs in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

You have clearly gone out of bounds saying Evolution has been proven. You yourself claim it is a scientific theory and not a "scientific law". My beliefs co-align with reality.

Do you know what missing links are? Cause if you do, my statement makes sense. Missing links are gaps in the fossil record from one jump to another. For example, the dinosaur transitioning to a bird (as evolutionist claim). The most famous missing link happens to be the one that always comes up in the news and that's the jump from ape to man. Again to Tarsis's post, you aren't going to find it.

 

[RyanB]

Finally, I would be interested in your definition of "macroevolution".

Personally I find the term ambiguous, and I was a bit confusing above as I meant to use it as such. I refer to non-mating conditions as speciation, though as you know what constitutes a new "species" is a huge topic in and of iteself. The Ring example is a good example of this ambiguity - take A, B (middle), and C. A can mate with B, and B can mate with C. Are A & B the same species? B & C? What about A & C?

I use the term like I'd use macro-economics. Large scale. So your definition is sort of the same when you say "compounded changes", but neither are specific enough to argue about....which I see people do constantly.

"Evolution has little evidence!"
"No way...there is TONS!"

Often these two people are talking about two different things.

Ultimately, I'm not passionate about what was in Adam's genome, but I do not believe it descended from an amoeba.

 

[tagtarsis]

Fruit fly experimentation over the last 100 years has been flawed.

They have been doing fruit fly experiments for the better part of 100 years and have found that when we (humans) manipulate the "homeobox” gene we end up with variations of the same creature that proves we can change the structure of said creature, but does not prove evolution on a macro scale, just micro-evolution. (and yes there are differences I could point out in a later post on this subject.)

This is a genetic abnormality does occur in the wild but the creature never lives, this happens to humans as well with devastating results for the person who has a genetic disorder like these.

In fact since human intelligence is involved and the fact that the creatures born of this experiment have no way to survive outside of a lab proves that the evolutionary development from the tests are not proving anything to prove evolution.

There are 2 glaring flaws from this experiment attempting to proving evolution, (first is the human intelligence factor) (second is there are no results that are viable, a fruit fly with 4 wings is a fruit fly but no longer can fly, no new creatures have been made from this experiment)

“The mutants that produce four-winged fruit flies survive today only in a carefully controlled environment and only when skilled researchers meticulously guide their subjects through one non-functional stage after another. This carefully controlled experiment does not tell us much about what undirected mutations can produce in the wild.” Meyer, S. C. et al. 2007. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism. London: Hill House Publishers, pg. 105.

 

[tagtarsis]

To assume that no real scientist would believe in creationism is a false belief many very productive and very successful scientists believed in creationism.

They did not slow down scientific discovery because of their belief; they made many great discoveries in the history of man.

“I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naïve thoughts.” Ernst Chain (world famous biochemist), as quoted by RW Clark, in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 1985 p 148.


“Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “I know one thing- it ought not be taught in high school.” Dr Colin Patterson (senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November 1981.


“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University) as quoted in “Hoyle on Evolution”. Nature, Vol 294, 12 November 1981 p 105.


“Education is useless without the Bible. The Bible was America’s basic text book in all fields. God’s Word contained in the Bible, has furnished all necessary rules to direct our conduct.” Noah Webster (1758-1843) – “The Schoolmaster of the Nation”


“We find strong evidence for the steady loss of species within the fossil record. This is more in consonance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics than with the upward growth posited by evolution.” Dr Ker Thompson D Sc. In geophysics, former director of the US Air Force Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory.


“in fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientist have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it” HS Lipson, FRS (professor of Physics, University of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norma, Oklahoma USA) ‘Paleontology and evolutionary theory’. Evolution Vol 28 September 1974 pg 466

 

[Pheonix28]

So you are saying that you would rather deny what science has proven occurred then change your beliefs? You are denying reality in favor of your beliefs in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

Can you please show me even one bit of proof? If you can show me one thing proving evolution, just one very tiny minute thing, I may listen to you more. When I say evolution, I mean macro and not micro.

As for your whole "fossil record proves..."... yeah. Can you show me how looking at fossils can prove anything other than that there are fossils? You could say "Well it proves that so and so lived at such and such place... but even then you're stretching it. You can ASSUME that happened, but you can't prove it. All you can PROVE is that there are fossils.

As for trying to state that fossil records link species a to species b; this just isn't feasible or possible for that matter.

 

[BassMan449]

You have clearly gone out of bounds saying Evolution has been proven. You yourself claim it is a scientific theory and not a "scientific law". My beliefs co-align with reality.

Do you know what missing links are? Cause if you do, my statement makes sense. Missing links are gaps in the fossil record from one jump to another. For example, the dinosaur transitioning to a bird (as evolutionist claim). The most famous missing link happens to be the one that always comes up in the news and that's the jump from ape to man. Again to Tarsis's post, you aren't going to find it.

Read my first post. You are misusing the terms theory and law in a scientific sense. A theory can never become a law. They are two very different things. Second the "Missing Links" between apes and man. I link the Smithsonian exhibit of many of the previous forms that led to homo sapiens as we are now. Those are your transitional forms from the ancestor we shared with chimpanzees to the modern humans.

And to say evolution is "proven" maybe too strong of a word because a scientific theory can never be truly proven because there is nothing to prove. A scientific theory is an explanation of observed phenomenon. Is the theory of evolution perfect, probably not, but it is the best explanation of what occurred that we have now. It will change in some ways as we gain more evidence, but it is proven, beyond any doubt, that evolution is the mechanism us to the position we are in today.

To address the original point of the post: I don't think it should be against the law to teach creationism by any means, but it is an unscientific belief with no evidence to support it. To me the very idea that you can say, this is how it happened and nothing can change that, is very dangerous. I accept evolution is the truth, but that doesn't change the fact that the theory can change if new evidence comes to light. It has changed many times since the initial proposal of Darwin and will continue to change into the future.

“We find strong evidence for the steady loss of species within the fossil record. This is more in consonance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics than with the upward growth posited by evolution.” Dr Ker Thompson D Sc. In geophysics, former director of the US Air Force Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory.

The problem with the argument from the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is simple. The laws of thermodynamics only apply within a closed energy system. The earth is not a closed system.

The quote from Hoyle is a logical fallacy that has been disproved many times. Just wiki Hoyle's fallacy for the quick breakdown.


I will ask a simple question of all of you. I would be really interested in hearing in your own words what the theory of evolution describes. In my experience most of these arguments center around the fact that people just don't understand what the theory actually says, understandably so because it is a very complex subject.

 

[BassMan449]

Can you please show me even one bit of proof? If you can show me one thing proving evolution, just one very tiny minute thing, I may listen to you more. When I say evolution, I mean macro and not micro.

As for your whole "fossil record proves..."... yeah. Can you show me how looking at fossils can prove anything other than that there are fossils? You could say "Well it proves that so and so lived at such and such place... but even then you're stretching it. You can ASSUME that happened, but you can't prove it. All you can PROVE is that there are fossils.

As for trying to state that fossil records link species a to species b; this just isn't feasible or possible for that matter.

There are two major problems with your request. First this isn't truly how science works. You can never "prove" something, you can only disprove something. You find evidence that supports a theory, i.e. fits with what the theory predicts should. If you find something that doesn't fit, then the theory is modified to reflect the new evidence. This is at it's core how science works. The theory of evolution is accepted because it is the best description of all the evidence we have. It fits with and correctly predicts the evidence that has been found. If we find something that contradicts it, it would be changed. This is what happened with the theory of gravity. It started with Newton's theory and was eventually amended to reflect the inconsistencies found by Einstein with the theory of relativity.

I can't give you one piece of evidence and expect you to accept evolution. I myself wouldn't accept anything on only one piece of evidence. If you take the time to read up on the evidence that supports the theory of evolution you will find there is a lot of it.

If you really want one example, look at whales. Whales have legs. They are tiny legs that never actually grow out of their bodies, but they do have leg bones. If whales were created as they exist, why give them legs that don't have any use. They have legs because they evolved from mammals, which were land creatures. After they moved back into the water their legs were of no further use and slowly became less and less actual legs until eventually they ended up like they are today as just leg bones that have no purpose.

If you want a second example, read about the Recurrent laryngeal nerve. It is a nerve that takes a very strange route through the body. It does this because the route it takes would make sense in fish, to connect to the gills, but in mammals it is very unnecessary.

These are just some of the examples that show the evolutionary chain. There are many more, but these are some of the better known. These are all things that if they were designed as they were would make no sense. But looked at through evolutionary means explains why such things exist and why they are the way they are.

 

[BassMan449]

And to tom. I apologize about my comments about your beliefs not aligning with reality. It was an unnecessary attack at you on my part. I got a little hot headed and that was out of line.

 

[Pheonix28]

There are two major problems with your request. First this isn't truly how science works. You can never "prove" something, you can only disprove something.

Please re-read what you told us. That it was "proven".

You find evidence that supports a theory, i.e. fits with what the theory predicts should. If you find something that doesn't fit, then the theory is modified to reflect the new evidence.

The problem with the evolutionary theory is that evidence is changed to fit the theory, not the other way around. Sometimes there comes 'evidence' so great that they have to change their theory, for example DNA, but only when there is absolutely no way to deny that evidence.

This is at it's core how science works. The theory of evolution is accepted because it is the best description of all the evidence we have.

Again, you're stretching things here. It might be "accepted" but just because something is "accepted" doesn't mean it's right. Take sin as a good example here. Sin is "accepted", yet it's not right.

I can't give you one piece of evidence and expect you to accept evolution. I myself wouldn't accept anything on only one piece of evidence. If you take the time to read up on the evidence that supports the theory of evolution you will find there is a lot of it.

If you take the time to read up on the "evidence" that contradicts evolution you would say the exact opposite. Evolution happens to be a topic of interest for me, so I've read a lot of the "evidence" that "scientists" (scientists is quoted because they rarely actually do any real science) try to claim.

What is laughable to me is that people are so fervent in their belief that the theory of evolution is accurate. You are arguing that theories change when evidence is found that can't be supported by the theory. As such, if you accept the theory as it is now, then you are accepting something that is open to change at any point, by the smallest, slightest bit of "evidence" that could completely disprove the "theory" or "scientific theory" as you're trying to argue.

You are also trusting a very elite, politically biased group of people to be honest in their work. A people who aren't known for their great moral code or for their honesty. You're trusting a group of people who's main source of income is in their grants, or private funding, as the work they are doing produces nothing of value. They aren't researching new products, or new technologies, they aren't doing anything that produces a good, and as such, their entire life depends on making sure their work is "important" enough to receive the grant money or other forms of funding.

 

[BassMan449]

Please re-read what you told us. That it was "proven".

And as I said in my post "proven" was probably the wrong word.

The problem with the evolutionary theory is that evidence is changed to fit the theory, not the other way around. Sometimes there comes 'evidence' so great that they have to change their theory, for example DNA, but only when there is absolutely no way to deny that evidence.

I would love to see your example of the evidence being changed to fit the theory.

Again, you're stretching things here. It might be "accepted" but just because something is "accepted" doesn't mean it's right. Take sin as a good example here. Sin is "accepted", yet it's not right.

It is accepted because it is the best explanation of the world we can observe. It is accepted by the scientific community because it is supported by the evidence we have found.

If you take the time to read up on the "evidence" that contradicts evolution you would say the exact opposite. Evolution happens to be a topic of interest for me, so I've read a lot of the "evidence" that "scientists" (scientists is quoted because they rarely actually do any real science) try to claim.

What is laughable to me is that people are so fervent in their belief that the theory of evolution is accurate. You are arguing that theories change when evidence is found that can't be supported by the theory. As such, if you accept the theory as it is now, then you are accepting something that is open to change at any point, by the smallest, slightest bit of "evidence" that could completely disprove the "theory" or "scientific theory" as you're trying to argue.

You are also trusting a very elite, politically biased group of people to be honest in their work. A people who aren't known for their great moral code or for their honesty. You're trusting a group of people who's main source of income is in their grants, or private funding, as the work they are doing produces nothing of value. They aren't researching new products, or new technologies, they aren't doing anything that produces a good, and as such, their entire life depends on making sure their work is "important" enough to receive the grant money or other forms of funding.

I was raised Southern Baptist. I spent years defending creationism and I know all the arguments against evolution extremely well. As soon as I took the time to actually learn about evolution and the evidence for it it was very obvious to me that it was much better supported then what I believed. Your right that I'm accepting that a theory can change. That is how science works. The theory of evolution is simply a way for us to understand what occurred, just as germ theory is an explanation of why we get sick. If evidence comes along that disproves evolution wholesale then I will stop accepting it. No such evidence has ever been found. We have found things that disagreed with our current understanding, and so the theory was changed to fit the new evidence.

Finally, I don't trust scientists. I have looked at much of the evidence for myself. I have spent years digging through many things to try to learn more about it. I am trusting things I can see and understand myself. Please show me evidence for what you believe. I would be very interested.

 

[Pheonix28]

This has gone completely off topic and as such will be my last reply.

I don't have time right now to get into it any further, and continued discussion here doesn't help anyone. If you want to continue this you can create another thread, or search for one that is already devoted to this subject.

 

[ewoksrule]

It has gone off topic, but I do appreciate all your comments. It is been very interesting and helpful to me.

 

[Icthus]

First- I want to thank all of you for keeping this thread readable and not a flaming bunch of monkey dung. Maybe the wrong choice of words....

Anyway...

Science has a long history of findings that have to be changed later. I will try to look up the case but I studied Socio-biology in college for my minor. It was combined with a Economic History class. The two combined on the issue of slavery in the US. It seems that "scientist" of the day decided the white male was more evolved than the black man. They found several "scientific" reasons for this. One being, and I kid you not, the distance from the tip of the penis to the belly button.

Along those lines, scientist found that people with larger head were smarter than those with smaller heads. This was proven by measuring the heads of people in prison and comparing it to people in mental institues.

I wish I was making this up. I further wish, I had the case studies. I will make a best effort to find them this weekend.

I am neither a 7 day creationist nor am I an evolutionist. I believe God did it. He could have done it in 7 days or 7 time periods or however He wanted too. I do believe both Theologians and Scientist make mistakes. Grace should be our rule as brothers and sisters under Christ's resurrection.

 

[BassMan449]

Just because some scientist made ridiculous things at some point in time is no basis to rule out the scientific method. Evolution is supported by evidence. You can look up that evidence for yourself. Is the theory of evolution perfect? Highly unlikely. Is it, however, the best explanation of all the evidence currently available to us.

 

[Patriot]

Here's the root of the problem: science cannot accept the miraculous and MUST search for a naturalistic explanation. I see that as a flaw in science since as a believer I must accept the miraculous explanation for certain events. Science essentially has an enormous blind spot that will inevitably lead it to some incorrect conclusions. Not that I am opposed to science in and of itself.

 

[ursen]

Back on subject just for a second. In the video it is implied that to be a good engineer one must believe in the theory of evolution. Huh? Why is that? Mathematics and calculating stress loads of materials can only be done if you accept evolution as truth?

 

[CowRocket]

Also, when we start picking and choosing what we believe in the bible we very quickly run into trouble. As Ken Ham says, if we cannot believe the very first chapter of the bible, why should we believe the rest of it.

You beat me to it.

I always chuckle when I hear people say that the earth is millions of years old by using so-called carbon dating. God made the earth along with age(what we perceive as age).
My simple example: God created Adam and Eve in the days of creation. They had the ability to procreate immediately, which would assume that they were at least young adults.

Not believing that God can create anything He wants, makes me wonder if that person is truly a Christian.

 

[Odale]

This has gone completely off topic and as such will be my last reply.

I don't have time right now to get into it any further, and continued discussion here doesn't help anyone. If you want to continue this you can create another thread, or search for one that is already devoted to this subject.

I also am curious to see your evidence.

You beat me to it.

I always chuckle when I hear people say that the earth is millions of years old by using so-called carbon dating. God made the earth along with age(what we perceive as age).
My simple example: God created Adam and Eve in the days of creation. They had the ability to procreate immediately, which would assume that they were at least young adults.

Not believing that God can create anything He wants, makes me wonder if that person is truly a Christian.

This was covered before in a previous post, but no one is sure whether Genesis was written in an allegorical or metaphorical manner; it is all open to interpretation. The Bible does say that God did create everything we experience. It does not say anything regarding evolution, anything.

Also, while I haven't read all of the responses in this thread, I'm fairly certain that no one here who trusts the theory of evolution also discounts God's role in creating the universe. Just because you believe in evolution does not mean that you must take God out of the picture. I will never understand why so many Christians are against evolution when the Bible says nothing about it.

As a side note, good scientists question everything, even their findings. Because no one knows everything, and because no one is perfect (including scientists) some findings can be pretty shaky. Because of these limitations, science never actually proves anything - science only yields support for our notions we have about our environment.