Posted on 08/28/2012 3:39:34 AM PDT by 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.
Admittedly, I was the guy who called you out for exactly what you are and busted you to begin with.
And yes, on that order perhaps my cut was the deepest, but if you don't want to be pinged to this thread you'll have to tell every other "ersatz" poster to stop pinging you to this discussion as well, not just me.
Try again.
Where Darwinian dogma is concerned, it would seem that you should be equipped to expound on that one better than just about any one else here.
Platitudinize for us some more, ol' tact-o-baby!
FReegards!
Your offer of a flame war is declined.
Oh, I do agree with your statement, dear MrB!!!
Sorry for not realizing "who" was making the "random stardust" argument. Still, I think what I wrote still holds.
Whatever. It seems to me that Romans 1:20 has the final say:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:IOW, God cannot ever be seen "directly," but only through His effects....
But the "humanists" evidently refuse to look.
The question is about the amount of time that the theories of geocentrism and Newtonian mechanics were the accepted theories of the day. All "local" and within recorded history. I do not understand why there would be any confusion about the appropriate "order" of time involved.
It does sound like you are straining to find fault.
Actually, I have to disagree with Betty Boop here. The idea that Darwinism has been stagnant and unchanging for 150+ years. Of course she's correct scientifically, but consider:
You see, each time it's challenged or new information comes forth, liberals that support it circle the wagons and attack those that dare to disagree or even present new challenges. There's no rational scientific defense of Darwinism, but only tired used up failed liberalspeak. If anyone suggests a flaw, then their credentials are attacked. Or they get shouted down and ran off with some farcical peer review.
Case in point, what's this unchallenged for 150 years nonsense? The better question is of course: What scientific theory requires so many lawsuits to prop it up?
Or I should say, an antireligious screed.
What an Unamerican, science-worshipping scumbag! Nye should be censured and repudiated for such ridiculous, asinine statements. His conceit and arrogance are truly breathtaking, as well as extremely dangerous...
Ummm... Let's see... Global warming?
[Says this scientist who accepts neither -- for sound scientific reasons...] ;-)
Newton describes them, but he does not explain what their origins are. Biologists had already defined what life was well before ToE. Why does failure to do it all over again render the theory flawed?
If it's correct scientifically, that should be sufficient for the purpose of a discussion of the science of it.
What is it exactly that makes that "the better question"?
You don’t see a “guilt by association” fallacy there?
To the contrary, measurements of the CMB in the 1960's forward confirm that space/time is expanding, that it doesn't pre-exist, that there was a beginning of real space and real time. The observation shows that Newton's presuppositions were false but not significant at classical levels.
You fault Darwin for failing to address the origin of life, but give Newton a pass for a presupposion of "pre-existence", which doesn't address the origin, but merely avoids it.
Can you explain why failing to do that renders the theory flawed?
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.