Bill Nye the Science Guy says creationism not good for kids

Reuters ^ | August 28, 2012 | Lily Kuo

[rickmichaels]

Scientist and children’s television personality Bill Nye, in a newly released online video, panned biblical creationism and implored American parents who reject the scientific theory of evolution not to teach their beliefs to their youngsters.

“I say to the grownups, ’If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we’ve observed in the universe that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it,’” said Nye, best known as host of the educational TV series “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”

The video, titled “Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children,” was posted on Thursday by the online knowledge forum Big Think to YouTube and had netted more than 1.3 million views as of Monday.

In it Nye said widespread public doubt in the scientific concept of evolution — which holds that human beings and all other forms of life developed from a process of random genetic mutation and natural selection — would hinder a country long renowned for its innovation, intellectual capital and a general grasp of science.

“When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in (evolution) it holds everybody back, really,” he said.

According to a Gallup poll that surveyed 1,012 adults in May, 46 percent of Americans can be described as creationists for believing that God created humans in their present form at some point within the last 10,000 years.

Education advocates have argued for decades over what children should be taught in public schools in regard to the formation of the universe, life and humans.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that requiring biblical creation to be taught in public schools alongside evolution was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment separation between church and state.

In April, a law was passed that protects teachers in Tennessee who wish to critique or analyze what they view as the scientific weaknesses of evolution, making it the second state, after Louisiana, to enable teachers to more easily espouse alternatives to evolution in the classroom.

Nye said that while many adults may believe in creationism, children should be taught evolution in order to understand science. Absent a grasp of evolution, he said, “You’re just not going to get the right answers.” And he called evolution the “fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.”

Teaching children the building blocks of science is essential for the country’s future, he added, saying, “We need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future.”

Nye’s popular show, produced by Disney’s Buena Vista Television, aired from September 1993 to June 1998 on PBS and was also syndicated to local television stations.

[MrB]

Actually, metmom, c5 has embarked on a new investigative journey to correct such misunderstandings he has about the origins and translations of the bible.

Give him a break for a while.

[Theo]

Scripture is not compatible with evolution. If you believe in evolution, you must necessarily toss out the Scriptures.

Jesus, for example, makes no sense if Adam weren’t the first man, and if Adam and his wife did not commit the first sin.

Google the “orchard model of creationism” — it’s really quite compelling.

[betty boop]

Nye said that while many adults may believe in creationism, children should be taught evolution in order to understand science. Absent a grasp of evolution, he said, “You’re just not going to get the right answers.” And he called evolution the “fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.”

From the above statements, I don't see in what way I "sound much like Bill Nye." I strongly disagree with these statements. Rather I would ask: The "right answers" — about what?

Where is life and mind in Darwin's theory? It seems to posit these as epiphenomena of random material change, plus natural selection (nature being viewed as a "just-so" material system). But think about it: Does that really make sense?

BTW, how can evolution be the “fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology," when it has absolutely nothing to say about what life IS, or how it arose? And ditto for mind (psyche, or consciousness).

Perhaps science hasn't got a method to address this issue. But that doesn't make such questions "go away."

Anyhoot, please don't take my criticism personally. I was only responding to certain statements you made, which are typical of a person who holds the "accepted dogma." I was merely trying to point out that science could do itself a whole lot of good by questioning its presuppositions from time to time.

May God bless you and your kids!

[hosepipe]

[... How can evolution be the “fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology,” when it has absolutely nothing to say about what life IS, or how it arose? And ditto for mind (psyche, or consciousness) ....]

Damn good questions.. Living tissue looks exactly like dead tissue.. The difference is a “mystery”... You know to science d;-).... Much projections of political ideology replaces real answers.. about What life “IS”... and by the way what life ISN’T... Death is as mysterious as life is..

Religious groupies have a “million” other “answers”...
What is being “conscious”?.. and if you be “Aware” how aware are you... and of “What”?... What have you “Missed”?..

Darwin and Marx were indeed like Chimpanzees inspecting a ROLEX Watch.. They liked the “shine”... and the shape was interesting.. but they liked the cheaper watchs better with the “ticking”... They liked the ticking.. To them.... what good was a watch that did’nt “TICK”?...

[Alamo-Girl]

What a magnificent essay-post, dearest sister in Christ! This one is definitely a "keeper" for me.

Instantly, a certain problem seems to arise here: If everything that exists is either "physical" (or "supervenes" on the physical) or "material," then how do we characterize mathematics? Scientific theories? The laws of Nature (the presupposition of which is absolutely essential for the conduct of science itself)? Has anyone ever seen any of these things running around on (physical) legs, so to speak?

No! They are non-physical, immaterial, and moreover universal.

Precisely so.

[Alamo-Girl]

BTW, how can evolution be the “fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology," when it has absolutely nothing to say about what life IS, or how it arose? And ditto for mind (psyche, or consciousness).

So very true, dearest sister in Christ!

The theory of evolution is incomplete. Darwin never asked or answered "what is life v. non-life/death in nature."

And decades later, after the discovery of information theory (Shannon) and DNA (Crick, Watson) - biologists still avoid the question.

Oh sure they can tell us what living things "look like" but they cannot say what life "is." That even though "life" is the subject of biology. LOL!

Fortunately, physicists and mathematicians have been brought to the table. And they are interested in those questions (Rosen, et al.)

[hosepipe]

I had a car that was “alive” one minute and “dead” the next.. so to speak..
Turns out it only needed a “part” then it was “Alive” again..

Many look at humans exactly in this way..
Life being composed of working parts..
Of course, they conflate the mechanical process but basically its quite simple.. (to them)..

Like the bible and other religious lore presupposes..
Everyone lives forever, meaning no one really actually “dies”...
Much like my car.. even with the proper parts you still need gas..

Some call the gasoline of life .... “the Spirit”..
Why not.?.. Everything “alive” needs energy..

[Agamemnon]

The theory of evolution is incomplete. Darwin never asked or answered "what is life v. non-life/death in nature."

Let's not forget "why."

Why do life forms exist at all?

Why do they exist as they do?

We can pretty much answer why they cannot exist in ways other than they do, because existing in a fashion too far removed from that which is and sustains life -- simply does not live.

Point is this: the materialist has to be able to tell you why he chose to live (although it appears he can't tell you what life is) as opposed to just exist (atomically, or possibly just chemically).

The materialist furthermore must be able to say conclusively and authoritatively why he chose to "evolve," and what value system he invented that determined what passes for "advancement" (without any objective standard to say so -- though this is a key tenet of any good practice of scientific inquiry -- to which in truth he pays only lip-service).

For all his self-elevated and presumed "brilliance," (and admiration for which he expects the masses to just laddle out to him, because, of course in his own mind he is so "brilliant") the materialist simply cannot tell us "why."

I submit the reason for this is two fold: (1) He neither designed himself in the past nor sustains himself in the present, (2) He's not as "brilliant" or "advanced" as he would have those (who too often and so smugly he considers to be intellects less than his own) believe.

The Scriptures quite aptly weigh in on such misplaced illusions of "brilliance." Speaking of the scholars of his own age, the Apostle Paul writes:

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Corinthians 1:20)

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22)

By contrast the Christian has the answer for "why" and the answer for the Source of life itself. As we read in the gospel of John:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

FReegards!

[MrB]

materialists/evolutionists “borrow” some of the assumptions of the Christian/theistic worldview, but reject the basis of those assumptions.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear hosepipe!

One of the hallmarks that shows living things are not like non-living things in nature is that when you take them apart to study the pieces, you cannot put them back together again and still have a living thing.

Or put another way, in life, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (Rosen et al).

As I have testified many times on these threads, I believe that information (successful communication) holds the answer for mathematicians/scientists (esp. physicists invited to the biology table) who must ignore theological/philosophical solutions per the principle of methodological naturalism.

Shannon's mathematical theory of communication gave rise to Information Theory, a branch of mathematics.

Like other math theories it is highly portable among science disciplines. And applied to molecular biology for pharmaceutical and cancer research, it reads like this: information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver or molecular machine as it moves from a before state to an after state.

As long as an autonomous thing in nature is successfully communicating its message (DNA) that thing is alive. If it never could communicate, it is non-life. And if it no longer is communicating, it is dead.

But like betty boop pointed out earlier, making that observation would be like the CMB measurement of the expansion of space/time indicating there was a beginning of real space and real time.

It would be a theological statement at the heart because there is no physical origin for information (successful communication) in the universe.

As a whole, science is not ready to give up the Newtonian paradigm in biological research. Most still believe that living things are like non-living things, they should be able to take them apart and put them back together again, i.e. Frankenstein.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear Agamemnon!

For all his self-elevated and presumed "brilliance," (and admiration for which he expects the masses to just laddle out to him, because, of course in his own mind he is so "brilliant") the materialist simply cannot tell us "why."

So very true. Indeed, he must deny a "why" (final cause) exists at all to support his beliefs.

But to speak of biological systems without a "why" leads to silly, clumsy speech - e.g. "apparent function" just as betty boop said earlier. LOLOL!

[hosepipe]

[..As a whole, science is not ready to give up the Newtonian paradigm in biological research. Most still believe that living things are like non-living things, they should be able to take them apart and put them back together again, i.e. Frankenstein. ..]

We could call it the BAMM-BAMM/PEBBLEs Philosophy..
Some think like BB others think like Pebbles..

The infantile Sandbox is "tricky"...
one must watch out for the Schrödinger's Cat Poop..

I.E. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeuAhYd5-dc

[hosepipe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeuAhYd5-dc

[betty boop]

Alamo-Girl wrote: The theory of evolution is incomplete. Darwin never asked or answered "what is life v. non-life/death in nature."

To which Agamemnon replied: Let's not forget "why." ... Why do life forms exist at all? ... Why do they exist as they do?

Aristotle famously propounded the thesis that "All men desire to know."

But a man who does not ask the question, "WHY?" does not exhibit the least desire "to know" anything at all. For the simple reason that he must believe he already knows everything worth knowing, so there is nothing further "to know." "WHY???" questions are therefore redundant, irrelevant.

Plus we must recognize that every "WHY???" question necessarily involves the explication of a Final Cause — a purpose or goal, a "limit" that Nature is seeking to realize.

Ever since Francis Bacon, "WHY???" questions of this type have been banished from science, as being too "metaphysical." And thus was the scientific method born.

Bacon wanted to expunge all of philosophy from the practice of science. But he certainly didn't succeed. Ironically, philosophy is foundational to the practice of modern science, in the measure in which it holds materialism (or physicalism) as its fundamental explanatory paradigm.

For materialism is nothing more nor less than a philosophical DOCTRINE of very ancient vintage.

Of course, in accepting such a doctrine, all scientific progress instantly ceases. Under the materialist presupposition become scientific "paradigm," there is absolutely no way to discover the answers to your two great (and historically persistent) questions, Agamemnon:

"Why do life forms exist at all?.... Why do they exist as they do?"

So you simply STOP asking such questions. (Which to me is like performing something like a self-lobotomy....)

You stand in an estimable, honorable line of human thinkers going back to Leibniz at least, who framed your very questions similarly:

WHY are things the way they are, and not some other way? And WHY does anything exist at all, why not nothing?

Such questions are totally unanswerable, absent the idea of Aristotle's Final Cause — purpose, goal, logical limit: Aristotle tells us that Final Cause is that cause for which all the other causes — formal, material, efficient — exist in the first place.

Certain scientists nowadays — on the one hand — will have nothing to do with final causes. Indeed, final causes are to be categorically "banned" from "science."

But on the other hand, in proposing Darwinism as an explanation of how living species evolve without God being involved in any way shape or form — they are working towards justifying a final cause — in other words, a "result," purpose, or goal, conducive to showing that God is "unnecessary" to the understanding of our world.

In yet other words, the purpose or goal of this exercise is to show that God has nothing to do with Nature, or with existents living or non-living, in any way shape or form.

Ergo: God is "unnecessary" to the "scientific" explication of Nature.

The next step is to declare that "God is dead."

Or I gather that is the entire point of the exercise, at least in certain scientific circles. (C.f. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Richard Lewontin, Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, et al.)

Fortunately, such a prejudice did not operate with some of the greatest scientific thinkers the world has ever known; e.g., Aristotle, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, just to mention a few....

And we humans have benefited most spectacularly from their insights....

Thank you ever so much, dear Agamemnon, for your outstanding observations!

[tacticalogic]

The theory of evolution is incomplete. Darwin never asked or answered "what is life v. non-life/death in nature."

Can you give me an example of a complete theory?

[hosepipe]

[ But on the other hand, in proposing Darwinism as an explanation of how living species evolve without God being involved in any way shape or form — they are working towards justifying a final cause — in other words, a "result," purpose, or goal, conducive to showing that God is "unnecessary" to the understanding of our world. In yet other words, the purpose or goal of this exercise is to show that God has nothing to do with Nature, or with existents living or non-living, in any way shape or form. Ergo: God is "unnecessary" to the "scientific" explication of Nature. The next step is to declare that "God is dead." ]

So true... there is an "Agenda" there.. plain to any thinking person..
The same agenda the proposed "fallen angels" according to biblical lore had...

Which brings me to my "Vision" I had.. (part of it)
THAT... why humans exist in the first place; is to give "certain" fallen ones an attempt at redemption from their fallen estate.. AkA fallen angels getting a second chance..

The duality remains rebellion against God or subservience to "IT"..
Pretty much the two camps of human thinking as well..
What changed?.. not a Hell of a lot.. d;-)...

What changed is "humans" offered a choice..
Could be the old devil(Satan) is whom you look at in the mirror.. your flesh!!..

Do you WANT the flesh or the spirit?...
Which do you identify with?.. seek to pursue?.. or am longing for?.. Which?..
The duality dreams are made of.... and no I don't have a Jesus fetish,..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for that precious Flinstones clip!

[Alamo-Girl]

So you simply STOP asking such questions. (Which to me is like performing something like a self-lobotomy....)

Indeed. People babble when trying to avoid mentioning final cause.

Thank you so much for your informative essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

[betty boop]

Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind words of encouragement!

[betty boop]

Can you give me an example of a complete theory?

History shows that all scientific theories change over time, as new evidence, observational capabilities, and understandings come into play. The obvious example is the transition from the geocentric theory to the heliocentric theory, and beyond via Newtonian mechanics and Relativity theory. In that sense no scientific theory is ever "complete."

The remarkable thing about Darwin's theory is it does not change; after 150+ years, it is still just as Darwin proposed it. It seems remarkably resistant to modification based on new evidence, observational capabilities, and understandings. IOW, it appears to be strikingly "complete." And yet on the other hand....

You quoted my dearest sister in Christ, Alamo-Girl:

The theory of evolution is incomplete. Darwin never asked or answered "what is life v. non-life/death in nature."

I agree with her assessment. If Darwinism is a biological theory — biology being the study of life per se — Darwin's theory should address its subject matter, life. It should answer the question: What is it about living systems that makes them different from non-living systems in nature?

Both rocks and rabbits have the same material basis. What is it that causes them to be different orders of being altogether?

But Darwin's theory does not ask this question. It takes life "for granted," and goes about telling how life "speciates."

It doesn't tell us what life is; essentially, it only tells us what life "looks like," and how life forms change over time — blindly, randomly, as it were "accidentally."

Under the scenario "random mutation + natural selection," what you have is one material system in nature (an organism) undergoing mutational change, with another material system — nature, which is itself changing all the time ("evolving") — "locking" in changes in the organism that are beneficial to its survival and future reproductive capability. It is not at all clear to me by what principle the second material system (nature, itself subject to "random change") "knows" anything about the survival prospects of the first material system.

This is not a situation of "turtles all the way down". This is a situation of "accidents all the way down."

But if everything in nature is accidental — and therefore pointless, just a case of "stuff" happening — then what can we really say about it? Science doesn't deal with "accidents." It deals with discovering the bases of uniform, universal laws to which the natural world is subject.

So if all you can say about species change is that it is "accidental" — What kind of a scientific statement is that? "Accidental" to WHAT?

Which is why the more I look into it, the more I suspect that Darwin's theory is not really "scientific" — not in the way of, say, physics, which "allows" its theories to change as new insights and information warrant.

Yet it seems biologists are quite content with it; but not so much the physicists and mathematicians (including complex systems theorists and information theorists). Some of the latter see what's "missing" from Darwin's theory.

But most biologists nowadays (it seems) are highly resistant to the idea of physicists and mathematicians invading their "turf." In response to such interlopers, the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr proposed that biology should be regarded as a "sovereign science" in its own right, on an equal par with physics, just not subject to the same rules as physics.

From which I gather that biologists will go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the "credibility" of Darwinian evolutionary theory — in the face of mounting criticisms from other sectors of the science community.

Perhaps you think I'm straining on a gnat here, dear tacticalogic. But what I understand myself to be doing is searching for the logical basis of Darwin's theory; and so far, I haven't found it.

Sorry to run on so long in answering your simple question. Thank you for asking it.