Quantcast
U.S. & World

Bill Nye warns: Creation views threaten US science

Comments

Return To Article
  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 7:13 a.m.

    DSB,

    Bill Nye and I "mock" out of pure love, not hate.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 29, 2012 12:14 p.m.

    @A Scientist - what's counter to intelligence is your interpretation of Counter Intelligence's post. Please let us all know where CI justified hatred. He merely said it's a "human" characteristic, which any intelligent being knows is a matter of fact, not opinion. There are many negative "human" characteristics that every person, and society, should work on to improve. Because it's universally applicable to the human race, that doesn't justify it, and I really don't see where CI did so.

    Those who imply that people of faith are the sole possessors of hatred and irrational dogma are sorely blind, if not outright dishonest, about the universal existence of these traits among all of humanity, including atheists and scientists. Therefore, someone like you loses credibility when you post something like "haters will hate, and justify it with religious faith," as though you and Bill Nye are not equally hateful and dogmatic when you mock those of faith.

    Maybe you should clear the mote from your own eye before you accuse others of hate. Or, is that an irrationally dogmatic analogy since it's found in a book many consider to be scripture?

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 4:50 p.m.

    Counter Intelligence,

    And that justifies religious dogma and zealotry how exactly?

    Is this a "But the other kids are doing it, too!" - defense?

    That IS counter to intelligence, isn't it.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    @A Scientist

    "And haters will hate, and justify it with religious "faith"."

    Yes but you seem to be oblivious to the fact that religion is not the only form of orthodoxy and there is plenty of hate from secular and scientific quarters to go around - its a human thing - not a religious thing.

    After all, most brutal regimes of the twentieth century were secular/atheist fundamentalist zealots.
    Blaming religion does not absolve the non-religious of their capability for inhumanity (it merely blinds them from seeing their own hate).

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 1:34 p.m.

    the truth: "The only problem is there is no actual scientific proof, no laboratory experiment, nothing without all its conjectures, may haves, might haves, possibly could haves... An all powerful God, all knowing God, would never ever use evolution or would never ever need it."

    Irony meter pegged. Your evidence for your assertion?

    lost in DC: "Nye telling people everywhere that he knows better and their religions need to take a back seat to his superiority is very much out of place. It is bullying, akin to the activities of radical jihadists."

    Irony meter pegged again. No, the jihadists are the ones driven by religious faith who are bent on imposing their "theory" on the rest of the world without any evidence. Nye, and any other scientist, given sufficient empirical evidence for an alternative explanation of the diversity of life other than natural selection, would abandon evolution and embrace the new idea (ideas about evolutionary mechanisms have been revised and refined numerous times since Darwin). The same cannot be said for creationism, whose adherents base their views on religious faith rather than empiricism, and will not change in the face of new information.

  • Andy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 1:20 p.m.

    Why does my belief about the creation of the world influence by ability to contribute to society or to apply the scientific method?

    I thin Mr. Nye is confusing his religion with science.

    I have no idea how the world was created. I understand the evidence from both creationists and non-creationists, but at the end of the day I either believe in certain scientist's current theories about how the world was created or I believe my understanding of my religion's doctrine. Either way I believe something based on data. And no matter what I believe I can be a productive member of society.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 7:31 a.m.

    Good for you, Bill Nye.

    And haters will hate, and justify it with religious "faith".

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 25, 2012 10:01 p.m.

    Science isn't scarey. As a person of faith I can accept the theory and evidence supporting evolution without feeling threatened by it. It is the best understanding (scientificly) we have today for how things came to be. If that theory seems to contradict the understanding I have of God's role in things, that just means that either a) there is stil more we need to learn about evolution, or b) there is more I need to learn about God.
    Either way, I know the truth is just waiting to be found. When it is, my belief is that I will find God sitting right in the middle of it.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 25, 2012 8:23 p.m.

    "I have problems with Nye and his ilk telling parents what they can and cannot teach their children."

    So "lost" basically has a problem with "ilk" having opinions different than his, and sharing those opinions. I wonder what opinions are ok to share.... at least by ilks. I have a feeling the only opinions that are acceptable somehow match what he thinks.

    I have learned a ton by listening to those who have differing opinions from mine, and trying to understand the rational behind those opinions. I am not naive enough to believe I have learned all there is to be learned so far. There are things that will need more evidence to shape my opinion... but having problems with other people or ilks having divergent opinions.... I guess what ever.

  • Central Texan Buda, TX
    Sept. 25, 2012 3:42 p.m.

    With regard to evolution being settled undeniable science, I have studied evolution for a long time. There are gaping holes. There is no shortage of people, however, that claim the debate is over.

    The debate is essentially carried out on three fronts:

    One, the bullying of the education system, the mocking of those who express reservations, and the declarations that anyone with any brains fully accepts the mountains of evidence in support of evolution.

    Two, the ostentatious forays into phenotypes, alleles, and such with descriptions of proto-whales and the like -- none of which really answer the glaring problems of the randomization/selection process.

    Three, an appeal to simplistic, albeit superficial logic to help us "get it." Such simplistic logic is in a lot of nature shows and at the Smithsonian evolution film exhibit in Washington DC. The basic thrust is similar to what was in the high school textbook I once saw -- that giraffes once had the propensity for both long and short necks, and the long-necked giraffes eventually won out over their short-necked siblings. (They could reach those high leaves, don't you know.) This sort of superficial logic is scientific malfeasance at best.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Sept. 25, 2012 3:20 p.m.

    RE: Counter Intelligence

    “In respect to Darwin: There are still significant holes in his theories about evolution…”

    The book “The Greatest Show on Earth” did a pretty good job of answering all the questions put forth by Evolution skeptics and seemed to leave the “theory of evolution” on the same epistemological and scientific grounds as, say, the “theory of gravity” or the “heliocentric theory” of the solar system.

    RE: Central Texan

    “Notice how the author condescendingly presses the high-schooler to accept evolution…?”

    OK, but look at it from the Scientists’ point of view. There is no evidence that supports any other theory of life on Earth other than the theory of evolution, so for him it’s like trying to convince someone of the answer to a basic math problem. How many times can he say “1+1 does NOT equal 3, it equals 2!” before out of sheer frustration and exhaustion, he begins to sound condescending?

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 25, 2012 1:39 p.m.

    @Mister J

    Not sure if you were agreeing with me or not

    I have always found it ironic that science is about questioning everything in order to find the basic truth of how the universe works, but many faux scientists get so upset when anyone questions their THEORY, which by definitions is only an explanation that other scientists should also be vigorously questioning in order to verify.

    In respect to Darwin: There are still significant holes in his theories about evolution, they are widely manipulated for political posturing AND they do not preclude any sort of deity being involved.

    So questioning Bill Nye would seem to be the scientific thing to do.

  • Ross Madison, AL
    Sept. 25, 2012 12:08 p.m.

    Bill Nye seems so in love with himself that he would not be able to conduct true science anyway.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 25, 2012 12:02 p.m.

    Mister J
    I would have no objection to members of Boyd Packard's or Pat Robertson's congregations taking parenting advice from them.

    Nye telling people everywhere that he knows better and their religions need to take a back seat to his superiority is very much out of place. It is bullying, akin to the activities of radical jihadists. Quite different from how Boyd or Pat encourage their flocks.

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    Sept. 25, 2012 11:51 a.m.

    That life forms change through time is FACT. Explanations for those changes are theory, which means "the best explanation for all the evidence." A theory is based on exhaustive testing, evidence, and explanation. The evidence for our current understanding of evolution is mountainous and undeniable. There are no gaps or holes. Anyone who studies evolution sufficiently and objectively will come to these same conclusions. Deniers simply display ignorance.

    It's simple: Evolution says nothing about God. Scriptures say nothing about evolution.

  • Demisana South Jordan, UT
    Sept. 25, 2012 10:44 a.m.

    He seems to basing his advice on the premise that you can't be a legitimate scientist while rejecting evolution. Most branches of science have little to nothing to do with evolution. And no scientific discovery relevant to modern and future life will be discovered or missed based on evolutionary belief or the lack thereof. Whether it's a cure for cancer, or FTL travel, or the ongoing development of computers - they can all be discovered without regard to what may or may not have happened billions of years ago.

  • Central Texan Buda, TX
    Sept. 25, 2012 10:11 a.m.

    Evolution only holds the place it does because no one has yet found any other non-theistic way to explain the development of living things. Bill Nye shows once again how evolution is being pushed and "sold" to humanity -- by bullying. Another example of this comes from a high school textbook my kids once used. In a section on evolution, the author inserts a box of text with a challenge to the student:

    "Do you accept or reject the scientific theory of biological evolution by natural selection? If you reject it, what specific mechanism do you believe can account for the variety of life on the earth and what is the accepted and peer-reviewed scientific evidence for such a mechanism?" (the word 'specific' was italicized)

    Notice how the author condescendingly presses the high-schooler to accept evolution, and that to disagree the student must possess scientifically "accepted" evidence? But even without a "peer-reviewed" alternative, what if the current scientific explanation does not hold up under logical scrutiny?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 10:37 p.m.

    The only problem here is evolution isn't science either.

    Evolution is science dogma, it is nothing but a big pile of suppositions ans assumptions,

    just a bu a bunch of ridiculous guesses, created around imaginary trees of life.

    But I guess I just think and analyze too much,

    I guess I just accept the premise, and actually delve into the actual theory (guess) and its horribly indefinite and unscientific language.

    The only problem is there is no actual scientific proof, no laboratory experiment, nothing without all its conjectures, may haves, might haves, possibly could haves.

    When one thinks of evolution one can only think of Willy Wonka singing his song about his world of imagination.

    An all powerful God, all knowing God, would never ever use evolution or would never ever need it.

    Evolution doesn't exist, they only thing Darwin actually learned from Galapagos is that there is some natural adaptation, but only in the sphere and extent that a creature is capable of adapting.

    No matter the nonsensical claims of science,

    bacteria is still a bacteria,
    virus is still a virus,
    fly is still a fly.
    and a horse is still a horse,

    of course.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 6:45 p.m.

    LDS Lib,
    you're probaly right, I suspect He will say "I knew you could do it".

    But I suspect he will also add, "why didn't you accept my inspiration and guidance in your quest for truth a little more often?" After all, He sent us here to live by faith.

  • Mister J SLC, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 6:37 p.m.

    re: lost in DC

    "I have problems with Nye and his ilk telling parents what they can and cannot teach their children."

    Curious? Would you have a problem with Boyd K Packer or Pat Robertson dictating cirriculum?

    re: Counter Intelligence

    "Questioning is science"

    To quote a line in popular fiction series (hint: not Dan Brown), "God didn’t give these big brains & not want us to use them. We were born to question…"

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Sept. 24, 2012 4:26 p.m.

    The constant speed of light alone demonstrates the age of our universe. This is only a problem for those people who take the Bible word-for-word literally. For folks who take it as many believe it was largely meant (as metaphor, allegory, even mystically) there is no conflict with any historical or scientific fact.

  • Shawnm750 West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    First Stephen Hawking and now Bill Nye. Whatever happened to encouraging parents to teach openness to their kids instead of just telling them "don't push your creationist beliefs on them!"

    I applaud Bill Nye for getting countless children interested in science who otherwise wouldn't have been. But his message is a little divisive and isn't going to help him bridge any gaps.

  • cval Hyde Park, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 3:24 p.m.

    Good grief. Can we not understand and even accept evolution (natural selection) as a true scientific principle with out extending its reach to force it to invalidate religion?

    True understanding values what we can gain from differing approaches without extending those approaches to make them do more than they can really do.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 3:06 p.m.

    lost in DC
    West Jordan, UT
    I have problems with Nye and his ilk telling parents what they can and cannot teach their children.

    To paraphrase a line from an otherwise forgettable 1980s movie - when scientists reach the peak of the mountain of all truth and look over the top, they will see God staring them in the face.

    11:49 a.m. Sept. 24, 2012

    ===============

    God's answer to them then would be;
    Well done, thou good and faithful servants.
    I knew you could do it.
    because like I've always told you; The Glory of God is Intelligence.

    BTW - How did you like that one about why I put those big flappy mounds on the sides of male oragotangs heads? That one had you going for awhile...

  • Fern RL LAYTON, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 12:59 p.m.

    The earth could have come together as a planet 4.5 billion years ago; I don't know. I believe that God created evolution, but I don't think it takes Him as long to do things as it would just "by chance." I think it is as difficult to know what life on earth was like 10,000 years ago as it would be for a flea to understand the life cycle of a dog.

    Evolution, of course, doesn't happen by chance, but by having a gene pool from which certain genes are selected for or against depending on the ability to survive to successive generations.

    Ironically, humans have gained enough intelligence to make many conditions survivable that would have killed or rendered subjects less likely to reproduce in times past. Furthermore, they have devised methods to prevent reproduction, the primary means of continuing the genetic line.

    Scientists say humans are animals, and just a part of nature, except when they don't like how humans destroy another part of nature, then there is a huge difference between the natural environment and what is man-made. I would mainly just ask scientists to be consistent.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 12:42 p.m.

    What exactly is US science? I take that as an insult. Bill Nye's version of science is somehow superior to everyone else's? It would be adorable if not so offensive.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 11:49 a.m.

    I have problems with Nye and his ilk telling parents what they can and cannot teach their children.

    To paraphrase a line from an otherwise forgettable 1980s movie - when scientists reach the peak of the mountain of all truth and look over the top, they will see God staring them in the face.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Sept. 24, 2012 11:15 a.m.

    Science is not our enemy. To wit:

    How gladly would we understand every principle pertaining to science and art, and become thoroughly acquainted with every intricate operation of nature, and with all the chemical changes that are constantly going on around us! How delightful this would be, and what a boundless field of truth and power is open for us to explore! - Brigham Young

    The time of creation has ever been a subject of much comment and dispute. Yet I challenge anybody to produce from the Bible itself any finite limitation whatsoever of the periods of creation. By strained inferential references and interpretations men have sought to set the time in days or periods of a thousand years, but I feel sure that no justification of such limitations is warranted by the scriptures themselves. If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be, in my humble opinion the Biblical account is sufficiently comprehensive to include the whole of the process. - Stephen L. Richards

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 11:13 a.m.

    Questioning is science

    I question a scientist who criticizes anyone who questions HIS science

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    Like LDS Liberal, I am also deeply religious, and Have never had a problem with the reconcilling my faith with science. I even majored in Geology at the U may years ago.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    Look, I'm deeply religious myself....

    But when will these folks clearly understand that Science tells us HOW God does things, Religion tells us WHY.

  • Conner Johnson
    Sept. 24, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    Bill Nye you are the man! I saw the clip a month ago, and it nearly has 5 million views on YouTube. Keep on trucking and spreading the good word Science Guy.