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.
What I see is a paradigm difference between the theory of evolution and anthropogenic global warming on the one hand - and theories from any of the hard sciences, e.g. physics, chemistry - on the other hand.
More specifically, in the hard sciences the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The more a theory survives attempts to falsify it, the more confident we can be that the theory is reliable.
Conversely, ToE and AGW - like most if not all of the soft sciences (anthropology, archeology, Egyptology) begin with a master theory or blueprint into which observations are fit. Inconvenient information - observations that do fit - are discredited or obscured from public view.
For them the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But far worse than that, when scientists dare to challenge the blueprint theory - instead of being applauded for their efforts as they would be in physics and chemistry - they are ridiculed, black-balled, discredited. Essentially they are ruined for daring to challenge the paradigm (Stein's 'Expelled' and current news on AGW.)
They are also notable for lawsuits, political activism and other unseemly behavior as if needed to shore up the theory against further scrutiny.
Indeed, the theories have more in common with theological dogma than hard science.
I said “incomplete.”
Using lawsuits as a metric? Wow.
This is exactly the dilemma I confronted (many years ago) with my double-degree-plan when I found myself in my last undergrad semester with "space" for only one four hour course in my final eighteen hours of advanced sciences. My available choices:
...or...
The answer was obvious: the solidity and mathematical rigor of thermodynamics and the physical sciences (plus solid counsel by the Holy Spirit) turned me toward a career in physical chemistry.
A full "BS-worth" of biology had failed to produce in me confidence that the Darwinian basis of modern biology had any foundation in truth that I could build on for a lifetime.
~~~~~~~~~~
Physical science won; Darwinian biology lost.
My career in physical chemistry and microtechnology was a fantastic journey of continually discovering and rejoicing in the wonder, precision, masterful design -- and plain evidence of the guiding Hand -- of our Creator!
I frankly do not believe I would have survived (with mental integrity) a career in Darwinian biology! "There's just no 'there' there..."
~~~~~~~~~~
What?!? A physical scientist who believes that God our Creator guided -- and is still actively guiding -- the development of His Creation?
Absolutely! No (as in zero) question!!
As my Jewish friends sing at Pasover, "Daiyenu!"
If my only evidence were His guiding Hand in making that single course choice -- "Daiyenu!" ("it would have been enough!")
What is the consequence of "incomplete"? Why is the omission of that definition important to the consideration of the theory? If someone else re-publishes the same theory and includes that definition, will it make it more likely that the theory is correct - that life does speciate by a process of evolution?
One word: "Deniers..."
(Genuine physical science has no need of it...);
Whereas accidents (e.g. mutations) happen, final cause is the controlling factor in living things, e.g. the mathematical models of Shannon and Rosen.
Leaving Bacon (anti-final cause) behind, the Newtonian paradigm, essentially that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts, would not have been falsely applied in biological investigations.
Life is NOT like non-life/death in nature.
In living systems, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
One word: "Deniers"
(Genuine science has no need for it.)
And thank you so very much for sharing your testimony a few posts above. I regret I must leave now and take care of some family stuff, so I won't be able to participate until later.
What exactly was the "misconcepton", and why exactly does the omission of a formal definition of what life is in the theory prevent anyone from discovering it?
You seem to be submitting that if Newton had not published the papers describing mass, time, and space, then Einstein would never have produce the theory of relativity. That seems a rather dubious proposition to me.
What should I do before I express my theory and promote it as the answer to everything?
If it's a good theory, should you have to do anything?
Key word: "If"...
Not so much fun when you don't have the gaggle of Darwin Central moon-bats around here any more, is it? How seemingly more polite and civil you have become in their absence.
Your surrender is accepted unconditionally.
You are free to leave the discussion at your pleasure, though I can assure you that Darwinism's intellects will continue to be among our play things around here for a little while longer.
Have a nice day.
FReegards!
Don’t bad theories get replaced with good ones?
You should try it sometime.
You might find that believing that God can create life with the ability to evolve doesn't make someone your enemy.
Frequently -- and the good "development" theories define what they are "developing" before they start. Otherwise they are operating "with a blank check" that can be filled in by any and every investigator...
It was once believed that life could come from nonliving things, such as mice from corn, flies from bovine manure, maggots from rotting meat, and fish from the mud of previously dry lakes.
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/spontaneous-generation.html
Why, I've even seen beautiful crystals grow from a liquid!
Add that to your "Theory of the evolution of [undefined] "life"...
I suppose it must have been very confusing for Darwin's contemporaries to read his theory, and then go to the dictionary looking for the word "life", and finding nothing.
God can certainly create life with the ability to "evolve." The question you must answer is: "Did He." The second question you have to answer is "Do you believe Him?
His Scriptures tell us that God created organisms to reproduce after their kind (Genesis 1:25). It does not say directly or imply "evolution" starting as one kind eventually becoming another non-kind.
He created them to adapt within their kind to environments in which they were designed to thrive, but one confuses terms if one equates the term "adaptation" with the concept of Darwinian "evolution."
So it's not a question of what God can do, it's all a matter of believing God's account of what he did do.
This is the basic stumbling stone for all evolutionists, whether they are "theistic" or even atheistic.
By the way, I don't necessarily consider you to be my "enemy," only a substantially argumentatively lesser-equipped debating opponent.
FReegards!
Did your theology teach you that?
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.