Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye Blasts Evolution ‘Deniers’
The Christian Diarist ^ | August 28, 2012 | JP

Posted on 08/28/2012 11:53:12 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST

Bill Nye used to be “The Science Guy” on PBS. Now he’s just a godless hater.

The former host of the “educational” TV show targeted to preteens, which aired from 1993 to 1998, said this week that those of us who believe that God created man and woman are idiots. And that we ought not pass along that belief to our children.

“I say to the grownups,” Nye condescended, “if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, your world that’s inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it.”

Because, said Nye, who places his faith in Darwin, rather than God, “We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future.”

As I considered Nye’s remarks, I wondered if he passed along his thoughts on evolution to Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California, who presided over The Science Guy’s quicky marriage back in 2006 (which lasted a mere seven weeks before ending in a decidedly weird, decidedly ugly breakup).

What does it say about Nye’s integrity that he stood before a pastor who absolutely believes the creation story set forth in the Book of Genesis; that he exchanged marriage vows with his seven-week bride before a God in Whom he doesn’t believe?

Yet, he presumes to tell the rest of us what we should teach our children.

And while Nye may be scientifically “literate,” notwithstanding that he has no formal scientific education, he is not nearly as infallible as he makes himself out to be.

Just last year, in fact, The Science Guy demonstrated his scientific shortcomings when he appeared on CNN to discuss damage sustained by a Japanese nuclear plant in the wake of a devastating earthquake and tsunami.

Nye stated, incorrectly, that cesium is used to “slow and control” the nuclear reaction. But as any nuclear scientist would tell him, cesium is a nuclear fission product, not a control rod material.

Nye also stated, incorrectly, that the nuclear reactor involved in the Three Mile Island accident was still online.

And The Science Guy erred in telling CNN viewers that use of boron to slow the nuclear reaction is uncommon, when, in fact, boron-10 is commonly used in control rods and is circulated in the coolant of most, if not all, reactors in this country.

Now, the average CNN viewer could not be expected to know these things. But Nye, the so-called Science Guy, should have known better. Especially if he was going to discuss the subject on national TV.

It obviously doesn’t occur to Nye that, if he was dead wrong on nuclear energy, he could be just as wrong on evolution.

Otherwise the former Science Guy wouldn’t be so contemptuous of those of who are not scientific illiterates; who simply find less believable the science-fiction that ape transmogrified into man, than the Bible’s explanation that all-powerful God created man.


TOPICS: Education; Religion; Science; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: atheism; billnye; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-143 next last
To: RightOnTheBorder

If Evolution is true, then who created Evolution?


61 posted on 08/28/2012 2:15:35 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
That’s not an example of evolution. That’s an example of an extinct species. Merely because a human scientist calls Pissarrachampsa sera “crocodilian” (a wholly-terrestrial saurian?) does not make it so.

Prime example of pseudoscientific bravo sierra from the CBS (CBS, mind you) article linked:
“We are dealing with an exceptionally divergent lineage of extinct crocodile diversity,“ Montefeltro said. “There are many fossils that still need to be found to link this crocodile to those who came before and after.”
More attempts at making the physical finds fit the claim rather than the other way around (the former is unscientific; the latter is scientific method). They find one fossil and build a mythology around it, in hopes of finding “many fossils” that will fit their eschatology. “Exceptionally divergent” is a bravo-sierraism for “It actually is nothing like a crocodile or any crocodilian, but we are going to say it is just to get headlines and, of course, more government funding”.
62 posted on 08/28/2012 2:25:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: OriginalIntent

Bill Maher the Science Gaher . . . ?


63 posted on 08/28/2012 2:31:32 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Bill Nye the left-wing guy.

Leftists cannot help but blow hot air and demagogue to their far left choir as they all pant for Obama to pass judgement on those awful Americans who still love their country, oppose the libertine filth and cling to the guns and Bibles.

64 posted on 08/28/2012 2:31:55 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (undo all judicial activism and its results)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Joseph Harrolds

It’s not.


65 posted on 08/28/2012 2:32:38 PM PDT by albionin (A gawn fit's aye gettin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder
The “evolution” of dominant genes can explain why there are less redheads in the world today but as for turning monkeys into men, the theory has just too many holes to be put forth as certainty.

Here is a problem with your thinking...you are stating the religious meme that evolution says we evolved from apes. Evolution precisely makes the point we DID NOT evolve from apes.

That we did not evolve from apes is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory but it keeps on being stated as fact by people who don't research what evolution is about.

66 posted on 08/28/2012 3:22:47 PM PDT by trailhkr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1

Just where are you getting that from?

Current evolutionary theory indeed states that both humans and great apes developed from “hominids”, which were themselves primates and tailless.


67 posted on 08/28/2012 3:29:17 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Like I said, evolution may explain why traits that are variable within the same species (like tooth size) change gradually over time.

It does not however explain the quantum leaps of difference between supposed iterations of what evolutionists would have us believe is the same species. There are no fossils yet found with traits common to both homo sapiens and any another genus. If we are to believe that changing from one genus into another is a gradual process brought about by selective environmental pressures, would we not expect to find a being with traits of more than one genus?

Your dinosaur “crocodile” kind of proves my point. It contains no bone that is the same shape, proportion, or function as a modern crocodile. If it did the researchers would be crying it from the rooftops as final proof of evolution. As it stands, the creature has features that look similar to a crocodile so people who already believe evolution claim it to be an ancestor


68 posted on 08/28/2012 3:39:53 PM PDT by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Because to do so is to call God a liar, and subsequently to embrace godless leftism.

On the contrary; one may believe in God without being a Christian or Jew.

69 posted on 08/28/2012 3:41:48 PM PDT by Joseph Harrolds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
No, real science is why American standard of living got to be so high. Not pseudoscience.

I agree completely.  BTW, here's a list of pseudosciences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

Notably included are:

Fancy that...

70 posted on 08/28/2012 3:43:28 PM PDT by Joseph Harrolds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Joseph Harrolds

Yeah, fancy Wikileftism doing that. I’m just totally shocked.


71 posted on 08/28/2012 3:47:10 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Joseph Harrolds

That’s kinda what led to the religious confusion that is prevalent even today.


72 posted on 08/28/2012 3:48:17 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Last I checked, evolution was a theory, and not one in very good evidentiary stead at the moment.

Adaptation is a fact, supported by a great deal of evidence. Evolution is something awaiting any proof whatsoever of any trans-species mutation. No fish ever became a bicycle, as it were. Apes never became men, as far as the scientific evidence would tell us.

Try as they might, they’ve also never created life out of electricity, earth atmosphere, and ‘primordial soup’.

In fact, the evolutionists have taken to claiming all life came from an infection placed here by some meteorite. That’s not a very long hop from claiming ‘ET came down and spawned us.’

Bill’s another Seattle whack-job who got lucky for a bit, and evolution is still a theory. Frankly, claiming God created all life on Earth and claiming a meteorite or ET did it is all the same - it requires belief, for the moment.

I tend to believe God did it. I’m pretty sure evolution is crap given the evidence I’ve seen. Way too much “And then a miracle happened” in the middle of what is supposedly science for me to buy it. Far less of a leap for me to just believe, “Yes, indeed, a miracle happened.”


73 posted on 08/28/2012 4:00:46 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs (Does beheading qualify as 'breaking my back', in the Jeffersonian sense of the expression?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Placemark.
74 posted on 08/28/2012 4:12:23 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: albionin
What the evidence does, categorically, is contradict the young earth creation story of the bible.

Only by reference to certain unverifiable metaphysical assumptions.

"Uniformity of causes in a closed system" and all that.

Cheers!

75 posted on 08/28/2012 4:14:35 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: albionin
If you can ignore the evidence and give credence to a story which directly contradicts that evidence and must be accepted on faith then you are not a judge of what is rational.

On the contrary. It takes wisdom to know when rationality alone is sufficient, and when it is not.

Cheers!

76 posted on 08/28/2012 4:16:25 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
BTW, the idea that crocodiles and mites haven't evolved is a bit silly, although I do agree that there are certain morphological features that tend to stay the same due to their selective advantage.

Pics or it didn't happen: your statement is halfway between circular reasoning and the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Cheers!

77 posted on 08/28/2012 4:18:13 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Joseph Harrolds; 50mm; darkwing104; TheOldLady
Joseph Harrolds
"Since Aug 17, 2012"

Interesting posting history.

78 posted on 08/28/2012 4:33:04 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: trailhkr1
Even the Catholic church is heading up a serious science department and starting to work more science into religion.

Such a statement shows the ignorance (in its classical usage... not meant to be offensive) of history promulgated by our modern school systems. The Catholic Church HAS ALWAYS been the champion of scientific inquiry. It wouldn't take much research to test the veracity of this statement. This article takes a fairly balanced view of the subject. If you read more than just a couple of paragraphs, I think you will understand my purpose.

79 posted on 08/28/2012 4:34:44 PM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Joseph Harrolds
Look! The troll relies upon Wikipedia; and is persuing argument from authority.

:-)

80 posted on 08/28/2012 4:35:54 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson