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.

[netmilsmom]

Wow! With so much knowledge packed into one post, I can’t wait to see the reply from the other poster.

Thank you for a well researched and presented answer.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

In what way was Galileo "right"? There is no coherent Galilean model of planetary motion. Read Kostler's The Sleepwalkers, great read. Galileo was a strident and hamfisted advocate of a theory he could not explain, did not understand and that is actually less useful for predicting observations than the one it proposed to replace. He was absolutely, demonstrably wrong about tides. If he had not provoked an unnecessary and pointless fight with the Vatican, he would have been a minor footnote in history.

BTW, Martin Luther was adamantly opposed to heliocentricism (he had read some early papers by Copernicus, prior to the release of De Revolutionibus) and condemned it as heresy. Copernicus was a Roman Catholic Cannon, about equal in rank to a Monsiegnor. The Roman Church was indifferent to heliocentricism, until Galileo made a fuss about it and had De Revolutionibus added to the Index. Again, like Akin on abortion, Galileo's hamfisted proclamations gave the geocentricists power they never would have had otherwise.

[Paradox]

I am homeschooling my kids, and I am teaching my kids about Evolution, and also that I believe that it probably went down something like that. So on FR, I would be called an evolutionist.

Many of the people in my area believe in creationism, so I am also teaching my kids about ID, even a little about Genesis, although I dont endorse it, I think it would be nice for him to know.

It hasn't hurt him one bit, and he "gets" it. I can't see how its harmful. So bill nye is being stupid.

I still dont care for Creationism to be taught in public schools, though it probably deserves a mention.

[count-your-change]

“Nye said that while many adults may believe in creationism, children should be taught evolution in order to understand science”

Well..let's see if belief in evolution is really important to the understanding of science by looking at some notable scientific accomplishments.

Landing on the moon, development of the internet, the discovery of sub-atomic particles, landing machines on Mars.....belief in evolution played no part in these scientific, technological accomplishments...no part.

Going back a bit.... Understanding blood circulation, discovery of antibiotics, Mendel's understanding of heredity, discoveries in electricity and magnetism, gravity, development of the internal combustion engine, electronics....

Evolutionary theory? Completely irrelevant to the major scientific developments that we take for granted today.

[BipolarBob]

You read a lot of long winded wordy books (Catholic propaganda) that ignore the facts. You try to prove Galileo was wrong (even though he was right) and the church was right (even though they were wrong). I don’t care if Galileo could fully understand and precisely explain the planetary motions. He was still right. Now go read up and see if the sky is blue or it just looks that way because of the color.

[chaos_5]

It's amazing that people think they know better than the Bible.

You mean that book written by people? Obviously a tomb of repackaged myths and ancient folk lore that was exploited by power hungry organized religions to exercise control over the illiterate masses, subjugate women, and control the governments and expansion of the new and old worlds stands above any measurable scientific observation or theory.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Owen Gingerich was a memonite missionary and son of preacher before he was an astronomy professor at Harvard. Koestler was an anti-communist Hungarian atheist. Some Catholic propagandists. Dava Sobel is a New York secular Jew, who takes more or less the same view of the Church-Galileo contraversy. Anyone with any more historical perspective than is generally available in public schools knows these things.

[gdani]

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.

Many creationists unfortunately believe not just humans, but the entire universe.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Galileo really didn’t have any coherent theory of his own. Being smart-assed with the Pope, his former friend and supporter, lost him the Pope’s protection. He was really good at making enemies. The Church had avoided the heliocentricism contraversy, in part because a lot of smart people worked at the Vatican, some of them Jesuits, and realized that it was not in the Church’s interest to inject itself into unresolved scientific contraversies. Galileo gave the geocentricists an opening and they seized it, much to the detriment of the Church. (Things we take for granted, like Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press were very much foreign concepts in every civilization and culture up to that time.)

Anyway, his conviction cemented his reputation as a free thinker and made his place in history. If they ignored him, he would probably be a minor player, ranking somewhat below Robert Hook in the history of science. Hook published “Newton’s” law of motion nine years before Newton in almost identical form. Hook’s publication was sterile because he lacked Newton’s genius. Newton created the calculus of variation to show that Hook’s law lead to Kepler’s empirical laws as a solution to the two body problem. Without the calculus of variations and Kepler’s law, Hook’s statement of the laws of motion are little more than sterile speculation. BTW, the “Hook’s Law” we all learn in high school physics isn’t really a physical law, it’s at best an engineering approximation, used to illustrate some elementary principles.

[Family Guy]

God and evolution are not in the slightest mutually exclusive.

You and I have the exact same outlook. I've been considering Mandelbrot's idea that large things in nature tend to be made up of smaller things that are similar. You could start with a cell in your body. It has no idea what it is part of, nor does it have the capacity to understand, yet it's part of a "super-organism". Following Mandelbrot's idea, why couldn't humans then be a supporting component of a super-being?

Like you were saying, the details are beyond all of us, just like it's beyond the capacity of a cell in your body to understand what it is part of.

[BrandtMichaels]

First I applaud both your open-mindedness and homeschooling.

Here’s a free online book that I dare you to read and teach since you seem to lack a complete understanding of both creation and evolution.

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

[Paradox]

Here’s a free online book that I dare you to read and teach since you seem to lack a complete understanding of both creation and evolution.

I Appreciate the kind words, but I'll pass, thank you.

[MrB]

And obviously any society based on such nonsense would have the intent and result of subjugating the masses, and subjugating women, and with oppressing everyone under their power, right?

Anyone following the principles therein would perpetuate the slavery of weaker races and generally be awful people.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

[chaos_5]

And obviously any society based on such nonsense would have the intent and result of subjugating the masses, and subjugating women, and with oppressing everyone under their power, right?

Religion centric governments have never done that in their entire history? Who is kidding who?

To the credit of the Judeo-Christian world, they have mostly reformed from the nonsense, Muslims well they have a long way to go. Some, particularly those to the left of the issues, would even argue that morality is being forced on them thereby subjugating their rights and freedoms (as if non-federally funded abortion is just like being stoned to death). As a nation we are constantly fighting over issues and it is very common for some from the right to point to the bible to justify their views.

Before I go diving off on a tangent and get accused of being some kind of DU troll, I’ll remind you of the comment I was originally responding to.

It's amazing that people think they know better than the Bible.

The Bible is not, and will never be, a basis for scientific knowledge. It’s a collection of spiritually meaningful stories, at best. It (and other religious text) have been the justification for many horrific acts against our fellow Man. So, I think it is very safe to assume that science knows better than a highly edited, politically motivated, manuscript full of stories from what is effectively “ancient history”.

Anyone following the principles therein would perpetuate the slavery of weaker races and generally be awful people.

No, I think people who follow the goodly principles of many of the worlds religions are likely to be good, honest, hardworking, and generally good people. Elitist power hungry men (Kings, Popes, Mullahs, etc) have and still do exploit religion and their respective texts to drive their flocks to commit atrocities.

History and current events is full of blood in the name of God. I think it’s more to do with the a$$ holes in power than the heart and soul of the religion.

Just to keep this on point – there are many literally things in the bible that can very reasonably be questioned. So, what amazes me are the people who think the bible (or any religious text) is the final word – literally handed down from the mouth of God. The very basis of science is evidence and theories can and should be questioned – not so much for religions.

Chemistry textbooks used to teach the Bohr model for atoms, now we have a quantum model. Facts change, books are updated, and knowledge grows. The last time I picked up a King James Bible it wasn’t even written in modern English.

Anyway, I think I know why people don’t want to question the Bible, and why they want to believe the Bible knows best. It’s just easier that way. Ignorance is bliss.

[MrB]

Indeed, you DO show ignorance of the bible in your description thereof.

But thanks for your reply anyway.

If you wish to actually know what you’re talking about with regard to the Bible, its origins, and its veracity as divinely originated and inspired, instead of staying blissfully ignorant as revealed in your expressed opinion,

you can start with Lee Strobel’s Case for Faith, a work that was the result of someone who originally set out to prove exactly what you stated about the bible.

[MrB]

Have to answer this, as well...

Religion centric governments have never done that in their entire history? Who is kidding who?

I'm not in the least referring to "religion centric" governments. I'm referring to Christianity (as revealed in the Bible) based governments.

Christianity isn't a "religion". Take some time, look up the difference.

[stanne]

Yes, that one.

It amazes me.

[Leep]

Does man made Global Warming exist. God only knows.:)

[Agamemnon]

I am homeschooling my kids, and I am teaching my kids about Evolution ... I would be called an evolutionist.

Many of the people in my area believe in creationism, so I am also teaching my kids about ID, even a little about Genesis, although I dont endorse it, I think it would be nice for him to know

"Nice" for them to know, you say? Feigning an appearance of even-handedness, are we now.

From your personal FR page:

"Stupid Conservative Tricks: Intelligent Design/Creationism"

So you are going to try to pretend to your readers here today that you are somehow approaching the subject objectively?

Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together.

Darwinism is the lynch-pin of liberalism.

"Homeschooling" that parrots the atheist's religion of materialistic liberalism is of no more value to children than is public schooling that does the same thing.

It comes as no surprise then that whether in public or homeschooled situations, liberals in each context will parade misrepresentaions of their feigned educational even-handedness even as they attempt to size up what they hope will be an un-critical audience of homeschooling enthusiasts.

But liberals don't really fool anyone for long, particularly when they are caught tripping over their own words.

Liberals on this board can share company with Obama, who, as it turns out in recent days, has the pathological tendency to do the same thing.

[rockinqsranch]

“Well Bill we (America) got to be the greatest Nation in the world with a steady belief in God and if we want to continue to be the best Nation, I think we had netter make sure out children understand how we got here.”

Good post!